Gibson LMS 2P 4-4-0

David Thorpe

Re: Gibson LMS 2P 4-4-0

Postby David Thorpe » Wed Aug 11, 2021 10:22 am

davebradwell wrote:It seems a shame to use a fixed axle, though.


Why? I was influenced not only by the limitations of my own skills and my previous experience of building locos, but also by Richard's posting earlier in this topic that confirmed my view that a fixed axle can still provide perfectly good running without the necessity of more fashionable (and usually more complicated) forms of compensation and springing. As I said, although I'm not a seeker for perfection, I'm nevertheless very happy with the way my 2P runs. As for weight, assuming that the motor and gearbox are contained in the loco itself rather than the tender, there isn't an awful lot of room left in a Gibson 2P for effective weighting.

DT

User avatar
Will L
Posts: 2524
Joined: Sun Jul 20, 2008 3:54 pm

Re: Gibson LMS 2P 4-4-0

Postby Will L » Wed Aug 11, 2021 2:38 pm

David Thorpe wrote:
davebradwell wrote:It seems a shame to use a fixed axle, though.


Why? I was influenced not only by the limitations of my own skills and my previous experience of building locos, but also by Richard's posting earlier in this topic that confirmed my view that a fixed axle can still provide perfectly good running without the necessity of more fashionable (and usually more complicated) forms of compensation and springing...

I'm afraid any loco in which the body is rigidly attached to an axle will never glide like the real thing. Once you've bitten the bullet and mastered the installation of horn guides or similar on some axles, doing the last one really doesn't add much in the way of additional complication. As to suspension systems complicating the chassis, I think compensation is often more complex to achieve than spring systems, CSB or otherwise.

davebradwell
Posts: 1180
Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2019 3:48 pm

Re: Gibson LMS 2P 4-4-0

Postby davebradwell » Thu Aug 12, 2021 8:25 am

The one thing in favour of the fixed axle is simplicity, but then only if the kit is designed that way. Didn't we have a post recently from someone trying to fix a moving axle? In the days before High Level gearboxes the motor would be fixed to a frame spacer and the Romford gears would drive the fixed axle so they were preferred. On the down side it's the least smooth option and the loco will follow the shape of the track very faithfully like a cam follower. Even a rigid chassis will sit on a few high spots giving some averaging and smoothing although other beam systems would do it better. Will has said the rest. It depends on how you judge complexity, of course - doing something a new way will take longer the first time.

Each to his own, but if you're enjoying your modelling then that's all that matters, really, as we do it for our own pleasure. Meanwhile I'll carry on chipping away at the compensators.

DaveB

RAO
Posts: 95
Joined: Sun Dec 17, 2017 8:49 pm

Re: Gibson LMS 2P 4-4-0

Postby RAO » Thu Aug 12, 2021 6:31 pm

Again thank you for all your comments.
I think I'm heading down the MRJ 126 "An EM Earl" route, unless I get side lined by club members!!!!
So the big question is, will I go for my MR '483' with 7' - 01/2" driving wheels, the 'Comet Chassis' or 'Gibson', if I can't get another Bill Bedford LFF1003 chassis?

Philip Hall
Posts: 1953
Joined: Mon Aug 10, 2009 7:49 pm

Re: Gibson LMS 2P 4-4-0

Postby Philip Hall » Thu Aug 12, 2021 11:50 pm

I take your point, Will, about gliding, and to some extent I agree with you, but I do have (and have built) many engines which do decidedly glide along and none of them are sprung. Many have been compensated - but a lot of them (RTR conversions of course) have no suspension whatever. The one thing they all have in common is an insistence that the wheels are absolutely concentric and wobble free as far as I am able to get them to be so. My latest was (supposedly) a quick conversion of a Hornby Terrier and whatever reservations I might have about its mechanical design and build quality, it doesn't wobble or bounce up and down as it goes along.

This doesn't mean that if I build a chassis (as opposed to converting it from 00) I will build it rigid - no chance of that - but I do find that the accuracy of the wheels is a major part of making the kind of movement I seek happen. I will have a go at a sprung chassis one day (I have in mind a Brighton Atlantic that has been in my 'to do' cupboard since 2002!), but for me to have motive power in reasonable numbers in a practical timeframe...

Philip

davebradwell
Posts: 1180
Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2019 3:48 pm

Re: Gibson LMS 2P 4-4-0

Postby davebradwell » Fri Aug 13, 2021 9:57 am

Well, I find there's a world of difference, although difficult to recognise amongst the noise of an exhibition or on a shunting plank or if the motor is screaming away with a 60:1 gearbox. My first Q6 is sprung with a compensated tender (with the dreaded fixed axle) and the difference is obvious. It's particularly noticeable with diesels where the Penberth sprung job glides over board joints at speed while the re-wheeled efforts give a big "crump" every time. Rigid models just ride "heavy" and some folk like this, of course.

It depends what you want from a model. I'd be very disappointed if, after all the effort I put into a chassis, the overall effect wasn't significantly quieter, smoother and more stable than a Hornby, in my eyes, of course.

DaveB

User avatar
Will L
Posts: 2524
Joined: Sun Jul 20, 2008 3:54 pm

Re: Gibson LMS 2P 4-4-0

Postby Will L » Fri Aug 13, 2021 12:03 pm

davebradwell wrote:Well, I find there's a world of difference, although difficult to recognise amongst the noise of an exhibition or on a shunting plank or if the motor is screaming away with a 60:1 gearbox. My first Q6 is sprung with a compensated tender (with the dreaded fixed axle) and the difference is obvious. It's particularly noticeable with diesels where the Penberth sprung job glides over board joints at speed while the re-wheeled efforts give a big "crump" every time. Rigid models just ride "heavy" and some folk like this, of course.

Absolutely, another advantage of a sprung (rather than fully compensated chassis) is that by decoupling the driven axle from the body, your sprung locos will run much quieter

It depends what you want from a model. I'd be very disappointed if, after all the effort I put into a chassis, the overall effect wasn't significantly quieter, smoother and more stable than a Hornby, in my eyes, of course.

Oh Yes.

Philip Hall
Posts: 1953
Joined: Mon Aug 10, 2009 7:49 pm

Re: Gibson LMS 2P 4-4-0

Postby Philip Hall » Fri Aug 13, 2021 3:47 pm

I didn’t mean to imply there wasn’t a difference, of course there is - especially over joints. I don’t have any baseboard joints, though; the railway doesn’t get dismantled (probably ‘can’t’ is a more accurate description) and I try to have the ‘top’ as perfect as it can be, which is easier of course on a permanent layout.

It’s just that I have a large layout to build and I simply will not have a reasonable quantity of motive power and stock in a reasonable amount of time if sprung (or fully compensated) chassis are considered the only way to go. Provided I have the wheels absolutely true I find I am perhaps 95% of the way there, and apart from some acknowledged ‘heaviness’ the engines (and the carriages) do indeed glide. Perhaps not quite in the way that a fully sprung job does, but glide they do, no wobble, no bumping up and down, smooth motion and starting. I see what I consider lumpy running very frequently and as friends who are helping me with the railway will tell you, that is not for me.

I do want to explore some elements of springing; probably Ian Penberth’s diesel chassis to start with, so I am not entirely beyond the pale!

Philip

User avatar
Julian Roberts
Posts: 1394
Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2010 11:33 pm

Re: Gibson LMS 2P 4-4-0

Postby Julian Roberts » Fri Aug 13, 2021 6:18 pm

First, I've edited my previous post. The 4P bears little resemblance to the 2P re brakegear detail.

Regarding twin beam compensation I'm sure, with a rocking third axle, this is going to give the best results for that method of suspension on a 6 coupled loco. I've made 2 locos with it, and there's no great difficulty, but it's a fiddle getting the motor in between the beams. Another time I'd hope to get the motor on the single rocking axle but haven't thought out what problems would entail. Obviously this thought won't apply in the case of a 4 coupled loco.

Couple of points I've made in similar conversations -

the bigger the wheels the more smoothly they ride over bumps;

and, I've found haulage power is greatly compromised by wiper pickup on unpowered wheels. I haven't tried it since early disappointing results and on my 4P use shorting strip on the appropriate wheels to short the tender to one rail and the bogie the other.

User avatar
Will L
Posts: 2524
Joined: Sun Jul 20, 2008 3:54 pm

Re: Gibson LMS 2P 4-4-0

Postby Will L » Fri Aug 13, 2021 10:46 pm

Julian Roberts wrote:Regarding twin beam compensation I'm sure, with a rocking third axle, this is going to give the best results for that method of suspension on a 6 coupled loco. I've made 2 locos with it, and there's no great difficulty, but it's a fiddle getting the motor in between the beams. Another time I'd hope to get the motor on the single rocking axle but haven't thought out what problems would entail.
There is no doubt that an all wheel compensated chassis will run more smoothly than one with a fixed axle as the body is effectively decoupled from the track, but you'll find getting the drive on a rocking axle an interesting exercise. However I think you'll find a sprung chassis is mechanically simpler than a fully compensated one and easier to build if you're prepared to give it a go.
the bigger the wheels the more smoothly they ride over bumps;

I suppose small wheels will drop further into gaps in the rail top, but it would need to be quite a big gap for this to be significant. The visible jar we see is the wheel hitting the rail on the other side of the gap as much as the wheel dropping into the gap
and, I've found haulage power is greatly compromised by wiper pickup on unpowered wheels. I haven't tried it since early disappointing results and on my 4P use shorting strip on the appropriate wheels to short the tender to one rail and the bogie the other.

Really? I have habitually fitted wiper pickups on tenders since my early rigid six wheels need electrical pickup assistance. My experience is that, as I did them, the additional drag was not significant, and they are easier to arrange on the tender too.

Philip Hall
Posts: 1953
Joined: Mon Aug 10, 2009 7:49 pm

Re: Gibson LMS 2P 4-4-0

Postby Philip Hall » Fri Aug 13, 2021 11:49 pm

I always fit wiper pickups on tenders, usually the front and rear axles, and have not noticed Julian’s haulage phenomenon. I often load the the engine’s drawbar with tender weight. I have had a Hornby T9 in EM, which as supplied is pretty light, pulling ten heavy carriages with some extra weight in the smoke box and the tender (weighted a bit more towards the front) hanging on the drawbar.

Philip

User avatar
Julian Roberts
Posts: 1394
Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2010 11:33 pm

Re: Gibson LMS 2P 4-4-0

Postby Julian Roberts » Mon Aug 16, 2021 7:48 am

Clearly I must learn how to do wiper pickups better. Is there a tutorial somewhere? On your Buckjumper thread perhaps Will?Perhaps this is where minute adjustments make a lot of difference to haulage power; differences that are sometimes ascribed to the various methods of suspension...? My dislike of them was increased when I bought a 4-4-0 from a well esteemed modeller many years ago. The pickup was all on the tender, but the loco couldn't pull it, let alone a train.

davebradwell
Posts: 1180
Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2019 3:48 pm

Re: Gibson LMS 2P 4-4-0

Postby davebradwell » Mon Aug 16, 2021 8:27 am

It can't be the greatest technical challenge to arrange a split axle tender if it has the standard inside frame unit and it's probably the safest place to do it. Mr Seymour might even be persuaded to extend his range of brass centred wheels.

DaveB

David Thorpe

Re: Gibson LMS 2P 4-4-0

Postby David Thorpe » Mon Aug 16, 2021 11:09 am

Most of my tenders have split axle pickup, using 2mm steel tube with suitable coated piano wire up the middle. I think I got the tube from Eileens quite a long time ago - I don't think they stock it now. The most awkward bit was always shorting the wheels firmly to the axles. Wipers on tender wheels, or indeed bogie one, can stop the wheels revolving freely.

As for Will's assertions about CSBs gliding, I'm not at all sure that that accurately reflects the prototype. I've certainly seen images of locos lurching and wallowing along the tracks, and back in the days of steam some locos, eg Royal Scots, were infamously rough riders. Would it really be prototypical for all the 0-6-0 pre-grouping freight locos on my 1950s layout to glide? (In fact, they ride pretty well, but my trackwork is quite good).

I don't seek perfection - I don't have the time, patience, skill or indeed inclination for that. A fixed rear axle and beam system is the easiest, simplest and most reliable way I know to build a loco chassis that will work pretty well, or at least well enough for me. I've tried CSBs - indeed, I always use them on tenders - but have found them unduly complex on locos. For a start you have to do your spreadsheet calculation, then you've got to decide where your fulcrum point holes are to go in the chassis and drill accordingly making sure you get them in exactly the right place and the correct ride height, then you've got to set up your fulcrums and hornblocks (I've got on better with an MJT/Markits handrail system than the Highlevel one), and then you've got to try to squeeze the gearbox into the chassis between the fulcrum points, which can be resolved I suppose by buying a slimline gearbox or modifying the conventional one. Meanwhile of course you've had to calculate how to ensure that the loco is properly weighted (I still don't understand how you can do that before the loco is even built) and with a bit of trial and error decide on what size of guitar strings to use. Once all that is done all may be well. On the other hand you may have a loco that dips down in the front or rear because you haven't got the weights right, or you'll find that one or more of the hornblocks are sticking (also possible with compensation, of course) or you may find, as with my whitemetal Mackintosh 0-6-0T, that the loco is much too springy (curable, possibly, with thicker guitar strings but I don't happen to have any), or you may find that because you haven't been able to add much weight (none in the front because you can't put any in the open cab at the back, and not much in the boiler above the drivers because all the space is taken up with motor and gearbox) haulage is disappointing. Major advantage, of course, is that you can drop out all the wheels if necessary - can't do that with a fixed axle but hopefully you won't need to!

DT

User avatar
Will L
Posts: 2524
Joined: Sun Jul 20, 2008 3:54 pm

Re: Gibson LMS 2P 4-4-0

Postby Will L » Mon Aug 16, 2021 10:45 pm

David Thorpe wrote:---As for Will's assertions about CSBs gliding, I'm not at all sure that that accurately reflects the prototype. I've certainly seen images of locos lurching and wallowing along the tracks, and back in the days of steam some locos, eg Royal Scots, were infamously rough riders. Would it really be prototypical for all the 0-6-0 pre-grouping freight locos on my 1950s layout to glide? (In fact, they ride pretty well, but my trackwork is quite good).

Come now David, while it is true that small industrial/narrow gauge prototype do visibly pitch about a lot, the average main line loco, weighing upward of 40 tons has considerable momentum when under way. Unlike a model with a rigid axle, they do not deviate when they hit a rail joint, the track deflects instead. Rough riders they may have been for those on the footplate, but it is that flowing smoothness of travel of a very heavy object in motion which the average model fails to capture.

User avatar
jim s-w
Posts: 2189
Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 5:56 pm

Re: Gibson LMS 2P 4-4-0

Postby jim s-w » Tue Aug 17, 2021 9:04 am

Nearly 80 tons of class 33. Doesn’t look all that smooth to me :D

Jim Smith-Wright

http://www.p4newstreet.com

Over thinking often leads to under doing!

davebradwell
Posts: 1180
Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2019 3:48 pm

Re: Gibson LMS 2P 4-4-0

Postby davebradwell » Tue Aug 17, 2021 9:47 am

We'll just have to differ on what constitutes a scale lurch, David.

I've always used separate screw-adjustable springs that avoid need of psychic powers or range of spring wires and all can be set up for optimum running from the place fate dumps the job. Even the simplest beam compensation requires an early commitment to weight distribution before drilling for pivots. It's not a spring type that can be readily packaged in the way the csb has been reduced to a set of rules, although I did try some years ago with a product that was available from the stores. Where wheel diameter permits, it's nice to have the springs underneath for accessibility. The axleboxes limit the width of the gearbox to around 10mm with the components I use and this has never been a limitation. Dummy firebox sides placed behind frame cut-outs can also obstruct this area.

Suppose I just like dabbling with the engineering.

DaveB

User avatar
Will L
Posts: 2524
Joined: Sun Jul 20, 2008 3:54 pm

Re: Gibson LMS 2P 4-4-0

Postby Will L » Tue Aug 17, 2021 2:34 pm

jim s-w wrote:Nearly 80 tons of class 33. Doesn’t look all that smooth to me :D



It is not the general low frequency movement and swaying any loco will display when following trackwork that is at issue here, it is the the sudden shock jumps exhibited by a model loco with one of more fixed axles. Even viewing the prototype through a long lens does not replicate that, even if it does emphasise out just how much movement is going on.

User avatar
Will L
Posts: 2524
Joined: Sun Jul 20, 2008 3:54 pm

Re: Gibson LMS 2P 4-4-0

Postby Will L » Thu Aug 19, 2021 12:49 pm

It was always unlikely I would let David’s post pass, but these things take time.
David Thorpe wrote:...I don't seek perfection - I don't have the time, patience, skill or indeed inclination for that. A fixed rear axle and beam system is the easiest, simplest and most reliable way I know to build a loco chassis that will work pretty well, or at least well enough for me. I've tried CSBs - indeed, I always use them on tenders - but have found them unduly complex on locos.

Given the method you know is always the most attractive, and that everybody is entitled to their own opinion, of course, I will just have to beg to differ, in detail.
For a start you have to do your spreadsheet calculation, then you've got to decide where your fulcrum point holes are to go in the chassis...

Alternatively, you can find a CSB plot for many prototypes on the CLAG web site, or ask on here where I (or one of several other helpful folks on the forum) will do it for you if you ask nicely. People will do this for you because it isn't actually all that difficult. The one thing you shouldn't do is guess.
and drill accordingly making sure you get them in exactly the right place and the correct ride height,...

As to drilling the frames for the fixed fulcrums, the Highlevel CSB jig makes this a simple and accurate process. You do have to decide for the fixed fulcrums which of 3 set heights above the axle centre line suits your model best, but as decisions go this isn't too challenging.
then you've got to set up your fulcrums and hornblocks (I've got on better with an MJT/Markits handrail system than the Highlevel one),...

Personally, I have always found the Highlevel hornblocks are the best available and easiest to apply. I’ve used them to make compensated chassis before progressing to CSB (being the most natural progression in chassis design). The fact that Highlevel provide the jig which makes setting out the fixed fulcrums so simple, and a very simple etch to add the axle fulcrum to the axle blocks, means that using anything else could be seen as perverse.
and then you've got to try to squeeze the gearbox into the chassis between the fulcrum points, which can be resolved I suppose by buying a slimline gearbox or modifying the conventional one.

This was true, and it not only applied to CSB, it also applied to full axle compensation. These days you will find, Chris knowing on which side his bread is buttered, that the Highlevel range now includes thin axle blocks which give you a couple of mill extra clearance and gearboxes that are thin enough to fit anyway.

To be continued,
as the whole discussion about getting you weigh distribution right is worthy of spending time over.

P.S. In case anybody is wondering, I have no connection with Chris Gibbons or High Level Kits apart from being a very satisfied customer. I will admit that he did give me a set of six hornblocks with thin axle blocks to try when he first produced them.

P.P.S I was interested to note that Chris has given in and included a space between High and Level on his new web site.

RAO
Posts: 95
Joined: Sun Dec 17, 2017 8:49 pm

Re: Gibson LMS 2P 4-4-0

Postby RAO » Thu Aug 19, 2021 6:39 pm

Thank you all for your input.
it looks like I opened a can of worms!!!!
CSB might be the way forward, but I still need a chassis to start with.

User avatar
Will L
Posts: 2524
Joined: Sun Jul 20, 2008 3:54 pm

Re: Gibson LMS 2P 4-4-0

Postby Will L » Sun Aug 22, 2021 7:22 pm

Continued as promised
David Thorpe wrote:,,,Meanwhile of course you've had to calculate how to ensure that the loco is properly weighted (I still don't understand how you can do that before the loco is even built) and with a bit of trial and error decide on what size of guitar strings to use. Once all that is done all may be well.

There is no doubt that this is what tends to bother newcomers to CSB. How do you match your springing to the loco weight at the design stage when you haven’t the faintest idea what that weight will be. The truth is you can’t, so you don’t. What you can do is design the chassis for a loco with its Centre of Gravity (CofG) in a specific place, and it is the location of the CofG which dictates how the fixed fulcrums need to be placed, not the absolute weight. That’s what makes the whole idea practicable. The final adjustment to suit the actual loco weight is the choice of the right size wire. As we saw last time this should/need not be by trial and error.

For me adopting CSB also illustrated something more basic, which is that once you stop using rigid chassis, where you have little choice, you really ought to consider how the suspension will affect the weight distribution of you’re loco. This is true whatever form of suspension you choose, as failure to do so can lead to disappointment and unintended consequences. Like locos unable to pull their own tenders.
On the other hand you may have a loco that dips down in the front or rear because you haven't got the weights right

Not if you’ve got the loco CofG in the right place, and a simple see saw device will tell you where it is. Of course It is necessary to weight the loco carefully to achieve this, and, people do worry, often unnecessarily, that this won’t be possible,
(Quoted out of order) or you may find that because you haven't been able to add much weight (none in the front because you can't put any in the open cab at the back, and not much in the boiler above the drivers because all the space is taken up with motor and gearbox) haulage is disappointing.

Weighting the loco to get the balance right is rarely as big an issue as some make out. It just needs a little thinking about. Do remember that the right place for the CSB is where you’d expect it to be, right in the middle. I agree this does preclude the desire to add weight at random to improve adhesion, but I would point out that just adding extra weight anywhere, without thinking how the suspension is going to distribute it, may not be all that effective.

Adding weight in the wrong place can produce axles with significantly different loadings, and having one axle significantly more lightly loaded than the rest can adversely affect adhesion. See this post for an explanation of how this sort of thing affects the adhesive performance of a . To achieve maximum adhesion, you really need equal weight on each driven axle, and a properly designed CSB will achieve this, and means the loco need not weigh as much as it would if the weight distribution isn’t considered.

If you really are having trouble getting sufficient weight aboard, remember that two smaller weights at either end of the chassis are as just as effective a single larger weight at the centre. Then, as the problem only really occurs with smaller prototypes, have you considered if you really need a motor that big, taking up boiler space? Experience has shown me that quite small motors will produce all the power necessary to pull prototypical length trains, and the desire to fit the largest possible motor is really unnecessary. Until they became unavailable, I had standardised on the Mashima 1024 and I never found them wanting. Both locos described in the “Haulage Challenge” section of this post are 1024 fitted

If you really insist, the most recent iteration of my CSB spread sheet will allow the design of a CSB with the centre of gravity away from the optimum place. I wouldn’t necessarily recommend doing it but if needs must I can show how it’s done.
, or you'll find that one or more of the hornblocks are sticking (also possible with compensation, of course)

Just as much a problem for any suspension system. We need to learn how to get them right.
or you may find, as with my whitemetal Mackintosh 0-6-0T, that the loco is much too springy (curable, possibly, with thicker guitar strings but I don't happen to have any).

Makes me wonder what would happen if you ran out of wire for say, the hand rails.

Major advantage, of course, is that you can drop out all the wheels if necessary - can't do that with a fixed axle but hopefully you won't need to!

Once dropping the wheels out becomes a practical thing to do, its surprising how often you find it a valuable and convenient facility.

User avatar
Will L
Posts: 2524
Joined: Sun Jul 20, 2008 3:54 pm

Re: Gibson LMS 2P 4-4-0

Postby Will L » Sun Aug 22, 2021 7:24 pm

quote="RAO"]Thank you all for your input.
it looks like I opened a can of worms!!!!
CSB might be the way forward, but I still need a chassis to start with.[/quote]
My apologies for hijacking the thread.
If you do decide to by a chassis kit and add CSBs to it, weight bearing bogies do add another factor that needs to be considered and you should read this post.

davebradwell
Posts: 1180
Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2019 3:48 pm

Re: Gibson LMS 2P 4-4-0

Postby davebradwell » Mon Aug 23, 2021 7:25 pm

Whichever chassis you use, RAO, it's bound to require changes to suit your current ideas so the chassis in the kit is likely to be as good as any. Many omit the minimum visible structure of a steam engine - a cylinder rear under the back of the smokebox, a motion bracket to support the slidebars, a spacer in front of the firebox and the reversing shaft. Suggest a long horizontal stretcher low down in the firebox is useful for securing dummy springs, pick-ups and brakegear. A good pair of loco and bogie frames and the brakegear would be a good start. As for the bogie, I remember Zebedeesknees had shown a suitable sprung bogie design a while ago which maintained the principles of the original and which survived the usual forum battering.

Now Will, I can't see why a 4-4-0 can't be designed in 2 bits - bogie as above and 4 coupled csb unit. Builder can then skip all the theory and fiddle with bogie springs until it sits level, although I would expect the bogie pivot to bear about the same weight as the rear axle so c of g will be near centre. Further I can't see why the front csb supports can't be made adjustable with little vertical screws for adjusting the weight this axle carries and at least pick up one of the advantages of separate springs. A small Increase in load here on a 4-4-0 would be beneficial for haulage but too much and it will derail in reverse. Overall weight could be adjusted at the same time or the other axles would be unloaded.

It may not be how you would do it, Will or myself but this sort of empirical approach will suit some better.

DaveB
Last edited by davebradwell on Wed Aug 25, 2021 12:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Will L
Posts: 2524
Joined: Sun Jul 20, 2008 3:54 pm

Re: Gibson LMS 2P 4-4-0

Postby Will L » Tue Aug 24, 2021 12:22 pm

davebradwell wrote:Now Will, I can't see why a 4-4-0 can't be designed in 2 bits - bogie as above and 4 coupled csb unit.
You "can't see" correctly Dave. This is all very much what I would suggest. In practice a 4-4-0 chassis is perhaps the simplest CSB application, and allows you to fully understand how the loco weigh is distributed.
Builder can then skip all the theory and fiddle with bogie springs until it sits level, although I would expect the bogie pivot to bear about the same weight as the rear axle so c of g will be near centre.

A 2 axle CSB doesn't require a lot of theory. The only value in using the spread sheet is to find out what size wire you need for a given loco weight. You make the fixed fulcrums symmetrical about the axles, make the loco sit level by adjusting the bogies pivot height or its springs (take you pick) and the chassis will distribute the available adhesive weight equally across the driving wheels. You can work out how much weigh is carried by bogie and driving wheels by finding out how where the actual loco CofG is between the driving axles chassis centre fulcrum and the bogie pivot. The weigh carried is directly proportional to distance of the loco CofG between these two points. This diagram illustrates it.
4-4-0 weight distibution.jpg

A bit of schoolboy algebra gives you W1=L2*W/L and W2=L1*W/L

That is all worked out that easily surprised me when I first thought it through. The second surprise was when I realised that the theory generalises, and so what is true of an 2 axle CSB with a weigh supporting bogie, is equally true for any CSB chassis with weight supporting bogie. Try reading this viewtopic.php?f=19&t=1500#p10948
Further I can't see why the front csb supports can't be made adjustable with little vertical screws for adjusting the weight this axle carries and at least pick up one of the advantages of separate springs. A small Increase in load here on a 4-4-0 would be beneficial for haulage but too much and it will derail in reverse. Overall weight could be adjusted at the same time or the other axles would be unloaded.
But we know the best haulage will come from equal weight distribution on the drivers which is what you get by default. Why would you want to change it?
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

davebradwell
Posts: 1180
Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2019 3:48 pm

Re: Gibson LMS 2P 4-4-0

Postby davebradwell » Wed Aug 25, 2021 8:19 pm

That's about what I thought and essentially you can get the wire gauge from the plot.

I doubt if you could measure the effect uneven weight distribution has on haulage, Will. Apparently it does make a difference on the prototype, where once the first wheel slips there's enough inertia to knock the legs from under the others but I've never noticed it in 4mm scale where the greatest haulage is generated by turning the controller to full and spinning the wheels. The out of balance motion probably generates an extra downward force once per rev to urge things along. Play in the coupling rods won't help. I'm not saying unequal distribution is a good thing as it can lead to derailment but modest deviation can be useful as it is usually the result of adding weight but in the wrong place - sometimes there's no space in the ideal spot. If I jacked up the springs on the leading axle of the 4-4-0 to pinch some weight from the bogie (and the trailing axle) I would expect it to pull more and I've done it on a 4-6-0 which was reluctant to pull the required 10 coaches up a 1 in 100 so a little weight transfer from the bogie was required. Perhaps there just isn't enough weight in our models for them to behave like the full size.

Don't the world's freight locos now use a 3rd type of friction when the wheel is just starting to slip in order to get massive loads under way?

DaveB


Return to “Steam Locomotives”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: ClaudeBot and 1 guest