TangoOscarMike

I tinkered with the chassis, and found that after a bit of backwards and forwards running, and a bit of oil, it started to move much more freely. It's still rather unreliable on track, and the pickups do not make contact with the back wheels. But when it does move it is rather brisk. So I've ordered another motor, with a higher gear ratio, and I'm crossing my fingers.

Still looks good, even though exploded!

Thus far, I have designed four conversions (side-tank, saddle-tank and two tender engines) for the outside-cylinder version of the chassis, and one tender engine for the inside-cylinder version. These are here and here (I haven't got around to making the streamliner available for sale yet). The outside cylinder tank engines simply use the existing cylinders, whereas the tender engines have wrappers around the cylinders. The tank engines are my earliest and least satisfactory designs. I'm hoping to replace them (hence the saddle tank above). Indeed. I could certainly violate my ban on chassis modification for these purposes (provided it did not alter the outside shape of the cylinders). The slot in the cylinder is quite large, so I think there is room in there for a 3D printed part, which could be the basis and anchor for the rest of the mechanism. I have produced a few sketches, but so far nothing more.

What you're showing here requires more skill, boldness and better resourcing than my reference pre-teen can muster. I know that some people (of all ages) can step straight into the hobby at this level and achieve a success, a failure and two successes in short order. But I regard this as fairly advanced modelling. My 12-year-old is, frankly, a bit gormless (I don't mind insulting him, because he's me!). Such people need a little bit more help dipping their toes in the water. And if everything (except glue and paint) comes in a single box, then their chances of success are much higher.

I should have said - "... the only R-T-R chassis that fits this description and is currently manufactured...". My target 12-year-old doesn't have the knowledge/experience/money/driving-license for scouring flea markets and Ebay for the right chassis, and maybe making a working chassis out of three non-runners. There are certainly some enterprising 12-year-olds who can do these things (and the Internet helps these days). But I'm aiming for the lowest common denominator: an un-enterprising 12-year-old living miles from the nearest shop (myself, in other words). From this perspective, a working chassis is a precious, scarce resource. Let us suppose that exactly one working chassis is available, and the number is permanent and fixed. The project must not require the modification of the chassis because: It must be possible to get back to the original working state with the original locomotive body. We must minimise the risk of turning the chassis into a non-runner. It is the combination of these factors and the price that make the Hornby 0-4-0 chassis the only option, from my perspective. But you're absolutely right - a (normal/traditional) chassis, with the motor completely between the wheels, would be far better. The basic form of this chassis is perfect. The Hornby Peckett chassis would be better, a low-end Hornby 0-6-0 chassis would be fine, a Bachmann Percy chassis would be fine. But all of these things are a step up in price (certainly when new) from the Holden and its cousins. If my hypothetical kit maker also supplied a chassis (sold separately) then all these problems would evaporate. One cheap-ish chassis, plus 4 cheap-ish modular superstructure kits (covering a few different locomotive types) could produce a couple of failures and a couple of nice working models. This would bring the whole activity back into model Spitfire territory "I made a mess of the paint job, but it doesn't really matter" versus "I took the wheels off, and now I can't get it working again".

I've been rummaging on google and found this. https://cults3d.com/en/3d-model/various/oo-ivor-the-engine

The problem, as I see it, is that there are plenty of resources for older (or more experienced) people, but nothing for a young (or inexperienced) modellers who want to dip a toe in the water. There are numerous inexpensive tank and aeroplane kits, but no railway model equivalents. The remaining Kitmaster/Airfix/Dapol kits are fine for producing static models, but motorising them is not for beginners. My stipulations for a beginner-friendly locomotive model kit are: It has to work on a proprietary motorised chassis (alternatively, a kit could include a working chassis). If a borrowed chassis is used, then as far as possible, it must be unmodified, so that the original body can be restored. People with reasonable incomes can buy plenty of second hand Smokey Joes, but people with only pocket money might not want to risk their one-and-only tank engine. If a borrowed chassis is used, then it must be as cheap as possible. Assembly must be straightforward - this suggests injection moulded polystyrene (and NOT whitemetal or etched brass!), but maybe other materials would be suitable. Painting must be manageable - ideally the kit would include waterslide transfers or similar, just like a 1/72 aeroplane kit. Unfortunately, the only R-T-R chassis that fits this description (somewhat) is the Hornby 0-4-0 Pug/101/etc. I say unfortunately because the motor mount is very wide, which makes it hard to design bodies (apart from side-tank bodies) that will fit. My 3D printed bodies are a step in this direction (and others have taken similar steps, both on Shapeways and elsewhere) but we are still a long way from anything that satisfies my 5 stipulations.

Thanks folks! Another advantage of having separate details is that the main body/structure could be printed at a relatively low quality, and the details printed at a high quality (fine resolution). And yes, I think it would make sense to have a modular kit with a variety of different build options. I think that Shapeways is a bit of a dead-end for my purposes. Removing details wouldn't reduce the cost, and having separate detail parts would of course increase the cost. What I would really like (to give to my 12-year-old self) would be an injection moulded kit along these lines. And maybe one day I will identify and approach a suitable manufacturer. Or approach someone who provides 3D prints of higher quality at a more favourable price. As for the bunker - I justified these dimensions to myself on the grounds that the Hornby Holden 101 (and the prototype, I believe) also had a very skinny bunker. But I agree that it looks a bit weird. Maybe I can enlarge it by a millimetre or two without making the footplate too small. In fact there are many shared elements between all my designs thus far. A lot of things get re-used with small adjustments. Thank you! I wanted it to be generic but with GWR leanings, and whenever I needed guidance I asked google for "GWR saddle tank" images. So if it looked like that to you, then I've succeeded. Failed prints are not much of a risk with Shapeways once the design is known to be printable. And I've made the details chunky to ensure that they can be printed in the low-resolution "Versatile Plastic". And this stuff it extremely strong - damage in transit is not a worry at all. That is the upside of the poor detail. Pilot holes or indentations - yes. As you say, I could easily make two versions, one with and one without. The Versatile Plastic (previously known as Strong and Flexible) has two related drawbacks - the inability to support fine detail, and the rough surface finish. For me (working down here at the "toy trains" end of the spectrum) the rough surface isn't all that bad. The poor detail is the worse problem. I have seen people filling and sanding to get a high quality finish (since this sometimes destroys what detail there is, this also contributes to the case for separate detail parts). But for my tastes a few coats of paint are enough to achieve an acceptable (although not ideal) surface. Good idea. The answer to "why not?" would surely be "but Ivor should be a 009 conversion of an N gauge tank engine". But (again, acting on behalf of my 12-year-old self) I want to bring the carefree fun of freelance 009 to the more beginner-friendly 00. So something Ivor-esque would make perfect sense.

Hello. Here is a saddle tank body to fit on the inside cylinder version of the Hornby 0-4-0 tank engine chassis. I'm planning to (get Shapeways to) 3D print it in 3 pieces, with the cab roof and bunker separate. Before I do, I would be grateful for any suggestions for improvements, but: The large splashers are necessary to conceal the motor mount. I don't plan any finer detail (such as handrails) because I'm already near the limits, detail-wise, of the "Versatile Plastic" printing option. Full disclosure: I will offer this for sale (but my Shapeways shop is not a business in any meaningful sense).

I finished my sanding and joined the sliver to the main body. I stripped some of the paint off to get a better view of the beading. It isn't perfectly aligned, but I don't think I could have done much better. There was also a little gap on one side, in spite of my caution. I have filled it with a sliver of plasticard (sanded down from a thin sheet - you can see where I made holes with my fingernails. I've designed a chassis, trying to follow the general style of the Hornby chassis, but with some vague suggestions of detail added. Hopefully this will help to make the 4-compartment coach look as though it belongs with the 3-compartment coaches. I have ordered a print from Shapeways - I will be able to recoup the cost if I go without food for a month!

Slowly, slowly sanding the two ends back a little bit at a time.

I've cut out the two ends (cutting parallel to the length of the body), and started sanding them back to glue together. They must both be sanded back by the same amount, until the one-window sliver fits into the gap. Hopefully the remaining beading will line up perfectly.

And here: https://plasticsoldierreview.com/Review.aspx?id=239

Nearly half a decade ago, I posted pictures of the starting point: So now I turn my attention back to this original coach. In order to get the roof off, I had to hack away one end. Next, using offcuts from the 6-wheel project, I will add a 4th compartment. I want it to be a brake compartment, which in any case will be easiest because I've already trimmed away part of the beading on one of the offcuts. And this is the wreckage. As well as cutting away one end, I had to chop up the wildly over-detailed interior in order to get the roof off. The white scum is PVA, which hopefully will wash away without too much fuss.

And here they are painted. My first experiments had crude handrails embedded in their ends (like many RTR coaches). For these, I made a gesture towards realism pleasing fiddly detail by making rails from 3D printed knobs and mandolin E string.

Thank you! Each body is a single printed piece with a separate roof. They're printed by Shapeways, which accounts for the poor quality. The "white versatile" plastic is the only remotely sane option, price-wise, and even with very crude detail the quality isn't great. I sometimes consider breaking the designs into separate walls, ends and roofs, which I think would make them cheaper to print in a better plastic. The other options are, of course, to get my own printer, or to find an alternative to Shapeways. If you're interested, I would be happy to collaborate to push the project forwards (and maybe increase the realism).

Then I urge you to have a look at this, which was part of my inspiration. If I were the quibbling sort, I would have preferred the two bodies to be blended together as Sophia has done. But the quality of Nile's work is so high that quibbling seems indecent.

Ah yes, the other end of the spectrum: 4 wheels - 3 compartments 4 wheels - 4 compartments 6 wheels - 5 compartments 8 wheels - 6 compartments This must be about the same length as the Triang clerestory coaches, which for my tastes is the maximum length of coach (regardless of realism) for people who don't have room for huge gentle curves. Where did the bogies originate? I might be in the process of changing my mind, and aiming for this length with a brake & luggage compartment. Or perhaps a lavatory. This isn't Swallows and Amazons, so the passengers will have to go to the loo eventually.

I reckon I have a little bit more of this to get out of my system! I have another Brassmasters' chassis kit, so I could make another 6 wheeler, with a brake/luggage compartment this time. But I'm also thinking of making a 4-wheel 4 compartment version (3 passenger compartments and 1 brake).

And now it's finished. In fact, it was finished a while ago but I wanted to photograph it outside. There have been a few nice days in the last couple of weeks, but today was the first when I wasn't in the office.

It's been a while. Fully assembled, the chassis almost works, but it's too weak to overcome its internal friction (or some other internal source of unwillingness). The best case is that a moving part is rubbing against some piece of plastic that I didn't file back enough. The second best case is that my odd-one-out gear wheel isn't quite compatible enough with the others, and needs replacing. And the worst case is that my design and construction, between them, are inadequate. It must come apart again, and I hope that an obvious problem will be immediately evident. If not, then I will reassemble it with most of the gears missing, so that only one pair of wheels is driven, in the hope that this provides some insight. Meanwhile, a digression: I need some coaches for this engine to pull. Since I'm leaning towards toy trains, I'm not aiming for historical accuracy. But I would like something vaguely Victorian-ish. A few years ago, I built my first rolling stock kit, one of the Ratio GWR 4 wheel coaches. It did not run well, and so I embarked on a scheme of designing small, toy-like coach bodies to mount on various RTR chassis. Here are my first attempts: The first and last are on the Hornby 4-wheel chassis. The middle two are on two different Hornby wagon chassis. The main problem (from my perspective) is the proportions - the closed compartments are simply too huge and generous. The 4 open compartments are a bit more plausible, but closed compartments of this size would be too small. With help from @Gibbo675 (who also generously supplied various types of chassis), I performed an audit of real coach dimensions, and settled on three compartments on the Dapol 10" wagon chassis. I have also designed a brake coach for the Hornby 4 wheel chassis (the brake compartment allows me to play with the dimensions of the passenger compartments). Painting is in progress.

Well, I like the overall effect (before and after the repair). I can see why you didn't like that streak, but I reckon you could have left it (or disguised it by adding more) without getting especially near "dirty industrial building" territory. You didn't actually ask for suggestions, but here's one anyway. I can't detect any variation in brick colour - a bit of that (subtle or un-subtle) would be pleasing to my eye, and would probably improve the realism.

I can confirm. Here in Germany I have Hornby OO trains on Fleischmann HO track, with a Gaugemaster controller plugged into the mains in the normal way. Whereas a colleague of mine once killed a computer that had been shipped from America by plugging it straight into the mains without flipping the power supply switch on the back.

Now that I've looked at Google maps (and feeling slightly ashamed of my pontificating), I want to change my answer. I agree with the shorten-the-gardens-and-flatten-the-angle-a-little-bit camp. The angle, houses and gardens are distinctive but the precise lengths and the precise angle are not. If the gardens end up too short and stubby, you could subtly alter all the dimensions enough to insert another house, this preserving the proportions. And I think that you need to do enough fudging to allow for some road on other other side of the houses, as a delimiter.

The whole hobby is made of compromises: The popular 00 models have the wrong gauge track The overwhelming majority of models have moving trains but static people, animals, vehicles and clouds in the backdrop Backdrops themselves are a place where an entire dimension is discarded - but this is generally preferable to the jarring alternative of wallpaper, or a workbench, or some other domestic scene in 1:1 Scenes are compacted and trains are shortened (for many people, an accurate length train would be longer than their layout) - I expect it's very rare for a layout with two stations to have an accurate distance between them Accurate operations at a remote rural station could be very dull viewing indeed, with only 4 trains a day I could go on (and often do). So accuracy or aesthetically pleasing isn't actually a choice you get to make. I suggest an alternative question - "how shall I balance accuracy against the various constraints, such as the available space, in order to produce a pleasing result?". And in answering this question, you could take a film-maker or theatre director's view - you could try to avoid breaking the viewers' suspension of disbelief (viewers including you). This isn't necessarily an easier question to answer, especially since different people have different priorities - for some people, tension lock couplings ruin a model. Other people might tolerate a cricket game of statues or a horse frozen in mid-leap, but not an anachronism of just a few weeks (that bridge was pulled down two days before that livery was introduced). And maybe an "error" can help with the suspension of disbelief - perhaps some fine clothing that would never really be seen in your setting, but which really helps to establish the time period. Since it's impossible to satisfy everyone's preferences, it makes sense to prioritise your own. On re-reading, this all looks pretty pompous, and doesn't actually address your question. I've used a lot of words to say "it isn't actually either-or". But I've written it, so I might as well submit it.