More Regner Else and no water

This is probably a stoopid suggestion?

Are the axle-ends / wheels 'keyed', so the wheels will only go on in certain positions?

If so, what would happen if one side was assembled 180 degrees 'wrong'? - would this put one side in 'reverse' compared to the other?

My thinking is that either side would appear to run (if driven on its own) but both sides driven, if one is in reverse, they would 'lock' each other??


It makes sense in my head, anyway.
:wondering::(:think:

PhilP
 
PhilP said:
if one side was assembled 180 degrees 'wrong'?
Click to expand...
Phil, there's nothing wrong with your concept, and off-the-wall ideas are always appreciated.

In fact, as the valve gear is driven by a lever which is clamped to the pin on the rear driver, the lever is fully adjustable. So if the wheels were assembled 180 deg out (they aren't as it happens. Regner assembled them at the factory,) you could adjust the valve gear so it was also 180 deg out on that side.
 
You might say it was the detergent in the toothpaste formula making the bubbles possible and pinpointing the steam leaks that way.
 
At second glance: Paul M was right (#77). Port side is looking strange indeed.

1653997625637.png

The link I call hanger (perhaps "rocker arm" is better) is upside down. Shorter end is to point up, longer end down. (Compare to Regner's instructions p. 5 (shown in #22 above). Valve is too far forward. Should have used that 1.5 mm Allen key as a gauge. Here is my loco for comparison

1653997664904.png

Starboard same. Obviously, the valve will retract too far as well, causing the leakage.

1653997935405.png
 
Last edited:
ol_hogger said:
At second glance: Paul M was right. Port side is looking strange indeed:
View attachment 299508

The link I call hanger (perhaps "rocker arm" is better) is upside down. Shorter end is to point up, longer end down. (Compare to Regner's instructions p. 5 (shown in #22 above). Valve is to far forward. Should have used that 1.5. mm Allen key as a gauge. Here is my loco for comparison

View attachment 299509

Starboard same. Obviously, the valve will retract too far as well, causing the leakage.

View attachment 299510
Click to expand...
Looks like this could solve the problems, lets hope so :)
 
ol_hogger said:
At second glance: Paul M was right (#77). Port side is looking strange indeed.

View attachment 299508

The link I call hanger (perhaps "rocker arm" is better) is upside down. Shorter end is to point up, longer end down. (Compare to Regner's instructions p. 5 (shown in #22 above). Valve is too far forward. Should have used that 1.5 mm Allen key as a gauge. Here is my loco for comparison

View attachment 299509

Starboard same. Obviously, the valve will retract too far as well, causing the leakage.

View attachment 299510
Click to expand...
I could see something seemed wrong with the angles, but not was actually causing it. Hopefully this well solve it.
 
Paul M said:
I could see something seemed wrong with the angles, but not was actually causing it. Hopefully this well solve it.
Click to expand...
A good valve gear layout should have the actuating link (radius bar for Waelschaerts) and valve aligned as much as possible so as to minimize friction (or lifting in case of a D-valve). They would rather incline the valve in order to avoid an excessive angle at the joint.
That's why it looked wrong: slanted rod but straight valve chest. Congrats Pete M!

20220504_220310.jpg
(Picture of Austrian express engine taken at the Vienna Technical Museum)
 
Last edited:
ol_hogger said:
A good valve gear layout should have the actuating link (radius bar for Waelschaerts) and valve aligned as much as possible so as to minimize friction (or lifting in case of a D-valve). They would rather incline the valve in order to avoid an excessive angle at the joint.
That's why it looked wrong: slanted rod but straight valve chest. Congrats Pete M!

View attachment 299574
(Picture of Austrian express engine taken at the Vienna Technical Museum)
Click to expand...
That is a really nice cut-away, shows the principles of the valve gear very clearly.
 
ol_hogger said:
A good valve gear layout should have the actuating link (radius bar for Waelschaerts) and valve aligned as much as possible so as to minimize friction (or lifting in case of a D-valve). They would rather incline the valve in order to avoid an excessive angle at the joint.
That's why it looked wrong: slanted rod but straight valve chest. Congrats Pete M!

View attachment 299574
(Picture of Austrian express engine taken at the Vienna Technical Museum)
Click to expand...
Am I right in thinking that the Steam Input port is at around 33% cut-off?
 
As to the Austrian train I couldn't tell.
As to Else I can't either. She's got a so-called full pressure motor, no variation in cutoff possible. (There may be some permanent cutoff, though, by valve design.) Eyeballing the proportions of the rocker arm (mimicking Waelschaert's expansion link) they may indeed turn out to be one third plus two thirds. This leverage is reducing the cranks exentricity (or rather the diameter of its rotation) to match the valve travel (3 mm that is, retracing 1.5 + sticking out 1.5). I'll measure tonight whether the crank actually is offset from wheel center by 4.5mm.
 
Last edited:
ol_hogger said:
As to the Austrian train I couldn't tell.
As to Else she's got a full pressure motor, no variation in cutoff possible. Eyeballing the proportions of the rocker arm (mimicking Waelschaert's expansion link) they may indeed turn out to be one third plus two thirds. This leverage is reducing the cranks exentricity (or rather the diameter of its rotation) to match the valve travel (3 mm that is, retracing 1.5 + sticking out 1.5). I'll measure tonight whether the crank actually is offset from wheel center by 4.5mm.
Click to expand...
Pretty well most but not all of our scales live steamers have a simplified valve gear where cut-off is not possible. I was wondering about the beast in the Vienna Museum.
 
According to a published formula calculation from port width and lap:

((p * p) + 2*p * l)) / ((p + l)(p + l)), , where p is port; l is lap

or more intuitive

(p / (p+l)) * ((p + 2 * l) / (p + l)),

where p / (p+l) the relative reduction of port opening due to adding lap (smaller than 1) and (p + 2 * l) / (p + l) is the inverse proportion (therefore greater than 1) of port closing relative to valve travel. Both combine into reduction of steam admission. (78.8 % or 21,2 % expansion. Picked dimensions from the picture. Only relations count anyway l = 0.855 * p.) For 33 % expansion assume l = 1.35 * p

This does not account for effect of the valve gear proper.
 
Last edited:
ol_hogger said:
According to a published formula calculation from port width and lap:

((p * p) + 2*p * l)) / ((p + l)(p + l)), , where p is port; l is lap

or more intuitive

(p / (p+l)) * ((p + 2 * l) / (p + l)),

where p / (p+l) the relative reduction of port opening due to adding lap (smaller than 1) and (p + 2 * l) / (p + l) is the reverse proportion (therefore greater than 1) of port closing relative to valve travel. Both combine into reduction of steam admission. (78.8 % or 21,2 % expansion. Picked dimensions from the picture. Only relations count anyway l = 0.855 * p.) For 33 % expansion assume l = 1.35 * p

This does not account for effect of the valve gear proper.
Click to expand...
I never even thought about any formulae relating to steam engines, but its obvious there's got to be some to come and confuse me
 
Paul M said:
Nope. But he seems an interesting chap
Click to expand...
Even the great Gresley went over to France to look at his miracle working with Steam. Hm history appears to have passed you by Paul. Still I guess we all don’t know what we don’t know.
 
dunnyrail said:
Even the great Gresley went over to France to look at his miracle working with Steam. Hm history appears to have passed you by Paul. Still I guess we all don’t know what we don’t know.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately, all I seem to remember about my history lessons is having to learn about the how the West was won, not Devon or Cornwall and the American Presidents, which put me off history for life. No offence intended to our American friends, but seemed and still seems totally pointless to me. I expected to learn more about our (British) history. Oh and our history teacher, the headmaster, no less, standing in front of the class with a massive urine stain on the front of his trousers, at almost every lesson. (Unfortunately that is true, no comedial exaggeration needed).
God I loathed, and still loathe, that school even 40 odd years later.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top