CSBs for the average modeller

[Dave F.]

Hi all, I was talking to someone regarding the discussions on CSB suspension on this forum, they suggested I post something on the Guest book page, I didn't realize there was one so here goes.
Some of you may know me and my postings regarding CSBs from another place and I've been quoted on here once or twice.
Whilst I've been lurking for a few years and followed various discussions but mainly CSB discussions I feel that the present postings may be putting people off. Russ E, Will L and others have put in some very good advice and explanations but then it all goes into formula and calculations to the umpteenth decimal point, some people on here still don't understand the principals of CSB so what chance does the modeller who just wants to dip his toe in the CSB waters. I say this after my experiences at the recent Glasgow show where I was demonstrating amongst other things CSB suspension on locos and tenders. People who asked about this 'new' CSB thing said they had looked at the various posts on this place and others and decided it was all too complicated for them with all the calculations and formula, I tried to tell them it wasn't that difficult and with the help of actually having a CSB chassis in their hand and me explaining how I went about marking the frames for the anchor points they were 'getting it'. One said - so why is there so much pontification regarding CSBs if it's that easy, I have to agree.
I pointed these people towards the CLAG website CSB pages to look at the example plots for chassis and mentioned the simple formula Russ has worked out that is so easy to use. Most said they now felt they could give it a go.
I've used Russ's formula for a range of etched tender chassis complete with CSB suspension to fit RTR and kit tenders, the samples were appreciated at Glasgow as a number of modellers had converted RTR locos by changing the loco wheels but weren't too happy with the RTR tender set-up so a bespoke tender chassis with suspension and detail was just what they needed.
So maybe if we spent more time building locos with CSB and posted the pics on the internet or even on the CLAG CSB Gallery more people might understand it and try it.
Ducks down below the parapet....

Regards,
Dave Franks.
http://www.lanarkshiremodels.com

[Terry Bendall]

It has been said on here by a number of people, including me, that there is more than one way to approach railway modelling in general and modelling to P4 standards in particular. If some people want to use CSBs and do all the hard sums then fine but there are other ways to build a reliable locomotive chassis. My good friend Barry Luck of the Mid Sussex group has been scratch building locos to P4 standards for over 30 years. They all work very well with no CSBs in sight. He has always used Mike Sharman's principle of beam conpensation, with split axle pick up. Barry's methods were described way back in MRJs 19 and 20 for anyone who wants to read them and, as a bit of advanced notice, he will be at the AGM doing a demo there.

CSBs and sprung wagon suspension seem to be put forward as the only way to work in P4. They aren't, they are just one way. If a loco stays in the track with beam compensation, or sprung hornblocks, or even nothing at all, then do it. If you can understand it and achieve it and if it works, then fine. What you will have is a working loco that can be used on a layout if that is your aim, and for many people, including me, that is what I want to do.

Some people like working out problems with things like CSBs and if you do then great. Some people may want to build accurate locos fitted with P4 wheels that will go in a glass case and never move. Again fine if that's what you want to do.

Probably if you cannot understand CSBs then you should not be trying it and perhaps that is a point that should be made more often. And as a bit more advanced notice, at Scaleforum this year, John Brighton will be talking about chassis construction in general and giving lots of hints and tips, and Will Litchfield will be talking about his experiences with CSBs in particular. Another good reason, as if anyone needed one, to come to Scaleforum on September 24th/25th.

Terry Bendall

[Steve D]

And for those who don't wish to wait till September, and fancy a relaxing day or two at another very friendly gathering at Scalefour North, I shall have examples of various compensated locos and a couple of sprung ones on my demo stand (with dummy internal motion as camouflage for those beams). No CSB yet though, but am looking foward to seeing some visiting examples in action on the layouts! Also a great chance to see John Brighton and Greg Shaw on the chassis jig workshop, apart from the other attractions.......!

Wakefield is under two hours from Kings Cross I think?

Why wait - do both shows! Better, take a traditional West Country summer holiday and take in Railwells as well.

(Exit stage left pursued by irate domestic financial controller)

Steve

[Will L]

Whilst I've been lurking for a few years and followed various discussions but mainly CSB discussions I feel that the present postings may be putting people off. Russ E, Will L and others have put in some very good advice and explanations but then it all goes into formula and calculations to the umpteenth decimal point, some people on here still don't understand the principals of CSB so what chance does the modeller who just wants to dip his toe in the CSB waters.

Dave
Yes I'm afraid I have reached a similar conclusion. I started of trying very hard to make it all as simple and comprehensible as possible, but I am interested in the details, and, there are situations where CSB are not intuitive and may be tricky to implement if you don't understand where your going. The net result we see.

I think it is a bit like swimming, looks a bit threatening before you learn but once you have, the waters are lovely. I can only say, CSB do work and are easy to do.

Beginners need to know that
1. the fulcrum positions aren't intuitive, until you have understood what's going on, so you need to ask for a plot or play with the spreadsheets. There is more than one right answer, but don't be put off by their apparent precision, and work to the nearest 0.5mm. Anybody capable of a half decent model should be up to that.
2. Loco's which must have a significant proportion of their weight on carrying wheels do pose problems, so are probably best avoided as a first attempt. So starting with a Midland compound (4-4-0) or an E4 (2-4-0) should be left to those who are happy to read all the info and get a good understanding of what is going on.

Will

[jim s-w]

Hi Dave

Truth is, I have been following the discussion on CSB's in the other place on and off for years. It seems every time I dip in people are still arguing about it and discussing exactly the same thing as they were 3, 6, 12 months ago to the point that as a casual observer I cant actually decide if they really think its a good idea or not!

I find the threads on here are actually far more helpful to the casual observer.

"So maybe if we spent more time building locos with CSB and posted the pics on the internet or even on the CLAG CSB Gallery more people might understand it and try it."

Exactly! No amount of clever theorising is going to convince the majority of people - a Picture is indeed worth a thousand words.

Cheers

Jim

[essdee]

Will,

That is timely and very helpful - my own first CSB projects (one 0-6-0, possibly a brace of 4-4-0 after) have been sidelined, partly through increasing concern at the exponential internet 'wordage and formulage' on the topic, and it is reassuring to get some 'back to brass tacks' simplification of the concept, as I want to give this a try before much longer.

Interestingly, it was the recent availability of the High Level TenderRiser that brought a back-burner project right to the front of my workbench - ironically in the context of a beam-compensated chassis of some vintage! This further pushed CSB to the back of my 'To Do' list.

However, and particularly in the context of the 'difficult' 4-4-0 prototypes where weight distribution is a significant issue for CSB and other suspensions, I would expect Chris Gibbon's TenderRiser to be invaluable, in helping not only to remove the motor(plus flywheel?) to the tender, but - of the greatest value for CSB - permitting a low drive train (see my recent New Products thread), sat in the loco ashpan, allowing plenty space above for a firebox stuffed with lead (you already have a slab hidden up there under the cab roof, of course, as well as any other cab and rear-end corners). This development will reduce the thorny problem of those large-boilered but front-heavy 'modern' (ie Edwardian et seq) 4-4-0 designs.

So - who will be first to marry a TenderRiser with CSB and produce a P4 'Schools' or 'E1' that will echo in 4mm scale the exploits of Sam Gingell?

Best wishes

Steve

[martin goodall]

Like others, I have followed the various threads on CSB with great interest, but have come to the conclusion that it is unnecessarily complicated, especially with regard to the calculation of pivot points. Even with spreadsheets and detailed calculations, it seems that some people have still experienced problems with balance.

Basically, CSB offends the 'K.I.S.S' principle. A simple system of beam compensation is clearly a lot easier to install, and works perfectly well. I am even prepared to contemplate a rigid loco chassis in P4. [Shock! Horror!] But then I do use loco wheels with slightly deeper flanges than standard, so road-holding is not an issue for me - I would fit compensation only for the sake of improved current collection.

Despite my 'rejection' of CSB, I have found a lot of useful hints and tips on chassis building in the various posts on this subject, so it has been a very helpful discussion, which will no doubt continue.

[grovenor-2685]

it seems that some people have still experienced problems with balance.

Could you give references for these people?
I can't recollect any such statement from anyone who has actually built one.
Regards
Keith

[Armchair Modeller]

Maybe their problem with balance was after they had successfully completed their CSB chassis and consumed a celebratory bottle of wine or two?

Having seen a pacific chassis with compensating beams on all axles, I would also question how compensation could be the simplest option every time, as Martin seems to suggest.

I have no pro or anti views either way, but think it is in everyone's interest that views are properly balanced and can be backed up by solid evidence. As a beginner, I find it genuinely difficult to separate reliable opinions from the rest, so please bear us in mind when you are discussing this kind of thing. Just one ill-considered comment could send us all off in completely the wrong direction.

[Russ Elliott]

Wind the clock back 30 or more years. Remember all the talk about the then new-fangled notion called 'compensation'? Discussion ensued/raged on that subject for a long while, and still does to an extent all these years later, although perhaps these days the focus tends to be on its potential drawbacks rather than its merits. And 30 years ago was a very different place - the majority of the talk was real-life live, face to face, either at Scalefora/exhibitions or in Area Groups. There was the Snooze and the Digest of course, and an occasional piece in the mainstream mags, but no internet or online groups or fora. Familiarity, comprehension and learning was achieved solely on a local basis.

So what's so different now with this new thing called a CSB? Is the subject too esoteric, too incomprehensible, too frightening or what? I do detect that some are demanding, perhaps in a spirit of feeling left behind if they do not 'keep up with the Joneses', nothing less than a CSB even for applications where, quite frankly, it is more difficult to incorporate successfully compared to alternative approaches. As Terry says, multi-fulcrum CSBs are not the only way. Moreover, 'difficult' locos can be just as difficult (or easy, depending on one's point of view and understanding) whether being done with rigid or non-rigid beams. Putting a motor in a tender has nothing to with CSBs as such, for example. Weight distribution difficulties are not confined to CSBs, but in some cases the question of balance might be easier with springs compared to using rigid axles or rigid beams. There's no hard and fast general rules.

Regarding Terry's suggestion of not trying a CSB if you 'cannot understand' them however, I think we should recognise there are different viewpoints, and in particular, what constitutes 'understanding'. As we all probably realise, there are some esoteric physics and mathematics at the heart of any spring system, whether 'CSB' or otherwise. (One could say the same thing about compensation actually, although admittedly the physics and the maths are at a somewhat simpler level.) The degree of understanding and the need for that understanding varies considerably between individuals though, ranging from someone who wants to know how each grain of steel stretches and compresses on one hand, to the person who is happy not to know any of that side of things, has no intention of going near an internet forum, and is content to take or make a plot and start drilling some holes for handrail knobs. It's difficult to know how to pitch the subject to a diverse audience, and I think it's also true to say that our understanding of springs in the context of how to implement them in 4mm scale models is still in a formative stage. In that light, discussion and comparison of different artefacts and approaches could be as undisciplined as ever.

No one is forcing anyone to read anything of course, so you've only got yourself to blame if you find your brain starts ticking in a different way.

Btw, to my mind, an 0-6-0 with a CSB is beautifully 'K.I.S.S.'! (But then there's nowt as strange as folk...)

[jim s-w]

Wind the clock back 30 or more years. Remember all the talk about the then new-fangled notion called 'compensation'?

So what's so different now with this new thing called a CSB? Is the subject too esoteric, too incomprehensible, too frightening or what?

Hi Russ

I understand the concept of CSB is as old as the concept of compensation. Nothing new about it at all, the only real difference is that in the last 30 years Compensation has been proven to work on real layouts.

Cheers

Jim

[Russ Elliott]

I understand the concept of CSB is as old as the concept of compensation. Nothing new about it at all, the only real difference is that in the last 30 years Compensation has been proven to work on real layouts.

CSBs are a lot older than compensation, Jim. I'm not sure everyone would agree though that compensation has been proven to be the right thing in all cases, but we'll see what happens in the next 30 years!

[jim s-w]

Hi Russ

I never said that compensation was right - Personally I would put it after rigid in terms of a suspension system. It has been proven to work though. I guess it was the accuracy police in me picking up on you referring the the CSB concept as new. Why do you think in all this time its still a dark art?

Cheers

Jim

[grovenor-2685]

I guess it was the accuracy police in me picking up on you referring the the CSB concept as new.

I think you have been spending to much time reading the outpourings of bertiedog on RMweb. Sure, Varney used a variant of CSB 70 years ago, on that one at least I have to believe him since he produced the evidence, but then it was forgotten by everyone except bertiedog until recently, which makes it new for most of us.
Regards
Keith

[Russ Elliott]

I guess it was the accuracy police in me picking up on you referring the the CSB concept as new.

Yes, fair enough, but I was trying to respond to the introductory substance of Dave's OP, which to me, painted another picture about how lots of people seem to be concerned about 'the umpteenth decimal point' (and I don't doubt that some people might use such a phrase in colloquial jesting banter), but it's not a notion that I take seriously because it displays merely ignorance or prejudice or both.

Why do you think in all this time its still a dark art?

I suppose there are lots of different ways of looking at that. For example, the base dimensions of springrate (force per unit deflection) are MT-2, which tells us we are dealing with the vertical acceleration and deceleration of mass, and that is not a common way of thinking about things by railway modellers (and kinda inconsistently strange considering our level of interest in the longitudinal acceleration and deceleration of mass). In the particular configuration of spring we call a CSB, I guess the only black art aspect is 'the numbers', and the way it forces us, like the prototype, to look carefully at the question of weight distribution for certain (usually steam loco) applications. I hope it's becoming less of a dark art.

[David Knight]

There is an easier path for CSBs if you have the right prototype. If you are thinking about doing CSBs and want an easier entry into the waters you could do much worse than try one of Bill Bedford's frames for RTR models. My experiences are to be found here; viewtopic.php?f=19&t=1037 and Bill's site and a list of candidates from conversion can be found here; http://www.mousa.biz/locoframe_introduction.html

The usual disclaimer applies as I have no connection with Bill other than as a satisfied customer.

Cheers,

David

[jim s-w]

I suppose there are lots of different ways of looking at that. For example, the base dimensions of springrate (force per unit deflection) are MT-2, which tells us we are dealing with the vertical acceleration and deceleration of mass, and that is not a common way of thinking about things by railway modellers (and kinda inconsistently strange considering our level of interest in the longitudinal acceleration and deceleration of mass). In the particular configuration of spring we call a CSB, I guess the only black art aspect is 'the numbers', and the way it forces us, like the prototype, to look carefully at the question of weight distribution for certain (usually steam loco) applications. I hope it's becoming less of a dark art.

Hi Russ

I think thats it! Its all this talk of MT-2 that puts people off and rather than being helpful just creates the impression of the proponents saying "look how clever we are!" Theres nothing wrong with the product but the salesmen are completely misunderstanding the market.

You chaps have to make it sound easy (even if its tricky) if you want it to take off. You are all in the early PC stage where it appears its your own exclusive little club and despite telling the world how great it is, you dont really want to let anyone else in. You need to think more like the apple store, we dont need to know the science - we just need a user friendly product that works!

Cheers

Jim

[Trevor Grout]

Wind the clock back 30 or more years. Remember all the talk about the then new-fangled notion called 'compensation'?

So what's so different now with this new thing called a CSB? Is the subject too esoteric, too incomprehensible, too frightening or what?

Hi Russ

I understand the concept of CSB is as old as the concept of compensation. Nothing new about it at all, the only real difference is that in the last 30 years Compensation has been proven to work on real layouts.

Cheers

Jim

Wasn't something similar said about compensation over rigid chassis some 30 years ago.

regards
trevor

[jim s-w]

Probably Trevor

Thing is compensation has become the norm (until recently) but CSB's havent evolved at all in the same time.

Cheers

Jim

[dave F.]

Hi All, I seem to have stirred it up again, I remember that happening on E4UM.
My OP was to report what I heard whilst demonstrating at Glasgow show, I had amongst other things some CSB fitted chassis and a number of people commented on the 'new' suspension ideas and how complicated it was with all the calculations and formula seen in posts on here and elsewhere. First of all I told them it wasn't exactly new having first seen it on the late Mike Gilgannon's P4 stock over thirty years ago (boy, did his stuff run). I also told them it wasn't that complicated and with an actual CSB chassis in their hands and me explaining how to mark off the sideframes and suggesting looking up the Clag CSB website where Russ Elliot had already done all the calculations for many examples, it was then easy to follow the simple formula with the examples to guide you and work out a plot for themselves. Were they convinced? Only time and the next meet will tell, some would have a go I'm sure.
As for me I've been doing CSBs for years, first on kit tenders as they seemed to clatter along even if compensated but the difference was marked by more silent running. I tried a couple of locos and they worked well too, Then I discovered what the CLAG guys were doing and thought that's for me, since then I've become an enthusiast for CSB with many EM, P4 locos and tenders built both for me and friends. I thought the most complicated one was a 2-6-4T so I rebuilt a rigid EM Fairburn to CSB and compared to rigid it was a revelation and I soon found it out performed in many ways all my other locos be they rigid, compensated, spring assisted or live sprung. Since then I've done nothing but CSB for my own locos and some for others.
I've even put my money where my mouth is and developed some tender chassis kits for RTR and kit tenders with CSB as standard.
This means that you don't have to squeeze in the CSB around the detail (or leave the detail out all together.... as some kits do) The CSB and detail are designed in from the start, under test they are great even if I say so myself.
Anyway, back to the discussion, I think Russ E,Ted Scannell, Will L and others are doing a grand job and I think to criticise the formula and calculations is being petty, afterall you just need to go to the CLAG CSB website pick an example close to your prototype, look at the simple formula and you'll get it from there, many have after I've prompted them.
I've just seen the post from Jim s-w re. evolution, I have to disagree Jim, Chris Pendlenton told me he tried it years ago but it didn't work for him, it's been developed further by the CLAG guys over the past years to the present system that works for most people
Regards,
Dave F.
http://www.lanarkshiremodels.com

[jim s-w]

HI Dave

Sorry - Perhaps I was being a bit vague. By evolution I meant the evolution from concept to mainstream. In the way compensation and springing has for wagons. I wonder if its just something of its time? What I mean by that is there is no denying that kitbuilding is slowly fading away and for many people RTR ticks all the boxes. I dont believe that kit building will ever die off completely but I do think things like chassis building will become more about the engineering exercise than the necessity it used to be.

I can see people still buying ang building Bills class 31 chassis (assuming you can still get it) as a project in itself. It is better than a Hornby RTR 31 but is it better enough to warrant the cost and time for fleet use? I dont think it is.

Your comment is a good one in that you have produced kits - If these are shouted about more as something that you buy off a shelf and build as per the instructions then CSB's will become more popular. If the E4um-ites keep banging on about maths and working stuff out most people wont bother.

Cheers

Jim

[grovenor-2685]

Your comment is a good one in that you have produced kits -

The only minor quibble here is that, out of all the myriad of tenders available Dave has chosen to do the same ones already done by Bill B. It would seem better to me to have more varieties of tender ccovered by CSB chassis kits rather than more varieties of CSB chaassis for the same tenders.
Regards
Keith

[dave f.]

Your comment is a good one in that you have produced kits -

The only minor quibble here is that, out of all the myriad of tenders available Dave has chosen to do the same ones already done by Bill B. It would seem better to me to have more varieties of tender covered by CSB chassis kits rather than more varieties of CSB chaassis for the same tenders.
Regards
Keith

Hi Keith, I do get your point but what I wanted was a 'detailed' chassis that suited the way I build things, it started with me needing about a dozen tender chassis for my own DJH LMS locos then I thought maybe I could sell these as a product and it snowballed from there, they were redesigned to also fit the latest Bachmann tenders and I've had so many enquiries for these two tenders alone that it has inspired me to carry on. Don't get me wrong though I've got and arranged to get drawings and photos of many other chassis types which will all have the full brakegear, linkage and shafts, waterscoop and linkage, cast fittings and of course CSB with decent bearings. That's the way I would build them anyway. If the truth be known I'm also looking at loco chassis to the same spec. I don't mind if there are other chassis available, let the people choose, I say.
If Dave Bradwell can do it for the East coast then I'll do it for the West coast, eh guys.
Have a look on the CLAG CSB gallery to see what I'm talking about.
And another thought would be the buffers that I do, there are a few out there of the same type.....
Regards.
Dave F.
www.lanarkshiremodels.com

[dave f.]

Hi again, a friend from the S4 society has just phoned to say on my last post I missed out the frame stretchers in the description of the tender chassis, he was quite taken by them at the Glasgow show..... So, the chassis are complete with the correct frame stretchers which are so visible through the frame cutouts on Stanier and Fowler tenders, these are surreptitiously attached to the chassis so the whole chassis is removable from the tender. He pointed out that no-one else has these, I can think of one but the chassis aren't available separately.

Regards,
Dave F.