Current steam loco kit construction

[cctransuk]

5 hours ago, GWR1890-1908 said:

I have worked with 3D prints on a commission basis, and they can be a curates egg. I would much prefer to work with etched brass or nickel silver, and despite a comment somewhere above, it is not too flimsy if the designer has done a proper job: .020 N/S for chassis, and .012 half hard brass (or preferably N/S) for the rest. One of the past problems is that a too soft grade of brass was used, and that DOES cause problems. If half hard is used and needs to be formed, it is simple to anneal it.   

I believe the potential of 3D has been missed largely. It is ideal to produce multiples of SMALL, difficult to make bits, but everyone seems to want to produce locos with handrails and all included. With regard to Shapeways, there are some attractive items there, but who would want a GWR Siphon with a chassis done in WHITE Nylon, surely the absolutely worst material AND colour. How the H are you supposed to get paint stick to that??

3D is a useful adjunct, but I don't think it is a means in itself yet.

 

If you wish to see the potential of 3D printing, look at IronMink's free-to-download design files on Thingiverse.

 

When printed, just fit the buffers, wheels and couplings and place on the track; weighting and painting are optional but desirable additions.

 

Note - zero prep. (sanding), beyond removal of supports, is required.

 

CJI.

[The Johnster]

3D has a lot of potential, and was heralded when domestic 3D printers became available as nothing less than revolutionary; ordinary people like me would be able to make complex shapes in the privacy of their own homes for next to nothing, just download the file and switch it on.  Along came Shapeways with the rather attractive idea of facilitating a world community of file-sharers and item producers, so that even the likes of me who cannot afford a printer could join in, and local libraries were going to have printers available for public use in the same way as they have paper printers.  What went wrong?

 

Not that much, really, but there were some things that didn't quite work out as planned. or at least as claimed to have been planned.  Firstly, fine detail can only be had from the more expensive printers, and if the print is to be of anything but of very small dimensions the printer takes a lot of space in a domestic environment, and makes a lot of noise and gives off unpleasant hot plastic odours.  Then, the time taken to print anything is considerable, acceptable if you are printing up 100 coach ventilators in your kitchen, doesn't matter if it takes a week, they'll be done when they're done.  But the print run needs to be constantly monitored to check that all is going well, because if it isn't you are going to have to take it all down and start again, so you week becomes a fortnight and so on...

 

Another issue is Shapeways.  I'm sure they do their best, but I find their website very difficult to navigate and time-consuming to find anything I might want.  The communtiy aspect of the format means that there are a lot of producers out there who are providing models that are really more like toys, of low quality and generic nature, and filtering these out of a search is impossible, so your time is wasted.  And even when the product is good quality, it is expensive compared to kits or RTR.  Not to criticise Simon Dawson, who posts here and trades on SW as Rue d'Etropal, and who produces exactly the sort of scratch-aid niche items that 3D should excel at, £80 or so for a bare coach bodyshell is pricey.  Many items seem pointless duplicates of cheaper, better, and complete RTR products.  The international nature of the community has run afoul of import duties and delays that make the situation worse. 

 

I want a GW A10 auto-trailer.  Were Simon to produce one, it would cost me between £150 to £200 to complete, and I would not be able to match the standard of the Dapol Diagram N I want it to run with.  But it would be better than my proposed renumbered and detailed K's A31, crude and only in general terms like an A10.  In the real world, the A31 is my easiest option; I do not rate my ability to scratch-build an A10 to a decent standard in a reasonable time.  So far, I have used a few 3D items but the format has not come even close to realising my hopes for it, quality of things like buffers is questionable, finish is not guaranteed, it's not doing what I want it to do.

 

 

[cctransuk]

10 minutes ago, The Johnster said:

3D has a lot of potential, and was heralded when domestic 3D printers became available as nothing less than revolutionary; ordinary people like me would be able to make complex shapes in the privacy of their own homes for next to nothing, just download the file and switch it on.  Along came Shapeways with the rather attractive idea of facilitating a world community of file-sharers and item producers, so that even the likes of me who cannot afford a printer could join in, and local libraries were going to have printers available for public use in the same way as they have paper printers.  What went wrong?

 

Not that much, really, but there were some things that didn't quite work out as planned. or at least as claimed to have been planned.  Firstly, fine detail can only be had from the more expensive printers, and if the print is to be of anything but of very small dimensions the printer takes a lot of space in a domestic environment, and makes a lot of noise and gives off unpleasant hot plastic odours.  Then, the time taken to print anything is considerable, acceptable if you are printing up 100 coach ventilators in your kitchen, doesn't matter if it takes a week, they'll be done when they're done.  But the print run needs to be constantly monitored to check that all is going well, because if it isn't you are going to have to take it all down and start again, so you week becomes a fortnight and so on...

 

Another issue is Shapeways.  I'm sure they do their best, but I find their website very difficult to navigate and time-consuming to find anything I might want.  The communtiy aspect of the format means that there are a lot of producers out there who are providing models that are really more like toys, of low quality and generic nature, and filtering these out of a search is impossible, so your time is wasted.  And even when the product is good quality, it is expensive compared to kits or RTR.  Not to criticise Simon Dawson, who posts here and trades on SW as Rue d'Etropal, and who produces exactly the sort of scratch-aid niche items that 3D should excel at, £80 or so for a bare coach bodyshell is pricey.  Many items seem pointless duplicates of cheaper, better, and complete RTR products.  The international nature of the community has run afoul of import duties and delays that make the situation worse. 

 

I want a GW A10 auto-trailer.  Were Simon to produce one, it would cost me between £150 to £200 to complete, and I would not be able to match the standard of the Dapol Diagram N I want it to run with.  But it would be better than my proposed renumbered and detailed K's A31, crude and only in general terms like an A10.  In the real world, the A31 is my easiest option; I do not rate my ability to scratch-build an A10 to a decent standard in a reasonable time.  So far, I have used a few 3D items but the format has not come even close to realising my hopes for it, quality of things like buffers is questionable, finish is not guaranteed, it's not doing what I want it to do.

 

 

 

My (secondhand) experience of 3D printing is that the technology IS capable of producing no-prep models.

 

That said, the sophistication of the printer and, critically, the skill and experience of the operator, are the major determinants of the standard of the finished model.

 

This is to be expected; after all, one would not expect a beginner to produce a perfect etched kit model.

 

3D printing is merely a new means of producing a model; albeit one with great potential, given practice and patience.

 

CJI.

[Jol Wilkinson]

3 hours ago, cctransuk said:

 

My (secondhand) experience of 3D printing is that the technology IS capable of producing no-prep models.

 

That said, the sophistication of the printer and, critically, the skill and experience of the operator, are the major determinants of the standard of the finished model.

 

This is to be expected; after all, one would not expect a beginner to produce a perfect etched kit model.

 

3D printing is merely a new means of producing a model; albeit one with great potential, given practice and patience.

 

CJI.

 

"given practice and patience."

 

Which is what is often quoted as the reason for not  building kits, i.e. lack of the required skill and the time to do it. In a time when people want it quick, easy and cheap, diy 3D printing isn't likely to appeal to the majority of model railway enthusiasts.

Edited March 2 by Jol Wilkinson

[GWR1890-1908]

cctransuk, I agree with what you have said. A lot of what is about is being done on lesser grade printers, or is work that was done some time ago still being sold. Some of what is being sold commercially unfortunately is not much better than a first attempt scratch build, BUT, I have seen some exceptional work of late. As Jol says, it will probably not appeal to the the likes of us who scratch build or modify kits. The quick, not necessarily cheap, and easy approach is probably correct-witness the explosion in the resin buildings in a box section of the hobby. I made a successful venture of custom made structures in 1/4 scale, 7mm, and larger, but the 4mm boys would baulk at $100 for a medium size building, then pay at least that for a resin one. Why? Because it was immediate. Sad! Greg.

[Reorte]

Always said that 3D printing isn't a replacement for anything but an additional tool in the box.

[Captain Kernow]

On 02/03/2024 at 12:24, cctransuk said:

 

If you wish to see the potential of 3D printing, look at IronMink's free-to-download design files on Thingiverse.

 

When printed, just fit the buffers, wheels and couplings and place on the track; weighting and painting are optional but desirable additions.

 

Note - zero prep. (sanding), beyond removal of supports, is required.

 

CJI.

I've been looking at his stuff, John and it's fascinating and very good indeed.

 

The website doesn't seem to offer ready-printed items, though, so I was wondering how anyone who hasn't got a 3-D printer (and stands no chance of understanding the software involved) can get hold of examples of his work, please?

 

Thanks.

 

[figworthy]

45 minutes ago, Captain Kernow said:

I've been looking at his stuff, John and it's fascinating and very good indeed.

 

The website doesn't seem to offer ready-printed items, though, so I was wondering how anyone who hasn't got a 3-D printer (and stands no chance of understanding the software involved) can get hold of examples of his work, please?

 

Thanks.

 

 

Talk to a friend who can print them ?

 

Adrian

[Jeff Smith]

Here's two different takes on 3D construction.

First a North London 4-4-0T from CDC Design, Jim Connor, printed by Shapeways in the US about 6 years ago.  OO chassis had outside twin beam compensation added for P4.  Surface finish was not the best.  Coupling and connecting rods were 3D printed in brass.

 

 

 

 

The other was printed by a friend but is more like a card kit and although probably could be mechanized was really a static model. LT&SR Thundersley in 1/48 (US O gauge).  Fun to build for a change using superglue.

 

 

 

 

[hayfield]

On 18/01/2024 at 03:48, Jeff Smith said:

Is it my imagination or are white metal kits as popular as ever?

 

It seems to me that despite the relatively brief period of quality etched kits and the currently increasing availability of 3D prints the traditional white metal kits seem as available/popular as ever!

 

Is this my imagination based on what I want/choose to build or is this the case in general?  Thoughts please.

 

My stable over the last 30 odd years is 2 etched, 1 3D, 7 white metal and one plastic.

 

Jeff

 

Whilst I have a lovely CDC 3D printed and painted LNER/GER J67 /S56, where I used a SEF J69 etched chassis instead of the Terrier RTR chassis 3D printing has come a long way

 

BUT you question about whitemetal kits, These are my preference in loco building. Simply whilst both etched and resin/printed have their advantages and perhaps a composite build would be the best of all worlds, nothing can compare to the feeling of weight of a whitemetal loco

 

At the moment I am finishing off a Springside Manning Wardle 0-4-0 ST. As far as the feeling of running a heavy model steam it leaves my Dapol Terrier and Ixon Hudswell Clarke standing in its wake. I have both a Springside  and an etched GWR 45xx, both are fine locos but the Springside has something the etched one hasn't, weight.  I will try and add some roofing lead to the etched 45xx, but whilst the etched body looks very good it does not reel and respond as well.

 

Next up is to either build a Springside Collet Goods of finish the 45xx, probably the latter

[Jol Wilkinson]

My preference, having built plastic bodied (Ratio), whitemetal (Gem, Ks, M&L) and etched brass/nickel silver (Proscale, LRM, Brassmasters), my preference is for the later. Whitemetal may have the benefit of built in ballast but generally lacks the crispness of etched metal and more prototypical thinness of exposed edges. Etched kits need added weight but that is not a problem if you allow for and build it in during assembly. Mixed material kits  also can have an advantage, such as resin castings for complex boiler/firebox/smokebox shapes. lost wax cast brass and n/s castings for boiler fitting and cylinder cross heads and slide bars.  

[Jeff Smith]

Yes, I agree with the weight of white metal locos giving some presence.  W/M rolling stock however is a different matter.  These should be etched or resin and moderately weighted.

[The Johnster]

As a big fan of ballasting locos to the greatest extent possible, preferably with dark star material or unobtainium, I take Jeff Hayfield's point about the heft of whitemetal, particularly for small engines like his Springsied Manning Wardle.  I have as a matter of course put as much extra ballast as I can over the driving wheels into my locos, all of them, ensuring that motors and mechs are not fouled, and have never regretted doing so; performance is always enhanced.  Firstly, tractive effort is increased; the loco hauls more.  Secondly, inertia is increased, which doesn't sound like an improvement but, counter-intuitively, is.  A higher voltage is needed to get the loco into motion, but the heft will enable a smoother start as the loco settles to low-speed running before you turn the wick up and accellerate; you may even have to back off a little.  The inertia then translates to momentum, enabling smoother stops.  Thirdly, smoother running is achieved, as a combination of the above factors.  And fourthly, the pickup wheels are held firmly to the track, which means pickup is improved as well.  Win-win.

 

But I still don't like whitemetal as a modelling material, nor do I consider there is any innate superiority in die-case mazak or steel.  Etched brass goes too far the other way, though; excellent detail but no heft at all.  One has to, I submit, define what the ideal material might be, and it will be different for RTR producers, kit producers & builders, and scratch builders.  Does it in fact exist; off-hand I'm not sure. 

 

It would need to be heavy, easily workable with hand and power tools, non-conductive, able to maintain sharply defined relief, resistant to expansion/contraction, capable of being easily glued or soldered, take paint, be fire-retarding, completely opaque, and be generally safe for use in a domestic environment.  Oh, and in a perfect world, matt black.

 

Unobtainium, then.  Suggestions, for kits; whitemetal body formers with etched brass or detailed flexible plastic outer shells, heavy rubberised plastic blocks with hollows for the motor & gears, and room of course for chips & speakers, perhaps I should leave this to people who know more about it than me. 

 

But there is little point to my mind in constructing a kit that is not at least to the standard of scale and detail of current RTR but cheaper, ok, some point if it's the only option available, and some point if the kit is difficult and challenging, hence satisfying in it's own right on it's own terms as a project.  But for most of us, the game is supplying locos and stock to run on our layouts, and I don't think whitemetal is particularly suitable for this. 

 

I like plastic wagon kits; Peco Parkside, Cambrian, Chivers, Coopercraft now they are becoming available again, even Dapol Kitmaster.  These tick a lot of my boxes; about 30% cheaper than RTR, good detail, good runners so long as you build them square & true, mostly easy to ballast (Conflats and Lowmacs can be a bit of a pita).  Apparently there is no market, I'm told, but I can't help thinking that plastic coach kits (Rosebud Kitmaster did ok with them, and the venerable Ratio coaches, now in the Parkside range, are still selling well enough for Peco to keep making 'em) and even plastic loco kits with motorisable chassis and capable of taking ballast would be a viable way of supplying niche market items to the hobby, easy kits capable of being worked up to a decent standard without major investment in tooling or skillsets.

 

Back in the day, the Silurian Era, I motorised an Airfix Evening Star plastic kit with a 'motorising kit', consisting of a set of Romford wheels, c/w crankpins, axles, brass bearings to fit in the kit chassis frames, and a length of pre-drilled rail that was claimed to be a coupling rod.  Romford gears and Bulldog motor suggested and used, and the boiler filled with as much scrap metal set in Araldite as I could muster.  It ran, until I attempted to use the kit motion and slide bars, at which point it ran badly, and wouldn't go around 2' radius curves because it was top heavy,  I eventually managed to get the motion running reasonably well on one side, using soft pencil graphite as a lubricant, and settled for it in only one direction so I couldn't see that the other side had no motion beyond the coupling rod; not a success, neither was my K's pannier, that's how things were in the 60s, but it taught me a lot.  Mostly not to attempt anything so stupid again, but I still think the format has potential.  I motorised an Airfix J94 the same way, which worked well enough to be useful on the layout as an NCB shunter.

 

There are examples, of course, the Ratio Midland locos.  These do not have much of a reputation as successful runners, but some people have managed to make reasonable models out of them.  I suspect poor design and QC are at the root of the problems, Ratio seeming to be prone to very fragile and difficult to handle components such as the footboard brackets on the Dean 4-wheelers.  Some things shouldn't be plastic; I use trimmed steel staples and superglue, bit overscale but it works and is robust. 

[MJI]

I remember years ago joking about DU front buffer beams on 0-4-4Ts with some othe rmodellers at a IT event. We also laughed at the name of the town the organisers came from. (spelt differently to the OFAH character)

[Barclay]

Etched for me every time - you can always add lead weights, and nothing looks more like sheet metal than sheet metal. I say every time, but can't seem to leave old white metal kits alone. However they always seem to cause more grief than etched ones.

[Captain Kernow]

DJH got it right with kits like the BR Standard 3 2-6-2T, where the boiler and footplate etc. were whitemetal and the side tanks and cab area were etched brass - best of both worlds.

 

[tomparryharry]

I still have 42xx kits in whitemetal, and when I compare the weight of those with Hornby; well.... For any hand-built model, you ideally need as many reference points as you can. If you go over to RTR, then you are relying on the manufacturers to make those decisions for you. This means, of course, is that you might not get exactly what you want. 

 

" That colour green is not the right colour green, and that black is not dark enough" sort of thing. There must be about 1,000 posts on the forum about top feed; mostly put there by me, sadly.... Finecast make the Taff Vale U1, which can make the Taff Vale N, O, O1 and O2 without much bother.  Whitemetal allows us to get into niche models a lot easier than RTR. 

 

Manufacturers are closing down the gaps, but only up to a point. Would you commit to a production run for an Andrew Barclay 0-6-2t for the Alexandra, Newport, Docks & Railway? Only three of those, and were very location specific? Somehow, no....  I  think we've honestly seen the last Western model for Bachmann, where the 94xx model was completed, and then held back until the RTR value had risen enough to make the model financially viable. You can't blame Bachmann as such. After all, they are a business, but the clamouring doesn't help.

 

Bottom line is that personally, I'll buy what I need, for when I would like to buy it. People like Dave Ellis & associates fully deserve all of recognition & credit for  getting us this far. 

 

Western Top Feed, anyone?

 

 

 

[Captain Kernow]

11 minutes ago, tomparryharry said:

Finecast make the Taff Vale U1, which can make the Taff Vale N, O, O1 and O2 without much bother.  Whitemetal allows us to get into niche models a lot easier than RTR. 

Don't forget the TVR rebuilt 'A' class, still available from Brian at Branchlines (was Nu-Cast Partners).

 

13 minutes ago, tomparryharry said:

I  think we've honestly seen the last Western model for Bachmann, where the 94xx model was completed

Do you not think that Bachmann might be tempted to produce the 54XX and 74XX as well?

 

[hayfield]

14 minutes ago, tomparryharry said:

I still have 42xx kits in whitemetal, and when I compare the weight of those with Hornby; well.... For any hand-built model, you ideally need as many reference points as you can. If you go over to RTR, then you are relying on the manufacturers to make those decisions for you. This means, of course, is that you might not get exactly what you want. 

 

I have a couple of Cotswold/K's 42xx/72xx whitemetal kits to build along with a couple of etched brass sheets for said locos to build a hybrid loco. Recently I obtained a 7mm etched kit Oakville/ Wagon & Carriage Coy kit, the way things are going the 7mm kit will be built before the 4mm ones

 

14 minutes ago, tomparryharry said:

 

Western Top Feed, anyone?

 

 

I have a big box of spares, what does it look like ?

[tomparryharry]

Just now, Captain Kernow said:

Don't forget the TVR rebuilt 'A' class, still available from Brian at Branchlines (was Nu-Cast Partners).

 

Do you not think that Bachmann might be tempted to produce the 54XX and 74XX as well?

 

The problems with your highlighted models, is the lack of actual 20/20 detail observation. If us Western modellers get a 2" rivet out by as much as 10 thou, the echoes will be heard as far away as the Moon.  Then, it's demographics. does anyone remember the actual locomotive? Will it sell? Can we make a profit? Putting my business head on, and if I was in the room, the reaction to the idea might be "Hmm; don't know" Notwithstanding that I'm 100% Western steam in this discussion, you have to be pragmatic. This rather nicely brings us back to the original opening post. On my proposed project, the locomotive stock precludes things like 47xx,Kings, Castles, Saints & Counties. All wonderful locomotives, but they didn't really make it over to my semi-rural backwater.  Nucast & others have closed some gaps with the A1, Rhymney and others. Even to the point of Rhondda & Swansea Bay Kitson locomotives.

 

All good stuff!

20 minutes ago, hayfield said:

 

I have a couple of Cotswold/K's 42xx/72xx whitemetal kits to build along with a couple of etched brass sheets for said locos to build a hybrid loco. Recently I obtained a 7mm etched kit Oakville/ Wagon & Carriage Coy kit, the way things are going the 7mm kit will be built before the 4mm ones

 

 

I have a big box of spares, what does it look like ?

   

[hayfield]

What I forgot to have is the job lot I brought (all incomplete kits) with the exception of a couple of locos, I have listed most of them at prices quiet low to reflect their condition and all have been snapped up. This has provided funds to complete the items I have kept (7mm parts are expensive!!) but given plenty of folk the ability to do a bit of building/kit bashing/repairing locos.

 

Kit building is well and alive

 

  

 

This Manning Wardle was waiting for the paint shop, extra parts which were missing were ordered and the loco awaiting painting

 

 

Another part built kit I brought 20 months ago, missing parts were ordered and now I have time to finish off the build, making a start on the chassis before finishing the body

[Jeff Smith]

1 hour ago, Captain Kernow said:

Don't forget the TVR rebuilt 'A' class, still available from Brian at Branchlines (was Nu-Cast Partners).

Has this venture finished?  I have not been able to get an email reply from Branchlines recently and ended up buying motors and gearboxes from High Level.

[spamcan61]

5 minutes ago, Jeff Smith said:

Has this venture finished?  I have not been able to get an email reply from Branchlines recently and ended up buying motors and gearboxes from High Level.

Branchlines have been having problems with email it seems, some info in this thread:-

 

 

[Captain Kernow]

1 hour ago, spamcan61 said:

Branchlines have been having problems with email it seems, some info in this thread:-

 

 

I successfully ordered something from Branchlines the other day, by ringing the number, leaving a message and Brian rang me back an hour or so later. 

 

[Steamport Southport]

If I was after 42XX, 52XX and 72XXs then I wouldn't start there....

 

Far better kits on the market.

 

http://www.pdkmodels.co.uk/Loco Kits 4.htm

 

 

http://www.pdkmodels.co.uk/PDK 48. 72xx RRP.html

 

 

Obviously a different matter if you've already got them or find them cheap.

 

 

Jason