Good morning Dave
Those blades look Factory man Good thing you didn't use your wife's good pair of sewing scissors
Hopefully your soldering works all right for you without the said flange. I hate that when I forget a feature I thought of, especially when it involves multiple pieces. You'll get-er!
TF
I got the blades cut out. I used 0.050" brass sheet and I cut them with a simple pair of decent scissors. The scissors worked quite well. Here is the brass sheet with the templates glued to it (some have already been cut):
Here are the blades ready to have the templates removed. The one on the right is face up showing the template attached. The others are all face down but the templates are still glued on. I used canopy cement which comes off the brass quite easily:
I messed up a bit with the blades. My plan was to put a small return on the inside of the blades so the solder joints would be more solid. When I fitted the cut blades to the hub, they fit nicely but that was without the return being bent into them. That means that I won't be able to form the return flange. The blades will have to be soldered to the hubs as is, i.e. without a 90 degree flange. I'm sure they will be solid enough, but I was hoping it use the flange to clamp the blades to the hub before soldering. We shall see how it goes. I may have to remake the blades.
By the way, I have made each blade with a 135 degree curve. There are four blades per hub. The blades will overlap each other by 45 degrees. I don't know if that is correct for the prototype, but I think it will look fine for the model.
Cheers!!
Dave
I'm just a dude with a bad back having a lot of fun with model trains, and finally building a layout!
I made a wee bit of progress on the blade hubs tonight, although it doesn't look like much:
What I did was I cut the caps down to about 3' 6" wide HO scale and then I added a ring to the inside of the hubs which will act to control the positioning of the spokes when they are soldered in. It took about an hour of cutting, grinding and sanding to get the hubs cut, the rings to fit properly and to solder them in at the right depth.
Now I have to decide in what order do I add the blades and the spokes to the hub. I'm thinking that I should install the spokes last so that they won't move out of place when I am soldering the blades on. I think it will be easier to use heat sinks (wet paper towels) on the blades than the spokes.
First, of course, I have to make up the blades. That will no doubt take some head scratching, and some trial and error, to get eight blades all the same. I'm going to use 0.050" brass so I can cut them easier. I'm off to 3rd PlanIt to draw up some blade templates.
OvermodI think I am inadvertently starting to pull your ears, and I see the likely error of my ways, repent in the appropriate fashion, and will stop it forthwith.
Hi overmod,
Your answers have been complex, but they have also given me lots of ideas and I very much appreciate that. Don't stop now!
I think I am inadvertently starting to pull your ears, and I see the likely error of my ways, repent in the appropriate fashion, and will stop it forthwith. I look forward to seeing the detail progress of this lovely thing and remain 'on tap' if there is anything you actually need my advice or encouragement for.
OvermodWhy are you making the spokes separate when the prototype uses the visual equivalent of a piece of dished plate for the whole hub? Just mark the cutouts and etch out, then dish the whole shebang to shape.
Perhaps I don't understand your comment. The spokes look to me like they are separated by open holes. Recreating those open spaces with shears is easy, at least so far. I am cutting the spoke assemblies from a single disc so the only difference that I can see between your method and mine is that I am using tin snips and you are suggesting etching.
I have never etched any parts, and quite frankly I'm not interested in learning how to do it for this project. I will use my simple tools and limited abilities to create what I think will be a reasonable semblence of the original.
OvermodI think this is a cast hub on the real thing, but if there are reinforcing webs on those openings, etching will be the answer too.
For me, it would be easier to simply add webs to the spokes using styrene strip and CA. I'm not sure that I will go to that level of detail.
Don't get me wrong. I appreciate all the help that you have given so far, even though some of the terms were initially a bit over my head.
gmpullmanHere's a photo along with a few of what I call sprue cutters:
Hi Ed,
I have a set of the tweezer style sprue cutters but not the scissors style. I'll look into buying a pair. If I don't like the price then I will resort to filing.
Thanks,
Why are you making the spokes separate when the prototype uses the visual equivalent of a piece of dished plate for the whole hub? Just mark the cutouts and etch out, then dish the whole shebang to shape.
I think this is a cast hub on the real thing, but if there are reinforcing webs on those openings, etching will be the answer too.
I expect there is another spoked disc on the inside of each drum, but there may be cantilever mounts to put bearings near the centerline of the drum to take the shock loading better.
You'll balance the rotor the same way we do balance wheels on watches: set up two level knife edges for the rotor shaft, then use small weights on the inside of the drums until the rotor can be poised at any position without tending to roll. You can use threaded screws and weights (again as in watch practice) for fine adjustment.
hon30critterHi Ed and Tom, Thanks for the sprue cutter suggestion.
I completely missed what you were looking for, Dave. I posted a link to a precision shear. Here's a photo along with a few of what I call sprue cutters:
Xuron-9180 by Edmund, on Flickr
I tried my 9180NS on some .010 brass and they cut beautifully.
Micro-Mark and I'm sure others offer sprue cutters.
Regards, Ed
Track fiddlerI never doubted you for a minute Dave
Thanks TF!
This project is turning out to be as much fun as I hoped it would. My biggest fear is that I won't be able to get the rotary blades balanced well enough to run smoothly, but I'm working on solutions for that too.
I never doubted you for a minute Dave
I've had times the right tool for the right job was left at home or at another job and I still needed to get the job done with what I had to work with.
A guy named Primitive Pete took over and I got done with what needed to get done.
A guy named Dave who can build a rotisserie layout can have no problem building a side discharge rotary snow plough. I have all the confidence in the world in you.
Looking good Kid, .....Carry on!
As promised, here are a few pictures of the meager progress that I have made:
The first step was to remove the roof from the Accurail 36' double sheathed boxcar. Accurail molds their roofs and sides as one piece so getting the roof off requires a bit of cutting. I used a new #11 blade to initiate the cuts. Then I took a used #11 blade with the tip slightly broken off and used it backwards (sharp side away from the cut) to scrape out the cuts. The backward broken blade removes a lot of material very quickly and also has the benefit of leaving the edges of the cut square. When you use the sharp side of a #11 blade to do the whole cut, not only is the cut harder to make, but the blade produces a raised rolled edge on the cuts which has to be removed.
The next step was to extend the frame about 6' at the back in order to give the plough a more balanced look (thank you Bear for the suggestion). I cut the coupler mount off of the bolster assembly and inserted a piece of 0.040" V groove styrene in between the two parts of the frame. The spacing on the V groove styrene was almost identical to the width of the floor boards, and the 0.040" thickness matched the thickness of the original floor almost perfectly. Serendipity! I then added in the center spine, and Accurail was kind enough to supply an extra cross brace to finish the appearance:
Next I decided to tackle the rotary blade hubs. I had printed several copies of my side view sketch that were close to HO scale, so I cut the picture of the center hubs out of one and glued them onto some 0.010" brass discs. If you look at the edges of the discs you can see why I had to replace my tin snips! Sorry, I forgot to clean off the plastic scrapings from the roof removal, but you can see how much material is removed with each pass of the backwards blade:
The next task was to cut out the hub spokes and file them down. There is a bit more filing to do and they have to be trimmed to length. I had to flatten the spokes out because the cutting process bent them out of shape a bit. Then I put the spokes in the center of a 3/4" copper plumbing cap and pushed down. They formed a curve quite easily. (I believe that I owe either Brent or Ed thanks for that suggestion). The caps will form the outside of the hub where the blades will be attached.
That's as far as the work has progressed. The next step will be to figure out how deep (wide) the rotary blade center hubs will be. I suspect the the caps are too wide as they are now so I will have to do some sketches to figure out the blade dimensions, both rotary and stationary. Once I have the hubs trimmed down I will be able to solder the trimmed spokes into them. I'm going to take a ring of 3/4" brass pipe and slip it inside the hubs. That will give me a stop for the spoke ends so it should make it fairly easy to get the spokes square to the hub. They have to be square if I am going to power the blades. Otherwise everything will be wobbly and probably unbalanced too.
I also have to figure out how to build the front of the plough so that the blade drive mechanism is accessible. I have some ideas. I'll know better once I have them on paper.
gmpullmanThey have smooth cutting faces and are very sharp and maneuverable.
Yes, they ARE and you have to be VERY careful with them. I will add that the 4-mil (0.004") photo-etched parts I've cut with the Xuron scissors are always clean with no burrs. I would contact Xuron to find out if those particular scissors will handle the brass sheeting you plan on using for the project.
Tom
https://tstage9.wixsite.com/nyc-modeling
Time...It marches on...without ever turning around to see if anyone is even keeping in step.
Thanks for the updates, Dave
When I was planning some photoetched projects a while back I bought a pair of these Xuron photoetch snips.
https://xuron.com/index.php/main/consumer_products/4/81
I don't know how thick the brass is you are using for the slingers so these may not "cut it". They have smooth cutting faces and are very sharp and maneuverable and will shear .010" brass quite easily.
Good luck, Ed
I got the new tin snips but I am a bit disappointed. The sales listing suggested that they had smooth edges but unfortunately they are serrated. They cut very nicely but the serrated edges leave a very rough cut which requires a lot of filing to smooth out. I'm not sure if I will return them or just live with the extra filing. Most of the edges will have to be filed to get the right fit anyhow so perhaps it is a moot point.
I did manage to get the spokes for the blade hubs cut out and filed smooth, and I have extended the floor to match the extra overhang at the rear of the plough, so I am making some progress. Pictures to follow soon.
hon30critter I will post them once I have made a bit more progress.
Looking forward to seeing them.
Your craftmanship has always been astounding.
-Kevin
Living the dream.
OvermodYou might as well show pictures of what you have and let us guide you a bit, if you're going to all that trouble.
What trouble? This is the best part of the hobby as far as I'm concerned.
I have been taking lots of pictures. I will post them once I have made a bit more progress. I'm stuck waiting for some parts and the new tin snips right now.
FWIW, I'm leaning back towards using twin steeple compound engines. I suspect that the engines they used would have been quite tall, hence the 14' height of the plough body. A conventional horizontal cylinder system wouldn't be all that tall. (I suspect the blade heights had something to do with the body height too).
Nother delivery for Mr. Critter...
"One difference between pessimists and optimists is that while pessimists are more often right, optimists have far more fun."
Delivery for Mr. Critter...
ERIE_special-flat by Edmund, on Flickr
Cheers, Ed
You might as well show pictures of what you have and let us guide you a bit, if you're going to all that trouble.
Note that the engines shown in the Leslie elevation, which are a bit like a Climax drive, are essentially small-locomotive parts arranged 'backward' to drive a jackshaft instead of a driver pair. You could easily design a least-cost plow drive just by removing the flanges from a driver pair, tinkering with appropriate counterweights, and using all the rods and valve gear, adjusting 'wheel gauge' spacing and height to fit your boiler arrangement.
This is automatically in the right alignment for the prototype's chain drive, and in fact you could fake a pretty good sprocket just by putting a few grooves in the teeth of a model driver pair's center spur gear...
Hmmmm... fake up some thin elastic in such grooves, and a pulley on your rotor shaft... and you could drive the whole linkage, gears and pistons backward from your chosen motor and worm setup -- you could put the worm offset from the modeled chain drive and still get it to fit in the plow-nose space...
I started working on the six spoke hubs of the blade assemblies last night and I quickly discovered that my 45+ year old tin snips aren't up to the task of making clean cuts in brass sheet anymore. They are absolutely shot!
I can't complain. I have used them extensively and I will continue to use them for cutting lead sheet for weights. I just ordered a pair of smaller smooth jaw shears, one straight cut and the other for left hand cuts. They are only about 7 1/2" long so I'm hoping they will be suited for hobby work.
I had stated that I was going to model steeple compound engines but now I'm not sure that that's what I want to do. I discovered some reasonably detailed steam piston assemblies in my parts drawer and I think they would look neat inside the shell. I have no understanding whatsoever of how all of the rods and levers work, and quite frankly I don't care. (Overmod, please forgive me). The cylinders will have to be replaced because the design is too new, but that's easy.
Bear,
As you suggested, I have extended the back of the body. The proportions look much better.
Overmod and Ed,
Thanks for all the information.
It looks like I have two choices for the engine(s). One is a setup like Ed showed at the beginning of his post with horizontal cylinders:
The other is a 'steeple compound' style with vertical cylinders. You can see a picture of a later model vertical cylinder engine here:
As Overmod suggested in an earlier post, the engines in my plough would likely have been mounted transversely in order to keep the drive system as simple as possible by using chains and sprockets instead of bevelled gears. I think I will model two twin cylinder steeple compound engines with a common drive shaft. The model engines will be mounted transversely. The actual electric motor shaft can run between the two banks of cylinders to the worm gear. The motor itself will sit inside the boiler. I'm not sure if I can model a semblance of a chain drive along with the electric motor shaft. We shall see.
Thanks again,
NVSRR A 1:22.5 scale would be interesting to watch being put against real snow just to see. shane
A 1:22.5 scale would be interesting to watch being put against real snow just to see. shane
hon30critterIf so, where does the steam come from?
Maybe you can use this drawing I scanned of an Alco rotary from a catalog I have in my collection.
ALCO_rotary (2016_08_17 08_08_12 UTC) by Edmund, on Flickr
ALCO_rotary_0001 (2016_08_17 08_08_12 UTC) by Edmund, on Flickr
ALCO_rotary_0002 (2016_08_17 08_08_12 UTC) by Edmund, on Flickr
ALCO_rotary_0003 (2016_08_17 08_08_12 UTC) by Edmund, on Flickr
ALCO_rotary_0004 (2016_08_17 08_08_12 UTC) by Edmund, on Flickr
There appears to be two engines on either side of the boiler plus I see evidence of a brake band centrally located on the main shaft. While not specifically mentioned in the operating instructions it is quite possible that one engine is used for C.W. running and the other for C.C.W. operation of the wheel?
This one has a pair of three-cylinder "Shay" engines:
https://donstrack.smugmug.com/UtahRails/Union-Pacific/UP-Snow-Plows/i-TWMJzT6/A
I would have to believe the boilers on the newer rotary as shown in the UP photo are oil fired thus no concern about getting coal to the firebox. I recall the venerable Athearn rotary model has the boiler oriented this way since the smokebox door is visible on the end bulkhead.
Good Luck, Ed
hon30critterIs this the type of engine style that you are referring to?
This is a steam motor (so called because it has its own crankshaft, bedplate, etc. as installed). Just like a normal locomotive 'engine' (and the side elevation of the rotary) it uses steam generated in a boiler, admitted by a throttle, to run.
The 'steeple' feature is that multiple 'compound' cylinder sizes are mounted on the same piston rod, vertically to 'save floor space'. Steam expands to do work in the smallest, then passes through appropriate receiver piping to the middle, thence to the largest. The mass of all the pistons and rod is counterbalanced at the crankshaft and therefore this design is often referred to as a 'high-speed engine' (you will find technical material on its detail design and construction as 'steeple compound' or 'Willans')
You will want a clutch in the arrangement for the same reason the Franklin 'reversible' booster provided one: so the engine can be idled to warm it up and lubricate the cylinders properly without having to drive the substantial load. "Ideally" (see what I did there?) this would learn from the McKeen car, and have some sort of slippable drive to get the rotors up to speed, a spring coupling (or 'feder' or quill drive arrangement) to cushion driveline shock when the rotors hit ice or rocks, and a Maybach or self-engaging dog clutch that can be thrown in when the rotors are up to speed.
As I recall, there is a valve for each piston, also stacked on a common drive rod, although I don't remember if there is any manifolding that crosses steam from HP to LP in different cylinders, as in the complex porting in the valve of a Vauclain Compound. The Willans engine in the original Heilmann locomotive had six steeples inline, for good running balance, with triple expansion; to get reasonable cylinder size for actual workable expansion thermodynamics this (to me at least) implies variable and very early cutoff on the HP, or some kind of riding cutoff a la Cuyahoga (which was essentially standard on express locomotives in the United States as long as slide valves were used, but is nearly forgotten in piston-valve/Schmidt superheat practice). I suspect you will want to google Willans and steeple compounds in 'contemporary' literature (I believe they were popular for fast marine use).
In a plow like this, I suspect you would have the rotor shaft very heavy, mounted in heavy bearing blocks on either side of a central sprocket cluster. You may be familiar with multiple-row Morse chain if you have repaired classic American V8 engines; this has multiple sets of rollers per 'link' (and to my knowledge there is no limit imposed by width as the thrust is carried on the rollers and promptly conveyed to the adjacent links in the chain). If I were doing this I might have two chains for 'redundancy', but one heavy one will certainly do the business (see the contemporary literature on early Morse silent chain design to see how the chains were made and marketed). There would likely be a spring coupling in the hub of the sprocket cluster...
A six-cylinder motor would be transverse, and could easily be made out of 'two groups of three' with their respective crankshafts phased appropriately and a central driving arrangement. The 'catch' here is the clutch arrangement, which you really, really, really need to get the engine fully warmed before driving the enormous inertial load of the rotors. This could be made to run concentrically on a central shaft between the 'two' engines, with the sprocket cluster teeth around its (extended) outer diameter. Alternatively the engine could be made in one piece, with balanced chain drive at both ends (to save torsional stress in the crank) to a countershaft with the clutch and main drive which might be located below the engine crank to save longitudinal space -- note in the rotary drawing how the cylinders and flywheels are located at either side of the boiler, much as in a locomotive engine, so a larger/longer boiler can be fitted in a given length of carbody.
As a note: a large, fat Garratt-style boiler, with as deep a firebox as possible (i.e. long water legs) rather than a converted or older locomotive boiler would be the thing to install here, and high pressure (this is still 'pre-superheater era' so the typical higher working pressure for triple expansion is going to apply) is an operating benefit. You might find a Vanderbilt marine boiler or even a vertical boiler arrangement if your master mechanic trained under the glinting eye of Eli Gilderfluke. If you are familiar with how steam rotaries 'sound' -- they are very much like geared locomotives like Shays, a lot of sound and fury at what sounds like 100mph.
hon30critter Rich: I am definitely doing the side discharge blade model.
Rich:
I am definitely doing the side discharge blade model.
Rich
Alton Junction
OvermodIf I were designing this I would build the engine as a steeple compound, with cylinders inline like the Willans engine in the Heilmann locomotives,
Hi again Overmod,
I have spent some time looking at some of the engine configurations that you have suggested, and I am interested in coming up with something that would mimic their appearance. Would you be willing to make a few more suggestions?
First, my understanding of the engine configurations is still vague at best. Is this the type of engine style that you are referring to? (I realize that this is a much smaller version than would have been used in the plough):
If so, where does the steam come from? I'm guessing that there must be a separate boiler which is not shown in the picture. If so, can you suggest what it might have looked like?
I'm also assuming that the increased height of the plough body was a result of the height of the engines. Is that a reasonable supposition?
I appreciate the input that you have given me already and I hope that you will be kind enough to answer any of the questions above, or offer more suggestions.
PS. Not even worth but I still think the rear portion needs to be lengthened, 1/3 plough and blades, 1/3 door portion, 1/3 rear.
Hi Bear,
I'm inclined to agree with you. The photos of the original show a longer rear end. I was originally going by the normal truck positions on an early box car where there isn't a lot of overhang beyond the trucks, but the pictures don't lie and your suggested ratio of 1/3, 1/3, 1/3 makes sense. I'm not going to use the side walls of the 36' donor car because they aren't tall enough, so it will be easy to adjust the length.
hon30critterI prefer the proper English spelling of most words when there is a choice.
I agree Dave: no matter who's speaking it, it is the English language, and I generally try to spell those words in English.
Some Americanisms elide double consonants simply to save time and ink (or typing), which is quite understandable, given the rift which occurred well over two hundred years ago.The only one which really bugs me is the pronunciation of the letter "Z" as zee, a Dutch or German word for "sea". To me it sounds more like a lazy version of "C", easily confused and without the oomph of zed. A Zee26 Camaro is like a kid's lawn mower, compared to a Zed28 tank, which has heft.
In all fairness, though, I think that Zee came about solely because it helped folks complete the rhyme in the ABC song.
Wayne