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

[PaulR]

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.

Both Cambrian and Furness versions had wheelbases of 5' 9" +6' 6" + 8' 6".

[ChrisN]

Not wishing to hijack this thread, as on my thread I have had lots of encouragement to learn to solder, which I will do as things develop.  However, a loco is not a wagon or a coach and so to solder one is a little further off.  To have a loco that is made of plastic and within my skill set of an essential type is really special.  There are locos which I will have to build with brass and solder but they are a way down the, er line.

 

My thread is open if there needs to be further discussion.

[PaulR]

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!

I quote from my copy of the GA drawings, obtained from Glasgow university library several years ago.W. Hardin Osborne also used original drawings. Rush is good on many things but is out on this one. The bogie wheels were 3' 0"

[Knuckles]

PaulR, this is my point entirely. Different sources are saying different things and everyone seems to generally believe what they have in their hand is the right answer.

 

Currently I'm finding the whole thing a pig. Different companies built the engines so it is possible that is where some genuine variation may have come in, same for bogey wheels...or some drawings are just plain wrong.

 

If it is the latter then we need to know what drawings and measurements to trust and why, because currently we're rolling around a 6ft driving wheel perpetually.

 

It's ok saying "This is the measurement," but why, and how do we trust what we are reading? Because a post or two below me will possibly cite one of the other measurements as the answer.

 

I appreciate your help a lot. Knowing what to believe currently isn't easy though. Will leave it for a bit as I gotta turn in for work sadly.

Edited December 30, 2015 by Knuckles

[PaulR]

PaulR, this is my point entirely. Different sources are saying different things and everyone seems to generallh believe what they have in their hand is the right answer.

 

Currently I'm finding the whole thing a pig. Different companies built the engines so it is possible that is where some genuine variation may have come in, same for bogey wheels...or some drawings are just plain wrong.

 

If it is the latter then we need to know.what drawings and measurements to trust and why, because currently we're rolling around a 6ft driving wheel perpetually.

 

It's ok saying "This is the measurement," but why, and how do we trust what we are reading? Because a post of two below me will possibly cite one of the other measurements as the answer.

 

I appreciate your help. Knowing what to believe currently isn't easy.

Knuckles,

I appreciate your difficulty. At some stage you have to make a decision. However, you have to ask yourself why would any major changes be made as between the Cambrian and FR locos? The Furness was a left hand drive line and apart from an almost indistinguishable change in the cab sidesheets, took the engines as designed, which had been done in consultation with the Cambrian Loco Supt. The Furness did not design any of their own engines until W F Pettigrew came to office in 1897. The K2s came out the year earlier

[PaulR]

PaulR, this is my point entirely. Different sources are saying different things and everyone seems to generally believe what they have in their hand is the right answer.

 

Currently I'm finding the whole thing a pig. Different companies built the engines so it is possible that is where some genuine variation may have come in, same for bogey wheels...or some drawings are just plain wrong.

 

If it is the latter then we need to know what drawings and measurements to trust and why, because currently we're rolling around a 6ft driving wheel perpetually.

 

It's ok saying "This is the measurement," but why, and how do we trust what we are reading? Because a post or two below me will possibly cite one of the other measurements as the answer.

 

I appreciate your help a lot. Knowing what to believe currently isn't easy though. Will leave it for a bit as I gotta turn in for work sadly.

Another point has occurred to me: I used Impossible Creations  for my 3D printed locos. They were  way cheaper than Shapeways. Just a thought

[Knuckles]

Knuckles,

I appreciate your difficulty. At some stage you have to make a decision. However, you have to ask yourself why would any major changes be made as between the Cambrian and FR locos? The Furness was a left hand drive line and apart from an almost indistinguishable change in the cab sidesheets, took the engines as designed, which had been done in consultation with the Cambrian Loco Supt. The Furness did not design any of their own engines until W F Pettigrew came to office in 1897. The K2s came out the year earlier

Could you please prove this? Why the different wheelbases and wheel sizes if nothijg changed? And again which wheelbases and sizes.

 

It is indeed a pain.

 

I'll look into the website you mentioned. A few places are cheaper than Shaoeways but their shop options arn't always viable. Will take a look though.

[Knuckles]

Ok fellow modellers.

I had an idea and implemented it. It is an idea that I have done similar before.

Now please note, if you have been following this thread you know the controversy and that I want to get things right.

To make things clearer here are the problems:

A) - Different Scale Drawings and text from different sources give different wheelbases and different sizes. These being...
- 3' bogey wheels or 3'6" ?
- Conflicting wheelbases for the Cambrian of
5’ 6” + 6’ 6½” + 8’ 3”
or 5' 9" + 6' 6" + 8'6"
and the Furness K2 being
5’ 9” + 6’ 8” + 8’ 6”
- Some sources and people are saying the two locomotives shared the exact same wheelbase, others not.


B ) - These may be genuine variations that existed, or some information may clearly be wrong. Hard to know for sure. Awkward as there were a few builders and if there were variations this may be a reason.

C) - We (me included) tend to believe that the info we have is correct and everyone else is wrong. Your scale drawing or railway book is
king, sod the rest! With confliction how do you know yours is right?

D) - Did the Furness K2 (21 Class) that came after the Cambrian 61 change any wheel sizes or wheelbase?

E) - If so repeat point A & B for the K2.

--------------

So, I'm still trying to get the bottom of this and I have done something interesting.

As a disclaimer I know that the prototype photograph of the Cambrian loco is not perfectly sideways, neither can it be due to the reality
of perspectives changing, neither can the following be considered 100% accurate, however, I've been as careful and exacting as I can going only by this photograph. Many thanks to Quarryscapes for providing it...



So with that I have to the best of my ability found the axle centre of the wheels and from the front driving wheel drew horizontal lines either side. This gives us the best approximation of 6 feet. Then a circle was drew around it as best as can be done with a less than perfect angle due to perspective shift.

The bogey wheels from the top centre have a line horizontal right towards the undisputed 6 foot driving wheel - as you can see this particular bogey is 3 foot 6 inches. No arguing there.

From the 6 foot horizontal line previously mentioned that red line was copied and pasted, converted blue and divided into 6 to represent individual feet. 3 extra feet were added based on copying and pasting effectually creating a Rule/Ruler. Again, I know the perspective shifts but this exercise is to try to establish what matches what data best based on this photograph.

By placing the rule at the key areas and referring to the 3 disputed wheelbases we can see what matches best and draw some conclusions.



According to this picture then, I estimate the wheelbase to be

5’ 9” + 6’ 8” + 8’ 3”

Which is different to ALL the 3 above! It matches one wheelbase only lest for the value of 8'6".

So, conclusion & Questions:

A) - If the above exercise is good enough to go by (seems clear to me) then we have a 4th wheelbase that may be the median truth. If it is wrong then the wheelbase of 5’ 9” + 6’ 8” + 8’ 6” must be correct instead - I'm thinking this is likely. . The far right perspective may skew the 3 inches out of scale.
B ) - If this new wheelbase is correct then is it across the board for ALL the Class 61's or were there indeed variations?
C) - Did these dimensions transfer into the Furness K2 or is the K2 indeed different?
D) - If they did transfer and the K2 is the same, was the K2 fixed or did that have genuine variation?

Model Considerations: The Furness K2 that is available has been built with a wheelbase of
5’ 9” + 6’ 8” + 8’ 6”

This exercise shows the wheelbase to be 5’ 9” + 6’ 8” + 8’ 3” or the same if the right hand value is perspective skewed too much.

The K2 model has been designed to use the 3' wheels not the 3' 6" but if you want bigger wheels this can easily be changed by filing a little extra clearance for the bogeys and when I upload them (if you want to) getting the bigger bogey splashers. The chassis meshes can always be altered to take the bigger wheels if necessary although if this post is true the then wheelbase can stay. BUT - does the K2 indeed have bigger bogey wheels? This is still to be answered.

For the Cambrian I'm likely to use the older model that is a wee longer based on this but again I'm straining to find the truth and I think I may have found some.

 

Thoughts please?

 

 

 

Additional Issue:  For the tender I have different sources with different wheelbases too.  So far it is a toss up between 6' 3", 6'6", and 6' perfectly.  The model is 6' 3" but currently on hold due to these issues.

The model is designed with the 3'6" tender wheels, but other sources are saying 3'10" and another even larger than 3'6" so I'm drinking whisky.

Edited December 31, 2015 by Knuckles

[BG John]

I've used the Perspective Tool in GIMP to adjust different photos of the same loco, and overlay them on each other and on a drawing, to see where the differences are. It's something I need more practice at, as it led to more doubts than I started with! It only works correctly in one plane, so the wheels may need to be done separately to the frames or different parts of the body, but it might help to get the relative positions and sizes. The adjusted image needs to be stretched, so you need at least one horizontal and vertical dimension to work with.

[PaulR]

Ok fellow modellers.

 

I had an idea and implemented it. It is an idea that I have done similar before.

 

Now please note, if you have been following this thread you know the controversy and that I want to get things right.

 

To make things clearer here are the problems:

 

A) - Different Scale Drawings and text from different sources give different wheelbases and different sizes. These being...

- 3' bogey wheels or 3'6" ?

- Conflicting wheelbases for the Cambrian of

5’ 6” + 6’ 6½” + 8’ 3”

or 5' 9" + 6' 6" + 8'6"

and the Furness K2 being

5’ 9” + 6’ 8” + 8’ 6”

- Some sources and people are saying the two locomotives shared the exact same wheelbase, others not.

 

 

B ) - These may be genuine variations that existed, or some information may clearly be wrong. Hard to know for sure. Awkward as there were a few builders and if there were variations this may be a reason.

 

C) - We (me included) tend to believe that the info we have is correct and everyone else is wrong. Your scale drawing or railway book is

king, sod the rest! With confliction how do you know yours is right?

 

D) - Did the Furness K2 (21 Class) that came after the Cambrian 61 change any wheel sizes or wheelbase?

 

E) - If so repeat point A & B for the K2.

 

--------------

 

So, I'm still trying to get the bottom of this and I have done something interesting.

 

As a disclaimer I know that the prototype photograph of the Cambrian loco is not perfectly sideways, neither can it be due to the reality

of perspectives changing, neither can the following be considered 100% accurate, however, I've been as careful and exacting as I can going only by this photograph. Many thanks to Quarryscapes for providing it...

 

 

So with that I have to the best of my ability found the axle centre of the wheels and from the front driving wheel drew horizontal lines either side. This gives us the best approximation of 6 feet. Then a circle was drew around it as best as can be done with a less than perfect angle due to perspective shift.

 

The bogey wheels from the top centre have a line horizontal right towards the undisputed 6 foot driving wheel - as you can see this particular bogey is 3 foot 6 inches. No arguing there.

 

From the 6 foot horizontal line previously mentioned that red line was copied and pasted, converted blue and divided into 6 to represent individual feet. 3 extra feet were added based on copying and pasting effectually creating a Rule/Ruler. Again, I know the perspective shifts but this exercise is to try to establish what matches what data best based on this photograph.

 

By placing the rule at the key areas and referring to the 3 disputed wheelbases we can see what matches best and draw some conclusions.

 

 

According to this picture then, I estimate the wheelbase to be

 

5’ 9” + 6’ 8” + 8’ 3”

 

Which is different to ALL the 3 above! It matches one wheelbase only lest for the value of 8'6".

 

So, conclusion & Questions:

 

A) - If the above exercise is good enough to go by (seems clear to me) then we have a 4th wheelbase that may be the median truth. If it is wrong then the wheelbase of 5’ 9” + 6’ 8” + 8’ 6” must be correct instead - I'm thinking this is likely. . The far right perspective may skew the 3 inches out of scale.

B ) - If this new wheelbase is correct then is it across the board for ALL the Class 61's or were there indeed variations?

C) - Did these dimensions transfer into the Furness K2 or is the K2 indeed different?

D) - If they did transfer and the K2 is the same, was the K2 fixed or did that have genuine variation?

 

Model Considerations: The Furness K2 that is available has been built with a wheelbase of

5’ 9” + 6’ 8” + 8’ 6”

 

This exercise shows the wheelbase to be 5’ 9” + 6’ 8” + 8’ 3” or the same if the right hand value is perspective skewed too much.

 

The K2 model has been designed to use the 3' wheels not the 3' 6" but if you want bigger wheels this can easily be changed by filing a little extra clearance for the bogeys and when I upload them (if you want to) getting the bigger bogey splashers. The chassis meshes can always be altered to take the bigger wheels if necessary although if this post is true the then wheelbase can stay. BUT - does the K2 indeed have bigger bogey wheels? This is still to be answered.

 

For the Cambrian I'm likely to use the older model that is a wee longer based on this but again I'm straining to find the truth and I think I may have found some.

 

Thoughts please?

 

 

 

Additional Issue:  For the tender I have different sources with different wheelbases too.  So far it is a toss up between 6' 3", 6'6", and 6' perfectly.  The model is 6' 3" but currently on hold due to these issues.

The model is designed with the 3'6" tender wheels, but other sources are saying 3'10" and another even larger than 3'6" so I'm drinking whisky.

The differences are so miniscule as to be u ndetectable without a set of calipers. The exception is the bogie wheels. The Furness K2 definitely had 3' 0" ones but I am not a Cambrian expert and your measuring does indeed indicate bogie wheels of 3' 6". It wouldn#t be the first time an engine was built  differently to the drawings

[Shadow]

There's another photo here that may help (or hinder) if you want to try and measure.

 

http://www.lindal-in-furness.co.uk/RailPhotos/FR36.jpg

[Knuckles]

I've used the Perspective Tool in GIMP to adjust different photos of the same loco, and overlay them on each other and on a drawing, to see where the differences are. It's something I need more practice at, as it led to more doubts than I started with! It only works correctly in one plane, so the wheels may need to be done separately to the frames or different parts of the body, but it might help to get the relative positions and sizes. The adjusted image needs to be stretched, so you need at least one horizontal and vertical dimension to work with.

Grovenor on Scalefour suggested using GIMP too so it might be the way to go.Is it possible for you to have a go and post the results? I only as I've never used GIMP before and if you know what you are doing it'd be easier.  

 

The differences are so miniscule as to be undetectable without a set of callipers. The exception is the bogie wheels. The Furness K2 definitely had 3' 0" ones but I am not a Cambrian expert and your measuring does indeed indicate bogie wheels of 3' 6". It wouldn't be the first time an engine was built differently to the drawings

If it is a fact engines are built different to drawings then it is also a fact model makers are in a predicament...as it seems we are finding out! I'll looking into the K2 also so will keep us updated. The 3' 6" conclusion on my above edit seems hard to argue against indeed.

 

 

There's another photo here that may help (or hinder) if you want to try and measure.

 

http://www.lindal-in-furness.co.uk/RailPhotos/FR36.jpg

! What a god idea, why didn't I think of that? I have the picture already. Ok, crude Paint edit coming up......

 

If anyone wants to have a go at GIMP please do.

[Jol Wilkinson]

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

Paul,

 

my design credentials (such as they are) have given me an understanding of the design and manufacturing processes involved in producing kits.

 

3D printing is undoubtedly here to stay but it isn't yet the best across the board technique for producing good quality models, especially when surface finish is important. I've seen some appalling examples being touted as good models.

 

However, first and foremost I am a model maker and I have learned over many years its best to use whatever kit design gives the results I want. That's why I have used etched, laser cut, etc. kits. From what I have seen, 3D isn't there yet. I think though that it is seen by many as the Holy Grail of easy model creation, especially by those who don't/haven't recognised it's current limitations.

 

Don't forget also that etching and lost wax investment casting are low volume production techniques and can be relatively low cost. You need to be able to draw in 2D, nowadays using software programmes such as CorelDraw or Illustrator. 3D printing requires the ability to use a 3D software program, which is, in my experience not so easy as 2D.

 

Jol

Edited December 31, 2015 by LNWRmodeller

[BG John]

Grovenor on Scalefour suggested using GIMP too so it might be the way to go.Is it possible for you to have a go and post the results? I only as I've never used GIMP before and if you know what you are doing it'd be easier. 

Martin Wynn wrote a useful piece about doing it here, which is where I started from. I'd like to help, but as I'm on a bit of a roll with my own projects at the moment, I can't risk losing the plot by getting distracted I'm afraid. The Cambrian doesn't fit into any of my modelling plans, even though the date is about right!

[Knuckles]

Fair enough you two.

 

Update, I've took the above suggested photographs of a Furness K2 and done the same Pain bodge...

 

This picture...

 

 

Was first imported into Photoshop and twisted anti clockwise slightly in attempt to get it more level.

 

The thick red bar under the running plate has no pixels visible meaning it is straight, so the photograph is almost straight.

 

After that I did the same things as before, only I measured the driving wheels axle to axle and also the rods to get a back up measurement.

 

Result?

 

 

 

The same as on the Cambrian edit above.

 

5’ 9” + 6’ 8” + 8’ 3”

 

Although like the Cambrian I think maybe the last dim' should be 8' 6".

 

On this edit however the bogeys are less than 6' but I wouldn't say 5' 9"

 

As for bogey wheel diameter, we have the 3' 6" again - the bigger ones.

 

See what you think, I'll pop back later.

Edited December 31, 2015 by Knuckles

[ChrisN]

Knuckles,

I have tried to measure on other photos which are not exactly side views and my results are variable.  Given that you have got within 3" of he final length where the prospective will be more shortened I would go with 8' 6".

[Knuckles]

Knuckles,

I have tried to measure on other photos which are not exactly side views and my results are variable.  Given that you have got within 3" of he final length where the prospective will be more shortened I would go with 8' 6".

Aye, as I said on Scalefour...

 

 

 

 

The Furness K2 model I have currently is modelled with a wheelbase of

 

5’ 9” + 6’ 8” + 8’ 6”

 

As my two Paint bodges seem to give the same result above if you ignore the last reading being less than 8'6" and put that down to perspective and as you and another on RMweb (That's you ChrisN!) seems to have come to the conclusion that this is the correct wheelbase, coupled with me also being lead to believe the same I might go with it.

 

The K2 model has that wheelbase but is designed to be used with 3' wheels. I already have made the Cambrian chassis which are basically the same only they have been made to work with the 3'6" wheels instead. If this is all sound then I'll just need to modify the instructions and maybe the chassis names and that way it will give everyone the choice of what Bogey wheels to use. A chassis for the 3' wheels can be made to fit larger wheels with a little filing of parts, no biggy, or use the larger one when it is available.

 

I am going to wait and see if I get an email reply from the HMRS and see if anyone here or RMweb has any more suggestions or knowledge that can be collated into a cohesive dough, then I'll cook it and let you know how it all tastes. Then I can sell some cakes. :thumb

 

 

EDIT: Just to quote myself from earlier...

 

 

 

 

Additional Issue: For the tender I have different sources with different wheelbases too. So far it is a toss up between 6' 3", 6'6", and 6' perfectly. The model is 6' 3" but currently on hold due to these issues.

The model is designed with the 3'6" tender wheels, but other sources are saying 3'10" and another even larger than 3'6" so I'm drinking whisky.

 

I'm on tea now, anyway. This is the other issue that to me is a pig but unless something more solid can be evidenced then I will not change the model. To my eye it looks right and is the right height with the wheels.

 

with the 6' 3" + 6' 3" wheelbase If it is wrong then it will be 1mm wrong and 2 after accumulation.

 

If I change it to a 6' 0" + 6' 0" or 6' 6" + 6' 6" wheelbase and it is wrong it will be 4mm's wrong after accumulation so going in between seems good.

I've had similar issues with the length of the smokebox. Some drawings scale at 10mm's, some at 13mm's, some somewhere in between. Model is 11.5mm's as a median and looks good to my eye, no one has whinged yet.

 

If I do finally decide on all the above then it won't suit some but we do the best we can. Can't please everyone!

 

Either way I think this is the first time a FR K2 and soon a Class 61 has been available in 4mm (I may be wrong) so it should be good news even If there are a few issues according to some sources. Hopefully they will be well received, so far people seem happy that they can have one.

 

Edited December 31, 2015 by Knuckles

[Grovenor]

The Furness tender wheels are all given as 3'10" by Mike Peascod and the photo of No 36 would support that, they are certainly bigger than the bogie wheels.

Regards

[Knuckles]

The Furness tender wheels are all given as 3'10" by Mike Peascod and the photo of No 36 would support that, they are certainly bigger than the bogie wheels.

Regards

'Ello

 

I have that drawing, but also the other ones that read differently. The wheels on the picture above look the same size or maybe a tad bigger than the bogeys, but if we say they are the same or bigger then what would you say to the Furness K2 Paint bodge up that clearly show the loco' with 3' 6" wheels? According to this photograph at least what you are saying doesn't seem to align so well. As I think it is safe to say this picture at least shows the 3' 6" bogeys then the tender wheels that look either the same or bigger can't only be 3'0". Seem fair? They must be 3'6" or 3'10" but I'm currently unsure.

 

This is why there could have been genuine variation in reality....or some drawings are wrong.

 

EDIT: For others, this is the photograph we are referencing.

 

The Paint edit can be seen by scrolling above.

Edited December 31, 2015 by Knuckles

[PaulR]

Paul,

 

my design credentials (such as they are) have given me an understanding of the design and manufacturing processes involved in producing kits.

 

3D printing is undoubtedly here to stay but it isn't yet the best across the board technique for producing good quality models, especially when surface finish is important. I've seen some appalling examples being touted as good models.

 

However, first and foremost I am a model maker and I have learned over many years its best to use whatever kit design gives the results I want. That's why I have used etched, laser cut, etc. kits. From what I have seen, 3D isn't there yet. I think though that it is seen by many as the Holy Grail of easy model creation, especially by those who don't/haven't recognised it's current limitations.

 

Don't forget also that etching and lost wax investment casting are low volume production techniques and can be relatively low cost. You need to be able to draw in 2D, nowadays using software programmes such as CorelDraw or Illustrator. 3D printing requires the ability to use a 3D software program, which is, in my experience not so easy as 2D.

 

Jol

All of what you say above is perfectly true but Knuckles made the point that 3D printed models are much easier to put together, which is undeniable and of course they are easy to produce in other scales at the touch of a button

[PaulR]

Could you please prove this? Why the different wheelbases and wheel sizes if nothijg changed? And again which wheelbases and sizes.

 

It is indeed a pain.

 

I'll look into the website you mentioned. A few places are cheaper than Shaoeways but their shop options arn't always viable. Will take a look though.

W H Osborne stated that the locos were designed with input from the Cambrian loco superintendent (Rly Modeller August 1966). As to the discrepancies, some drawings may state measurements and others may be drawings only and mistakes may have been made by those measuring them over the years. Incidentally, the tender wheelbase  dimensions I have are 6' 6" + 6' 6" (Osborne and Rush). I am pretty sure the tender wheels were 3' 6". You have explored the options so thoroughly that no one can complain about your final decisions. At least everyone seems to agree the driving wheels are 6' 0"!

[Knuckles]

All of what you say above is perfectly true but Knuckles made the point that 3D printed models are much easier to put together, which is undeniable and of course they are easy to produce in other scales at the touch of a button

Lol, not quite the tough of a button, but I know what you mean. Up scaling to 7mm etc also behoves one to look at axle hole size, material thickness either to thicken or thin...but other than that it isn't too hard no. Buying one is another story due to cost though.

 

 

W H Osborne stated that the locos were designed with input from the Cambrian loco superintendent (Rly Modeller August 1966). As to the discrepancies, some drawings may state measurements and others may be drawings only and mistakes may have been made by those measuring them over the years. Incidentally, the tender wheelbase dimensions I have are 6' 6" + 6' 6" (Osborne and Rush). I am pretty sure the tender wheels were 3' 6". You have explored the options so thoroughly that no one can complain about your final decisions. At least everyone seems to agree the driving wheels are 6' 0"

 

Yeah, I'm trying my hardest to nail this one down. I feel strongly that those two picture edits have helped things and I'll soon re-release everything as some items have been on lockdown because of it. Good news is the few who already brought the K2 and chassis don't have to worry, unless they want the bigger wheels in which case may I introduce you to Mr File.

 

If you are adamant that the conclusion is wrong here's your chance to prove me wrong (taking into account the WHOLE thread) before I go ahead and take action. It isn't about being right or wrong, rather establishing truth and I'll bend to a solid argument.

Edited December 31, 2015 by Knuckles

[PaulR]

Lol, not quite the tough of a button, but I know what you mean. Up scaling to 7mm etc also behoves one to look at axle hole size, material thickness either to thicken or thin...but other than that it isn't too hard no. Buying one is another story due to cost though.

 

 

 

 

Yeah, I'm trying my hardest to nail this one down. I feel strongly that those two picture edits have helped things and I'll soon re-release everything as some items have been on lockdown because of it. Good news is the few who already brought the K2 and chassis don't have to worry, unless they want the bigger wheels in which case may I introduce you to Mr File.

 

If you are adamant that the conclusion is wrong here's your chance to prove me wrong (taking into account the WHOLE thread) before I go ahead and take action. It isn't about being right or wrong, rather establishing truth and I'll bend to a solid argument.

As far as I am concerned, a milimetre or so between friends is of no consequence. I would certainly buy your K2 if I did not already have one. As to wheel sizes, people are free to make their own minds up and use accordingly. Mention here of the splashers on the bogie: the Furness found them to be a nuisance on their permanent way and took them off; I have no knowledge of whether or not the Cambrian did the same. They also did this with the K1. Then of course they tried a phoenix superheater..... unsuccessfully

[PaulR]

Lol, not quite the tough of a button, but I know what you mean. Up scaling to 7mm etc also behoves one to look at axle hole size, material thickness either to thicken or thin...but other than that it isn't too hard no. Buying one is another story due to cost though.

 

 

 

 

Yeah, I'm trying my hardest to nail this one down. I feel strongly that those two picture edits have helped things and I'll soon re-release everything as some items have been on lockdown because of it. Good news is the few who already brought the K2 and chassis don't have to worry, unless they want the bigger wheels in which case may I introduce you to Mr File.

 

If you are adamant that the conclusion is wrong here's your chance to prove me wrong (taking into account the WHOLE thread) before I go ahead and take action. It isn't about being right or wrong, rather establishing truth and I'll bend to a solid argument.

Seen the cost of a 7mm kit recently?

[PaulR]

Seen the cost of a 7mm kit recently?

I think you are right about the bogie wheels being 3' 6". The photos are undeniable and I have looked through my Furness ones. They also used the same size on the K3 and K4. Any chance of those being produced?