# Ruby kit project - musing and question



## nadnerbster (Nov 19, 2009)

G'day g'day,

This is sort've a musing on my efforts so far, and a bit of a question. 

Question first: I've recently heard that the Ruby throttle may not allow enough steam into the lines to power all four cylinders - apparently some people have had trouble with the similar throttle on some accucraft 3-cylinder shays. I'm wondering if anyone has any thoughts on whether the standard Accu Ruby throttle (with steam from either one or two boilers) will be enough? If it's not, can anyone make a suggestion as to alternatives which will allow enough steam through to power four cylinders? 


I've posted before ages ago about making a double fairlie out of two Ruby kits. It's been on the backburner for a while as I'm having a bit of trouble aquiring material and making the parts I need - I may end up making what I'm calling a "reverse garratt" (i.e: think of a garratt with boilers where the bunkers/tanks normally are, and a tender/bunker where the boiler normally is). Either way, I would prefer to have one throttle run all four cylinders.

My materials/parts problem simply comes from the fact that I'm short on tools and experience. You lot make it look so easy!! I've seen mason bogies and other projects (such as Redbeard's excellent looking machines) which show simple-looking solutions to making the "bogie" for the drivers, but I haven't been able to come up with a method of making one . . . I haven't been able to bend metal accurately enough to do the job, and I haven't yet been game to try my hand at silver soldering . . . I'll have to give that a go, and see if I can make something out of brass bar and angle. Hence why I'm thinking of doing the "extremely freelance reverse garratt", essentially I could build the two kits as normal, couple them with a long beam, then build a walk-through coal bunker on top of the beam . . . were there any prototypes that had an arrangement like that?


Still - enjoying myself. Decided to fully assemble one of my Ruby kits, and despite a few times where I dropped a screw and had to go searching on hands and knees for it, I managed to get the thing running pretty smoothly - only needed a minor adjustment to the reversing valve to get it going. Immensely satisfying!


----------



## Phippsburg Eric (Jan 10, 2008)

Hello Hello-- 

I have kitbashed two Rubies myself into two seperate engines.

It haddn't occured to me that the throttles might be a problem. I have put lever controls on the valve which move something like a quarter turn from stopped to zooming off like a thing posessed! I would think that there would be plenty of opening for two engines to work at a reasonable pace though I have not tried it. if one valve doesnt do the trick, perhaps you could rig two with a linkage so they work together. 

I have not thought about how to link the two boilers together. probably should have two connecting lines---steam at the top and water at the bottom? As Ruby boilers have no lower fittings that would require some sliver soldering on the boiler...I would hope not to need to do that. perhaps just make an extended manifold that bridges the two boilers with the trottle valve on the side. I do not know what the full size Double Farlies do...looks like the boilers are connected at the backhead with the firebox doors on the side...anyone have better info? Also a rigid frame to support the two boilers would be needed. 

As to an inverse Garrett...one of the reasons for this type of engine is to reduce the crew size for the load hauled. having the boilers and cabs seperated might mean double the crew...same as two engines. 

just some thoughts ... have fun sounds like a great project!


----------



## nadnerbster (Nov 19, 2009)

Thanks for your thoughts!

I like the idea of linking the two throttles, I think you're onto a winner - even if I was to just have both throttles go to a common steam pipe before going to the drivers. I agree that it's not likely to be a massive problem, but I'm guessing under load on grades I might be grateful for the extra grunt.

Linking the two boilers - Ideally, I'd love to run a pipe between the bottom of each boiler to ensure even water levels, but I'm not skilled or confident enough to drill any extra holes. Steam connection will be simple enough though - the throttle provided with the Ruby has an extra fitting for addition of a pressure gauge, so I can make a steam linkage through that quite easily. With a T junction I could put a pressure gauge on that (though I'd only get an average pressure between the two boilers). In theory, both boilers would have independent water and gas supplies, and common steam outputs, and I could light up either one or both as needed. If gas runs out before water does (which I believe is the case with the Ruby), I could fire up one boiler, have it get to pressure, then fire up the other one at the start of the run to get some extended run time.

In the case of what real fairlies do, from what I've heard they can either be connected at the backhead as you suggest, or they can essentially have two separate boilers. If I go the rigid frame fairlie, I'll probably make a dummy firebox to cover the gap between the two boilers. 


In the case of the "inverse garratt" - my rationale behind it, is that my "very freelance" company had a need for a bigger locomotive but did not have the finance to buy a new one - they therefore did a quick fix and permanantly coupled two surplus 0-4-0 shunters. They added a large bunker between them to extend their range, and the locomotive, being double ended, didn't require turntables. The crew cost would be slightly reduced - with the configuration I'm looking at, you would only need one driver to operate the two locomotives as each set of controls could drive both locomotives, in the same way that a Garratt or Mallett does - indeed, many of the AD60 class garratts of NSW were modified and fitted with dual controls (and were marked DC on the buffer beams). Two firemen would probably still be needed to stoke the two fires, but firemen cost less and you've still saved 25% of your labour costs compared to double-heading two shunters. Splitting the bunker down the middle to allow easy access between cabs would be child's play. So it's a win-win! But I do agree, not as good as a proper double fairlie - and while I'm sure it'd be relatively unique, I'd prefer to make something that has some semblance to a real locomotive . . .


----------



## Kovacjr (Jan 2, 2008)

The throttle shoudl have no problem supplying steam. Its is the same design as all of the Accucraft locos. One thing you can do is dross drill the banjo bolt that holds on the throttle straight through. That is usually the limiting factor on the older Rubys. The new ones have the throttle attached to the filler in the cab, where the old ones did not. Here is a photo of an 1st generation Ruby.




















As to a garratt I have seen Ruby garratts with a stock throttle work just fine. Remember the steam is going through a 3mm OD pipe with a ID of about 1.2mm The piping is where I would make the changes. Run a Y off the throttle and then 2 3mm pipes one to each bogie. A simple silicone hose will suppply the flex for the bogie too.

Do you haev the older 3/8" or newer 1/2" cylinders. If the 1/2" I would say you would need the double boiler, but I would shoot for making a new boiler that is longer and a little larger to supply both units. My friend Justin does build on here, you may of seen his K27 coal conversion. He is slippedeccentric on MLS and can be messaged through here for more info on making you a boiler. I would not connect 2 ruby boilers together. they just are not worth the trouble for 15min of water and lack of fittings. 

Here is another Ruby project i have going on a 0-6-0, I still am not sure if I am keeping the ruby boiler of going to make a new one as it can be much longer.


----------



## xo18thfa (Jan 2, 2008)

It seems to me that a better Ruby boiler would have "porcupines" on the burner tube, or fins silver soldered on the burner tube to increase the heating surface of the boiler. A dome would help a lot too.

Jay: Go with the longer boiler. You'll kick yourself if you don't.

Bob


----------



## Charles M (Jan 2, 2008)

Baldwin Locomotives Works buiilt just the locomotive you have in mind. They built an 0-6-0 + 0-6-0 Vauclain Compond with the locos connected together at the cab end . The two engines were controlled by a single engineer , and had two fire men. The fuel was wood , stored in racks on opposite sides of the locomotives. They had they controls slaved together for throttle and forward / reverse. Your idea would work just fine. 

The locomotive is for the Mc Cloud River RR and is shown in the book , " The Locomotives That Baldwin Built " page number 79. 

Charles M SA # 74


----------



## dmcole (Feb 15, 2008)

Posted By Charles M on 18 Jun 2011 08:44 PM 

The locomotive is for the Mc Cloud River RR and is shown in the book , " The Locomotives That Baldwin Built " page number 79. 

And online, you can read all about Nos. 5-6 at

http://www.trainweb.org/mccloudrail...005-6.html

\dmc


----------

