Jump to content
 
  • entries
    73
  • comments
    494
  • views
    77,703

Travelling in Style

richbrummitt

Entry posted by richbrummitt

1,261 views

 Share

Apologies for anyone who's been holding their breath: this entry has been a while because I keep getting distracted any time I come on rmweb and run out of time before I get to updating this. Sorry.

 

This expands on a thread in the 3D Printing and CAD group on my experiment in 3D printing model railway items. I have a job that uses a 3D CAD system extensively so I have a 'leg up' (as one person kindly put it) on the skills required to create a file for printing. Having used similar technology for prototypes in this job I was somewhat sceptical about what could be achieved when asking for much smaller details on much smaller models. I chose a passenger cattle box (BEETLE) as a prototype because it has many different types of feature on the body; layering, planking, louvres, strapping, panels &c. Here it is when it first arrived from Shapeways in FUD (frosted ultra detail).

 

med_gallery_8031_1829_47835.jpg

 

There is a small hole where some of the louvre has broken away during the cleaning process. Below in black after a quick blast from the aerosol, which may make it a bit easier to see the detail (possibly not?).

 

med_gallery_8031_1829_144798.jpg

 

The smallest details are 0.1mm - the width between the planks on the ends. The layers are multiples of 0.125mm so that it matches up with etched construction, which in 2mm scale is almost always in 0.010" material and so matches with half etch.

 

I was pleased with the outcome and so I continued to make the chassis. I was (un)fortunate enough to have a fair few Siphon underframes spare from test etches and mistakes that I cut and shut to 16'0" wheelbase with the aid of a chassis assembly jig from the association 2-312 RCH W irons fret. The brake blocks fold up from the W irons in this case so I was off to a good start. It still left a lot of bits to find. These vehicles are particularly busy underneath because they have central steps plus one at each corner, door bangers under the doors for the beasts, vacuum cylinder, and the longitudinal gas cylinder for lighting the drovers compartment!

 

As can be seen I included the headstocks in the body. The solebars were added from nickel silver strip with wire soldered along the base to represent the bulb. The steps were made as previously on the milk brake with some extra holes in the jig

 

med_gallery_8031_1829_311891.jpg

 

The central footboards are very short, like on a horsebox. The brass wire holds the brass angle down in the jig to leave as many hands free as possible for orienting the stirrups (nickel silver wire), holding the soldering iron &c.

 

med_gallery_8031_1829_143727.jpg

 

This is what the component parts look like before assembly, and after cleaning up. There's no 1p, but the cutting mat should give an idea of size.

 

Parts from various other sources were added until all the prominent items were present. The gas cylinder was mounted on a wireform as previously for the milk brake. There was a particularly scary moment soldering the door bangers in place once the whitemetal castings for the axle boxes and springs had been added where these could not be fitted afterwards.

 

med_gallery_8031_1829_327145.jpg

 

Here a top and bottom view of the chassis and a further picture of the bodies test fitted on them.

 

med_gallery_8031_1829_225936.jpg

 

Not the clearest photograph I'm afraid. It was at this point I realised that I had missed some items off the bodies. A pair of T stanchions from the ends and the water tank in the roof that was present on the early ones. (The models are meant to represent a pair from the first batch of diagram W7.)

 

Now these details are added and the handrails and headstock details fitted they are ready for some more paint.

 

med_gallery_8031_1829_48573.jpg

 

I'm not sure what colour they should be? I thought they would have been lake in the early 20's but Atkins et al. GWR goods wagons 3rd Ed. seems to suggest that they would still have been grey until the grouping. Hmmm.

  • Like 7
 Share

10 Comments

Recommended Comments

Gingerbread

Richard

 

Personally I would vote for brown from about 1916 onwards, previously grey (based on my 1986 copy of Atkins et al, which I presume to be 2nd edition).

 

"Goods wagons which often travelled in passenger trains, such as BLOATERS and BEETLES, were painted brown with ochre lettering during, and after World War I ... Although the introduction of brown livery for some goods stock has been identified with the World War I period of brown coaching stock, photographs demonstrate that some vehicles were already so painted before 1914."

 

The first 20 (Lot 639 of 1909-10) would presumably have been initially painted in grey, and would have been due for repainting about five years later, namely around 1914-15. I am guessing that the repaint would have been delayed a bit due to wartime, say to 1916, and thus to have fallen into the "brown" period. Stretching to Grouping before the repaint looks unlikely, but I don't really know how much delay was caused by the War and its aftermath.

 

David

Link to comment
  • RMweb Gold
Mikkel
  • RMweb Gold

Wow! I know absolutely nothing about 3D printing, but something like this really shows the potential. I'm particularly impressed by your modelling of the underframes though, they are works of art. That photo of the underframes is really impressive, I think.

 

David's reasoning on the livery makes a lot of sense.

 

For the record, Slinn's GW Way (original version), p 84 states that "in the middle of the first war" fish, fruit trucks and special cattle wagons were transferred to the passenger list and "re-numbered and re-painted".

 

Whether this was then to lake or brown is less clear. He says it is not certain if all brown stock did in fact receive lake. He says that horse boxes, carriage trucks, possibly early Bloaters and re-numbered Tadpoles "probably did" but is not sure about Siphons. But by "the middle of the first war" I think its safe to assume that fresh painting of lake had been abandoned.

 

So for the early 20s, I would also say brown.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
  • RMweb Gold
Donw
  • RMweb Gold

That is very impressive Rich. As Mikkel says the underframes are superb.

Don

Link to comment
richbrummitt

Thank you all for your kind words. The pictures have been sat in the gallery waiting for me to pull them all together and put some more words to them. Previous requests for a magazine article have been forwarded to the editor, which will hopefully please 2mm types, especially those that don't frequent RMweb. If nothing else it will keep the editor in print!

 

 

More painting has to wait until the weather decides what to do (there was snow here for much of yesterday) because the spray booth is the back garden. I'll probably go for brown with new numbers, despite what it says in the much expanded Atkins et al. In the middle of WWI seems like a daft time to have a major renumbering and repainting scheme and looking back a century on with virtually no knowledge I imagine there was huge chance for an extended mix up of events.

 

Following on from this success I am finishing the model for a Mink F, which now just requires the bogie mountings and buffers adding to see how reliable the process can be for larger flat surfaces.

Link to comment
scanman

Hi Richard -

First chance I've had to comment. Superb! Who did you use for the printing?

 

I've been following the '3D printing' group on & off - it's an area U want to develop personally but it's going to have to wait until I retire before I can rally get stuck in.

 

Now if they were only available through the 'Shop'...G>

 

Regs

 

Ian

  • Like 1
Link to comment
richbrummitt
Now if they were only available through the 'Shop'...

 

Shop, which shop? I used shapeways FUD but I had multiple parts built in the same model to meet the minimum order value in the most economic way so I haven't offered them in the shapeways store because I couldn't imagine that anyone else would commit to that many at a time.

Link to comment
Gingerbread

I have to express a dissenting view here. Whilst the 3-d printed body is excellent, I can't approve of the underframe...

 

As justification for this view, I confess that I have the "other" body from the batch that Richard had printed. Having looked at the amazingly detailed underframe he has made for it, he has set the bar much too high for me, so mine will remain unfinished (or at least well out of public view) to avoid comparison with his models... :)

 

Excellent work Richard

 

David

  • Like 1
Link to comment
richbrummitt

Sorry David.

 

Thank you also. I spend far too long on things (and continue to do so on the 5 horsebox underframes that are following). I estimate about 20 hours for this pair. At that kind of pace I probably have enough UFOs for many lifetimes of this hobby. When painted black, as long as the 'lumps and bumps' are about right you can't see that it's wrong. For example my siphons have far less underframe detail (although the reality is sparse in comparison) with just brakes and no linkages and a piece of tube for a vac. cylinder and they look just fine too. I must strike a balance :yes:

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...