Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Quick alert. Just seen in my email inbox Shapeways have an offer on if anything interests.

 

Free shipping on orders over $25.

 

In mine or anothers shop. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Still a little unsure on the tank insides, anyway I have been making good progress. So far I have a about 4 different takes on chimneys as photographs are clear the heights and profiles differed. Having them as interchangeable friction fits.

 

This is the progress so far...

 

1B%20progress%205.jpg

 

 

1B%20progress%206.jpg

 

Critiques good or bad welcome.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why have you got two threads running and make identical updates on both?

Just curious......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, very good point. I don't really want to but when I first posted things I didn't know what thread to put it in because in my mind at least I could not decide which thread was most relavent. I asked afterwards for advice on it in my blog but I don't know what to do to sort it and now a bit of history and a lot of detailed information has been collected and posted it doesn't make sense to delete them, especially as links to the pages have been put in some product descriptions for research purposes.

 

My problem is this: On one hand the 3D printing thread makes a lot of sense as that is what the Shapeways shop offers, on the other hand SCC is now a small supplier so it makes sense to post in there too.

 

I'm up for suggestions.

 

Maybe I could segment different types of info for the two threads, unsure.

 

What you think?

Edited by Knuckles

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, very good point. I don't really want to but when I first posted things I didn't know what thread to put it in because in my mind at least I could not decide which thread was most relavent. I asked afterwards for advice on it in my blog but I don't know what to do to sort it and now a bit of history and a lot of detailed information has been collected and posted it doesn't make sense to delete them, especially as links to the pages have been put in some product descriptions for research purposes.

 

My problem is this: On one hand the 3D printing thread makes a lot of sense as that is what the Shapeways shop offers, on the other hand SCC is now a small supplier so it makes sense to post in there too.

 

I'm up for suggestions.

 

Maybe I could segment different types of info for the two threads, unsure.

 

What you think?

 

Perhaps ask the Mods to combine the two threads? (... if that's possible).

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looking good Knuckles, but I'm not sure about those rivets. They should be ok with a FUD print but could be more of a problem with WSF, getting in the way of smoothing if they actually come out. Maybe you could offer versions with and without them?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Apparently threads can't be combined. There is a way apparently to close one but still put an alert on but I have no comprehension of how that would work. RMweb owner suggested something in my P4 blog question. Maybe you could understand a bit better?

 

J1 rivets...

 

Yup, WSF rivets are hit and miss. Sometimes they turn out really well other times they are barely detectable.

 

Like in the instructions on my E2's I mention that the rivets can be replaced by Archer resin transfer rivets or similar. DCC concepts etc sell them.

 

It doesn't make much sense to upload a smooth version when smoothing them yourself is easy and relativly quick. Mind you I might do but I feel it would be worth keeping them.on as sometimes they do turn out.

 

Just one of them things or? I could do.

Edited by Knuckles

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Shapeways have come out with yet another announced offer!

 

If you follow SCC on Shapeways and use the discount code r28l2 you will save $10 on your first order placed by the 15th of April, another great opportunity to nab something cheaper than it usually would be.

 

 

NOTE: I'm unsure if it is a 1 or an I or an L in the code r28l2 though so wou may have to try different ones.

 

 

Also I just had a really nice couple of days with Davey and Tom. We went to Reading MRC where Tom kindly took a few pics and we had a little play about. Here is a new pic of my WSF prototype L&YR Class 28

 

Tom%2028.png

:)

  • Like 2

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.)

 

 

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.

 

J1s were indeed rebuilds of E1s. The Cambrian did something similar with 2 of theirs, but didn't go as far as adding an extra axle at the rear, they probably should have done. Sharp Stewart even made purpose built 2-4-2Ts, in various sizes for home and abroad. 

 

I've drawn an etched chassis for the Cambrian version. 

 

The wheels would have been 3'6" and 5'6" when new. 5'0" wheels could have existed as very worn ones. Thicker tyres could well have been fitted when renewals did take place. On Cambrian engines, at least a couple appear to have had 3'0" leading wheel centres with massively thick tyres added to bring them up to correct size. Whether these shenanigans went on with the Furness I don't know!

Edited by Quarryscapes
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Quarryscapes, :)

 

I thought everyone forgot about these issues. I'll factor in your findings with all this research.

 

It seems researching the truth about many matters is often more involved than one initially thinks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Next video part complete. 

 

The next two are already filmed and edited but are being rendered so they shouldn't be too long before they are up.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Been watching your videos...Great work. Given me the encouragement to try making a steam loco.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Part 11 at last!

 

Edited by Knuckles

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Part 12, Chassis Completion.

 

 

Now for the body mainly, this is the stage where things start to look more like the intended machine!

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Baby update. This is for those whom it may interest - just keeping you in the loop.

 

Progress on the J1 has been made today. I think today I am officially a rivet counter too...I mean, it's the J1, how can you not count them!

 

As a result I have been redoing some of the tank side in relation to the previous pictures I posted.

 

It also doesn't help that different J1's had a different count of rivets and positions depending what photographs you look at but I guess this is normal. For instance the bigger rivets on the tank sides that are vertical either have a count of 10 or 11.

 

Safety valves are done and some more work on the chassis has gone underway too.

 

So far also several different chimneys have been made and the fixing method is to slot them into the housing above the smokebox as an interchangable friction fit. The visible lip on the chimney base makes this realistic without a visual jarr.

 

Current plan is to release most the variations within the same body kit but this will also increase the price a lot so I am unsure on the best option currently. Liklihood will be surplus chimneys gathering dust.

 

Anyway, I hope that interested someone, wasn't exactly riveting was it? Or was it?

Edited by Knuckles
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By the Lord Harry, you're cooking on gas!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Mike, as I said some people don't like for various methods but I've always been ok with it.

 

Some people use an Ultrasonic cleaner too and I failed to mention that in the vid so I might buy one and give it a whirl.

 

Also someone on YT suggested I clean the surface with a fibreglass brush/pen. I did actually try that after I finished filming and it worked surprisingly well, however for WSF I found it useless.

 

Also a few years back I invented (probably not the 1st) my own way of doing rivets other than Archer transfers. Simply drill a 0.45mm hole, put a 0.45mm rod in with superglue, clip off the excess and file back. Easy. :)

 

 

I find the hardest part of cleaning FUD is getting the gunked up wax and powder off. I didnt clean it long enough with the brush and water this time so had to rub more off after than you usually would have. Maybe a selection of brushes of various densities will be the way to go for future cleans.

Edited by Knuckles
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Knuckles,

 

I've just spent a pleasant couple of hours watching the videos, thank you very much for making them.  I got some laughs and some useful techniques.  They do go beyond simply getting your 3D print kits operational, so even if someone isn't keen on that aspect, there's gold in them thar hills.

 

Although a big Seagull is high on my wish-list, I remain to be convinced by the current state of Shapeways output.  There seems to be a contradiction between the high level of detail you can achieve with the process but then the risk of damaging or obliterating that as you clean it up.

 

The chassis prints are a different matter, they can do without a serious scrape and obviously have applications beyond the prototypes you designed them for.

 

Keep it going and I'm looking forward to Knuckles v The Airbrush.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks :)

 

I'm trying to take this series from the bottom up as anyone could be watching them and some may be new to modelling. Ultimately though it is going to end in the full painted, lined and varnished completion of the ol' bird.

 

This will also give us a good comparison between the two main materials in terms of end product.

 

Been wanting to make modelling video's for half a decade or so. Quite enjoyable to make. Ideally I'd like two cameras set up so I can sort of look at you more but for now at least it's 1st person perspective...kinda works. Good thing is I can see exactly what you see so it is in that sense very practicle, the only hang up is the useless short range auto focus that I cannot turn off.

 

The only real issue I have had with the FUD surface is the odd rivet I accidently smoothed. Good thing with the gulls is apart from the front of the frames there are hardly any.

 

Nile is doing a great job with a WSF print...

 

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/86132-niles-kitbuilding-bench-some-printed-locos-lmwr-4-4-0-fr-k2/page-23&do=findComment&comment=2327528

 

I did a test print in HDA but they messed that one up, details can be found here...

 

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/109759-shapeways-high-detail-acrylate-hda/page-3

 

 

If they can improve that process however we will be sorted I think as it is stronger and smoother.

Edited by Knuckles

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.