Jump to content

TurboSnail

TurboSnail's Workbench - 3D Printing and General Bodgery

Recommended Posts

 
2 minutes ago, AlfaZagato said:

A jade sculpture?

Resin is expensive, but not that expensive!

 

Plus, that would take some modelling talent, rather than just pressing go on the magic machine...

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More pre-grouping things on the way from Hardy's Hobbies...

 

image.png.694e0e521dd1d1c920e4ca6a66e923e1.png

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm quite excited about this as it looks like it could save me a lot of work. Could you tell us the length of the footplate? Is it designed to sit on the Caley Pug Hornby chassis?

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, webbcompound said:

I'm quite excited about this as it looks like it could save me a lot of work. Could you tell us the length of the footplate? Is it designed to sit on the Caley Pug Hornby chassis?

 

 

It's designed for the Peckett W4 chassis - a bit pricey, but should have excellent running qualities and leaves space for full cab interior details. Although, of course, I'm sure it's not the only chassis that would fit.

 

The footplate is 67mm between the insides of the bufferbeams (I think I remember that from measuring the W4 chassis length).

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some tiny IC-engined locos on the bench over the weekend - the Hunslet 22hp has finally got it's etched plates, and I've also been test building a kit for the Howard 8-ton petrol shunter.

 

IMG_20191110_221752.jpg.27514e0f90b6930b54c8b6806e45d289.jpg

  • Like 4
  • Craftsmanship/clever 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Recently completed Hudswell-Clarke 1800 class - I don't have much experience of weathering, and I think it shows!

 

P1000341(2).jpg.9d989b98da1ae9dbb85a2ef22198bba0.jpg

 

P1000345(2).jpg.e44c43d3c5478c69023dee67e3f0ec09.jpg

  • Like 5
  • Craftsmanship/clever 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi TS,

 

Your Hudswell Clarke looks the business, well done.

 

Gibbo.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Funny thing, how making something look realistically dirty is harder than making it look clean. 

 

I would say keep the dark shading lower on panels. 

  • Informative/Useful 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 07/11/2019 at 01:38, TurboSnail said:

 

 

G'Day Turbosnail,

 

This looks like is based on a Manning Wardle H Type?

 

Is this dimensional accurate to the H type or was it stretched/shortened to fit on the Hornby Chassis?

 

Cheers

 

James

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Down_Under said:

 

 

G'Day Turbosnail,

 

This looks like is based on a Manning Wardle H Type?

 

Is this dimensional accurate to the H type or was it stretched/shortened to fit on the Hornby Chassis?

 

Cheers

 

James

 

 

 

It is a Manning Wardle Class H, produced from drawings and reference photos - there are a few different versions coming based on different eras.

 

It's as dimensionally accurate as I can get it to fit the chassis, a few small compromises have had to be made, but I think I've managed to keep them all under about 1mm. The main one is the tank is 0.75mm too high and the footplate about 1mm too long at the front. IMHO those aren't big compromises! 

  • Like 2
  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very interested in the H Class.

 

I had decided, long ago, that it should be the works shunter on the Isle of Eldernell and Mereport Railway, then, when I decided to model the West Norfolk Raiway instead, I thought to have one as the Aching Constable works loco.  Later I 'learnt' that the WNR shunter was a Beyer Peacock, but I find that the motorised Airfix Pug I bought to use for this is a dud, so we are back to 'Plan A'.

 

The problem with the H - and there was a good RTR conversion in Model Rail some time ago - is that the Hornby/Dapol Pug dictated the full cab version, which was a little too modern for my purposes.  The Hornby W4 chassis solves that problem. 

 

I look forward to its release.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Midland had six Manning Wardle Class H 0-4-0STs, together with one Class M 0-6-0ST. Five of the Class H engines were bought new between 1867 and 1873; the last one together with the Class M engine had been contractors' engines on the Settle and Carlisle, where they had been named Sedburgh and Queen. Summerson gives their Manning Wardle works numbers:

  • 229 of Nov 1867, bought for shunting at St Pancras, No. 700 - 1034 - 1060 - 2060 - 1322 - 1322A; broken up Feb 1890
  • 321 of Nov 1870 and 330 of Dec 1870, bought for shunting at Gloucester docks, Nos. 1061/2 - 2061/2 - 2061A/2A; broken up Apr 1896 / Mar 1898
  • 445/446 of Jun 1873, bought for shunting at Swansea docks, Nos. 2066/7 - 1323/4 - 1323A/4A - withdrawn/2066A; broken up Jun 1890 / Mar 1898
  • 328 of Nov 1870, Sedburgh, taken into Midland stock Nov 1873, No. 2068 - 1325 - 1325A, broken up Dec 1883.

These engines were frequently hired out to collieries and quarries on the Midland system and to Burton breweries, so there would be plenty of excuse for a Midland-liveried MW, if one was modelling such.

 

Ref. S. Summerson, Midland Railway Locomotives Vol. 2 (Irwell Press, 2007).

Edited by Compound2632
  • Informative/Useful 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Edwardian said:

Very interested in the H Class.

 

I had decided, long ago, that it should be the works shunter on the Isle of Eldernell and Mereport Railway, then, when I decided to model the West Norfolk Raiway instead, I thought to have one as the Aching Constable works loco.  Later I 'learnt' that the WNR shunter was a Beyer Peacock, but I find that the motorised Airfix Pug I bought to use for this is a dud, so we are back to 'Plan A'.

 

The problem with the H - and there was a good RTR conversion in Model Rail some time ago - is that the Hornby/Dapol Pug dictated the full cab version, which was a little too modern for my purposes.  The Hornby W4 chassis solves that problem. 

 

I look forward to its release.

The Peckett chassis is still a compromise.

 

The wheel diameter is 1mm greater on the Peckett than on the MW (prototype 3ft. 3in. and 3ft. oin.)

 

Unless you're modelling the very late builds, the wheels are obviously very different from MW's distinctive double boss type of wheels.

 

The cylinders are are set forward quite a bit more on the Peckett than on the MW H, so I don't know how they can be made to line up with the smokebox on the new body without the dimensions being distorted.

 

The brake blocks are forward of the wheels on the Peckett but to the rear on the MW.

 

CVMRJune2019-029.jpg.7d881ab4c41b8cac570754d87ee8eabe.jpg

Above: Hornby W4. Below: Scratchbuilt Manning H.

CVMRJune2019-026.jpg.6710f217f54814fb7c5dc79ff6e4aaa7.jpg

 

 

Edited by Ruston
  • Informative/Useful 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, Ruston said:

The Peckett chassis is still a compromise.

 

The wheel diameter is 1mm greater on the Peckett than on the MW (prototype 3ft. 3in. and 3ft. oin.)

 

Unless you're modelling the very late builds, the wheels are obviously very different from MW's distinctive double boss type of wheels.

 

The cylinders are are set forward quite a bit more on the Peckett than on the MW H, so I don't know how they can be made to line up with the smokebox on the new body without the dimensions being distorted.

 

The brake blocks are forward of the wheels on the Peckett but to the rear on the MW.

 

It certainly is a compromise - but we have to look at the intention of this kit. It's designed to be simple and quick to put together, for those who don't have the skillset or motivation to make their own chassis. Designing and building a kit chassis would take it above this level (but is possible, see my MW Class F). Of course, the kit is supplied without the donor Peckett chassis, so if someone wanted to make their own chassis for it, that would always be an option...

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, TurboSnail said:

 

It certainly is a compromise - but we have to look at the intention of this kit. It's designed to be simple and quick to put together, for those who don't have the skillset or motivation to make their own chassis. Designing and building a kit chassis would take it above this level (but is possible, see my MW Class F). Of course, the kit is supplied without the donor Peckett chassis, so if someone wanted to make their own chassis for it, that would always be an option...

I understand the intention and I'm not picking fault for its own sake. Some may think that I'm being pedantic but I am first and foremost an enthusiast of industrial engines so I'm keen to get things as correct as possible, in the same way that main line people would want things to be correct in a main line model.

 

Bearing in mind the "errors" that I mentioned, If it was I doing this body shell I wouldn't want to call it a Class H because doing so would be misleading. I would say that it is a generic Manning Wardle 0-4-0ST, or a 'Special'. Alternatively, instead of picking a prototype and attempting to make it fit an available chassis, why not pick a prototype that is already nearer what we have in the chassis? I can send you a photo (with known dimensions) of a similar-looking engine that is larger all-round and has the same wheel diameter as the Peckett chassis. You would still have the same overall typical Manning Wardle look but with dimensions that are more suited to the Peckett chassis and with fewer compromises.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perfectly understandable.

 

4 minutes ago, Ruston said:

I can send you a photo (with known dimensions) of a similar-looking engine that is larger all-round and has the same wheel diameter as the Peckett chassis.

 

Then please do!

 

I'm with you on the 'generic' version, but I am designing this for a customer, and they wanted a Class H, and I'm told the customer is always right... Besides, we've already done a generic Hudswell Clarke (2, in fact, or 7 if you count all the variants), so they felt a more prototypical loco would be best for the next project. The compromises on the body are much less than on the chassis, so I'm hoping it turns out alright.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Ruston said:

I can send you a photo (with known dimensions) of a similar-looking engine that is larger all-round and has the same wheel diameter as the Peckett chassis. You would still have the same overall typical Manning Wardle look but with dimensions that are more suited to the Peckett chassis and with fewer compromises.

 

Interestering.

 

Mebbe Tom could try un for hissen?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of my personal projects is progressing perfectly, the LCDR Martley F - makes a change from working on tiny locos recently! Still need to model the springs and sandboxes. The plan for this loco is to run in SECR livery with a short rake of the Hattons' Generic coaches to represent a local stopping service - even though my layout isn't really suburban enough for these locos to have been used in reality.

 

image.png.ec6ecb21b109c6743347f65ee7e727d7.png

  • Like 10
  • Craftsmanship/clever 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oooooo nice.  Martley's engines are modelled so rarely which is a pity.

  • Agree 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A Martley F.....with condensing pipes? I might have a use for that!

 

No, let me rephrase that....I NEED IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Edited by LU Standard Stock
  • Like 1
  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, LU Standard Stock said:

A Martley F.....with condensing pipes? I might have a use for that!

 

There's a couple of other things to get through the test build queue first, but it shouldn't be too long...

 

Was there a version without condensing pipes? All the photos I've seen (admittedly not many, but both LCDR and SECR condition) have them.

  • Like 2

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.