Springs

[David Thorpe]

I'm about to rebuild an 0-6-0 chassis that has never worked well. It incorporated Sharman-style rigid beam compensation on two axles, with the rear driven axle fixed. I've decided not to use that again and would prefer to use a more modern system of springing. I have a packet of Alan Gibson hornblocks (the ones with the little springs) and a pack of High Level hornblocks. I'm undecided whether to use the Gibson ones as per the instructions, or to have a first-ever shot at a CSB chassis using the High Level hornblocks. I've tried the Gibson ones before, but without much success although I now think that I know what I was doing wrong! On the other hand, CSB seem to be very fashionable now and the theory would appear to be flawless although, as ever, I'm worried about the execution .

Any advice would be much appreciated .

David.

[David Knight]

David,

I am sure that many others will leap to the fore but before all else may I suggest the obvious and that is to have a look at http://www.clag.org.uk/beam-annex3.html
which gives a variety of plots and examples. To contact the brains behind the theory may I suggest getting on E4um where Ted Scannell and Bill Bedford can be found.
http://w3w.mousa.uk.com/mailman/listinfo/e4um

HTH

David

[David Thorpe]

Thanks for your reply, David. I have in fact spent quite some time looking at the CLAG site which is why I say that the CSB system seems flawless in theory. I do also read E4um which is a mine of useful information but I think it would have to be a very brave man indeed to post anything there that would be perceived as critical of the system! What I really want to know is how actual modellers (to coin a Freezerism, your "average" P4 modeller) get on with the CSB system and whether in practice it is as good and easy as claimed, or whether people prefer other systems. I suppose that nowadays we're a bit spoiled for choice!

David.

[grovenor-2685]

So far I have built only one CSB chassis and that is a Bill Bedford Kit, I found it very straightforward and it runs well, sufficiently so that i intend to use it on the other kits I have in the drawer. All that is missing is the round tuit.
Regards
Keith

[Will L]

Go for it and you'll suddenly realise it actually makes chassis easier to make.

Despite the 3 decimal point accuracy Russ goes in for on the GLAG website, I reckon it's a good because it actually goes on working perfectly well even if you apply a "rule of thumb" approach with centre fulcrums half way between the wheels and the front out about a 1/3 of the wheels base.

Yes I know this leaves the centre axle as firmly sprung as the outer two and a theoretical possibility of porpoising, but I'm still waiting for a reliable report that a model has actually shown this behaviour in real life.

Will Litchfield

[Russ Elliott]

Despite the 3 decimal point accuracy Russ goes in for

Err, one actually... - that's quite enough I think! (But I take your point on a degree of approximation - it's just that I feel duty bound on the CLAG reference plots to display an objective.)

[Will L]

Err, one actually... - that's quite enough I think! (But I take your point on a degree of approximation - it's just that I feel duty bound on the CLAG reference plots to display an objective.)

Sorry Russ, I was looking at the middle one of the symmetrical 3 axle samples at the time, but I agree the rest are all on one digit (apart the missing outer fulcrum example, but you do have a point to prove on that one), and for what its worth, I think your felling of duty is well placed.

[David Thorpe]

Well, I have to say I'm a bit surprised that only two people on this board apparently use the CSB suspension system! I can only think that the general lack of response indicates that most people either aren't interested in it or have used it but with indifferent results.

DT

[David Knight]

Make that three, well four,well...I have a 4f that is CSBed but awaits a number of other adjustments as the process of building has stalled, Mark Stapleton has a fully CSBed Buckjumper that works a treat. I think you can also add Dave Franks to the list as well and you might be able to find Dave at shows in Scotland. He has mentioned doing CSBs in at least three 4 mm gauges just to make things even more interesting.

We're out there, maybe just a wee bit shy

Cheers,

David

[DavidM]

... and you can add me to this list of converts!

I did a CSB build of a Brassmasters Super-D chassis earlier this year, as a trial run using this approach. I found it straight forward to implement, and it needed next to no fine tuning. I also used the Avonside Chassis 2 alignment jig, and intend using this combination for chassis building from now on.

There's some rather poor quality video - the running is much better than the video!

[youtube]=yyBtv5CE-KI[/youtube]

David Murrell
Sydney

[DavidM]

I'm not sure what happened there, the video didn't embed, here's the url instead.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yyBtv5CE-KI

David Murrell

[MarkS]

As Dave Knight has said, I have the Buckjumper CSB'd

and I am working on an O2 0-4-4T that is on its feet, again, CSB's on the drivers, sprung bogie.
And in the works, a Midland 2-4-0, it's a bit more complicated, but coming along.

CSB's work, and are easy enough to set up, and are quite forgiving, despite Russ working to 1 decimal place...


Cheers, Mark S.

[Paul Willis]

Well, I have to say I'm a bit surprised that only two people on this board apparently use the CSB suspension system! I can only think that the general lack of response indicates that most people either aren't interested in it or have used it but with indifferent results.

Personally, the next medium sized locomotives that I have on the stocks will have CSBs as the examples of them that I have seen in practice are superb runners.

I simply haven't built suitable rolling stock recently that are suitable for them. I believe that you will find a large amount of interest, but the long "lead time" of modelling projects means that there will not be an instant change of tack.

Hope this reassures you that people do believe in the concept!

Flymo

[Will L]

Well, I have to say I'm a bit surprised that only two people on this board apparently use the CSB suspension system! I can only think that the general lack of response indicates that most people either aren't interested in it or have used it but with indifferent results.

DT

Beyond the fact that the number of posters prior to your post is I believe three possibly four not two, I can't see why you should come to that conclusion. There may not have been many positive posts, but there were none at all that were negative. This might prove people aren't interested, their right, but contains no suggestion of poor or indifferent results.

You will also notice that further tree shaking produced more positive, and no negative, results.

Will

[David Thorpe]

A little unfair, Will. While there were indeed several posts, only two of them were by people (you being one, thank you) who actually said they used the system. After nearly a week passed with no more, I came to the conclusion that either people weren't interested in it or hadn't been impressed with it. I don't think that was an unreasonable conclusion; this is a P4 forum with over 400 members and I would have thought that if lots used the CSB system, and wanted to recommend it, there would have been a rather greater response. My reminder in fact produced four more recommendations and as a result I've decided to follow the CSB route in an attempt to make my 0-6-0 run better.

David

[Russ Elliott]

David - I can understand your reaction to a large extent, but I think we have to bear in mind that components for CSB systems have begun to feature only comparatively recently, and thus actual CSB completions will inevitably take time to appear, given that most people's kits in stock do not readily allow for CSB implementation or conversion. Outside of the modelling press, where springing rarely features (even in the Snooze, one could say), interest in the CSB concept appears healthy, and there are a number of people not on here who are progressing CSBs in current builds, if the requests to me for plots are anything to go by (and not only in 4mm scale of course).

Viewing figures for the CLAG page have been interesting over the years, the page hardly registering when it first appeared over seven years ago, barely registering much even in 2005, but it now attracts getting on for 4k hits per annum - while one could perhaps say that although CSBs might never become 'mainstream', if only because of the admitted conservatism of chassis manufacturers who are sticking with more conventional spring or compensation technology, there is certainly 'something' happening 'out there'. That is not to say that I would evangelise CSBs as being something special or unique, to my mind they are only a particular configuration of a spring, although I remain of the view that a CSB is the killer technology for the six-coupled. (And when my personal circumstances calm down a bit, I do hope to try it on a High Level pannier very soon.)

Watch out for the next issue or two of MRJ, btw.

[Tim V]

To get some perspective on this topic CSB is just one system among many.

I haven't used it, not because the system doesn't work, but because I am happy building locos another way that works for me. As such I won't comment on the system.

At the end of the day, you will only find a system that works by trying them out.

I have several springing/compensation systems in use, for me the criteria has to be that they work well, without a lot of fettling and fiddling. More recently I've found that I can successfully build locos quickly that run well first time.

Maybe CSB will work for you.

[Will L]

A little unfair, Will. ...

Was it, lets look at your evidence.
Ok we'll count it as two responses both positive followed by a long pause.
Your conclusions.
1. Most aren't particular interested. True but zero relevance to your choice. Many are probably not contemplating chassis building just at the moment anyway. Not convinced that a fair percentage ever will consider kit bashing or scratch building their own.
2. Others had tried it and hadn't been impressed. No actual evidence for this so what does silence mean. In practice people are usually only to keen to dish the dirt if they think a smart a***s like me is getting it wrong so I say the absence of comment on this one is goes some way to suggesting its not true.

Actually I am quite surprised that somebody hasn't managed to get it monumentally wrong and set about condemning the method with zeal. My experience is that quite a lot of first try chassis don't work very well, be they rigid compensated or sprung. I have one loco (pre P4 and CSBs) which had three before I got one (compensated) that worked satisfactorily, but that one did work a dream. I'm nothing if not persistent

Please to hear your giving it a go, hope you won't regret it!.

[David Thorpe]

Not convinced that a fair percentage ever will consider kit bashing or scratch building their own.

That seems a surprising statement. This is a specialist MB, dedicated to P4 modelling with membership restricted to Scalefour Soc mambers. As there are no ready-to-run chassis available in P4, I'd be astoniched if a large percentage of members of this board have not had a go at kit building, or at the very least are not considering it.

2. Others had tried it and hadn't been impressed. No actual evidence for this so what does silence mean. In practice people are usually only to keen to dish the dirt if they think a smart a***s like me is getting it wrong so I say the absence of comment on this one is goes some way to suggesting its not true.

So you say. That, however, is your personal conclusion, not mine. I find that in life people are usually keen to spread both good and bad news (particularly the latter!) and I'd therefore anticipated that in response to a question as to the practical aspects of CSB, people who had tried it and found it either good or bad would come forward and say so. The fact that only two out of over 400 did so suggested that people were by and large indifferent. I say that's a reasonable conclusion.

So I guess we'll just have to agree to differ. Different people see things from different perspectives and draw different personal conclusions. That doesn't mean to say that either is wrong, although it usually, of course, means that I'm right!

So I'm looking forward to starting on the chassis. An order has gone off to Markits for the appropriate handrail knobs (I'm following the CLAG instructions to the letter) and next time I'm in the big city I'll be getting some guitar wire. The only variation of any note is that I'll be using split axles and will therefore be building a split chassis using the method advocated by Mark Humphrys with very thin PCB on the insides of the frames. Knowing me it'll be a slow process but I'll report back as to how I'm getting on.

David.

[John Bateson]

I have a scratch build in planning on which I intend to use CSB.
But why handrail knobs?
A piece of 10' brass, 2mm x 4mm with a 0.45mm hole in one end and attach it to the side frame. A handrail knob implies drilling a hole and then drilling more holes if you get the height wrong. A small piece of brass is easily adjustable.
John

[David Thorpe]

But why handrail knobs?

Well, I suppose that, lacking some confidence in my own abilities following a lengthy period when I've done no modelmaking at all, and therefore feeling it best to follow the CLAG instructions to the letter, I gave it no further thought. But now you have got me thinking. The split axle method I'm using requires me to fix thin (.5mm) PCB to the insides of the chassis frames so that the PCB is insulated from the chassis. If I drill holes for the handrail knobs and then solder them in place I'll almost certainly end up creating an unwanted electrical connection between the main frame and the PCB. I suppose I could araldite them, but suspect that that would still be risky. Your method, on the other hand, would pose no such problems. Thanks for the tip!

David.