Jump to content
 

Etched loco chassis


Chris Higgs
 Share

Recommended Posts

Hi Chris,

 

Could you cheat a bit and have the bracket fold forward from the radius rod and trap the expansion link in the middle of the resulting sandwich?

 

My issue with that is more whether the radius rod is going to be robust enough to hold bracket and expansion link without bending.

 

Chris

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll just check how different the cab is to an 8F...

 

Let's not forget the Jubilee tender is dimensionally compromised to fit a Rivarossi tender drive.

 

BR Lines still have Farish Jubilee bodies BTW.

 

Chris

 

Checking some drawings, a Jubilee cab seems to be pretty much dimensionally the same as a Black 5. Just needs some rivets repositioning.

 

Chris

Link to post
Share on other sites

Something slightly different, a 5250 gallon tender for a Rebuilt MN.

 

EDIT: I am now informed elsewhere on RMWeb that four of these tenders were also paired with Light Pacifics. Although only rebuilt versions.

 

post-1605-0-60920600-1531941536.png

Edited by Chris Higgs
Link to post
Share on other sites

2D work in TurboCAD (but any dxf compatible cad would do) and OpenSCAD for turning it into 3D objects.

 

Chris

 

Interesting, but (having just had a quick play with OpenSCAD) it looks like an awful lot of hard work. Any particular reason why you chose this over using the 3D facilities in TurboCAD? 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting, but (having just had a quick play with OpenSCAD) it looks like an awful lot of hard work. Any particular reason why you chose this over using the 3D facilities in TurboCAD? 

 

The 3D in TurboCAD is terrible. If you want a proper 3D package use something like Blender. However I do not typically use the primitive functions of OpenSCAD like cylinders, rectangles etc. very much.  I extensively use the linear_extrude function on a 2D drawing imported from a dxf file. That is how all those frames and rivets you see on the chassis are done. Or I intersect two drawings in the X and Y planes, which is how the body shape of the tender bodies is produced. I can then feed in a different set of drawings to produce all the tender shapes you see above using the same 3D file. This is somewhat limited to orthogonal structures so if you were wanting to do a 3D model of your car shape then Blender is what you need. But it takes an age to learn. I can persuade OpenSCAD to do domed coach roofs and Belpaire fireboxes with rounded fronts, but not much more.

 

Believe me, using OpenSCAD to set out vents on a set of coach roofs where the roof profile is a 2D drawing extruded and with the vent positions just fed in as a set of numbers is tons faster than drawing each roof individually using a true 3D CAD package.

 

Besides, I am a computer programmer in my day job, some OpenSCAD's C-like programming language is right up my street (if a lot less complex than C++)

 

Chris

Edited by Chris Higgs
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The 3D in TurboCAD is terrible. If you want a proper 3D package use something like Blender. However I do not typically use the primitive functions of OpenSCAD like cylinders, rectangles etc. very much.  I extensively use the linear_extrude function on a 2D drawing imported from a dxf file. That is how all those frames and rivets you see on the chassis are done. Or I intersect two drawings in the X and Y planes, which is how the body shape of the tender bodies is produced. I can then feed in a different set of drawings to produce all the tender shapes you see above using the same 3D file. This is somewhat limited to orthogonal structures so if you were wanting to do a 3D model of your car shape then Blender is what you need. But it takes an age to learn. I can persuade OpenSCAD to do domed coach roofs and Belpaire fireboxes with rounded fronts, but not much more.

 

Believe me, using OpenSCAD to set out vents on a set of coach roofs where the roof profile is a 2D drawing extruded and with the vent positions just fed in as a set of numbers is tons faster than drawing each roof individually using a true 3D CAD package.

 

Besides, I am a computer programmer in my day job, some OpenSCAD's C-like programming language is right up my street (if a lot less complex than C++)

 

Chris

 

 

Thanks Chris - that makes sense if you're already a programmer. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

For anyone who does not follow the VAG group, there is a link on there to Peter's Spares who have a vast quantity of the parts needed to make up Peco 2251 loco bodies:

 

https://www.petersspares.com/peco-peco-spares-collett-goods-spares.irc

 

I had feared that the 2251 chassis sold by the Association had had its day given there were no more bodies to be had to match it.

 

If you are an N gauge modeller also take a look at the chance to buy some quality locomotive and tender wheels at a good price.

 

Chris

 

Having got through the parts for the Collett 3500 tender that Peco did with their 2251, the quality of the moulding shows even better when it has no paint on it. I have concluded taking a 1mm slice out of the height to produce a Collett 3000 is going to be easier than I had feared.  So out with the slitting saw...

 

Just as a seed perhaps to some people's minds, the smokebox, boiler and firebox on a 2251 are the same as for a 94XX. And perhaps a 15XX as well.

 

Chris

Link to post
Share on other sites

Having got through the parts for the Collett 3500 tender that Peco did with their 2251, the quality of the moulding shows even better when it has no paint on it. I have concluded taking a 1mm slice out of the height to produce a Collett 3000 is going to be easier than I had feared.  So out with the slitting saw...

 

Just as a seed perhaps to some people's minds, the smokebox, boiler and firebox on a 2251 are the same as for a 94XX. And perhaps a 15XX as well.

 

Chris

 

 

 

 

It could have turned out worse I suppose. I got a few saw marks on the body so I  think I'll order that part again and have another go. And the tender footplate has ended up much too low and I'll have to rework that. Its not glued together so is not sitting quite right for the photos.

 

post-1605-0-74452600-1532796618_thumb.jpg

 

post-1605-0-74921300-1532796635_thumb.jpg

 

post-1605-0-24908600-1532796655_thumb.jpg

 

post-1605-0-10538500-1532796674_thumb.jpg

Edited by Chris Higgs
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

The 3D in TurboCAD is terrible. If you want a proper 3D package use something like Blender. However I do not typically use the primitive functions of OpenSCAD like cylinders, rectangles etc. very much.  I extensively use the linear_extrude function on a 2D drawing imported from a dxf file. That is how all those frames and rivets you see on the chassis are done. Or I intersect two drawings in the X and Y planes, which is how the body shape of the tender bodies is produced. I can then feed in a different set of drawings to produce all the tender shapes you see above using the same 3D file. This is somewhat limited to orthogonal structures so if you were wanting to do a 3D model of your car shape then Blender is what you need. But it takes an age to learn. I can persuade OpenSCAD to do domed coach roofs and Belpaire fireboxes with rounded fronts, but not much more.

 

Believe me, using OpenSCAD to set out vents on a set of coach roofs where the roof profile is a 2D drawing extruded and with the vent positions just fed in as a set of numbers is tons faster than drawing each roof individually using a true 3D CAD package.

 

Besides, I am a computer programmer in my day job, some OpenSCAD's C-like programming language is right up my street (if a lot less complex than C++)

 

Chris

 

I am just taking my first baby steps with OpenSCAD. As a former computing person, I do like the programming approach, and I agree that it is very quick for laying out repeat shapes. So far I am working on a simple wagon body, using the "primitive functions". So far I have just needed cuboids so no problem there. I must investigate the extrude function, however. That looks really useful.

 

Bill

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

I am putting up the diagrams I have prepared for the 61XX, 28XX and Hall etched chassis that will be available from the Association shop. I don't have time to do the same for the various other chassis I did recently, but I hope that from these diagrams it should be possible to work out what is what on the other etches.

 

Chris

 

GWR 28XX chassis arrangement.pdf

 

GWR 28XX chassis parts.pdf

 

GWR 61XX chassis arrangement.pdf

 

GWR 61XX chassis parts.pdf

 

GWR Hall chassis arrangement.pdf

 

GWR Hall chassis parts.pdf

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

I've just started a replacement chassis for the 14xx using the Association etch and parts.

 

I am hoping someone (Chris maybe) can clarify the intention / recommendation re Simpson springs, in particular, which wheels are intended to be sprung.

 

On the diagram for the chassis, a hole equidistant between the two pairs of driving wheels is marked for Simpson springs - is this intended to be used for the front wheels?  What about any of the other wheels? No other hole seems to be marked for use in fitting these springs.

 

I also notice a hole etched quite high up at the rear of the chassis - what is this for please - is it pehaps for springing the rear trailing wheels?

 

Thanks for any help you can give.

 

Best wishes

 

John

Edited by John Brenchley
Link to post
Share on other sites

I've just started a replacement chassis for the 14xx using the Association etch and parts.

 

I am hoping someone (Chris maybe) can clarify the intention / recommendation re Simpson springs, in particular, which wheels are intended to be sprung.

 

On the diagram for the chassis, a hole equidistant between the two pairs of driving wheels is marked for Simpson springs - is this intended to be used for the front wheels?  What about any of the other wheels? No other hole seems to be marked for use in fitting these springs.

 

I also notice a hole etched quite high up at the rear of the chassis - what is this for please - is it pehaps for springing the rear trailing wheels?

 

Thanks for any help you can give.

 

Best wishes

 

John

 

Not all holes are marked specifically. But the easiest way is to work out which are for the brakeblocks, the rest for the SImpson springs. Its up to you just how to make an arrangement of the springs that suits you.

 

Chris

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not all holes are marked specifically. But the easiest way is to work out which are for the brakeblocks, the rest for the SImpson springs. Its up to you just how to make an arrangement of the springs that suits you.

 

Chris

 

Thanks Chris

 

I have now noticed one more hole near the spur gear axle which would be for a simpson spring on the centre wheels so I can see that there is provision for springing everywhere.

 

This in theory would allow springing of all wheels.

 

Is this considered best practice?  I notice a bit of different thinking when reading posts on this site.

 

For example, in his Jubilee video's Nick Mitchell does not spring the driven axle whereas Chris suggest in an earlier post on this thread that he would spring only the centre axle or all three on an 0-6-0 but not just the outer ones so as to prevent rocking.

 

So for an 0-4-2 what would the experienced chassis builders recommend?  Is there any issue with springing non driven trailing axles?  Would friction from the springs have any impact on whether they rotate properly?

 

I'm tempted to open out to 1.6mm and to add springs to all wheels but will wait to hear the considered opinions of the experts please.

 

Best wishes

 

John

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...