Irish_R_M

I model Irish broad gauge, and use code 100,simply because I have so much of it lying around and it's easy to file down. It also has a visual heft that I don't think 75 has, but mine is a quayside layout, so sleeper spacing isn't an issue. I also like the concept of using pizza cutter wheels and reliable running, whilst still being to scale. The numbers of folk that think this is a sensible modelling decision can be counted on a single digit... Rich.

Paint the buffers in good metallic paint, wait 24 hours, then polish them with a soft cloth to bring up the shine. Get your metallic paint, add a dash of black and a hair of talc, to make up a gunk. Apply with a cotton bud to the outside of the buffers and use a clean bud to keep the central area shinyish. I've enough of the stuff on my high vis from surveys, I should bottle the stuff! Rich

Gimp is actually quite good but is a bit "horse designed by committee" Photoshop 5.5 is actually one of the better versions of the software from a usability perspective, a version I used for years without hassle. The current versions have little actual improvements, I'd even venture to say that I find them more resource heavy, even on my custom rig. If you can reinstall 5.5, you'll be happy out. Rich.

Automated trains, operated by an all seeing eye, with total control over the stock movements without thought for the permanently empty passenger stock? Sounds a lot like a hobby I rather enjoy RM

As someone who has had the misery of teaching it to sheet metal workers who wanted to get off the factory floor up to the office and lads what fancied drawings cars, 'cos they liked "subru imprezzas" CAD is for some, but not for all. It's not as intuitive as it was when I started on Autocad LT '97, it's all ribbons and workspaces and well, a mess, and nothing much has changed in the business of actually doing a drawing on a screen in those 21 years. But if you can open a blank page, click on screen and point the cursor in a direction, and tap in a unit of measurement, the world is you oyster. I do a lot of styrene scratchbuilding of wagons, using many layers to cut, and a single one to score a component. That means knowing the machine really well and having a design process that is just for that styrene cutting process. I've found times where I've taken cad from that process into the manufacture world and just ditched it, favouring the start afresh approach. The brass CAD work involves much more than just colouring in what parts are half etched or fully etched. Doing CAD for brass work, or nickel silver is different to any other aspect of this model making lark. The thickness of the material needs to be taken into account, which in turn effects the amount of half etch, and the bending point of the material. This will have a knock-on when it comes to fitting things together, and you'd be surprised at the difference a 0.1mm error makes in an etch layout. I've found that this is only something that you fully understand after spending money on etches and learning the hard way. I think its helpful to have built a good many kits in order to know, for example, that if you put a tab at the end of a thin component, that once you attempt to file it once off the etch, it won't fold like a german football team. You may have a really brilliant idea with a 10BA nut sitting in a corner, that works on screen, and once you go to solder it to the baseplate, it's location dictates the opening gets flooded with molten solder. You get my jist! But those who take to it, take to it with brilliance, and there's nothing quite as satisfying as working with an elegant brass kit that has been though the analysis of an expert so much, that you know it will all come together with ease. It's deep dive territory, but if you're in the design world already, it should be familiar territory. I think you should get stuck in and get a few etches made, we need more fresh thinking in that discipline! It's just such a pity there's no such thing as a desktop brass etching machine, where you make all the howlers at home! Rich P.S. It'll also give Ivan a reason to buy yer kits http://www.graingeandhodder.co.uk/photo-etching1.html

It's an interesting theory, and that's where it would end I reckon. The amount of hours I've seen brass kit makers put into doing patterns, (not to mention 100's of hours on research of the proto) then test building the etch, assembling it, tweaking, rinse and repeat, suggest to me that it's a labour of love and fidelity. I've assisted in a few kits, and I certainly wouldn't put it out there for someone to go down the local etchers and run off a couple of kits without a schilling coming my way. But, in order to keep this positive, I assume you want to get into doing brass kit making or even testing the water? Rich.

Goddamned Autotrader Correlation on these phone things... Apologies Ollie (and Mike), no harm meant.

Yay! Glad it worked out. Put the fluid through a sieve or mesh, to remove the crud and you'll get years of use out of it. RM

Heh, I have designed it so that the bodgers amongst us can remove the door assembly, the locking bars, clip off the cosmetic poles, micro drill the bits, insert some brass rod, and make a poseable door for a diorama. Go wield those tools Rob! RM

Bullied Turfburner grey?

I'll chuck this is in , though it may be a bit late. The B&Q types do a flexible tile adhesive, that when applied has the colour and texture that looks "right", best finish I've ever seen tbh. Drops of oil and varnish to finish it off, work a treat. RM

I read an interesting piece on another (shock horror) forum about a gent returning to the hobby after an absence, and he was only familiar with the "pizza cutter" standards of yesteryear. On getting "stuck in" he discovered forums/fora and finescale standards, and all manner of deep dive components to the hobby, mobile phone control, DCC. and so on. Now most folk, on re-engaging with a hobby, would be petrified at the notion that their boyhood world had changed beyond belief, and might phase out their renewed interest. But, as if they had a quest to become miniature engineers, or slaves to prototype track design, or an expert in the curves of a GWR roof coach, they would take to the task, like a duck to water, and within a short space of time buy every book, google what they could, or set up a blog to tell folk of their discoveries/bodges, a niche is found that is comfortable. The good news is that the chap from the "other place" went full deep dive into track standards, and loved it, challenging as it was. Others questioned his wonky buildings. But that's precisely the point. As a conservation architect and a railway designer, there are possibly no perfect layouts (i'm not a signalling wizz, nor operational font), but there are some layouts that rekindle an era, smell, memory, something that anchors one to the past, but keeps one present. And if it's a middle aged gent in the attic with a large roundy roundy, it also is an anchor to his memory passed. Thoughts welcome. RM.

Have you tried brake fluid on it, in a bath for a few hours. It's not aggressive on clear glazing. RM.

Good lord no, each to their own. That's the whole point of the hobby really, despite our aspirations that folk will want scale & working point rodding, wheel profiles, gauge, coal in the bunker and tobacco in the signal mans pipe. Sometimes lads are just happy to "play trains"! *heads off to the shed to design a MK1 coach that never really had that pattern, with bogies than never ran with them, and buffers that were only introduced after withdrawal of the prototype....not to mention a corridor connection it never had... * RM

.

Can I just chip in here, briefly. I try to design stuff to accomadate P4, EM and 00, and I've tried to take published data on wheelset and track standards into CAD, and have found, that despite re-doing then several times, the wheel profiles never "complete" to something I'd be confident of issuing to a manufacturer - i.e. "please build to these tolerances" It would appear to be a case of "works fine in practice, but I'm not sure about the theory" And secondly, I'm very much engaged with this civilised thread, some very interesting commentaries that have both destroyed some theories, and reinforced others. RM

The nearest profile for RP54 real rail (I think that's the designation), is code 83 rather than code 75. I mean, who's going to excited over 8 thousands of an inch? (insert smutty joke if you wish) Personally, I prefer Code 100 as it's easier to file and work with. I use it on 21mm stuff and it has a certain visual "heft" that 75 just doesn't convey. But I'm an oddball, so forgive my use of code 100 on proto track gauge...! RM

You Sir, are most welcome. Yes, each and every piece of text is unique and have several alphabets now made up of legitimate handwriting, ropey stencils, oddball markings, all from real folk who inspected these wagons that will be expanded upon and put to use in years to come. Great to see that you guys appreciate the nerd factor we put into this Once again, we are humbled by your words. RM

Just to pop in and say hello, follow the topic and such. Cut my teeth making mods for Battlefield 2 when EA were nice, still an avid gamer when time permits, and a good excuse to upgrade the rig for "work purposes" Company of Heroes 1 & 2 games of choice of a friday evening, and I'm dreadful for random purchases on Steam and giving things a go. Nice to see railway modellers are a broad church! RM.

Yeah, I know Mike, I even charge for that service...Shocking what folk will do for a bit of filth between the axle boxes... RM

Sad news Fran, I'll have to put away the mouse and calipers, go QC some stock so! (Can I rob a set to weather to within an inch of it's life?) RM

There was no royal bun fight over the SSM sulzer. The issue was that the louvres weren't well received, and to Des' credit he produced an etched louvre panel in jig time. I've built several of them, tweaking the front face and windows, but under the right chassis,, they look and run really well. It's a step change from the Silverfox kit by a country mile. RM

Yed a had me at "Hello..." RM

Hi Mike, We survey the piece of rolling stock (I've an inherent mistrust of Works' Drawings), do the 2d line drawings and then the 3D model. At least that way we know that there's been no compromise on body shape or overall dimensions and then we get into the nitty gritty with the Asian Engineers about min thicknesses of plastic and so on. This process helps keep the focus on producing a model, rather than worrying whether an Asian Engineer can capture the "look" of a prototype he/she has never seen before. We'll then do the decoration (colours) and graphics plates (markings, running numbers) and dispatch those. That project is effectively done from the design end and I can move on to the next, whilst the other lads take it from there with Box Art, R&D, Sales, Marketing etc. I've over simplified the process, and there's loads of crossover of roles between all four of us, and plenty refining of the process required yet, but it suits us, though every day is a school day. RM. (p.s. we also have ways of validating a design with non-existent stock )

Ah here, I can't even measure up me Bulleid Turf Burner in peace.. RM