Jump to content
 

TSD's Workbench - SECR and Industrial modelling


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Ruston said:

Class B and C are the same with the exception that Class C has 7in. cylinders as opposed to the B's 6in. Only 14 B were built to standard gauge and only 2 C were built in total (both standard gauge).

 

Hmm - the only info I have is RM Drake-Brockman's article and drawings in Railway Modeller (Jan '74, I think). He also notes the larger cylinders on the C, but also states that the C has a larger firebox, so not sure which source is right! 

 

1 hour ago, Ruston said:

As regards modelling one in 4mm then good luck with that! There are no driving wheels available (that I am aware of) in the required diameter and I can't think of a RTR chassis that could fit.

 

The vaguely formed plan so far is to use Gibson 10.5mm wagon wheels (0.5mm overscale, which is hardly a compromise!), with the centres pressed out and replaced with 3D printed ones, so I can accurately represent the double-boss type. I have sketched up a quick chassis concept and I think I can make it fit! I'm well aware that my enthusiasm may outweigh my talent, but I'm enjoying the engineering challenge.

 

56 minutes ago, Annie said:

I fitted a tiny can motor into it by using the casing of the can motor to represent the boiler and it had a very tiny worm drive gearbox hidden in the firebox.

 

Clever - I've heard of this done before, but I guess it requires well chosen gears to get the boiler at the right height? I think the motor I have in mind is small enough to go inside the boiler (just), so I'm trying to rig up a 4 wheel drive system so I don't have the struggle of getting conrods to function properly. 

 

17 minutes ago, webbcompound said:

2mmscale association do a range of wheels from 13mm down to 7mm, which includes 10mm, 9.5 and 9mm (depending how m,uch wear you want to depict on your rims. These for example would not be drasically out if you removed every second spoke and added in the balancing blank crankpin position, which should be fairly easy as the centers are brass. And with them being split axle you don't have to worry about pickups. Aklternatively there is bound to be something N guage with bigger flanges.

 

Might have to look into this - as mentioned earlier I'll be making my own wheel centres, so I really only need the tyres.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Ruston said:

What size axles are you planning on using?

 

2mm. Fits with the gears I'm planning to use, or the backup gears if plan A fails. Will probably reuse the original Gibson axle if I can't buy just the tyres separately.

  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

image.png.59d9ecc7370534eae22a0ce2f80e5f30.png.b7061f94c28454ac198b2703d113109c.png

On 27/08/2019 at 16:53, TurboSnail said:

 

The design is finished and awaiting a test print. It was a personal project, so there are a few other locos (i.e. commissions) before it in the queue. I have all the wheels, gears and bits to do it, so it's just a case of waiting for a gap in the schedule.

 

 

 

Frames for the Lady of the Lakes.

Frames-002.jpg.03cafe81bc54d302b06a6716ff9b5948.jpg

The crank pin ends and the rod retaining pieces are still rough in this shot as it all needs to come apart for the gearbox fitting but when it's finally assembled the retaining pieces will have to be soldered on and trimmed with a file. I've tapped the cranks and their spacers to 10BA, so you can simply unscrew them but after fitting the gearbox I would recommend a drop of loctite on the threads to prevent the cranks from getting out of quarter.

  • Like 4
  • Craftsmanship/clever 8
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Goodness, I've let the tumbleweed take over this thread! V. busy at work so less modelling done recently, but I am getting on with a couple of loco builds.

 

NER H

 

IMG_20191206_210312.jpg.98829c512b3e7dc3ef92784eb6c0ed49.jpg

 

AEC Diesel

 

IMG_20191206_210325.jpg.28214c73d473941bb7d2058088f9bade.jpg

 

The AEC does run, but I need to upgrade the chassis to four wheel drive as it's having traction issues despite a boiler full of lead.

  • Like 4
  • Craftsmanship/clever 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Back to one of my personal projects, the SER R Class. I've finally given up on making a chassis for the Wrenn body, and have taken the opposite approach, making a body for the Oxford Dean Goods chassis. The CAD drawing is progressing nicely, the body is starting to come to life now. Some very tricky bits to draw though, especially the tank flares and the beading around the cab doors, with its compound curves. 

 

image.png.001d5f472d871df3b8a61a077012507f.png

  • Like 3
  • Craftsmanship/clever 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

And if anyone's interested, this is roughly how a model like this would be set up to print - the aim being to try and keep the support material off the viewable surfaces where possible. This one needs a bit more cleaning up, so will be refined further before I actually print it.

 

image.png.75464188d89c26b3b5b18d6e149dab80.png

  • Like 7
  • Craftsmanship/clever 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm in the unfortunate position of being back home for the holidays, but not having brought my modelling stuff with me - although I do have the dog to keep me company, which goes a long way towards making up for it :P 

 

Anyway, hence the reason for my CAD output increasing of late - I've nowt else to do!

 

SER D1741 2-plank ballast wagon. Some lasted in dumb-buffered state from 1874 to about the mid-20s. Some sprung buffered ones lasted to c.1930.

 

image.png.7b4e87e1898fcc7bc6acc0e04214a2b4.png

  • Like 1
  • Craftsmanship/clever 6
Link to post
Share on other sites

A fair few hours later...

 

As, always, constructive criticism welcomed! It's not RTR quality and my drawings probably never will be, it's a hobby after all, not a job! 

 

P.S I'm not actually this quick at modelling - the bulk of this model was done a while ago, and I've just been adding details for the last 2 days...

 

image.png.e6f4b3919ec60dac0efbe472baf77b12.png

Edited by TurboSnail
  • Like 2
  • Craftsmanship/clever 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Martin.M said:

Looks good to me. My preference would be for no couple pocket and let individuals  put there own coupling in place..

 

How can I buy one?

 

The R class looks good too...

 

Martin

 

Thanks Martin, just keep an eye on this thread, I need to test build them first...

 

My approach is to put NEM pockets in place, as getting the precise positioning can be awkward - if they are not needed, they can simply be cut off. On this model, the pocket attachment also helps the location of the wheel units (the springs/w-irons are printed assembled separately, assembled with the wheels, then slotted into the base of the wagon).

  • Like 3
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

So, so many tiny things to modify against the R Class, all the dimensions are very slightly different! I need to try and find photos of the backhead then that's it for the loco. Following the recycling theme, I'm hoping to re-hash the F Class tender into something suitable.

 

image.png.268ee830d7970b9632657c62f15b9942.png

  • Like 7
  • Craftsmanship/clever 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, TurboSnail said:

So, so many tiny things to modify against the R Class, all the dimensions are very slightly different! I need to try and find photos of the backhead then that's it for the loco. Following the recycling theme, I'm hoping to re-hash the F Class tender into something suitable.

 

image.png.268ee830d7970b9632657c62f15b9942.png

 

O, wow!

  • Like 1
  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, sem34090 said:

Any chance of an O1?

 

Sorry, I love the O, but they were few and far between by 1939... And I have been asked by a couple of mates to do an O1 so it would save me the trouble (lazy git that I am!).

 

Golden Arrow do an O1 (at least, I think it's them), but I don't need one for my layout, so I probably wouldn't bother duplicating it unless there's some serious deficiency with the GA model, which as far as I know, there isn't! Or unless there's some serious demand...

 

It's not that simple a conversion, other than the footplate, there's more similarity between an R and an O than an O and an O1 - hence why I haven't also done an R1 (yet!).

  • Like 1
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
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...