I have an older RRSC American that needs the cylinders resleeved. The plans I have call out for a 1.75" bore. The newer ones call out for a 1.5" bore. What would be the pros and cons of boreing the new sleeves down to the smaller size. Yes I know I will use less steam. I also plan on making new pistons for it regardless of what size I go with.
Thanks in advance for any input.
Kevin S
Resizing cylinder bore
-
Dick_Morris
- Posts: 2845
- Joined: Sat Jan 04, 2003 2:09 pm
- Location: Anchorage, AK
Re: Resizing cylinder bore
Mine are 1.5" and I never suffered from a lack of power for the amount of traction I had. I operated at 125psi. Less steam would also mean less water usage and more range.
-
LivingLegend
- Posts: 2149
- Joined: Sun Jun 11, 2006 3:55 pm
- Location: The Boonies of Alabama
Re: Resizing cylinder bore
Unless it's been redesigned at some point over the years, the piston bore of a RRSC CP173 is 1.500 diameter. That's the bore as designed and marketed by the original (Chet Peterson era) RRSC. The RRSC cylinder casting was bored to 1.750, as I recall, to receive a liner having a wall thickness of .125.
I would keep it at 1.500 piston bore.
For comparison, the Disney 173 (and other original Disney 173's built using it's drawings and castings) had a piston bore of 2.125 diameter and no liner. The Little Engines 2-6-0 had a piston liner bore of 1.625 and the cylinder casting bored to 1.875 to receive a .125 wall liner.
LL
EDITED....
I would keep it at 1.500 piston bore.
For comparison, the Disney 173 (and other original Disney 173's built using it's drawings and castings) had a piston bore of 2.125 diameter and no liner. The Little Engines 2-6-0 had a piston liner bore of 1.625 and the cylinder casting bored to 1.875 to receive a .125 wall liner.
LL
EDITED....
Do it right.... Or don't do it at all
I have no life. Therefore, I have a hobby
It's not that I'm apathetic, I just flat don't care
An Intellectual is nothing more than an Over-Educated IDIOT
Blogs: Where people with nothing to say..... Say it
I have no life. Therefore, I have a hobby
It's not that I'm apathetic, I just flat don't care
An Intellectual is nothing more than an Over-Educated IDIOT
Blogs: Where people with nothing to say..... Say it
Re: Resizing cylinder bore
Living Legend, mine was one of the first ten produced by RRSC. There has been a few changes from them over the years. The original pilot wheels where 1/4" bigger. I actually like the bigger wheels.
My plans do call out for the 1.75" bore.
-Kevin S
My plans do call out for the 1.75" bore.
-Kevin S
-
LivingLegend
- Posts: 2149
- Joined: Sun Jun 11, 2006 3:55 pm
- Location: The Boonies of Alabama
Re: Resizing cylinder bore
I will say this....
Dick Bagley's Disney 173, having the 2.125 bore could pull like like crazy.
LL
Dick Bagley's Disney 173, having the 2.125 bore could pull like like crazy.
LL
Do it right.... Or don't do it at all
I have no life. Therefore, I have a hobby
It's not that I'm apathetic, I just flat don't care
An Intellectual is nothing more than an Over-Educated IDIOT
Blogs: Where people with nothing to say..... Say it
I have no life. Therefore, I have a hobby
It's not that I'm apathetic, I just flat don't care
An Intellectual is nothing more than an Over-Educated IDIOT
Blogs: Where people with nothing to say..... Say it
-
Dick_Morris
- Posts: 2845
- Joined: Sat Jan 04, 2003 2:09 pm
- Location: Anchorage, AK
Re: Resizing cylinder bore
Build start number for my CP-173 was in the early 30s. I think I started it in 1973. The earliest drawing I have showing the 1-1/2" piston OD is November, 1971. The liner is 1/4" thick. None of my drawings show a change from a larger bore but I have always wondered if the bore had been larger because of the thick liner.