Jump to content

grahame

3D printed road vehicles

Recommended Posts

What do people think of 3D printed road vehicles, particularly in N/2mm scale. With a dearth of decent models from the 1970s to 90s it seems like 'obsons' choice.

 

Consequently I've purchased a few 1:148 scale cars from RailNscale through the Shapeways website. I've never been a great fan of 3D printing in the smaller scale as the stratification ridges are more obvious and are darn hard work to eradicate. But I've been perserving with these, although they are still a long way from finished. The detail painting (lights, etc.,) needs completing, then there is the glazing, and so on . . . .

 

162121.jpg

 

However, although they are British N gauge 1:148 scale I did find it odd that the Volvo 245 DL was left hand drive - they've obviously been rescaled from continental 1:160 models. The Vauxhall Cavalier Mk1s are correct right hand drive. Perhaps I ought check their size. And even though the 'ridgy' effect was quite restrained on them they have still take quite an effort and time to get to this stage.

 

G.

  • Like 12

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looking good Grahame.

 

You could get around the problem of the right hand drive Volvo by putting continental number plates and a country sticker (e.g. NL) on the back.

 

Happy modelling.

 

Steven B.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What do people think of 3D printed road vehicles, particularly in N/2mm scale. With a dearth of decent models from the 1970s to 90s it seems like 'obsons' choice.

 

Consequently I've purchased a few 1:148 scale cars from RailNscale through the Shapeways website. I've never been a great fan of 3D printing in the smaller scale as the stratification ridges are more obvious and are darn hard work to eradicate. But I've been perserving with these, although they are still a long way from finished. The detail painting (lights, etc.,) needs completing, then there is the glazing, and so on . . . .

 

162121.jpg

 

However, although they are British N gauge 1:148 scale I did find it odd that the Volvo 245 DL was left hand drive - they've obviously been rescaled from continental 1:160 models. The Vauxhall Cavalier Mk1s are correct right hand drive. Perhaps I ought check their size. And even though the 'ridgy' effect was quite restrained on them they have still take quite an effort and time to get to this stage.

 

G.

 

I don't know if it helps with your era of layout but I used to own a Volvo 245 in 1982/3 and it was LHD. I used it a lot in the UK although I was technically resident in France at the time.

 

I'm not sure what the car on the left is. Looks like a 4-door Forsd Capri! The others are quite good.

 

Generally, I think that resin casting is a better option.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I find the biggest problem is adding glazing. One way might be to create it using vac forming, so it just fits in.  I suppose for these models having interior already fitted would make this difficult, but there are those glazing fluids around.

 

As for 1/148 versus 1/160. How much real difference is there, and is it that obvious. 2mm/ft is strictly speaking 1/152, but again can anyone actually tell. I think that much of what is seen on N gauge layouts is 2mm/ft, or do modellers adjust the scale from 2mm/ft scale drawings.

Edited by rue_d_etropal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I find the biggest problem is adding glazing. One way might be to create it using vac forming, so it just fits in.  I suppose for these models having interior already fitted would make this difficult, but there are those glazing fluids around.

 

As for 1/148 versus 1/160. How much real difference is there, and is it that obvious. 2mm/ft is strictly speaking 1/152, but again can anyone actually tell. I think that much of what is seen on N gauge layouts is 2mm/ft, or do modellers adjust the scale from 2mm/ft scale drawings.

That's the joy of resin casting. You do the whole thing in clear resin. An AFAN member, Dominique Pion, produced many French-prototype models this way in 1:160.

 

That means of course no interior detail such as seats and steering wheel, although I suppose it could be possible if moulded in two parts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know if it helps with your era of layout but I used to own a Volvo 245 in 1982/3 and it was LHD. I used it a lot in the UK although I was technically resident in France at the time.

 

I'm not sure what the car on the left is. Looks like a 4-door Forsd Capri! The others are quite good.

 

Generally, I think that resin casting is a better option.

Mk 1 Cavalier / Opel Ascona

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I

As for 1/148 versus 1/160. How much real difference is there, and is it that obvious.

Yes, it is obvious.

 

081743.jpg

 

Although not the same lorry from left to right are: 1:148 scale, 1:150 scale and 1:160 scale. 

 

081746.jpg

 

Again not the same bus but left to right: 1:148 scale, 1:150 scale and the two on the right around 1:160 scale.

 

And the 1:160 scale manufacturers are producing for the continental and American markets so offer LHD foriegn vehicles. They don't produce British outline cars. If they did they might just as well make them to 1:148 scale like the trains are. In N gauge you don't see people making 1:160 scale British based layouts.

 

G.

Edited by grahame
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again there is a split between continental and UK, but 1/152 is inbetween, and I suspect most N scale is actually 2mm/ft(ie 1/152) not 1/148. The label used is more often used as a marketing ploy, hence OO/HO used for many years on Airfix military kits which were , in theory, 1/72, and are now marked as 1/76.

It doesn't bother me that much, as I believe that if it looks right then it is right.

 

Cleaning up 3D printed models is a lot easier than scratchbuilding them, in any scale. Those cars do look good, even without the glazing.

Edited by rue_d_etropal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I'm not sure what the car on the left is. Looks like a 4-door Forsd Capri! The others are quite good.

 

Generally, I think that resin casting is a better option.

 

The red car on the left is a Cavalier Mk1 like the light blue one (that looks okay) produced from the CAD.

 

I agree that resin casting is better (you don't get the ridges) but I've not seen any that have 'open' interiors. The ones I've seen tend to have solid windows that I don't like.

 

G.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again there is a split between continental and UK, but 1/152 is inbetween, and I suspect most N scale is actually 2mm/ft(ie 1/152) not 1/148.

 

Nope. Those that produce claimed N gauge (1:148) products that aren't accurate or correct, soon get called out - like the Farish range of buses.

 

There is very little 2mm 1:152 RTR product produced (if any). Mostly it's 1:148 or 1:160, with a few ranges at other scales such as Japanese RTR N gauge vehicles at 1:150 scale, Military RTR 1:144 and military kits in 1:152 and 1:150. When you put them up against each other the difference is obvious like these Panther tanks:

 

083718.jpg

 

G.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cleaning up 3D printed models is a lot easier than scratchbuilding them, in any scale. Those cars do look good, even without the glazing.

 

Yes, agreed. But that doesn't diminish the difficulty of smoothing 'ridgey' 3D prints in a scale as small as N/2mm. The areas to file are small and oddly shaped, and close to raised detail that is required to be kept like door handles, trim and wheel arches. Plus FUD is very hard and brittle.

 

But thanks for the looking good compliment. It took a lot of hard work to get them to that stage.

 

G.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Although not the same lorry from left to right are: 1:148 scale, 1:150 scale and 1:160 scale.

 

Being fair, either one of those is grossly out of proportion, or the prototypes are entirely different and thus it's a bit of an apples:oranges comparison. Assuming a 4.3m high lorry it would be 29.05mm in 1:148, 28.67mm in 1:150 and 26.88mm in 1:160, ie the difference between 1:148 and 1:160 is just over 2mm or less than 10%. A difference, for sure, but that photo massively over emphasises that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Being fair, either one of those is grossly out of proportion, or the prototypes are entirely different and thus it's a bit of an apples:oranges comparison. Assuming a 4.3m high lorry it would be 29.05mm in 1:148, 28.67mm in 1:150 and 26.88mm in 1:160, ie the difference between 1:148 and 1:160 is just over 2mm or less than 10%. A difference, for sure, but that photo massively over emphasises that.

Yes, no-one is claiming that they are of the same prototypes but they are all articulated large lorries produced in those scales as claimed by the manufacturers. Although there will be some difference in size by prototype model you wouldn't expect such a big difference at the same scale. Plus there are some things that don't diminish by prototype size - imagine the same sized/scaled driver trying to get in to all those cabs.

 

The fact remains that the difference in scales become very visible in real life rather than trying to justify or validate with figures and calculations. The eye is very able to discern comparative small differences and in the model ratio context these become very obvious. And even with the same prototype as with the Panther tanks.

 

G.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Being fair, either one of those is grossly out of proportion, or the prototypes are entirely different and thus it's a bit of an apples:oranges comparison. Assuming a 4.3m high lorry it would be 29.05mm in 1:148, 28.67mm in 1:150 and 26.88mm in 1:160, ie the difference between 1:148 and 1:160 is just over 2mm or less than 10%. A difference, for sure, but that photo massively over emphasises that.

The real Mercedes cab is from a much earlier era and is much smaller in the real world. The original fridge trailer is also shorter and lower coming from an era when length and width maxima were lower, and trailer height was geared to the lower gross weight maximum for a five axle combination. The Mitsubishi is hauling an ISO container with completely different dimensions from the MAN trailer. A better comparison would be a modern Scania Highline from the Oxford Diecast range in 1/148 and from Herpa in 1/160. I'll see what I have got.

 

The buses are another story given the range of prototype heights and widths available on individual body styles, depending on chassis make, engine/drivetrain layout, and operator requirements. The Graham Farish buses seem to mismatch on length, height and width in some cases.

Edited by mikeharvey22

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^^ that's my point.

 

Look at the wheels on all 3, or the windscreens. I'm not denying there's a difference, nor advocating mixing them (although I'd happily use 1:160 vehicles toward the back of a layout, YMMV), but that's a bit misleading.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The real Mercedes cab is from a much earlier era and is much smaller in the real world. The original fridge trailer is also shorter and lower coming from an era when length and width maxima were lower, and trailer height was geared to the lower gross weight maximum for a five axle combination. The Mitsubishi is hauling an ISO container with completely different dimensions from the MAN trailer. A better comparison would be a modern Scania Highline from the Oxford Diecast range in 1/148 and from Herpa in 1/160. I'll see what I have got.

 

The buses are another story given the range of prototype heights and widths available on individual body styles, depending on chassis make, engine/drivetrain layout, and operator requirements. The Graham Farish buses seem to mismatch on length, height and width in some cases.

 

 

^^ that's my point.

 

Look at the wheels on all 3, or the windscreens. I'm not denying there's a difference, nor advocating mixing them (although I'd happily use 1:160 vehicles toward the back of a layout, YMMV), but that's a bit misleading.

 

I think it is probably a bit misleading to infer that the difference is simply due to the different prototypes. The fact remains that at the different scales of 1:148 to 1:160 there is a difference that is very visible and noticeable. The same items made to different scales would not be the same size. Here is the difference between the same type of containers; one is 1:148 and the other 1:150 and the difference is obvious. The difference would be even bigger and more noticeable with 1:148 and 1:160 positioned together.

 

161457.jpg

 

Additionally the tanks are the same prototype but using different scales and it's easy to see the difference.

 

I appreciate the idea of putting 1:160 vehicles at the rear of a layout (to provide some forced perspective effect) but that has some issues. They can't be used in conjunction with 1:148 models and all the modelling in the zone of the diminished scale needs to also be to that reduced (smaller) scale such as the roads, buildings, street furniture and even the figures. And you can't then run 1:148 trains near or behind them (unless you are happy with the scale mismatch).

 

G.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And how about this very obvious difference in two models of the same prototype bus. On the left is an ODC one (claimed to be 1:148) and on the right is a Farish/Scenecraft model originally claimed to be 1:148 but later admitted to have been mistakenly made to 1:160 scale (although it could be even smaller). Now they couldn't really be placed side by side on a layout and look convincing, could they? :no: 

 

164039.jpg

 

G.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And how about this very obvious difference in two models of the same prototype bus. On the left is an ODC one (claimed to be 1:148) and on the right is a Farish/Scenecraft model originally claimed to be 1:148 but later admitted to have been mistakenly made to 1:160 scale (although it could be even smaller). Now they couldn't really be placed side by side on a layout and look convincing, could they? https://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/uploads/emoticons/default_no.gif

 

http://media6000.dropshots.com/photos/1232909/20170221/164039.jpg

 

G.

That is very much noticeable.

 

3D printing is probably our best potential source for the more humdrum types of vehicles that diecast manufacturer won't bother with generally.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And how about this very obvious difference in two models of the same prototype bus. On the left is an ODC one (claimed to be 1:148) and on the right is a Farish/Scenecraft model originally claimed to be 1:148 but later admitted to have been mistakenly made to 1:160 scale (although it could be even smaller). Now they couldn't really be placed side by side on a layout and look convincing, could they? https://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/uploads/emoticons/default_no.gif 

 

 

G.

The two Utility buses are a good comparison, but of course the quoted scale for both is way off.The Oxford is closer to 1/143 and the Farish 1/160, though on the key height dimension is even smaller at 1/165.

 

The real Guy Arab MkII with Park Royal highbridge body had the following key dimensions:-

 

Overall length:- 26ft 5.5 in.(8065.5 mm)

Overall width:- 7ft 6 in. (2286 mm)

Overali height:- 14ft 6 in (4419.6mm)(approximate depending on spring condition, tyre pressures and assembly tolerances.)

The dimensions are well known as they had a special dispensation to be over the legal maximum length of 26ft, so they could, if needed, accommodate a six cylinder Gardner engine, rather than the 5 cylinder engine specified in the MkI.

 

Oxford (may vary according to paint thickness)

 

L 56.2mm (1/143/5)

W 16.1mm (1/142)

H 30.7mm (1/144)

 

Farish

 

L 50.5mm (1/160)

W 14.7mm (1/155.5)

H 26.7mm (1/165.5)

 

So not really a fair comparison of 1/148 to 1/160.

 

This is a good example of the danger of comparing trucks from different eras:-

 

dsc01810.jpg]http://i58.servimg.com/u/f58/12/12/53/02/dsc01810.jpg]

 

And this compares a Herpa DAF (1/160 quoted) and an Oxford Diecast Scania (1/148 quoted):-

 

herpa_10.jpg

 

 

As far as I can see nobody is claiming that 1/148 and 1/160 look right side by side, only that examples need to be fairly chosen. As a matter of interest I would be interested in the length and width of those tanks because I think we are talking more like 1/144 against 1/165, so again not a fair comparison. I think I have the 1/144 one.

Edited by mikeharvey22
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This comparison confirms Grahame's original premise on very similar bodies. Only compare the height. Unfortunately the BT models width is closer to 1/136!

 

bus_he10.jpg

 

 

 

Going back to the original topic, I had a variety of 1/148 Fords, including a modernish pre-2008 Transit Connect van. These were printed in Shapeways FUD so although solid bodied had the possibility of keeping the windows clear. These needed minimal cleaning up. Pleased to say they were so good that a Ford enthusiast bought them from me after painting.

 

http://www.shapeways.com/product/GBB2LZLSM/1-148-2x-2002-08-ford-transit-connect-english?optionId=58463118

 

 

http://www.shapeways.com/product/MJXUPL8JZ/1-148-2x-2000-04-ford-focus-sedan?optionId=59346297

Edited by mikeharvey22
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The two Utility buses are a good comparison, but of course the quoted scale for both is way off.The Oxford is closer to 1/143 and the Farish 1/160, though on the key height dimension is even smaller at 1/165.

 

So not really a fair comparison of 1/148 to 1/160.

 

This is a good example of the danger of comparing trucks from different eras:-

 

And this compares a Herpa DAF (1/160 quoted) and an Oxford Diecast Scania (1/148 quoted):-

 

I think you are missing the point and obfuscating the issue with matters of different prototypes and different scales.

 

The fact remains that anything accurately made to 1:160 and 1:148 scales will be different sizes and the difference is visible. Something 4 metres tall (less than the average height of a double decker bus) will be 25mm in 1:160 and a tad over 27mm in 1:148. And those sort of differences, when placed side by side, are very obvious (at least to me if not to others) as well as that difference getting bigger and becoming more obvious for increasing prototypical dimensions.

 

G.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What do people think of 3D printed road vehicles, particularly in N/2mm scale. With a dearth of decent models from the 1970s to 90s it seems like 'obsons' choice.

 

Consequently I've purchased a few 1:148 scale cars from RailNscale through the Shapeways website. I've never been a great fan of 3D printing in the smaller scale as the stratification ridges are more obvious and are darn hard work to eradicate. But I've been perserving with these, although they are still a long way from finished. The detail painting (lights, etc.,) needs completing, then there is the glazing, and so on . . . .

 

162121.jpg

 

However, although they are British N gauge 1:148 scale I did find it odd that the Volvo 245 DL was left hand drive - they've obviously been rescaled from continental 1:160 models. The Vauxhall Cavalier Mk1s are correct right hand drive. Perhaps I ought check their size. And even though the 'ridgy' effect was quite restrained on them they have still take quite an effort and time to get to this stage.

 

G.

Ive used the same company for some of my n guage vehicles, http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/22315-adventures-in-code-55/page-33 and pg 34.  I too noticed the volvos were left hand drive,   Glue and Glase was used for the windows

 

Stephen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Back to the subject of this thread - 3D printed cars (in N gauge).

 

I'd hoped I'd completed the painting of details like lights and things but upon taking a pic (below) it just cruely showed up all the faults and inadequacies in my efforts. Now I'm not sure what to do - try and deal with and correct them, or continue with glazing?  Certainly the actual models look fine in real life but the pic shows how revealing the camera is.

 

134626.jpg

 

G.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ive used the same company for some of my n guage vehicles, http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/22315-adventures-in-code-55/page-33 and pg 34.  I too noticed the volvos were left hand drive,   Glue and Glase was used for the windows

 

Stephen

 

You've done a good job on those especially the two builders lorries (club-of-four type). I was considering getting a few of those but couldn't see the skip version that I quite fancied as being available in 1:148 scale.

 

G.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Only you can say if they live up to your standards. I think they look excellent, and they're undoubtedly better than I'd manage. That's irrelevant though, as they're yours!

 

For more modern offerings these guys have a decent range, bit of a US slant, and a shame they're 'solid' though. Things like the 1:148 Focus would be very useful for present day layouts.

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.