TangoOscarMike

I have a cunning plan. In the long term I'm going to separate the glazing from the roofs. But before I do that I'm going to use one roof and its glazing to hold the two coach pieces together while the glue sets, thus: Dry-fitted like this there is some play on both sides, but a little bit too much on the side facing the camera. So I'm going to follow Gibbo's suggestion for filling the gap. Then I'll put the two halves on a flat surface, weigh them down with coins (I have a teapot full of little coins - perhaps you have a jam jar) and glue them together, using the roof/glazing like this for alignment. Maybe I'll use tin foil to stop the glazing from getting stuck to the coach sides. If I'm really lucky the join will be so good that it doesn't need reinforcement.

I'm glad it worked out for you back then, even if only temporarily. I had lots of good ideas, but I rarely attempted them, and what I did often ended badly. As an adult (able to cut straight lines and buy my own brass) I'm mainly fulfilling the daydreams of my 11/12/13/14 year-old self.

So, I've removed the coach ends to produce Ann and Clarib, so that I may merge them into Annabelle. I've kept both faces, which was perhaps a little ghoulish of me. Instead of sawing I used a craft knife and made many, many tedious cuts along the sides of the doors, in order to minimise the amount of material lost. I tidied the cut ends with very light sanding, and I'm pretty pleased with the results. There is a hairsbreadth gap on one side, and I'm debating whether or not to fill it. I might be able to rely on the glue to fill the gap. I'm also trying to decide whether or not to remove the paint. I've painted straight over this finish in the past, without any problems. But maybe painting on clean plastic would be better, and maybe this applies to gluing too. I would welcome any advice. Cheers Tom

Until this morning I thought that polished brass domes invariably looked better than painted domes. I now know that I was wrong. That is really very pleasing to the eye.

They look like Annie and Clarabel. There are far worse problems in the world, so I'm not going to start a campaign or anything. But it's a pity that Hornby didn't put a little more effort into these two. Tom

Good Evening - Tom here - avid lurker, occasional poster. This story begins with my first attempt at 3D printing. I made seats for one of my (almost 40 year old) Hornby 4 wheel coaches. This was absurd for two reasons, one of which is obvious to everyone. There is far, far more detail than could possibly be visible through the tiny windows. The second reason it's absurd is that I didn't leave enough clearance between the partitions and the sides. When I tried to put the roof on, I got it jammed - stuck half way on. Bother. The tragic result has been sitting in a box for many months, and a while ago I decided that I would not get the roof off again without cutting somewhere. I can't separate the glazing from the roof, because it isn't accessible all the way along. So I'll probably have to cut off part of an end compartment. Which gives me an opportunity to try cutting and shutting for the first time. Inspired by the work of Nile ( https://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/82968-niles-mostly-freelance-bodging-bench-cattle-wagons/page-20&do=findComment&comment=2313848 ) and others, I've decided to combine two 4-wheel coaches into one 6-wheel / 5-compartment coach. I've started by buying some brass (sheet/strip/channel) and cutting out some pieces. After another disgraceful episode of the "Tom Can't Solder for Toffee Chronicles", I have the beginnings of a chassis: And I've bought an Annie and a Clarabel from an online vendor. I lied to myself, saying that one was a spare. But of course I'm going to cut them both up, and preserve my childhood coach for my second attempt! Cheers Tom

The separate-bearing option is now on my to-do list, and one fine day I'll do it! Not soon, though.... Gibbo, as you've doubtless noticed, I'm very circumspect about offering any of these 3D prints for sale until they've been thoroughly tested. With the 5-bogie-2-pocket sprue I think we might be nearing this point, but I'll hold off until you report successful use of the NEM pocket. Cheers Tom

Hello Mike I reckon this is a question for both of us. The bearing is simply a conical hole to accept the point of the axle. I think that the plastic is hard and smooth enough for this, although my tests aren't very scientific. I put the wheels in, observe that there is minimal play, then spin the wheel with my finger - it spins for a good long while. Gibbo may well have made some more meaningful tests. I've been testing with a set of wheels that Gibbo sent me, but I don't know who made them (they have hard pointy metal axles). I've also been testing with some 12mm Hornby wagon wheels (wrong diameter, but that makes no difference to the tests). There is no reason (apart from the time, effort and cost!) not to make an alternative set of bogies with cylindrical holes to take a metal bearing. Gibbo, do you have more to say on this? Can you tell us what wheels you're using? I've been meaning to ask in any case. Regards Tom

Morning Gibbo I gave a clearance of 0.03mm between the brackets and the grooves. I pulled this number out of thin air, and evidently it wasn't quite enough. Let me know if you think it's worth experimenting with the clearance. If it was really only a very slight amount of filing then perhaps we should leave it as is, rather than risk turning the snug fit into a loose fit. Cheers Tom

Hello! Normally I just lurk here, but since you've set a challenge, I'll bite: 1) Detail (cover for non-existent inside cylinders, was it?) removed from front edge of smokebox. 2) Bigger flared chimney cap. I recall that these things were called funnels when I was little. But since returning to the hobby I find that they're chimneys. Also trucks have become wagons. Maybe I'm mis-remembering. 3) Change in bunker shape. 4) Cylindrical thing (brake? rocket launcher?) in the cab. You see, I'm moderately observant but pretty ignorant. Cheers Also Tom

I'm glad to see those completed Gibbo, especially the modified Rocket.

Well, I like it a lot. This sort of thing is right up my street, as you know. And since it's Edwardian GWR, I may as well make a public confession of what I've told you in private: I'd love to see a model of the Broad Gauge equivalent. What would have been the GWR's state-of-the-art around the turn of the century if they'd continued to develop locomotive technology for 7' 1/4" . Cheers Tom

I blush and doff my cap sir!

Thank you Northroader. This is what I like about RMweb - one scratches the surface of a topic and instantly hits a rich vein of knowledge and advice. I will definitely incorporate what you've said into future designs, and hopefully into another revision of this design. There is in fact a lever reverser. I forgot to mention it because it's not actually visible in this picture. It's a little bit small and inadequate, and it's mashed into the right hand side of the firebox because (with Shapeways' "strong and flexible" plastic) the 3D printing process couldn't support the entire length of the lever, standing upright on its own. Cheers Tom

I've been lurking on this thread and not posting, since I'm offering products for sale. But since you ask, here is my crude, bare-minimum, easily-painted (relatively easily) backhead from one of my 3D printed tank engine bodies. I'm far from being an expert, but I think I've done enough to make it look OK to the untrained eye. There are: Two fillers. Two water gauges. A regulator. A brake, with vacuum gauge. A firebox door (the top of the door is just visible in this picture). A pressure gauge (hidden by the cab roof in this picture). Cheers -Other Tom

I really like the way this is turning out. It makes me feel like a rock star!

From where I'm sitting the Double Fairlie is the Holy Grail of pugbashing. If one starts with the Hornby Holden, then it'll require some butchery to the back of the two chassis to bring them close together. Otherwise they'll be miles apart, and therefore at crazy angles on tight curves. Tom

That looks like some good precise work. I can never cut plasticard (or anything else) with the precision I would like. How do you feel about the strength of the join?

Dear All Thank you all for the on-going feedback. I haven't been ignoring you - I'm on holiday and I've been away from the Internet. This is a quick summary of the current status: I'm working on a major overhaul of the design, based on the feedback here and some off-line correspondence with Gibbo. The key features are: Basic geometry: I think that I can bring the tender forward by moving the locomotive's rear coupling loop under the tender footplate. This will address the problem of the over-long firebox and cab, and the overhang at the back of the locomotive. Basic geometry: Higher boiler, thinner boiler. I am constrained here by the motor and its mount, but I think I was over-cautious so there's some room for improvement. Basic geometry: Taller cab. Most of the detail-adjustment discussed in this thread will be included. To some specific points: @Neil: The closer I get to that Furness Railway locomotive, the happier I'll be. In due course I will buy myself one of the inside cylinder 0-4-0 tank engines, and I will probably end up producing versions of the tender engine for both chassis types. @DavidCBroad: You mention hand rails. I've deliberately excluded hand rails from my models in Shapeways' "White Strong and Flexible" plastic, because it can't support detail this fine. Hand rails would end up huge and lumpy (as moulded hand rails can be). I think that the addition of such fine detail is best left to the end-user (and I would love to see people taking my models and bringing them up to the standards that I see on this web site). I might revisit this decision. One possibility would be to produce a separate set of hand rails in a higher quality plastic. Another possibility would be to try harder with my chosen plastic. @CrossEyedMary: I would certainly like to produce models for other chassis, besides the two Hornby 0-4-0s. I'm not aware of any other chassis that is quite so low-cost or readily available (I'm sure there are people on this web site who sometimes find Smokey Joes in their trouser turn-ups or down the back of the sofa). I'm definitely open to suggestions. @LNWR18901910: When I posted the pictures I thought that the tender engine was more or less ready for production - I didn't think I could improve it much. Based on the feedback I've received I now have a mental picture of something much better, but regrettably it's going to be a bit of a slog before I can offer it for sale. Cheers Tom

Sorry about the late response - I'm on holiday and I've been away from the Internet. In the short term, I'm concentrating on the low-cost Hornby 0-4-0 chassis (and so far only the outside cylinder variant). I want my products to be a gentle introduction to customisation, based on something readily available. For these purposes it makes sense for my models to be (a) freelance and (b) somewhat toy-like (hence the name of the shop). The Peckett W4 is too expensive and too high-quality as a starting point for this sort of thing. But if I'm successful with what I'm doing, then I may well turn my attention to it in the future. In the medium term I have several more ideas for the low-cost 0-4-0 chassis, including a Barclay style saddle tank with vertical sides. I've been having fun with freelance designs, but sooner or later I will try to make something a little more prototypical.

Tim is right, of course - you should contact the designer. But as Nile says, it looks as though it doesn't need separate bearings (the wheels are mentioned under "To complete the wagon...." but bearings are not). For what it's worth, I can offer my experience. I've used the same plastic and the same wheels for an experimental 3D printed tender. The design simply has conical holes on the inside of the axle boxes, and the wheels slipped in with no trouble at all, just as they do on the Hornby wagons. It was only an experiment, and I wasn't really expecting it to work very well. But in fact (after a bit of initial stiffness) the wheels have been turning extremely easily. Since the wheels bedded in so nicely I expected (I am a professional pessimist) that they would soon wear their holes into something with excessive play. But so far this has not been the case - everything is fine. Cheers Tom

Thanks for all that detail Bernard. The Brake vans are appealing because they already have a step board, so that simplifies the conversion. My intention is to provide a straightforward conversion for readily-available R-T-R rolling stock. It might therefore be best to provide a few different versions for a few different chassis designs. I should also consider things from other manufactures, such as the various Dapol wagon chassis, which are available on their own. Regards Tom

Yup. I've seen it mentioned in several places that the Hornby coach is a little tall, so I used on of the Ratio 4-wheelers as a guideline. Oh, I like those a lot. I think I might delve into my pockets and buy one or both. It gives me hope that (although my coach doesn't represent a real prototype), there is probably something from the middle of the 19th century that roughly matches, in terms of general proportions. After all, this is true for the Hornby 4-wheeler itself.

That hadn't entered my head. It might not work out, because the clearance under the chassis is a little tight. It also goes against the idea of an extremely simple conversion. Nevertheless, I shall go in search of bigger wheels and give it a try. Thanks for the suggestion.

This is not a prototype, it is more of a sketch. It's the 3D printed equivalent of a doodle in the margin of a notebook. I was going to keep this under my hat and develop it a bit further. But my last post was extremely fruitful, in terms of top-quality constructive criticism, so I'm going to prevail upon your kindness again and ask for feedback. When I was... however old I was back then... I would hold my goods vans alongside my 4 wheel Hornby coaches. And I thought then (and I think now) that it would be nice to have a 2-compartment short-wheelbase coach. It might not be prototypical, but perhaps it could add a pleasing narrow-gauge feel to a 00 layout. Here it is, alongside the inspiration (the 4 wheel coach and the pork van) and an example of the wagon that donated the chassis. In addition to the coach body there is a step board, although it's a little hard to see in this picture. I would be grateful for any comments, but I also have a couple of specific questions: 1) Copying the style of the Hornby 4 wheel coach, I have used a raised beading to make painting the panels and the lining easier. Is this catastrophically unrealistic? 2) This particular type of wagon is useful because it is held together by two screws, so it is very easy to make the conversion (and very easy to put it back the way it was). But the chassis looks a little small, and the buffers are somewhat lower than those of my other Hornby rolling stock. Can anyone comment on this? Thanks in advance! Tom