RMweb Gold JCL Posted January 16, 2015 RMweb Gold Share Posted January 16, 2015 Hi mike, I had a tender done a while ago and it doesn't look like that. Is it worth putting a post into the 3D forum to see what they think? There's a a Shapeways employee on RMWeb as well (Spoorobjecten) you could show them to. If it is a dodgy print, then I've read that Shapeways usually reprints. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpoorObjecten Posted January 17, 2015 Share Posted January 17, 2015 JCL asked about the quality of FD in a private message, think it would be good for others as well: == Hey Jason, Unfortunately it is the quality you can expect with FD. However, this is easily fixed by using a fine piece of sandpaper. The issue you are seeing is a downside of FD. For FD the whole model is covered in support material, not just the places which actually require support. This causes all parts of the model to be in contact with the support material, leaving these stripes. By using a fine sandpaper you can easily get it smooth within a minute. FUD is only 3 microns better than FD in terms of layer thickness, however the big difference is that FUD only uses support material where it's actually required. So many sides of the part will not get in contact with support material and thus the surface looks really smooth. == Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeTrice Posted January 17, 2015 Author Share Posted January 17, 2015 Thanks SpoorObjecten, all interesting to know. I did intend to order FUD but it was not obvious on the Shapeways' web page how to select it and I ended up ordering FD by mistake. By the time I contacted them to change the order it was too late. So far the chimney and valve cover have cleaned up very well with very fine wet and dry. Likewise the smokebox door although this was more fiddly. The cylinder covers and buffer beam might be a challenge though. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gr.king Posted January 17, 2015 Share Posted January 17, 2015 Cleaning off the ridges around details that you don't want to lose may be easier if you use a flat edged scraper, very keenly honed, stroked lightly over the surface. It should progressively shave off the ridges and you ought to be able to feel a bolt head or similar (and therefore stop scraping) if the scraper comes up against such a detail. An extremely narrow wood chisel or just the largest of the usual sizes of "jewellers" screw driver suitably honed are my usual choices of tool. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeTrice Posted January 17, 2015 Author Share Posted January 17, 2015 Under immense magnification the valve cover could do with further rubbing down but it looks good to my naked eye: 7 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
alastairq Posted January 17, 2015 Share Posted January 17, 2015 Hi...would the 'real thing' have been really smooth? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ian_g_griffiths Posted January 17, 2015 Share Posted January 17, 2015 Would a glass fibre scratch brush help? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeTrice Posted January 18, 2015 Author Share Posted January 18, 2015 First of all a replacement photo of Jason's fittings taken with natural light: I have taken the plunge and cut off Emily's chimney so I can try Jason's for size together with his valve cover. After getting used to Emily's they look huge. Bear in mind that Emily has a larger boiler than the prototype which might make her look odd. What do others think? 11 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium uax6 Posted January 18, 2015 RMweb Premium Share Posted January 18, 2015 Well looking at images on the net, I don't think they are far wrong. Yes even on the original they look huge! Andy G Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold JCL Posted January 18, 2015 RMweb Gold Share Posted January 18, 2015 I wonder it's the tender effect. After the new tender was coupled up to No.1 I read a number of comments from people saying that the old one should be put back because the new one was too big. It might also be the base of the chimney looks a bit thick. Unfortunately it had to be a certain thickness in order to print. I then absorbed that into the length of the chimney so that the top was still the same height. I'm pleased with the fit though, I fretted that I'd get the boiler diameter wrong. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium uax6 Posted January 18, 2015 RMweb Premium Share Posted January 18, 2015 The chimney and the safety valve cover could both do with the flange thinning down a tad. But the effect is looking like the photos. Good work boys! Andy G Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold JCL Posted January 18, 2015 RMweb Gold Share Posted January 18, 2015 Can I put an order in for a resin body when yer done? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mad McCann Posted January 20, 2015 Share Posted January 20, 2015 What a fantastic project, Mike. I guess it's virtually a scratch build but it's a marvellous demonstration of what can be achieved with relatively unpromising material. To those who would ask why go to all this bother whe other routes are available I would say; "Because it was there to be done and the creator enjoyed the process." Do you need a better reason? :-) 4 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeTrice Posted January 21, 2015 Author Share Posted January 21, 2015 Thanks Mad McCann. You see you are not so mad after all ;-) Comparing the 3D printed chimney and dome cover with the drawings they appear to be 20% oversize so I was not imagining things. Jason and I reckon this occurred when the base was enlarged to suit Emily's larger than scale boiler and smokebox resulting in the whole fitting enlarging rather than just the base. I should have realised from the dimensions he published but just assumed they were OK. Either way he has very kindly offered to rework them for me. Since my last post I decided that the front frame extensions were a bit close to the smokebox door. In fairness this is part of the problem when certain dimensions have been "tweaked" from the prototype: it has a knock on effect. In the end I decided to get rid of them and fashion new ones at a greater spacing. Before I did that I embossed with the pounce wheels some 10 styrene for the front of the footplate and used D-Limonene to affix it. Lampirons were fashioned from flat strip this time and holes drilled in the footplate to accommodate them. They were then pushed into position and secured with superglue. In hindsight they could do with being a bit taller but hey, we only live once. As with the tender lampirons I added styrene mounting brackets but this time used the pounce wheel to emboss it first then cut off short lengths to represent the rivet fixings. Thought I would try it and for the small amount of effort it took it was well worth it. New frame extensions were cut from 20thou styrene and glued in their new positions then various brackets added from Evergreen 1.5mm angle and small pieces of 30thou styrene. So this is what she looks like now: The rivets don't really show up well in white so here we have Emily after a quick blow-over with primer. So she has gone from being devoid of detail to now having some: 13 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold JCL Posted January 21, 2015 RMweb Gold Share Posted January 21, 2015 Yes, that's what happened, I scaled the parts to the Emily boiler size. I'll be rescaling them again over the weekend, then putting up sizes to check against expected. They should be ready to go by Sunday. I will also remove the FD option and only leave FUD. I think SpoorObjecten's explanation of the difference has led me to believe it's not worth the money to do the cheaper option when so much work is going into it. 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeTrice Posted January 21, 2015 Author Share Posted January 21, 2015 I will also remove the FD option and only leave FUD. I think SpoorObjecten's explanation of the difference has led me to believe it's not worth the money to do the cheaper option when so much work is going into it. Agreed. It will be interesting to see the difference in quality. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
PGC Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 This really is turning in to a fantastic project, and I'm learning a lot from the work you're undertaking, Mike. Many thanks for the posts so far, please keep them coming and I look forward to seeing the finished article. Phil Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeTrice Posted January 22, 2015 Author Share Posted January 22, 2015 This really is turning in to a fantastic project, and I'm learning a lot from the work you're undertaking, Mike. So am I. Emily is acting as a testbed for several techniques I have never used before. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Atso Posted January 28, 2015 Share Posted January 28, 2015 What's going on? Six days without an update! I need my Stirling fix! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeTrice Posted January 28, 2015 Author Share Posted January 28, 2015 (edited) What's going on? Six days without an update! I need my Stirling fix! Fair question and thank you for asking. Jason has reworked the 3D parts to fix the scaling issue and I have now ordered a new set in FUD from Shapeways which are not due to arrive until Feb. I really want to get these sorted before fitting handrails etc. I have now received the GNR paint in readiness. Finally I have been researching GNR tenders and now think I know enough to have a good stab at finishing the detailing of that (one of the problems of doing an early prototype). So quite a bit of activity but little practical I can add to the posts for the moment. Hopefully back to normal next week. Oh yes, trying to learn Blender into the bargain. Edited January 28, 2015 by MikeTrice Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeTrice Posted January 28, 2015 Author Share Posted January 28, 2015 BTW, I have been watching episodes of TTTE with my Grandson. If only Bachmann would produce Whiff! I will say no more Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
edcayton Posted January 29, 2015 Share Posted January 29, 2015 Is that supposed to be Aerolite wearing glasses? Ed Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeTrice Posted January 29, 2015 Author Share Posted January 29, 2015 That was my guess as well, hence my wish that Bachmann did a model of him. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeTrice Posted January 30, 2015 Author Share Posted January 30, 2015 A small update while waiting for the 3D printed parts. As I will using a 3D printed valve cover and will therefore have to paint it brass I decided to use styrene for the brass beading around the splasher. Using a copy of the same template used to work out the splasher shape but trimmed to reflect just the splasher a line has been drawn, then 10thou styrene strip solvented in place: And after priming: I mentioned previously lack of accurate information regarding the Stirling tender fittings so I have had to do a "best guess" based on typical 3/4 views of the prototype. I decided to model the toolboxes when fitted at the rear of the tender rather than the later period when they were moved o the front. First off the tank filler was cut from a length of 6mm tube and a styrene "cap" fitted. The cap was cut over size and solvented in place then a length of masking tape wound round the 6mm tube to act as a filing guide when rounding off the cap. It seems to have worked quite well: Basic toolboxes were created from styrene as open based boxes. The size is guessed and adjusted to suit Emily's tender rather than being totally accurate: Tidied up, then strapping added and a lid: Now fixed in place either side of the filler: Here are a couple of views of the tender after a blast of primer: The tender is almost complete now. 9 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeTrice Posted February 1, 2015 Author Share Posted February 1, 2015 I thought I would start fitting the handrails to the tender only to discover that I did not have a drill of the right size, so while waiting for deliver of some bought on t'internet I moved on to tackle the missing front tender footsteps. I did not feel confident that attaching styrene steps made from sheet would be very strong, instead I fashioned some angle by cutting a short section of Evergreen rectangular tube thus (apologies for the poor quality image): After filing down and reducing the width of the wider side I ended up with 2 "L" sections thus: Shortened in length then a small strip of 30 thou styrene cut at and angle was solvented to the ends two to the left and two to the right: While the steps were curing I also trimmed back the lower base of the spring hangers. Strictly speaking the whole spring assembly is too low but I could not be asked to take more drastic steps: After curing the individual steps were filed back and given a rounded finish at the upturned side: Here are the step glued in place on the tender. They need some tidying up and possibly thinning of the edges but at least they are reasonably robust: 11 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now