Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Maybe 3D printing isn't the way to go for rolling stock, except for some of the more complex shaped components.

 

As most readers will be aware, I have the  GWR Pollen C and all the variations

of the GWR Pollen E available. For 20 years I have considered these but always

put it off as a modelling project. By accident I have also had the GWR Coral A

drawn. With 3D printing, Shapeways, and an excellent CAD draftsman I finally

managed to produce them in 4mm. With FXD they also print in 2mm/N-gauge.

 

My current S&DJR layout has taken me away from the GWR; to Sheave Wheels

and my first 3D Loco.

 

Noel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see shapeways are now offering aluminium as a material. I wonder if this would make a good material for bodies. Slightly stronger than the plastic.

 

Any thoughts??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I took a look at it for the coupling rods but like the steel they fail the auto checks mainly due to bounding box. I'll have a look for the bodies and report back but chances are they would cost more than FUD.

 

Will let you know. :)

 

 

EDIT: Letting you know based on a Class 28 body.

 

Well, Aluminium isn't coming up on my bodies as an option yet. Brass is a red cross fail and Stainless Steel would pass if I remodelled the mesh thicker by quite a lot.

 

It would also cost over £65 before any markup has been added on top...so probably a no go.

Edited by Knuckles

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see shapeways are now offering aluminium as a material. I wonder if this would make a good material for bodies. Slightly stronger than the plastic.

 

Any thoughts??

 

Considered it too: the expense is astronomical.

- of course Motion parts are too small for the spec'.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Knuckles.

 

Just received my printed chassis from shapeways. Had to email them as two brake hangers are nowhere to be seen and one is snapped but just holding on to the chassis.

 

Any explanation as to all the items on the chassis

 

Regards

Jon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

....Balls.

 

I'm very sorry to hear it. 

 

I don't have any control over it as they print it.   It's their mess up.

 

With my stuff they have done a similar thing with one of the chassis but they usually are fine.  I complained to them and they sent me a new one free, or they can refund what you paid, but I agree you shouldn't have to faff.  The snapped one could be a rough postman but I don't know.  I could thicken them up but as well as making them chunky it still won't guarantee anything if they mess up again.  Why two are missing I don't know.  :umbrage:

 

I'll have a whinge at them, other than that I don't know as they are the ones who handle all the printing, packaging and posting.

 

:/

 

Please let me know what they say to you.

 

Edit:  I've just emailed them.

Edited by Knuckles

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Knuckles. I Wasnt blaming you I know you have no control over what they print etc.Just wanted to let you know the items had arrived and what had happened.

It looks to me as they have caught them as they squeezed them into the plastic bag. The box was in perfect condition with no damage what so ever. It would explain why two are missing completely as they are probably on the packing floor. I have emailed them pictures of the damaged and missing parts.

 

The design looks spot on.

 

Do you have any information/instructions for the chassis of what gets cut off or cut out for the build??

 

Cheers

 

Jon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Jon.  I appreciate that.

 

I'm just really naffed off and disappointed this happened because it shouldn't.  I'm truly saddened to hear it.

 

 

The instructions are in the product description in the Shapeways shop for everything.   But if you need any help in detail contact me and I'll walk you through it if needed. :)

 

I am making the series on building one of my kits right through to completion as you may know but I'm still awaiting the chassis and wheels and gearbox etc.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just so you all know, for some reason the prices on Shapeways have gone up and it wasn't my own doing. I posted a few things in another thread to try to find out why so I'm just letting you all know it seems fluctuation is the norm - something I didn't expect. Not happy.

 

 

On the plus side, I'm pleased to be working on a new design.

If you guess the prototype you get a biscuit. 8-)

 

Guess.jpg

Edited by Knuckles

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This might help explain the price rise.

post-6821-0-74806300-1454524796.png

The value of the pound has been falling against the dollar.

 

As for that loco. are you going to call it Albert?

Edited by Nile

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This might help explain the price rise.

attachicon.gifcanvas1.png

The value of the pound has been falling against the dollar.

 

As for that loco. are you going to call it Albert?

 

Thanks for the graph, that indeed explains things. :( Hopefully it will fall again and then all good.

 

I wasn't planning on calling the engine Albert but I know a few who will if they buy it.

 

 

Is it a gcr class 3 (Parker) lner F1?

Nope! Ask Nile - He's worked it out. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

 

J1%204%20-%20PIC%20EDIT.png

 

 

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".

 

 

J1%204%20-%20PIC%20EDIT%202.png

 

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 by Knuckles

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Nope! Ask Nile - He's worked it out. :)

 

Well I did suspect it would be a furness loco but to my untrained eye the gcr f1 looked close.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Any idea on the issues presented above? :-/

 

(Also makes note of F1 etc)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You have a knack of picking difficult to model locos Mr Knuckles. Have you considered the Midland, no wheelbase problems there. I could do with a 2F with round-top firebox.

Sadly the Furness is well outside my knowledge sphere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Nile. You're right, I seem to be picking some awkward ones. I am interested in most pre-Grouping areas. I'll likely through the course of time do several from many different companies all being well. Just hitting the Furness for a bit for now.

 

Need to crack this enigma before I continue with much though.

 

Hoping to get solid conclusion at some point if possible.

Edited by Knuckles

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Greetings. 8-)

 

As a few asked me to make a video showing how to build an SCC kit I have decided it will be a good idea. I know quite a few who have never built a traditional etched kit and so I see these as a good way to ease you into them. For experienced locomotive kit builders, building an SCC loco kit will be a peace of cake as the chassis are printed square (albeit not readily sprung) thus removing a lot of the pitfalls that can come by not having a square chassis.

 

The following VLOG will be to some a lesson in egg sucking. I have a rubber one in the 'fridge if you want more practice, honest. :thumb

 

For others you may cringe, either due to the methods or materials employed. This is perfectly fine, we can skin cats in different ways and you are free to disagree. You may also think why am I teaching these things when others may do a better and more experienced job? Good question and fair point.

 

Answer -

A) - I was asked to.

B) - It may help to alleviate fears newcomers have in building either my own or someone else's loco kit. If this scares people away then what chance they got doing a full blown etched job?

C) - Well, I don't see many others doing it, I do have a few DVD's on the subject but that is it. There are some others nocking about though.

D) - It may give you a good idea what I was on about in terms of tutorials in video form, albeit a bit crude in production values.

 

Many of the information contained herein will also be applicable to traditional etched chassis and loco' building in general but for obvious reasons it will be lacking in certain information and demonstration. I will be showing how I build a High Level Kits Road Runner + gearbox though so there will be some soldering and such like shown.

 

The video will be building a K2 and two different bodies are used, the real K2 and also a freelance variant for my own purposes.

 

So with that part 1 and 2 and 3 are below. Hope you like them and please ask questions if you have them as I'll do my best to answer them.

 

 

Part 1

 

Part 2

 

Pert 3

 

More to follow.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Definitely fancy a Furness K2 in FUD* (sniggers like a daft boy).

 

 

 

In Scotland 'FUD' is a term for a lady's intimate bits...  ;-)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Definitely fancy a Furness K2 in FUD* (sniggers like a daft boy).   * In Scotland 'FUD' is a term for a lady's intimate bits...  ;-)

 

Oh dear. Lol. :D

 

MUFF is a term we use in midlands.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oky doky, part 4 now ready for viewing..

 

 

Hope it is of use or at least interesting. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.