Wright writes.....

[Chamby]

9 hours ago, t-b-g said:

I was looking at some older (late 60s early 70s) Railway Modellers a day or two ago. Reviews of new RTR products were a couple of paragraphs long and most articles were either about making models or how to alter RTR items into something else. There was one (or maybe two) layout articles in each one. Nowadays they seem to be full of multiple page articles on how to put a chip and a speaker into a RTR loco or RTR reviews running to several pages. Each issue has maybe 5 or 6 layouts with mostly RTR stuff on them.

   

 

Lazy journalism?   Every leading magazine has their own lengthy review of exactly the same products, replicated within a month of each other, all saying pretty much the same thing.  Articles with original content do seem much rarer these days.  Is this a reflection of the modern railway modeller’s needs.... or is is that more commercial marketing-led content is driving the hobbyist in this direction?  A Chicken and egg situation, I suspect.

 

52 minutes ago, Lecorbusier said:

...There appear to be far fewer youngsters in the hobby and these (beyond the very young) seem to be in the main modellers rather than groups of youths playing trains. (perhaps a reflection of the changing nature and broadening of 'toys' coupled to the reduced profile of the the full scale railway?)....

 

There are plenty of the very young, including my grandson, who are mad about trains and have a large collection of brightly coloured, noisy toys that run on plastic or wooden ‘track’.  But they seem to get diverted into the virtual world as they grow up, rather than progress to more realistic railway modelling in their youth.  It remains to be seen whether this very early enthusiasm still translates into genuine railway interest later in life.

[t-b-g]

2 hours ago, westerner said:

Perhaps if Peter Denny and Frank Dyer were starting railway modelling today as youngsters they too would be using CAD and 3D printing, and those that do use these modern day tools will, in 50 years be treated with the same reverence as those 2 modellers.

 

I can't speak for Frank Dyer as I never met him to discuss such things but I did know Peter Denny a little and did discuss more modern techniques with him. When D & S brought out etched and cast parts for GCR signals, he bought some, tried them and decided that making signals that way wasn't as much fun as how he had done them before. So any more after that were built from scratch. Perhaps they were not quite as accurate and well detailed as the D & S bits but any shortfall in that department was not as important as the satisfaction of making them.

 

I can see where he was coming from. There is something superbly organic about having a wooden jig, with a few pins knocked into it, that you bend wire around to form the spectacle of the signal arm, then you put that in another jig that holds the spectacle and the arm together while you solder them up. 

 

He built 6 GCR milk vans from scratch long after an etched kit was available, again because he preferred sitting at a workbench with a drawing and a sheet of plastic card and creating his own.

 

So in his case, the fun was in using his hand tools to make things from raw materials. If he could have drawn his milk vans in CAD and pressed a button on a printer to make them, he would not have gone anywhere near the more modern option.

 

I am going to ruffle a few feathers here by being deliberately provocative. Designing stuff on a computer and having it made on a machine is not model making to me. It is production design and manufacturing. It requires a completely different set of skills to traditional modelling. The CAD design stuff is basically what Hornby etc. do but on a smaller scale.

 

I really don't see that designers of things that can be mass produced will ever have the same respect in the hobby as the pioneers who started when you could buy almost nothing and who created paths for all of us to follow. There are, no doubt, people around today who have great respect in the hobby. I am lucky enough to know a few but I won't mention names as they might get a bit big headed about it! I have seen models and layouts of a quality that Messrs Denny and Dyer would not ever have achieved. But the people who have achieved such things took up the baton from those pioneers and took it further.

 

But I really can't imagine people looking back in 50 years time and recalling "Do you remember when XYZ did a great CAD drawing and got a really good quality print from it".

 

 

 

 

 

  

 

 

 

 

[RLBH]

3 minutes ago, t-b-g said:

But I really can't imagine people looking back in 50 years time and recalling "Do you remember when XYZ did a great CAD drawing and got a really good quality print from it".

 

I can imagine people saying in fifty years 'If you want a Diagram 12345, XYZ's CAD drawing is still definitive in 4mm scale', having the parts cut out of brass, plastic, or whatever other material takes their fancy, and assembling them using all the traditional skills. It's really no different to any other method of turning plans into a model, except that the CAD drawing doesn't deteriorate with age or usage.

 

3D printing is a slightly different matter, but many things will always be replicated better by bending sheet material to shape than by adding material a layer at a time. One of the uses for 3D printing is actually creating masters for casting in traditional material, easy to see how that could be applied to modelmaking.

[Dunsignalling]

11 hours ago, t-b-g said:

 

Absolutely Mick. I agree 100%. If we all liked doing things my way, there would be no kits, parts or components for me to buy and use.

 

I just don't want my hobby to be about sitting at a computer screen unless it is to research the prototype, buy stuff online, look at RMWeb or to try to draw the latest layout in Templot.

 

I was only talking about my personal preferences and wouldn't dream of suggesting that anybody else should feel the same way that I do.

 

My only concern is that whatever skills I have may not survive another generation. So many articles in the model press are of the "I drew it in CAD and had it laser cut/3D printed" variety and I see very few "I started with a sheet of metal/plastic and a saw/knife". It doesn't really matter as long as the good people are enjoying themselves but as has been said before, where are the modern day Peter Denny or Frank Dyer characters?

 

I was looking at some older (late 60s early 70s) Railway Modellers a day or two ago. Reviews of new RTR products were a couple of paragraphs long and most articles were either about making models or how to alter RTR items into something else. There was one (or maybe two) layout articles in each one. Nowadays they seem to be full of multiple page articles on how to put a chip and a speaker into a RTR loco or RTR reviews running to several pages. Each issue has maybe 5 or 6 layouts with mostly RTR stuff on them.

 

The quality of the RTR items has improved dramatically and the cost is higher and it is becoming so much harder to alter or improve them, so most people just don't any more.

 

If that is the way people want their hobby to be, then I don't have any issue with them at all. It is just not how I want mine to be.

 

Which is why I have been laying sleepers to start a new layout, which will have all the track made from individual chairs, to proper prototype designs, when I could have bought some of the new EM points from the EMGS and saved myself many hours of time!

 

   

 

Few of us have enough of the time, skills and equipment to make everything from scratch and/or bought-in components,

 

Also, of course, the sheer breadth of prototype coverage in RTR has increased to a degree we could not have imagined back in the sixties. The annual number of releases across the industry must rival entire ranges from that era.

 

Consequently, we who manage our time on the principle of "buy what you can, make what you must" have shifted the emphasis of our modelling activity away from building locos and coaches in favour of other aspects of the hobby.  Judging from current magazines, much of that effort has been diverted into scenic modelling and (as you point out) an electronic sub-hobby that didn't exist, beyond the odd transistorised controller, when I began modelling.

 

As for how the hobby will develop/change/grow/shrink in the longer term, I've enough to do without second-guessing what it might look like when I'm no longer around to participate. Such concerns are for those young enough to be directly affected, and those whose livelihoods are involved.   

 

John 

Edited February 6, 2020 by Dunsignalling

[Lecorbusier]

19 minutes ago, t-b-g said:

I am going to ruffle a few feathers here by being deliberately provocative. Designing stuff on a computer and having it made on a machine is not model making to me. It is production design and manufacturing. It requires a completely different set of skills to traditional modelling. The CAD design stuff is basically what Hornby etc. do but on a smaller scale.

 

I tend to agree. As an architect I design buildings alongside other experts and specialists. The end product is a set of drawings and specifications (along with some prototyping done normally by others) which would be analogous to the drawings and spec for a steam loco. One is then responsible for managing and inputting into the build process (done to greater or lesser extent dependent upon the project and particular architect). I know many architects, engineers and designers who in their spare time have hobbies involved with making things ... I suspect this fulfils a need not fulfilled by the day job. Others spend much time building models and producing beautiful artwork for their buildings ... which achieves the same thing by another route.

Edited February 6, 2020 by Lecorbusier

[Clive Mortimore]

Haven't we discussed the future of the hobby, the lack of youngsters joining the ranks of us grumpy old so and sos etc.

 

As I have said in the past, I am not worried about its future, let us enjoy what we have today. So what if in years to come those in the hobby do everything on a computer, drive the trains on their devices, if they have fun doing so,  great.

 

All I know I am still happy with what I do, like the other evening cutting up Lima Mk1 coaches to make types not about in RTR land. Yes I know you can buy etched overlays but the amount of work is about the same for a greater cost, and no thinking how can I do this.  The basic cutting and shutting to convert a Diagrm 24 RB into a Diagram 17 RF using bits from a CK. 

 

Edited February 6, 2020 by Clive Mortimore

[PupCam]

3 hours ago, westerner said:

Perhaps if Peter Denny and Frank Dyer were starting railway modelling today as youngsters they too would be using CAD and 3D printing, and those that do use these modern day tools will, in 50 years be treated with the same reverence as those 2 modellers.

 

I believe people use the materials, tools and skills they have that are available and comfortable to them.   Peter Denny and Frank Dyer didn't use CAD and 3D printing because (to state the obvious) it simply wasn't there.    Who knows if they would have used them if they were?    What can be said is that an Arduino or two and modern sensors would certainly have made Peter's "Automatic Crispin" a lot easier and more flexible.      But then again there's something truly fascinating about electro/mechanical computing machines and clocks.  I think a key prerequisite is for an individual to be fascinated by "things" and have a hunger to learn and understand and a willingness to try and, maybe, fail.   It's only by doing so that you learn where your strengths lie.   

 

As an example, another of my "time sponges" is old motorcycles and for 40+years the Smiths Chronometric speedo.   As the name suggests, they are actually based on a clock escapement and are very complicated but truly amazing instruments.   Faced with a potential bill of £200-£300 for a repair I decided following a bit of internet research to "have a go" at repairing one of mine.   I'm no clock maker but my little Unimat 3 enabled me to make a tiny replacement top hat bearing for the mechanism and I was able to get it working once more.  Indeed one of the members of the Owners Club (for my bike) who used to repair them but couldn't source the parts commissioned me (a complete newbie to the world of  Chronometrics) to make him a batch and so others will hopefully benefit!   Anyway, for those who appreciate interesting mechanisms here are a couple of videos of my one being tested after repair:

 

 

The bearing I made sits in the gear at the bottom of the "waggling pinion"  seen in this next clip

 

 

The moral of the story?   You never know what you can do until you try!

 

With regard to treating current and subsequent modellers in equal reverence  to our hero's of the past I'm sure folks will.   I bet everyone of us has a list of our own more recent railway modelling greats, I know I have!

 

Alan

 

 

Edited February 6, 2020 by PupCam
Added "heros" comment

[Lecorbusier]

20 minutes ago, Clive Mortimore said:

Haven't we discussed the future of the hobby, the lack of youngsters joining the ranks of us grumpy old so and sos etc.

 

 

Methinks coming back to perennial topics of interest/worry is what group discussion has a tendency to do ... think operation/loco lamps/making things rather than buying etc etc ... you never know - someone may say something new or interesting 

[Jol Wilkinson]

On 05/02/2020 at 22:13, Mick Bonwick said:

 

 I daren't show anybody any of the three etched kits I have started (one wagon, one coach, one locomotive). 

 

Mick,

perhaps this sums up a common feeling about something we make but we feel doesn't cut the mustard. However, advice is often gladly given if you ask for help in sorting out the problems you encountered.

 

 

14 hours ago, Lecorbusier said:

It would be interesting to see some figures about this. We are told that Railway modelling is more popular than it has ever been .... is that true? It would also be interesting to see the demographics. In the absence of such empirical data we rely on personal and anecdotal impressions.

 

Tim,

 

I think attempts have been made in the past to assess the health of the hobby , often through the sales of the magazines, number of web forum members , etc. without much of a conclusion being reached.

 

The membership of the Scale Societies gives something of a guide, but that tends to indicate only the those who tend to make/create their own models in general and doesn't reflect upon the numbers who buy RTR products in the main.

 

12 hours ago, t-b-g said:

I am going to ruffle a few feathers here by being deliberately provocative. Designing stuff on a computer and having it made on a machine is not model making to me. It is production design and manufacturing. It requires a completely different set of skills to traditional modelling. The CAD design stuff is basically what Hornby etc. do but on a smaller scale.

 

Tony,

I see myself as a model maker and have used CAD to create etched and laser cut items to effectively create my own kits (as well as designing kits for an established kit supplier). The footbridge in the photo could have been made totally from plasticard, but reproducing the window panels on a consistent basis would have taxed my skills and patience but required only simple 2D cad drawings to get the ninety main parts laser cut. The rest, another ninety bits, were scratchbuilt. Do I feel it is any less of an achievement compared to building it entirely out of plasticard, wood or paper? No. 

 

(Photo courtesy of Barry Norman/MRJ)

 

 

 

Edited February 6, 2020 by Jol Wilkinson
Amended text

[PupCam]

59 minutes ago, Jol Wilkinson said:

I see myself as a model maker and have used CAD to create etched and laser cut items to effectively create my own kits (as well as designing kits for an established kit supplier). The footbridge in the could have been made totally from plasticard, but reproducing the window panels on a consistent basis would have taxed my skills and patience but required only simple 2D cad drawings to get the ninety main parts laser cut. The rest, another ninety bits, were scratchbuild. Do I feel it is any less of an achievement compared to building it entirely out of plasticard, wood or paper? No.

And quite rightly so IMHO Jol.     In abstract terms I think the the tools, methods and materials used in building a model are, to a large extent, irrelevant. 

 

Is a Plasticard model of an object superior to one made of wood or metal?  Not necessarily, I would venture to suggest it depends on the "quality" of the results and that's often highly subjective.   Would a model made only with the use of a scalpel be superior to one where saw, files, drills or whatever?  Of course not, in fact it's more than likely it would be inferior and the adoption of "modern technology" tools is merely an extension of that.  

 

I'm old enough to remember the George Allen kit for the exquisite lattice footbridge when it first came out in the early 70's(?) using the relatively new fangled process of chemical milling (yes it was an etched brass job).   Unless you made a completely ham-fisted job of assembling it you ended up with a beautiful model, the finesse of which you'd be very hard pressed to equal by other means.  I don't think that because you hadn't made it from individual strips of plastic made you any less of a bridge modeller.  It really needed the now common skill in the world of railway modelling of the ability to solder properly although the rep that sold the kits to my father (he owned a model shop) was also peddling the new Cyanoacrylate adhesives.  Why you'd  even think of super-glueing  the whole thing together escapes me but then, I can solder!

 

Let's not get too hung up on what or how something is achieved and concentrate on the beauty and quality of the results just as long as the extent of the model making isn't limited to opening some boxes or, maybe, paying someone else to do it for you!

 

Alan

Edited February 6, 2020 by PupCam

[westerner]

I agree with your last paragraph wholeheartedly.

[Steven B]

3 hours ago, t-b-g said:

I am going to ruffle a few feathers here by being deliberately provocative. Designing stuff on a computer and having it made on a machine is not model making to me. It is production design and manufacturing. It requires a completely different set of skills to traditional modelling. The CAD design stuff is basically what Hornby etc. do but on a smaller scale.

 

If we stuck with traditional tools we'd still be in the stone age!

 

Is it not down to choosing the correct tool for the job in hand? CAD, etching, laser cutting and 3d printing are simply another tool to be used Knowing how to draw an object for 3d printing whilst taking into account the limitations of the materials and machine takes skill. Similarly setting up a laser cutter to use a specific material.

 

Many modellers use a lathe or milling machine to achieve a scratch build. Isn't this using "modern" technology (although from a different age). Why not just use a file - it's more traditional, but isn't necessarily the best tool for the job.

 

I'm currently starting work on a scratch built rake of PAB Petroleum coke wagons - 17 in total. I'll be getting the main body parts supplied as a laser cut flat pack with bits of the running gear done in etched brass. Yes, I could cut everything out by hand but surely laser cutting or etching is a better tool for the job?

 

Steven B.

 

 

 

[t-b-g]

3 hours ago, Jol Wilkinson said:

 

Mick,

perhaps this sums up a common feeling about something we make but we feel doesn't cut the mustard. However, advice is often gladly given if you ask for help in sorting out the problems you encountered.

 

 

 

Tim,

 

I think attempts have been made in the past to assess the health of the hobby , often through the sales of the magazines, number of web forum members , etc. without much of a conclusion being reached.

 

The membership of the Scale Societies gives something of a guide, but that tends to indicate only the those who tend to make/create their own models in general and doesn't reflect upon the numbers who buy RTR products in the main.

 

 

Tony,

I see myself as a model maker and have used CAD to create etched and laser cut items to effectively create my own kits (as well as designing kits for an established kit supplier). The footbridge in the could have been made totally from plasticard, but reproducing the window panels on a consistent basis would have taxed my skills and patience but required only simple 2D cad drawings to get the ninety main parts laser cut. The rest, another ninety bits, were scratchbuild. Do I feel it is any less of an achievement compared to building it entirely out of plasticard, wood or paper? No. 

 

(Photo courtesy of Barry Norman/MRJ)

 

 

 

 

All I am saying Jol is that the skills you use to design kits are not the same as the skills that you use to assemble them. One is designing model kits and one is making model kits.

 

I am not saying that one is more worthy, more difficult or more important than the other. Just that they are different and that my personal interests are in the assembly side of things, not in the designing.

 

I don't think that your credentials are lacking anything in the model making department. You just have the ability to do either traditional or modern versions of the hobby.

 

I tried learning CAD once. Twice actually! I didn't use it for a couple of months and when I tried again, I had forgotten it all. Yet I can pick up a file or a soldering iron and feel entirely at home and comfortable. It is clearly a gap in my own personal skill set but as I have never found anything that I couldn't make from scratch or from kits that others have designed, it has never caused me a problem.

 

The hobby is rapidly changing and new technologies are becoming more widespread and available to more people, with the advent of home 3D printers, cutters etc. I have seen some superb models created using modern methods. Taking your lovely bridge as an example. You have designed a kit and then built it. If you had drawn it in 3D CAD and had it printed up as a one part structure, you would have one the designing part but you would have produced a product, not built a model. It would still have been a nice model of a bridge!

 

I saw something the other day that made me think about this. Somebody had written "I built XYZ from a one piece 3D printed product". Well they may have painted it and added but did they build anything?. My enjoyment comes from the making things side. It always has and always will. So a ready made item that needs no assembly is of little interest to me but I fully appreciate that doesn't apply to everybody and neither should it.

 

Keeping things more "old school" is entirely a personal choice for me and I would never expect others to feel the same way.

 

 

 

 

[polybear]

1 hour ago, Steven B said:

Many modellers use a lathe or milling machine to achieve a scratch build. Isn't this using "modern" technology (although from a different age). Why not just use a file - it's more traditional, but isn't necessarily the best tool for the job.

 

It seems the Lathe was invented in 1300BC, and a Milling Machine in 1818.....

[Bucoops]

3D printing has been around much longer.

 

 

[Jol Wilkinson]

3 hours ago, t-b-g said:

 

All I am saying Jol is that the skills you use to design kits are not the same as the skills that you use to assemble them. One is designing model kits and one is making model kits.

 

I am not saying that one is more worthy, more difficult or more important than the other. Just that they are different and that my personal interests are in the assembly side of things, not in the designing.

 

I don't think that your credentials are lacking anything in the model making department. You just have the ability to do either traditional or modern versions of the hobby.

 

I tried learning CAD once. Twice actually! I didn't use it for a couple of months and when I tried again, I had forgotten it all. Yet I can pick up a file or a soldering iron and feel entirely at home and comfortable. It is clearly a gap in my own personal skill set but as I have never found anything that I couldn't make from scratch or from kits that others have designed, it has never caused me a problem.

 

The hobby is rapidly changing and new technologies are becoming more widespread and available to more people, with the advent of home 3D printers, cutters etc. I have seen some superb models created using modern methods. Taking your lovely bridge as an example. You have designed a kit and then built it. If you had drawn it in 3D CAD and had it printed up as a one part structure, you would have one the designing part but you would have produced a product, not built a model. It would still have been a nice model of a bridge!

 

I saw something the other day that made me think about this. Somebody had written "I built XYZ from a one piece 3D printed product". Well they may have painted it and added but did they build anything?. My enjoyment comes from the making things side. It always has and always will. So a ready made item that needs no assembly is of little interest to me but I fully appreciate that doesn't apply to everybody and neither should it.

 

Keeping things more "old school" is entirely a personal choice for me and I would never expect others to feel the same way.

 

 

 

 

 

Hi Tony,

 

making things is also my most enjoyable part of modelling, if railways didn't exist I would probably take up R/C boat building again.

 

I understand your difficulty with CAD. I started with TurboCad in the days of floppy discs but couldn't get on with it. Later I tried CorelDraw, which is 2D drawing software and found that much easier to learn and to use. I've tried - but not very hard - to get into 3D CAD but decided 3D printing isn't really for me. 

 

I do use 3D printed products, Modelu's loco lamps to start with and I will probably buy a few of his early figures. Bill Bedford has gone over to 3D printing, rather than supplying resin cast kits and I do buy the LNWR wagons he produces. Otherwise I prefer etched or plastic moulded kits (for wagons) I am not keen on cast w/m loco kits  but still have some wagons in the to do pile. I don't do much scratch building but kit bashing or assembling a collection of bits to build a coach starting from just etched sides/ends (or the late Trevor Charlton's etched zinc bits) is not unusual.

 

Jol

[Erichill16]

Sorry to but in on one of groups deliberations but a bit of information/advice please. I know it’s possibly not the most appropriate thread to ask on but can’t find the answer and I’m sure someone may be able to help.

So here it is, does any one know if Tamiya do a spray can the is a good match for early BR freight grey. I’m always pleased with the finish I get with them. Alternatively do Halfords do a match, I know they do good matches for other railway colours?

 Regards Robert

and happy modelling

[Tony Wright]

Once again, many thanks for all the interesting recent observations and comments........

 

Regarding new technologies, I'm building my first 3D-printed kit; the Isinglass pigeon van. 

 

I have to say, the body's gone together wonderfully-well. A perfect fit of parts! 

 

I'm not entirely happy with parts of the underframe, however.

 

 

The 'W'-irons are supplied as a sort of fold-up job in 3D-printed resin. Hmmmm. 

 

I folded-up one set, and it snapped! This is not the material for this application in my view, especially as the springs and axleboxes are supposed to be glued together. No matter, I've just substituted etched brass 'W'-irons, with proper bearings.

 

 

So far, so good. My temporarily fitting the roof has sprung the nearest body joint, but that'll be easily rectified. No buffers, battery boxes, brake cylinder or dynamo were supplied, but these I had in stock. 

 

So far, this is just two evenings' work. 

 

The future for my kit-building? Unlikely, because it's glued together in the main, but it'll make up into a very nice model.

 

I'll be writing a full report on it for BRM...... 

 

 

Edited February 6, 2020 by Tony Wright
typo error

[Jon4470]

Hello Tony

 

The sides of the van look, in the photo, to be very smooth and free from the layers that are seen with some 3D prints. Is that the case “ in the flesh”?

Or have you been busy sanding?

 

Jon

[cctransuk]

17 minutes ago, Jon4470 said:

Hello Tony

 

The sides of the van look, in the photo, to be very smooth and free from the layers that are seen with some 3D prints. Is that the case “ in the flesh”?

Or have you been busy sanding?

 

Jon

 

Is this kit not cast resin, rather than 3D-printed?

 

If so, sanding should not be required.

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

[TrainMan2001]

Hi Tony,

Who makes that style of buffers? I've been looking for some in that style, but so far, I have been unsuccessful.

[davidw]

46 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

Once again, many thanks for all the interesting recent observations and comments........

 

Regarding new technologies, I'm building my first 3D-printed kit; the Isinglass pigeon van. 

 

I have to say, the body's gone together wonderfully-well. A perfect fit of parts! 

 

I'm not entirely happy with parts of the underframe, however.

 

 

The 'W'-irons are supplied as a sort of fold-up job in 3D-printed resin. Hmmmm. 

 

I folded-up one set, and it snapped! This is not the material for this application in my view, especially as the springs and axleboxes are supposed to be glued together. No matter, I've just substituted etched brass 'W'-irons, with proper bearings.

 

 

So far, so good. My temporarily fitting the roof has sprung the nearest body joint, but that'll be easily rectified. No buffers, battery boxes, brake cylinder or dynamo were supplied, but these I had in stock. 

 

So far, this is just two evenings' work. 

 

The future for my kit-building? Unlikely, because it's glued together in the main, but it'll make up into a very nice model.

 

I'll be writing a full report on it for BRM...... 

 

 

Good evening Tony,

 

The van looks very good. But how deep are the window recess?

 

Thanks

 

David

[Clive Mortimore]

1 hour ago, cctransuk said:

 

Is this kit not cast resin, rather than 3D-printed?

 

If so, sanding should not be required.

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

 

1 hour ago, Jon4470 said:

Hello Tony

 

The sides of the van look, in the photo, to be very smooth and free from the layers that are seen with some 3D prints. Is that the case “ in the flesh”?

Or have you been busy sanding?

 

Jon

Hi John and Jon

 

I have a Diagram 40 BSK waiting to be made. The components are 3D printed but in resin not the plastics others are using. My model looks very free of the strata so it does not resemble the cliffs over looking the GWR at Dawlish.

[Jon4470]

13 minutes ago, Clive Mortimore said:

 

Hi John and Jon

 

I have a Diagram 40 BSK waiting to be made. The components are 3D printed but in resin not the plastics others are using. My model looks very free of the strata so it does not resemble the cliffs over looking the GWR at Dawlish.

 

Hi Clive 

Thanks ......now I understand ( a bit more at least). 

 

Jon

 

 

[Bluebell Model Railway]

Resin printing has come a long way and  is now reasonably affordable... I myself have been using them for a while, however I can see a line which is possibly here the print has maybe been paused or something moved.. other than that the there is hardly and layer lines these days. I still have no idea why when I say some prototypes why he thought resin W irons were a good idea.... Use brass nice and simple.

Edited February 7, 2020 by Bluebell Model Railway