Whats on your 2mm Work bench

[Chris Higgs]

12 hours ago, Nick Mitchell said:

 

Actually, I think this is the same situation as the coaches, in that the most popular/useful part of the range had gone out of stock many years ago. Wasn't what was left and not selling the various pointwork etches? I batted my eyelids several times when the plain line etches became unavailable soon after I'd invested in the jigs and decided that this was the track system I was going to use... but other, easier, systems have come along since - just like the Farish coaches came along.

  

 

A tempting offer... I'll have to see how much turkey is left over after Christmas...

 

The ranges that consist of multiple parts are the ones that are difficult to keep going. For the Mk1 coaches, assuming they would continue to sell (which they don't), they would still disappear when the batch of resin roofs runs out. That has already happended for the Mk1 suburbans.

 

Chris

 

 

[Pixie]

6 hours ago, Chris Higgs said:

 

Steve,

 

Do you find it easy to clean off the printed side painting that the earlier Farish Mk1s come with? Or did you manage to get hold of some unpainted versions?

 

Chris

 

Hi Chris, 

 

Yeah, it's pretty easy to remove. I tend to lightly sand (using around 800+ grit) then polish the sides using Meguiar's Plast-RX; it bring them up like glass. The first couple of coaches I did use chemical methods (primarily my usual 99.9% Isopropyl Alcohol with a 6% water dilution)  to remove the livery but it slightly softened them which made polishing harder and also the clear material slightly absorb the colour you were trying to remove. 

 

Cheers,

Steve

[Ian Morgan]

Still busy amassing suitable rolling stock for Freshwater. Two obvious items that are not available in our scale are the LBSCR 5 plank open, large numbers of which were on the island up to the end of steam, and the small LBSCR horse box, one of which also survived on the island until the 1960's. This latter was photographed at various locations around the island including Freshwater.

 

So, 3D printing was my obvious solution. I created models on the computer in Blender and got the first prints from Shapeways in the post today.

 

 

Here are the prints in Shapeways' ultra fine detail plastic. They need a spray of primer to show if the detail is actually there or not, but it looks promising.

 

 

 

I also tried the grey multi jet fusion plastic, which costs the same, and is tougher, but it looks like the fine detail is missing. Again, a coat of primer will show it better.

 

 

The chassis under the open wagon is the 9'6" wheelbase Association chassis, with somewhat shortened solebars. The horsbox needs a 9' wheelbase 8 shoe fitted chassis with 7mm diameter wheels. The springs actually protrude beyond the buffer beams of this 14' long wagon! I have an assortment of carriage and wagon chassis bits that I hope can be melded together to make something suitable.

 

 

 

[Ian Morgan]

Well, as I feared, the multi jet fusion plactic prints, with a spray of primer, showed that the fine detail was, indeed, missing. Worse than that though, the surface appeared to be furry, like the wagons were covered with teddy bear fabric. I am trying to think what use that could be put to.

 

The ultra fine detail plastic, though, showed the detail in the open wagons nicely, although cruel magnification does not do them justice. The horsebox, though, needs some work, as I need to make the planking detail for the stable doors more prominent. I also need to add the pins and chains that hold them shut. These worked pretty well on the opens.

 

 

 

 

[Chris Higgs]

11 hours ago, Ian Morgan said:

Well, as I feared, the multi jet fusion plactic prints, with a spray of primer, showed that the fine detail was, indeed, missing. Worse than that though, the surface appeared to be furry, like the wagons were covered with teddy bear fabric. I am trying to think what use that could be put to.

 

The ultra fine detail plastic, though, showed the detail in the open wagons nicely, although cruel magnification does not do them justice. The horsebox, though, needs some work, as I need to make the planking detail for the stable doors more prominent. I also need to add the pins and chains that hold them shut. These worked pretty well on the opens.

 

 

 

 

 

The surface on the ultra-fine detail plastic is furry where-ever there was resin printed (and since removed by heat) to support the detail above it. So you can see the open wagon is more furry under the diagonal strapping on the sides for example. Shapeways have a tool which will show you for a given orientation where the resin will be. If you don't specify an orientation they will print it however they want, which can be disasterous. 

 

Some of this furriness you can sand away, some not.

 

You can reduce the effect by changing the orientation, or breaking your wagon into a kit so that all the external detail surfaces are printed facing up. The latter is probably the only way to avoid it , and even then you won;t get a nice finish inside the wagon.

 

Fortunately for me, for coach roofs the effect is absent altogether provided you print them right way up.

 

Chris

Edited December 20, 2020 by Chris Higgs

[Pixie]

Very low tech compared to all this 3D printing; but some old fashioned cut-and-shutting with home brew etches.

 

 

Seasons Greetings,

Pix

[richbrummitt]

On 20/12/2020 at 00:09, Ian Morgan said:

Well, as I feared, the multi jet fusion plactic prints, with a spray of primer, showed that the fine detail was, indeed, missing. Worse than that though, the surface appeared to be furry, like the wagons were covered with teddy bear fabric. I am trying to think what use that could be put to.

 

The ultra fine detail plastic, though, showed the detail in the open wagons nicely, although cruel magnification does not do them justice. The horsebox, though, needs some work, as I need to make the planking detail for the stable doors more prominent. I also need to add the pins and chains that hold them shut. These worked pretty well on the opens.

 

 

 

 

Yes. When I printed these files the wagon detail came out more clearly than that on the horsebox. Shapeways have lost all the plank and bolt details on the horsebox though. I recall the pins are there on your file but those are also entirely obliterated at some stage in their process. I was sceptical and surprised regarding the chains. 
 

To be sure I put a little paint on a horsebox yesterday and there are definitely some details on the prints I have from your files that are not on the image above. They could be enhanced by enlarging the details. Are we back to that question of whether to overemphasise detail because we would like it visible? If it is drawn scale size and we can’t see it on a model is it better left off or accepted as not to matter? Some of your details are very small and fine and insanely difficult to photograph without better gear. 
 

 

Edited December 21, 2020 by richbrummitt
picture

[Geordie Exile]

Posing on my workbench is my Christmas present to myself: a sheet each of wooden and steel hoppers from the elves at Fencehouses. (Erm, Bob Jones, actually).  I need a bigger gloat box, because that's where they'll sit for some time.

[-missy-]

Well that was fun to do!

 

 

(Its a 0.5mm drill, managed to do 14 of them)

 

Julia.

[Kylestrome]

1 hour ago, -missy- said:

Well that was fun to do!

 

Somewhat nerve-wracking, I would think.

 

What are they?

 

David

[Tomsontour]

Nearly finished my farish 5mt, 73082, went for a fairly grubby but still cared for look, still discs, crew and a sound chip to fit, but kept me quiet for a little while, amazing what a difference the scale wheels and adding a few bits does to busy up that front end

 

All the best

Matt

Edited December 29, 2020 by Tomsontour

[MrSimon]

Looks great Matt!  What did you use to finescale it? Is there a kit or is it a combination of kits/scratchbuilt?

Thanks

Simon

[Tomsontour]

34 minutes ago, MrSimon said:

Looks great Matt!  What did you use to finescale it? Is there a kit or is it a combination of kits/scratchbuilt?

Thanks

Simon

It'll eventually run on the Finetrax track if that counts lol

[Laurie2mil]

Very nice, Matt.  Putting it on Finetrax code 40 will transform it further.  And speaking of track . . .

 

A few weeks ago we had a discussion about some of the technicalities of track-building on  Rich's Ogbourne thread, and I posted a pic of a part-built double junction.  This is now done, along with the "interesting" pointwork for the small and very cramped Pen Mill loco depot which runs off from it.  So for the track geeks, here they are:

 

 

And placed together:

 

Because of the tight and curved formation of the loco depot, for this chunk of track I treated myself (unusually for me) to the cast brass chairs I've been accruing and hording for a few years, and  used them almost exclusively for the soldered sleepers.  It was definitely easier to align the rails with the brass chairs cf. the etched ones, but the rail was a tight fit and splayed the brass chairs, and it did confirm the height difference: the cast brass chairs were c. 0.05-0.1mm higher than both the ABS and etched ones, even after filing the bottoms of the brass chairs flat.

 

I found I have 2 species of rail, one 0.5-0.51 wide and the other 0.53-0.54mm - the latter being the one I standardised on for this section of the track.  On reflection, it would have been better to have used the narrower rail with the brass chairs.  (Incidentally, the height of my rail lengths is uniform at 1.03-1.04mm, for both the narrower and wider rail.) 

 

These are all small differences, but enough to make threading the rail through the brass chairs very tight, and the height differences between the chairs enough to be palpable when running a wagon through a crossing which has etched chairs and scrap etch under the crossing nose and wing rails.   I did get some code 40 rail from C&L some time ago, so it is possible that that  was from a different  supplier then, but all my rail is in the same bag so I cannot identify which is which now. I daren't add up the cost of the brass chairs for the loco points - so although easier to use, overall proved more of a mixed blessing than I had anticipated. 

 

That just leaves a trailing cross-over and a trap to complete the points for the scenic area at this end of Yeovil Town.  And 5 more points to complete the loco depot at Yeovil Town (+ control panels, servos, wiring - and rodding at both ends) - so plenty to keep me going through our Tier 4 period of lockdown just announced by Uncle Boris tonight, before I can pick up the baseboards to stick it all down on.

 

Happy New Year, everyone.

 

[nick_bastable]

very impressive how does a wagon through them ?

 

speaking as  one that has  built great looking but useless track.  trust yours are better and work as intended

 

Nick B

[Jan W]

That's quite an impressive formation!

What is the y-turnout top right in the last picture used for? Is it in some kind of run-round track?

The bottom track seems to have nowhere to go to.

[Izzy]

Interesting trap at the bottom of the shed complex, and the movements needed to get to the line next to the engine shed.

[-missy-]

First attempt...

 

 

Julia.

[-missy-]

Hi.

 

The right gear is Mikroantriebe, the left home brew...

 

 

(0.2MOD BTW)

 

Julia

 

[1965Nick]

New on my workbench today:

BR Mk1 BG

BR Mk1 FO

I haven’t tackled a coach kit for nearly 30 years! 
Still I feel I didn’t make a bad job of BR standard brake van and a 16 T mineral wagon. 

[Laurie2mil]

On 30/12/2020 at 23:21, Laurie2mil said:

Yeovil Pen Mill track

 

Thanks for your interest, Nick / Jan / Izzy.  I'll try and answer your questions re the Pen Mill track:

 

On 31/12/2020 at 03:23, nick_bastable said:

how does a wagon through them ?

Nick B

 

On 31/12/2020 at 07:34, Jan W said:

What is the y-turnout top right in the last picture used for? Is it in some kind of run-round track?

The bottom track seems to have nowhere to go to.

 

On 31/12/2020 at 08:37, Izzy said:

Interesting trap at the bottom of the shed complex, and the movements needed to get to the line next to the engine shed.

 

 

Nick - OK on the bench!  You never really know, of course, until its all qlued down flat in its final resting place.  I have a short wheelbase (Peco - shhh!) test wagon with the correct back-to-back (finescale) wheels which doesn't catch on any of it - now.  A SWB wagon should be more likely to catch on the tips of the rails at the K-crossing - I try and add a lateral stress when running through to positively mal-route it, and file/ease with the iron until it doesn't.  The check rails in the K-crossing are the critical bits - the sharper you can get the angle in the middle of them, the better they check the diamond; a radiused bend in the check rail at the knuckle of the K risks losing the checking at the critical point. 

 

Filing down the check rails to keep them blackened can also be a mixed blessing - looks good, but take it too far and again, it reduces the check on a wheel  running through a K-crossing (it's less of a problem through a common crossing).  The wagon also runs true through the formation under it's own weight and gravity.  With the relatively tight radius right through the tandem, diamond and slip (in the loco depot track) I also lashed up some jumpers and checked the small Prairie would go through reliably - which it did, fortunately.  This radius is nominally 30", but has a couple of closure rails down to 27", and a SWB wagon will be less good at picking up kinks which might accentuate a sharp curve than a LWB one or 6-coupled loco.

 

I  always  have to do quite a bit of fettling and adjustment through all my pointwork  to get smooth running - I tend to push out the wing and check rails to the max for the best visual effect, with the result that the check gauge is always just a bit neat and stock climbs over them.  Its all  sorted by easing with the iron, and the 0.5mm file - the most heavily used tool in the box!  I'll never learn . . .

 

Jan - the apparent Y-turnout at the end of the loco formation is actually a single slip.  And Izzy - I agree, the whole layout is ridiculously inefficient - but true to the prototype.  One of those "there's a prototype for everything" examples:

 

 

(This is the 1928 OS map, which is true to the GWR survey of the same period).  Entry is via the tandem, and there is direct access  to the first 2 shed roads, turntable (via the slip road) and coal yard (which was only for loco coal) diagonally across the slip.  The first kick-back siding from the TT road back across the slip took wagons to the wagon side of a covered coal stage (all manual) with water tower on top; the second kick-back from this led back across the diamond on the  access road into the 3rd shed road, which was used for repairs.  The turntable was there from the beginning (1857).

 

Day to day, it would have been getting coal from the stack and shunting wagons alongside the coaling stage which would have been the interesting movement (for us modellers - a pain in the **** in reality), and to shunt more than 1 wagon at a time would have meant getting onto the TT as the siding length was so short leading to it.  And a loco being coaled and/or watered had to stand on the tandem which would block all other movements into and out of the shed and yard. 

 

The reason for this inconvenience is the very cramped site - squeezed into the V of the junction with the steep Wyndham Hill to the north (top) and a wide pre-existing millstream to the south (bottom).  Post  WWII there were just 57xx panniers and small prairies shedded here; earlier, there were Buffalo's, Dean Goods, other panniers and saddle tanks and smaller 4-4-0s - maybe restricted by the tight radii as well as the duties rostered to the shed?  Whatever, it does make an unusual and interesting-to-operate model.  I always thought that the basic layout was ripe for tweaking into the corner of an L-shaped layout.

 

 

Re the trap, visible in the above photo: it has a second rail, which would pull a derailing loco well away from the main line (which sweeps left towards Weymouth) - the trap is close to the main line, and the momentum of a derailing loco would take it straight onto it as there is no dog-leg to the loco road (as there is in the trap for the cattle pens, for example.)  Another interesting detail is the treadle bar opposite the loco trap, which must have been for locking rather than detection, I think.  There was, originally, a second signal box in the junction V, but this was demolished in the ?1930s and everything this end of the station (beyond the road overbridge this photo was taken from) would be out of sight of the remaining box.  It was all track-circuited, but if a loco was waiting to leave the shed, for instance, it would already be derailing on the trap to operate the treadle so the treadle could not be any use to remind the signalman the loco was still there.

 

Incidentally, the double catch point on the down main line between the junction diamond and cattle dock point is a true sprung catch point: the climb up to Evershot tunnel starts here.  Sadly, there wasn't room to model it realistically due to the compression I have had to introduce for the Yeovil Town model.

 

Finally, a nice overview of the shed for the other direction, from Wyndham Hill:

 

 

Laurie Adams

Edited January 1, 2021 by Laurie2mil
Clarify layout

[Donw]

17 minutes ago, Laurie2mil said:

 

Nick - OK on the bench!  You never really know, of course, until its all qlued down flat in its final resting place.  I have a short wheelbase (Peco - shhh!) test wagon with the correct back-to-back (finescale) wheels which doesn't catch on any of it - now.  A SWB wagon should be more likely to catch on the tips of the rails at the K-crossing - I try and add a lateral stress when running through to positively mal-route it, and file/ease with the iron until it doesn't.  The check rails in the K-crossing are the critical bits - the sharper you can get the angle in the middle of them, the better they check the diamond; a radiused bend in the check rail at the knuckle of the K risks losing the checking at the critical point. 

 

Filing down the check rails to keep them blackened can also be a mixed blessing - looks good, but take it too far and again, it reduces the check on a wheel  running through a K-crossing (it's less of a problem through a common crossing).  The wagon also runs true through the formation under it's own weight and gravity.  With the relatively tight radius right through the tandem, diamond and slip (in the loco depot track) I also lashed up some jumpers and checked the small Prairie would go through reliably - which it did, fortunately.  This radius is nominally 30", but has a couple of closure rails down to 27", and a SWB wagon will be less good at picking up kinks which might accentuate a sharp curve than a LWB one or 6-coupled loco.

 

I  always  have to do quite a bit of fettling and adjustment through all my pointwork  to get smooth running - I tend to push out the wing and check rails to the max for the best visual effect, with the result that the check gauge is always just a bit neat and stock climbs over them.  Its all  sorted by easing with the iron, and the 0.5mm file - the most heavily used tool in the box!  I'll never learn . . .

 

Jan - the apparent Y-turnout at the end of the loco formation is actually a single slip.  And Izzy - I agree, the whole layout is ridiculously inefficient - but true to the prototype.  One of those "there's a prototype for everything" examples:

 

 

(This is the 1928 OS map, which is true to the GWR survey of the same period).  Entry is via the tandem, and there is direct access  to the first 2 shed roads, turntable (via the slip road) and coal yard (which was only for loco coal) diagonally across the slip.  The first kick-back siding from the TT road back across the slip took wagons to the wagon side of a covered coal stage (all manual) with water tower on top; the second kick-back from this led back across the diamond on the  access road into the 3rd shed road, which was used for repairs.  The turntable was there from the beginning (1857).

 

Day to day, it would have been getting coal from the stack and shunting wagons alongside the coaling stage which would have been the interesting movement (for us modellers - a pain in the **** in reality), and to shunt more than 1 wagon at a time would have meant getting onto the TT as the siding length was so short leading to it.  And a loco being coaled and/or watered had to stand on the tandem which would block all other movements into and out of the shed and yard. 

 

The reason for this inconvenience is the very cramped site - squeezed into the V of the junction with the steep Wyndham Hill to the north (top) and a wide pre-existing millstream to the south (bottom).  Post  WWII there were just 57xx panniers and small prairies shedded here; earlier, there were Buffalo's, Dean Goods, other panniers and saddle tanks and smaller 4-4-0s - maybe restricted by the tight radii as well as the duties rostered to the shed?  Whatever, it does make an unusual and interesting-to-operate model.  I always thought that the basic layout was ripe for tweaking into the corner of an L-shaped layout.

 

 

Re the trap, visible in the above photo: it has a second rail, which would pull a derailing loco well away from the main line (which sweeps left towards Weymouth) - the trap is close to the main line, and the momentum of a derailing loco would take it straight onto it as there is no dog-leg to the loco road (as there is in the trap for the cattle pens, for example.)  Another interesting detail is the treadle bar opposite the loco trap, which must have been for locking rather than detection, I think.  There was, originally, a second signal box in the junction V, but this was demolished in the ?1930s and everything this end of the station (beyond the road overbridge this photo was taken from) would be out of sight of the remaining box.  It was all track-circuited, but if a loco was waiting to leave the shed, for instance, it would already be derailing on the trap to operate the treadle so the treadle could not be any use to remind the signalman the loco was still there.

 

Incidentally, the double catch point on the down main line between the junction diamond and cattle dock point is a true sprung catch point: the climb up to Evershot tunnel starts here.  Sadly, there wasn't room to model it realistically due to the compression I have had to introduce for the Yeovil Town model.

 

Finally, a nice overview of the shed for the other direction, from Wyndham Hill:

 

 

Laurie Adams

 

An excellent piece of work Laurie, I thought it was probably the prototype thathad an odd layout and not jut due to you compressing things. It would be a brave modellers to design that without a prototype to confound the knowalls. 

Using a file to ease the crossings is easier than trying to add a bit on if they are too wide! On the prototype they don't use the K crossings at more than 1:8 ( possibly 1:9 on the continent) if I remember aright because the gap gets too wide so I assume our wider flangeways don't help.

When testing pointwork I tend to use two wagons and push one with the other. It works best with three links or other couplings that have no buffing action as relying on the buffers can put sideways forces on the pushed wagon because only the buffers on one side will be in contact. A wagon with no DG would work. 

All in all your layout is magnificent.

Don 

[nick_bastable]

whats the weird looking track besides the cattle dock and its reason  I have a suspicion but would like the correct answer

 

Nick B 

[Geordie Exile]

4 minutes ago, nick_bastable said:

whats the weird looking track besides the cattle dock and its reason  I have a suspicion but would like the correct answer

 

Nick B 

I was hoping someone else would ask!  (I don't have the merest suspicion of a suspicion)

[Caley Jim]

2 hours ago, nick_bastable said:

whats the weird looking track besides the cattle dock and its reason  I have a suspicion but would like the correct answer

Cattle trucks had to be washed out, disinfected and lime washed before their next occupants.   My strong suspicion is that it is concreted over the sleepers in order to allow the washings etc. to be flushed away rather than have them simply soak into the ballast.

 

Jim