# Need help deciding on a new locomotive build



## Grimm (Oct 5, 2009)

I have come to realize that my original build I wanted to do (Peter Cooper's 1830 engine), although it sounded easier then other builds, was just too much for my skill level. I want to to do another engine from the same time period (1830 - 1850) but this time make sure that I have a better chance of finishing it.  I thought that maybe on the next build I go large and it might be more accommodating to my skills. Probably one of the largest engines in my time period would be a short furnace Winans Camel engine. So I started crunching some numbers and found out that in F-scale (1:20.32) it would be huge. The first engine built in the series was the "Camel" engine, 1848, that had cylinders of 17" by 22" in size. That would be 0.836614173 by 1.082677165 inches in F-scale, huge. And there would be some other issues, like the really funky boiler (which I do have the pipe for) or the really, really funky valve gearing. It started to sound a bit out of my league for now. 

This is my problem, the engines in my time period were all very complex with lots of little bit and pieces that would have to be modelled. After thinking about it for a while I think I might have found an engine that I could do with my skills as they are. A Planet type Stephenson engine from the 1830's. They only had four wheels, the pistons were between the frames and hidden so I could do just one piston like a lot of the model English engines are made. There are some issues with these engines though, like the Bury boiler which is more complex then a simple tube. But it would be much larger then the Cooper engine boiler.  The crank axil would also be difficult but not impossible I think. I'm thinking that the piston might be something like .5" in diameter? 


Does this sound feasible? Any opinions or better ideas? Thanks so much,


Jason


----------



## rwjenkins (Jan 2, 2008)

A couple of other good possibilities for you are the "Rainhill" and "Canterbury Lamb" designs by LBSC. "Rainhill" is based on Stephenson's Rocket after its rebuild, when it received the revised smokebox and lowered cylinders (a configuration you don't often see in model form), and "Canterbury Lamb" is an early 0-4-0 with steeply-inclined cylinders and tall smokestack (not sure of the exact prototype). These were designed for 3 1/2" gauge, but you could downsize it to 1:20.3. Check out the "Building of A3 switcher in 1/32" thread to see a similar conversion of the Kozo 3 1/2" gauge Pennsy 0-4-0 design just getting underway. Of course, you did say you wanted something a bit bigger and less fiddly to work on, so you could always build to 3 1/2" gauge, with the extra added bonus that you can ride behind it too. Drawings are readily available, as are castings if you build in 3 1/2" gauge.


----------



## xo18thfa (Jan 2, 2008)

I second Richards recommendation on LBSC's "Rainhill" . Rainhill is an 0-2-2 based on a Stevenson Rocket. Do a "Google" on LBSC Rainhill to find several outfits that have the plans. TEE Publishing in the UK has a reprint pamphlet of the original LBSC article. He's a fun read, BTW. LBSC's designs are based on castings, but with a little extra work, you can whittle all the parts from solid or silver solder fabricate. Even the spoked wheels. If you order the "Rainhill" pamphlet from TEE, get the "Bat & Owl" pamphlet too. They are Gauge 0 but you an idea of how LBSC scales smaller engines.

Another option is LBSC's "Ajax". Ajax was originally a 5" gauge (sort of a) Rocket type, but LBSC scaled it down to 2.5" gauge and used oscillating cylinders. You could simply narrow it to Gauge 1 and it would work fine. Here's the Ajax plan:


LBSC Ajax


----------



## Grimm (Oct 5, 2009)

Excellent! Thanks guys. I would like to make it in F-standard gauge which is 2.781 inches (70.64 mm) between the rails. Bob, that "Ajax" looks very interesting, especially the reverser. I would like to do something like that. I am curious though why you guys recommended these locos? I have the book "Building Small Steam Locomotive" by Peter Jones and I was looking at the Wirral and the Motor Tank engines. Both of them are inside connected engines that only have one cylinder instead of two. Are there problems with this kind of engine or are they more difficult to build? I know that it has a crank shaft that will probably be the most difficult item to build. 


I was wrong about the Planet type engine having a Bury type boiler, it's actually much simpler so I guess that would help some. Here are some pictures of Planet type engines:




















Here is a link to a higher resolution version of the last one:


Planet_locomotive_engraving_by_Will...r_J_Kindar


----------



## Spule 4 (Jan 2, 2008)

Grimm- 

I would think the suggestion of the LBSC designs is they are proven and documented.


----------



## rwjenkins (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By Spule 4 on 25 Jan 2011 06:29 PM 
Grimm- 

I would think the suggestion of the LBSC designs is they are proven and documented. 
My thoughts exactly. I've never scratchbuilt a live steamer (not yet anyway), but I have had the pleasure of owning and operating a couple of 3 1/2" gauge engines built to LBSC's designs.


Also, I'm not sure whether or not you have built an F scale standard gauge track to run your locomotive on when it's done, but if you haven't, I think 3 1/2" gauge is worth a second look. Nominally, the scale is not all that much larger than 1:20.3, it's 1:16 for standard gauge equipment, which is 3/4" to the foot (that's actually smaller than the 7/8" scale used to represent 2-foot gauge on 45mm track). Also, one of the best things about live steam in any scale is the sense of community and camaraderie of enjoying the hobby with fellow live steamers at steamups, club tracks, or live steam events. People modeling in 1:20.3 standard gauge are few and far between, and even fewer in live steam. Except for in 2D digital form here on MLS, you'll have few opportunities to show off your new creation beyond your own track. On the other hand, there are numerous live steam clubs and private tracks with 3 1/2" gauge. F scale does have the advantage of being able to incorporate dual-gauge operation with Fn3 narrow gauge, but in the era you're modeling there was no narrow gauge. That's not to dissuade you from what you're doing if you're already committed to 1:20.3 as your chosen scale, nothing wrong with breaking new ground, and the work you've done so far on your Tom Thumb project looks great. I'm just throwing it out there as an alternative.


----------



## xo18thfa (Jan 2, 2008)

I don't have Peter's book (yet anyway). On the Ajax, LBSC mentions using "treblet pipe" for the cylinder. That's ordinary K&S brass hobby tubing. I made my very first oscillating steam engine from that stuff. It will work perfectly for the cylinders. You can soft solder the port block on and she'll run just fine. That looks like a Henry Greenly steam switch for the reverser.


----------



## Grimm (Oct 5, 2009)

Garrett - Ah, that makes sense. I'm probably being too picky for my own good. 

Richard - Those are very good points and thanks for the kind words. I like all the alternatives I can get, and smacks to the head when needed.  I'm kind of in a unique situation here as I live in Fairbanks Alaska. The nearest person with a railroad to me lives over 200 miles away and it's a gauge 1 layout. Although I would love to visit, it's too far away to do causally.  So I'm stuck with what ever I can do on my own. The other problem is the time period that I choose to work in (1830 - 1850) the boilers were always either the size of the frame or smaller. With gauge 1 I'm back to many of the same problems I'm having with the Cooper engine. 

I would love to go 3.5 gauge but I worry about costs, are my machining tools large enough, and do I have enough room to put some track around my house (and will the wife agree  ). I did do some preliminary track design work in F-gauge and appears to work pretty well and works for my time period. I think I was able to price it at around $2.50 per foot for the materials. The idea is that not only could I get the track cheaper, but it would be much more period as well. Here is a picture of a short test track that I made with 1/8" square rod that works out pretty close to the original 2.5 in. strap rail that was in use at the time. 



















I guess this is a good question that I would love to get your opinion on. Could I go with 3.5 inch gauge with the following: 

1) I have a 7X12 mini lathe and a mini milling machine ( 12" X 4" table travel). 
2) My property is 120' X 90', much of which is taken up by the house, garage, etc. 
3) I do like the fact that 3.5 gauge has a lot of support (casting, fittings, etc.) I worry that, given my period of interest, that I will have to push on by myself anyway. 

I hope I have covered all the bases. whew! 

Jason


----------



## Pete Thornton (Jan 2, 2008)

Jason, 

A couple of comments. F-scale standard gauge is almost unknown (outside of Dave Queener's garage) so you will be very much on your own. If you stick to 3.5" gauge or gauge-1 then you will be able to run on other folks tracks eventually. 

Given your original plans for the Tom Thumb, I wondered if you were aware of the BAGRS loco, which is a freelance g-1 make-it-yourself live steamer? See Mike Martin's site: *BAGRS Basic Project.* 

A real prototype would be the vertical boiler locos that followed Tom Thumb, like this *Dunkirk *


----------



## Grimm (Oct 5, 2009)

Thanks Pete, 

Yep, I agree completely, but given the time period I'm interested in I would be one my own anyway. F standard gauge looked to me to be a nice in-between, not too large for my machinery and not too small. I have seen the BAGRS loco which is fun but doesn't follow any of the prototypes I'm interested in. The Dunkirk looks like a lot of fun too, but again not from the time period I like. I just thought that if I'm going to put in a lot of time and money that I would try and stick to the prototypes from 1830-1850. 

I have been giving 3.5" gauge a great deal of thought and it would be much easier to do loco's like the Tom Thumb, the boiler would be 1.25" in diameter instead of 1" for example. Also the large boilers that are in the Camel engines would be 2.5" diameter which is still small enough to work even for me.  I'm still a bit worried that the driving wheels will give me problems. I think the largest drivers would be around 5 to 6 feet in diameter which would be 3.75" and 4.5" respectively. That is getting close to the maximum size my lathe can handle I think. I do have a 4" chuck and a faceplate, so it should be doable. 

The "Jenny Lind" looks very interesting and is similar to some of the English imports to the U.S. One in particular would be the "Cincinnati" built in 1835 by the Vulcan Foundry for the South Carolina Railroad. I see that Reeves has the castings, but I have read online that the castings from them can have problems and are not very high quality? Although something is better then nothing, but they are expensive. I like the "Canterbury Lamb" too and it looks to be a bit cheaper too. 

Hi Bob, sorry didn't see your post until now. That is cool, I have some brass tubing as well. Do you have any information on the Greenly reverser switch?


----------



## John Riley (Jan 3, 2008)

Jason,

If you are still considering an 1840's era locomotive, take a look at the late Hank Povee's 4-2-0 Norris engines in Gauge 1 which are featured in the Sidestreet Bannerworks Locomotive Gallery for January.
The oscillating cylinder version would be a fairly simple build and the size would be well within the capabilities of your machinery. The engine is butane/propane fired from a small cylindrical tank 
carried in the tender. 

John Riley


----------



## Grimm (Oct 5, 2009)

Thanks John, those engines are dam cool! It does give me some hope of being able to make one of my own "one-armed billy" some time in the future.









I'm going to go for the Canterbury Lamb (Invicta) and do 3.5" gauge, from what I have seen it looks like my machines can handle it and it's not too much more expensive then F-gauge. I even found some steel bar that I can use for some more strap rail track for the build and display. This one is going to be much longer then the last one so I can have both the engine and tender on the same track. I also found a little side project that should help me in getting my skills up:


Elmers woodbeam engine 

This engine is very similar to the Cooper engine with the long piston valve and vertical position. It just looks fun and I have almost all of the raw material I need too.







I still need to do some work on the lathe (tapered saddle gibs and saddle lock). Fun, fun. 

Jason


----------

