A Nod To Brent - a friendly thread, filled with frivolity, cream teas and pasties. Longing for the happy days in the South Hams 1947.

[longchap]

2 hours ago, Tim Dubya said:

Indeed, the part of loco construction I don't feel confident with tackling just yet.  Plus the added cost of jigs and Carlos Fandango bits and bobs, and it could turn out very expensive and all ending up on eBay.  So yes a screw together chassis please someone 👍

 

Chassis building can be a little daunting the first time round and yes, you can spend many red wine tokens buying specialist tools, but you don't have too. Just take a leaf from the great Iain Rice's "4mm Loco kit Chassis Construction" book, a must have for the aspiring chassis builder. His practical no-nonsense down to earth approach is still a refreshing one, particularly regarding chassis jigs.

 

You make your own for peanuts:

 

Page 38 reproduced from Iain Rices book included soley for education purposes.

 

I managed to get through my Metro build from use of the above book and also much help and advice from RMWeb modellers in the thread below.

 

Hope this helps,

 

Bill

 

 

[Tim Dubya]

22 minutes ago, longchap said:

Iain Rice's "4mm Loco kit Chassis Construction"

 

Indeed I have that particular scribbling from Ricey, that'll be why I'm scared 😜

 

Seriously though, I will get aroundtoit one day 👍

 

Cheers 

 

Edited February 19 by Tim Dubya

[Clearwater]

Railwayana Auction - Railwayana for Sale - Next Railway Auction: (gwra.co.uk)

 

Some nice plates here:

 

[checkrail]

On 18/02/2024 at 12:15, checkrail said:

Hi

From the pictures I've seen you've done a great job with these toplight coaches, apart from one significant detail of the GWR brown and cream versions: the bolections on all the side windows should be painted the same colour as the droplights in the door windows (venetian red, mahogany or whatever you want to call it). This is an important element of the 'look' of all GWR toplight coaches in all brown and cream livery variants between 1928 and 1948.

 

I do hope this will be rectified when the promised corridor toplights go into production. Painting bolections is tricky at the best of times as I know from kit building, but even more difficult when the glazing is already fitted.

 

Yours in hope,

 

Good news for prospective Dapol corridor toplight purchasers. Below is a reply to my email (above) from Richard at Dapol.

 

Good morning John,

 

The original samples did not have the bolection mouldings decorated in mahogany colour, we upgraded the livery sheets to include this, but unfortunately this was not copied for the production models.

 

Yes, we shall have these mouldings correctly painted for the upcoming corridor coaches.

 

Thank you for your comment and interest in these carriages.

 

 

Kind Regards

 

Richard

Director of Product Development

 

I guess those buying brown & cream M & C coaches will just have to get out the paintbrush.  Anyway, my thanks to Dapol.

 

John C.

[Tim Dubya]

14 minutes ago, checkrail said:

Yes, we shall have these mouldings correctly painted for the upcoming corridor coaches.

 

I'll start saving for a couple 👍

[nsl714]

39 minutes ago, Clearwater said:

Railwayana Auction - Railwayana for Sale - Next Railway Auction: (gwra.co.uk)

 

Some nice plates here:

 

It's funny, a lot of the plates look like those that went through auction in America in November.... It will be interesting to see how they make out in comparison to the first auction.

 

-Zach

 

[gwrrob]

1 hour ago, checkrail said:

 

Good news for prospective Dapol corridor toplight purchasers. Below is a reply to my email (above) from Richard at Dapol.

 

Good morning John,

 

The original samples did not have the bolection mouldings decorated in mahogany colour, we upgraded the livery sheets to include this, but unfortunately this was not copied for the production models.

 

Yes, we shall have these mouldings correctly painted for the upcoming corridor coaches.

 

Thank you for your comment and interest in these carriages.

 

 

Kind Regards

 

Richard

Director of Product Development

 

I guess those buying brown & cream M & C coaches will just have to get out the paintbrush.  Anyway, my thanks to Dapol.

 

John C.

 

Nice one John @checkrail so Dapol do talk to their customers.

[heraldcoupe]

8 hours ago, Captain Kernow said:

With the increasing number of good quality 3-D printed loco bodies becoming available these days, perhaps it might pay someone to look at producing a quick and easy self-assembly brass chassis. These need not be compensated or sprung or have all the bells and whistles or have to be soldered together. In the old days, both K's and DJH used to produce simple, screw together chassis for their kits. If you add an already-assembled motor and gearbox combination (such as that which I think used to be available from DJH, before Squires acquired them), then you have the basis for some progress?

 

 

I think we need to look beyond traditional chassis designs to really exploit new technologies. In designing my shells, I was keen to produce something which got away from reliance on soldering and precision assembly. With many RTR models having some degree of springing, a rigid chassis would be a step backwards from where we are.

I also don't think such compromises are necessary. While I see limitations with the currently available materials for MSLA printing ( the area I work in), new materials are appearing all the time, though often at eyewatering costs. The other popular means of 3D printing, FDM, gives a less refined finish, but the range of materials is impressive. For a functional chassis, it may well prove a viable method.
In the meantime, here are the bare bones of the Aberdare chassis prototype in CAD form. This has compensation across the six-coupled drivers, with the pony to be lighly sprung. It will print up for development purposes on my existing machines, once the design is proven I'll start looking at FDM processes, which is a new area to me. The compensation beam is deliberately chunky, with a steel shaft through it to provide the pivot points for the axles.

The wheelset and gears aren't fuly drawn as I've no intention of printing those...

 

 

 

[heraldcoupe]

10 hours ago, Limpley Stoker said:

With the forthcoming Dapol autocoach there is, I’m sure, a need for a 517 class or metro tank. The Shapeways 517 on offer is at a much lowered resolution than your  products . The problem would a RTR 0-4-2 chassis of the correct length.

 

These are two real needs I recognise. 

[heraldcoupe]

12 hours ago, Mikkel said:

 

I'm a long-time friend of the Bachmann 57xx/8750 chassis, but there is also the Accurascale 57xx chassis coming up...

 

 

I could make a case that a large number of Bachmann chassis' will suddenly become 'surplus'...

[Captain Kernow]

31 minutes ago, heraldcoupe said:

I could make a case that a large number of Bachmann chassis' will suddenly become 'surplus'...

I'm not sure that everyone will want to junk their Bachmann panniers, especially as the basic product remains of high quality.

 

Accurascale are riding high at the moment on the strength of their Manor, but not everyone has had a good experience with this loco in terms of good running. Mine was so bad that it went back to the retailer and I decided not to order a replacement. I just went without and nothing awful happened...

 

I'm still not convinced that the new boys of Accurascale and Rapido have yet mastered the ability to produce a consistently well running loco in the same way that Bachmann have. Sure, going DCC may help, but not all of us want to. Every steam outline loco I've had off these new boys has either been returned to the retailer or sold on, because they just wouldn't run consistently on DC. The abomination that was the DJ Models 14XX mechanism was exactly the same (although I liked the body).

 

Yet the established manufacturers such as Bachmann, Dapol and Hornby have consistently provided me with smooth running locos.

 

I speak as I find!

 

 

[Captain Kernow]

40 minutes ago, heraldcoupe said:

I think we need to look beyond traditional chassis designs to really exploit new technologies. In designing my shells, I was keen to produce something which got away from reliance on soldering and precision assembly. With many RTR models having some degree of springing, a rigid chassis would be a step backwards from where we are.

I also don't think such compromises are necessary. While I see limitations with the currently available materials for MSLA printing ( the area I work in), new materials are appearing all the time, though often at eyewatering costs. The other popular means of 3D printing, FDM, gives a less refined finish, but the range of materials is impressive. For a functional chassis, it may well prove a viable method.

You have probably gathered by now that I am an unrepentant, unreconstructed dinosaur, who is unwilling to come out of his comfort zone, built up by decades of modelling using certain materials and in a certain way. I just don't understand these new technologies and I seriously begrudge spending the time in an (inevitably) abortive attempt to understand them.

 

By suggesting easy to assembly brass chassis, I was simply looking for something relatively low cost and which also avoided the need for soldering and the use of expensive jigs.

 

Although I build springing or compensation into both my P4 and OO models, I only do so with the latter in terms of making current collection more reliable. But provided the track is well laid, compensation and springing aren't even necessary for P4... I hardly ever spring or compensate any wagons that I now convert or build for P4 these days. Provided they don't derail, I'm happy.

 

So although you say (above) that you were 'keen to produce something which got away from reliance on soldering and precision assembly' (my highlights), my initial alarm at the thought of something not being assembled with precision gave way to the conviction that you actually meant that the precision (necessary in any mechanism of this nature) would be part of your chassis design...?

 

As regards the Aberdare, I think you said that it was designed with Bachmann 08 wheels in mind. Would the design also allow the use of EM or P4 substitute wheels for the Bachmann 08 by the likes of Alan Gibson or Ultrascale?

 

 

[Fair Oak Junction]

On the flip side, I've had nothing but good running experiences with locos from Accurascale and Rapido on DC. Even my two DJ 14xxs run like dreams.

I feel like consistency is an issue across the whole hobby, and the old guard are far from immune. Also don't forget that we tend to hear about problems far more than the positives, simply because most people who get locos that run well wont bother taking to the internet to talk about it.

 

But I agree, I don't see the AS Panniers leading to a glut of Bachmann ones being sold off. I see them as complementing the Bachmann ones, not necessarily replacing them.

Edited February 19 by Fair Oak Junction

[Captain Kernow]

2 minutes ago, Fair Oak Junction said:

On the flip side, I've had nothing but good running experiences with locos from Accurascale and Rapido on DC. Even my two DJ 14xxs run like dreams.

You are a lucky chap, then! Every single 14XX that I've ever come into contact with has run very badly.

 

I have a friend who has a good-running Rapido Hunslet 0-6-0ST, I was rather envious...

 

Even if my Accurascale Manor had run well, there is something about the flange profile of this loco that is incompatible with the OO-SF gauge of 16.2mm. It didn't just bind (or come to a stop) when encountering 16.2mm track (as was the case with a loco from a different company but manufactured in the same factory), the lighter weight tender of the Manor actually derailed each time it encountered my short length of OO-SF track... When the running failed to improve, despite lengthy running in, I just gave up. Sometimes it's OK to go without.

 

10 minutes ago, Fair Oak Junction said:

I feel like consistency is an issue across the whole hobby, and the old guard are far from immune. Also don't forget that we tend to hear about problems far more than the positives, simply because most people who get locos that run well wont bother taking to the internet to talk about it.

Oh, you're right there. I can think of cases of two Bachmann 64XXs, bought my me at the same time, one for a friend and the other for myself, where my friend's one ran very smoothly but mine had an annoying tight spot. The same with a Hornby ex-L&Y 'Pug'...

 

11 minutes ago, Fair Oak Junction said:

But I agree that I don't see the AS Panniers leading to a glut of Bachmann ones being sold off. I see them as complementing the Bachmann ones, not necessarily replacing them.

Indeed. Even I shall probably chance my arm again with one or two of those, because they are cleverly doing the rivetted tank examples, which Bachmann don't do and I'd prefer that that risking Archers transfer rivets coming off a Bachmann tank over time...  But I'll only buy one if you can easily separate body from chassis or otherwise convert the AS chassis to P4 in a straightforward manner. If it's anything like that other abomination, the Rapido 16XX, then it's back to the Archers transfers for me...

 

[Fair Oak Junction]

I'm glad we are finally getting a 57xx without a top feed. I never liked the thought of doing surgery to such a visible part of the loco.

Edited February 19 by Fair Oak Junction

[Tim Dubya]

17 minutes ago, Captain Kernow said:

that is incompatible with the OO-SF gauge of 16.2mm

 

That's interesting (and worrying) but this now guarantees that something I really want from them will now be made and it isn't going to negotiate my planned point & crossing work. 😬 

 

 

[gwrrob]

13 minutes ago, Fair Oak Junction said:

I'm glad we are finally getting a 74xx without a top feed. I never liked the thought of doing surgery to such a visible part of the loco.

 

@PMP of this parish did the honours on this one.

 

[Ian Hargrave]

2 hours ago, gwrrob said:

 

Nice one John @checkrail so Dapol do talk to their customers.

And it is indeed refreshing to have a Dapol appearance…albeit  it in second hand form…..posted on this forum 

[John Besley]

1 hour ago, heraldcoupe said:

 

I think we need to look beyond traditional chassis designs to really exploit new technologies. In designing my shells, I was keen to produce something which got away from reliance on soldering and precision assembly. With many RTR models having some degree of springing, a rigid chassis would be a step backwards from where we are.

I also don't think such compromises are necessary. While I see limitations with the currently available materials for MSLA printing ( the area I work in), new materials are appearing all the time, though often at eyewatering costs. The other popular means of 3D printing, FDM, gives a less refined finish, but the range of materials is impressive. For a functional chassis, it may well prove a viable method.
In the meantime, here are the bare bones of the Aberdare chassis prototype in CAD form. This has compensation across the six-coupled drivers, with the pony to be lighly sprung. It will print up for development purposes on my existing machines, once the design is proven I'll start looking at FDM processes, which is a new area to me. The compensation beam is deliberately chunky, with a steel shaft through it to provide the pivot points for the axles.

The wheelset and gears aren't fuly drawn as I've no intention of printing those...

 

 

 

 

Ok intresting as I have used Wren R1 chassis for my 7/8th creations and in both cases milled out the chassis for a HLK Roadrunner and coreless motor... is this an option would also need to consider wiper pick ups, but what about side rods etc ... anyone got a pantograph machine to mill these or is there another more upto date option... could these be provided or are these an item that can come from somewhere as a spare part along with wheels and axles without resorting to Markits or Gibson

[Andy Keane]

2 hours ago, heraldcoupe said:

 

I think we need to look beyond traditional chassis designs to really exploit new technologies. In designing my shells, I was keen to produce something which got away from reliance on soldering and precision assembly. With many RTR models having some degree of springing, a rigid chassis would be a step backwards from where we are.

I also don't think such compromises are necessary. While I see limitations with the currently available materials for MSLA printing ( the area I work in), new materials are appearing all the time, though often at eyewatering costs. The other popular means of 3D printing, FDM, gives a less refined finish, but the range of materials is impressive. For a functional chassis, it may well prove a viable method.
In the meantime, here are the bare bones of the Aberdare chassis prototype in CAD form. This has compensation across the six-coupled drivers, with the pony to be lighly sprung. It will print up for development purposes on my existing machines, once the design is proven I'll start looking at FDM processes, which is a new area to me. The compensation beam is deliberately chunky, with a steel shaft through it to provide the pivot points for the axles.

The wheelset and gears aren't fuly drawn as I've no intention of printing those...

 

 

 

I have had good experience with the HP spray print system in tough nylon. It builds without support structure and is nicely strong. Surface is slightly rough but probably ok for a chassis. The machines are costly but an online print would be around forty pounds I think.

[Harlequin]

3 hours ago, heraldcoupe said:

 

I think we need to look beyond traditional chassis designs to really exploit new technologies. In designing my shells, I was keen to produce something which got away from reliance on soldering and precision assembly. With many RTR models having some degree of springing, a rigid chassis would be a step backwards from where we are.

I also don't think such compromises are necessary. While I see limitations with the currently available materials for MSLA printing ( the area I work in), new materials are appearing all the time, though often at eyewatering costs. The other popular means of 3D printing, FDM, gives a less refined finish, but the range of materials is impressive. For a functional chassis, it may well prove a viable method.
In the meantime, here are the bare bones of the Aberdare chassis prototype in CAD form. This has compensation across the six-coupled drivers, with the pony to be lighly sprung. It will print up for development purposes on my existing machines, once the design is proven I'll start looking at FDM processes, which is a new area to me. The compensation beam is deliberately chunky, with a steel shaft through it to provide the pivot points for the axles.

The wheelset and gears aren't fuly drawn as I've no intention of printing those...

 

 

 

 

Some weight needs to be embodied in the model for decent pulling power. So perhaps the chassis is more suited to being CNC milled out of metal than 3D Printed.

 

The shapes shown above don't look too complicated for a desktop milling machine.

 

Edited February 19 by Harlequin

[heraldcoupe]

1 hour ago, Captain Kernow said:

So although you say (above) that you were 'keen to produce something which got away from reliance on soldering and precision assembly' (my highlights), my initial alarm at the thought of something not being assembled with precision gave way to the conviction that you actually meant that the precision (necessary in any mechanism of this nature) would be part of your chassis design...?

 

The precision is in-built to the design, no folding/soldering/alignment, just screws and nuts to hold it together. I've acquired so many poorly assembled etched chassis' as abandoned projects through the years, it's left me wondering what the ratio of completed to abandoned kits might be.

 

1 hour ago, Captain Kernow said:

As regards the Aberdare, I think you said that it was designed with Bachmann 08 wheels in mind. Would the design also allow the use of EM or P4 substitute wheels for the Bachmann 08 by the likes of Alan Gibson or Ultrascale?

 

I've designed the prototype to run with Hornby 08 wheels as they come with pre-installed bearings where the Bachmann set runs direct in the block. But that's just to get a running mule, Alan Gibson does the right wheels and I will be getting a few sets in to test once the basic design is proven. 

 

Cheers

Bill.

 

[heraldcoupe]

8 minutes ago, Harlequin said:

 

Some weight needs to be embodied in the model in the chassis or the body for decent pulling power. So perhaps the chassis is more suited to being CNC milled out of metal than 3D Printed.

 

The shapes shown above don't look too complicated for a desktop milling machine.

 

 

Indeed not, it would also remove the need for captive nuts as holes could be tapped instead, further simplifying.

[Captain Kernow]

1 hour ago, Tim Dubya said:

 

That's interesting (and worrying) but this now guarantees that something I really want from them will now be made and it isn't going to negotiate my planned point & crossing work. 😬 

 

 

Tim, seriously, don't do OO-SF.

 

Really, don't touch it. 

 

It's far more trouble than it's worth.

 

[Tim Dubya]

2 hours ago, Captain Kernow said:

Tim, seriously, don't do OO-SF.

 

Really, don't touch it. 

 

It's far more trouble than it's worth.

 

 

Thank you.  As you may remember, I've built the odd crossover or two to OO-SF but never a whole layout and only ever tested those with one or two of my locos, certainly none with a tender behind.  If my master plan escapes my head, I will need a double -slip so that kinda spells danger if it's that much trouble.  Time for a think 🤔

 

 

 

 

Edited February 20 by Tim Dubya
Tea, dirty mug of