Freelance tender engine for the Hornby 0-4-0 Holden chassis

[TangoOscarMike]

6 hours ago, Steamport Southport said:

It's the wrong colour. It should be red. 

 

 

A splendid red engine, you mean? Certainly - the first one was red and the next one (or the one after) will be red too.

 

6 hours ago, Steamport Southport said:

Reminds me of this. 

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N-hQ6-biWoo

 

 

I won't lie - I've already use this video as reference material. But I've only just noticed that Bessie has an elongated splasher similar to mine.

 

[PatB]

29 minutes ago, TangoOscarMike said:

Alas, we're all in the same boat. Nobody on this forum can help with your affliction.

 

At the moment I'm concentrating on freelance entry level models (the 0-4-0 chassis is much cheaper than anything else) and leaving the more serious models to others. But this chassis would be a good choice if I decide to move up in the world.

 

 

Fair enough. I was thinking along the lines of a "sorta" interpretation, rather than something serious, to provide something to pull a string of Smallbrook Studios' chaldron wagons. The J13 chassis also appears under Thomas and the GWR 27xx, neither of which "serious" modellers seem to like much, so I'd see it as entry level+1. Cheap and plentiful anyhow.

[Gibbo675]

7 hours ago, Steamport Southport said:

It's the wrong colour. It should be red. 

 

Reminds me of this. 

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N-hQ6-biWoo

 

 

Sorry don't know how to embed the video.

 

 

 

Jason

Hi Jason,

 

Here is the inspiration for the Chigley locomotive:

 

https://www.irsociety.co.uk/Archives/24/Gazelle.htm

 

Gibbo.

[Edwardian]

I like the ethos of these models.  They make a charismatic and refreshing option for the entry level.

 

I would be interested, though, in taking a closer look at the 3 and 4-compartment coaches, seeing them in a nice smooth resin and constructing chassis for them.  

[HonestTom]

These models are mighty interesting to me. I have a couple of chopped up 0-4-0s turned into freelance Victorian locos, so both your engine and its coaches would be great shedmates for them.

[Martin S-C]

These are lovely models but my preference would be to use the finest grade plastic possible. If/when you get these on Shapeways and if the fine finish option is offered I would definitely be a customer. I've tried the less-smooth finishes and they do not work for me. Nothing wrong with them and I know people prefer them due to price and they can be worked smoother.

[TangoOscarMike]

3 hours ago, Edwardian said:

I like the ethos of these models.  They make a charismatic and refreshing option for the entry level.

 

I would be interested, though, in taking a closer look at the 3 and 4-compartment coaches, seeing them in a nice smooth resin and constructing chassis for them.  

 

2 hours ago, Martin S-C said:

These are lovely models but my preference would be to use the finest grade plastic possible. If/when you get these on Shapeways and if the fine finish option is offered I would definitely be a customer. I've tried the less-smooth finishes and they do not work for me. Nothing wrong with them and I know people prefer them due to price and they can be worked smoother.

 

Thank you both, and your preferences are noted.

 

It ought to be straightforward to tune the models for printing with better detail. In fact the main alteration will be making beadings thinner.

 

I'm going to disappear for a few days, but when I get back we can resume discussion.

 

[sem34090]

I would absolutely love to have a go at printing these on my resin printer at home, but as you have the right to be making money here I can understand why you might not be keen on letting the likes of me have the files to print at home!

 

At the end of the day, having used several plastics, I found the WSF was just about passable with a lot of sanding, priming and more sanding and priming. The resin comes out of the printer and it might need priming once and it's ready to go. To be honest, the grey resin probably doesn't even need priming.

 

The thing is, and this is a criticism of shapeways and not your good self, after buying the printer a bottle of resin costs around £40. Now, one of your tank engines costs £31. So far, from a single bottle of resin (and we haven't got through it yet) we've managed to print several O-16.5 loco bodies, myriad bits and pieces, a large quantity of warhammer bits and a District Railway Coach. And those are just the successful prints as we've been getting to know how to tune the printer - there have been a couple of rejects come out. Shapeways are getting increasingly more expensive, but the quality is now being outstripped by (relatively) inexpensive home printers.

[TangoOscarMike]

20 hours ago, sem34090 said:

At the end of the day, having used several plastics, I found the WSF was just about passable with a lot of sanding, priming and more sanding and priming. The resin comes out of the printer and it might need priming once and it's ready to go. To be honest, the grey resin probably doesn't even need priming.

 

For the record, my locomotive and coaches have only been painted (several coats of thinned acrylic) with no filling or sanding. In fact the paint alone makes a big improvement to the surface. I want these things to be as easy as possible for beginners. For some reason this has worked out far better for the locomotive and tender than it has for the coaches.

 

But I don't disagree with you - the result is acceptable (to me) from a couple of feet away, but not close up.

 

One of the happy results is that, although the finish is rough, it isn't rough enough to stop the lining decals (which are whole, filled-in panels) from adhering properly to the surface.

 

Shapeways is very very convenient - and let's bear in mind that this sort of thing was impossible without a factory not very many years ago. But I wish they weren't so expensive - the cheap option is not really that cheap. 

[TangoOscarMike]

Right, I'm back, and this is what I'm going to do:

 

I'll make a few more tweaks to two versions of the carriage-style coaches (the one for the Hornby 4-wheel chassis, and the one for the Dapol 9' wagon chassis). Then I'll put these up for sale on Shapeways with no markup. I'll post a message here when the models are ready.

 

My markup is pretty much symbolic, so its removal will be as well. But this seems to me like a decent alternative to my current approach, which is to offer nothing for sale that I haven't printed and tested. If I get a reasonable level of approval I'll wait for a while, then put my token markup in place.

 

That's what I'll do first, then I'll give my attention to the other strands:

• Finer-detailed versions.
• Other chassis types (starting with 10' Dapol wagon chassis).
• The open coach.
• A brake coach.

I've spread myself a little thin.......

 

Meanwhile:

 

I'm going to do one more test print of the locomotive, with a slightly large and higher boiler. Would anyone like to offer any suggestions for other changes?

 

[Corbs]

Hi Tom, forgive me if you've already mentioned this, but is the embiggening of the boiler to make it cylindrical all the way along its length to avoid the 'skirt' over the splashers?

[TangoOscarMike]

52 minutes ago, Corbs said:

Hi Tom, forgive me if you've already mentioned this, but is the embiggening of the boiler to make it cylindrical all the way along its length to avoid the 'skirt' over the splashers?

Alas no, not without modifying the chassis, at least not by me! Maybe there is someone with better geometry skills who can take up the challenge!

 

Here is the previous version:

• The long splasher is just the same.
• The boiler is too high and too fat.
• The boiler is not cylindrical (except just behind the smokebox), but it does curve in a little bit below the centre-line.

Eliminating the splasher was never an option. Making the sides of the boiler almost vertical, as they now are, was the price of lowering the boiler and making it thinner.

 

I could definitely tweak the splasher, maybe putting a dip in the profile between the wheels, and it could curve down behind the back wheel. But I'm planning to make a version of this for the inside-cylinder chassis, and I want to have a few clear visual differences (different splasher, different shaped firebox...).

 

If we overlook the distance between the splasher and the wheels, then I think the shape is somewhat justified by these:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GCR_Class_11F

https://www.gersociety.org.uk/index.php/locomotives/t-w-worsdell/g16

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LNWR_George_the_Fifth_Class

 

And (ahem) this:

https://collection.maas.museum/object/43691

 

And Bessie, mentioned earlier in the thread.

 

I've just re-read what you wrote - it is the vertical boiler sides, rather than the splasher, that concern you. I don't think I can do anything. This isn't even caused by the motor "cradle" (the splasher covers that). The vertical boiler sides are just the width of the motor projected downwards.

 

I might be able to carry the forward, cylindrical part of the boiler further aft, but that might just draw attention to the problem. In the end, a certain amount of optical illusion is needed to put just-a-boiler on a chassis designed for a gurt big water tank.

 

But I'm still open to suggestions!.....

[TangoOscarMike]

I've set the ball rolling on the coaches here.

[DCB]

Looks good, maybe a bit big boiler wise but a great addition to a Thomas the Tank themed railway. Which make me wonder whom the target market would be?     The coaches look great.  Big gap in the RTR market is old coaches, really old ones which were old in 1880.

[TangoOscarMike]

23 minutes ago, DavidCBroad said:

Which make me wonder whom the target market would be?

 

I'm planning to take them back in time and given them to my 13-year-old self.

 

[TangoOscarMike]

18 minutes ago, TangoOscarMike said:

 

I'm planning to take them back in time and given them to my 13-year-old self.

 

 

Let me give a more serious answer.

 

I'm thinking specifically of people who have some R-T-R stock, and wish to dip their toes into kit-building. The Ratio GWR coaches are widely regarded as entry-level, but it's easy to make a mess of their running, and it's not easy to paint them. I want to provide people with an easier introduction. Hence locomotive bodies that simply clip on to the cheapest readily-available 00 R-T-R chassis. 

 

[LNWR18901910]

On 24/06/2019 at 22:13, TangoOscarMike said:

Alas no, not without modifying the chassis, at least not by me! Maybe there is someone with better geometry skills who can take up the challenge!

 

Here is the previous version:

• The long splasher is just the same.
• The boiler is too high and too fat.
• The boiler is not cylindrical (except just behind the smokebox), but it does curve in a little bit below the centre-line.

Eliminating the splasher was never an option. Making the sides of the boiler almost vertical, as they now are, was the price of lowering the boiler and making it thinner.

 

I could definitely tweak the splasher, maybe putting a dip in the profile between the wheels, and it could curve down behind the back wheel. But I'm planning to make a version of this for the inside-cylinder chassis, and I want to have a few clear visual differences (different splasher, different shaped firebox...).

 

If we overlook the distance between the splasher and the wheels, then I think the shape is somewhat justified by these:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GCR_Class_11F

https://www.gersociety.org.uk/index.php/locomotives/t-w-worsdell/g16

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LNWR_George_the_Fifth_Class

 

And (ahem) this:

https://collection.maas.museum/object/43691

 

And Bessie, mentioned earlier in the thread.

 

I've just re-read what you wrote - it is the vertical boiler sides, rather than the splasher, that concern you. I don't think I can do anything. This isn't even caused by the motor "cradle" (the splasher covers that). The vertical boiler sides are just the width of the motor projected downwards.

 

I might be able to carry the forward, cylindrical part of the boiler further aft, but that might just draw attention to the problem. In the end, a certain amount of optical illusion is needed to put just-a-boiler on a chassis designed for a gurt big water tank.

 

But I'm still open to suggestions!.....

Those are some fine looking locos, my good man! Why, they are indeed similar to the early Meccano O Gauge tinplate trains, of course! The livery on the finished locomotive is very much reminiscent to that of the Great Western Railway, the oldest railway company in Britain that has remained the same since 1835 when it was first formed.

 

The LNWR George the Fifth Locomotive is one of my favourite Pre-Grouping steam locomotives. I was wondering if it was possible to make an LNWR tender locomotive using the chassis of this Hornby 0-4-0:

The running board is straight and flat, the loco is an inner-cylinder engine and it has a Belpaire firebox, short chimney like the LNWR Whale 4-4-0s and 4-6-0s and smokebox with the LNWR piano-front and is also reminiscent of the LNWR Improved Precedent Class 2-4-0 (another LNWR locomotive I have a soft spot for), SE&CR D Class 4-4-0 and the Midland Railway Class 2 4-4-0. The tender has a Midland and LNWR flare and aesthetic to it.

 

What do you think, Sir? Are you willing to give it a try?

[TangoOscarMike]

Thank you, thank you!

 

The 0-4-0 tender engine is very close to completion now (as in - I have to draw the line somewhere!). I have the final version nearly painted, and I hope to offer it and the tender for sale before the end of the month.

 

And, as a matter of fact, I have recently turned my attention to the inside-cylinder version of this chassis, which Hornby sells with the side tank body in your picture and another one (and a diesel).

 

This is the current state of my doodling (I'm working on the safety valve at the moment):

 

 

Of the locomotives you named, I particularly like the Improved Precedent, and of course the SECR D Class is just glorious. I will study them all carefully.

 

And of course, I would welcome feedback!

 

Cheers

Tom

 

[LNWR18901910]

2 hours ago, TangoOscarMike said:

Thank you, thank you!

 

The 0-4-0 tender engine is very close to completion now (as in - I have to draw the line somewhere!). I have the final version nearly painted, and I hope to offer it and the tender for sale before the end of the month.

 

And, as a matter of fact, I have recently turned my attention to the inside-cylinder version of this chassis, which Hornby sells with the side tank body in your picture and another one (and a diesel).

 

This is the current state of my doodling (I'm working on the safety valve at the moment):

 

 

Of the locomotives you named, I particularly like the Improved Precedent, and of course the SECR D Class is just glorious. I will study them all carefully.

 

And of course, I would welcome feedback!

 

Cheers

Tom

 

Now this I really like! Why, it would be great in LNWR black or Midland crimson! Or even better, LNWR red like the LNWR Greater Britain 2-2-2-2 locomotive! I know because I've seen pictures of models. If this baby had the same tender from the first one but with LNWR features, that would make it sweet and charming. All the same, fantastic model, Sir!

 

However, if I made a suggestion or two, it would be making the chimney the same high as the dome, sticking a whistle on top of the cab roof and making the buffers bottle-shaped like the LNWR locomotives. Plus, the steps at the front could be moved back slightly to where the splashers end and handrails on either side going along from the smokebox along the boiler to the firebox as well as some attached to the cabsides and tender would make it a nice touch.

Edited November 15, 2019 by LNWR18901910

[TangoOscarMike]

So:

 

It's intended to work with the same tender, and (apart from time) there's nothing to stop me from making another tender with the same dimensions but different styling. By the way, I'm already preparing an empty version of the tender, for people to add their own coal.

 

If you could tell me in detail the features that are characteristic of an LNWR tender then that would be grand.

 

For this inside-cylinder locomotive I started with the outside cylinder version. I removed the cylinders (of course!) and then started making stylistic changes:

• Different firebox.
• The splasher curves down at the back.
• Dome with a flatter top.
• Adjusted cab side cutout.
• Different smokebox, of course.
• New safety valve (still being planned).
• More steps to cover the gap where the outside cylinders would be (but it might not hurt to move them as you suggest).

At this stage I'm just doodling, and I'm completely open to suggestions like yours. Let me address your points individually:

 

Making the chimney the same high as the dome. Certainly - I'll give this a go.

Sticking a whistle on top of the cab roof. I can attempt this, but (with "white strong and flexible") it might just come out as a blob of plastic.

Making the buffers bottle-shaped like the LNWR locomotives. I can try this too - I like the flared shape. But if it's important for the tender and locomotive to have matching buffers then I'll stick with a single style, because it would be nice to be able to mix tenders and locomotives.

The steps at the front could be moved back slightly to where the splashers end. I'll give this a go. Maybe I'll make a 3D mockup of the chassis, so that I can produce pictures that give a better idea of how the end result would look.

Handrails. No, at least not with the "white strong and flexible" plastic. They would end up being far too fat and crude. At the moment handrails are left as an exercise for the modeller. Way, way down on my list of plans I'm thinking of producing plain locomotive bodies (no chimney, dome, etc..) and a separate set of detail parts in a higher resolution plastic. But at my current rate of progress it'll be years before I get round to this.

 

Thanks for your input, and please let me know whenever something crosses your mind.

 

Cheers

Tom

 

[LNWR18901910]

36 minutes ago, TangoOscarMike said:

So:

 

It's intended to work with the same tender, and (apart from time) there's nothing to stop me from making another tender with the same dimensions but different styling. By the way, I'm already preparing an empty version of the tender, for people to add their own coal.

 

If you could tell me in detail the features that are characteristic of an LNWR tender then that would be grand.

 

For this inside-cylinder locomotive I started with the outside cylinder version. I removed the cylinders (of course!) and then started making stylistic changes:

• Different firebox.
• The splasher curves down at the back.
• Dome with a flatter top.
• Adjusted cab side cutout.
• Different smokebox, of course.
• New safety valve (still being planned).
• More steps to cover the gap where the outside cylinders would be (but it might not hurt to move them as you suggest).

At this stage I'm just doodling, and I'm completely open to suggestions like yours. Let me address your points individually:

 

Making the chimney the same high as the dome. Certainly - I'll give this a go.

Sticking a whistle on top of the cab roof. I can attempt this, but (with "white strong and flexible") it might just come out as a blob of plastic.

Making the buffers bottle-shaped like the LNWR locomotives. I can try this too - I like the flared shape. But if it's important for the tender and locomotive to have matching buffers then I'll stick with a single style, because it would be nice to be able to mix tenders and locomotives.

The steps at the front could be moved back slightly to where the splashers end. I'll give this a go. Maybe I'll make a 3D mockup of the chassis, so that I can produce pictures that give a better idea of how the end result would look.

Handrails. No, at least not with the "white strong and flexible" plastic. They would end up being far too fat and crude. At the moment handrails are left as an exercise for the modeller. Way, way down on my list of plans I'm thinking of producing plain locomotive bodies (no chimney, dome, etc..) and a separate set of detail parts in a higher resolution plastic. But at my current rate of progress it'll be years before I get round to this.

 

Thanks for your input, and please let me know whenever something crosses your mind.

 

Cheers

Tom

 

Of course. I can suggest more locomotives (and rolling stock).

 

*An express passenger engine based on the GNR Ivatt C1 large boiler Atlantic 4-4-2 (firebox, boiler, smokebox and cab), the SR Lord Nelson 4-6-0 Class (smoke deflectors and chimney) and the LMS Princess Royal Class 4-6-2 (running board); the tender is combination of the Lord Nelson tender, the LMS Stanier tender and the Bulleid SR West Country tender.

:A goods engine based on the LMS Fowler 4F, the GWR Dean Goods and the LSWR Drummond 700 Class using the Hornby Thomas Toby the Tram Engine Chassis; the tender is a mix between the Midland 3F tender, the GWR 2251 Class tender and the Bulleid Q1 tender.

*A streamlined express engine which combines the LMS Stanier Duchess, the LNER Gresley P2 and the SR West Country Class (the tender would also be stream-lined, too).

*A freelance high speed train inspired by the French TGV, the British Rail Class 43 and the Virgin Pendolino and the Japanese Shinkansen.

*A heavy freight locomotive based on the S&DJR 7F 2-8-0, the LMS Stanier 8F, the GWR 2800 Class, the BR Standard 9F, the MR Lickley Banker 0-10-0 and the WD Austerity 2-10-0.

 

Finally, some goods wagons and coahces inspired by the old Bing O Gauge and Gauge 1 models.

 

What do you think?

[TangoOscarMike]

42 minutes ago, LNWR18901910 said:

What do you think?

 

I think I need to be careful what I wish for! Right now my horizon doesn't extend much beyond these 0-4-0 projects!

 

But I will refer to these things in the future.

[LNWR18901910]

5 minutes ago, TangoOscarMike said:

 

I think I need to be careful what I wish for! Right now my horizon doesn't extend much beyond these 0-4-0 projects!

 

But I will refer to these things in the future.

Sorry, you can still use the 0-4-0 chassis on the Hornby tank engines and diesel shunters.

[TangoOscarMike]

Oh, and I have a specific question:

 

Can you suggest a paint that's a reasonable match for the LWNR locomotive red (which you've just drawn to my attention)?

 

I've painted some of my freelance models with a rather muted red, and I'd like to have a splendid red engine or two. But I think the red that I'm using for buffers is a little too bright.

 

 

If you happen to know of a suitable colour, then a Vallejo, Revell or Tamiya acrylic would suit me, because I know where I can get those locally. But I won't insist on one of those three.

 

Cheers

Tom

 

[LNWR18901910]

1 hour ago, TangoOscarMike said:

Oh, and I have a specific question:

 

Can you suggest a paint that's a reasonable match for the LWNR locomotive red (which you've just drawn to my attention)?

 

I've painted some of my freelance models with a rather muted red, and I'd like to have a splendid red engine or two. But I think the red that I'm using for buffers is a little too bright.

 

 

If you happen to know of a suitable colour, then a Vallejo, Revell or Tamiya acrylic would suit me, because I know where I can get those locally. But I won't insist on one of those three.

 

Cheers

Tom

 

An nice Indian Red would be the way to go. I would find Humbrol's Virgin Red Matt a potential choice. What do you think?

Something like this?

Edited November 15, 2019 by LNWR18901910