Jump to content




Photo

TurboSnail's Workbench - 3D printing, RTR detailing and general bodging - SECR F Class

3d printing SECR SE&CR pre-grouping kit




  • Please log in to reply
136 replies to this topic

#1 TurboSnail

TurboSnail

    Member


  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 273 posts
  • Location404: not found

Posted 13 June 2018 - 10:35

To save myself keeping too many plates spinning at once, I thought I'd start a workbench thread for my future projects and 3D printed locos. My other threads will run their course (notably the R/R1 chassis thread) but I'll start putting stuff on here rather than start making more new threads, such as 3D printed locos, modifying and detailing of RTR products, layout progress and maybe the occasional digression into non-pre-grouping stuff (gasp! surely not!). 

 

For the first project on this thread, it's a 3D printed loco kit, my first attempt at making a basic mixed-media kit - more details to follow but for now...

 

Can you tell what it is yet?

 

1.JPG


Edited by TurboSnail, 14 June 2018 - 09:08 .

  • Like x 4
  • Craftsmanship/Clever x 1



#2 sem34090

sem34090

    Member


  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 2,180 posts
  • LocationWhere Summer comes soonest...

Posted 13 June 2018 - 11:33

Ahem?

401070.jpg

If so YES, YES and YES! Another off my list...


  • Like x 4
  • Agree x 2

#3 Gareth Collier

Gareth Collier

    Member


  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 223 posts

Posted 13 June 2018 - 11:57

And then shoot it down to N :)


  • Agree x 2

#4 TurboSnail

TurboSnail

    Member


  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 273 posts
  • Location404: not found

Posted 13 June 2018 - 14:25

One internet point awarded to Sem for a correct guess there, and also for helpfully providing a useful side-on shot that helped me identify part of the underframe that isn't on my drawings. 

 

I'm drawing it in 4mm scale, so I can get nice and close to the minimum wall thickness guidelines for 3D printing, which means a conversion to N will involve some modification of the model rather than just a straightforward rescale - but I'm perfectly happy to do it if there's demand once the OO one is finished.


  • Like x 3

#5 CarriageShed

CarriageShed

    Member


  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 121 posts
  • LocationSomerset

Posted 14 June 2018 - 08:09

Well, if it would fit on something like a Union Mills T9 loco chassis with tender drive in N then I'd be interested too. Fabricating my own chassis is way beyond my skills.


  • Like x 1

#6 TurboSnail

TurboSnail

    Member


  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 273 posts
  • Location404: not found

Posted 14 June 2018 - 09:07

Well, if it would fit on something like a Union Mills T9 loco chassis with tender drive in N then I'd be interested too. Fabricating my own chassis is way beyond my skills.

The OO version will have a 3D printed chassis so I don't have to bother with all the alignment problems of scratchbuilding one, but I don't know how that would work in N as I don't have experience of motors and gearboxes that small. The reason I'm not going for an RTR chassis in OO is that there is nothing very close, the F class has a very distinctive short wheelbase and large bogie wheels that doesn't match any RTR chassis I could find information for. The difference would probably be less obvious in N though.


  • Informative/Useful x 2
  • Agree x 1

#7 Edwardian

Edwardian

    Member


  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 7,671 posts
  • LocationLand of the Prince Bishops

Posted 14 June 2018 - 11:26

This is good news indeed.

 

Personally, I could not be more delighted that you are tackling this subject, but I think more generally it is a significant prototype to choose; it nicely fills a gap between the smaller SE&CR locos available both RTR and as white metal kits, and the Ds and Es, which are both available as white metal kits.  Judging from the albums, the Fs/F1s were something of a mainstay of mainline secondary passenger services on SER lines, and turned up on branches lines, too.

 

I agree that a printed chassis, perhaps in BSF, is a good idea of a 4mm version, because, as you say, there are no suitable donor RTR chassis available for the coupled wheels size and wheelbase.

 

For the loco body and tender, I suggest the best finish possible.

 

Should you wish, you can ultimately sell to me 3-4 kits, if an F1 body is also produced.  Probably x1 F and x2-3 F1s.

 

Your next mission, if you choose to accept it (!), would be an O Class body and tender, to fit the Hornby J15 chassis (no idea if this is feasible, BTW!)

 

I wish you well with this project and eagerly await developments.


  • Agree x 2
  • Like x 1

#8 TurboSnail

TurboSnail

    Member


  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 273 posts
  • Location404: not found

Posted 14 June 2018 - 12:17

This is good news indeed.

 

Personally, I could not be more delighted that you are tackling this subject, but I think more generally it is a significant prototype to choose; it nicely fills a gap between the smaller SE&CR locos available both RTR and as white metal kits, and the Ds and Es, which are both available as white metal kits.  Judging from the albums, the Fs/F1s were something of a mainstay of mainline secondary passenger services on SER lines, and turned up on branches lines, too.

 

I agree that a printed chassis, perhaps in BSF, is a good idea of a 4mm version, because, as you say, there are no suitable donor RTR chassis available for the coupled wheels size and wheelbase.

 

For the loco body and tender, I suggest the best finish possible.

 

Should you wish, you can ultimately sell to me 3-4 kits, if an F1 body is also produced.  Probably x1 F and x2-3 F1s.

 

Your next mission, if you choose to accept it (!), would be an O Class body and tender, to fit the Hornby J15 chassis (no idea if this is feasible, BTW!)

 

I wish you well with this project and eagerly await developments.

 

Regarding the finish, I have a plan (more details in due course) based around using tube and sheet as well as the 3D printed bits, maybe even getting some stuff laser-cut. The feasibility of this will become clear once I have more of the CAD work done. The chassis will almost certainly be in WS&F, or whatever Shapeways are calling it now, as it has worked very nicely on my R and R1 class chassis, although the front bogie makes it a bit more complicated.

 

A rebuilt F1 version isn't as straightforward as it might seem as it needs a completely different boiler and cab and significant alterations to the smokebox, but I think I will give it a go as it gives an excuse to use them right into BR days. Also, once I have an F1, all I have to do is produce a different tender style and I have a B1, as they were virtually identical after rebuilds.


  • Thanks x 1
  • Informative/Useful x 1

#9 Edwardian

Edwardian

    Member


  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 7,671 posts
  • LocationLand of the Prince Bishops

Posted 14 June 2018 - 12:48

Regarding the finish, I have a plan (more details in due course) based around using tube and sheet as well as the 3D printed bits, maybe even getting some stuff laser-cut. The feasibility of this will become clear once I have more of the CAD work done. The chassis will almost certainly be in WS&F, or whatever Shapeways are calling it now, as it has worked very nicely on my R and R1 class chassis, although the front bogie makes it a bit more complicated.

 

A rebuilt F1 version isn't as straightforward as it might seem as it needs a completely different boiler and cab and significant alterations to the smokebox, but I think I will give it a go as it gives an excuse to use them right into BR days. Also, once I have an F1, all I have to do is produce a different tender style and I have a B1, as they were virtually identical after rebuilds.

 

Very interesting.

 

I think there is much to be said for a mixed media approach, reflecting the pros and cons of different materials.

 

An exciting prospect.


  • Agree x 2

#10 sem34090

sem34090

    Member


  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 2,180 posts
  • LocationWhere Summer comes soonest...

Posted 14 June 2018 - 13:12

I've said it before but perhaps this is worth a try: https://www.3dhubs.com/service/ivan3d ?

 

Cheaper, smoother and they accepted my 'Derwent' CAD so your (better done and slightly bulkier) CAD should be fine.


  • Informative/Useful x 1
  • Agree x 1

#11 AVS1998

AVS1998

    Member


  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 513 posts
  • LocationSoutheast.

Posted 14 June 2018 - 14:05

     This looks jolly exciting! An F1, B1 and potentially an O/O1 with accurate chassis sounds brilliant. I'm down for all!


  • Agree x 2

#12 CarriageShed

CarriageShed

    Member


  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 121 posts
  • LocationSomerset

Posted 14 June 2018 - 16:16

...The reason I'm not going for an RTR chassis in OO is that there is nothing very close, the F class has a very distinctive short wheelbase and large bogie wheels that doesn't match any RTR chassis I could find information for. The difference would probably be less obvious in N though.

 

Out of interest, what are the size of the wheels for the Class F? And distances between them too? It may be worth comparing them against an RTR chassis in N, just in case.


  • Like x 1

#13 RedGemAlchemist

RedGemAlchemist

    Member


  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,081 posts
  • LocationGreat Ellingham, Norfolk, England

Posted 14 June 2018 - 16:19

Nice work, TS! You have my full support! This is going to be awesome.
  • Agree x 2
  • Thanks x 1

#14 Edwardian

Edwardian

    Member


  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 7,671 posts
  • LocationLand of the Prince Bishops

Posted 14 June 2018 - 16:38

Out of interest, what are the size of the wheels for the Class F? And distances between them too? It may be worth comparing them against an RTR chassis in N, just in case.

 

When introduced, this was a 'flyer', designed as a fast 'Mails' engine to compete with the LC&DR, so it has 7' drivers (at 8'6" centres).


  • Informative/Useful x 2

#15 TurboSnail

TurboSnail

    Member


  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 273 posts
  • Location404: not found

Posted 14 June 2018 - 18:47

I'm surprised so many people are interested in this! Not complaining though :)

 

I've said it before but perhaps this is worth a try: https://www.3dhubs.com/service/ivan3d ?

 

Cheaper, smoother and they accepted my 'Derwent' CAD so your (better done and slightly bulkier) CAD should be fine.

Hm. I'm not sure I entirely trust 3DHubs - I have a friend who used to be a 'hub' for them, who suddenly stopped receiving work. Turns out they'd just started sending work to the hubs who gave them the highest commission. But if it's better quality I would be tempted to give it a go, depends how big the price difference is.

 

     This looks jolly exciting! An F1, B1 and potentially an O/O1 with accurate chassis sounds brilliant. I'm down for all!

Hey wait, I didn't realise I'd signed up to all of those!


  • Friendly/Supportive x 2
  • Like x 1

#16 CarriageShed

CarriageShed

    Member


  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 121 posts
  • LocationSomerset

Posted 14 June 2018 - 22:15

When introduced, this was a 'flyer', designed as a fast 'Mails' engine to compete with the LC&DR, so it has 7' drivers (at 8'6" centres).

 

The T9 has six feet seven driving wheels, so it's not far off. Not sure about the wheel spacing but, visually, the photo of the real thing seems comparable enough for N.


  • Informative/Useful x 1

#17 Skinnylinny

Skinnylinny

    Member


  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 776 posts
  • LocationEdinburgh

Posted 14 June 2018 - 22:21

From memory, the T9 driving wheels are spaced at 10' centres, so quite a difference in appearance!
  • Informative/Useful x 1

#18 Edwardian

Edwardian

    Member


  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 7,671 posts
  • LocationLand of the Prince Bishops

Posted 15 June 2018 - 05:26

From memory, the T9 driving wheels are spaced at 10' centres, so quite a difference in appearance!

 

Yes, 6'7" wheels at 10'

 

EDIT: I'll add that the combination of larger wheels with a relatively short wheel base gives the Fs a rather 'high-stepping' appearance to my eyes. 

 

No RTR chassis come close to this look.  

 

Having said that, one possibility might be to re-wheel a RTR Adams Radial chassis, replacing the 5'7" wheels with, say, 7' Romfords.

 

An initial investigation suggests that neither Hornby's nor Oxford's chassis would be ideal.  As is well-known, the Oxford chassis suffers from a lack of daylight under the boiler. Regarding Hornby, the picture in this post (http://www.rmweb.co....sues/?p=2406899) suggests that the engine block extends into the side tank area, so query if this could be readily removed.

 

Query the Hornby axle diameter and compatibility with Romfords or Gibsons.  

 

Query compatible Hornby 7' drivers (several Hornby 6'7" classes come to mind, but no 7' classes). 

 

The good news here is that, unless the boiler wall diameter of Tom's model is particularly thick, anything that fits within either Radial's boiler ought to fit into that of an F.  The Radial has a 4'2" diameter boiler pitched at 7'.  The F, being designed as an express engine, not a suburban tank, is, unsurprisingly, more generous, with a 4'4" diameter boiler pitched at 7'5".  If anything, the Radial's gubbins might sit a tad too low for an easy fit

 

Thus, I table the motion that these possible chassis options are worth investigation.  I also suggest, however, that Tom develops a separate chassis as planned (as he says in WSF or, as I suggested, BlackSF) so that customers have a choice whether to motorise using this or to adapt a proprietary chassis, assuming the latter is a viable option.


Edited by Edwardian, 15 June 2018 - 08:05 .

  • Informative/Useful x 1

#19 TurboSnail

TurboSnail

    Member


  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 273 posts
  • Location404: not found

Posted 15 June 2018 - 09:04

The good news here is that, unless the boiler wall diameter of Tom's model is particularly thick, anything that fits within either Radial's boiler ought to fit into that of an F.  The Radial has a 4'2" diameter boiler pitched at 7'.  The F, being designed as an express engine, not a suburban tank, is, unsurprisingly, more generous, with a 4'4" diameter boiler pitched at 7'5".  If anything, the Radial's gubbins might sit a tad too low for an easy fit

 

Thus, I table the motion that these possible chassis options are worth investigation.  I also suggest, however, that Tom develops a separate chassis as planned (as he says in WSF or, as I suggested, BlackSF) so that customers have a choice whether to motorise using this or to adapt a proprietary chassis, assuming the latter is a viable option.

 

Currently I plan to use 18mm plastic tube for the boiler, which has a 1mm wall thickness - this is oversized by about 2" (or 0.6mm in scale) - so any motors etc. should be less than 16mm wide. 

 

Unfortunately I don't have the budget to buy RTR chassis to test. My issue with rewheeling one is that the wheels are by far the most expensive part of the model, so if you buy an RTR chassis on top of that it's going to get very expensive. For example, my R1 chassis (fully motorised) without wheels costs about £20, the wheels are another £25 extra and there are far fewer of them on an R class than an F class!

 

That said, if someone does have a chassis they want to try, I would be happy to modify the loco body to fit. Maybe there's something to be said for a mechanism designed by a professional over one designed by me! But I am a mechanical engineer(ing student) so I shouldn't be too awful...


  • Informative/Useful x 2

#20 Edwardian

Edwardian

    Member


  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 7,671 posts
  • LocationLand of the Prince Bishops

Posted 15 June 2018 - 09:38

Currently I plan to use 18mm plastic tube for the boiler, which has a 1mm wall thickness - this is oversized by about 2" (or 0.6mm in scale) - so any motors etc. should be less than 16mm wide. 

 

Unfortunately I don't have the budget to buy RTR chassis to test. My issue with rewheeling one is that the wheels are by far the most expensive part of the model, so if you buy an RTR chassis on top of that it's going to get very expensive. For example, my R1 chassis (fully motorised) without wheels costs about £20, the wheels are another £25 extra and there are far fewer of them on an R class than an F class!

 

That said, if someone does have a chassis they want to try, I would be happy to modify the loco body to fit. Maybe there's something to be said for a mechanism designed by a professional over one designed by me! But I am a mechanical engineer(ing student) so I shouldn't be too awful...

 

You are quite right. It would be more expensive. Peter K produce (well, advertise) a GER No.1 Class, but just the etches.  I worked out what it would cost to buy the etches, source all the castings and the motor, gears and wheels etc.  It came out at about the same as buying the etches, the castings, the leading and tender wheels and a RTR chassis that I could adapt.   Here, though, I would have been able to retain the RTR driving wheels, as these were the correct diameter.

 

Once you add replacement coupled wheels, you are likely to make things more expensive than assembling all the components necessary for a completely kit-built alternative. 

 

With wheels, axles, crank pins, I find £30 can easily be added to the cost of a 6-wheeled loco. I estimate that to re-wheel the Radial chassis with Romfords would cost in excess of £25, certainly if including etched balance weights etc. 

 

Then, of course, you still have the bogie and tender wheels - the Radial saves you nothing here - though you'd need to buy these anyhow.  

 

The point is that 3D printed chassis in WSF/BSF, motor, mount, gear box, and all wheels/axles/crank pins/rods/bearings etc, is likely to be cheaper than RTR chassis plus all wheels/axles/crank pins/bearings etc.  The only thing you'd save on would be the rods, and your bits box would love you for the conversion, of course.

 

You could certainly motorise your kit yourself for less. Some might, however, prefer to use a proprietary chassis as an easier alternative, and, perhaps, a more reliable one (albeit one no longer under warranty!).

 

EDIT: For clarity, I mean more reliable than some people may feel they could build, and I do not intend to cast aspersions on your design for motorising.  Indeed, it may be that you can plan a relatively easy and user-friendly means to build this.

 

I would welcome this, as I'm likely to want more than one, and cost is a factor. 


Edited by Edwardian, 15 June 2018 - 09:44 .

  • Like x 2

#21 Wickham Green

Wickham Green

    Member


  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,351 posts

Posted 15 June 2018 - 14:18

     This looks jolly exciting! An F1, B1 and potentially an O/O1 with accurate chassis sounds brilliant. I'm down for all!

What have you got against the 'A' class ??!?


  • Funny x 1

#22 AVS1998

AVS1998

    Member


  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 513 posts
  • LocationSoutheast.

Posted 15 June 2018 - 15:05

What have you got against the 'A' class ??!?

 

     Nothing! :P


  • Like x 1

#23 Edwardian

Edwardian

    Member


  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 7,671 posts
  • LocationLand of the Prince Bishops

Posted 15 June 2018 - 16:12

What have you got against the 'A' class ??!?

 

Nothing!

Attached Thumbnails

  • DSCN3010.JPG

  • Like x 2

#24 sem34090

sem34090

    Member


  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 2,180 posts
  • LocationWhere Summer comes soonest...

Posted 15 June 2018 - 16:18

Nothing!

119774.jpg


  • Like x 2

#25 MGR Hooper!

MGR Hooper!

    Member


  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,910 posts
  • LocationAUSTRALIA

Posted 15 June 2018 - 16:29

I've said it before but perhaps this is worth a try: https://www.3dhubs.com/service/ivan3d ?

 

Cheaper, smoother and they accepted my 'Derwent' CAD so your (better done and slightly bulkier) CAD should be fine.

I second the suggestion to try Ivan. And note that Ivan can be contacted personally and you don't have to rely on the 3DHUBS network (as someone has stated issues with them). I've now been chatting with Ivan for more than a week and he's been more than helpful. I work with the now useless SketchUp and the software seems to have issues everywhere. Ivan has been helping me more than ever.

As much as I enjoy running my shop on Shapeways I really hate ordering from them. And I am looking elsewhere.

Do give Ivan a try. He's really a genuine and helpful person.


  • Informative/Useful x 1
  • Like x 1












Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: 3d, printing, SECR, SE&CR, pre-grouping, kit