Derwent Valley Models class 04 and class 58 resin bodies.

[CloggyDog]

The Tasmanian Derwent Valley Railway's Modelling arm have a couple of resin body kits which might be of interest to British H0 modellers, a Drewry 204hp 0-6-0 diesel mechanical and a BREL class 58 Co-Co. 

 

Look to be body-only kits in 3D printed resin. 

 

https://i.materialise.com/en/shop/item/british-rail-class-04-ho-sclae?designer=james-mcculloch&sortBy=mostResent&pageNumber=3&pageSize=9&index=14

 

 

Edited February 3, 2020 by CloggyDog

[47137]

I have ordered up two of the class 04 prints. I don't actually need two, but i.materialise have a minimum order charge, and postage is from the Netherlands, so it seemed better value this way.

 

Delivery is due around 10th February, I will report back :-)

 

Edit: I received the prints on 12th February, photos in the post below.

 

- Richard.

Edited February 16, 2020 by 47137

[47137]

Here are some photos of my 04 print as received from i.materialise ... detailing includes vacuum pipes and handrails. It looks pretty fabulous to me.

 

- Richard.

 

[CloggyDog]

As the recipient of Richard's spare 04 body, I agree wholeheartedly with him on the quality and fine detail of the 3d print. 

 

Basic dimensions are all spot-on (using the 7mm drawing in the May 1981 Railway Modeller) 

 

As supplied, the body is closest to the 'middle' Version of the 04, D2215 to around D2280 with the large window cab and the lack of cut-outs over the shunter's steps at the front end. 

 

All the handrails are very well done, with small supports to just nip away (a set of sprue nippers are the ideal tool for this). Be careful around the cab footsteps, they are very delicate. 4 Sandboxes and 2 air tanks are present and correct and there is a short section of mainframe behind each buffer beam, which might be useful to align a chassis. 

 

The rest of the supporting structure in the cab and bonnet and under the footplate are straightforward to remove and clean up. The cab roof is separate to allow access to fit detail, a driver and glazing (the windows all have a recess inside to give a decent flush glazed look) 

 

For a true BR Drewry 204hp/Class 04 there are a couple of very minor mods required:

1. The L-shaped handrails on the top front corners of the footplate should come off and be replaced with a pair of blind handrail knobs set above the shunter's steps

2. The conical chimney should be reduced by a scale 6" (1.75mm) to match the 2'6" height of the prototype. 

3. No marker lamps are present, so 4 (6 on SR 04s) lamps and associated conduits need adding at each end. These were small (c5" wide x 6" tall and 5" deep) with a clear lens centred on the front face and a lamp iron mounted on the top. Sections of suitable microstrip would do the job. 

4. Replace the round buffer heads with ovals (or squared rounds) as appropriate. 

 

Our prints came from iMaterialise, it would be interesting to see how Shapeways (where the 04 and 58 are also avaliable, albeit at a higher price) compare. 

 

[47137]

I have had a go at my own 04 body shell this evening ...

 

 

1. I found a pair of nail scissors useful for removing the unwanted "sprue".

2. I used a craft knife and a narrow scrap of wet and dry paper (used dry) to clean up behind the hand rails.

3. I broke one of the foot steps below the cab and I doubt the one on the other side will survive much use on the layout. I will try to find some brass signal ladder to put in their place. The foot steps at the front seem much stronger.

4. I have trimmed off the L-shaped handrails above the front steps and shortened the exhaust funnel per Alan's post immediately above.

5. I am tempted to discard the cab roof and use a rectangle of styrene instead.

 

I have never scratch built a chassis but maybe the time has come to try. The print includes short lengths of "frame" at each end and the space between these is 12 mm wide. So some thin brass with 12 mm spacers should line up with these. I have a gear box from High Level Kits and a Mashima motor attached (this is left over from a kit I abandoned) and there seems to be enough space under the bonnet if the gear box drives the middle axle:

 

 

I wonder if anyone knows of a chassis kit with a 16 + 16 mm wheelbase, before I try to start from scratch? This might be a prototype with a symmetrical 8 ft wheelbase, modelled in 4 mm scale, or a 10 ft 8 in wheelbase modelled in 3 mm scale. Failing this, some side skirts as used at Ipswich docks as well as the Wisbech tramway might be a sensible way ahead.

 

- Richard.

[47137]

Derwent Valley Models are thinking of a printed chassis specifically for the 04. I have no idea how well such a thing could run, but it must surely be worth a try when the time comes. See their FB page.

 

- Richard.

[Joseph_Pestell]

Sideskirts always good on an 04.

 

But you should surely be able to find a European HO model which has a suitable chassis.

[rue_d_etropal]

I have got test sample of my basic loco chassis. I can modify design it to fit any wheelbase, as long as the gearbox fits. Presume that is about 9mm wide.

[47137]

9 hours ago, rue_d_etropal said:

I have got test sample of my basic loco chassis. I can modify design it to fit any wheelbase, as long as the gearbox fits. Presume that is about 9mm wide.

 

This particular gearbox measures about 12.6 mm wide maximum over the longest lay-shaft. It would slip between traditional frames using half-inch spacers, but I might need to grind down the ends of the two lay shafts a bit. The frame itself is 10 mm wide, excluding the motor fixing lugs and its cross-braces.

 

A second photo may help:

 

To avoid cross-posting, see also my notes here:

https://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/150691-useful-chassis-for-british-h0-loco-and-railcar-projects/&do=findComment&comment=3843682

 

- Richard.

 

 

[rue_d_etropal]

can't quitework out which gearbox it is, but think it might be the Humpshunter with a frame width of 10.8mm. With a bit of modification my design would fit, and if it is to run on centre axle, the rest of chassis frame could be bulked up to strengthen it.

IfI was buying a new gearbox I would probably go for one of the slimmer ones, as there s not much room for axle bushes.

Edited February 18, 2020 by rue_d_etropal

[47137]

On 16/02/2020 at 11:45, CloggyDog said:

For a true BR Drewry 204hp/Class 04 there are a couple of very minor mods required:

1. The L-shaped handrails on the top front corners of the footplate should come off and be replaced with a pair of blind handrail knobs set above the shunter's steps

2. The conical chimney should be reduced by a scale 6" (1.75mm) to match the 2'6" height of the prototype. 

3. No marker lamps are present, so 4 (6 on SR 04s) lamps and associated conduits need adding at each end. These were small (c5" wide x 6" tall and 5" deep) with a clear lens centred on the front face and a lamp iron mounted on the top. Sections of suitable microstrip would do the job. 

4. Replace the round buffer heads with ovals (or squared rounds) as appropriate. 

 

Alan, I agree entirely with your points 1 to 3 and these are mostly easy to do. The hardest for me will be getting the holes for the blind hand rail knobs in the right places. I've bought some Plastruct 0.050 x 0.050 inch for the lamps. 

 

I'm not so sure about oval buffer heads. Class 03s certainly had oval buffers, and Markits rigid coach buffers are 7mm wide and would look fine to me. But every photo I can find of a class 04 has either "squared round" buffer heads (round with the tops and bottoms levelled off) or round buffers. These being a little larger than the buffers featured in the prints.

 

I am looking at my picture books of BR shunters:

- Judge C W, "BR Shunters"

- Marsden C, "The Diesel Shunter A Pictorial Record"

both published by OPC.

 

I wonder if this is a slip on your part, or maybe there were machines with oval buffers out there? I've got a packet of the Markits ones ready either way :-)

 

- Richard.

[CloggyDog]

Hi Richard, 

 

Quite likely a senior moment for me, probably confusing with 03s.

 

Yes, most had 13" round, though I've found a couple with 16" fully round, and plenty with squared off 16" rounds. 

 

Ah... One of the drawings in the MRJ #8 article by Monty Wells shows ovals and I have just found a pic of D2294 in Sept 68 in blue with ovals, (Fleet Survey #7, page 41) so there was at least 1 so fitted. 

[47137]

Well, the buffers on the print measure 4.1 mm diameter and this scales up to 14 inches. I am tempted to keep these unless I find some suitable 16 inch rounds.

 

These would be about 4.7 mm diameter but I'm sure 5 mm heads would look fine. Somehow these would look "better" to me than the printed ones, but I'm not sure why ... it is as though I expect a shunter to have oversize buffers.

 

- Richard,

[LIRR]

Good morning all,

I'm just wondering whether anybody had taken a look at the Sparkshot h0 Flying Scotsman? Is there any chassis that could work with it?

 

Andy

[47137]

On 29/02/2020 at 13:53, LIRR said:

Good morning all,

I'm just wondering whether anybody had taken a look at the Sparkshot h0 Flying Scotsman? Is there any chassis that could work with it?

 

Andy

 

Hi Andy and welcome to the H0 forum. Your post deserves a reply, but a reply will be difficult.

 

I didn't know about Sparkshot, but it is good to see another 3D designer prepared to take on 3.5 mm scale projects.

 

Your second question is harder. Fitting any chassis into a 1:87 scale model of any British prototype with outside cylinders, valve gear, a bogie and splashers will be nigh-on impossible unless you opt for P87 (thinner wheels) and have the skill of a watchmaker to make the motion. You may well still have to make the model wider than the prototype, because the splashers are printed from a plastic proportionally much thicker than the steel of the prototype, and this might make the print unusable (I don't know if the designer made room for code 110 wheels).

 

This is a good example of why 00 was invented. British H0 has many merits, but many folk stay away from large steam locomotives. On the other hand, if you are committed to 1:87 scale and really want a Flying Scotsman, maybe you could provide it with a simplified chassis. I'm thinking, the wheels and side rods (of course) and the cylinders, and possibly a one-piece etch to hint at the motion. A model we call a good model doesn't have to match up with the intricacy of RTR production, and if you provided a chassis and created a working model this way, I'm sure it could be a very enjoyable thing.

 

- Richard.

[rue_d_etropal]

2 hours ago, 47137 said:

 

Hi Andy and welcome to the H0 forum. Your post deserves a reply, but a reply will be difficult.

 

I didn't know about Sparkshot, but it is good to see another 3D designer prepared to take on 3.5 mm scale projects.

 

Your second question is harder. Fitting any chassis into a 1:87 scale model of any British prototype with outside cylinders, valve gear, a bogie and splashers will be nigh-on impossible unless you opt for P87 (thinner wheels) and have the skill of a watchmaker to make the motion. You may well still have to make the model wider than the prototype, because the splashers are printed from a plastic proportionally much thicker than the steel of the prototype, and this might make the print unusable (I don't know if the designer made room for code 110 wheels).

 

This is a good example of why 00 was invented. British H0 has many merits, but many folk stay away from large steam locomotives. On the other hand, if you are committed to 1:87 scale and really want a Flying Scotsman, maybe you could provide it with a simplified chassis. I'm thinking, the wheels and side rods (of course) and the cylinders, and possibly a one-piece etch to hint at the motion. A model we call a good model doesn't have to match up with the intricacy of RTR production, and if you provided a chassis and created a working model this way, I'm sure it could be a very enjoyable thing.

 

- Richard.

For mre info on this suggest looking at thread on 3D printing section https://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/106165-scc-sparkshot-custom-creations-creating-your-3d-prints-too-on-a-photon/page/17/

 

I think theissue of outside cylinders and valve geae is less of an issue these days. One of the main reasons for adopting OO instead of HO in the 30s was so to allow locs to go round sharper curves. Quite a bit of discussion in the press at the time( I am not that old but do have some old MRC mags of the time). For tender locos it is easier as motor can be put in the tender, and I suppose loco chassis coud be made slightly narrower to allow more movement sideways for wheels.

Personally a Flying Scotsman in HO does not interest me but it is possibly easier than some of the smaller steam locos that do interest me. I ay concentrate on electric and diesel , in particular EMU stock.

[LIRR]

On 03/03/2020 at 01:59, 47137 said:

 

Hi Andy and welcome to the H0 forum. Your post deserves a reply, but a reply will be difficult.

 

I didn't know about Sparkshot, but it is good to see another 3D designer prepared to take on 3.5 mm scale projects.

 

Your second question is harder. Fitting any chassis into a 1:87 scale model of any British prototype with outside cylinders, valve gear, a bogie and splashers will be nigh-on impossible unless you opt for P87 (thinner wheels) and have the skill of a watchmaker to make the motion. You may well still have to make the model wider than the prototype, because the splashers are printed from a plastic proportionally much thicker than the steel of the prototype, and this might make the print unusable (I don't know if the designer made room for code 110 wheels).

 

This is a good example of why 00 was invented. British H0 has many merits, but many folk stay away from large steam locomotives. On the other hand, if you are committed to 1:87 scale and really want a Flying Scotsman, maybe you could provide it with a simplified chassis. I'm thinking, the wheels and side rods (of course) and the cylinders, and possibly a one-piece etch to hint at the motion. A model we call a good model doesn't have to match up with the intricacy of RTR production, and if you provided a chassis and created a working model this way, I'm sure it could be a very enjoyable thing.

 

- Richard.

Thank you Richard for your reply and welcoming words.

 

Sorry for being so late to respond, but it is a very busy time of year at work. The simplified chassis sounds like a good idea. 

 

Andy