SCC - Sparkshot Custom Creations - 3D Design/Printed Loco Kits etc

[Knuckles]

 

http://www.shapeways.com/shops/sparkshotcustomcreationsscc

 

New launch range of kits and bits!

 

The video shows some 00 engines built, painted and running proving they can be made functional. They are in the cheapest material though so for best finish the finer stuff is recommended, details in the vid.

 

I've kept this quiet for many reasons in case you are wondering.

 

There are P4 chassis also but not currently available as I need to refine them more first.

 

 

Please have a look at the vid and the shop and see what you think.

Edited April 5, 2022 by Knuckles

[Captain Kernow]

Personally I'd go for the finer quality materials, I would have thought that the clientele would be perfectly capable of respecting the material such models are made of, even if it's a bit more delicate than the more robust version.

[Knuckles]

Yeah, the WSF is a bit grainy, but as I hope I have demonstrated in the video with effort it is possible to get an acceptable finish. To add rivets you may have rubbed off you can buy resin water slide transfers from DCC Supplies etc.

 

The finer FUD material is without question the better option for a good finish but Shapeways price for it is more. Most of my test building was WSF due to cost.

 

I wanted to make the point in the vid that the examples are in the cheaper rougher material.

Edited December 17, 2015 by Knuckles

[Nile]

That's an impressive start. You've put a lot of effort into that shop, far more that I have in mine. I could well be tempted by some of those.

 

For those thinking about placing an order, Shapeways have some offers in December.

 

21st - $10 of FUD orders over $30.

23rd - $25 of all orders over $100.

25th - 25% off WSF.

[Knuckles]

Thanks Nile.

 

Yeah those discounts, should have mentioned them.

[Knuckles]

Just a note about the SCC shop.

 

Fixed P4 chassis have been added for sale and the whole shop is now categorized making it easier to find things. Sprung chassis and EM ones are for the (near hopefully) future.

Edited December 20, 2015 by Knuckles

[Nick Holliday]

The Brighton E2's look tempting, but, considering the liberties taken by Hornby and Wills to make theirs fit a standard chassis, can you confirm that these have been based on accurate drawings, and the extended tank version is prototypically longer than the initial type? And what are the differences between these and the freelance version you have called E2X?

[Knuckles]

Hello. I used scale drawings to design the E2's. The intent was to overcome the previous errors and compromises.

These new E2's are indeed longer than the Hornby bodies. As best as I can tell Hornby cut length on the smokebox, boiler and bunker and made the running plate curves overt to fit their chassis.

The SCC E2's don't have these compromises and was most of the motivation for their creation. Additionally the new chassis have the correct wheelbase with equally spaced wheels etc.

The main difference between the standard E2 and the extended tank version is just that, the tank is extended and the Westinghouse Pump moved forward.

 

EDIT:

After some consultation The standard / original E2 is 1mm / 3" shorter at the front so the models in the shop now conform to this detail variation.

The two Freelance E2-X's have it's primary difference in the height of the running plate being unified straight at the bottom level thus in theory increasing coal and water capacity - but of course as best I can tell they never existed.

Hope that helps.

Edited December 20, 2015 by Knuckles

[Crantock]

• Well done but not cheap.  The L&Y class 28 I have as:

£68 Loco FUD

£21 Loco chassis WSF

£14 coupling rods

£34 tender WSF (is FUD available)

£14 tender chassis

 

So that's £151 before wheels and motor and bits and bobs. London Road Models class 25 is £95 as a comparator.  I can't help feeling there is a balance to be struck between etches and printing.  Then again one between time and cost.

 

Surprised you are bothering with a Fowler tender as Bachmann ones can be sourced on Ebay and with a bit of reworking even an old Airfix one can be made respectable.  Now if you were to go for:

• Fowler cab tender
• Stanier 3500 tender
• Stanier 3500 slab sided tender

I might be interested.

 

Anyway, well done and a nice video

[Knuckles]

I couldn't agree more that the expense is high and I'm thoroughly angered by it, which is why I'm saving up for a 3D printer in the long run. As you are talking 4 figures for one good enough it won't be any time soon.

 

This is no excuse but I can assure you it isn't me being greedy. Shapeways hog nearly all that money and the uploaders get the peanuts. To test my word upload a FUD loco body and see how much it costs before you even try to add a profit on top, it's unrealistic but currently there isn't anything that can be done about it. Roll on my own printer, that's all I can say.

 

You may see a new addition of 12 gas bottles in FUD. They cost almost £13, my cut is just over £1. A joke right? Still too expensive in my opinion but they are there if you'd like them.

 

The Fowler tender I made for myself more than anything and released it as a bonus. 

 

An advantage of the prints is you have less building to do as I've done it.

I'm also trying to make most engines prototypes that aren't currently available (thus filling market gaps and maybe for a time being exclusive)

or like the E2, update something that really needed doing, plus each engine does take months and countless hours to do so hopefully that may be a small consolation.

 

I can't deny the pricing is high but neither can I move from the stance that Shapeways are the core problem, FUD prices especially.  

I did my promotion pictures in the video and website in WSF as it was cheaper to buy and to show that with effort you can get a good finish, but as most agree FUD will give you the best finish..

 

The Lanky tender should be available in FUD, I'll check in case I missed a click. EDIT: Just checked

Edited December 23, 2015 by Knuckles

[Crantock]

Many thanks, wasn't suggesting you were being greedy.      The key point is the time saved and the availability of something different.  Good luck.

[Knuckles]

Yeah no worries, I wasn't suggesting you were suggesting I was greedy. I just saw the opportunity to explain the pricing issue from my perspective. Thanks again.

[ChrisN]

The other advantage of printing is that for folks like me we do not need to learn to solder.  Well, I am going to have to as there are a lot of kits of prototypes I need that only come in brass.  Soldering coaches is one thing, locos is another so a 3D print of one is a real bonus.  The latest announcement of a Cambrian class 61made my Christmas.  As to cost, I worked it out as around £140.00 or so, sorry rough calculation, whereas the Dragon Models brass kit of the earlier smaller version is £122.50, not a lot of difference, except I am sure I can make the 3D version run.

[Jol Wilkinson]

The other advantage of printing is that for folks like me we do not need to learn to solder.  Well, I am going to have to as there are a lot of kits of prototypes I need that only come in brass.  Soldering coaches is one thing, locos is another so a 3D print of one is a real bonus.  The latest announcement of a Cambrian class 61made my Christmas.  As to cost, I worked it out as around £140.00 or so, sorry rough calculation, whereas the Dragon Models brass kit of the earlier smaller version is £122.50, not a lot of difference, except I am sure I can make the 3D version run.

Hi Chris,

 

possibly a  bit off topic, but I can't understand this often widely held belief that soldering is difficult. It is simply down to using the correct tools and materials, something covered quite frequently here on RMweb.

 

Although I model 4mm pre group LNWR, an area where a number of 3D printed products have become available, I am yet to be convinced that 3D printing has yet reached a point where it matches "traditional" mixed material kits in terms of material finish, strength, suitability, etc. Its still in that period where, rather like early etched kits, the process/materials are used for just about everything, whether best suited to that use or not. Most designers/manufacturers learned to use etched, cast, turned parts in brass, nickel silver, whitemetal, resin, etc. as appropriate for the item being produced.

 

The 3D printing process and materials may develop to the point where it can match the results obtainable from etched/cast kits today but improvements in surface finish and production speed/reduced cost need to be achieved before it becomes a mainstream technique for most modellers. If/when that happens, I would still expect a kit to contain etched metal coupling rods as well as turned bearings, buffer heads and bodies, small boiler fittings, wire handrails and turned knobs, etc.

 

Lest this be seen as a negative view, I've built kits in cast w/m, etched brass, resin, laser cut plastic and wood. I've looked at 3D products but have yet to buy one, based on price and finish. Several of the wagon  kits I have recently built used castings produced from 3D patterns as well as some small 3D printed components, but none yet match moulded plastic or even cast whitemetal kits for finish or etched/turned metal components for suitability.

 

Jol

[Knuckles]

I don't want to play down 3D printing as I'm a proponent of it but I fully agree on the opinion that finish and cost is an issue currently.

 

WSF (Sinted Nylon) is affordable but it is a bit rough, you can get an acceptable (my opinion) finish if you use Halfords filler primer and wet abraisive paper and give it a couple or three goings over. I use P600 and 1500 grit papers.

 

Fud and FXD will give a good to very good finish with only a little sanding but the cost is a pig. This is why I am saving up for a printer because if I go that route it'll be cheaper for everyone (lest for the cost of the printer!).

 

Mixed media is good and in the future one of my possible plans may be to sell full blown kits in a box, etches and all, but for now at least hand rail pillars, wire and such like will have to be sourced elsewhere.

 

Also there is nothing stopping you buy a 3D printed loco body and then making or buying an etched chassis from somewhere else. With a little bashing I have no doubt you can get them to fit, same for RTR chassis. In fact I hope someone actually does this as it should in theory show some diversity of use.

 

As with any model if you have it in your possion feel free to improve it. Cut the cab roof off and add thin etched brass, dump the buffers and add turned and sprung ones etc.

 

 

To echo what has been said above, for some people having a kit that is already 80-90% complete is a real boon. Either due to a lack of skill, tools, time or botherdness. If botherdness can even be described as a word.

 

But people say horses for courses, I say trucks for sidings.

 

It is a medium that will only improve for time.

 

For the record, I love etched kits. I've made a few and will continue to do so. Soldering is easy as long as you have 4 things in combination: correct heat, metal, solder and flux - get any one of these out of sync and you will have issues.

 

 

-------

 

Now a request for you to possibly help me help you...to help me. Symbiotic this...

 

 

 

One of my drawings gives a Cambrian wheelbase of 5' 9" + 6'6" + 8'6"

 

Which is different from.the number most sources seem to suggest...

 

5’ 6” + 6’ 6½” + 8’ 3” 

 

Which one is true? Or is it different to the Furness...

 

5’ 9” + 6’ 8” + 8’ 6”

 

?

 

Because originally I thought it was the same but conflicting information doesn't help. Same.with the bogey wheel being on most sources both written and drawn 3'6" instead of 3' on the Furness K2. I'll likely be doing the Cambrian with bigger but if the wheelbase is indeed different to that of the FR K2 then release date will be an estimated 2-4 weeks later than what was going to be very soon. Not only the chassis will need changing but the main loco splasher too.

 

Any help would greatly be appreciated.

I'm throwing this Cambrian Conundrum around to get a collective.

[Knuckles]

Quick update.  I'd still like some info if you have any.

 

For the time being I have decided to at least start work on a separate chassis and body tweak in case.  As a result I now have a chassis that fits the

 

5’ 6” + 6’ 6½” + 8’ 3 wheelbase with the bigger 3' 6" bogey wheels.

 

Cambrian wheelbase (Correct one?)

 

Surprisingly this change is very noticeable and changes the look significantly.

 

I have a question on the body length though. It was obvious the front driving splasher would need moving as a result but it wasn't so obvious the rear one would, as a result the body looks a tad too long now.

 

 

When making the K2 the body length dimension was lacking so everything body-wise was calculated by the wheelbase as an initial datum.

 

 

My question is were the Cambrians indeed shorter than the K2's? It is certainly looking that way. It'll get cracked soon but if you can speed things up that'd be awesome.

 

I'm getting the impression these scale drawings are a bit Chinese whispers sometimes!

Edited December 30, 2015 by Knuckles

[ChrisN]

Hi,

The HMRS have a drawing of a 4-4-0 with 6ft driving wheels, which seems to be the right one although the drawing is dated 1904, so it may be the later one.  I will check my books but they are not always very helpful on details.

[Knuckles]

Ok thanks Chris. I think 1901 might be the K3?

 

(EDIT: You said 1904, I said 1901 - verdict? I need new spec's. I still meant the K3 either way.)

Edited December 30, 2015 by Knuckles

[ChrisN]

Ok thanks Chris. I think 1901 might be the K3?

 

You may well be right, the problem is that sometimes the diagrams were drawn after the locos, although the last large ones were the biggest of the lot ans were built from 1904.  I will go and look at my books later.

[Knuckles]

Ok little progress update. Before I start please bear in mind what I said earlier; I can always revert back to the original profile and size both for the body and the chassis.

 

But for now I've spent all day redoing the chassis and body.

 

The Furness K2 kit has been designed with a wheelbase of 5’ 9” + 6’ 8” + 8’ 6” with 3' Bogey wheels, as a comparison the Cambrian that is being Kit-bashed from it in 3D (So you don't have to!)now has the current spec...

 

 

Right Hand Drive.

Different Cab side profile and roof, Optional Jack sprued under the cab (Seen between driving wheels sometimes).

 

 

Cambrian Class 61 chassis now has 3' 6" bogey wheels, a wheelbase of 5’ 6” + 6’ 6½” + 8’ 3” (Can change if evidence kills it).

 

The front driving splasher has been moved forward to fit the new wheelbase, as has the whole rear section evidenced by the join mark.

 

Locomotive works, converting a Furness K2 into a Cambrian Class 61, only thing missing is the cranes! In reality it was more like the reverse but never mind. (This pic shows Left Hand Drive I know)

 

Join mark visible, as is the bigger bogeys.

 

Top picture is the Cambrian before I fiddled today, bottom the new. If you look at the splashers the bottom front driver is forward a bit, the rear section however has been shuffled forward quite a bit, as a result the new version is now about a scale 18 feet shorter.

 

Here is the same thing without all the horrid polygon wire lines everywhere.

 

Hope you found that interesting.

 

As I said I can revert things and if you have the info that'd be sweet but I do think the evidence goes in this direction mostly. I ask you all because together we all pool knowledge and hopefully get the correct outcome.

Edited December 30, 2015 by Knuckles

[PaulR]

Hi Chris,

 

possibly a  bit off topic, but I can't understand this often widely held belief that soldering is difficult. It is simply down to using the correct tools and materials, something covered quite frequently here on RMweb.

 

Although I model 4mm pre group LNWR, an area where a number of 3D printed products have become available, I am yet to be convinced that 3D printing has yet reached a point where it matches "traditional" mixed material kits in terms of material finish, strength, suitability, etc. Its still in that period where, rather like early etched kits, the process/materials are used for just about everything, whether best suited to that use or not. Most designers/manufacturers learned to use etched, cast, turned parts in brass, nickel silver, whitemetal, resin, etc. as appropriate for the item being produced.

 

The 3D printing process and materials may develop to the point where it can match the results obtainable from etched/cast kits today but improvements in surface finish and production speed/reduced cost need to be achieved before it becomes a mainstream technique for most modellers. If/when that happens, I would still expect a kit to contain etched metal coupling rods as well as turned bearings, buffer heads and bodies, small boiler fittings, wire handrails and turned knobs, etc.

 

Lest this be seen as a negative view, I've built kits in cast w/m, etched brass, resin, laser cut plastic and wood. I've looked at 3D products but have yet to buy one, based on price and finish. Several of the wagon  kits I have recently built used castings produced from 3D patterns as well as some small 3D printed components, but none yet match moulded plastic or even cast whitemetal kits for finish or etched/turned metal components for suitability.

 

Jol

Perhaps you should declare an interest: designing etched kits for London Road Models. 3D printing is here to stay and is expanding. It is particularly useful for difficult prototypes

[newport_rod]

Hi,

The HMRS have a drawing of a 4-4-0 with 6ft driving wheels, which seems to be the right one although the drawing is dated 1904, so it may be the later one.  I will check my books but they are not always very helpful on details.

 

Chris 

Are you thinking of the Cambrian Large Belpaire Passenger Class, Nos. 94-98 built Stephenson 1904 here? I'm told that the HMRS has a drawing of that loco.

Cheers

Rod

[PaulR]

Ok little progress update. Before I start please bear in mind what I said earlier; I can always revert back to the original profile and size both for the body and the chassis.

 

But for now I've spent all day redoing the chassis and body.

 

The Furness K2 kit has been designed with a wheelbase of 5’ 9” + 6’ 8” + 8’ 6” with 3' Bogey wheels, as a comparison the Cambrian that is being Kit-bashed from it in 3D (So you don't have to!)now has the current spec...

 

 

Right Hand Drive.

Different Cab side profile and roof, Optional Jack sprued under the cab (Seen between driving wheels sometimes).

 

 

Cambrian Class 61 chassis now has 3' 6" bogey wheels, a wheelbase of 5’ 6” + 6’ 6½” + 8’ 3” (Can change if evidence kills it).

 

The front driving splasher has been moved forward to fit the new wheelbase, as has the whole rear section evidenced by the join mark.

 

Locomotive works, converting a Furness K2 into a Cambrian Class 61, only thing missing is the cranes! In reality it was more like the reverse but never mind. (This pic shows Left Hand Drive I know)

 

Join mark visible, as is the bigger bogeys.

 

Top picture is the Cambrian before I fiddled today, bottom the new. If you look at the splashers the bottom front driver is forward a bit, the rear section however has been shuffled forward quite a bit, as a result the new version is now about a scale 18 feet shorter.

 

Here is the same thing without all the horrid polygon wire lines everywhere.

 

Hope you found that interesting.

 

As I said I can revert things and if you have the info that'd be sweet but I do think the evidence goes in this direction mostly. I ask you all because together we all pool knowledge and hopefully get the correct outcome.

Knuckles,

The Furness and Cambrian locos were almost identical, except for thFurness having left hand drive and slightly wider sidesheets to the cab sides.The Cambrian also had coal rails to the tender; only FR nos 124 and 125 had them. 

[ChrisN]

Chris 

Are you thinking of the Cambrian Large Belpaire Passenger Class, Nos. 94-98 built Stephenson 1904 here? I'm told that the HMRS has a drawing of that loco.

Cheers

Rod

 

Rod,

Probably.  I looked on the HMRS web site and it states an 4-4-0 loco with 6ft wheels.  If they have a drawing of the last design then that will be it.  It does not have a digital preview so it was unclear which one it is.  I thought it was worth mentioning though. 

 

I have checked my books and they do not shed any more light on the wheel arrangements,

[Knuckles]

To PaulR.

 

Aye. Almost identical but not quite.

 

I can use the older longer body that is the same as the K2 as I never overwrote the files but there is a problem. The K2 body and splashers etc fit the K2 wheelbase, written above somewhere. The Cambrian wheelbase I just made a preliminary chassis for is different and so it threw the body fitting out the window for obvious reasons! The front splasher had to move forward, the rear whole section had to move forward not just the splasher, otherwise it wouldn't fit. I can't logically see how to sort this other than what I just did.

 

If you can provide solid data the help this issue I'm all ears but so far we are all (me included) citing different source material and getting a variety of answers.

 

It's what you call a colourful ball ache!

Edited December 30, 2015 by Knuckles