Knuckles Posted January 4, 2016 Author Share Posted January 4, 2016 Knuckles Only thing missing now is EM GAUGE lanky Tender chassis Told you it wouldn't be long! https://www.shapeways.com/product/TRAQNASST/l-yr-tender-em-chassis?key=4346dfbb28f52dcb650784aa889901e2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
58herbie Posted January 4, 2016 Share Posted January 4, 2016 Your a star. Now which to do first chassis or body hmmmm. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Knuckles Posted January 4, 2016 Author Share Posted January 4, 2016 (edited) I always do the chassis first, although you have to decide what gearbox and motor hou are using. The 00 prototype builds used the motor and gearbox in the instructions purely because I wanted something that wouldn't require me doing what many kits require; namely cutting into the firebox or boiler for extra room. As to be expected it is under powered but did its job in proving to me (and the world via the vid) that it can be made into a working loco. I actualy cut a wee bit of boiler on the K2 in order to bung in a flywheel and as a result I think I'll make it a personaly standard to do so. Visually it didn't detract as much as I thought it would. The other reason I do the chassis first is because sometimes I find it useful to put the body on to test fit everything and it is better to do that to a body that hasn't been completed due to less handelling needed. The insides of the splashers and the bottom of the body will likely need shaving a little to give room for the rods as the scale thickness of the real running plates cannot be achieved just by printing due to tolerances so a little shaving is needed post production. It's easy, just a small bummer. For the splasher insides a sharp scalpel works nice and for the bottom of the body a few passes with a mini drill and wire brush make short work of this. Hope that doesn't put anyone off, it's in the instructions anyway. I'd rather tell you all than you think it is carelessness. Rather than model the loco out of proportion and have things shaped odd or run too high I'd rather model it so it is accurate with a little fettling needed. Does any of this help? Edited January 4, 2016 by Knuckles 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
58herbie Posted January 4, 2016 Share Posted January 4, 2016 It sure does chassis first it is. Will be looking to add sprung hornblocks to Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Knuckles Posted January 5, 2016 Author Share Posted January 5, 2016 (edited) Ok. With the sprung hornblocks I haven't tested them although I do want to at some stage. The chassis have the lines cut in slightly and the gap at the top for the fixed dummy to fall out but as for actually doing this and setting them up I haven't tried. I've only built these chassis fixed so far. Would it be possible for you to share this? Very interested in seeing it sprung providing it works, or indeed if it does not then why. The chassis frames are nominally 1.8mm's thick on the EM chassis. If you cut the hornblocks out then until new ones are installed this area will be weak and likely flexible. If it is FUD then unless you are really carefull it could snap. Edited January 5, 2016 by Knuckles Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
58herbie Posted January 5, 2016 Share Posted January 5, 2016 I was aiming to use the more flexible option on the chassis as detail crispness isn't as vital as a smooth running model. Yes no problem with sharing the build. Regards Jon 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Knuckles Posted January 10, 2016 Author Share Posted January 10, 2016 Many thanks. ---------- Greetings all. Based upon request I have decided to make a series showing one way to go about building the kits. Part one is the method I currently use for WSF smoothing. 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold traction Posted January 10, 2016 RMweb Gold Share Posted January 10, 2016 Have you had any of the bodies printed off in FUD? How much difference is there is the smoothness between the FUD and WSF ? Cheers Ian Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Knuckles Posted January 10, 2016 Author Share Posted January 10, 2016 (edited) I have not printed a FUD body yet but I have printed a FUD chassis and the difference was obvious. Based on the FUD example I had some areas were perfectly smooth and the only areas that were not only needed a little scraping/paper smoothing before they were. The material files much nicer and is easier to smooth too, be careful of the fine dust though. WSF takes more effort and time by comparison. The brake pads especially had very sharp defined edges and looked crisp. Other people have had different experiences with FUD and opinions vary but most agree it is much better for finish. My current opinion is that it is easily the best material for final finish but being resin you need to treat it with more care. Preparation requires less smoothing by a lot but you have to use solvents to clean it. Edited January 10, 2016 by Knuckles Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaulR Posted January 30, 2016 Share Posted January 30, 2016 I always do the chassis first, although you have to decide what gearbox and motor hou are using. The 00 prototype builds used the motor and gearbox in the instructions purely because I wanted something that wouldn't require me doing what many kits require; namely cutting into the firebox or boiler for extra room. As to be expected it is under powered but did its job in proving to me (and the world via the vid) that it can be made into a working loco. I actualy cut a wee bit of boiler on the K2 in order to bung in a flywheel and as a result I think I'll make it a personaly standard to do so. Visually it didn't detract as much as I thought it would. The other reason I do the chassis first is because sometimes I find it useful to put the body on to test fit everything and it is better to do that to a body that hasn't been completed due to less handelling needed. The insides of the splashers and the bottom of the body will likely need shaving a little to give room for the rods as the scale thickness of the real running plates cannot be achieved just by printing due to tolerances so a little shaving is needed post production. It's easy, just a small bummer. For the splasher insides a sharp scalpel works nice and for the bottom of the body a few passes with a mini drill and wire brush make short work of this. Hope that doesn't put anyone off, it's in the instructions anyway. I'd rather tell you all than you think it is carelessness. Rather than model the loco out of proportion and have things shaped odd or run too high I'd rather model it so it is accurate with a little fettling needed. Does any of this help? Do the coupling rode come with the chassis of the FR K2 or do you have to purchse the brass ones? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Knuckles Posted January 30, 2016 Author Share Posted January 30, 2016 Do the coupling rode come with the chassis of the FR K2 or do you have to purchse the brass ones? Hello, the brass ones are a separate purchase. At the moment at least only one material choice can be printed per file. There are two types to choose from though based on your crank pin choice and the aesthetics. Basically the boss sizes differ as a choice. Some loco' test builds used the standard boss head size but the Alan Gibson crank pin system requires a bush be screwed on and when reaming the holes out they were wafer thin. So I made thicker boss versions as an option for each loco' thus curing the issue completely. I think the bigger ones look better too but it is personal opinion I guess. Hope this helps 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Knuckles Posted February 5, 2016 Author Share Posted February 5, 2016 (edited) Hello everyone. Apart from the Shapeways and Paypal unexpected price inflation issues that I have little control over sadly (will be good if/when it drops though eh?) I have come across another problem. I’m working on the Furness Railway J1 Class 2-4-2 Locomotive and just like the issues with the Cambrian Class 61 and the Furness Class 21 (K2) the exact same type of issues have risen from the ground as a great plague, just to try to make our lives a misery. Ok maybe that is over dramatic, but if you are interested and especially if you think you can help please can you read the following (presentation?) carefully and provide any advice you can. I have tried to write it clearly but if there is anything hard to understand let me know and I’ll try to clarify. I’ve broke it down into sections as there are three distinct sets of problems. -----------Section 1------------ The Drawing I originally obtained we shall call ‘Drawing A.’ Found here… http://www.cumbrianrailways.org.uk/Drawings/FR%202-4-2T%20No%2073%20drwg.pdf I scaled it to the information freely given by Mike Peascod from the Scalefour website found here… http://www.scalefour.org/resources/furness.html …to the 5' 7.5” Drivers and the 3' 7" ponies/radials – Any info here appreciated. What operating system the smaller wheels? Drawing A has a scale drawn on in feet (wish they all did!) and so the wheelbase matches to be 8'. The rail height to buffer centre test fits perfectly too at 3’6” / 14mm’s. Problem area is this... The wheel edges seem to go wider than the cab door edges and at the front the tank edges. Looking at prototype photographs the other drawing I acquired (Drawing B) matches better. Drawing B found here… http://i1340.photobucket.com/albums/o731/steves17/Furness%20railway/albertsideonplan_zpsgo4agake.png Hmm. This drawing was also linked to the book information to a different opinion of 5' 6" and 3' 6" respectively. It thus had a wheelbase less than 8' by half a millimetre but the wheels look better compared to the photographs and don’t foul the edges. The rail top to buffer height was slightly lower though, also strange was that the length of the running plate was about a full foot longer, but the photographs of the running plate matched better with Drawing A. Hmm. So I found a side on photograph shot and faffed about doing the fake ruler test thing I did with the Cambrian Class 61 and the Furness Class 21. I used assumed driving wheels of 5' 6" and used that to scale the ruler - wheelbase then turned out to be less than 8' and the ponies also were 3' 6" just like Drawing B. Hmm So then I used an 8' assumed wheelbase to scale the ruler. Once done I found everything lined up perfectly with Drawing A too. EDIT - Carrying wheels in pic above should state 3'6" not 5' 6". Hmm!!!! What is going on here? So then I decided to get Drawing B and scale it to the bigger wheel sizes like and waddaya know? It also matches the bigger wheel sizes, the 8' wheelbase, the rail height to buffer centre is also now correct and the wheels don't look like they are stretching too far sideways like on the Drawing A. So Drawing B scaled up to the bigger published dimensions like on Drawing A is partly the more accurate answer I believe. BUT…. Certain details like the dome, chimney, buffer profile and the running plate length look more in tune with the photographs on Drawing A. The only answer seems to be to go in between the drawings in some areas as one is more accurate for ‘this’ and the other more accurate for ‘that’ etc. So what is the moral of the story? Like other drawing examples it seems you can't just trust one drawing if you want accuracy and knowing which drawing and published dimensions to trust is still not as easy as it should be. They are all a convoluted mess. I thought I was pretty settled on the issue but there is more to consider… ---------------Section 2------------- A friend of mine has been helping out a lot with the Furness and Cambrian research so I extend my thanks for that. I won’t mention names but he knows who he is so if he wants to pipe up I’ll leave it up to him. There are clues anyway if you want to know that bad. Now the J1’s were apparently rebuilds of the E1’s. You would think the E1 and J1 would have the same wheelbase and diameters but apparently not. Further to this what wheelbase do we go with? The 3D model is currently using the bigger wheel sizes with a wheelbase of 6’6” + 8’ + 6’6” but this can change. Also the E1’s cannot make up their mind if they are 5’ or 5’6” drivers. Below are a few things he said to me following our conversations. (He also said I can make our exchanges public so no issues there.) With wheel size though I have listed 3' 6" & 5' 6" for both the Cumbrian and Cambrian 2-4-0/2-4-2 classes as that’s what I’ve got on paper. If you want to stick to your scale ruler guns that is fine, as like with some other stuff it could be off on maybe some of the batches but I would find it surprising that both company stats would be equally short of the actual diameter and I’ve not come across anything that would suggest there were changes outside later cab and with the CR engines their chimneys to improve their draft ( still need to explore this as i on read it passingly ). Visually I can't see it but plan wise I see the driving wheelbase issue you've brought up. I've got 7' 9" vs 8' 6" while you've got 8' 0". That is quite a margin-are you talking about the Small Passenger class there? With the difference I would say it’s the same thing as with the K2s and Large Stuarts. The Small Passengers were built between 1863 and 65 while the E1s were built between 1870-82, so just seems to be a generally design improvement by Sharp and Stuart. The wheelbase for the E1s/J1s are in my Oakwood press book-here is the scan so you can see all the classes you are interested in. Rather than show everything I have picked out the relevant information. http://i86.photobucket.com/albums/k112/sparkshot/Furness%20E1%20J1.jpg If anyone has anything to bring to the table to iron out these issues it would be appreciated so I can get this model accurate. I again really do not know what to trust. I’m currently using the Mike Peascod dimensions given above from the Scalefour website but I still need to have confidence these are correct over all the above. Evidence can only be trusted when it is a tight argument. My ruler drawing bodges seem to give an 8’ wheelbase. But as well as the diameter and wheelbase issues I also want to get the E1 cracked as I might do that loco’ after, undecided currently. Also an 8' 6" wheelbase will foul the tanks on both scale drawings as the 8' one is already a scrape as it is. --------------Section 3 --------------- One more issue. The tanks unlike a lot of tank engines do not seem to go into the boiler sides and there is a visible gap. As I currently have no photographs or drawings from a top down view it is guess work how far in the gap goes. I’m guessing ass the J1’s were apparently E1 rebuilds they may for reasons of speed just slammed the mostly rectangular tanks to the side and left it like that without bothering to mesh them in properly. Any ideas on this too will be greatly appreciated and hopefully ensure an accurate model. Here are a couple of links to good pictures showing it the gap almost head on… http://i1340.photobucket.com/albums/o731/steves17/Furness%20railway/albert72wate_zpsmj45xwa8.png http://i1340.photobucket.com/albums/o731/steves17/Furness%20railway/albert%20lakeside_zps5rxccfil.png Ok will leave it there and look forward to (hopefully) a conclusive conclusion. Many thanks in advance if you can help out here. My only motivation is an accurate and truthful representation. Edited February 5, 2016 by Knuckles Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jol Wilkinson Posted February 7, 2016 Share Posted February 7, 2016 May I suggest that you need to be careful with quoted wheel sizes. It is not unknown for the notional size to to relate to something other than the finished new tyre OD. The LNWR in particular were good at it, see: http://www.lnwrs.org.uk/PassClassLocos/pass_locos_intro.php Likewise, it is worth putting on the Victorian Engineers hat when thinking about design dimensions. Why would you design a wheel to be 3' 7" when 3' 6" or 3' 9" seems more logical and possibly easier for the caster or machinist. You need to compare this loco's details with others by the same designer or manufacturer to get a feel of their philosophy for making things. While it is good to aim at absolute accuracy it's not worth agonising too much over it if the information isn't readily available. There are times when you have to be pragmatic and take the "best guess based on available data" approach. Jol 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Knuckles Posted February 7, 2016 Author Share Posted February 7, 2016 Thanks, Jol. That is really helpful actually. I know wheels wear down and I read a while ago they can end up about 2" less in diameter before they are scrapped...apparently. I read your link and I read the Ted Talbot PDF, most enlightening so many thanks. I am not decided yet but unless anything else comes through I may design the leading wheel fixings to be set up at different heights then the driving wheels can have a choice and so can the leading wheels. If I do this as a default using the bigger wheels then the smaller ones could be fitted with a slightly lower ride height of, say 0.75mm's. Still got a lot to consider. ok many thanks. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jol Wilkinson Posted February 7, 2016 Share Posted February 7, 2016 I would look at what wheels are available commercially and use that to guide you. I had to do that with the LNWR Bloomer. One of the downsides of CAD is that you can get mislead by the degree of on screen"magnification" and end up worrying about working to dimensions/tolerances that are unrealistic/impractical in modelling terms. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Knuckles Posted February 7, 2016 Author Share Posted February 7, 2016 (edited) I would look at what wheels are available commercially and use that to guide you. I had to do that with the LNWR Bloomer. One of the downsides of CAD is that you can get mislead by the degree of on screen"magnification" and end up worrying about working to dimensions/tolerances that are unrealistic/impractical in modelling terms. Maybe I know what you mean. A gaping hole that you can swim around in is only 0.5mm thick or whatever. I set the snapping option to 0.1mm so it is quick and easy to adjust to that but if I want finer I just zoom in. Sometimes I need to adjust something to 1/40th of a mill' or something silly. Isn't that often though. I checked the Alan Gibson catalogue and they do 3' 6" and 3' 7" wheels and 5' 6" wheels, also for the 5' 7.5" wheels they do 5'8" so they if accurate are only a pinch bigger. I have noticed though that the 3' 0" bogey wheels I brought before measured at more like 11 or at a push 11.3 or so. I wasn't too impressed with finding this out. I know the website says wheel sizes might be a wee out in areas and the excuse is used that real ones were - true, but I'd still like it to measure up as should. Never mind. Actually do you know anywhere other than Ultrascale where you can buy various types of balance weights? I always struggle to find these and usually end up scratch building them from plastic card. Edited February 7, 2016 by Knuckles Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LooseHead Posted February 7, 2016 Share Posted February 7, 2016 ... do you know anywhere other than Ultrascale where you can buy various types of balance weights? I always struggle to find these and usually end up scratch building them from plastic card. Markits do them with their axle-nut covers - but I prefer the plasticard method, avoids the danger of shorts on the breakgear. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaulR Posted February 7, 2016 Share Posted February 7, 2016 Maybe I know what you mean. A gaping hole that you can swim around in is only 0.5mm thick or whatever. I set the snapping option to 0.1mm so it is quick and easy to adjust to that but if I want finer I just zoom in. Sometimes I need to adjust something to 1/40th of a mill' or something silly. Isn't that often though. I checked the Alan Gibson catalogue and they do 3' 6" and 3' 7" wheels and 5' 6" wheels, also for the 5' 7.5" wheels they do 5'8" so they if accurate are only a pinch bigger. I have noticed though that the 3' 0" bogey wheels I brought before measured at more like 11 or at a push 11.3 or so. I wasn't too impressed with finding this out. I know the website says wheel sizes might be a wee out in areas and the excuse is used that real ones were - true, but I'd still like it to measure up as should. Never mind. Actually do you know anywhere other than Ultrascale where you can buy various types of balance weights? I always struggle to find these and usually end up scratch building them from plastic card. May I add my six pennorth? The J1 was indeed a rebuild of the E1 tender locos, originally made by Sharp Stewart of Manchester. All my authorities state that that the driving wheels were 5' 6" and ponies 3'6 ". It was 7', 9" betrween drivers and 6'6" between drivers and ponies. The rear ponies were placed in a bolt-on addition to the mainframes. One of them, I think number 47, retained its trumpet shaped safety valve cover, while all the others got Ramsbottom safety valves.There is a lot of external rivettingon the tank and bunker sides, as there was on the Neddies. When I had the latter 3D printed, I also had some half etched cab sides done in nickel silver to simulate this but I expect there are other means to do it. Hope this is helpful, Paul R 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Knuckles Posted February 7, 2016 Author Share Posted February 7, 2016 (edited) Thanks PaulR. I got the same info as you also but like the Cambrian Conundrum as I like to call it we got the same anomalies with other (more trustworthy and respectful I am told) sources saying different. The drawing with the slightly bigger wheels has an 8' 0" exact wheelbase for the drivers and the 6' 6" space to the leading wheels. My pic bodges above seem to show an 8 foot wheelbase in one combination. Currently still undecided what to do. Still currently thinking of making the kit 'runnable' with both wheelsize choices as long as people can accept a variable running height of 0.75mm or so in fixed form. The rivets...yeah. Well, lets just say I'll need a few whiskies before I'm done. Going to model them all on the 3D mesh. In FUD they will turn out. In WSF they might as for my printouts some did really well and some were poor - depends on orientation apparently. Like with the E2's I'll put a note in the instructions saying you can buy Archer rivet transfer sheets etc. That way you will still be able to get all the rivet detail in guaranteed. Just means a bit more effort maybe. Edited February 7, 2016 by Knuckles Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jol Wilkinson Posted February 8, 2016 Share Posted February 8, 2016 Actually do you know anywhere other than Ultrascale where you can buy various types of balance weights? I always struggle to find these and usually end up scratch building them from plastic card. Markits do some etched ones, but they are probably for specific locos to match their prototype wheel sets. Can't you add them to the 3D print? I would add them to the artwork for an etched kit, so that the builder doesn't have to get them elsewhere. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Knuckles Posted February 8, 2016 Author Share Posted February 8, 2016 I've been thinking of doing so yeah. Or at least as an additional extra in the spares section. What is putting me off is the rim sizes of wheels differ between the different wheel firms so the geometry may only match one. This may be bunk but Markits/Romford wheels look a lot different to Alan Gibson ones. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaulR Posted February 8, 2016 Share Posted February 8, 2016 Markits do some etched ones, but they are probably for specific locos to match their prototype wheel sets. Can't you add them to the 3D print? I would add them to the artwork for an etched kit, so that the builder doesn't have to get them elsewhere. Balance weights are easily made from a variety of materials. I would leave that to the purchaser, as they will not be put off by making their own; after all, this is not the rtr segment of the market.Back to the authorities: they come no better than W Hardin Osborne, Ross Pochin, and Rush all agreeing the dimensions in post93 and add in Gradon on the E1 wheel size as well. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Knuckles Posted February 8, 2016 Author Share Posted February 8, 2016 (edited) Balance weights are easily made from a variety of materials. I would leave that to the purchaser, as they will not be put off by making their own; after all, this is not the rtr segment of the market.Back to the authorities: they come no better than W Hardin Osborne, Ross Pochin, and Rush all agreeing the dimensions in post93 and add in Gradon on the E1 wheel size as well. Could you please explain post 93? Pochi's drawing has the bigger wheels and 8' wheelbase too. Both drawings scaled to the wheel sizes also gives the correct 3.5FT / 14mm rail top to buffer centre measurement which also makes me think it might be right. What I'm doing isn't RTR true, but I'm trying to get things as close to it as realistically possible. It will be a bang load quicker to get an SCC model completed than a traditional loco' kit; not that I'm taking away from that as I really enjoy building an etched kit once in a while. A future ambition? RTR Em and P4 and 00. All of them. Yeah ok sales in EM and P4 may not be amazing as most are doing 00 but that doesn't bother me too much - I just want to see it become a reality - it'd encourage people to try EM or P4 too I envision. Edited February 8, 2016 by Knuckles Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaulR Posted February 8, 2016 Share Posted February 8, 2016 Could you please explain post 93? Pochi's drawing has the bigger wheels and 8' wheelbase too. Both drawings scaled to the wheel sizes also gives the correct 3.5FT / 14mm rail top to buffer centre measurement which also makes me think it might be right. What I'm doing isn't RTR true, but I'm trying to get things as close to it as realistically possible. It will be a bang load quicker to get an SCC model completed than a traditional loco' kit; not that I'm taking away from that as I really enjoy building an etched kit once in a while. A future ambition? RTR Em and P4 and 00. All of them. Yeah ok sales in EM and P4 may not be amazing as most are doing 00 but that doesn't bother me too much - I just want to see it become a reality - it'd encourage people to try EM or P4 too I envision. The Pochin drawing I have is from the HMRS magazine Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Knuckles Posted February 8, 2016 Author Share Posted February 8, 2016 (edited) The Pochin drawing I have is from the HMRS magazine Ok, I'm not sure what your point is though. :/ I got mine from the link I put in. . Edited February 8, 2016 by Knuckles Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now