Scalefour Forum

Russ Elliott wrote: Will - your spreadsheet uses 200GPA.

The elastic modulus of spring steel is usually quoted at somewhere between 200 and 210GPa, so 205GPa was used in the original Wyatt spreadsheet as a typical value. I don't think anyone is going to be worried about a 2% difference in deflection value, and besides which no one really knows what the value is for a bit of plated Ernie Ball E string.

Just for the record my spread sheet uses 200 GPa

regards

Alan

The CSB Source Book post (the first in this thread) edited on 31/3/2104 to reference a new summary of the “Abuse CSB Theory” thread. This summary is the post that follows this one but only makes complete sense if read via the link in the CSB Source Book post.

Abstruse CSB Theory

CSB source book summary of the Abstruse CSB Theory Thread, which is for people who are actually interested in the way the spreadsheets used to sort out CSB fulcrum placement go about their business. There is no doubt this is a minority interest and can tend to confuse. Therefore, for those just wanting to know where to put their CSB fulcrums, this is distinctly NOT compulsory reading.

Relationship between Axle weights and CofG

The thread starts with 4 posts which bring out the fact that, while it is simple to calculate where a locos Centre of Gravity (CofG) is from the weight carried on each axle, for a sprung chassis you cannot easily reverse the calculation. That is, you can't easily work out from actual location of the CofG what weight will be carried by each axle. To do so requires that you know a great deal about the characteristics of the springs. Much of the discussion that follows stems from this simple truth.

A worked CSB Example for a symmetrical 6 coupled chassis 7’0” between the wheels

This starts with a post from John Bateson concerning his calculation of a set of CSB fulcrum points which produced a highly volatile solution, not like the robust outcomes I was claiming. This is followed by a series of posts that discussed the fact that there is always more than one possible solution and that he had chosen an extreme one. 3 more stable possibilities are provided. Each solution has slightly different characteristics.
One post contains a diagram which I still find useful to help visualise these differences, and determine which solution to choose.


Justification and Development of Fulcrum placement calculation software

The latter two thirds of the thread is taken up with a discussion of the numerical methods used by the spread sheets to calculate fulcrum positions. The original Roger Wyatt spread sheet goes about it in a way that isn’t immediately intuitive, and a lot of the discussion here was around determining if it was in fact valid. This led to Alan Turner writing a new spread sheet, using a totally different method, which magically turns out to give the same answers. That is at least when considering the fulcrum point placement, which was the whole point after all. There is still stuff about the weight distribution which we will eventually come back to.

In defence of the CSB Spread Sheet
This was the only set piece posting in the midst of the discussion, in which I finally managed to explain the circumstances in which the Roger Wyatt methods was an applicable and effective tool. I'm not sure Alan was ever fully convinced.

The practical upshot is that we now have two different methods for approaching the same job, implemented as spreadsheets. These have different characteristics giving you a choice of which one you feel most comfortable with. The results are the same. While copies of Alan's spread sheet are contained within the thread, anybody wanting a copy should download the most recent versions from theCLAG website.

The CSB Source Book post (the first in this thread) edited on 7/6/2014 to add a reference the CSB and Tenders thread omitted originally.

Will,

I have been reading though the thread and I have a question.

I downloaded the CLAG spreadsheet, the spread sheet on here and the simplified 3 axel spread sheet. If I insert the figures calculated by the auto calculate feature into the other two spread sheets (the fulcrum points, load weights and wire thickness) the other two agree but do not match the figures in the auto calculations for the deflections? Am I doing something wrong?

Tim

Le Corbusier wrote:I downloaded the CLAG spreadsheet, the spread sheet on here and the simplified 3 axel spread sheet. If I insert the figures calculated by the auto calculate feature into the other two spread sheets (the fulcrum points, load weights and wire thickness) the other two agree but do not match the figures in the auto calculations for the deflections? Am I doing something wrong?

Tim

Probably not. All these spreadsheets use the same calculation as contained in the basic Roger Wyatt spread sheet. What is different is that the version of Rogers Spreadsheet on the CLAG website has been updates, mostly cosmetically, at some point and there has been a minor change in the value of the Elastic Modules of steel it uses. This has bee modified from 2.00E+05 to 2.05E+5. The original value continues to be used in the other spread sheets. If you make this value the same in all the spread sheets you will get the same answers.

Modifying the elastic modules has the same effect as changing (marginally) the size of the spring wire. That is, it affects the absolute size of the deflection figures, but not the relative size of the the defection across all the axles, which is what matters.

Which value is more accurate I'm not sure, however the whole effect is significantly less then the effect of changing the wire sizes by 1 thou either way so the only significant effect would be to worry somebody who is comparing the results between the two.

Will,

I suppose that just goes to show that the process is pretty robust and within certain parameters you simply have to be there or there abouts ..... which is comforting.

We chatted at Scale Forum and the next chassis - a simple 0-6-0 will be CSB using high-level horn blocks - its a johnson 1f 0-6-0T ... so fingers crossed.

Tim

As there seems to be some interest in the Elastic Modulus I attach a version of my spread sheet which enables you to select an E from a drop down list.

Why people think this makes a difference is beyond me as in reality you can only work with the available wire sizes.

regards

Alan

Reference to the "Getting your CSB loco sitting level and the buffer heights right" added to the index of CSB threads in the first post of this thread

A reference to the "CSB for a Single Driver" thread added to the index of CSB threads in the first post of this thread

I have added a new link to my CSB Sourcebook which is the first posting in this thread and points to a number of posts added over the years on the use of CSB. This new link points to my Buck Jumping on Mass to thread which does cover use of CSB. The link added is as follows.

Buck Jumping On Mass

My thread explaining how I built a couple of GER Buck jumper Tank locos (A J65 and a J69). These were both CSB fitted. There is an extensive write up which runs over thirty odd instalments, Parts 2 to 8 of which are all to do with applying CSB to etched chassis kits using the Highlevel jig and hornblocks. The link will take you to an index thread which will allow you to find the post which cover the various aspect of fittings CSBs as well as any other of the topics that came up as part of a full loco build. It also covers the use of Exactoscale Loco wheels which is really only of historic interest now.

Thanks for keeping this resource updated Will. My next loco build will (almost certainly!) be a CSB one as I'm very keen to try the system out. As I also have an LRM ex-Iain Rice J-series in the stash, it'll likely be that one I'll try it on and I shall find your thread(s) of enormous help...