rue_d_etropal

Ihave been looking around for suitable loco chassis for a few years. Main problem tends to be position of motor, which is either too high,too wide or both for British HO. Sometimes it is possible to cut some bits of chassis away. Other problem can be for outsde cylinderd locos with cylinders sticking ut too far. One nice 0-4-0 loco chassis is that used in the Liliput HO fireless loco, which can still be found second hand . The loco itself is pretty good anyway and looks British enough for me. Just a pity the 0-4-0 has a long wheelbase, otherwise it old be even more useful. I had hopes for the 0-6-0 version, but the motor surrounds are too big for a British loco.

etching does not interest me. I originally said I wasn't interested in doing a chassis, but when I realised the new Bachmann J72 wasn't as useful as I hoped, I thought there mght be a way to do something basic. As I said, plastic has one big advantage over metal , less shorts. Have seen enough problems i the past with metal chassis shorting out.

I don't have access to anyone who can do etching. More in the same design field as laser cutting. I have looked at software for laser cutting design and there are online companies who can do the cutting but not cheap. Also got my hands fulll designing for 3D printing. Better to find individual answers to different problems. 3D printing is very good at some things(in fact quite a lot) but it is a mistake to think it can do everything. Thanks to Shapaways it is also very easy to get designs printed which can be orderd from virtually anywhere. A chassis needs to be strong enough, and some 3D printed plastics are not strong enough in the thicknesses required for a chassis frame. Plastic has disadvantages over metal as it is not as strong, but it also has big advantage of not conducting electricity so short circuits are less likely to happen. My idea for a 3D printed chassis is something that is simple, which can be used as a start point for someone building a complete chassis. Only major modifications I would make is the wheelbase, and therefore length might also change, All the modeller has to do is get a motor/gearbox, wheels, axles and axle bearings. Building a support for motor fitted(which may be different to one someone else has built) is possily biggest task. Some means of fitting chassis to body as well, but importantly the chassis should be capable of being run without body fitted and be easy to fit. Fitting ponts will vary from model to model, so again better for modeller to design. Personally , I mght use 3D printng for some of these fittings, but I would probably not offer them to others, unless someone was doing exactly the same modelas me. Far too easy to get distracted by small one off requests which take up valuable time for little monetary return. Being realistic.

it needs discussion. sometimes people are too close to the subject , and you need to stand back and look at it from further away. That is how it is done within IT and how good systems are developed. Fact is , noone wants HS2 in the north west.It won't help us at all,and even if it does it will be too late for us. Watched the report on TC+V , and part of plan is to build a huge tunnel unde Mabnchester Given the problems there have been with subsdece causd by old rivers old industrial workings then it loks very risky and expnsive. Money would b better spent on impriving local train services. It is never too late. Anything built on in past 50 years is not worth saving, or certainly not as important as what will be distoyed by building HS2 as planned.

it is odd the info sheet on High Levels website still refers to Mashima motors.

can't quitework out which gearbox it is, but think it might be the Humpshunter with a frame width of 10.8mm. With a bit of modification my design would fit, and if it is to run on centre axle, the rest of chassis frame could be bulked up to strengthen it. IfI was buying a new gearbox I would probably go for one of the slimmer ones, as there s not much room for axle bushes.

It would not surprise me if there is not a company doing bespoke etching. Etched side rods are better than drilled ones.

thought I might get that reaction.

that sound good Richard. Which one have you got?

I have got test sample of my basic loco chassis. I can modify design it to fit any wheelbase, as long as the gearbox fits. Presume that is about 9mm wide.

Good article in The Spectator abiut reopening old GCR route as alternative to HS2 , thought I was only one thinking of it, https://www.spectator.co.uk/2019/08/there-is-a-far-better-option-than-hs2-and-it-already-exists/?fbclid=IwAR0odzKudej03_eJlvSzqn3hvHGfzJVYGYBwh9XbFFQMBbNG9EfIn2hMKzc

I use published drawings, and most people are happy with models. There are details which can be smoothed down, and given the way 3D printing is done that is usually necessary. £D printing has been described as an aid to scratchbuilding, and real modellers are prepared to finish off something,but might struggle to start a kit or scratchbuild. Trouble with research is that you can always do more and someone will always find something else. General comments that something is not correct don't help, but being a bit more specific will help. There are some obvious small detail changes that have been done on the railbus since it was built, care has to be taken when using preserved stock for research.

from big to small. Following request for the Waggon und Maschinenbau railbus, here it is . The others will be done eventually.

One model high on my list has been the Hastings DEMU(cl201/2/3) and Tadpole (cl206). Only when I had located scale drawings could I start, and I used both te drawings and the BR working diagrams. Some roof detail still had gaps in info, but I prefer to only do what I am certain of, so modellers will need to seek out further info/photos. These were welltravelled units in later years, so most regions could justify the presence of one on a special. They were always my preferred train of choice for travels up to London, as they always seemed to be more comfortable than the EMUs. I also used the Tadpole units quite a bit. Still not sure but in early 70s I remember first train towards Redhill from Tonbridge on a Sunday was loco hauled. I had assumed they must be ex Hastings units but the DEMU coaches did not have buffers so unsure now. They always felt better than standard coaches, so had assumed they must be the Hastings coaches.

The Atlas Editions model is pretty good, if you can still find one. I motorized one using one of the Bachmann Tracksters/Highrails bus chassis(current one).

I had wondered about internal detail, such as edges of doors, but most small scale models I have seen don't have this detail,and possibly not that visible once fully weathered. For ultra wear and tare, bumps etc could be scraped into material,but I would rather modellers did it, otherwise you end up with a train of identically worn out wagons.Probably easier to do than on finer plastic. Remember these are meant to be a aid for modellers not r2r for collectors.

the orignal wagon I did was a cross between a 9ft and 10ft . The wheelbase was certainly a 9ft, and I have only slightly modified that. The body had been shortened from an incorrect OO and O scale model. It was correct length but side doors were too wide. I think to keep it in proportion to fit a 10ft wheelbase , companies such a Hornby Dublo (and still produced by Dapol) stetched the side doors a bit. The Lima (and Triang Novo) O gauge ones had this same fault. I wonder if they just resized the original HD one! It is not obvious to casual eyes. Many use the incorrect Lima and Triang ones in O gauge, and once heavily weathered it is even less noticable. As for producing various wagon chassis, that is a good idea. I don't do many wagons, but those Ido are designed with a separate chassis component which I merge with the body for printing.The overhangs at base of body might be an issue as they may be too thin to print without the chassis. From a design point of view it is the brakes that are most difficult to design and position.I can stretch the main frame, and reuse axle boxes. In HO much of the chassis detail is not that easy to see.

Anothee useful 4 wheel chassis is the Bachmann HO Hi Rail bus, the long one. Whel base is abou 68mm, which corresponds toabout 19ft, so would suit some of the BR 4 wheel railbuses, maybe others pre BR. Don;t be tempted by the older version of this chassis as is is not very good. Not always easy to get hold of, and price has shot up, but here iis one on ebay . https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Bachmann-HO-GAUGE-46215-WHITE-BUS-WITH-HIGH-RAILERS-BOXED-GC6-3/254321467078?_trkparms=aid%3D111001%26algo%3DREC.SEED%26ao%3D1%26asc%3D20160727114228%26meid%3D438310fe8b2f42569a1a2057bee325ab%26pid%3D100290%26rk%3D2%26rkt%3D4%26sd%3D174156537819%26itm%3D254321467078%26pmt%3D0%26noa%3D1%26pg%3D2060778&_trksid=p2060778.c100290.m3507

Possibly the most commn wagon , essential for most post 1940s layouts. THis was why I chose to do one as my first standard gauge wagon for 3D printing. Unfortunately I did not have any scal drawings at the time so worked from a model, one which had been stretch to fit a 10ft cassis. As this has been pointed out to me, and I now have drawings I thought I would redesign the standard 16T wagon, plus a couple of less common ones which had been built to workin Europe at end of WW2. http://www.rue-d-etropal.com/3d-print-photos/industrial/MOWT-16t-slope-sided-mineral-wagon-1a.jpghttp://www.rue-d-etropal.com/3d-print-photos/industrial/MOS-16t-sncf-mineral-wagon-1a.jpg The original one I had printed took standard HO(10.5mm) wheels. Some cleanig out will n]be necessary, but once wheels have revolved a few times the nylon gets nice an smooth and free running can be achieved. The basic nylon, I think is suitable for what is not a clean smooth wagon in use, and it is a lot stronger than the finer plastics. I have modified the chassis which is common to al the 16T wagons. I did look at doing body ad chassis separately but at this scale/size the price is not much different.

it might be intended for trams but would fit any 40ft coach/railcar, eg Liverpool Overhead Railway.

Just received from Japan, a nice small bogie chassis, HO . Probably designed for a tram, but might suit some small railcars or locos. It scales out at about 40ft long. Bogies have wheelbase of about 17mm, wheels diameter is 9mm. Bogie tobogie centres is 80mm. It is described as Trolley Power Trucks. Model number TW-MTR03. I bought a couple a few years ago, and found they ran very well, and went round my sharp railway curves(250mm radius). Unfortunately they just disap[eared off the market, but I think a batch has just been released. They sell very quickly. Only had 2 problems with them. Firstly one I had shorted out , but thar was fixed with extra insulation under weights. Second problem, my fault, was when I droped the railcar fitted, and one of the universal joinyts broke. After a bit of thinking, I designed a 3D printed replacement which actually worked, by=ut whines a bit(I think it must resonate in the plastic which is one of the better types more suited to mechanical movement). Some might find the wheel profile a bit coarse, but I prefer somthing that actually works, and my track can sometimes be a bit uneven, but more typical of narrow gauge lines I used the units for. Not sure what I am going to use this one for yet. More thought about the J72 chassis,I wonder if anyone has hacked the old Bachmann one apart to get rid of some of the metal. Main problem I have found is the length of the back end, which is too long for most small 0-6-0 tank locos, but might fit an 0-6-2. I managed to fit one in my LBSCR E1 tank loco. Position of side tanks also can be a problem so might need to remove some of the metal on sides. It would probably mean having to redrill holes for screws. Alternative might be to design a 3D printed chassis based on the Bachmann one, with extra pickups on the wheels. There are now likely to be some cheap J72 chassis on the market, and converting one would be a lot cheaper than trying to fit one of the new ones. Might try to find a nice cheap chassis to play arond with.

I have found the Tenshodo bogies iffsy . Work OK at first, but I have had problems with wear on gears. Metro Models used to sell the ENDO unit, far better, but no longer seems to be available. There are some fancy bogies available from a well known Japanese shop, not cheap and you have to assemble them - looks like only one type as well. Although not stricklynormal r2r, I think the ones Loconstuff do are best option. He can do virtually any wheelbase , most wheel sizes, as well as a tender dive unit with unpowered centre axle. Does anyone do a small gearbox to fit standard 1/8thaxles. The ones on DJH are a bit big for some locos, and I am sure , that one connected via a universal drive would work and mean motor could be easily fitted. Have had another look at new J72 chassis info. The magazine reviews show insides. Not happy they have put motor at front, as that has meant part of boiler is attached to seat the motor - jusy so they can have fire box glow!!!! Might make it tricky to fit in some locos.

everyone has their own ideas on this.I have found sanding down with non clogging sandpaper works. Not a quick job, but worth it. First thing to do is put a drop of cheap liquid superglue on those buffers(possibly the steps as well). They can be fragile. The WSF is granular so the gue soaks in , and binds the granules. They also swell a little(not really visible). Once surface is how you want, you can paint /stain with ANY water based paint(even cheap emulsion test pot paint). Don't be tempted to spray paint as the WSF will just absorb it.

It is also possible to look at items from all sides using the 3D tool. Unfortunately I don't think it works with all systems , in particular mobile devises. It is a very powerful tool and if you line it up properly you can do screen shots to check it it fits . I think a lot of people i the hobby don't undestand difference between OO and HO. In fact I think quite a few don't understand 'scale' .Not helped when companies still use the term OO/HO or HO/OO on their products.

I think they did consider inset track at one time. I designed my own range of 3D printed inset track , just add the rails. I do have an idea, for something which would not be 3D printed, just need someoe to take it on. Nice to see OO setrack with unifrogs. I suspect they were coming up for renewal. If anyone wants a tighter radius, then the original Setrack curved point was first radius. I think Peco abandoned it , when r2r models were being produced that needed a minmum of seond radius. I have never had a problem with running small locos on Setrack,. The main problem is not the frog but poor contact between the point blades and the ajoining rail. I fixed this problem by hardwiring the point blades so they are always powered. I think Peco had considered doing this, as there is a gap under one sleeper to run a thin wire.