The Heybridge Railway, 1889 to 1913

[RichardG]

I forgot to post the credits for the H2:

• Jim McGeown (Connoisseur Models): kit, dummy springs, clack valves
• K&S Metals: strip brass for wider frame spacers
• Light Railway Stores: nameplates
• Micron Radio Control: radio transmitter and receiver, power switch
• Nairnshire Modelling Supplies: nickel-silver wire for handrails and sand pipes
• Premier Components: screw couplings
• Slater’s Plastikard: wheels, motor/gearbox
• Walsall Model Industries: buffers

Such a short list of suppliers is surely a testament to how good the kit is. Thanks Jim

 

[RichardG]

'Quintus' has finally run at NEEGOG in a self-contained sort of a way, without needing a service wagon to carry its batteries and control gear and indeed with paint.


The lighting here is a mix of daylight and fluorescent tubes. I will stop whingeing about my paint job, its only my better camera which brings out the faults.


The red light is from the LED on the Micron receiver. It's one of those things which I probably ought to hide, but will doubtless find essential as soon as do. It is not (as someone suggested at Albury) a firebox glow. Truly.


After a while the batteries expired so a GER A55 took over the train. Somehow, this is quite an appealing consist despite the Decapod being a passenger loco.


I would never want to own or build one of these but it was good to watch.

 

[alastairq]

Ahhhh! The Wootten firebox.

Didn't the USA design & use camelback locomotives with such a firebox, to burn anthracite..[Or was it, poor coal?]

 

[simond]

The latter, I think. Anthracite burns hot and quite clean. And if my childhood memories serve, cost quite a bit more.

 

[Ian@StEnochs]

The latter, I think. Anthracite burns hot and quite clean. And if my childhood memories serve, cost quite a bit more.

I can confirm that! I got some Anthracite beans to fire my first 1/4 scale traction engine and melted the cast iron fire grate. Made lots of steam though.

 

[alastairq]

Anthracite waste....originally...in the US of A.

Camelback locomotive - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[RichardG]

I think this article is easier to understand than the Wikipedia one:
Camelback steam locomotives

The main thing is, the firebox was still fed from the rear of the loco. It wouldn't produce a red light shining forwards

 

[simond]

I think this article is easier to understand than the Wikipedia one:
Camelback steam locomotives

The main thing is, the firebox was still fed from the rear of the loco. It wouldn't produce a red light shining forwards

Unless there were worrying things wrong with the boiler, or somehow the ashpan were on fire…

 

[RichardG]

A few people have asked me about the life (endurance) of the batteries in the H2, and I have replied I don't really know.

I do know a couple of things:

• The batteries became substantially depleted yesterday at NEEGOG, after perhaps two hours total running spread between there and at Albury and on test at home
• Charging back to full capacity yesterday evening took barely an hour

I suspect the capacity of the two-thirds AAA batteries is substantially less than the 400 mAh claimed by their manufacturer, simply because the recharging was so quick.

To keep the maths simple I will say the radio receiver/controller consumes 30 mA, and the loco motor averages 90 mA. These figures are about 10% high to keep my estimate conservative.

Suppose the loco runs constantly, like at NEEGOG

• The model consumes 30 + 90 = 120 mA
• Battey capacity appears to be around 240 not 400 mAh (because 2 hours x 120 mA = 240mAh)

Suppose the loco runs with a 1:5 duty cycle on my shunting layout

• The model consumes an average of 30 + ( 90 / 5 ) = 48 mA
• Battery endurance will be about 240 / 48 = 5 hours

Suppose I leave the loco switched on and forget about it

• The model consumes an average of 30 mA
• Battery endurance will be about 240 / 30 = 8 hours

Five hours is less useful than the seven hours I predicted, but the one-hour recharge could be helpful. I need at least one more locomotive to provide cover if I want to operate for a seven-hour show, but the railway does now have access to six more locos apart from this one!

The Micron MR603 receiver offers a substantially reduced power consumption over the MR601 I used here because the board is large enough to hold a more sophisticated power regulator. I had to choose the smaller receiver to fit it into the model.

Maybe this is useful to someone, though I don't know whether the people who asked me are on WT.

 

[RichardG]

Suppose the loco runs with a 1:5 duty cycle on my shunting layout

• The model consumes an average of 30 + ( 90 / 5 ) = 48 mA
• Battery endurance will be about 240 / 48 = 5 hours

Of course, the loco does not consume 90 mA all the time when it is running on a shunting layout. It has to start, build up speed, slow down and stop; and on 'Heybridge Basin' it can hold its maximum speed for only a few seconds at a time. Its average motor current consumption whilst moving might be closer to 75 mA. The model will thus consume 30 + (75 / 5) = 45 mA, and predicted battery endurance increases to about 240 / 45 = 5 hr 20 min.


In fact, things are probably even better. I have been running the loco on rollers at about half its maximum speed. The motor will be consuming 60 mA (measured) so 60 + 30 = 90 mA in all. The predicted run time is 240 / 90 = 2hr 40 min.


Starting with a fully-charged set of batteries, the loco eventually stopped after about three and a half hours. I will say, 3 hr 20 min to keep the numbers easy. This suggests the true battery capacity is nearer to 3.33 x 90 = 300 mAh.

This lets me suggest some better answers to the original question:

• Standing stationary: 300 / 30 = 10 hr
• Shunting with 1:5 duty cycle: 300 / 45 = 6 hr (looks useful)
• Light engine, continuous running at half speed: 300 / 90 = 3 hr 20 min
• Eight-wagon train, continuous running at maximum speed: 300 / 150 = 2 hr

"About two hours on a roundy roundy, six hours on a plank".

 

[RichardG]

I have been working up some secondhand wheels in my lathe.

I know, my mobile crane with its S7 wheels (gauged for 0-MF) runs perfectly at ‘Heybridge Basin’ and consistently derails in one place at NEEGOG. The S7 wheels being narrower than a fine scale wheel, and with a shallower flange. I also know of at least four popular flange depths for 7 mm scale: S7, fine scale, coarse scale, and of course Heljan. Maybe I can find a happy medium between the true scale of S7 (0.66 mm) and fine scale (1.0 mm) which will give me a fresh sense of achievement for new rolling stock builds.

I have made myself a mandrel and a pressure plate for my most popular wagon wheel, which is the 3 ft 1 in with split spokes (Slater’s 7120). This exercise has been good for the lathe too after its cleaning and lubrication last week.


I have taken about 0.15 mm off the tips of the wheel flanges, and touched the edges to remove sharp corners. So the flange depth is now about 0.85 mm.

There is no overwhelming reason to do this to these wheels except that I can; and maybe I will make a wheel which looks better and runs just as well as the standard product on the tracks I use. Also this is good practice for a Heljan diesel I want to attend to one day.

This arrangement makes a really good way to clean up old wheels too. Just spin the wheel and press down a piece of Scotchbrite or perhaps something stronger like fine abrasive paper with a trace of metal polish. Much nicer than cotton buds with horrible chemicals.

I bought a foot length of 25 mm aluminium bar, so I can make plenty more mandrels if this one turns out to be useful. Meanwhile, I have only prepared two sets of wheels. I'd like to see how they run before doing any more.

 

[simond]

Richard

I’ve watched your lathe rebuild and wheel turning with some interest.

I don’t want to offend our S7 brethren (though a little mild p155-taking is good value both ways) but the one thing that grabs me about any non-S7-model is the damn wheels which always look too “heavy” to me.

Whilst you have addressed the flange depth and wheel width, it always looks to me like the tread of normal 0F wagon wheels is too thick - or I guess the spokes are too short wrt the rim dia. I have not played with the numbers so I can’t validate the impression, and indeed, taking a smidgen off the flanges will improve the appearance anyway.

Do you feel that you’ve got a better model as a result of your endeavours?

Cheers
Simon

 

[RichardG]

Do you feel that you’ve got a better model as a result of your endeavours?

At a glance, the front face of the tyre measures 2.2 mm wide on a S7 wheel, and 2.4 mm on a FS wheel. And this does make a difference to the appearance of the wheel. I think, a dark colour on the front (and back) of the tyre helps to unify things. The steel tyre on the model wheel is representing both the rim of the wheel and the tyre, and while the tyre might be brand new and shiny, the rim would not be shiny.

I have a long-term ambition to take photos of models which are difficult to identify as being a model. The wheel flanges always stick out in photos. But now you mention the fronts of the tyres, so do they!

So my current answer to your question is no. I feel I have made something different, possibly just as good but not really better. The flange is (of course) tapered so taking off more than c.0.15 mm is going to make the flange look chunky. Skimming that 0.2 mm off the circumference of the tyre might make all the difference, but of course if I want my non-standard flange height I will need a profile tool to suit. I can use a profile tool, but I cannot make one! Or possibly re-profile the tyre with a FS profile tool to do the running surface and rework the flange; and then reduce the flange again as a separate activity.

I am pleased that I have a mandrel and it works; and the lathe is now producing enough torque(!); and so I can do more experiments.

 

[magmouse]

Folks may find this of interest/use when thinking about the appearance of wagon wheels:

https://www.rmweb.co.uk/blogs/entry/25905-wagon-wheels-a-beauty-contest-and-an-annoucement/

Nick.

 

[Osgood]

.... Maybe I can find a happy medium between the true scale of S7 (0.66 mm) and fine scale (1.0 mm) ...

RG7 would seem to describe the standard you seek.

 

[RichardG]

RG7 would seem to describe the standard you seek.

Well, the Slater's FS wheel looks wrong because its proportions are wrong. For example the flange is 52% too tall while the tyre width is only 17% too wide. And the tyre is too tall. If I can reduce the height of the flange and the height of the tyre, whilst keeping the tyre width unchanged, I might make something which looks a bit better and still runs on 0-MF and 0 track.

I'm not sure about having a wheel profile named after me, but it would be a nice thing to be remembered for. As long as it works.