Northumberland locomotive additional dimension

[David Clark 13Participant @davidclark13]

Hi There

The position of the angular line of the cylinder centres runs out at 3/8in. from the extreme top of the frames.

regards David

[David Clark 13Participant @davidclark13]

[JasonBModerator @jasonb]

The projected centre line of the cyl as drawn comes out a littel lower than 3/8. If the line of the front cut out of the frame is carried through (3/8″ below top of frame) it does not meet the cyl ctr line where it exits the frame. If anything the cyl ctr line should pass through the top rear corner of the plate as thats where the dotted line is pointed?

 

Also on the subject of dims, can you confirm the position of the rear horn, the 2″ dim from the back of the frame that passes through hole No 8 is a little further back than a centre line projected through the horn.

 

And before anyone says I know not to take dims from drawings but would expect a computer generated drawing to put things in the dimentioned positions.

 

Jason

Edited By JasonB on 11/07/2009 20:45:58

Edited By JasonB on 11/07/2009 20:47:55

[kevin gambrellParticipant @kevingambrell68285]

What I find incredible is that the people that run ME couldnt find the effort to show the corrections in the second article on the build! rather they just blindley bumbled on with the secondpart of the build leaving people in the dark. Its ok for those of us with computers but I dont doubt many ME readers are not computer users.

 

Yet another example of the down turn in quality of this once great publication!

 

 

[RichmondParticipant @richmond]

Hi Kevin,

 

David is better able to post his comments regarding your complaint. However, I will add my 2 penny worth

 

The production process for each issue of the magazine takes 6 weeks, and as the magazine is published fortnightly you can understand why “errors” are not updated in the next issue as a matter of course. Where issues do come to light, they are published as soon as is practicably possible.

 

Further, whilst the publisher wantsand needs to keep the readership informed, as well as happy, it is the contributor producing the article or design that holds the ultimate responsibility for errors ( assuming the magazine hasn’t made any themselves in reproducing the article ). Where the magazine makes a mistake, again it is published as soon as possible.

 

Another point you may not be aware of is that not all designs have been “proof tested” by people other than the designer at the time of publication. Even the best designs can have faults and drawing errors which do not come to light until people actually build one themselves.

 

Some drawings of designs are actually done after the fact, and sometimes as humans we also can’t see the wood for the trees … i.e. we are too close to see the errata.

 

Given the technology now available to readers in terms of the internet and forums such as this one people WILL become aware of issues before those that purely read the magazine, and as such gives people more chance to rectify issues earlier.

 

Perhaps those people who are members of clubs that use the forum could give thier fellow ( non internet ) members the info about errata …. I know in my club that when people start major projects there is considerable talk about it, and so I’m sure advanced warning would be welcome

 

Rgds

 

[David Clark 13Participant @davidclark13]

Hi Kevin

We print corections if we are notified of errors.

However, readers don’t receive the magazine and imediately look for errors.  It takes time for the erros to filter through. I am still waiting for the designer to phone me back about the 9/16 dimension.

 

I have checked drawings for errors as they are redrawn. I have spotted no errors created by Model Engineer staff yet. I go through the drawings with the original and check every dimension.

 

If the original drawings have errors, I am unlkely to spot them unless I build the locomotive, which I don’t have time to do.

 

It is annoying for me that the drawings have errors bot thy are not of my making.

When I speak to the designer, I will ask him t check the remainderof the drawings.

 

Two locomotives have been built from these drawings so errors should have been found.

 

What do I do, print corrections as soon as any are found or pull the whole series and upset many readers?

 

I think we continue to publish.

 

regard David

 

 

 

 

Edited By David Clark 1 on 08/08/2009 09:18:07

[Pete WParticipant @petew17177]

I reproduce below my post from the Northumbrian thread. Kevin makes his point a little stronger than I, but I would add that whatever defence is offered, this website boasts of 100 years of publication so lessons should have been learned by now.

………………………………………………….

 

My first ME was 4355 with the Northumbrian on the front cover. I am keeping the articles for future use but I am beginning to wonder whether it’s worth carrying on.

 

Is it usual to have this many mistakes?

I offer the following comments:

Some of the photos show parts from future articles but not all the current ones. Not a problem in itself but could the current ones be highlighted to show their locations? I know black on black is the worst combination to photograph but electronic airbrushing could be used.

 

I suggest the adoption of a registration system for all drawings where each drawing has a number and a current issue reference. A central database then ensures you are always working from the latest issue of any particular drawing. Industry has used similar systems for donkey’s years and it used to be done manually, now it’s a software thing and easily done.

 

PS. Just a minor suggestion: Instead of a photo of the handsome author, how about a picture of the finished project at the beginning of all the articles in the mag? It would give us something to relate to and may generate more interest.

 

Pete

[JasonBModerator @jasonb]

Well the latest issue dropped on the mat this morning and its good to see that the first batch of errata have been covered in print. One thing to bear in mind though is that some people will be buying alternate issues with just the relevant articles in so may miss corrections that are not included with the build series.

 

Could I suggest a “sticky” thread at the top of the Northumbrian section that can contain all the corrections that can just be accessed by David and Richmond. That way they will not be scattered all over the forum and mixed in with comments. A link to this thread at the end of each build article would also be helpful by directing potential builders to the latest revisions.

 

“Another point you may not be aware of is that not all designs have been “proof tested” by people other than the designer at the time of publication. Even the best designs can have faults and drawing errors which do not come to light until people actually build one themselves.”

 

Quite a bit of weight has been given to the fact that two further engines have been built to this design (though probably from the original drawings not ME published ones) so that point does not really stand here.

 

Jason

 

PS on the subject of the latest issue the home page is once again a month out of date, this should really be a regular fortnightly job for the person with access to that part of the site.

[RichmondParticipant @richmond]

Hi Jason,

 

I wasnt aware that 2 builders had completed the engine….. David has put us all right on that score……. my point still holds valid though ….. I know of several designs in the past where the article produced the “prototype”

 

Rgds

Keith

 

Edited By Richmond on 08/08/2009 23:53:24

[David Clark 13Participant @davidclark13]

Hi There

I am trying to sort this out.

I have not managed to speak to the designer yet.

Perhaps he is on holiday.

One engine and a working chassis has been built.

 

Paul who took the photos and built the prototype has been in contact and has agreed to check future drawings against his correction notes.

 

He has been away on holiday so did not know there was a problem.

regards david

 

[David Clark 13Participant @davidclark13]

Hi There

9/16 dimension on frames is correct.

No need to make new frames.

The 9/16inch dimension is correct.

It was originally 3/4 but was changed to 9/16inch as the pump stay was to close to the firebox front.

 

regards David

 

[JasonBModerator @jasonb]

This still does not explain why the cylinder holes come out further back than the drawing or photos show, when its laid out using the sizes on the drawing.

 

When the 3/4″ dim was reduced to 9/16 was the 2 1/4″ dim increased by 3/16″? Propoirtionally it still looks to be 2 1/4″. Can you get a size for the axle centers as this will act as a check for the intermediate sizes. Thats a measured distance not obtained by just adding up whats on teh ME published drawings. The Springbok drawings with the current issue are laid out a lot better they have overall length and axle centers along the bottom and other items along the top.

 

Jason

Edited By JasonB on 09/08/2009 13:26:30

Edited By JasonB on 09/08/2009 13:33:10

[David Clark 13Participant @davidclark13]

Hi There

Drawing was modified for dimension but not redrawn so that is why it is not to scale.

The pump spacer was only found too close after drilling to original spacing.

That is why the original photos are slightly different to the new drawings.

The frames will work as drawn, the cylinders are ok.

regards David

 

[JasonBModerator @jasonb]

“Drawing was modified for dimension but not redrawn so that is why it is not to scale.”

 

So the proportions of the drawing are based on 2 1/8″, 3/4″, 2 1/4″ and 1 5/8″ between the axles.

 

The lines were not altered but the position of part 6 was moved forward and its dimension altered to 9/16 (after the frames had been cut?)

 

So if one dimension was reduced Another must have increased which would seem to be the 2 1/4 one

 

If your post above is to be followed can you confirm that the bolt holes are as per this sketch and several other peoples layouts and not as the drawing visually shows or as Pauls engine.

 

Jason

 

PS still waiting for length of firebox support and vertical position of rear horn rivits, can’t assume these positions now as the drawing and photos cannot be used as a guide.

 

[David Clark 13Participant @davidclark13]

Hi There

Rear horn holes are central on legs, 1/4inch from bottom then 3/8inch and 3/8inch centres.

regards david

 

[David Clark 13Participant @davidclark13]

Hi There

Firebox support is 2 inches long.

regards David

 

[David Clark 13Participant @davidclark13]

Hi There

I have finally contacted the designer.

 

The frames are incorrect.

We will have to publish a new set of drawings.

 

The frames will need to be remade 3/16 inch longer.

The designer altered the 3/4 to 9/16inch and forgot to increase the 2 1/4 to 2 and 7/16inch.

 

Rather than alter the engine to suit the 3/16 difference and possibly introduce other errors into the locomotive the decision has been taken to redraw the frames to the correct dimensions.

 

All drawings are being rechecked as we go.

regards David

 

 

 

[JasonBModerator @jasonb]

Thanks David

 

Thats what I suspected and I think your course of action will be the best in the long run although upsetting for those who have cut metal already. Better to buy new frames now than risk something more costly like a boiler being too long!!

 

Would it be possible to upload the revised drawing to this site, that way it will save people with net access having to wait for another six weeks for the revised one to come out. Robin has  it on CAD and I’m sure could soon add the revised length an the two details above, if he’s agreeable this could be added as a jpeg for all to see.

 

Jason

Edited By JasonB on 10/08/2009 17:17:22

[David Clark 13Participant @davidclark13]

Hi There

Yes, as soon as the drawngs are redone, I will post them on here.

It is really annoying although no Model Engineer staff have caused the error.

 

If we left as is, the trailing wheels would foul the cylinders.

We move the cylinders we have to redraw the valve gear.

Then we have to shorten the boiler by 3/16 inch.

 

Better to apologise and ask people to make the frames again than to risk introducing more errors.

 

regards David

 

[David Clark 13Participant @davidclark13]

Hi There

Yes, as soon as the drawings are redone, I will post them on here.

It is really annoying although no Model Engineer staff have caused the error.

 

If we left as is, the trailing wheels would foul the cylinders.

We move the cylinders we have to redraw the valve gear.

Then we have to shorten the boiler by 3/16 inch.

Where would it end?

 

Better to apologise and ask people to make the frames again than to risk introducing more errors.

 

regards David

 

Edited By David Clark 1 on 10/08/2009 19:52:19

[kevin gambrellParticipant @kevingambrell68285]

How abour posting them in ME as well as on here for the people that dont have internet use.

I just passed on to my 9 year old that he has to recut the frames! I dont have the time to check drawings that should be checked before going to print.

 

You just lost a reader

[David Clark 13Participant @davidclark13]

Hi Kevin

Drawings will be in the next Model Engineer that I am working on.

That is 4359.

 

I have checked drawings that have been supplied by designer.

Model Engineer has introduced no errors into the drawings. They were checked against original drawings as supplied. No errors were found.

 

It is impossible for me to make everything published in the magazine and I have to rely on the designer to ensure everything is correct. I do pick up errors sometimes and the errors are rectified before publication but in a case lik this it is impossible for me to know there is an error in the drawings.

 

Model Engineer has done nothing wrong.

 

regards David

 

[Pete WParticipant @petew17177]

Oh but you have done something wrong and it may do you more good to take more responsibility for it instead of blaming others.

You have taken money from people for a service which was not up to scatch and caused inconvenience.

As I have already said in a previous post, with a history of 100 years of publication, we as consumers expect a given level of competence.

It’s not for me with zero publishing experience to tell you how to do it, but wouldn’t a simple disclaimer advising people to wait, and that corrections will appear in issue XXXX would avoid this kind of thing?

 

Pete

[CirclipParticipant @circlip]

Oh that all the ungratefull sods that witter could spend a week in a propper drawing office to see what happens in the REAL world instead of all being instant ex-spurts in the comfort of an armchair as “Hindsight Designers” Drawings that my lads had to manufacture parts to had been wrong for twenty YEARS from the D/O’s of Full size loco’s not damn TOYS.

 

  You’ve NEVER had it so good, life isn’t perfect although to see some of the comments many seem to think THEY are. Your getting mods at the speed of electrons, it used to be a minimum of three or even four issues, I don’t think Knitting patterns suffer from this, as competant knitters only take a few hours to prove/disprove a design. Having said that, haven’t seen many cardigans pulling four or five adults behind it.

 

  Sorry for the rave Keith and David, you’re STILL doing a great job, thanks from a GRATEFUL reader.

 

    Regards  Ian. 

[David Clark 13Participant @davidclark13]

Hi There

I am interested to know what Model engineer has done wrong?

 

We took a proven design, published the drawings (which I checked carefully to ensure they were correct to originals) only to find out via this forum that the drawing was wrong. I have no control over a designer making an alteration to a finished drawing before supplying it to us.

 

All drawings are being looked at together with the original builders notes and the original builder has agreed to look at our drawings to ensure any modifications have been incorporated correctly.

 

Perhaps the quickest way round this problem might be to hacksaw the frames in half and braze or weld a spacer in?

 

What do other forum members think?

Is this viable?

 

regards David

 

PS. Oh for a spell checker.

 

Edited By David Clark 1 on 11/08/2009 12:48:08

[Author]

Posts