USATC S-160 Consolidation

Where users can chronicle their builds. Start one thread and continue to add on to it.

Moderator: Harold_V

User avatar
kenrinc
Posts: 708
Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2010 1:11 pm
Location: SF Bay Area

Re: USATC S-160 Consolidation

Post by kenrinc »

Dick,

Furnace looks nice. I also built a "Porter" furnace. Used castable that sounds similar to what you used as I had to tamp it a bit. Has held together quite well through the years. I did make some modifications as I didn't like certain features of the original furnace. I used Gingery's lifting system and the furnace parts at the bottom instead of toward the top. I found I didn't like "fishing" for a hot crucible :shock: Excellent job!

Ken-
User avatar
Dick_Morris
Posts: 2841
Joined: Sat Jan 04, 2003 2:09 pm
Location: Anchorage, AK

Re: USATC S-160 Consolidation

Post by Dick_Morris »

Just finished drilling and tapping cylinder and valve cover mounting holes on the rear of the cylinder. I'm in love with the Tapmatic and thread forming taps. Finding a low priced Tapmatic, deciding on the right type of taps, hole depth, tapping drill diameter, and necessary thread engagement, and making the torque bar took forever. Actually tapping the 56 4-40 and 3-48 blind holes was kind of anticlimactic. It only took a couple of hours with no drama or bad words. Holes were laid out using coordinates and a DRO.
Attachments
Cylinder block with holes finished.jpg
User avatar
Harold_V
Posts: 20231
Joined: Fri Dec 20, 2002 11:02 pm
Location: Onalaska, WA USA

Re: USATC S-160 Consolidation

Post by Harold_V »

Dick_Morris wrote:Just finished drilling and tapping cylinder and valve cover mounting holes on the rear of the cylinder. I'm in love with the Tapmatic and thread forming taps.
Well done, Dick. That's much like I'd have expected to see a similar project pursued in the commercial shop (before CNC).

Curious. I've not used a thread forming tap in cast iron. Assuming your cylinders are gray iron, can you discuss the results of thread forming in that material? Cast iron is not know for its ductility, which is why I ask. Ductile iron or steel? A different matter, entirely.

Harold
Wise people talk because they have something to say. Fools talk because they have to say something.
User avatar
Dick_Morris
Posts: 2841
Joined: Sat Jan 04, 2003 2:09 pm
Location: Anchorage, AK

Re: USATC S-160 Consolidation

Post by Dick_Morris »

Harold - thanks. I worked for about a year as a wannabe machinist after high school 45 years ago where got a taste of commercial practices in three different shops. Also had a good teacher and a well equipped machine shop in high school. The shops where I worked didn't have DROs or other electronics (although there was a paper tape numerical control mill in a classroom where I took some training). I still have a soft spot for planners and shapers.

My cylinder block is a steel fabrication. When I decided on this locomotive design I couldn't find a casting that was anywhere close to what I needed.
User avatar
Harold_V
Posts: 20231
Joined: Fri Dec 20, 2002 11:02 pm
Location: Onalaska, WA USA

Re: USATC S-160 Consolidation

Post by Harold_V »

Dick_Morris wrote:My cylinder block is a steel fabrication. When I decided on this locomotive design I couldn't find a casting that was anywhere close to what I needed.
I should have noticed it was a fabrication, but failed to do so. Nice job! Otherwise it would have been more obvious.

Thanks for the reply, Dick.

Harold
Wise people talk because they have something to say. Fools talk because they have to say something.
User avatar
Dick_Morris
Posts: 2841
Joined: Sat Jan 04, 2003 2:09 pm
Location: Anchorage, AK

Re: USATC S-160 Consolidation

Post by Dick_Morris »

I finished all the machining on the back of the cylinder block and got if off of the mill. Still have more work to do on it, but that will take another setup.

For a change in pace I started on the smoke box front. I had already had the smoke box faced to length with accurate recesses in the ends where it mates with the boiler and smoke box front. I cut the front from 1/4" plate, turned the O.D. and put a step on the back to fit the smoke box, and drilled and tapped all the holes. The "parallel" holding the piece above the mill table is a sacrificial piece of MDF. Drawing the holes in Draftsight and using the DRO to locate holes worked so well with the cylinders that I did the same with the smoke box front.

The second photo shows the cylinders and smoke box set on the frame rails next to my CP-173 4-4-0. Both the CP-173 and the Consolidation have the same size drivers, but the 2-8-0 is 8" longer. One of the characteristics of the S160 is the offset smoke box door, done because a single cylinder compressor was mounted to the left side of the smoke box front. ARR replaced the pump with a cross compound compressor mounted on the front deck and I'll do the same.

I'm taking the cylinder and smoke box to the Alaska Live Steamers annual meeting tomorrow for show and tell. Next comes the door, hand rail posts and hand rail, hinges, dogs, and lots of studs. For easy removal, only six studs will hold the smoke box front in place. The remainder of the studs around the circumference will be there, but they will be dummies and thread into the smoke box front instead of the smoke box.
Attachments
Smoke box front 1.jpg
smokebox on cylinder.jpg
User avatar
Dick_Morris
Posts: 2841
Joined: Sat Jan 04, 2003 2:09 pm
Location: Anchorage, AK

Re: USATC S-160 Consolidation

Post by Dick_Morris »

I've liked shapers since high school. About 20 years ago a friend was selling a South Bend 7" so I bought it. I have a Bridgeport clone, so when I got it home I put it in a corner and didn't even get the motor put back on it. I finally came across a job perfectly suited for a shaper, crosswise slots in the Consolidation frame openings for seats for the spring packs. After cleaning and rewiring the shaper, remounting the motor, and making a tool holder for this job I got my slots cut and finally put it to use.
Attachments
shaper.jpg
User avatar
shayloco
Posts: 264
Joined: Fri Mar 28, 2003 11:00 am
Location: Rhode Island

Re: USATC S-160 Consolidation

Post by shayloco »

Dick_Morris wrote:My cylinder block is a steel fabrication. When I decided on this locomotive design I couldn't find a casting that was anywhere close to what I needed.
Dick-
Nice work on the cylinder block fabrication. Do you have any photos as you were welding it? Interested to see the steam passage fabrication method. Looking to do the same for a Mallet.
-Larry
User avatar
Dick_Morris
Posts: 2841
Joined: Sat Jan 04, 2003 2:09 pm
Location: Anchorage, AK

Re: USATC S-160 Consolidation

Post by Dick_Morris »

Do you have any photos as you were welding it?
I don't, but have scans of a couple of ME articles that inspired me. I can also take photos from more angles. Send me your email address in a PM.
User avatar
Dick_Morris
Posts: 2841
Joined: Sat Jan 04, 2003 2:09 pm
Location: Anchorage, AK

Re: USATC S-160 Consolidation

Post by Dick_Morris »

I'm making some progress again. I made a pattern for the crosshead this week and did a test casting with zinc alloy to check the pattern and core. I'm happy with the result and will post a photo when I can get my camera to talk to my computer.

The zinc casting brings up a question. Although there a few minor cosmetic flaws in my test casting, It looks like it would function quite well on the locomotive. I planned on casting the crosshead and the valve link motion support from some 660 bronze that I have. Is there any reason not to use one of the zinc alloys such as ZA-27 for these and some of the other structural parts? It's not the right color, but neither is bronze. The various alloys in the ZA family of zinc alloys are supposed to have good bearing qualities, strength similar to cast iron, and casts very nicely.

It's a Laird style crosshead (a slipper on the crosshead rides between a pair of crosshead guides). The slipper would be bronze, but the bearing for any side thrust on the crosshead would be against the crosshead casting. On the prototype there is a liner, but there isn't room for one when the crosshead is scaled down.

The fitting between the rod and crosshead on the prototype uses a taper and a wedge to hold the two together. It doesn't look much more difficult to machine than to use a rod threaded into the crosshead. Have others successfully used the taper and wedge arrangement?
User avatar
Dick_Morris
Posts: 2841
Joined: Sat Jan 04, 2003 2:09 pm
Location: Anchorage, AK

Re: USATC S-160 Consolidation

Post by Dick_Morris »

I forgot to post the photo of the crosshead casting mentioned above. I'm reworking the pattern but this is the first try.
Attachments
IMG_20180128_163900 REDUCED.jpg
IMG_20180128_164004 REDUCED.jpg
User avatar
Dick_Morris
Posts: 2841
Joined: Sat Jan 04, 2003 2:09 pm
Location: Anchorage, AK

Re: USATC S-160 Consolidation

Post by Dick_Morris »

I tried my hand at casting brass for the first time for front and rear cylinder heads. I found it to be more difficult to cast than aluminum or zinc alloys.

It took three tries, all done at a brisk 20 degrees. For the first I had shrinkage and incompletely filled moulds. Gating differently and adding a big riser corrected this. While machining the second set I found that I didn't allow enough of a machining allowance in a couple of areas and had to modify the pattern. The third try was a success.

The rear head was moulded on edge to avoid dealing with cores. It is shown with the follower board used to ram up one side of the mould. The follower board was then removed to ram up the second side.
Attachments
IMG_20171111_131645 reduced.jpg
IMG_20171224_170613_1 reduced.jpg
IMG_20171224_170628 reduced.jpg
Post Reply