# 6-coupled Ruby



## Dr. J (Feb 29, 2008)

Hello, all
I'm about to take the plunge into the dark arts of metalworking (with a lot of help from my more knowledgable friends). My goal is a coal-fired 2-6-0 in 1:19 based on the Maine 2-footers, to complement my existing roster: a Roundhouse Prairie and Forney.

One route to that goal would be to start with a Ruby chassis, and add a 3rd set of drivers. Somewhere, I read an article describing that process. The fellow picked up an extra set of Ruby drivers from Cliff at Accucraft, then modified the side rods to accomodate them. But of course I cant find the article. Maybe it was in a back issue of SITG? Maybe it was here? I saw Chris Sortina's 2-6-0 conversion in the MLS 2004 series on Ruby bashes, and that may be what I'm looking for? But no construction article.

Anybody out there know what I'm talking about, and can you point me to the article? Chris, if you're listening?
Thanks
Dr J


----------



## Kovacjr (Jan 2, 2008)

I send you a PM


----------



## xo18thfa (Jan 2, 2008)

Sounds like a great project. There's been some threads here about problems drilling Ruby frames. They are made from a tough stainless steel that's difficult to drill. Might want to use your original frames as patterns to make new ones from ordinary steel or hard brass.


----------



## scottemcdonald (Jan 11, 2008)

Steam in the Garden issue #95. Two page article, write-up with some pictures. Sep/Oct 2007


----------



## Larry Green (Jan 2, 2008)

Unless you already have a specific prototype and a Ruby for starters, you can't go wrong if you consider a Roundhouse 0-6-0 chassis kit and other components. I'm interested in following your progress. 

Larry


----------



## bille1906 (May 2, 2009)

Dr J 
I think that was my Garratt which is on the Informative Threads in the Live Steam section but I am sad to sat that I hade to make new frames and decrease the distance between the drivers. 
I was unable to figure out how to just add the third axle. 
Good luck


----------



## Dr. J (Feb 29, 2008)

Thanks to all for your interest and suggestions. I'll go and dig out the garrat article. I found the Harry Gray article. And - as Larry Green suggested - a Roundhouse 0-6-0 chassis would also work. Here's the idea of what I want to end up with, superimposed on a Lady Anne chassis. The Lady Anne drivers are a bit small, but if I can figure out how to add nice big counterweights on the cranks, as in the photo, that will give the impression of "bigness" that I'm looking for. I've written to RH to see if the SRRL#24 cranks can be swapped for the kit Lady Anne cranks. I'll keep you posted.


----------



## Steve Shyvers (Jan 2, 2008)

Dr. J, 

I agree that the RH 0-6-0 chassis is the way to go. Your drawing superimposed on Lady Anne's chassis (?!) compares very nicely to the photo. I've built two RH "Billy" 0-4-0 chasses, and on both have cut away portions of the frames beneath the cab in order to simulate an American-style frame profile. If you chop away any frame area up forward of the cylinders, as you have shown with the dashed-outline rectangle, then plan on fitting some diagonal bracing from behind the cylinders up to the underside of the forward deck. When the area within the dashed rectangles is chopped away the frame loses stiffness where it has to brace against the piston thrust. Figure out your supplemental bracing BEFORE you assemble everything, and remember to plan for adequate clearances for the steam plumbing. Make sure also that whatever you come up with can be assembled with normal hand tools, i.e. no 180-degree angle screw drivers! Ask me how I figured this all out.  

Steve


----------



## StevenJ (Apr 24, 2009)

Dr. 1 do you have a link to any of those Roundhouse conversion articles? I actually posted a topic very similar about using a Roundhouse kit to make an American 3 foot narrow gauge Mogul except I'm planning on using the Fowler kit and not the Lady Anne. I'll just hack up the rear frame a bit to compensate for the space cut out for the rear truck and move the gas tank to the tender. Still thinking about the lady Anne though instead.


----------



## Dr. J (Feb 29, 2008)

Thank you, Steve! I've already had a taste of the woe you describe. Readers of this space will recall that about six months ago, my #24 took a swan dive off the elevated portion of my RR. Fortunately it had a soft landing (pine needles & loam), but the fall did loosen up the connection from the T-piece to the steam chest on one side. There is a union nut that holds the steam line in place. But getting to it required me to grind down a spanner to almost nothing, and even then it was a tight fit. 
Thanks also for the cautionary advice about chopping away anything forward of the steam chest. I never thought about Newton's laws, but you are absolutely right: All the thrust that makes these little buggers go is being counteracted by that teeny little "chin" area of the frame. Methinks I might leave well enough alone. There's something to be said for using a Fowler chassis rather than a Lady Anne, because the Fowler chassis ends flush with the front of the smokebox already. Or (and I like this better): instead of chopping off the underside of the chin on Lady Anne, this provides a perfect reason to extend the boiler forward, flush with the existing frame, then fit the pilot beam and cowcatcher out from there. I'm building a "might have been," rather than a scale model, and anything that lets me sneak in a few more cc's of volume into the boiler is good with me.











I think this is also a good time to add that I wouldnt have the nerve to get into this project, without the serious mentoring, and in some places hands-on help from Eric Schade, whom I have yet to meet in person, but who has been an enthusiastic booster of my ventures into this area. Thanks, Eric (and all the rest of you guys, as well)!


----------



## Dr. J (Feb 29, 2008)

Oops. Two Steves (or, Steve & Steven). The annoying thing about the "Reply" button is that I cant see the original thread when I'm composing my reply (unless I have two sessions of Windows open), so I cant glance back to see who I'm answering at the moment. Sorry!

No, I dont have a link to the earlier RH conversion articles that you mention. Can you supply it?
Thanks
Jim C


----------



## SteveC (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By Dr. J on 11 Feb 2012 05:53 AM 
Oops. Two Steves (or, Steve & Steven). The annoying thing about the "Reply" button is that I cant see the original thread when I'm composing my reply (unless I have two sessions of Windows open), so I cant glance back to see who I'm answering at the moment. Sorry! _{snip...}_
Dr. J

There are two ways that you can see the content of the particular posted reply you are replying to, without using the "Quote" feature. Instead of using the "Add Reply" button you can use...

 The "Reply" link located on the right side of the header of each posted reply, between the "Quote" & "Alert" links.

If you click the "Reply" link, you will open the HTML editor just as you do when you click the "Add Reply" button. However, the content of the reply you are commenting on will be displayed above the "Subject" field on the editor page. While the "Message" content area of your yet to be composed reply remains blank.

... or... if you've already used the "Add Reply" button and need to review the content of the reply you're commenting on, then use...

 The "Topic Review" button bar, located at the bottom of the HTML editor's box below the "Submit" & "Cancel" buttons. On the far right of this button bar there is a small round arrow button, when clicked, a drop-down list will display a listing all of the replies and their content in reverse order (i.e. _'most recent first'_ - to - _'topic originating reply'_ order). If you once again click the "Topic Review" button the drop-down list display will be cleared.
 Hope the above is found to be of use.
Steve (#3, ???







)


----------



## Dr. J (Feb 29, 2008)

Here's what I'm thinking now: Extend the boiler forward (instead of meddling with the frame), and beef up the appearance of the cylinders by "stretching" them a bit, to cover the area of frame that I was previously thinking of cutting away. It should be fairly easy (says me, out of ignorance), to make new sheet metal covers, just longer. This leaves the frame intact, gets me a couple of mm of extra boiler, and keeps the total length of the boiler centered over the drivers, which is a good thing. Comments?


----------



## Larry Green (Jan 2, 2008)

Lengthening the cylinder covers will upset the proportions, in my opinion. Plus, the centerline of the cylinders, valve chests, saddle and stack should match. Another thing to consider when selecting which boiler/kit to use--the placement of the safety and filler bushings on the RH boiler. They should be reasonably close to the dome arrangement you are looking for. 

Keep it coming! 

Larry


----------



## Steve Shyvers (Jan 2, 2008)

Dr. J, 

I'm happy that my advice was useful. Personally I agree with Larry about the proportions of the loco. Also I think that fitting suitable bracing should be far easier than fabricating false cylinder extensions, etc., if you design and fit the bracing in the early stages of assembly. Before the frame is fully assembled you have a lot of freedom to design something easy to fabricate and install: diagonal struts, triangular brackets, a "spreader" or bulkhead tied to the frame sides and fore deck. Fastening could be screws, solder, JB Weld, or a combination. As a side-note I rejected the idea of simple frame doublers JB Welded into place because they would have been fiddly to retrofit to to the assembled loco and I wasn't sure just how much stiffness they would really impart. 

In the case of my loco it was already painted, assembled, and in steam before I discovered my error. I really did not want to strip it down completely to do the rework so had to come up with a scheme that could be retrofitted. I probably came up with six different ideas and went back and forth between them before choosing one. This was for one loco on which I had removed too much of the frame forward of the cylinders. 

On the other loco that I referred to had a lot less metal removed from the frame in front of the cylinders. I never noticed a problem probably because the area removed did not extend as far as the center line of the cylinder/piston (projected onto the side frame). Therefore there seems still to be enough support for the piston thrust. If I get a chance this weekend I will try to take a couple of quick photos to show you what I'm talking about. 

Steve


----------



## StevenJ (Apr 24, 2009)

DR J you're way over thinking it. You had it right with the first idea to use a Lady Anne and cut the front area of the frame just modify your plan slightly. 

http://i113.photobucket.com/albums/...roject.jpg

Don't cut quite as much and add a brass support bracket using bar stock and secure it by drilling holes on the side of the frame to put either one or two screws through it per side. That should be more than enough support. I will be using the Lady Anne boiler and chassis with the Fowler body kit and hopefully the SR&RL tender if they will sell it separately for mine.


----------



## llynrice (Jan 2, 2008)

A while ago, I converted my Lady Anne to a north American outline (still a tank engine). You might want to take a look at the thread.

http://www.mylargescale.com/Community/Forums/tabid/56/aff/11/aft/3076/afv/topic/afpgj/3/Default.aspx#133216

Llyn


----------



## Dr. J (Feb 29, 2008)

Thanks, Larry
I hadnt thought about that, but you are right about the alignment of the components. 
Jim


----------



## Dr. J (Feb 29, 2008)

Thanks, Llyn
What a beautiful engine you have created. Accucraft UK seem to have liked it as well, since their War Department Baldwin bears more than a passing resemblance to your creation.

I will have the advantage of starting from an unbuilt Lady Anne kit, so I plan to "window" the side frames to partially expose the drivers, but your method of applying the extra layer of brass fools the eye nicely. I've used a similar technique on other projects, to create the illusion of grillwork.
Jim


----------



## Dr. J (Feb 29, 2008)

Hi, Steven
It didnt take you long to figure me out: "Overthinking it" is the story of my life. Sometimes it helps, sometimes it's a hindrance.








Yes, I have the advantage of starting from an unbuilt chassis. Maybe I will just remove a quarter-circle area, rather than a rectangle, and it should be easy enough to add some additional bracing.
Jim C


----------



## Steve Shyvers (Jan 2, 2008)

Here are some photos that show how I modified my two RH Billy chasses, and the bracing that I added to the one with the greater area cut away from the frame. This first photo shows how much was cut from the frame of the Billy that needed the bracing.










The next photo shows the braces that were added. The cylinders had to be removed, and then a countersunk hole was bored behind the cylinder for a 4-40 flat head screw. The same thing was done to the foredeck with the screw heads positioned to be underneath the smokebox assembly. These braces eliminated a startling twist in the frames that occurred with every piston stroke. Please note that the plumbing was modified a bit when the loco was built up for coal firing.











The final photo shows the other Billy frame that did not have so much frame area removed. Although it might be okay, it will get some supplemental bracing while it's being shopped for a boiler upgrade.












Steve


----------



## Dr. J (Feb 29, 2008)

Thanks for the pictures, Steve. I see the bracing, and I will probably wind up doing something similar.


----------

