Edwardian Posted April 22, 2019 Share Posted April 22, 2019 Now, the F1 and the Neilson. I went to Eileen's Emporium and the Alan Gibson stand to see what I could find. I have most of what I need save some of the wheels. Specifically I I'm OK for tube, wire, pick-ups bushes and bearings. I suspect the Neilson drivers need to be Romford. It doesnot look like the Alan Gibson tyres will accommodate the printed centres. For the F1, Alan Gibson do not do 4' tender wheels, so I'll check Romfords. I did get bogie wheels. For the drivers. I picked up a set of 8'6" rods. Does anyone know the number of spokes on a F1? Looks like 20. Alan Gibson had 21 and 22 spoked. I've left this for now. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TurboSnail Posted April 22, 2019 Author Share Posted April 22, 2019 1 hour ago, Edwardian said: Now, the F1 and the Neilson. I went to Eileen's Emporium and the Alan Gibson stand to see what I could find. I have most of what I need save some of the wheels. Specifically I I'm OK for tube, wire, pick-ups bushes and bearings. I suspect the Neilson drivers need to be Romford. It doesnot look like the Alan Gibson tyres will accommodate the printed centres. For the F1, Alan Gibson do not do 4' tender wheels, so I'll check Romfords. I did get bogie wheels. For the drivers. I picked up a set of 8'6" rods. Does anyone know the number of spokes on a F1? Looks like 20. Alan Gibson had 21 and 22 spoked. I've left this for now. I recommend Scale-link for ease of use, particularly for the Neilson wheels as the centres come out fairly easily, but they're not the most accurate wheels in the world and some people don't like the plastic centres. I think it would be possible to modify a normal metal driving wheel with a file and filler, but I found swapping the centre over to be easy enough. It does need to be done very carefully though to make sure the hole stays in the centre, if that makes sense - so that the wheels don't turn into cams... The printed centres also have the centre hole square for a Markits/Scale-link type axle, so if you do go Gibson, you'll have to modify it to fit (I don't know how Gibson wheels work, so can't really help there). I've typed centre so many times it's starting to sound weird... I got all the wheels for my F class from Markits/Romford as Scale-link don't do 28mm drivers. The drivers were from a Midland loco IIRC, the only ones I could find with the right diameter, I think they're 22 spoke though. The message I sent you earlier has the spoke count in, can't remember what it was now though. A quick Google suggests 20 I highly recommend using threaded crankpins to allow repeated assembly/dismantling as the major downside of 3D printed kits is that the rods and chassis have to be adjusted a bit to account for the printing tolerances. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Corbs Posted April 23, 2019 RMweb Gold Share Posted April 23, 2019 (edited) On 22/04/2019 at 11:09, TurboSnail said: I realised this morning that I forgot to finish the Hudswell Clarke loco I started a while back - so it now has a chimney and cab interior detail (based off the discussion a page or two ago, so it should be relatively accurate this time!). I've stuck it on Shapeways for the time being, along with the other locos I've designed for the Electrotren 0-6-0 chassis, until such a time as I can start printing more economically in Resin again (if anyone does want one, I may be able to get it done, but it won't be cheap!). This will hopefully become the brute of the workforce on my future layout - I'm considering the idea of running in two eras, based on the mainline stock I have, namely 1900-1914 and 1945-1949. This loco would fit the latter quite nicely I reckon, not sure how early I could go with it though - any ideas? This looks very cool, more loco industrial loco bodies to fit RTR chassis makes me very happy. At the moment it looks like a hybrid of the MSC IC 0-6-0T and the OC type like Nunlow? If you made a few tweaks it could be either one. The IC MSC type has full length tanks, but inside cylinders. Would an older Hornby Terrier chassis work? Or maybe the electrotren chassis, with the cylinders removed and reversed, for wheel spacing etc. The OC types have tanks that stop at the smokebox, but seem to be longer overall (so the tanks may be not far off in length to the IC version, just larger/longer boiler). Looks like they have larger domes. The only thing I think you are missing to make it look 'propa' HC is the curved join from cab to bunker, and cab to tank. There is one thing - the hybrid currently has a piano front on it under the smokebox door, which doesn't seem to be a Hudswell Clarke feature (and wouldn't be needed on an outside cylinder loco as it's a cover for the inside cylinders). Do you think it would be much work to adapt your hybrid into either one of the above two? Edited April 23, 2019 by Corbs 2 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TurboSnail Posted April 23, 2019 Author Share Posted April 23, 2019 (edited) 44 minutes ago, Corbs said: This looks very cool, more loco industrial loco bodies to fit RTR chassis makes me very happy. At the moment it looks like a hybrid of the MSC IC 0-6-0T and the OC type like Nunlow? If you made a few tweaks it could be either one. The IC MSC type has full length tanks, but inside cylinders. Would an older Hornby Terrier chassis work? Or maybe the electrotren chassis, with the cylinders removed and reversed, for wheel spacing etc. The OC types have tanks that stop at the smokebox, but seem to be longer overall (so the tanks may be not far off in length to the IC version, just larger/longer boiler). Looks like they have larger domes. The only thing I think you are missing to make it look 'propa' HC is the curved join from cab to bunker, and cab to tank. There is one thing - the hybrid currently has a piano front on it under the smokebox door, which doesn't seem to be a Hudswell Clarke feature (and wouldn't be needed on an outside cylinder loco as it's a cover for the inside cylinders). Do you think it would be much work to adapt your hybrid into either one of the above two? My CAD was based off a number of locos, including some for the MSC, Port of London Authority and others. If I do adapt it, it would probably be towards the MSC IC ones, shouldn't be too difficult. There were a couple of other types with straight tanks that I took elements from as well. I'd probably want a drawing to work from though if I was to do a model of an actual prototype - I didn't find any when I was looking, so I've worked from photos instead. If you have such a drawing, I could probably model one... I will add the curved sections and remove the piano lid, I should have spotted those! I was going for something 'in the style of' rather than a specific prototype so I wouldn't have to worry too much about the tiny details - but I do want it to match the house style, so thanks for pointing those out. I've realised I may have to change the chimney now as well. The thing is, I wanted it to be fairly small (length over buffers is 100mm), as my layout is a small concern so wouldn't have massively powerful locos (this will probably be the biggest one they have). I would like to do some locos for a Terrier chassis (I went home at the weekend to dig one of my Terriers out of storage for this very reason), but it would be larger I think as the chassis is physically longer than the Electrotren one, and the wheels look bigger too (I need to measure up though). Hopefully there will also be a ready supply of old Terrier chassis in the near future, with everyone upgrading... The downside of the Terrier chassis (and the Electrotren one) is that you are essentially limited to locomotives with side tanks, due to the width of the motors. Edited April 23, 2019 by TurboSnail added dimension 1 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Corbs Posted April 23, 2019 RMweb Gold Share Posted April 23, 2019 Awesome. Sorry, one more thing that's just occurred to me, this has come up in another thread and of course feel free to tell me to shhh! If you look at OC locos, there is always a gap in between the cylinders and the bufferbeams to enable the covers to be removed. The cylinders are almost always located directly under the chimney on 2 cylinder industrial locos. At the moment you have the cylinders forward of the smokebox. I think it would benefit from extending the running plate slightly to allow a tiny gap, and also moving the smokebox closer to the front (so that it protrudes beyond the tanks and sits exactly over the cylinders). So it looks like a smaller brother of the larger locos like Nunlow etc. What do you think? 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TurboSnail Posted April 23, 2019 Author Share Posted April 23, 2019 24 minutes ago, Corbs said: Awesome. Sorry, one more thing that's just occurred to me, this has come up in another thread and of course feel free to tell me to shhh! If you look at OC locos, there is always a gap in between the cylinders and the bufferbeams to enable the covers to be removed. The cylinders are almost always located directly under the chimney on 2 cylinder industrial locos. At the moment you have the cylinders forward of the smokebox. I think it would benefit from extending the running plate slightly to allow a tiny gap, and also moving the smokebox closer to the front (so that it protrudes beyond the tanks and sits exactly over the cylinders). So it looks like a smaller brother of the larger locos like Nunlow etc. What do you think? Yeah, worth a look. It's not as bad as it looks on the CAD though, the chassis is drawn with horizontal cylinders as it was easier and I just needed the overall size - on the actual chassis, they're smaller and inclined. But could probably be moved to a more correct position. Hoping to finish this model off tonight, so I'll add it to the list 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TurboSnail Posted April 23, 2019 Author Share Posted April 23, 2019 Spot the difference! For those who can't be bothered: boiler and tanks made longer, piano lid gone, new chimney, tank/cab/bunker rounds, removed bunker rounded edges, additional cab interior detail & guard irons! 3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gibbo675 Posted April 23, 2019 Share Posted April 23, 2019 15 minutes ago, TurboSnail said: Spot the difference! For those who can't be bothered: boiler and tanks made longer, piano lid gone, new chimney, tank/cab/bunker rounds, removed bunker rounded edges, additional cab interior detail & guard irons! Mr Turbo Snail, I might be nearly 50 but, as I remember from being under 7 or so, spot the difference picture games had the two pictures in question juxtaposed for ease of examination. Looking good all the same despite having to put my specks on to read the cheat line. I put my speck on because I couldn't be bothered to increase the zoom of the screen via the tool bar due to being old fashioned ! In addition to my, looking good all the same comment I feel that you are somewhat understating your activities with the term, "General Bodgery". Gibbo. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gibbo675 Posted April 23, 2019 Share Posted April 23, 2019 6 hours ago, Corbs said: Hi Corbs, The driver pictured, of No.70, is David Feather, when at Carnforth nearly 30 years ago he was a driver upon the 15" gauge railway there. Fittingly in view of this being Mr Turbo Snail's thread we knew him as Snail Rail for his steady progress in adhering to the time table. Most of the rest of us usually arrived quite early, and used more coal and water for some reason or other ! Gibbo. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TurboSnail Posted April 23, 2019 Author Share Posted April 23, 2019 2 hours ago, Gibbo675 said: In addition to my, looking good all the same comment I feel that you are somewhat understating your activities with the term, "General Bodgery". Ah, you haven't seen what I'm doing to an R1 chassis yet! All in good time... 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TangoOscarMike Posted April 23, 2019 Share Posted April 23, 2019 2 hours ago, TurboSnail said: Spot the difference! For those who can't be bothered: boiler and tanks made longer, piano lid gone, new chimney, tank/cab/bunker rounds, removed bunker rounded edges, additional cab interior detail & guard irons! Hello! Normally I just lurk here, but since you've set a challenge, I'll bite: 1) Detail (cover for non-existent inside cylinders, was it?) removed from front edge of smokebox. 2) Bigger flared chimney cap. I recall that these things were called funnels when I was little. But since returning to the hobby I find that they're chimneys. Also trucks have become wagons. Maybe I'm mis-remembering. 3) Change in bunker shape. 4) Cylindrical thing (brake? rocket launcher?) in the cab. You see, I'm moderately observant but pretty ignorant. Cheers Also Tom 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edwardian Posted April 23, 2019 Share Posted April 23, 2019 8 hours ago, TurboSnail said: I would like to do some locos for a Terrier chassis (I went home at the weekend to dig one of my Terriers out of storage for this very reason), but it would be larger I think as the chassis is physically longer than the Electrotren one, and the wheels look bigger too (I need to measure up though). Hopefully there will also be a ready supply of old Terrier chassis in the near future, with everyone upgrading... The downside of the Terrier chassis (and the Electrotren one) is that you are essentially limited to locomotives with side tanks, due to the width of the motors. Terrier wheels were 4' (16mm) IIRC, and the Eletrotren are, I think, 13-14mm Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Corbs Posted April 24, 2019 RMweb Gold Share Posted April 24, 2019 1 hour ago, Edwardian said: Terrier wheels were 4' (16mm) IIRC, and the Eletrotren are, I think, 13-14mm Ah, quite a bit bigger than the MSC locos then. The Electrotren chassis sans cylinders and reversed could make a good MSC 'Long Tank' chassis though? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TurboSnail Posted April 24, 2019 Author Share Posted April 24, 2019 8 hours ago, Edwardian said: Terrier wheels were 4' (16mm) IIRC, and the Eletrotren are, I think, 13-14mm Thanks. The Electrotren wheels are 14mm, but do have oddly large flanges which can make them look a bit bigger from some angles. 7 hours ago, Corbs said: Ah, quite a bit bigger than the MSC locos then. The Electrotren chassis sans cylinders and reversed could make a good MSC 'Long Tank' chassis though? Potentially yes, however I want to keep my Electrotren chassis completely unmodified so I can swap several different loco bodies onto it. I may buy another one in due course, but my budget isn't up to that right now! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Corbs Posted April 24, 2019 RMweb Gold Share Posted April 24, 2019 18 hours ago, TurboSnail said: I'd probably want a drawing to work from though if I was to do a model of an actual prototype - I didn't find any when I was looking, so I've worked from photos instead. If you have such a drawing, I could probably model one... Ta-da! This any good? This is the short tank version but as far as I am aware the only main difference is the tanks. It doesn't have measurements on the drawing but could extrapolate them from the dimensions? 3 1 1 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TurboSnail Posted April 24, 2019 Author Share Posted April 24, 2019 Lovely! A quick comparison to the reversed, de-cylindered Electrotren chassis: Hudswell 'Canal' Wheels: 13.5mm Front wheelbase: 21.4mm Rear wheelbase: 19.7mm Electrotren reversed: 14mm 24mm 21mm So it's a little overscale, but not too far out. Due to the motor position, it would have to be the long tank version. I'm not sure how useful it would be to do a model of it. CSP already do a kit, which looks very nice and it would not live up to the accuracy of that. However, mine would be much cheaper... The dimensions of my 'inspired by' version are very similar overall, mine is about 4mm longer over buffers and with a very slightly smaller boiler. 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edwardian Posted April 24, 2019 Share Posted April 24, 2019 Yes, you are looking for alternatives for the Electrotren 0-6-0 chassis. Synapses not firing - but I've now made the connection; for some reason it failed to occur to me that such a subject would appeal to you, but since you expressed a liking for it and say that you might have a use for one on your layout: Ex-Cornwall Minerals Railway Sharp Stewart 0-6-0T (with tender!) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TurboSnail Posted April 24, 2019 Author Share Posted April 24, 2019 (edited) 18 minutes ago, Edwardian said: Yes, you are looking for alternatives for the Electrotren 0-6-0 chassis. Synapses not firing - but I've now made the connection; for some reason it failed to occur to me that such a subject would appeal to you, but since you expressed a liking for it and say that you might have a use for one on your layout: Ex-Cornwall Minerals Railway Sharp Stewart 0-6-0T (with tender!) I shall put it on the back burner for now, I have plenty of other things to make in the meantime. Would you be able to PM me a drawing? If I do go ahead, I wouldn't want to tread on other people's toes, so would probably just make the loco end, and leave the tender. I don't know why, but small locos with 4-wheel tenders seem to appeal to me - I've also thought about redoing my Furness Sharpie to resemble the version as preserved with a tender, which I do have a drawing for. (image pinched from Wikipedia) Edited April 24, 2019 by TurboSnail 8 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edwardian Posted April 24, 2019 Share Posted April 24, 2019 5 minutes ago, TurboSnail said: I shall put it on the back burner for now, I have plenty of other things to make in the meantime. Would you be able to PM me a drawing? If I do go ahead, I wouldn't want to tread on other people's toes, so would probably just make the loco end, and leave the tender. I don't know why, but small locos with 4-wheel tenders seem to appeal to me - I've also thought about redoing my Furness Sharpie to resemble the version as preserved with a tender, which I do have a drawing for. (image pinched from Wikipedia) Well, if I fabricate one laboriously from plasticard and then you print one, that will obviously be really annoying! Joint project? Yes, I can get drawings over via PM when I have a moment to scan. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edwardian Posted April 24, 2019 Share Posted April 24, 2019 Nice Furness loco. You have a PM Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Corbs Posted April 24, 2019 RMweb Gold Share Posted April 24, 2019 2 hours ago, TurboSnail said: I'm not sure how useful it would be to do a model of it. CSP already do a kit, which looks very nice and it would not live up to the accuracy of that. However, mine would be much cheaper... Also bear in mind that not all of us have the skills to make a brass kit and would rather work in plastic/3D printing 1 3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gibbo675 Posted April 24, 2019 Share Posted April 24, 2019 (edited) 6 hours ago, Corbs said: Ta-da! This any good? This is the short tank version but as far as I am aware the only main difference is the tanks. It doesn't have measurements on the drawing but could extrapolate them from the dimensions? Hi Corbs and Folks, Mr Corbs is quite correct in that the only difference between the two derivatives of the MSC Hudswell Clarke locomotives are the shape of the tanks. I know this for I worked upon both No.32 Gothenburg and No.70 while at Riley & Sons in Bury. Be aware that there are fillet plates at the front of the tanks and along the top of the boiler closing the gap between the boiler which are not initially obvious from looking at the drawing, and also that the centre set of wheels are flangeless. Another point of note is that very often coal was carried on the cab roof when in service with the MSC to extend range and trips to the coal stage, the same reason that the tanks were extended. The names of the locomotives were representative of the ports that were traded with from the docks of the Manchester Ship Canal Company, however the name plates were removed for fear of vandalism during the war years for some locomotive had German names such as Hamburg and some sounded German to those that vandalise things such as Gothenburg. Good luck with this latest project. Gibbo. Edited April 24, 2019 by Gibbo675 MSC Naming Policy. 1 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TurboSnail Posted April 26, 2019 Author Share Posted April 26, 2019 Mr Wilson has been doing some more sketching tonight, that chimney was a particularly tricky one. Working out how to do that fluted confection will take some time too... 8 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TurboSnail Posted April 28, 2019 Author Share Posted April 28, 2019 Spent most of today watching the BTCC, but occasionally a spell of modelling broke out - the Electrotren-based 0-4-0 Hudswell got some surface treatment, filler and a coat of paint, more horrible R1 bodgery took place (I'm not showing you that until it works...) and the details have started going on to 'Lady of the Lakes'. Mr Wilson was not thinking of the poor CAD engineers when he designed that fluted thingy (the technical term escapes me right now). 6 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ruston Posted April 28, 2019 Share Posted April 28, 2019 (edited) 29 minutes ago, TurboSnail said: Spent most of today watching the BTCC, but occasionally a spell of modelling broke out - the Electrotren-based 0-4-0 Hudswell got some surface treatment, filler and a coat of paint, more horrible R1 bodgery took place (I'm not showing you that until it works...) and the details have started going on to 'Lady of the Lakes'. Mr Wilson was not thinking of the poor CAD engineers when he designed that fluted thingy (the technical term escapes me right now). Safety Valve Cover. Think yourself lucky that you aren't doing this one of of Wilson's engines (or was it Mr. Manning and Mr. Wardles?) He definitely looked into the future to annoy CAD engineers with this one. Edited April 28, 2019 by Ruston 9 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