D869

You dont need to spend any money to find out. QCAD has a free version so you can figure out whether it will do what you want. If you want to use the DWG format (or a few other features) then you will need the paid version. It's a little bit non-obvious - you need to download the QCAD Professional version, install it and then remove some files to 'downgrade' it to the free version. The pro version will work too but it is time limited.

OK, can of worms officially opened... First, the simple answer... yes the QCAD 'explode' command will turn text into polylines. Whether it does exactly what you'd want is another matter - the polylines just give you the outlines of the letters - there is nothing filling in those outlines... which is probably not what you want for etch artwork. You can probably colour them in, but it's more work. Artwork for nameplates and such like is one area where I'm not too happy with my approach. My approach produces results that I'm very happy with but I'm not happy with it for other reasons that I will explain. Let's look at some artwork... At first glance you might not think that there are any challenges here but there are a few... The most obvious is the ability to lay out text on an arc (Chas Roberts works plates need this too). I don't think QCAD can do it. Maybe other CAD packages can. The less obvious one is the ability to mess with word and letter spacing. Think about laying out 'ACTON HALL' and 'SHIRENEWTON HALL' on the same sized plate - it can be done but you need to play with the spacing. The final one is kerning of individual letter pairs. 'AR' for example meet with a serif at the base so don't need any adjustment. 'ON' on the other hand has just one serif at the base, so the layout looks more natural if the two letters are squished together a bit. 'WA' would be a better example, but there are none of those on this plate. I did this artwork entirely in Inkscape - it's a vector graphics package and it has excellent text layout features that I suspect are lacking in most CAD packages. ...so just use Inkscape then... what's the problem? Well, even considering just these nameplates, Inkscape is not great at ensuring that the top and bottom borders of the plate and the text baseline are concentric. It can be done but it's a bit of a faff. Getting the end borders to exactly meet the top and bottom borders required manual playing around at high levels of zoom if memory serves. None of that is insurmountable but what if I want mix this stuff with other artwork that has been done in CAD to fill up a sensible sized sheet? Then I get into all of the joys of either importing SVG into CAD or importing DXF into Inkscape... neither of which has worked particularly well when I've tried it. Unless you can find a tool that can do both things well (and maybe some CAD packages can?), I suspect the answer may lie in rendering the artwork from one or other tool into a format with less scope for 'interpretation' - maybe even a high res bitmap and then importing this into a defined area of the artwork in the other tool. I haven't tried it yet so this is just a half-baked idea.

Thanks Mike. Always good to see how other people do things. We were right next to you last year at York with St Ruth so I'd have spent some time picking your brains if I'd known that you were happy to share your knowledge. We wont be there this year but I will try to catch you at Warley. QCAD seems to do the z order just fine... it just gets messed up when moving a DraftSight DWG into a QCAD DXF. I think that a lot of the way I do things is pretty similar to you - the disjointed fills came from someone else's drawing... but that was tried and tested artwork that myself and another person wanted to get etched again on a sheet with some of my own stuff. DraftSight coped with the disjointed fills and it all etched fine but it seems that confuse QCAD. Not a biggy though. I'd want to change it anyway based on the experience of building the first one. FWIW, I do my black and white transformation using two print configs in DWG TrueView (one front, one back) - my aim is to make it happen with the minimum of manual steps so that once it's right it should be right next time around. So far this seems to work pretty well. One difference I did notice is that your black and white is opposite to mine. My understanding is that black stops the UV light from softening the etch resist and therefore means 'metal here please' but maybe I have that wrong... maybe it hardens the resist where the black isn't. I must check that with PPD next time I order something.

Although I have no immediate plans to do any new etches, I've been trying out a few things to see whether I have a workable plan to move away from DraftSight. Plan A is to switch to QCAD, initially the free version unless that turns out to be unworkable. I am trying to avoid running DraftSight at all as 'practice' for when it gets disabled although I still have that option until the end of the year if I get stuck. Although it's possible to switch in and out of the 'pro' features (i.e. DWG support), it's a bit of a pain so I've downloaded the ODA batch file converter from https://www.opendesign.com/guestfiles/oda_file_converter. This uses the same 'Teigha' implementation that is used inside QCAD pro. I used this to convert some artwork files from DWG to the AutoCAD 2000 DXF format which is native to QCAD free. So how has it gone? So far I am reasonably encouraged - I was able to pick up QCAD and start using it to draw new stuff quite easily although it takes a bit of time to find out how to do some things. Importing my existing files from DraftSight DWGs has gone reasonably well albeit with a few bumps in the road. I think that everything will need a close inspection to check for issues. More about the issues in a minute or two. First, just to show that it's not all bad... a screen grab of some stuff (1907 10T tank chassis) that has made the transition (as far as I can see) with no real problems... A couple of issues seen in my own artwork when opened in QCAD after conversion... The most obvious issue is that the 'z order' (or bring to front/send to backness) seems to have been messed up. This is most obvious with text on the etch frame - in most cases the text has disappeared underneath the fill of the frame. Since my text and fills are on different layers this is a very easy fix. Checking and fixing the z order is something that I do as one of the last stages when preparing artwork anyway. On a few components with complex holes and mixes of front and back half etch, the fills have 'leaked' out into surrounding areas. This will need more careful fixing but it's not competely new - I've had the same issue with some parts of my artwork in DraftSight (including, as it happens, the chassis solebars shown above) You can see (sort of) both of these issues in the screen grab below. There should be some dark blue text visible on the frame (this is the z order issue) and the D800 windscreens should definitely be more see through than that - the red fill has 'leaked'. I also tried it on some artwork from a friend. This artwork was originally done (I think) using AutoCAD. This has another issue - I think it is getting confused by fills that are filling more than one 'thing' - for example 'colouring in' multiple etch tabs with a single fill object. You can see this below. The blue triangle links four tabs that are all filled with the same fill object. I turned off the some layers for clarity here. The last issue is not a big one for me because I always fill each tab one by one after PPD complained when I did multi-area fills on my very first set of artwork. The main issue for me is the 'leaking' fills but at the moment that doesn't seem insurmountable (or even particularly new) so I plan to persevere with QCAD. If you choose another tool, as the Americans say, 'Your Mileage May Vary'. Personally, I'd still be scrutinising things very closely whichever tool they are being moved into.

In terms of files for the etchers, I try to stick to PDF now. With DXF or DWG you need to explain your layers to the etcher and there is a risk that something will be lost in their interpretation of what you've done (guess how I know this?). If you send two black and white PDFs then most things that might go wrong are down to you... and therefore under your control to prevent them going wrong. I'm not saying this makes things easier - for example there are oodles of ways to get from CAD to PDF and some are definitely better than others. FWIW I used AutoCAD DWG TrueView to turn out my PDFs last time... and that seems to cope with either DWG or DXF as input. The one thing that I'm paranoid about with PDF is that it might 'adjust' the scale very slightly to achieve a certain margin size. Apart from careful checking, I also put the final frame dimensions as text onto the frame itself so that the etchers can check that the size is spot on before the chemicals hit the metal.

I probably average about 1 etch order per year so the cost of subscribing to DraftSight would pretty much double my outlay. I'm not opposed to paying for software it needs to be in proportion to the use I'm going to get from it. I do use DS for other things but they are all very simple compared to etch artwork. A friend has successfully used QCAD for etch artwork so that will probably be the route I try out first. I'm pretty much expecting some things to go awry but in my experience DraftSight wasn't 100% perfect in exchanging files with AutoCAD shops like PPD and detailed checking was needed before giving the final go-ahead to etch. Regards, Andy

Looks like DraftSight users (including me) will either need to start paying or stop using From https://www.3ds.com/products-services/draftsight-cad-software/download-draftsight/ DraftSight 2019 for Windows® is offered in paid versions only. All free versions of DraftSight (2018 or earlier) will cease to run after 12/31/2019. 99 US Dollars per annum I gather. I won't be going down that road myself. At least those of us already using it have 9 months to figure out alternatives and avoid our existing work being 'locked in' if your new package doesn't have good support for DWG files. Anybody thinking about starting to use it is probably too late already. Thanks to MinerChris for pointing this out. Regards, Andy

Nice photos Pete. Glad it was a good experience. Will see you at Tutbury... I shall be bringing a different kind of tractor to play with all being well.

Another update on my 57xx... We found when testing the loco on St Ruth a couple of weeks ago that there is a point which has the closure rails gapped quite close to the crossing and the skid pickups were capable of shorting when traversing this point. Hopefully filing a bit away from the pickups will cure this... So on to the coupling rods... these are from the Association etch intended for the Farish Pannier (along with rods for the 3F, 08 and 'J' ninety whatever it is). The crankpins started out as M1.0 x 0.25 brass screws (not cheap!). The heads were removed (actually I removed a bit more than this so the offcuts may still be useable as short screws one day). The threads were turned off all except about 2mm of the length to leave about a 0.6mm diameter crankpin... which seems to be roughly the size of the holes in the etch. So having made 6 crankpins like this and a little touch of the reamer on a couple of coupling rod holes that were tight I assembled them onto the loco, I wasn't sure what to expect given that the wheels are also geared together and the rods were intended for the Farish model but it was able to move itself at the first attempt. There was some binding but the rods were a lot further out than I intend and were rubbing on the back of the footplate steps. Next I stripped the loco down again, removed the footplate moulding and then re-seated the motor on its Blu Tack cradle. Having added some wire insulation crankpin washers to keep the rods in place the loco ran surprisingly smoothly with no fettling needed at all. Result! The next step (still underway) is to take each wheel off one at a time and file the Dapol crankpin inserts back to a more sensible overhang. At the moment I'm using a piece of 15 thou brass as a filing guide which should still leave a decent length of thread and some clearance to stop the rods rubbing on the wheel bosses... That's all for now.

That's certainly the lower risk option but not something I've tried. IIRC mine were bent upwards at the ends and to an extent that I didn't think the magnets on their own would do the trick. Regards, Andy

FWIW, I found that I needed hotter water than this when I did it - the things had a tendency to resume some bend afterwards, even though they were weighted down onto a glass sheet while cooling. In the end I was not far short of boiling - very nerve wracking indeed but it got them straight. I also needed to introduce some slight counter-bend to get my roofs to end up straight. This was done using some thin (10 or 20 thou) packing strips atop the glass and then a cutting mat on top of those to smooth out the bend, followed by the roof, an old towel, some hardboard and a big weight. I'd definitely start with less hot water and then if that doesnt work try again with hotter water if I were you. It also depends on the thickness of the roof section, so start gently and get more assertive if that doesn't do the job. Regards, Andy

A picture of one of my coaches showing the magnetic roof fixing. Looks like mine is the other way up from Nick's but both ways work no doubt. Depending on the interior layout, magnets are either attached to a stretcher between the sides or else to the partition assembly, which in turn is bolted to the floor. My Ultimas have thin plastic partitions and use the stretcher method throughout with the partition assembly being split to slot into place either side of the stretchers. Four squares of soft steel (donated by Ian Smith... thank you!) are glued to the roof - I believe the steel was originally salvaged from some in-wall electrical ducting.

Indeed he does I will try to dig up some photos but dont have any to hand right now. He also uses them for couplings... and (above the fiddle yard exit) to switch the lights on and off using Layouts4U latching reed switches. Quite handy things, magnets really. Regards, Andy

Glad the show went well Pete. Good to hear about your last minute workarounds - whatever is needed to keep the show on the road.

I built a Thompson BG a few years back - inherited by EP from Ultima I believe. The body is to 1:148 but strangely the bogie pivot centres were correct for 2mm scale. Easy to correct once you've worked out what's going on but very odd. Clearly Brexit is a complete unknown (still!) but I suspect that we will still be using 3d prints afterwards even if there is some disruption while the dust settles. I'm less keen on Shapeways than I was - partly because of price and partly because of variable quality.

Another little thing I noticed... I used to use the 'manage blogs' option which appeared under my username dropdown at the top right of the screen to get quickly to my own blogs and see visits, feedback etc. This seems to be gone now and the navigation to my own blogs via my profile takes 3 steps. Could we have 'manage blogs' back when you have chance or is there another quick way to get to our own blogs? Regards, Andy

I'd move your modelling into the house if I were you then.

Damn glad Southampton was last week. Don't think we would have made it if it was a week later. No snow chez nous though. Regards, Andy

Thanks for all of the hard work Andy. Apologies if this has already been covered (I couldnt find it though) but is there any reason why some people's avatars just show up as a letter in a circle and others seem to have kept their avatars? Is it a temporary thing that will sort itself out or do us now avatar-less folks need to do something? Regards, Andy

Remember this topic? I did a bit more on my Pannier after my previous posting nearly 2 years back. Mr Solloway turned the wheels for me and I did indeed fit Simpson springs in an attempt to improve pickup. On test the thing seemed to be OK at least some of the time so I took it with me to the Helston show and used it as the layout testing loco during setup. Even on freshly cleaned track it couldn't get from one end to the other without being prodded several times so it was put in the box and there it remained until recently. My 'last chance saloon' plan was to fit some wiper pickups to bear on the rail. A bit desparate maybe but not too much of a time investment if it didn't work. The springy bits are slaters 2mm wide P/B strip... which is quite thin stuff so I was concerned whether it would have enough rigidity to make proper contact with the rail. Then I had to cut away half of the width to clear the rear driver springs which made it even less rigid. At the back end they are soldered to a thing cobbled together from PCB and brass with a 12BA screw which passes up where the coupling pocket pin thing used to be. Surprisingly initial tests proved encouraging so I fitted some DGs and decided to give it a real test by using it as the St Ruth yard pilot for a shift at the Southampton show. This is a very unforgiving duty because trains really do arrive and depart to a schedule and they need to be moved into and out of sidings very smartly because the yard is so cramped. To cut a long story short it successfully did several shifts on both days of the show and ran as smoothly as you like with almost no evidence of stalling - certainly on a par with the usual class 22 that does the job. There were a couple of derailments because side play seems to be lacking so that is something that I need to look at. A couple of photos - one of the new pickups and one showing it in a more normal orientation. Next step is to do something with the Dapol crankpins and try on some Association coupling rods. I've found that the threads are M1 x 0.25 and am going to have a go at turning down the ends of some screws to make smaller crankpins that will screw into the Dapol threads. We shall see how that goes and then I really need to do domething about those horrible brake rods.

Thanks for the kind remarks Jeff, glad you enjoyed the layout at Southampton. We claim no special powers. The simple answer to how we do it is that we leave off the stuff we can't see - it's the same in all scales but in 2mm there is more that is smaller so we leave more things off.

A nice weekend down south for the gang at the Southampton show and a good chance to catch up with Jerry and Paula. A good show all around and nice accommodation too. We were also happy to be awarded the Founders Cup for the best layout by the organisers. No major issues with the layout but no show would be complete without a few niggles to put on the fault list and give us something to do when we get back to base. The black surroundings of the drama studio worked pretty well with our night scene too. Our thanks to the organising team for an enjoyable weekend. Some photos... Marie Celeste? That's better Someone brought along some St Ruth appropriate reading material.

I have used an Expo of similar age and it probably has the same issue as yours. I didn't use mine 'directly' very frequently at all. Instead I used a flexi drive with it. For drill-based turning jobs I clamped the business end of the flexi drive in a vice and found somewhere suitable to stop the mini drill wandering off. My old cheap flexi drive eventually snapped in the middle and I replaced it with a Proxxon one from Mr Sissling's emporium. IIRC they can be had in both collet and chuck flavours. Last year I joined the ranks of the lathe owners. I really enjoy using my lathes but for coach building and lots of other 2mm work you really don't need one. Regards, Andy

I've used the garage on plenty of occasions but mine doesn't have the advantages of rapid clearance of fumes or (when the weather cooperates) good natural light. It does keep the rain off but on a rainy day the humidity in there will still be high and may not help. Nowadays I rarely use the garage for spraying and just wait for suitable weather. My 'outdoors' though is usually the shed doorway because this has reasonable natural light, access to power, is sheltered from the wind and gives the option of rapidly shoving things under cover if the weather does do something unexpected. It is also one step away from a less sheltered spot, so I move there when spraying copious amounts of thinners to clean the airbrush. Acrylic-wise it probably depends on the brand but the ones I use most (Tamiya) definitely use a solvent in their thinner. It smells like IPA to me. Plus I use plenty of enamels. TBH it's probably a bad idea to risk inhaling a mist of even purely water based paint. Regards, Andy

Nice coaches. I do most of my painting with an airbrush outdoors in a sheltered corner. It does mean waiting for suitable weather but on the plus side paint fumes and the more copious thinners fumes from cleaning the airbrush afterwards dissipate rapidly rather than building up in a confined indoor space. It also avoids complaints from fellow residents although perhaps causes a few raised eyebrows from the neighbours. My 'spray booth' is an old cardboard box. Regards, Andy