TangoOscarMike

I haven't done it myself, because I'm satisfied with the result of a few coats of paint. Simply applying multiple layers of thin acrylic produces a finish smooth enough for my tastes (although the smokebox door is never completely satisfactory). Several people in this forum have done it, for example Nile here: and again here: "After some coats of Tar Black and sanding it is a bit smoother" - so he's just painting and sanding. An alternative would be to apply a coat or two of spray primer, and then sand back. This stuff is usually fairly thick, so the process might be quicker. If you attempt painting/sanding, you have to decide how to deal with the detail (beading, smokebox door handle). You could: EITHER allow the details to be obliterated by the process (you could even sand or carve them off at the beginning (in this case you could have to replace the details afterwards); OR preserve the detail by carefully re-sculpting it as you sand. In the case of my 3D prints the details are not particularly fine, so either approach should be straightforward (but will require some work!). Cheers Tom

Me too! Well, more like 45 years. I suppose it was the Airfix kit

It is often or always the case, I think, that RTR models/toys have lots of nicely moulded detail that is lost to the eye because they are just chunks of monochrome plastic. I wonder about the people who make the original models and work on the tooling. Perhaps they look at the finished product and think "well, that doesn't do justice to all my hard work - hopefully Nile will come along and finish the job properly".

Thank you! Alas, they have not contacted me. If they did, I would be interested in talking with them. I have also not heard from any record labels, for some reason. Yes, I intend to make it available on Shapeways. Hopefully sooner rather than later, although the day job keeps expanding into my free time.

Thank you! It was conceived as a Victorian/Edwardian Steampunk machine, hence the ornate lining. But I'm pretty sure that with the proper livery it would work as a baby Coronation. And perhaps with a pastel-pink and chrome livery it could be something from the 50s.

Well, it's the best part of 18 months since the arrival of Hornby's steampunk items (or is it? I've lost all track of time). Anyway, my response project is finished, and I've posted the final pictures in @Corbs Pugbash thread:

And all of a sudden it's finished. Thanks are due to @LNWR18901910 and @Gibbo675 for their advice and encouragement. It looks alright-ish, I think, with my "normal" tender design. Small streamliners are ideal for small, fast, short-distance trains. This one connects the city centre with the airship towers, out in the surrounding countryside. It does not stop at small suburban stations.

That's pretty effective. Before reading your description I thought it was real coal.

I'm sorry about your setbacks, and I hope you get your Mojo back and increase your activity again sooner rather than later. I'm in the opposite situation: toy trains are the only thing that is working out for me right now. Everything else has turned to soup (no drama or tragedy, just endlessly treading on the banana skins of life and getting custard pies of frustration in my face).

It seems to me that these considerations sometimes have a sort of moral subtext. I think there might be people who believe that it is bad and wrong to make a freelance model railway. Such views (if truly held by anybody) would be purest nonsense, except in cases where inaccurate or invented models were represented as historically accurate (perhaps at an exhibition, or in an educational context). That would be bad and wrong. In any case, railway modelling is an activity awash with compromises. Many of us (I) cheerfully model SG using track with the wrong gauge. Many of us (I) accept couplings that are woeful eyesores. Some people carefully model real buildings, but (tasetully) lop off a storey and a wing to make them fit. Few people have space for curves with realistic radii, or realistic train lengths. Practically everyone who paints a figure out-of-uniform is choosing colours - that's freelance modelling! There are people who would not tolerate freelance locomotives and rolling stock, but don't mind putting them in a fictitious setting. Nobody has a 2mm finescale robotic station master, limping up and down the platform because the cold weather exacerbates his war wound, and frowning because he cannot light his pipe. And nobody models realistic timetables for modern rural branches, because two trains a day would be pretty dull. In my opinion, prioritising one type of realism over another is purely a matter of taste. But everyone has an obligation to give a lucid account, to exhibition attendees, of the ways in which their model is realistic or unrealistic.

Just a very small amount of mayonnaise on mine, please. Ta.

Freelance modelling allows us to play at being Brunel, or Stephenson, or Churchward, or Gresley, or some other creative engineer. Freelance narrow-gauge modelling allows us to do it discretely, in a quiet little corner!

There's no doubt that an inkjet printer is a modern marvel, and waterslide transfer paper makes very difficult modelling tasks fairly straightforward. But. Yesterday I spent a while going through my printer's self-cleaning procedure, and making sure that all software elements were in the correct state. Then I printed 3 copies of my lining transfers on half a sheet of paper. Step 2 of the process is to spray a couple of coats of gloss varnish over the printed transfers. And like a fool (so much like a fool that I'm beginning to suspect I am one) I used a brand of varnish that I haven't used before. This resulted in a quite interesting crazed effect. Rather aesthetically pleasing, but no use at all. I am Captain Haddock. I'll try again tomorrow.

Oh, absolutely. It's also Mother's Day in these parts, so happy that as well!

This project is a sort of practical demonstration of Zeno's Paradox. I tried to use the Mandolin A string for a handrail, but it was a little too stiff and I broke one of the knobs (they are very fragile). Fortunately I had printed many more than I needed, so a replacement was immediately available. I think it would be far better to use brass knobs. So instead of the steel string, I've used black nylon (?) bristles cut from a scrubbing brush. And the result is good enough for me. Thanks to @LNWR18901910 for suggesting these rails. In other news, I couldn't progress with the lining because I used up my last sheet of waterslide transfer paper on a mis-print. So I ordered some more, but it took weeks to arrive because it had to cross a border.... But now it's here and I'm ready to go again.

There are steps at the back of my streamlined tender, and I have some 3D printed knobs for handrails. My first set of knobs were too fragile, and also a little too tall, so I redesigned them. The new ones (a little bit shorter and fatter) are on the right. The new ones are also rather delicate - one was missing from the flat plate "sprue" when they arrived (I had to override Shapways' we-won't-print-this-it's-too-flimsy). Each row of four knobs has holes in a line, the idea being to thread the handrail through the four holes before snapping them of the plate, thus: The handrail in this case is a musical instrument string (a mandolin E string, I think), which is thin enough to go through the holes and suitably springy. The purpose of the string at this point is to stop me from losing the knobs, and to hold them in rough alignment when I fit them into the holes in the tender (after drilling out the holes). This string may or may not actually become the handrail in the finished tender - I might go for the slightly thicker A string.

Thanks Phil! I'm not very good at doing something more than once - the big challenge for me now is to make my other chassis into coaches before my attention wanders. Oooh! Cake! This probably condemns me to a life of being an employee: I'm good at solving problems, but not so good at organising stuff! So there's probably no danger of any of my hobbies turning into a career. Also, I like my job, most of the time.

Thank Bernard. My "research" was pretty sloppy: Ffestiniog: single central buffer/coupling Talyllyn: side buffers More of a coin toss than proper research. I suppose that the Peco coupling is actually a model representation of a single central buffer, with an added coupling loop. So it might be wise to standardise on Peco couplings and no side-buffers. But I'm going to stick with the N-gauge couplings, which in their turn seem like a plausible representation of the various types of knuckly-coupling things..... Since I'm operating at the toy-trains end of the spectrum, I might decide that I don't care, which will lead to an implausible mixture of stock with and without buffers.

Yesterday I made a roof, in the usual way, with plasticard strapped to a tin can of hot water (in fact, I put the can on the cooker and brought the water almost to the boil). Then last night I couldn't sleep, so I got up and worked on it (central partition, ears to hold the roof on, oil lamp holders, rain strips) until there was nothing else to do. I've never made a mostly-plasticard model like this, and I really enjoy how quick and straightforward it is: cut, glue, cut, glue..... I think I must have internalised a lot of what I've read on RMweb, because I wasn't thinking very much - I knew what to do, although I'd never done it before. I need to decide what to do about the buffers. There are various options, and I don't need to have buffers at all. But the height and spacing of the existing N-gauge buffers are pretty similar to the Peco coach. So if I ignore the rather short shanks, then all I have to do is enlarge the buffer heads. And I suppose I don't have to even do that.

And here we are. The hinges are just scraps of plasticard. I was thinking of adding pieces of stretched sprue for the hinge barrels, but I decided to quit while I was ahead. The handles are whittled from L-section.

It's a good idea, especially given the likelihood (I suppose) that prospective 009 modellers will be designing their own freelance rolling stock. It would also be good to include real prototypical information. I would like to know if my small DM75 and DM76 are similar to anything that exists in real life. I'm sure there are coaches that small on the smaller narrow gauges (15", maybe). But were there ever any coaches that small on 2'3", I wonder? I won't start a dedicated thread until I actually have something to contribute.....

These things are a source of constant temptation for me: https://www.lightrailwaystores.co.uk/collections/all/006-5 https://www.busch-model.info/modellbau/katalog/loks-wagen-zubehoer/feldbahn-lokomotiven-wagen/?p=1 I agree with the others - excellent stonework.

Assembly in progress.

This pair of photographs is like the drum roll leading up to the finale of a high-wire act!

Two coach ends, and the jig I used to assemble them. The wire I used for the rail is far too thick. But it was all I could find, and I was on a roll. Fortunately, I have enough self control to add hinges and handles to the doors before assembling the sides and ends. That's what I'm doing now.