Motor/Gear box for Goods Engine

[Winander]

I am building an 0-6-0 goods engine, early pre-grouping so a relatively small beast and not particularly fast. I have no real need for it to exceed a prototypical 30-35 mph and am even not sure if they could reach that speed.

High Level products seem to be favoured, so I will go with that trend. I used their speed calculator spreadsheet to examine the options. It is a very useful tool and saved a lot of research (more reason to go with a helpful supplier).

My options are a 12 series Mashima and LoadHauler Compact+ gearbox. I have zero experience in this area, so do I go with the higher revving Mashima 1220 (17,000 rpm) and a 1:108 gear that will give me 29mph or the lower revving 1224 (12,000rpm) and 1:54 gear that gives a wopping 41mph?

My only concern is control at slow speed and noise. As 17,000 rpm is nearly 50% faster than 12,000 I don't want to listen to a screaming motor. I will be using DCC and a quality decoder. The controller is yet to be chosen, but will be suitable for slow speed control.

I'm open to other suggestions regarding the motor. I believe a 12 series will fit, but if the smaller 10 series are considered suitable, that would leave more margin for error. I've used the templates etc., but, as I said, I have zero experience.

thanks in anticipation
Richard

p.s. I've tried searching but it would take the rest of the Bank Holiday to review the results.

[Tim V]

Personally, I have had poor experiences with the 12 series motors. All have been removed over the years. The 10 series have given vastly better reliability.

If it's a tender engine have you considered a 16mm in the tender? Lower RPM, better torque, plus better weight distribution in the loco.

As for gearing, the higher ratios will give better motor speed to loco speed, but at the expense of vastly increased noise. I personally stick to 54:1 as a rule and adjust top speed in DCC with CV5, sacrificing top speed for noise. I try for quiet engines.

[Winander]

Tim,

Thank you, just the sort of practical advice we inexperienced modellers need.

A tender drive may be the solution as I will have little weight at the rear of the loco where the cab is open and the motor will not be central. I confess I hadn't considered weight distribution, so thanks for highlighting that.

You have already influenced my decision to use split axles, if I employ tender drive, what do you suggest I put in the loco?

I see you have used Branchlines universal joints, did you use their gearbox also? As the cab is open, I will need to put the drive under the footplate - is this just difficult or near impossible?

regards
Richard

[Jol Wilkinson]

Richard,

unlike Tim I haven't had any problems with the 1224 motors. I have used them in several small pre grouping locos, usually with London Road Models 38:1 gears. However I would now go for the later 1024 motor as it is more powerful .

Jol

[Tim V]

Richard

I have used the Branchlines gearbox but not in this configuration.

Recommend using the High Level gear boxes, as you'll find there is a provision for support of the other end of the worm - important.

You are right about the problem of getting the shaft under the footplate, I have managed it on a GW 53XX, but that has quite a high footplate. Try using the Highlevel gearbox planners - and try putting the motor towards the rear of the tender - may make the shaft go under the footplate. Beware of the width of the motor though.

[Winander]

Jol,

Thanks for the alternative arrangement. I now recall seeing your underslung method here. How did you arrange the suspension on the Precursor, with a Mashima 1426 there would not be a lot of room between the frames for anything else?

I will be at York tomorrow, so will have a word with Mr. Redrup.

I hope your recovery is going well
Richard

[Winander]

Tim,

I see High Level do a TendeRiser which had me scratching my head for a while, but I eventually worked out it was to lower the driveshaft. Using one would give more wiggle space in the tender as everything would be horizontal.

Thanks for the additional advice.

[Will L]

I've used the 1024 in a number of places and I find them to be a very good motor and easy to get in.
Despite the motors high revs and high ratios to keep the speed down I've always found them to be remarkably quiet.

[Jol Wilkinson]

Jol,

Thanks for the alternative arrangement. I now recall seeing your underslung method here. How did you arrange the suspension on the Precursor, with a Mashima 1426 there would not be a lot of room between the frames for anything else?

I will be at York tomorrow, so will have a word with Mr. Redrup.

I hope your recovery is going well
Richard

Richard,

the front axle simply pivots on a rod fixed to a spacer in front of the axle. The motor can be quite low as it only has to be just above the axle.

Jol

[essdee]

Richard,

You mention the TendeRiser from High Level. I have now installed this in three P4 chassis for pre-Group 0-6-0s, albeit large-boiler examples. With 290gm weight in the loco, riding on CSB springing, they have proved very sure-footed - as demonstrated at Scaleforum in September. I am currently installing a TendeRiser in a pre-Group 4-6-0 with a narrow-waisted firebox, which would otherwise have limited the motor size drastically, as well as reducing lead-weighting space similarly.

Enclosed pics hopefully will help, showing the short-format TendeRiser dropping the drive shaft below the footplate. The loco end has a Compact+ gearbox with the articulated gear carriage replaced by a Drivestretcher (D2 I recall). The stretcher's idler axle allows you to use a grub-screw final drive gear, rather than a Loctited (ie. eventually will be an un-Loctited) one, and puts the worm gear further back, out of sight in the firebox. Silicone fuel-line tubing for aero modellers forms a compact coupling to the cardan shaft.

BW

Steve

[essdee]

Richard,

Whoops - should have pointed out that I inverted the Drivestretcher carriage, otherwise it projects below the ashpan and becomes viewable at normal viewing angles, with such a low articulation to clear the footplate. This does require some surgery to the components, but Chris's design allows space for this OK. Hence you see what is normally the base of the Drivestretcher in the loco photo.

BW

Steve

[Winander]

Steve,

Thanks for responding and for the photos, it looks very neat and tidy and demonstrates it is achievable. One question I have is where is the articulated joint positioned? Doesn't it have to be where the pivot point is between tender and loco, or is the shaft from the motor able to swing? I have visions of the tender flicking the loco off the rails as a bend is negotiated

Where do you get the ball joint, is it Exactoscale?

thanks again

[essdee]

Hi Richard,

Thanks for your kind words. Fear not! There is a separate cardan shaft between engine and tender; the joints are positioned over the rear loco axle and leading tender axle, see additional image of the latter here. The tubing is 1.6mm ID fuel line from local hobby shop, the 2mm ball bearings happened to be to hand - sorry I cannot give a source just now.

BW

Steve

[Philip Hall]

Richard,

Ultrascale might be able to help you with drive shaft components:

https://www.ultrascale.com/eshop/produc ... CAT028/476

Philip

[Andy W]

Richard,

you've unearthed one of the beauties of this board - access to advice from experts like Steve, Tim, Jol, Will and Philip (to mention just a few). Seeing such wonderful examples of their work - like Steve's in this thread (does he use any solder?) can be daunting, but they are an inspiration. We walk in their light not their shadow. I get philosophical now and then .

[essdee]

Richard, Philip, Andy, a couple more thoughts for you,

But first, many thanks Philip for the Ultrascale link for joints - I will have to try that. I do have a suspicion that the diameter of the brass sockets may be rather greater than that of the silicone tubing though; fine in an unconfined space, more critical in under-footplate scenarios. I printed off the Exactoscale diagram, but it doesn't specify the external dimensions of the sockets. I will need to follow this up - or can anyone here give us the measurements from their stock in hand, please?

I have used Ripmax silicone tubing; 1.6mm bore, part No. L-ST 188; it cost £1.55 for a coil of about a yard or so, so hardly expensive for experimentation. Its grip on 2mm steel gearbox or motor shaft seemed impressive (may be a long-term issue in usage perhaps?).

The tubing is 3.3 to 3.4mm OD in my Vernier, extending to 3.73mm+ when fitted to 2mm steel shaft.

Andy, "awww, shucks!" - thanks for the kind appreciation; but if you really want to see 'solderless soldering', grab any chance to observe Geoff Tiffany's exquisite GNR masterpieces on 'Dewsbury Central'. That's really daunt-spiring for you. I am not as tidy as that, but I do spend inordinate ages removing excess solder - which is why I complete so few engines........ I do agree that this forum has been of great inspiration to me as well!

Coming back to limited clearances; I soon moved from using 2mm steel shaft for the intermediate cardan coupling shaft, to 1mm NS rod, soldered into nested brass tubing to create 2mm 'bosses' at the end to fit the silicone tubing. The thinner cardan shaft allows reduced clearances in the loco and tender dragbeams for swing on curves (I am building for 3ft 6ins in P4, 3ft in EM).

However, you will still need to resolve the loco-tender coupling issue; it wants to occupy the same location as your under-floor drive shaft! My initial solution is illustrated here; a double-hook on the loco, set far enough apart to clear any swing of the drive shaft. Inevitably, this creates geometry problems to prevent a too-wide gap between engine and tender. Trial and error, I am afraid! An alternative would be to place the coupling above the footplate - provided you have a raised cab/tender floor? What is your prototype?

On the current HR 4-6-0 project, I have (eventually...........you may have heard some of the language) managed to arrange the drive shaft to run just above the footplate, ie. between it and the cab floor. This proved extremely ticklish as to setting, and I had to raise the cab floor a shade, to clear the silicone tubing. The latter, by Sod's Law, is of the same order as a typical raised cab floor, it seems. This circumvents the problem with engine-tender coupling. However I was very glad of the height adjustment which I built into the bracket which carries the drive shaft bearing in the engine, and acts as torque restraint at the same time.

The bracket, illustrated here for the 0-6-0 trio, employs a narrowed etched 'L' spacer, which fits between the CSB suspension wires. The vertical arm is shaped to carry a High Level Kits gearbox bearing bracket, screwed into 12BA nuts soldered to the vertical arm. Removal of these allows the gearbox/driveshaft assembly to be dropped out of the chassis with the wheelsets when the CSB wires are withdrawn, for painting or maintenance. The bracket is secured to a frame spacer using either 8BA or M2 screw and a nut soldered underneath. Fine adjustment of the height of this bracket is achieved by soldering a thick etched NS washer underneath; the height can be reduced by filing down the washer. Conversely, shim washers can be used to raise the bracket. The bracket is prevented from turning by two 0-7mm brass pins, soldered into it, and engaging in corresponding holes in the supporting spacer.

Two other features in the photo of the bracket: the curved strip of NS shim soldered to the inverted Drivestretcher, which masks the otherwise-glaring brass drive gear on the centre axle. Also illustrates the critical location where the Drivestretcher meets the front bracket to support the worm shaft (withdrawn here); the Drivestretcher chassis needs to clear both the wormshaft bearing and any projecting shaft, and the central idler gear will probably foul the underside of the front worm shaft bracket, so the latter will need some careful grinding away, in association with a brass sleeve on the idler axle to keep the idler gear to the far side.

Phew -that's a fair bit to assimilate; sorry Richard -but hope these pointers will save you some time en route.

BW

Steve

[grovenor-2685]

But first, many thanks Philip for the Ultrascale link for joints - I will have to try that. I do have a suspicion that the diameter of the brass sockets may be rather greater than that of the silicone tubing though; fine in an unconfined space, more critical in under-footplate scenarios. I printed off the Exactoscale diagram, but it doesn't specify the external dimensions of the sockets. I will need to follow this up - or can anyone here give us the measurements from their stock in hand, please?

I don't think the Ultrascale drive shafts need silicone tubing over them, they appear to be normal universal joints. branchlines also do a range of universal joints in plastic catering for a variety of shaft diameters. I have an old Exactoscale joint somewhere, from memory its 2.4mm diameter, I'll measure it if I can find it.
I'm just starting on a Bradwell WD that expects the drive shaft to go though under the cab floor but leaves selection of suitable gearbox etc up to the builder, and I'm very close to having to sort that out before I can make any more progress. It will be the first time I've used a tender mount!
Regards
Keith

[essdee]

Thanks Keith, but I hadn't intended to suggest that I would use the silicone tubing over the Ultrascale components introduced by Philip; rather that I was comparing the relative bulk of the two approaches, for a confined location. In that respect, those Exactoscale components sound rather neat for our applications here - but presumably not now available?

I long shied off using tender drive, with a visible drive shaft running through the cab, but am getting used to the potential of using the High Level gearbox components to customize drives for constrained locations.

BW

Steve

[Philip Hall]

I've actually never installed a drive shaft like this; I came upon the components whilst looking for some replacement parts to repair one of the late Chris Kedgley's engines, a GNR Atlantic, where some of the drive shaft bits had gone missing, and found that the missing ones were indeed Ultrascale. I will be paying close attention to Steve and Keith's advice here when I finally come to reassemble the engine and tender - it's not clear whether Chris had actually run it as there are no pickups anywhere to be seen. Before you ask, it's not split axle, and I haven't deserted the LSWR and gone North, it's a repair for the new owner...

Philip

[grovenor-2685]

Thanks Keith, but I hadn't intended to suggest that I would use the silicone tubing over the Ultrascale components introduced by Philip; rather that I was comparing the relative bulk of the two approaches, for a confined location. In that respect, those Exactoscale components sound rather neat for our applications here - but presumably not now available?
Steve

Found my relevant box of bits, universals from 4 suppliers in there.
1. Sharman, Shaft diameter 2.4mm, coupling diameter 4.6mm, brass.
2. Exactoscale (Protoscale period), Shaft dia 2.4mm, coupling diameter 2.9mm,
diameter over sleeve when pushed on 4.0mm.
3. Branchlines, telescopic plastic shaft 2.3mm, could be cut and extended with a 1mm wire, coupling dia 4.2mm
4. NWSL, Shaft dia, options 2.4 and 2.0mm, posibly smaller, coupling dia 4.5 mm.

Sharman-Exacto.jpg

Branchlines.jpg

NWSL.jpg

Regards
Keith

[essdee]

Keith,

Many thanks - much appreciated, and so useful to see the four types all together. It does look as if the silicone tubing is the most compact coupling at present. I will probably try some home-brew experiments to see if I can get a slimmer version of the ones you illustrate, in the range, say 3.0 to 3.5mm, using brass tube, for the really tight situations......I think a conversation with the good Mr. Gibbon is called for at Scalefour North.

Richard - will you be able to make Wakefield weekend after next; it's a great show for a chance to chew over projects?

I will get some pics of the HR 'Clan Goods' chassis currently being tender-drived, up shortly to show the arrangement with drive shaft above the footplate. I realise this is drifting some way from Richard's original posting, for a small 0-6-0, but I think the comparison may still be helpful.

BW

Steve

[Philip Hall]

Just looked at Cornwall Model Boats, suggested by David Thorpe in the topic on sleepers, although I got sidetracked into looking at the ocean liner kits! Then I saw this page - might be of use here:

http://www.cornwallmodelboats.co.uk/aca ... tml#aC8000

Philip

[Andy W]

I quite fancy building a model Titanic. When I build a loco it rarely works first time, so a fair bit of tweaking follows. With the Titanic, however, a spectacular failure on its maiden voyage would be wholly prototypical.

[grovenor-2685]

Here is another option, not my build, I bought it as a non-working demic as a bit of a challenge. The builder had glued in lead sheet, probably with wood glue. The lead in the front of the chassis had expanded and pushed the chassis frames out siezing up the front axle. The lead in the tender sides had pushed the tender side sheets out and also on the inside held the flywheel in a vice like grip. Once I had the loco and tender seperated and managed to get the tender body off the motor ran which was good news. Getting the lead out resulted in cosmetic damage to the tender coal rails which is still awaiting repair! With hindsight I could have managed it with much less damage, but only found that out while doing it.
Getting the lead out of the loco chassis was easier and the frame soldered back into place. So it runs nicely now and is just waiting for the repairs to the tender. As can be seen, the drive shaft is not at all conspicious, runs under the footplate below the drawbar. The gearboxes are Exactoscale and I think the universals were home made, the actual drive shaft is 0.7mm wire.
Regards
Keith

G2-1.jpg

G2-2.jpg

G2-3.jpg

[Will L]

Forgive my ignorance, but I too was under the impression that it was normal to have a universal joint in a drive shaft to coincided with the pivot point(s) between loco and tender. Like the constant velocity joint on a front wheel drive car lines up neatly with the steering pivots. If they don't the distance between the universal joints will change as the loco traverses a curve. Presumably this works OK so long as there is some longitudinal flexibility in the shaft, but I'm not sure I see any such flexibility when the two ends are firmly in the grip of bits of neoprene tube? What am I missing?