sem34090's Workbench, Layout and General Wittering

[sem34090]

Well... how long is it since I updated this thread?!

 

As most of you will have gathered, I have been working on a model of Stockton & Darlington Railway No.25 'Derwent' in order to assist both the Father and Daughter of the Edwardian household in their labours.

 

However, in the meantime some positive news on the G6! My order has been dispatched, so it shouldn't be too long before my model arrives. After arrival and checking it will be offered for sale. The pricing is in place, the product page put up and I am just holding off on pressing the 'offer for sale' button until my own model arrives.

 

I would, however, like to ask what people think of the markup I have put on each loco body in each material. I have added a markup of between £6 and £7 (in order to make nice round prices!) to the 'cost' price of the model, but I think all of them still come in at under £30, maybe under £35 including VAT. I feel that this is still reasonably competitive, but also allows me to make a decent amount out of each sale. I may yet reduce the prices, but would like some feedback on this.

 

Now, the way i.materialise works is that you can only offer a model for sale if it has actually been dispatched to you  and then only in the material you ordered. As such, the G6 will initially be available only in Polyamide (i.materialise's equivalent of WSF), despite my intention to eventually offer it in their equivalent of FUD (Standard Resin). I was able to arrange it so that Linny could order the model in the latter material for experimental purposes, but it will not be available in this finer material for now.

[sem34090]

To remove this discussion from the Hornby forum and to allow it to be continued here:

 

 

A few points from me.

 

Firstly, I am liking what 'Legend' is saying, and it ties in nicely with my thoughts. Interesting note on the small, British based, company that manages to produce cheap plastic kits for a niche market...

 

Secondly, I am always on the lookout for K's Kits (particularly the terrier...) on ebay as they are complete! The same goes for anything I'm looking for - I need it at a reasonable price, and wheels, gears and motors all add up to create a very expensive model that I cannot afford.

 

 

Finally, I have a scheme forming in my mind...

 

I would like a few opinions on my next planned (after the current projects) 3D Printed kit idea. I intend to cover the LBSCR Classes A1 and A1x, in an economical and simple fashion. 

 

The plan is inspired by 'Sparkshot' and consists of the following:

 

A series of basic bodies to cover the different boiler and cab/bunker variations.

A series of domes and chimneys to cover further variations.

Smokebox doors to cover variants.

Splashers to cover variants.

Sandboxes to cover variants.

Brake Blocks to cover variants.

Miscellaneous fixtures and fittings to cover variants.

A few chassis to cover different variants (including 2-4-0)

 

In addition to this 'pick and mix' I would intend to offer a few 'standard' versions as complete loco shells. I will also attempt to design the model in such a way that it can either fit the existing Dapol/Hornby chassis (and maybe parts from the body, with its many inaccuracies and hybrid features) or a specially-designed scale chassis. This should allow any modeller to put together a model of any terrier at pretty well any stage of its life, the following should be able to be shown, amongst other versions and freelance versions:

Original A1, as built, any batch.

A1 with no condensing pipes and cast iron brake blocks (last batch built with latter feature)

2-4-0 A1.

Motor-Fitted A1.

Pauling & Co. A1 (Dumb Buffers)

Newhaven Harbour Co. A1 (And A1x)

IoWCR A1 (And A1x with above-footplate splashers and IOW Cast Chimney)

LSWR A1 (Including Drummond Boiler and Chimney, plus push-pull equipment)

SECR A1 (Including Wainwright Boiler)

FYN A1 (As above)

KESR A1 (And A1x - Including bunker variations)

EHLR A1 (And A1x)

'Brighton' A1x (Splashers modified, various other small changes)

'IOW' A1x (Splashers not modified, cast or Drummond Chimney, extended bunker. All era-dependent)

Myriad coal rail variants.

Myriad toolbox variants.

A1 with extended smokebox door straps (As per the preserved 'Boxhill')

'PO' A1x (Similar to 'IOW' A1x, but with a few differences, sometimes work executed at Brighton)

I gather there are many more variations, and there has been an excellent, though as yet unpublished, document on this matter by a member of the greater RMweb parish.

 

The idea is to allow people of many different abilities and pockets to put together a series of accurate locos. This could range from simply purchasing a 'complete' shell, finishing it (I may yet offer colour-printing, I need to look into it more.) and fitting it to a Hornby/Dapol chassis, to working out an exact combination of parts required to represent a particular member of the class at a particular time and assembling the model onto it's own 'scale chassis'.

 

Of course, I intend to offer the models in a few other scales, and some of the bits may be done for 7mm to assist those working on detailing Dapol's model, but the main scales to be offered will be 3mm, 3.5mm, 4mm, 5.5mm and 10mm. I may also go down to 2mm, we'll see.

 

Criticism invited and welcomed!

 

 

First off, good luck with the project. Whilst I'm sure there will be naysayers, I would say that the Terrier lends itself very well to what you're trying to do. It's a prototype with wide appeal and application but there is not, and has never been a good r-t-r representation, nor a straightforward way of modelling all the variations. The one r-t-r offering is of questionable fidelity and running quality as it comes out of the box and is now rather expensive for what it offers.

 

3D printing would appear ideal to achieve what you are proposing, offering a feasible means of offering a multitude of different components to cover all the variants at an affordable price. If you can make a printed chassis work, so much the better as it also offers a near equivalent of a mass-produced moulded chassis, without the tooling costs. As an engineer and long time mechanical fiddler, building a working chassis doesn't daunt me, but I'd be prepared to pay money for the convenience of obtaining a complete unit to which I can attach the assorted whirry bits. The big question is accuracy. It's vital that the axle hole centres be identically spaced as any coupling rod supplied, or one or t'other be made easy to adjust. Any error and the chassis will run like a 3-legged dog, which is very discouraging for someone starting out in kitbuilding  I'm not sure how you intend supplying coupling rods, but might I suggest contemplating how you might enable the chassis to be used as a jig to assist the builder in drilling their own rods? I'm thinking of a set of drill guide bushes that will fit into the axle bearings and the ability to temporarily attach the chassis to whatever material is being used for the rods.

 

So, yeah, I think that if you can bring this to market in a way that you can offer enough bits to build a complete loco for around the same price (or even a bit more, wheels not being cheap when bought separately) than the Hornby offering, and get sufficient (to you) remuneration for your efforts, the idea potentially has legs. If a Terrier can be made to work, then more obscure prototypes, or others with similarly wide variations which make them difficult to tool for by conventional means, could be tried.

 

 

I can't comment on your choice of prototype, but there is an obvious hierarchy that your proposal could deliver to, which would also mirror all the varying modelling capabilities and inclinations recorded in this thread:

 

- detailing kit for commercial product

- body kit to fit commercial chassis

- body kit to fit EM/P4 converted commercial chassis

- complete body and chassis kit (OO/EM/P4)

 

A different sort of design clever.

 

 

This is the idea. I myself am no accomplished kitbuilder, and at present the prospect of fabricating a metal chassis that I must ensure won't short out is rather daunting. That's not to say I don't intend trying. My plan is to be able to offer a popular prototype accurately in 4mm, 3.5mm, 3mm, maybe 2mm, 5.5mm and 10mm for the first time. I will start with 4mm, as that is the scale I model in.

 

As mentioned above, as far as the 4mm models go, there is a definite hierachy:

 

- Components to allow detailing of the inaccurate RTR body. This would allow for, say, the creation of a rough representation of the LSWR Reboilered loco, through the use of a new chimney and dome.

- Replacement accurate body onto which the chassis and handrails, detailing components, etc from the RTR offering are fixed. This merely fixes the basic shape issues, and would allow (say) and IOW bunker and cast chimney to be fitted.

- A selection of components to fit a basic 'base' body. This would allow the purchaser to essentially customise their loco to almost all of the variations enacted on the Terriers over time. This would account for variations in bunker, coal rails, dome, safety valve, smokebox, boiler, chimney, etc... This would still fit RTR chassis.

- All of the above to fit 3D Printed 00, EM or P4 Chassis, the latter possibly with Hornblocks. I need to investigate this further. Rods will most likely be 3D Printed from bronze-infused steel, though I have yet to test this.

 

We are unlikely/never going to see all of these variations on an RTR model (especially ones like the dumb buffers fitted to those used on the construction of the GCR London Extension.) so I figured it was worth a go!

 

This will be a summer project...

 

 

I am sorry but especially for locos why do we need plastic ?

 

The best kits use the correct material for the purpose, etched brass where needed, both resin and cast whitemetal parts where appropriate, turned brass fittings etc 

Next lets have chassis that are both robust and repairable

 

As for a new range of spare/detail parts, there are plenty out there

 

I can see there is a place in the future for 3D printing, looking at the products from the likes of Modelu exciting times, then I see the orange peel finish (looking like a badly sprayed item) and cringe at whats being offered

 

For me a loco not only needs to look correct but also feel right, something plastic fails to do.

I think the way forward and to improve kits is for composite models to be produced

 

 

So what do you propose for Motor, gear box, wheels, bearings  and pick ups?

 

All of these would be essentials to include in a "low cost" kit.

 

Will hand rails and other stand off detail be moulded on or separate, in which case you need to consider how to manufacture them and handrail knobs.

 

All things that need to be considered and all things that add to cost.

 

Craig W

 

 

What you are proposing does not fit with your mantra of 'cheap & reasonable cost'  

 

To be able to produce the items you suggest you'll be printing in FUD/FXD,  a basic loco body will be in excess of £50, and then you have to add wheels, gears, motor & chassis*, Handrails, Handrail knobs, couplings etc which will push the 'simple' kit to £150+ 

You might suggest WSF because it's cheaper, but I would say you need to design and print one in that material, then test print it first so that you can see just how poor it is before offering it out.

 

The only way you're going to see if this is worthwhile is to draw something you want, print it and see what it comes out like. If it's ok then you could offer it through Shapeways.  

 

I helped in a small way with some pre-grouping locos that several of us wanted, with 2 skilled 3D designers and a skilled etch designer among the 5 of us, it took at least 50-60+ hours for each design along with test prints before we were satisfied.  The cost of each print ( with separate chassis) was an average of £95 for a tank loco and £75 for a loco body + £50 for a tender.

 

 

* How to motorise a 3D design is commonly either not bothered with, or left completely to the purchaser, and yet making the thing go is probably the most fundamental thing a modeller wants. If you don't design a kit around some suggested power plant then it really isn't worth starting.

 

 

Making a metal chassis that won't short out is easy to do. The harder part is making sure the chassis will go round your curves.

 

Kits of big locos generally won't like anything less than 3ft radius. I've cheated as much as much as I can to give a W1 as much side play as possible, but 3ft is the limit.

That said the big classes are getting good coverage by RTR makers.

Big classis can often use an RTR chassis, for example Turbomotive! So body kit for an existing chassis can be a good starting point (you probably need to wait for a cheap model/chassis appears on an auction site though).

 

For 0-6-0, Q1 and Q, I have managed to built these to go round a 22 inch and that is the limit.

 

What is also hard is assembling the thing so that there are no tight spots and that all wheels touch the rails (in an 0-6-0, the bearings often need to be opened up, so I purposely open up the middle pair towards the top and end pairs towards the bottom, this means that if a wheel pair has to be marginally higher than the others then it will be the middle pair to ensure the loco sits square on the track).

Once the wheels are turning freely in the bearings, you can fit the conrods, make sure they run freely too. Then the piston rods and finally the valve gear. This often needs to be tweeked to ensure it does not lock. The rivets need to loose enough to ensure they don't bind, but tight enough to ensure it does fall apart.

 

Hard of course, is choosing you wheels (most default to romfords these days), pick-ups (plunger type or wiper, which size stripe? - here the chassis spacers can hold a bit of PCB to solder wires). Motor and gears.

 

In the 90s, you had portescap, lovely gearboxs. But a lot of people use DS10s and 1 stage gear boxes that I found dreadful (I felt the chassis need to be dead square and very rigid to work ok!).

My preference is 2 stage gearbox with a big can motor, 40:1 gives good running while allowing a good degree of play.

 

Flywheels is another debate. In an ideal world, big motor and big flywheel, in practice, space will be tight on some/most models. My feelings are to use a bigger motor and only add flywheels if there is space. Others will have other experiences.

 

There are some challenges but equally these chassis do allow you to experiment and can be taken apart and corrected if they are found to be under powered etc....

 

JSpencer above is clearly an accomplished builder and his comments above show the wealth of experience he has building kits to talk about 3ft curves 22 inches, opening up bearings etc. "What is also hard is assembling the thing so that there are no tight spots and that all wheels touch the rails " This is exactly what puts me off building kits . I just don't have these skill sets . I think that possibly is also the case for lots of other people , they are put off by the complexities of assembling the chassis , and in my case the likelihood of not getting it wrong. Could this also be the reason there are lots of unfinished or unbuilt kits . We really wanted the loco , but when it came down to it we don't have the ability to make it? So again for me a kit would only become attractive if there is a reasonable chance of success . That means a Triang "CKD" approach to building the chassis , with plastic construction kit type body . If that was available I'd give it a go.

Hayfield asks why do we need plastic? I suspect Hayfield is also an accomplished builder, but for many of us the thought of brass, etchings and white metal is very daunting . Plastic on the other hand is something we are very comfortable with. I think this is what would distinguish a range of "Easy Build" kits to what is already out there.

 

 

FUD needn't be expensive (If a model is designed correctly) and WSF really is not as bad as some people make out. For example, 'Sparkshot' on here has produced some stunning models in WSF. He also has some rather reasonable FUD models.

 

Low Cost is a relative term, essentially meaning what I (as a young modeller on a severely limited income) can afford. At any rate, my models should prove to be cheaper than current offerings and should help to bridge the gap between all-RTR modellers and pure kitbuilders. It's an idea. It may not work as intended, but it's my free time and it's something that I want to do. If people want to purchase my models they can, but that's not the motive behind this. If I'm the only person who buys one, so what. If someone, any single person, buys another then I will be overjoyed! I genuinely am giving up my free time here, and still intend on writing decent instructions, and hopefully with decent photos to be downloaded when the model is ordered.

 

Unfortunately I can't sell motors and gears through shapeways, but I intend to identify suitable, cheap, mechanisms and other components (handrail knobs, wire, etc) to be linked to through the product page.

 

 

Legend

 

I started off by buying plastic kits, and wooden ones. I am of a generation who made things out of card, balsa wood, sticky back plastic.

 

At first the models were awful, badly made and painted. My first whitemetal kits thankfully worked, but were in hind sight embarrassing. The first turnouts I built derailed locos !!

 

A couple of sayings

The man who never made mistakes, never made anything. Garry Player after playing an impossible shot heard someone say, that was a lucky shot, to which he replied the more I practice the luckier I get (he was the worlds best golfer at that time)

 

The thing not to do is to go out and buy an expensive kit to learn on. Buy something cheap which will not matter if you muck it up.

 

Go out and buy a couple of sheets of plasticard and make something very simple, then have a go at making another better

 

This took me 2 seconds to find

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/KIT-BUILT-GWR-56XX-CLASS-0-6-2T-LOCO-in-GWR-Green-Livery-OO-Gauge-3-Rail/312085159569?hash=item48a9b99e91:g:9egAAOSw4qxapPTM

 

Its a GEM 56xx on a Triang Jinty chassis.

 

Job 1 Learn how to clean and service the chassis

 

Its whitemetal, and I guess stuck together and hand painted with enamel paint. Take the body off the chassis, give it a good spray with oven cleaner, put it into a plastic bag and leave for 24 hours. Wash the paint and glue off the next day.

 

Stick it back together with epoxy glue, take your time over several days, use filler in the gaps. make lamp irons from cut down staples etc. If you go wrong just do it again.

 

There are many other kits like this, just look for them

 

 

You need to identify the chassis first, then design the body to go on it. The chassis could be either a RTR one or perhaps one of the etched kits, but if selling an item it must be usable and of reasonable quality

 

I am just painting a Modelu figure, which is absolutely stunning in 7 mm scale. On the other hand some of the test pieces I have seen make me wince

 

 

Could you please explain "Triang CDK"? I vaguely remember some coach kits (air-con Mk2 stock, I think) by Triang but not the details.

 

 

Well with the media jumping on it's latest 'band-wagon' with the 'eco-hate' for plastic, before long we may have to do without it - you never know.

 

 

Hi Dave

 

When building a locomotive scratch or kit, how it is going to get from the fuddle yard to the station is the highest priority in the design/build process. No point in having a lovely body if you can't use it. Even MTK gave the modeller a bent bit of steel which to screw into the bottom of the loco body at one end and hang a Tri-ang power unit the other end.

 

 

My big problem with kits (one of my big problems, I have a few) is that everything is supposed to permanently glued or soldered in place. That means that I I mess up one bit, I mess up the whole thing and can't easily take it apart to try again. Even worse, if the kit designer messed it up for me, I might not find that out until I've fixed the part in place and can't get it off again.

 

Therefore, I have many half-finished kits where I'm putting off the next step for fear of spoiling the whole thing.

 

Kits with assemblies that bolt together help.

 

 

Lots of useful advice there.

 

Firstly, the model will be designed in such a way that it can fit on the existing RTR Terrier Chassis. However, this has several flaws so I will also be designing a chassis to fit the model. This could, therefore, be used under the RTR body if so desired.

 

I noticed the GEM 5600 and am keeping an eye on it and others. I even found a few LBSCR locos which I hope won't go outside of my price range.

 

Given that my 3D printed terriers will be offered in different materials (to suit pocket, or desire for a smooth finish. I'd go for the cheapest myself, and work on it, but I understand that others wouldn't) that should help a range of modellers.

 

The chassis will be designed with the same fixing points as the RTR model, with screw holes incorporated into the body.

 

 

Yes sorry I got it wrong it should be Triang CKD, standing for Completely Knocked Down. Basically these were locomotives and coaches in the Triang range that were supplied in their component parts to be assembled . Per Pat Hammond, the guru of all things Triang, Triang- Hornby and Hornby they were introduced to reduce the cost of the hobby , so there is a parallel with today! There was the Princess class loco, supplied as chassis block, wheels axles , motor , bogies ,loco body all for self assembly. But why I keep referring to them is that they had a chassis that when put together would run very well just like the RTR version . My point being that were someone to supply a kit with these components and a plastic body kit then I think that would be the best of both worlds and maybe even encourage folks to transition from RTR to kits . It would be the easy next step.

 

 

Or ya could, - sling it in a tin full of Nitromoors Craftsman paint-stripper, after an hour or so wash down, scrub bigger bits with an old toothbrush, clean up joining surfaces, then spray with Halford's Surface Cleaner, give it 15 minutes to dry. Solder bits together, or use super-glue (thin, industrial quality), when finished main body construction add details, fill gaps (if any), when the filler is dry spray with the surface cleaner again, wait for it to dry, spray Halford's acrylic grey-primer. Then after lunch, spray green ( whichever ya want !) 

 

 

OK thanks, then we're thinking of the same thing.

 

The big deal with CKD, was that they were complete kits of finished parts. Clip or bolt them together. Taken  'em apart and do it again if that pleases. Nothing to form, file, or paint. Most railway kits are incomplete kits of semi-finished parts, and that's a whole other thing. 

 

PS: concerning prints, a WSF body is, for me, an unfinished part as I have to sand it flat. A FUD body might be a finished part if Shapeways print it rightly.

 

 

 

[sem34090]

WSF is not perfect, but I will always try and offer a model in it for those who, like myself, need stuff at lower prices.

 

I will be evaluating a model printed in polyamide (The 'proper' (?) name for WSF, and the one i.materialise use) tonight, but looking at a HO LBSCR D1 I can't see anything that requires sanding, really. The only problem is the ridged boiler, but that was a fault with the original design.

 

 

Yep I think that's the beauty of them, but I wouldn't reintroduce these as they were. However, as you say a chassis and drive train of finished parts and a plastic kit for body and tender upperworks , requiring painting would be the ideal combination.

 

RTR is fantastic bit now getting very expensive, both for the initial buy and even to consider modifying. Then there's kits , as you say incomplete kits of semi finished parts . Usually these are metal or brass, which is a complete turn off for me . A range of Easy Build kits perhaps with generic 0-6-0 or 4-4-0 chassis (finished parts to be assembled) with a plastic kit for superstructure is my ideal.

 

 

I must admit to being a bit confused as to why you're looking to produce the items listed. I was under the impression it was as a semi commercial undertaking as the post below intimated.

 

Which was then repeated here.

 

 

But in this post it is more a case of what you're after for yourself.

 

Can you define what you think 'low cost' is, as I might be thinking in different terms to yourself.

 

Your best bet is to design something you want and then see what happens and to start from a very low detail base. You also say you're are looking to offer a chassis whilst not having built one before.  I'd get some success and failures under your belt on that score first as you'll need to put a lot of work into designing one and getting it to work well across modellers varying abilities.  This will also take you well into the territory of mixed media kits where price will certainly not be 'cheap'

 

 

 

 

 

My own view is that if I went to the effort of designing a kit/parts to replicate a prototype in the most accurate way, I would do it once, and to the highest standard rather than the cheapest.

 

None of what you are proposing is 'cheap' (in my view) but I would still strive for better standards, just across a smaller number of models.

 

 

Guy, 

 

I think they were PKD (Partly Knocked Down) based upon my motor industry experience.

 

CKD is where all the parts are unassembled and was usually used for expert markets. Assembly, finishing, painting, etc. was at a different location to the production of the parts. Sometimes a number of items are sourced local to the final assembly plant. 

 

PKD  is where complete assemblies are used (body shells, drive trains, seats, facias) and final assembly is carried out at the destination factory (which may also do the final paint application, etc.). That's also how "kit"  cars used be supplied, but to get around purchase tax at the time.

 

So I believe the Triang kits were PKD, with the major components such as the motor or chassis ready assembled and the body painted.

 

CKD is how you would describe todays loco, coach and wagon kits. 3D printing changes that only in supplying some parts "ready assembled" but still leaves some machining, assembly, finishing and painting and some outsourcing unless the "kit" manufacturer supplies the equivalent of the PKD kit.

as well as out sourcing of some items.

 

As paint finish and lining is often quoted as a major reason why some people don't take up or try kit building, would a kit with poorly finished 3D printed components appeal? The dilemma seems that it is expensive to get a acceptably smooth finish at a low price, thus defeating one of the claimed benefits for this process. I have seen very few large (bodyshell size) parts that I would consider to have an acceptable finish. Even those that have been sprayed and rubbed down with several hours work don't look right, from those I have seen displayed on RMweb.

 

I think anyone that believes they can produce a commercially acceptable kit, at a price low enough to significantly undercut RTR, which can be well finished by somebody with little or no experience and make enough profit make their effort worthwhile, is sadly misguided at this time. Until 3D prints with a surface finish at a low enough cost becomes available, then I would still regard 3D as best used to produce masters for resin or other casting techniques. There the high cost of a high quality finish print can be amortised over a production run. Several kit producers are already doing that with mixed media kits, where the most suitable material for the components application is used. 

 

Jol

 

 

Yes Pat Hammond refers to CKD as a term borrowed from the motor industry where it referred to car kits for export

 

Just looking up the Triang -Hornby 1966 catalogue , the chassis was complete with driving wheels attached . Previously I'd said wheels and axles were supplied for fitting

 

 

Getting back to the topic

 

Economics, Variety and Quality

 

I enjoy a bit of sourcing models at the best possible cost, which means doing a bit of ducking and diving in buying things

 

If you look at a modern kit I guess for a tank loco you may pay upwards of £90, add a set of wheels £20 to £40 motor £25 and a decent gearbox £15 so before paint and transfers you are looking at £150.00

 

I try to keep to a modest budget so as I said just keep your eyes open for a deal or two. I have found a mixed lot of parts which cost me £31, I aim to keep the mashima motor, with a 2 stage gearbox and a set of 4'7" Gibson drivers, I am hoping that I can resell the balance of parts not needed in this lot to recoup my outlay. Net result a free motor wheels and gears. I have several kits which I normally look to buy in the region of £30 waiting for a set of wheels, gears and motor. The chances are for about £40 I have a loco kit to build which if bought new would set me back £150.

 

Not just eBay but look at shows model shops etc. Whilst not something which happens instantly not only do I get the joy of building something, but the fun of sourcing the parts at decent prices

 

 

Dave,

 

'Cheap' to me is less that £40. At present I have got an LSWR G6 and chassis (to enable me to have a go and get some experience under my belt!) down to £16.75. Based on that, I think my £40 maximum is achievable, especially if I design my own wheels to be printed at a cost that is lower than Romfords. Considering the price of an SE.Finecast G6 then I don't see my price as 'bad'. That is, of course, in WSF, but I think that FUD isn't much more for the G6.

 

For my own purposes, I don't mind sanding down WSF, and quite honestly I don't find the surface finish all that awful. I cannot afford to spend more than around £40 on any loco these days, the Andrew Barclay being the single recent exception. I have not got that sort of income, and the Barclay required saving-for from announcement.

 

I understand, however that others place quality above price in their list of priorities, and whilst this is a personal project that has come into being due to my wanting an accurate A1 for my circa-1900 period, I wanted to try and cater for others who want accurate terriers for other periods. Naturally, this means that the A1 will happen first, as that is what I want.

 

By offering the model in parts I can also afford to do more test prints, which is always an advantage. I don't really intend to profit from this. Sure, I'll add a markup, probably up to around £5-£7 but that will mostly be to help further development and test prints.

 

Finally, part of the plan is to produce the basic shells in WSF but the separate components will be done in FUD. This allows a higher standard of finish to be achieved. 'Complete' locos may be done in both materials. I am still planning this out, but I'm a little saddened that people are already beginning to suggest that I don't bother, given this is all from my free time and I am not intending to profit from this. I want to make models and offer them to this hobby, anything wrong with that? I appreciate there are flaws, and it will be a long process, that is not to be disputed. There will be setbacks, there will be problems, but I want to serve the needs of others as well as my own.

 

I can strive for 'cheap' and higher standards at the same time. Different materials allow this. I want accuracy, but I don't want to start pricing people, including myself, out. I am not a commercial undertaking, and I only really require a few A1 shells for my own purpose, but I know that others want other terriers, and that's fantastic! Having realised that a decent RTR model is unlikely as long as collectors keep swallowing the old model I decided to do something about it myself, rather than sitting and complaining about it.

 

As I say, I will be evaluating a WSF print tonight...

 

Hopefully that answers a few questions. At any rate, I will most likely continue discussion of this concept in my workbench/screen thread that is linked to in my signature.

 

If anyone has any queries relating to me as a person, or specifically to the range, please PM me.

 

Regards,

 

sem34090

 

A few points from me.

 

Firstly, I am liking what 'Legend' is saying, and it ties in nicely with my thoughts. Interesting note on the small, British based, company that manages to produce cheap plastic kits for a niche market...

 

Secondly, I am always on the lookout for K's Kits (particularly the terrier...) on ebay as they are complete! The same goes for anything I'm looking for - I need it at a reasonable price, and wheels, gears and motors all add up to create a very expensive model that I cannot afford.

 

 

Finally, I have a scheme forming in my mind...

 

I would like a few opinions on my next planned (after the current projects) 3D Printed kit idea. I intend to cover the LBSCR Classes A1 and A1x, in an economical and simple fashion. 

 

The plan is inspired by 'Sparkshot' and consists of the following:

 

A series of basic bodies to cover the different boiler and cab/bunker variations.

A series of domes and chimneys to cover further variations.

Smokebox doors to cover variants.

Splashers to cover variants.

Sandboxes to cover variants.

Brake Blocks to cover variants.

Miscellaneous fixtures and fittings to cover variants.

A few chassis to cover different variants (including 2-4-0)

 

In addition to this 'pick and mix' I would intend to offer a few 'standard' versions as complete loco shells. I will also attempt to design the model in such a way that it can either fit the existing Dapol/Hornby chassis (and maybe parts from the body, with its many inaccuracies and hybrid features) or a specially-designed scale chassis. This should allow any modeller to put together a model of any terrier at pretty well any stage of its life, the following should be able to be shown, amongst other versions and freelance versions:

Original A1, as built, any batch.

A1 with no condensing pipes and cast iron brake blocks (last batch built with latter feature)

2-4-0 A1.

Motor-Fitted A1.

Pauling & Co. A1 (Dumb Buffers)

Newhaven Harbour Co. A1 (And A1x)

IoWCR A1 (And A1x with above-footplate splashers and IOW Cast Chimney)

LSWR A1 (Including Drummond Boiler and Chimney, plus push-pull equipment)

SECR A1 (Including Wainwright Boiler)

FYN A1 (As above)

KESR A1 (And A1x - Including bunker variations)

EHLR A1 (And A1x)

'Brighton' A1x (Splashers modified, various other small changes)

'IOW' A1x (Splashers not modified, cast or Drummond Chimney, extended bunker. All era-dependent)

Myriad coal rail variants.

Myriad toolbox variants.

A1 with extended smokebox door straps (As per the preserved 'Boxhill')

'PO' A1x (Similar to 'IOW' A1x, but with a few differences, sometimes work executed at Brighton)

I gather there are many more variations, and there has been an excellent, though as yet unpublished, document on this matter by a member of the greater RMweb parish.

 

The idea is to allow people of many different abilities and pockets to put together a series of accurate locos. This could range from simply purchasing a 'complete' shell, finishing it (I may yet offer colour-printing, I need to look into it more.) and fitting it to a Hornby/Dapol chassis, to working out an exact combination of parts required to represent a particular member of the class at a particular time and assembling the model onto it's own 'scale chassis'.

 

Of course, I intend to offer the models in a few other scales, and some of the bits may be done for 7mm to assist those working on detailing Dapol's model, but the main scales to be offered will be 3mm, 3.5mm, 4mm, 5.5mm and 10mm. I may also go down to 2mm, we'll see.

 

Criticism invited and welcomed!

 

 

First off, good luck with the project. Whilst I'm sure there will be naysayers, I would say that the Terrier lends itself very well to what you're trying to do. It's a prototype with wide appeal and application but there is not, and has never been a good r-t-r representation, nor a straightforward way of modelling all the variations. The one r-t-r offering is of questionable fidelity and running quality as it comes out of the box and is now rather expensive for what it offers.

 

3D printing would appear ideal to achieve what you are proposing, offering a feasible means of offering a multitude of different components to cover all the variants at an affordable price. If you can make a printed chassis work, so much the better as it also offers a near equivalent of a mass-produced moulded chassis, without the tooling costs. As an engineer and long time mechanical fiddler, building a working chassis doesn't daunt me, but I'd be prepared to pay money for the convenience of obtaining a complete unit to which I can attach the assorted whirry bits. The big question is accuracy. It's vital that the axle hole centres be identically spaced as any coupling rod supplied, or one or t'other be made easy to adjust. Any error and the chassis will run like a 3-legged dog, which is very discouraging for someone starting out in kitbuilding  I'm not sure how you intend supplying coupling rods, but might I suggest contemplating how you might enable the chassis to be used as a jig to assist the builder in drilling their own rods? I'm thinking of a set of drill guide bushes that will fit into the axle bearings and the ability to temporarily attach the chassis to whatever material is being used for the rods.

 

So, yeah, I think that if you can bring this to market in a way that you can offer enough bits to build a complete loco for around the same price (or even a bit more, wheels not being cheap when bought separately) than the Hornby offering, and get sufficient (to you) remuneration for your efforts, the idea potentially has legs. If a Terrier can be made to work, then more obscure prototypes, or others with similarly wide variations which make them difficult to tool for by conventional means, could be tried.

 

 

I can't comment on your choice of prototype, but there is an obvious hierarchy that your proposal could deliver to, which would also mirror all the varying modelling capabilities and inclinations recorded in this thread:

 

- detailing kit for commercial product

- body kit to fit commercial chassis

- body kit to fit EM/P4 converted commercial chassis

- complete body and chassis kit (OO/EM/P4)

 

A different sort of design clever.

 

 

This is the idea. I myself am no accomplished kitbuilder, and at present the prospect of fabricating a metal chassis that I must ensure won't short out is rather daunting. That's not to say I don't intend trying. My plan is to be able to offer a popular prototype accurately in 4mm, 3.5mm, 3mm, maybe 2mm, 5.5mm and 10mm for the first time. I will start with 4mm, as that is the scale I model in.

 

As mentioned above, as far as the 4mm models go, there is a definite hierachy:

 

- Components to allow detailing of the inaccurate RTR body. This would allow for, say, the creation of a rough representation of the LSWR Reboilered loco, through the use of a new chimney and dome.

- Replacement accurate body onto which the chassis and handrails, detailing components, etc from the RTR offering are fixed. This merely fixes the basic shape issues, and would allow (say) and IOW bunker and cast chimney to be fitted.

- A selection of components to fit a basic 'base' body. This would allow the purchaser to essentially customise their loco to almost all of the variations enacted on the Terriers over time. This would account for variations in bunker, coal rails, dome, safety valve, smokebox, boiler, chimney, etc... This would still fit RTR chassis.

- All of the above to fit 3D Printed 00, EM or P4 Chassis, the latter possibly with Hornblocks. I need to investigate this further. Rods will most likely be 3D Printed from bronze-infused steel, though I have yet to test this.

 

We are unlikely/never going to see all of these variations on an RTR model (especially ones like the dumb buffers fitted to those used on the construction of the GCR London Extension.) so I figured it was worth a go!

 

This will be a summer project...

 

 

I am sorry but especially for locos why do we need plastic ?

 

The best kits use the correct material for the purpose, etched brass where needed, both resin and cast whitemetal parts where appropriate, turned brass fittings etc 

Next lets have chassis that are both robust and repairable

 

As for a new range of spare/detail parts, there are plenty out there

 

I can see there is a place in the future for 3D printing, looking at the products from the likes of Modelu exciting times, then I see the orange peel finish (looking like a badly sprayed item) and cringe at whats being offered

 

For me a loco not only needs to look correct but also feel right, something plastic fails to do.

I think the way forward and to improve kits is for composite models to be produced

 

 

So what do you propose for Motor, gear box, wheels, bearings  and pick ups?

 

All of these would be essentials to include in a "low cost" kit.

 

Will hand rails and other stand off detail be moulded on or separate, in which case you need to consider how to manufacture them and handrail knobs.

 

All things that need to be considered and all things that add to cost.

 

Craig W

 

 

What you are proposing does not fit with your mantra of 'cheap & reasonable cost'  

 

To be able to produce the items you suggest you'll be printing in FUD/FXD,  a basic loco body will be in excess of £50, and then you have to add wheels, gears, motor & chassis*, Handrails, Handrail knobs, couplings etc which will push the 'simple' kit to £150+ 

You might suggest WSF because it's cheaper, but I would say you need to design and print one in that material, then test print it first so that you can see just how poor it is before offering it out.

 

The only way you're going to see if this is worthwhile is to draw something you want, print it and see what it comes out like. If it's ok then you could offer it through Shapeways.  

 

I helped in a small way with some pre-grouping locos that several of us wanted, with 2 skilled 3D designers and a skilled etch designer among the 5 of us, it took at least 50-60+ hours for each design along with test prints before we were satisfied.  The cost of each print ( with separate chassis) was an average of £95 for a tank loco and £75 for a loco body + £50 for a tender.

 

 

* How to motorise a 3D design is commonly either not bothered with, or left completely to the purchaser, and yet making the thing go is probably the most fundamental thing a modeller wants. If you don't design a kit around some suggested power plant then it really isn't worth starting.

 

 

Making a metal chassis that won't short out is easy to do. The harder part is making sure the chassis will go round your curves.

 

Kits of big locos generally won't like anything less than 3ft radius. I've cheated as much as much as I can to give a W1 as much side play as possible, but 3ft is the limit.

That said the big classes are getting good coverage by RTR makers.

Big classis can often use an RTR chassis, for example Turbomotive! So body kit for an existing chassis can be a good starting point (you probably need to wait for a cheap model/chassis appears on an auction site though).

 

For 0-6-0, Q1 and Q, I have managed to built these to go round a 22 inch and that is the limit.

 

What is also hard is assembling the thing so that there are no tight spots and that all wheels touch the rails (in an 0-6-0, the bearings often need to be opened up, so I purposely open up the middle pair towards the top and end pairs towards the bottom, this means that if a wheel pair has to be marginally higher than the others then it will be the middle pair to ensure the loco sits square on the track).

Once the wheels are turning freely in the bearings, you can fit the conrods, make sure they run freely too. Then the piston rods and finally the valve gear. This often needs to be tweeked to ensure it does not lock. The rivets need to loose enough to ensure they don't bind, but tight enough to ensure it does fall apart.

 

Hard of course, is choosing you wheels (most default to romfords these days), pick-ups (plunger type or wiper, which size stripe? - here the chassis spacers can hold a bit of PCB to solder wires). Motor and gears.

 

In the 90s, you had portescap, lovely gearboxs. But a lot of people use DS10s and 1 stage gear boxes that I found dreadful (I felt the chassis need to be dead square and very rigid to work ok!).

My preference is 2 stage gearbox with a big can motor, 40:1 gives good running while allowing a good degree of play.

 

Flywheels is another debate. In an ideal world, big motor and big flywheel, in practice, space will be tight on some/most models. My feelings are to use a bigger motor and only add flywheels if there is space. Others will have other experiences.

 

There are some challenges but equally these chassis do allow you to experiment and can be taken apart and corrected if they are found to be under powered etc....

 

 

JSpencer above is clearly an accomplished builder and his comments above show the wealth of experience he has building kits to talk about 3ft curves 22 inches, opening up bearings etc. "What is also hard is assembling the thing so that there are no tight spots and that all wheels touch the rails " This is exactly what puts me off building kits . I just don't have these skill sets . I think that possibly is also the case for lots of other people , they are put off by the complexities of assembling the chassis , and in my case the likelihood of not getting it wrong. Could this also be the reason there are lots of unfinished or unbuilt kits . We really wanted the loco , but when it came down to it we don't have the ability to make it? So again for me a kit would only become attractive if there is a reasonable chance of success . That means a Triang "CKD" approach to building the chassis , with plastic construction kit type body . If that was available I'd give it a go.

 

Hayfield asks why do we need plastic? I suspect Hayfield is also an accomplished builder, but for many of us the thought of brass, etchings and white metal is very daunting . Plastic on the other hand is something we are very comfortable with. I think this is what would distinguish a range of "Easy Build" kits to what is already out there.

 

 

FUD needn't be expensive (If a model is designed correctly) and WSF really is not as bad as some people make out. For example, 'Sparkshot' on here has produced some stunning models in WSF. He also has some rather reasonable FUD models.

 

Low Cost is a relative term, essentially meaning what I (as a young modeller on a severely limited income) can afford. At any rate, my models should prove to be cheaper than current offerings and should help to bridge the gap between all-RTR modellers and pure kitbuilders. It's an idea. It may not work as intended, but it's my free time and it's something that I want to do. If people want to purchase my models they can, but that's not the motive behind this. If I'm the only person who buys one, so what. If someone, any single person, buys another then I will be overjoyed! I genuinely am giving up my free time here, and still intend on writing decent instructions, and hopefully with decent photos to be downloaded when the model is ordered.

 

Unfortunately I can't sell motors and gears through shapeways, but I intend to identify suitable, cheap, mechanisms and other components (handrail knobs, wire, etc) to be linked to through the product page.

 

 

Legend

 

I started off by buying plastic kits, and wooden ones. I am of a generation who made things out of card, balsa wood, sticky back plastic.

 

At first the models were awful, badly made and painted. My first whitemetal kits thankfully worked, but were in hind sight embarrassing. The first turnouts I built derailed locos !!

 

A couple of sayings

The man who never made mistakes, never made anything. Garry Player after playing an impossible shot heard someone say, that was a lucky shot, to which he replied the more I practice the luckier I get (he was the worlds best golfer at that time)

 

The thing not to do is to go out and buy an expensive kit to learn on. Buy something cheap which will not matter if you muck it up.

 

Go out and buy a couple of sheets of plasticard and make something very simple, then have a go at making another better

 

This took me 2 seconds to find

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/KIT-BUILT-GWR-56XX-CLASS-0-6-2T-LOCO-in-GWR-Green-Livery-OO-Gauge-3-Rail/312085159569?hash=item48a9b99e91:g:9egAAOSw4qxapPTM

 

Its a GEM 56xx on a Triang Jinty chassis.

 

Job 1 Learn how to clean and service the chassis

 

Its whitemetal, and I guess stuck together and hand painted with enamel paint. Take the body off the chassis, give it a good spray with oven cleaner, put it into a plastic bag and leave for 24 hours. Wash the paint and glue off the next day.

 

Stick it back together with epoxy glue, take your time over several days, use filler in the gaps. make lamp irons from cut down staples etc. If you go wrong just do it again.

 

There are many other kits like this, just look for them

 

 

You need to identify the chassis first, then design the body to go on it. The chassis could be either a RTR one or perhaps one of the etched kits, but if selling an item it must be usable and of reasonable quality

 

I am just painting a Modelu figure, which is absolutely stunning in 7 mm scale. On the other hand some of the test pieces I have seen make me wince

 

 

Could you please explain "Triang CDK"? I vaguely remember some coach kits (air-con Mk2 stock, I think) by Triang but not the details.

 

 

Well with the media jumping on it's latest 'band-wagon' with the 'eco-hate' for plastic, before long we may have to do without it - you never know.

 

 

Hi Dave

 

When building a locomotive scratch or kit, how it is going to get from the fuddle yard to the station is the highest priority in the design/build process. No point in having a lovely body if you can't use it. Even MTK gave the modeller a bent bit of steel which to screw into the bottom of the loco body at one end and hang a Tri-ang power unit the other end.

 

 

My big problem with kits (one of my big problems, I have a few) is that everything is supposed to permanently glued or soldered in place. That means that I I mess up one bit, I mess up the whole thing and can't easily take it apart to try again. Even worse, if the kit designer messed it up for me, I might not find that out until I've fixed the part in place and can't get it off again.

 

Therefore, I have many half-finished kits where I'm putting off the next step for fear of spoiling the whole thing.

 

Kits with assemblies that bolt together help.

 

 

Lots of useful advice there.

 

Firstly, the model will be designed in such a way that it can fit on the existing RTR Terrier Chassis. However, this has several flaws so I will also be designing a chassis to fit the model. This could, therefore, be used under the RTR body if so desired.

 

I noticed the GEM 5600 and am keeping an eye on it and others. I even found a few LBSCR locos which I hope won't go outside of my price range.

 

Given that my 3D printed terriers will be offered in different materials (to suit pocket, or desire for a smooth finish. I'd go for the cheapest myself, and work on it, but I understand that others wouldn't) that should help a range of modellers.

 

The chassis will be designed with the same fixing points as the RTR model, with screw holes incorporated into the body.

 

 

Yes sorry I got it wrong it should be Triang CKD, standing for Completely Knocked Down. Basically these were locomotives and coaches in the Triang range that were supplied in their component parts to be assembled . Per Pat Hammond, the guru of all things Triang, Triang- Hornby and Hornby they were introduced to reduce the cost of the hobby , so there is a parallel with today! There was the Princess class loco, supplied as chassis block, wheels axles , motor , bogies ,loco body all for self assembly. But why I keep referring to them is that they had a chassis that when put together would run very well just like the RTR version . My point being that were someone to supply a kit with these components and a plastic body kit then I think that would be the best of both worlds and maybe even encourage folks to transition from RTR to kits . It would be the easy next step.

 

 

Or ya could, - sling it in a tin full of Nitromoors Craftsman paint-stripper, after an hour or so wash down, scrub bigger bits with an old toothbrush, clean up joining surfaces, then spray with Halford's Surface Cleaner, give it 15 minutes to dry. Solder bits together, or use super-glue (thin, industrial quality), when finished main body construction add details, fill gaps (if any), when the filler is dry spray with the surface cleaner again, wait for it to dry, spray Halford's acrylic grey-primer. Then after lunch, spray green ( whichever ya want !) 

 

 

 

OK thanks, then we're thinking of the same thing.

 

The big deal with CKD, was that they were complete kits of finished parts. Clip or bolt them together. Taken  'em apart and do it again if that pleases. Nothing to form, file, or paint. Most railway kits are incomplete kits of semi-finished parts, and that's a whole other thing. 

 

PS: concerning prints, a WSF body is, for me, an unfinished part as I have to sand it flat. A FUD body might be a finished part if Shapeways print it rightly.

 

 

WSF is not perfect, but I will always try and offer a model in it for those who, like myself, need stuff at lower prices.

 

I will be evaluating a model printed in polyamide (The 'proper' (?) name for WSF, and the one i.materialise use) tonight, but looking at a HO LBSCR D1 I can't see anything that requires sanding, really. The only problem is the ridged boiler, but that was a fault with the original design.

 

 

Yep I think that's the beauty of them, but I wouldn't reintroduce these as they were. However, as you say a chassis and drive train of finished parts and a plastic kit for body and tender upperworks , requiring painting would be the ideal combination.

 

RTR is fantastic bit now getting very expensive, both for the initial buy and even to consider modifying. Then there's kits , as you say incomplete kits of semi finished parts . Usually these are metal or brass, which is a complete turn off for me . A range of Easy Build kits perhaps with generic 0-6-0 or 4-4-0 chassis (finished parts to be assembled) with a plastic kit for superstructure is my ideal.

 

 

I must admit to being a bit confused as to why you're looking to produce the items listed. I was under the impression it was as a semi commercial undertaking as the post below intimated.

 

Which was then repeated here.

 

 

But in this post it is more a case of what you're after for yourself.

 

Can you define what you think 'low cost' is, as I might be thinking in different terms to yourself.

 

Your best bet is to design something you want and then see what happens and to start from a very low detail base. You also say you're are looking to offer a chassis whilst not having built one before.  I'd get some success and failures under your belt on that score first as you'll need to put a lot of work into designing one and getting it to work well across modellers varying abilities.  This will also take you well into the territory of mixed media kits where price will certainly not be 'cheap'

 

 

 

 

 

My own view is that if I went to the effort of designing a kit/parts to replicate a prototype in the most accurate way, I would do it once, and to the highest standard rather than the cheapest.

 

None of what you are proposing is 'cheap' (in my view) but I would still strive for better standards, just across a smaller number of models.

 

 

Guy, 

 

I think they were PKD (Partly Knocked Down) based upon my motor industry experience.

 

CKD is where all the parts are unassembled and was usually used for expert markets. Assembly, finishing, painting, etc. was at a different location to the production of the parts. Sometimes a number of items are sourced local to the final assembly plant. 

 

PKD  is where complete assemblies are used (body shells, drive trains, seats, facias) and final assembly is carried out at the destination factory (which may also do the final paint application, etc.). That's also how "kit"  cars used be supplied, but to get around purchase tax at the time.

 

So I believe the Triang kits were PKD, with the major components such as the motor or chassis ready assembled and the body painted.

 

CKD is how you would describe todays loco, coach and wagon kits. 3D printing changes that only in supplying some parts "ready assembled" but still leaves some machining, assembly, finishing and painting and some outsourcing unless the "kit" manufacturer supplies the equivalent of the PKD kit.

as well as out sourcing of some items.

 

As paint finish and lining is often quoted as a major reason why some people don't take up or try kit building, would a kit with poorly finished 3D printed components appeal? The dilemma seems that it is expensive to get a acceptably smooth finish at a low price, thus defeating one of the claimed benefits for this process. I have seen very few large (bodyshell size) parts that I would consider to have an acceptable finish. Even those that have been sprayed and rubbed down with several hours work don't look right, from those I have seen displayed on RMweb.

 

I think anyone that believes they can produce a commercially acceptable kit, at a price low enough to significantly undercut RTR, which can be well finished by somebody with little or no experience and make enough profit make their effort worthwhile, is sadly misguided at this time. Until 3D prints with a surface finish at a low enough cost becomes available, then I would still regard 3D as best used to produce masters for resin or other casting techniques. There the high cost of a high quality finish print can be amortised over a production run. Several kit producers are already doing that with mixed media kits, where the most suitable material for the components application is used. 

 

Jol

 

 

Yes Pat Hammond refers to CKD as a term borrowed from the motor industry where it referred to car kits for export

 

Just looking up the Triang -Hornby 1966 catalogue , the chassis was complete with driving wheels attached . Previously I'd said wheels and axles were supplied for fitting

 

 

Getting back to the topic

 

Economics, Variety and Quality

 

I enjoy a bit of sourcing models at the best possible cost, which means doing a bit of ducking and diving in buying things

 

If you look at a modern kit I guess for a tank loco you may pay upwards of £90, add a set of wheels £20 to £40 motor £25 and a decent gearbox £15 so before paint and transfers you are looking at £150.00

 

I try to keep to a modest budget so as I said just keep your eyes open for a deal or two. I have found a mixed lot of parts which cost me £31, I aim to keep the mashima motor, with a 2 stage gearbox and a set of 4'7" Gibson drivers, I am hoping that I can resell the balance of parts not needed in this lot to recoup my outlay. Net result a free motor wheels and gears. I have several kits which I normally look to buy in the region of £30 waiting for a set of wheels, gears and motor. The chances are for about £40 I have a loco kit to build which if bought new would set me back £150.

 

Not just eBay but look at shows model shops etc. Whilst not something which happens instantly not only do I get the joy of building something, but the fun of sourcing the parts at decent prices

 

 

Dave,

 

'Cheap' to me is less that £40. At present I have got an LSWR G6 and chassis (to enable me to have a go and get some experience under my belt!) down to £16.75. Based on that, I think my £40 maximum is achievable, especially if I design my own wheels to be printed at a cost that is lower than Romfords. Considering the price of an SE.Finecast G6 then I don't see my price as 'bad'. That is, of course, in WSF, but I think that FUD isn't much more for the G6.

 

For my own purposes, I don't mind sanding down WSF, and quite honestly I don't find the surface finish all that awful. I cannot afford to spend more than around £40 on any loco these days, the Andrew Barclay being the single recent exception. I have not got that sort of income, and the Barclay required saving-for from announcement.

 

I understand, however that others place quality above price in their list of priorities, and whilst this is a personal project that has come into being due to my wanting an accurate A1 for my circa-1900 period, I wanted to try and cater for others who want accurate terriers for other periods. Naturally, this means that the A1 will happen first, as that is what I want.

 

By offering the model in parts I can also afford to do more test prints, which is always an advantage. I don't really intend to profit from this. Sure, I'll add a markup, probably up to around £5-£7 but that will mostly be to help further development and test prints.

 

Finally, part of the plan is to produce the basic shells in WSF but the separate components will be done in FUD. This allows a higher standard of finish to be achieved. 'Complete' locos may be done in both materials. I am still planning this out, but I'm a little saddened that people are already beginning to suggest that I don't bother, given this is all from my free time and I am not intending to profit from this. I want to make models and offer them to this hobby, anything wrong with that? I appreciate there are flaws, and it will be a long process, that is not to be disputed. There will be setbacks, there will be problems, but I want to serve the needs of others as well as my own.

 

I can strive for 'cheap' and higher standards at the same time. Different materials allow this. I want accuracy, but I don't want to start pricing people, including myself, out. I am not a commercial undertaking, and I only really require a few A1 shells for my own purpose, but I know that others want other terriers, and that's fantastic! Having realised that a decent RTR model is unlikely as long as collectors keep swallowing the old model I decided to do something about it myself, rather than sitting and complaining about it.

 

As I say, I will be evaluating a WSF print tonight...

 

Hopefully that answers a few questions. At any rate, I will most likely continue discussion of this concept in my workbench/screen thread that is linked to in my signature.

 

If anyone has any queries relating to me as a person, or specifically to the range, please PM me.

 

Regards,

 

sem34090

 

 

JSpencer above is clearly an accomplished builder and his comments above show the wealth of experience he has building kits to talk about 3ft curves 22 inches, opening up bearings etc. "What is also hard is assembling the thing so that there are no tight spots and that all wheels touch the rails " This is exactly what puts me off building kits . I just don't have these skill sets . I think that possibly is also the case for lots of other people , they are put off by the complexities of assembling the chassis , and in my case the likelihood of not getting it wrong. Could this also be the reason there are lots of unfinished or unbuilt kits . We really wanted the loco , but when it came down to it we don't have the ability to make it? So again for me a kit would only become attractive if there is a reasonable chance of success . That means a Triang "CKD" approach to building the chassis , with plastic construction kit type body . If that was available I'd give it a go.

 

Hayfield asks why do we need plastic? I suspect Hayfield is also an accomplished builder, but for many of us the thought of brass, etchings and white metal is very daunting . Plastic on the other hand is something we are very comfortable with. I think this is what would distinguish a range of "Easy Build" kits to what is already out there.

 

 

FUD needn't be expensive (If a model is designed correctly) and WSF really is not as bad as some people make out. For example, 'Sparkshot' on here has produced some stunning models in WSF. He also has some rather reasonable FUD models.

 

Low Cost is a relative term, essentially meaning what I (as a young modeller on a severely limited income) can afford. At any rate, my models should prove to be cheaper than current offerings and should help to bridge the gap between all-RTR modellers and pure kitbuilders. It's an idea. It may not work as intended, but it's my free time and it's something that I want to do. If people want to purchase my models they can, but that's not the motive behind this. If I'm the only person who buys one, so what. If someone, any single person, buys another then I will be overjoyed! I genuinely am giving up my free time here, and still intend on writing decent instructions, and hopefully with decent photos to be downloaded when the model is ordered.

 

Unfortunately I can't sell motors and gears through shapeways, but I intend to identify suitable, cheap, mechanisms and other components (handrail knobs, wire, etc) to be linked to through the product page.

 

 

Legend

 

I started off by buying plastic kits, and wooden ones. I am of a generation who made things out of card, balsa wood, sticky back plastic.

 

At first the models were awful, badly made and painted. My first whitemetal kits thankfully worked, but were in hind sight embarrassing. The first turnouts I built derailed locos !!

 

A couple of sayings

The man who never made mistakes, never made anything. Garry Player after playing an impossible shot heard someone say, that was a lucky shot, to which he replied the more I practice the luckier I get (he was the worlds best golfer at that time)

 

The thing not to do is to go out and buy an expensive kit to learn on. Buy something cheap which will not matter if you muck it up.

 

Go out and buy a couple of sheets of plasticard and make something very simple, then have a go at making another better

 

This took me 2 seconds to find

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/KIT-BUILT-GWR-56XX-CLASS-0-6-2T-LOCO-in-GWR-Green-Livery-OO-Gauge-3-Rail/312085159569?hash=item48a9b99e91:g:9egAAOSw4qxapPTM

 

Its a GEM 56xx on a Triang Jinty chassis.

 

Job 1 Learn how to clean and service the chassis

 

Its whitemetal, and I guess stuck together and hand painted with enamel paint. Take the body off the chassis, give it a good spray with oven cleaner, put it into a plastic bag and leave for 24 hours. Wash the paint and glue off the next day.

 

Stick it back together with epoxy glue, take your time over several days, use filler in the gaps. make lamp irons from cut down staples etc. If you go wrong just do it again.

 

There are many other kits like this, just look for them

 

 

You need to identify the chassis first, then design the body to go on it. The chassis could be either a RTR one or perhaps one of the etched kits, but if selling an item it must be usable and of reasonable quality

 

I am just painting a Modelu figure, which is absolutely stunning in 7 mm scale. On the other hand some of the test pieces I have seen make me wince

 

 

Could you please explain "Triang CDK"? I vaguely remember some coach kits (air-con Mk2 stock, I think) by Triang but not the details.

 

 

Well with the media jumping on it's latest 'band-wagon' with the 'eco-hate' for plastic, before long we may have to do without it - you never know.

 

 

Hi Dave

 

When building a locomotive scratch or kit, how it is going to get from the fuddle yard to the station is the highest priority in the design/build process. No point in having a lovely body if you can't use it. Even MTK gave the modeller a bent bit of steel which to screw into the bottom of the loco body at one end and hang a Tri-ang power unit the other end.

 

 

My big problem with kits (one of my big problems, I have a few) is that everything is supposed to permanently glued or soldered in place. That means that I I mess up one bit, I mess up the whole thing and can't easily take it apart to try again. Even worse, if the kit designer messed it up for me, I might not find that out until I've fixed the part in place and can't get it off again.

 

Therefore, I have many half-finished kits where I'm putting off the next step for fear of spoiling the whole thing.

 

Kits with assemblies that bolt together help.

 

 

Lots of useful advice there.

 

Firstly, the model will be designed in such a way that it can fit on the existing RTR Terrier Chassis. However, this has several flaws so I will also be designing a chassis to fit the model. This could, therefore, be used under the RTR body if so desired.

 

I noticed the GEM 5600 and am keeping an eye on it and others. I even found a few LBSCR locos which I hope won't go outside of my price range.

 

Given that my 3D printed terriers will be offered in different materials (to suit pocket, or desire for a smooth finish. I'd go for the cheapest myself, and work on it, but I understand that others wouldn't) that should help a range of modellers.

 

The chassis will be designed with the same fixing points as the RTR model, with screw holes incorporated into the body.

 

 

Yes sorry I got it wrong it should be Triang CKD, standing for Completely Knocked Down. Basically these were locomotives and coaches in the Triang range that were supplied in their component parts to be assembled . Per Pat Hammond, the guru of all things Triang, Triang- Hornby and Hornby they were introduced to reduce the cost of the hobby , so there is a parallel with today! There was the Princess class loco, supplied as chassis block, wheels axles , motor , bogies ,loco body all for self assembly. But why I keep referring to them is that they had a chassis that when put together would run very well just like the RTR version . My point being that were someone to supply a kit with these components and a plastic body kit then I think that would be the best of both worlds and maybe even encourage folks to transition from RTR to kits . It would be the easy next step.

 

 

Or ya could, - sling it in a tin full of Nitromoors Craftsman paint-stripper, after an hour or so wash down, scrub bigger bits with an old toothbrush, clean up joining surfaces, then spray with Halford's Surface Cleaner, give it 15 minutes to dry. Solder bits together, or use super-glue (thin, industrial quality), when finished main body construction add details, fill gaps (if any), when the filler is dry spray 

[sem34090]

I must admit to being a bit confused as to why you're looking to produce the items listed. I was under the impression it was as a semi commercial undertaking as the post below intimated.

 

Which was then repeated here.

 

 

But in this post it is more a case of what you're after for yourself.

 

Can you define what you think 'low cost' is, as I might be thinking in different terms to yourself.

 

Your best bet is to design something you want and then see what happens and to start from a very low detail base. You also say you're are looking to offer a chassis whilst not having built one before.  I'd get some success and failures under your belt on that score first as you'll need to put a lot of work into designing one and getting it to work well across modellers varying abilities.  This will also take you well into the territory of mixed media kits where price will certainly not be 'cheap'

 

 

 

 

 

My own view is that if I went to the effort of designing a kit/parts to replicate a prototype in the most accurate way, I would do it once, and to the highest standard rather than the cheapest.

 

None of what you are proposing is 'cheap' (in my view) but I would still strive for better standards, just across a smaller number of models.

 

 

Guy, 

 

I think they were PKD (Partly Knocked Down) based upon my motor industry experience.

 

CKD is where all the parts are unassembled and was usually used for expert markets. Assembly, finishing, painting, etc. was at a different location to the production of the parts. Sometimes a number of items are sourced local to the final assembly plant. 

 

PKD  is where complete assemblies are used (body shells, drive trains, seats, facias) and final assembly is carried out at the destination factory (which may also do the final paint application, etc.). That's also how "kit"  cars used be supplied, but to get around purchase tax at the time.

 

So I believe the Triang kits were PKD, with the major components such as the motor or chassis ready assembled and the body painted.

 

CKD is how you would describe todays loco, coach and wagon kits. 3D printing changes that only in supplying some parts "ready assembled" but still leaves some machining, assembly, finishing and painting and some outsourcing unless the "kit" manufacturer supplies the equivalent of the PKD kit.

as well as out sourcing of some items.

 

As paint finish and lining is often quoted as a major reason why some people don't take up or try kit building, would a kit with poorly finished 3D printed components appeal? The dilemma seems that it is expensive to get a acceptably smooth finish at a low price, thus defeating one of the claimed benefits for this process. I have seen very few large (bodyshell size) parts that I would consider to have an acceptable finish. Even those that have been sprayed and rubbed down with several hours work don't look right, from those I have seen displayed on RMweb.

 

I think anyone that believes they can produce a commercially acceptable kit, at a price low enough to significantly undercut RTR, which can be well finished by somebody with little or no experience and make enough profit make their effort worthwhile, is sadly misguided at this time. Until 3D prints with a surface finish at a low enough cost becomes available, then I would still regard 3D as best used to produce masters for resin or other casting techniques. There the high cost of a high quality finish print can be amortised over a production run. Several kit producers are already doing that with mixed media kits, where the most suitable material for the components application is used. 

 

Jol

 

 

Yes Pat Hammond refers to CKD as a term borrowed from the motor industry where it referred to car kits for export

 

Just looking up the Triang -Hornby 1966 catalogue , the chassis was complete with driving wheels attached . Previously I'd said wheels and axles were supplied for fitting

 

 

Getting back to the topic

 

Economics, Variety and Quality

 

I enjoy a bit of sourcing models at the best possible cost, which means doing a bit of ducking and diving in buying things

 

If you look at a modern kit I guess for a tank loco you may pay upwards of £90, add a set of wheels £20 to £40 motor £25 and a decent gearbox £15 so before paint and transfers you are looking at £150.00

 

I try to keep to a modest budget so as I said just keep your eyes open for a deal or two. I have found a mixed lot of parts which cost me £31, I aim to keep the mashima motor, with a 2 stage gearbox and a set of 4'7" Gibson drivers, I am hoping that I can resell the balance of parts not needed in this lot to recoup my outlay. Net result a free motor wheels and gears. I have several kits which I normally look to buy in the region of £30 waiting for a set of wheels, gears and motor. The chances are for about £40 I have a loco kit to build which if bought new would set me back £150.

 

Not just eBay but look at shows model shops etc. Whilst not something which happens instantly not only do I get the joy of building something, but the fun of sourcing the parts at decent prices

 

 

Dave,

 

'Cheap' to me is less that £40. At present I have got an LSWR G6 and chassis (to enable me to have a go and get some experience under my belt!) down to £16.75. Based on that, I think my £40 maximum is achievable, especially if I design my own wheels to be printed at a cost that is lower than Romfords. Considering the price of an SE.Finecast G6 then I don't see my price as 'bad'. That is, of course, in WSF, but I think that FUD isn't much more for the G6.

 

For my own purposes, I don't mind sanding down WSF, and quite honestly I don't find the surface finish all that awful. I cannot afford to spend more than around £40 on any loco these days, the Andrew Barclay being the single recent exception. I have not got that sort of income, and the Barclay required saving-for from announcement.

 

I understand, however that others place quality above price in their list of priorities, and whilst this is a personal project that has come into being due to my wanting an accurate A1 for my circa-1900 period, I wanted to try and cater for others who want accurate terriers for other periods. Naturally, this means that the A1 will happen first, as that is what I want.

 

By offering the model in parts I can also afford to do more test prints, which is always an advantage. I don't really intend to profit from this. Sure, I'll add a markup, probably up to around £5-£7 but that will mostly be to help further development and test prints.

 

Finally, part of the plan is to produce the basic shells in WSF but the separate components will be done in FUD. This allows a higher standard of finish to be achieved. 'Complete' locos may be done in both materials. I am still planning this out, but I'm a little saddened that people are already beginning to suggest that I don't bother, given this is all from my free time and I am not intending to profit from this. I want to make models and offer them to this hobby, anything wrong with that? I appreciate there are flaws, and it will be a long process, that is not to be disputed. There will be setbacks, there will be problems, but I want to serve the needs of others as well as my own.

 

I can strive for 'cheap' and higher standards at the same time. Different materials allow this. I want accuracy, but I don't want to start pricing people, including myself, out. I am not a commercial undertaking, and I only really require a few A1 shells for my own purpose, but I know that others want other terriers, and that's fantastic! Having realised that a decent RTR model is unlikely as long as collectors keep swallowing the old model I decided to do something about it myself, rather than sitting and complaining about it.

 

As I say, I will be evaluating a WSF print tonight...

 

Hopefully that answers a few questions. At any rate, I will most likely continue discussion of this concept in my workbench/screen thread that is linked to in my signature.

 

If anyone has any queries relating to me as a person, or specifically to the range, please PM me.

 

Regards,

 

sem34090

 

 

Thanks for the reply, I now understand.

 

In my view £40 is unachievable with it more likely to be £60+ as a minimum. The body if done in WSF may not cost much (+P&P) but all the detail that would have to be added to the basic body would increase the cost.

A quick question that I've highlighted in bold (this never gets answered) but how do you propose fixing the FUD to the WSF ?

 

 Don't be put off trying something, just take small steps without thinking too far ahead, and work to the limitations of the material.

I must admit to being a bit confused as to why you're looking to produce the items listed. I was under the impression it was as a semi commercial undertaking as the post below intimated.

 

Which was then repeated here.

 

 

But in this post it is more a case of what you're after for yourself.

 

Can you define what you think 'low cost' is, as I might be thinking in different terms to yourself.

 

Your best bet is to design something you want and then see what happens and to start from a very low detail base. You also say you're are looking to offer a chassis whilst not having built one before.  I'd get some success and failures under your belt on that score first as you'll need to put a lot of work into designing one and getting it to work well across modellers varying abilities.  This will also take you well into the territory of mixed media kits where price will certainly not be 'cheap'

 

 

 

 

 

My own view is that if I went to the effort of designing a kit/parts to replicate a prototype in the most accurate way, I would do it once, and to the highest standard rather than the cheapest.

 

None of what you are proposing is 'cheap' (in my view) but I would still strive for better standards, just across a smaller number of models.

 

 

Guy, 

 

I think they were PKD (Partly Knocked Down) based upon my motor industry experience.

 

CKD is where all the parts are unassembled and was usually used for expert markets. Assembly, finishing, painting, etc. was at a different location to the production of the parts. Sometimes a number of items are sourced local to the final assembly plant. 

 

PKD  is where complete assemblies are used (body shells, drive trains, seats, facias) and final assembly is carried out at the destination factory (which may also do the final paint application, etc.). That's also how "kit"  cars used be supplied, but to get around purchase tax at the time.

 

So I believe the Triang kits were PKD, with the major components such as the motor or chassis ready assembled and the body painted.

 

CKD is how you would describe todays loco, coach and wagon kits. 3D printing changes that only in supplying some parts "ready assembled" but still leaves some machining, assembly, finishing and painting and some outsourcing unless the "kit" manufacturer supplies the equivalent of the PKD kit.

as well as out sourcing of some items.

 

As paint finish and lining is often quoted as a major reason why some people don't take up or try kit building, would a kit with poorly finished 3D printed components appeal? The dilemma seems that it is expensive to get a acceptably smooth finish at a low price, thus defeating one of the claimed benefits for this process. I have seen very few large (bodyshell size) parts that I would consider to have an acceptable finish. Even those that have been sprayed and rubbed down with several hours work don't look right, from those I have seen displayed on RMweb.

 

I think anyone that believes they can produce a commercially acceptable kit, at a price low enough to significantly undercut RTR, which can be well finished by somebody with little or no experience and make enough profit make their effort worthwhile, is sadly misguided at this time. Until 3D prints with a surface finish at a low enough cost becomes available, then I would still regard 3D as best used to produce masters for resin or other casting techniques. There the high cost of a high quality finish print can be amortised over a production run. Several kit producers are already doing that with mixed media kits, where the most suitable material for the components application is used. 

 

Jol

 

 

Yes Pat Hammond refers to CKD as a term borrowed from the motor industry where it referred to car kits for export

 

Just looking up the Triang -Hornby 1966 catalogue , the chassis was complete with driving wheels attached . Previously I'd said wheels and axles were supplied for fitting

 

 

Getting back to the topic

 

Economics, Variety and Quality

 

I enjoy a bit of sourcing models at the best possible cost, which means doing a bit of ducking and diving in buying things

 

If you look at a modern kit I guess for a tank loco you may pay upwards of £90, add a set of wheels £20 to £40 motor £25 and a decent gearbox £15 so before paint and transfers you are looking at £150.00

 

I try to keep to a modest budget so as I said just keep your eyes open for a deal or two. I have found a mixed lot of parts which cost me £31, I aim to keep the mashima motor, with a 2 stage gearbox and a set of 4'7" Gibson drivers, I am hoping that I can resell the balance of parts not needed in this lot to recoup my outlay. Net result a free motor wheels and gears. I have several kits which I normally look to buy in the region of £30 waiting for a set of wheels, gears and motor. The chances are for about £40 I have a loco kit to build which if bought new would set me back £150.

 

Not just eBay but look at shows model shops etc. Whilst not something which happens instantly not only do I get the joy of building something, but the fun of sourcing the parts at decent prices

 

 

Dave,

 

'Cheap' to me is less that £40. At present I have got an LSWR G6 and chassis (to enable me to have a go and get some experience under my belt!) down to £16.75. Based on that, I think my £40 maximum is achievable, especially if I design my own wheels to be printed at a cost that is lower than Romfords. Considering the price of an SE.Finecast G6 then I don't see my price as 'bad'. That is, of course, in WSF, but I think that FUD isn't much more for the G6.

 

For my own purposes, I don't mind sanding down WSF, and quite honestly I don't find the surface finish all that awful. I cannot afford to spend more than around £40 on any loco these days, the Andrew Barclay being the single recent exception. I have not got that sort of income, and the Barclay required saving-for from announcement.

 

I understand, however that others place quality above price in their list of priorities, and whilst this is a personal project that has come into being due to my wanting an accurate A1 for my circa-1900 period, I wanted to try and cater for others who want accurate terriers for other periods. Naturally, this means that the A1 will happen first, as that is what I want.

 

By offering the model in parts I can also afford to do more test prints, which is always an advantage. I don't really intend to profit from this. Sure, I'll add a markup, probably up to around £5-£7 but that will mostly be to help further development and test prints.

 

Finally, part of the plan is to produce the basic shells in WSF but the separate components will be done in FUD. This allows a higher standard of finish to be achieved. 'Complete' locos may be done in both materials. I am still planning this out, but I'm a little saddened that people are already beginning to suggest that I don't bother, given this is all from my free time and I am not intending to profit from this. I want to make models and offer them to this hobby, anything wrong with that? I appreciate there are flaws, and it will be a long process, that is not to be disputed. There will be setbacks, there will be problems, but I want to serve the needs of others as well as my own.

 

I can strive for 'cheap' and higher standards at the same time. Different materials allow this. I want accuracy, but I don't want to start pricing people, including myself, out. I am not a commercial undertaking, and I only really require a few A1 shells for my own purpose, but I know that others want other terriers, and that's fantastic! Having realised that a decent RTR model is unlikely as long as collectors keep swallowing the old model I decided to do something about it myself, rather than sitting and complaining about it.

 

As I say, I will be evaluating a WSF print tonight...

 

Hopefully that answers a few questions. At any rate, I will most likely continue discussion of this concept in my workbench/screen thread that is linked to in my signature.

 

If anyone has any queries relating to me as a person, or specifically to the range, please PM me.

 

Regards,

 

sem34090

 

 

Thanks for the reply, I now understand.

 

In my view £40 is unachievable with it more likely to be £60+ as a minimum. The body if done in WSF may not cost much (+P&P) but all the detail that would have to be added to the basic body would increase the cost.

A quick question that I've highlighted in bold (this never gets answered) but how do you propose fixing the FUD to the WSF ?

 

 Don't be put off trying something, just take small steps without thinking too far ahead, and work to the limitations of the material.

[sem34090]

I will be investigating sticking the two materials together - it's all part of the learning process!
 

I will still do everything I can to enable a low price point in WSF, but also to enable the highest quality for those who are able to pay more.

[sem34090]

Please note that the pictures below are taken on a mobile phone and make the finish look worse than it is:

 

The G6 (For Bachmann chassis) has arrived!

[Annie]

Very nice Sem.  I like that.  No doubt the nay sayers will turn up soon and moan about it, but don't take any notice of them.  

Edited March 16, 2018 by Annie

[Edwardian]

Please note that the pictures below are taken on a mobile phone and make the finish look worse than it is:

 

The G6 (For Bachmann chassis) has arrived!

 

Looks bl00dy good to me.

 

Well done.

[Ruston]

I would like a few opinions on my next planned (after the current projects) 3D Printed kit idea. I intend to cover the LBSCR Classes A1 and A1x, in an economical and simple fashion. 

 

The plan is inspired by 'Sparkshot' and consists of the following:

 

A series of basic bodies to cover the different boiler and cab/bunker variations.

A series of domes and chimneys to cover further variations.

Smokebox doors to cover variants.

Splashers to cover variants.

Sandboxes to cover variants.

Brake Blocks to cover variants.

Miscellaneous fixtures and fittings to cover variants.

A few chassis to cover different variants (including 2-4-0)

 

In addition to this 'pick and mix' I would intend to offer a few 'standard' versions as complete loco shells. I will also attempt to design the model in such a way that it can either fit the existing Dapol/Hornby chassis (and maybe parts from the body, with its many inaccuracies and hybrid features) or a specially-designed scale chassis. This should allow any modeller to put together a model of any terrier at pretty well any stage of its life, the following should be able to be shown, amongst other versions and freelance versions:

Original A1, as built, any batch.

A1 with no condensing pipes and cast iron brake blocks (last batch built with latter feature)

2-4-0 A1.

Motor-Fitted A1.

Pauling & Co. A1 (Dumb Buffers)

Newhaven Harbour Co. A1 (And A1x)

IoWCR A1 (And A1x with above-footplate splashers and IOW Cast Chimney)

LSWR A1 (Including Drummond Boiler and Chimney, plus push-pull equipment)

SECR A1 (Including Wainwright Boiler)

FYN A1 (As above)

KESR A1 (And A1x - Including bunker variations)

EHLR A1 (And A1x)

'Brighton' A1x (Splashers modified, various other small changes)

'IOW' A1x (Splashers not modified, cast or Drummond Chimney, extended bunker. All era-dependent)

Myriad coal rail variants.

Myriad toolbox variants.

A1 with extended smokebox door straps (As per the preserved 'Boxhill')

'PO' A1x (Similar to 'IOW' A1x, but with a few differences, sometimes work executed at Brighton)

I gather there are many more variations, and there has been an excellent, though as yet unpublished, document on this matter by a member of the greater RMweb parish.

 

The idea is to allow people of many different abilities and pockets to put together a series of accurate locos. This could range from simply purchasing a 'complete' shell, finishing it (I may yet offer colour-printing, I need to look into it more.) and fitting it to a Hornby/Dapol chassis, to working out an exact combination of parts required to represent a particular member of the class at a particular time and assembling the model onto it's own 'scale chassis'.

 

Of course, I intend to offer the models in a few other scales, and some of the bits may be done for 7mm to assist those working on detailing Dapol's model, but the main scales to be offered will be 3mm, 3.5mm, 4mm, 5.5mm and 10mm. I may also go down to 2mm, we'll see.

 

 

 

Criticism invited and welcomed!

 

I haven't read all of the comments, or from wherever you copied them, so please forgive me if I have missed something, or don't quite understand things.. As I'm not interested in having one of the particular locos under discussion, please take my comments to be about 3D-printed locomotives in general - things that may help you by helping dummies like me to understand.

 

I take it from what you say, above that there are inaccuracies in the chassis of the Hornby loco but how many people are going to want to give up a RTR chassis that runs well for something that's unproven and made by 3D-printing? I have never had anything more to do with 3D-printed models than to look at them and and handle a few body shells but the idea of a chassis made from the stuff doesn't inspire me with confidence. Will it warp over time, or degrade? Is it affected by lubricating oils? I don't know the difference between the software used to design 3D-printed stuff and 2D stuff but you clearly know your way around all this computer trickery, so can't you design frames to be etched, or even laser-cut brass instead?

 

Even if it is durable enough, I have looked at your website and at the frame of the G6 and notice that the brake hangers and blocks are all as one piece with the frame. So it's either going to be difficult to fit the wheels, and risk damage to the brake parts, or they are going to stand a long way from the wheel treads, which is a retrograde step - you have an "accurate" chassis with an unrealistic gap between brakes and wheels. It always seems that 3-D print designers want to make as much as possible in as few as possible parts. Surely to make the brake parts individually to be fixed at afterwards (with something robust, such as brass rod) would be better?

 

Regarding all these different variations, I get the idea of making of alterative parts that can be fitted/changed on the RTR models but what is the point of producing a complete body shell for something that is already available as a complete, painted and lined RTR loco?

 

The people who can paint and line locos well are few and far between and I can't imagine many people wanting to give up the lovely finish and lining on a RTR model for something with a rough surface finish and then have to either paint it themselves to a sub-standard finish, or pay someone a lot of money to do that, just for the sake of a different chimney, brake blocks etc.Perhaps if this approach was aimed at a time period, such as British Railways, where simpler liveries were the order of the day that wouldn't be so much if a problem but with pre-grouping a lot of the attraction is in the intricate liveries.

 

Just as important  as anything I have said above, and bearing in mind that I am very ignorant of 3D-printed items, what you really need to do to convince me (and, I would say a lot of people who are like me in their current attitude toward 3D-printing) is to show real items on your website, rather than computer-generated images and to show finished products, running and painted. Recently I have been given links to other 3D-printed designs on the web and a lot of what is shown are computer-generated images. I want to see and buy real items that I know willl work, not pixels.

 

With regard to chassis, show how they are (or are to be) powered - which motor/gearbox combinations will fit, how pickups etc. are fitted.

 

With bodies, show what the cab interiors are like - is there interior detail? How to fit it if it is not already there as the cab roofs seem not to be removable, at least on the G6 that you have shown. I can also see painting the interior detail of a one-piece body shell being a problem too. What are things such as smokeboxes and tanks like - are they solid, or hollow? I would want to know that sort of thing with regard to getting weight into the model but these are things where 3D designers don't seem to give detail on. It's almost as if they are designing these things but have never actually built one, or have put any thought into the practicalities of making them work.

 

I'm not against 3-D printing at all, in fact I think it has great possibilities, even if my post most probably comes across as being nothing but negative. I think it has definitely got its place but, as an old fashioned kit and scratchbuilder, I think that place is producing components and sub-assemblies that are either difficult to form by more traditional methods or are small, fiddly and repetetive to make. I also think that it has a place in complete kits but with the 3D-printed parts being confined to cosmetics, with the frames and running gear being made from more appropriate materials.

 

 

 

 

 

[Annie]

The question of painting and lining on tanksides and cabsides on 3D prints can be dealt with by the use of thin paper decals which can be created with graphics software and printed out.  There are threads here on RMweb and other railway modelling sites that demonstrate these techniques and the final result is very very good.  Please don't ask me for links as with my vague-O-matic brain I can't remember where to find them, but I don't think it would be too difficult to search them out.  As someone who used to scratchbuild to finescale standards mostly for reasons of poverty I'm left rather cold by the present addiction with ultra realistic RTR in the hobby and all the not very supportive comments that are being heaped on what Sem is doing.  From where I'm sitting (well lying in bed actually because I'm having rubbish day) Sem is having a go at creating something using his skills to the best of his ability and he's going to offer what he makes to the railway modelling community.  If you don't like it and don't agree with what he's done then don't buy it.  Simple.

I made the attempt to read through all the not very helpful or supportive comments on this thread, but after a while I started to lose the will to live.  When I was still well enough to make models I purchased a few of Tom Bell's narrow gauge 3D prints and I've purchased various 3D printed boiler fittings for 16mm scale as well and they were all in the dreaded and apparently shunned WSF.  I like them, I'm happy with them and (shock horror) if my health improves I'll buy more WSF prints again in the future.  If you don't like WSF or 3D prints then go and spend a fortune on etched brass and whatever other kits are around to get your finescale fix and leave off telling Sem what he should be doing.

 

No doubt I've now enraged various folk, but there you go I don't much care.

[chris p bacon]

Please note that the pictures below are taken on a mobile phone and make the finish look worse than it is:

 

The G6 (For Bachmann chassis) has arrived!

 

 

That's looking ok for a WSF print. I think the 'ridging' is down to how you orientate it for printing, being a body you don't have much choice.

 

I'd have popped some handrail holes in or at least some dimples to mark them.

 

Out of interest is this already available as RTR ?  

[sem34090]

The G6 is not available RTR. 

 

There are several serious revisions that I need to make, and handrail holes will be one of them I think.

 

I will answer Ruston in detail later.

 

I am already preparing thin paper decals...

[Ruston]

The question of painting and lining on tanksides and cabsides on 3D prints can be dealt with by the use of thin paper decals which can be created with graphics software and printed out.  There are threads here on RMweb and other railway modelling sites that demonstrate these techniques and the final result is very very good.  Please don't ask me for links as with my vague-O-matic brain I can't remember where to find them, but I don't think it would be too difficult to search them out.  As someone who used to scratchbuild to finescale standards mostly for reasons of poverty I'm left rather cold by the present addiction with ultra realistic RTR in the hobby and all the not very supportive comments that are being heaped on what Sem is doing.  From where I'm sitting (well lying in bed actually because I'm having rubbish day) Sem is having a go at creating something using his skills to the best of his ability and he's going to offer what he makes to the railway modelling community.  If you don't like it and don't agree with what he's done then don't buy it.  Simple.

I made the attempt to read through all the not very helpful or supportive comments on this thread, but after a while I started to lose the will to live.  When I was still well enough to make models I purchased a few of Tom Bell's narrow gauge 3D prints and I've purchased various 3D printed boiler fittings for 16mm scale as well and they were all in the dreaded and apparently shunned WSF.  I like them, I'm happy with them and (shock horror) if my health improves I'll buy more WSF prints again in the future.  If you don't like WSF or 3D prints then go and spend a fortune on etched brass and whatever other kits are around to get your finescale fix and leave off telling Sem what he should be doing.

 

No doubt I've now enraged various folk, but there you go I don't much care.

Although I wouldn't say you have enraged me I do find this post to be rather unhelpful as Sem asked for and invited criticism.  I don't consider what I posted to be telling Sem what to do and that certainly wasn't the intention. My post was intended to help him by helping me, and others, to understand more about the process and the reasons behind various design decisions and giving my personal thoughts and opinions, which were after all asked for. I am becoming rather tired of this attitude where various folks on RMweb seem to be unable to have a reasonable discussion without it being seen as some kind of personal attack, or their resorting to the slightly childish response of "if you don't like it don't buy it", or "if you don't like it, don't read it".

 

Apologies to Sem - I don't want to derail this thread, or get into an argument with third parties, and so won't post on this subject again and I trust that you will take my previous post in the way it was intended, even if others don't.

Edited March 16, 2018 by Ruston

[sem34090]

Hi Dave,

 

I will say that you raised a few valid points in your comment, but I feel most of them can be answered quite simply by me saying "I'm still learning and getting to grips with this stuff!"

 

The current RTR model for an LBSCR 'Terrier' (It can neither represent an A1 or A1x without serious modification) is inaccurate in many ways, especially with regards the bodyshell and the fact that there is only one tooling option. I therefore proposed some bodies of an accurate shape, to fit the existing chassis (for those like me who are not confident/competent chassis builders) or to fit a more accurate 3D printed chassis.

 

I will also add that there are many flaws with the G6, my first model, and these will need to be resolved. I invited the criticism because I need to learn.

 

What I am much less keen on is the attitude by some RMweb members that I should just give up and try a completely different method, which would require ditching much of the hard work I have put in so far. I am still learning many skills so it's really not helpful for people to start telling me to use etching or scratchbuilding, or to 'buy a kit'. I am grateful to Annie for raising the point that I am mostly doing this for my own benefit, but also feel there are gaps I can fill. These gaps aren't just 'there's no kit for LBSCR 'Seaford', but 'there're no kits at this price point'.

 

I also thank Annie for pointing out that people don't have to buy if they don't like what they see. This hobby is a church of Cathedral breadth, and there is room for everything and everyone. I am not aiming to undercut, outprice, outdo or destroy existing kit manufacturers. They produce some fantastic products, but they are often out of my price range and ability. I am not saying that 3D printing is the future and everything will come that way, I'm saying that is a resource that is forever improving in quality and coming down in price that can be employed alongside traditional modelling methods.

 

I also agree with Annie on the point that etched kits, and even whitemetal ones, are expensive. I look around on Ebay pretty constantly, but always seem to miss out. I think people imagine that I have a lot more money than I do. I had to save to be able to order my two G6 prints at £35 all in including postage, so forget traditional kits.

 

Anyway...

 

I am learning all the time, and made a lot of mistakes on the G6 which I only recognised once I had the print in my hand. I have now got a new method for designing models to fit RTR chassis, and I will reveal more on that soon.

 

Regards,

 

sem34090

[Annie]

Dave, - I wasn't specifically trying to get at you, - it was just unfortunate that you posted at close to the same time I did which might have given you that impression.  

[adb968008]

I watch the G6 intrigued.

 

I must fess to looking at the Kernow 30182 model and trying to spot differences, which I don’t see many and was considering options of a chassis to put under it.

 

Though this model looks pretty good, what I would consider is the buffers which look a little grainy from printing. Given the cheap availability of buffers i’d probably remove them and fit some sprung ones.

 

But otherwise this looks good.

[Killian keane]

I wonder if I couldn't plant an idea in your head...

[TurboSnail]

I wonder if I couldn't plant an idea in your head...

What is that?!? I'm currently trying to design a 3D print of the SECR crane tank, but even that looks massive compared to this thing. Evidently they also had issues stopping it...

[Killian keane]

What is that?!? I'm currently trying to design a 3D print of the SECR crane tank, but even that looks massive compared to this thing. Evidently they also had issues stopping it...

Its 'Prince Albert', the last broad gauge loco in Britain, built by longridges in 1851, its very small, a 7' gauger barely bigger than Dolgoch!

Edited March 17, 2018 by Killian keane

[sem34090]

I will probably try it eventually... but there's a lot of standard gauge to cover first, and significant amounts of Broad Gauge too!

 

As I said, whilst I am pleased with the print quality, on the whole, there are major flaws with the design of the model. For now I think I'll press on with a few other locos I'm working on (I've just started a T14, to fit a Hornby 'Castle' (Old Airfix tooling - possibly still used under the Railroad County) chassis. Learning from this model, I have started the design by doing CAD for the chassis. I will then build the model and its features, then scale it down and adapt it to fit the chassis.

[TurboSnail]

Its 'Prince Albert', the last broad gauge loco in Britain, built by longridges in 1851, its very small, a 7' gauger barely bigger than Dolgoch!

That's very cool, I have a bit of a thing for the tiny oddball locos. That's probably why I like the SECR so much, as they had a great 'odd' collection, clearly I need to start looking at other railway companies too!

 

Motorising it would be fun, I think it could make quite a nice standard gauge industrial-type loco too.

 

EDITED: for spelling

Edited March 17, 2018 by TurboSnail

[Ruston]

Hi Dave,

 

I will say that you raised a few valid points in your comment, but I feel most of them can be answered quite simply by me saying "I'm still learning and getting to grips with this stuff!"

 

 

Fair enough. It's just that it's not the impression that I got, especially with you having a website and a shapeways shop. I took it that all the stuff that is for sale has been made, tried and tested in the same way that etched kit manufacturers have etches made and do a test build before putting the kits out for sale. I didn't realise that the G6 body is the first and only one of your designs that has been made into a real 3D print. Perhaps, to avoid misunderstanding, it would be better only to put things things in the shop that you have actually had made into actual items and you have been able to see them for yourself and assess any faults, as you have now done with the bodyshell that you now have in your hands.

Dave, - I wasn't specifically trying to get at you, - it was just unfortunate that you posted at close to the same time I did which might have given you that impression.  

No worries.

[bike2steam]

I've just started a T14,

 

Now that I gotta see; question ;- with or without the 'skirt'?  

[sem34090]

With, of course! And un-superheated too, of course.

[Annie]

A T14, - lovely.