TurboSnail Posted August 30, 2019 Author Share Posted August 30, 2019 2 hours ago, brack said: Mine was printed in FUD. Its much stronger than youd think, and the bracing is more than sufficient - it doesn't flex, and the loco weight is applied from above in a vertical direction where there is greatest strength. WSF is awful for chassis (frankly for anything at all! I made 2 models in wsf and decided scratchbuilding was quicker than filling and sanding the surface, I wouldnt touch it unless I was working in a large scale and couldnt afford anything better) as it doesn't print accurately in the z axis, leaving oval holes, whereas FD and FUD always gave a hole accurate enough for bearings to be a good push fit, secured with a touch of super glue. Interesting, we've obviously had very different experiences with WSF, it was reasonably accurate and very tough, so it was hard to snap any bits off. I didn't mind about the surface for the chassis as it's not very visible. Either way, I have other materials I prefer for everything now! 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edwardian Posted August 30, 2019 Share Posted August 30, 2019 I agree about WSF. Where there are separate chassis, I like these to be WSF from Shapeways. With Knuckles's locos I reckon on doing that but having his superior Photon prints for the bodies. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TurboSnail Posted August 31, 2019 Author Share Posted August 31, 2019 A brief moment of reliable internet access during my ongoing house move allowed me to continue on the NER Class H (Fusion360 doesn't allow offline working unfortunately - back to the dark ages tomorrow!). The basics are coming along nicely, however, I'm running into issues with the buffers. A couple of sources state the locos were originally outshopped with dumb buffers which were replaced some time in the 30s - the problem being I can't find photos or drawings with the dumb buffers in place. Can anyone help? If not, I think I'll model the 1310 as preserved at the Middleton Railway with NER pattern buffers. 6 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edwardian Posted August 31, 2019 Share Posted August 31, 2019 40 minutes ago, TurboSnail said: A brief moment of reliable internet access during my ongoing house move allowed me to continue on the NER Class H (Fusion360 doesn't allow offline working unfortunately - back to the dark ages tomorrow!). The basics are coming along nicely, however, I'm running into issues with the buffers. A couple of sources state the locos were originally outshopped with dumb buffers which were replaced some time in the 30s - the problem being I can't find photos or drawings with the dumb buffers in place. Can anyone help? If not, I think I'll model the 1310 as preserved at the Middleton Railway with NER pattern buffers. What sources? Because there is no mention of this in either Hoole's Illustrated History or the North Eastern Record. All the photographs and drawings in these volumes show sprung buffers. Further, as a T W Worsdell design, the early condition illustrations are those showing his livery. these, too, show conventional sprung buffers: Anyway, great to see you doing an H. Consider me, please, a potential customer. An 0-6-0 H2 would get me even more excited .... 5 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Compound2632 Posted September 1, 2019 RMweb Premium Share Posted September 1, 2019 As an aside, the hopper wagon in the background displays a livery style that is recorded but not illustrated in J.B. Dawson et al., North Eastern Record Vol. 2 (HMRS/NERA. 1997): NORTHERN DIVISION on the top plank. - a style applied up to Nov 1892. But what does it say in script below and is that the number or tare weight on the solebar. For the umpteenth time, move that b!**@y loco! I want to see what's behind it! 1 1 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TurboSnail Posted September 3, 2019 Author Share Posted September 3, 2019 On 31/08/2019 at 23:20, Edwardian said: What sources? Because there is no mention of this in either Hoole's Illustrated History or the North Eastern Record. All the photographs and drawings in these volumes show sprung buffers. Further, as a T W Worsdell design, the early condition illustrations are those showing his livery. these, too, show conventional sprung buffers. Anyway, great to see you doing an H. Consider me, please, a potential customer. An 0-6-0 H2 would get me even more excited .... The dangers of internet research! Thanks for correcting me there - I'm rather too limited on the number of books at my disposal, although I am working on that as and when funds allow. I tend to run and hide when anyone mentions a 6-coupled chassis - the R Class chassis has had over a year of development and is still nowhere near working condition. I do quite want a J78 though... 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edwardian Posted September 3, 2019 Share Posted September 3, 2019 (edited) 44 minutes ago, TurboSnail said: The dangers of internet research! Thanks for correcting me there - I'm rather too limited on the number of books at my disposal, although I am working on that as and when funds allow. I tend to run and hide when anyone mentions a 6-coupled chassis - the R Class chassis has had over a year of development and is still nowhere near working condition. I do quite want a J78 though... I don't discount what you say - my library is limited - but I could see no evidence of what you said, so I was keen to interrogate your sources to see what the correct position might be! EDIT: History graduate + barrister + pre-Grouping railway enthusiast = this kind of post, I'm afraid! Edited September 3, 2019 by Edwardian 4 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TurboSnail Posted September 3, 2019 Author Share Posted September 3, 2019 The reason I didn't mention my sources is that I can't remember what they were! I visited loads while researching, though I suspect it was another forum. I found two references to it, although they were very similarly worded, almost like one had copied the other... 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edwardian Posted September 3, 2019 Share Posted September 3, 2019 (edited) On 30/08/2019 at 11:10, brack said: No problem - we all have our own preferences anyway, there have been times I've drawn something that someone else has already done as a) I thought I could improve on it b) it didnt quite fit with how I'd like to put the model together and c) I wanted to draw it myself anyway. One thing I might suggest (if I may be so bold) is that you've filled in the ends and bottom of the frames. On the prototype the frame ends are quite visible, as are the cylinder covers. On my cad I sprued the clack valves and brake shoes to the inside of the frames, but hopefully you can see the cylinders at the first spacer in line with the smokebox front (the top of the cylinders/valves are just visible below the smokebox above the foot plate. Guard irons I did with a bit of scrap brass. Please dont interpret me posting as some sort of territorial claim - I wouldnt care if you did put your version on shapeways, I've only sold 5 of them in 5 years! I just thought I might be able to save you some time. The day after I finished mine I took it with me to newcastle exhibition, dad showed it to Dave Alexander (who hes known for years) and it turned out that unknown to us (and anyone else) Dave was releasing his new kit on that day, he'd spent about a year making all the masters, etches and moulds but hadn't told anyone. I felt a bit bad - I'd only made mine as an experiment and because the nu cast kit wasnt available. This One, presumably. A very attractive prototype, though hard, perhaps, to justify outside the couple of places they mainly worked, little things like that seldom stop us running what we want and it is a hard-to-resist loco. Fortunate for me, then, that I model in OO not EM! An H2 would be impossible to resist. While only a class of 3, two were Westinghouse fitted and one did work the Cawood branch, so represents suitable Light Railway motive where the line might be NER (as Meyer's projects were perhaps less likely to be worked independently than Col. Stephens's) or where loan locos might be used. 7 hours ago, TurboSnail said: I tend to run and hide when anyone mentions a 6-coupled chassis By the way, in answer to Tom's comment "I tend to run and hide when anyone mentions a 6-coupled chassis", if you take the outside cylinders off the Electrotren 0-6-0T and turn the chassis to make the front the back, you've got a pretty close match to the H2. Unfortunately I think the motor would protrude just too far forward to be accommodated by the side tanks. However, it does give you a rolling chassis, and perhaps allows for the substitution of a smaller motor geared off the rear axle. Food for thought? Edited September 3, 2019 by Edwardian 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edwardian Posted September 3, 2019 Share Posted September 3, 2019 (edited) 4 minutes ago, Edwardian said: This One, presumably. A very attractive prototype, though hard, perhaps, to justify outside the couple of places they mainly worked, little things like that seldom stop us running what we want and it is a hard-to-resist loco. Fortunate for me, then, that I model in OO not EM! An H2, on the other hand, would be impossible to resist. While only a class of 3, two were Westinghouse fitted and one did work the Cawood branch, so represents suitable Light Railway motive where the line might be NER (as Meyer's projects were perhaps less likely to be worked independently than Col. Stephens's) or where loan locos might be used. By the way, in answer to Tom's comment "I tend to run and hide when anyone mentions a 6-coupled chassis", if you take the outside cylinders off the Electrotren 0-6-0T and turn the chassis to make the front the back, you've got a pretty close match to the H2. Unfortunately I think the motor would protrude just too far forward to be accommodated by the side tanks. However, it does give you a rolling chassis, and perhaps allows for the substitution of a smaller motor geared off the rear axle. Food for thought? Apologies, you do do it in OO: Not bad for 4mm-1 foot - Indeed! Edited September 3, 2019 by Edwardian 1 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TurboSnail Posted September 3, 2019 Author Share Posted September 3, 2019 59 minutes ago, Edwardian said: An H2 would be impossible to resist. While only a class of 3, two were Westinghouse fitted and one did work the Cawood branch, so represents suitable Light Railway motive where the line might be NER (as Meyer's projects were perhaps less likely to be worked independently than Col. Stephens's) or where loan locos might be used. By the way, in answer to Tom's comment "I tend to run and hide when anyone mentions a 6-coupled chassis", if you take the outside cylinders off the Electrotren 0-6-0T and turn the chassis to make the front the back, you've got a pretty close match to the H2. Unfortunately I think the motor would protrude just too far forward to be accommodated by the side tanks. However, it does give you a rolling chassis, and perhaps allows for the substitution of a smaller motor geared off the rear axle. Food for thought? My Hudswell contractor's 0-4-0st runs on an electrotren chassis with an alternative motor, but I think modifying an RTR chassis is not really worth it for a production kit - it works fine for scratchbuilds and one-offs. I'm sure I can make an 0-6-0 chassis that works! But I'll need time to think about it from scratch again. A small wheelbase like the H2 would help a lot though, as it reduces the leverage caused when things go out of alignment. Will think about. 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TurboSnail Posted September 5, 2019 Author Share Posted September 5, 2019 I have internet access once more! Just moved into a new flat, which of course means a new workbench, more of which anon. And here's what I made whilst offline. It's almost pre-grouping, honest! Examples started appearing from the mid-20s onwards (extra nerd points if you can name the manufacturer/type). Not the most accurate model in the world, mostly due to the wall thickness limits but I think I've largely captured the feel of the loco. I should probably turn some of these into physical models now I've built up a few kits worth of CAD. 5 3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ruston Posted September 5, 2019 Share Posted September 5, 2019 (edited) It looks like a loco by J&F Howard of Bedford to me. Edited September 5, 2019 by Ruston add photo link 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TurboSnail Posted September 6, 2019 Author Share Posted September 6, 2019 10 hours ago, Ruston said: It looks like a loco by J&F Howard of Bedford to me. That it is, though a slightly bigger one than that. I think it's an 8 or 10 ton version, though I haven't actually been able to find a definitive answer yet! 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TurboSnail Posted September 7, 2019 Author Share Posted September 7, 2019 Exciting news (for me at least)! The first couple of locos I've designed for Hardy's Hobbies have now been released into the wild, two variants of a typical Husdwell Clarke type design, suitable for the early 1900s onwards. Released as a complete body kit, needing only a RTR chassis, glue and paint to complete. https://hardyshobbies.co.uk/shop/locomotive-body-kits/hudswell-clarke-0-6-0t-sloped-tank-short/ https://hardyshobbies.co.uk/shop/locomotive-body-kits/hudswell-clarke-0-6-0t-sloped-tank-long/ 6 6 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edwardian Posted September 7, 2019 Share Posted September 7, 2019 Very well done on that. 1 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold BlueLightning Posted September 7, 2019 RMweb Gold Share Posted September 7, 2019 They look excellent, I got an email the other day to allow me to order early because of having pre-registered, but the website was down when I tried. Will have to get one now! Gary 1 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TurboSnail Posted September 10, 2019 Author Share Posted September 10, 2019 More work done on the NER Class H, most of the underframe done, but into the detailing on the topside now, which takes a disproportionate amount of time. I have added detail between the frames at the front, but it's mostly obscured by the NEM socket! 4 5 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
webbcompound Posted September 11, 2019 Share Posted September 11, 2019 If you make the NEM socket plug-in then people who use couplings originating in the draw hook slot will see the detail 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edwardian Posted September 11, 2019 Share Posted September 11, 2019 Three cheers for Turbo Snail and this first loco release! Great to see it in the press .... 6 2 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Compound2632 Posted September 11, 2019 RMweb Premium Share Posted September 11, 2019 I was having a browse of this. Are the Electrotren 0-6-0 chassis the same for the three different models - Baracaldos, Caldas, and R.B. Acena? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edwardian Posted September 11, 2019 Share Posted September 11, 2019 I believe so. 1 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edwardian Posted September 11, 2019 Share Posted September 11, 2019 (edited) PS, The motor on this chassis intrudes into the side tanks. I have both Anglicised and Continental side tank bodies as they were bought for the chassis and I chose whatever was cheapest at the times of purchase. The giveaway that the same chassis is used on the saddle tanks are the 'blanking plates' required below the tanks on Baracaldos, necessary to accommodate the motor. The same is seen on the Taff Vale Anglicised version of the saddle tank. This problem has caused the side sheets to be extended forward on the Fox Walker body for CA that Tom kindly produced. The Hornby B4 Peckett may have a better wheelbase for the FW, if so we may go for a re-design with that chassis in mind. My concern is that the tanks on the B4 will be higher and Hornby has a tendency to pack its gubbins right up to the top of the available body space. However, I digress. But, even with a good wheelbase match, the motor position will make the Electrotren chassis a more sympathetic fit for a side tank than a saddle. Some pictures of the chassis might assist at this point ... Edited September 11, 2019 by Edwardian 3 3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Compound2632 Posted September 11, 2019 RMweb Premium Share Posted September 11, 2019 I feel a discussion with the CME & General Manager of our club's quayside layout coming on... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edwardian Posted September 11, 2019 Share Posted September 11, 2019 3 minutes ago, Compound2632 said: I feel a discussion with the CME & General Manager of our club's quayside layout coming on... I have said this before, but I will say it again, this Electrotren chassis is very close to the GWR 1361 class dock tanks. This makes them a very good match for the Sharp Stewart Cornwall Minerals Railway tanks, from which the GW tanks were rebuilt/derived. As the CMR Sharps were side tanks, the Electrotren chassis offers a cost-effective alternative donor for these. Of course, they are of interest principally because a number were sold off - Colne Valley and Lynn and Fakenham - a couple eventually ending up on the West Norfolk. Perhaps one was subsequently sold off by the M&GN to your dock company in the 1890s? 1 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