36C studios development thread: an A7 tank and other updates regarding J27, 20, etc.

This forum is for the discussion of railway modelling of the LNER and its constituent companies.

Moderators: 52D, Tom F, Rlangham, Atlantic 3279, Blink Bonny, Saint Johnstoun, richard

Nova
GER D14 4-4-0 'Claud Hamilton'
Posts: 371
Joined: Wed Jun 24, 2015 7:30 pm
Location: Scunthorpe, North Lincs

Re: 36C studios development thread

Post by Nova »

billbedford wrote:
Nova wrote:another modeler has been able to print scale thickness side rods in brass with little to no problems with structural strength and they were essentially a single bar of brass.
There are no commercial machines that print in brass. What is being offered is printing in a castable resin which is then burnt out and cast in brass. The castings are also finished on regular buffing wheels so there is always a degree of rounding off of sharp edges.
My misunderstanding then. looking up the process it's essentially a modernized lost wax casting process

they print the product in wax, pour plaster around it then pour brass into the "mould"

https://www.shapeways.com/materials/brass
Coalby and Marblethorpe, my vision of an un-nationalised Great Britain in the 50s and 60s: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=11905


36C Studeos, kits in 4MM scale: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=11947
Nova
GER D14 4-4-0 'Claud Hamilton'
Posts: 371
Joined: Wed Jun 24, 2015 7:30 pm
Location: Scunthorpe, North Lincs

Re: 36C studios development thread: how about some Lowmacs?

Post by Nova »

I've been looking up the different materials shapeways offer for their products and comparative prices to get a sense of the best material to use for intricate parts such as brake rigging or brake levers.



Aluminium: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3QVHCuV76f0
printed using a laser process where a laser is directed at aluminium powder to melt the powder and fuse it into a solid object one layer at a time.

Minimum sizes: 1.5 mm minimum for wires and rods. 1mm wall minimum thickness. 0.40 mm minimum embossed detail.
Price: £8.15 handling fee. £5.70 per cm3



Brass and Bronze: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9uxE_r9kEE8
created using a lost wax process, a preliminary item is printed in wax before being encased in plaster and then replaced by liquid brass during the casting process.

Minimum sizes: 0.8 mm for wires and rods. 0.8 mm wall thickness. 0.40 mm embossed detail
Price: £8.15 handling fee. £13.00 per cm3



Metallic-Plastic (Alumide) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alumide
A 3D printed plastic filament infused with aluminium.

Minimum sizes: 1.5mm for wires and rods. 0.9mm wall thickness. 0.7mm embossed detail.
Price: £1.22 per part. £0.45 per cm3



Stainless steel

Minimum sizes: 1mm for wires and rods. 1mm wall thickness. 1mm embossed detail.
Cost: £5.00 per part. £4.00 per cm3



Strong and flexible
this is being considered because it will bend rather than break, and comes in a flat black option, meaning no need to paint

Minimum sizes: 1mm for wires and rods. 0.7mm wall thickness. 0.2mm embossed detail.
£1.22 per part. £0.23 per cm3


so far it seems a tie between steel, brass/bronze and SF-plastic:
steel has a low cost for metal and a reasonable resolution.
brass/bronze is slightly softer and more expensive but has higher resolution compared to steel.
SF is the cheapest, the most detailed and potentially the most durable. but I'm not giving up on the metals just yet as the inherent strength and rigidity of metal may give them an advantage.


These three will be tested and compared with one another when a prototype piece is ready
Coalby and Marblethorpe, my vision of an un-nationalised Great Britain in the 50s and 60s: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=11905


36C Studeos, kits in 4MM scale: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=11947
Dave S
GNSR D40 4-4-0
Posts: 211
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2016 12:46 pm

Re: 36C studios development thread: how about some Lowmacs?

Post by Dave S »

Nova wrote:I've been looking up the different materials shapeways offer for their products and comparative prices to get a sense of the best material to use for intricate parts such as brake rigging or brake levers.

Strong and flexible
this is being considered because it will bend rather than break, and comes in a flat black option, meaning no need to paint

Minimum sizes: 1mm for wires and rods. 0.7mm wall thickness. 0.2mm embossed detail.
£1.22 per part. £0.23 per cm3


so far it seems a tie between steel, brass/bronze and SF-plastic:
steel has a low cost for metal and a reasonable resolution.
brass/bronze is slightly softer and more expensive but has higher resolution compared to steel.
SF is the cheapest, the most detailed and potentially the most durable. but I'm not giving up on the metals just yet as the inherent strength and rigidity of metal may give them an advantage.


These three will be tested and compared with one another when a prototype piece is ready
The prices you've quoted from Shapeways don't include tax and courier, depending on the item it can make it very expensive to ship. I would be careful of pricing until you've actually designed and had printed an item, as what I am happy to pay for a locomotive body I know others in the club I belong to wouldn't, and they are your potential market.

Also I've picked out SF as something that isn't any good for anything with detail, It's fine for items such as chassis (loco) where it is used to mount bearings and is essentially hidden but don't expect any level of consistent detail. Also it will not take Cyano (superglue) and so any fixing needs to be epoxy, fine for things like bearings but not if used as an add on detail. It has a very rough texture/surface.

I am a big fan of 3D printing but it does have its limitations at present.
Nova
GER D14 4-4-0 'Claud Hamilton'
Posts: 371
Joined: Wed Jun 24, 2015 7:30 pm
Location: Scunthorpe, North Lincs

Re: 36C studios development thread: how about some Lowmacs?

Post by Nova »

Dave S wrote: The prices you've quoted from Shapeways don't include tax and courier, depending on the item it can make it very expensive to ship. I would be careful of pricing until you've actually designed and had printed an item, as what I am happy to pay for a locomotive body I know others in the club I belong to wouldn't, and they are your potential market.
I completely understand this which is why the long term (very long term) solution is to handle 99% manufacturing at home, I will for personal projects be attempting certain manufacturing techniques such as lost wax casting, sand casting or white metal before committing them to manufacturing use.


I know shapeways isn't ideal, hence why it's only being used for the prototype/master stage in OO, but it the best option I have at the moment
Coalby and Marblethorpe, my vision of an un-nationalised Great Britain in the 50s and 60s: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=11905


36C Studeos, kits in 4MM scale: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=11947
adrianbs
LNER J39 0-6-0
Posts: 169
Joined: Thu Jan 22, 2015 6:31 pm

Re: 36C studios development thread: how about some Lowmacs?

Post by adrianbs »

Hi All As far as I am aware there is also a very good kit available of the J26/7 from Dave Alexander Models which I have not seen mentioned anywhere in this topic. His models are well up to current standards for kits and not from the dinosaur age in the 1960s. He has a very comprehensive list of kits, especially NER prototypes as well as some of the early type 1 diesels and the Tyne and Wear Metro trams. He was very much still in business when he phoned me at the end of 2016 so I assume the models are available. As his models use whitemetal for much of the construction they have the inherent advantage of weight compared to resin castings or plastic 3D prints. Lost wax metal from 3D prints will almost certainly make the kit price prohibitive if it is used for anything more than a few small fine detail components unless you are prepared to spend a small fortune on your own equipment for "In house" production. I use many L/W parts in my kits but only for items like screw couplings, whistles and vulnerable brake gear parts. In general the costs of "Bought in" parts are about 5 to 10 times the price of "In house" whitemetal items. Resin castings are fine for "Lumps" such as boilers and saddle tanks but far too expensive and fragile for thin pieces and and anything that is not "Self supporting". They are also easily distorted if used for items such as footplates as I have discovered in practice, even in O gauge. In house resin castings needs a lot of equipment to be done to professional standards and the raw materials are quite dangerous as well as leading to serious allergic reactions if you become sensitised.
I am sure 3D printing may well advance to the point where one can download a file from the internet and take it to "Staples" or some similar business and return in 24 hours to collect a box full of components such as wagon bodies which may even have been colour printed with all lettering and livery integral. We are not there yet and I am not sure whether it will be possible even within the next ten years, nor whether the costs will be competitive with a Hornby RTR product. It will have major advantages as there will be no expensive dies, it can be fully "on shored" and production can be done for small or large quantities whenever required, or at least when the printer is available. The prospects look very rosy for some things, others, such as mechanisms look rather less feasible.
Nova
GER D14 4-4-0 'Claud Hamilton'
Posts: 371
Joined: Wed Jun 24, 2015 7:30 pm
Location: Scunthorpe, North Lincs

Re: 36C studios development thread: how about some Lowmacs?

Post by Nova »

adrianbs wrote:Hi All As far as I am aware there is also a very good kit available of the J26/7 from Dave Alexander Models which I have not seen mentioned anywhere in this topic. His models are well up to current standards for kits and not from the dinosaur age in the 1960s. He has a very comprehensive list of kits, especially NER prototypes as well as some of the early type 1 diesels and the Tyne and Wear Metro trams.
I was aware there were some people doing kits, namely DJH, the reason I chose the J26/J27 is because it has is a relatively simple design, plus if it isn't a success commercially everyone can simply move on, myself and everyone else working on the project can move on to some other loco or wagon and those that have built the kit can move on to alternatives.

He was very much still in business when he phoned me at the end of 2016 so I assume the models are available. As his models use whitemetal for much of the construction they have the inherent advantage of weight compared to resin castings or plastic 3D prints.

if I had access to white metal casting equipment I would use it. As for weight, I'll be experimenting with cold casting; mixing brass powder into the resin mix, to improve the weight
Lost wax metal from 3D prints will almost certainly make the kit price prohibitive if it is used for anything more than a few small fine detail components unless you are prepared to spend a small fortune on your own equipment for "In house" production


I was only intending to use it for small components like brake gears or detail parts.


Resin castings are fine for "Lumps" such as boilers and saddle tanks but far too expensive and fragile for thin pieces and and anything that is not "Self supporting". They are also easily distorted if used for items such as footplates as I have discovered in practice, even in O gauge.
hence why for the J26/27, I'll be representing the many variants with different body shells. Other than clean up and fitment of detail parts there is no major assembly required other than fitting the bodyshell on to the chassis. the entire point of the kit is to allow beginners or even long time modellers an option that, whilst still requiring some work, will be a lot more straightforward than soldering a brass or white metal kit.
In house resin castings needs a lot of equipment to be done to professional standards and the raw materials are quite dangerous as well as leading to serious allergic reactions if you become sensitised.
Graeme King of this forum has had no issues making resin kits with largely positive reviews, that's the biggest reason I decided to go with resin casting.

I am sure 3D printing may well advance to the point where one can download a file from the internet and take it to "Staples" or some similar business and return in 24 hours to collect a box full of components such as wagon bodies which may even have been colour printed with all lettering and livery integral.
very rudimentary multi colour prints are a thing, but they use separate colour filaments, including glow in the dark (halloween themed wagons anyone?), in time the technology will improved in this aspect, i mean you can already have full colour objects printed in sand.
We are not there yet and I am not sure whether it will be possible even within the next ten years, nor whether the costs will be competitive with a Hornby RTR product. It will have major advantages as there will be no expensive dies, it can be fully "on shored" and production can be done for small or large quantities whenever required, or at least when the printer is available. The prospects look very rosy for some things, others, such as mechanisms look rather less feasible.
we will always be looking into potential new ways to sell future products, we are already working to have fully working digital versions of our kits available for use in one of the many train simulators.

an example of what is available can be seen here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zxFyTt2njvc
Coalby and Marblethorpe, my vision of an un-nationalised Great Britain in the 50s and 60s: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=11905


36C Studeos, kits in 4MM scale: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=11947
Dave S
GNSR D40 4-4-0
Posts: 211
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2016 12:46 pm

Re: 36C studios development thread: how about some Lowmacs?

Post by Dave S »

Nova wrote:
In house resin castings needs a lot of equipment to be done to professional standards and the raw materials are quite dangerous as well as leading to serious allergic reactions if you become sensitised.
Graeme King of this forum has had no issues making resin kits with largely positive reviews, that's the biggest reason I decided to go with resin casting.
I use resin in cold cast moulds and although I don't get any problems I do take precautions, each manufacturer of the silicon moulding material and the resins has their own "recipe" so just because you are ok with one doesn't mean you're ok with all.

Do you get any problems with what you use at present?
Nova
GER D14 4-4-0 'Claud Hamilton'
Posts: 371
Joined: Wed Jun 24, 2015 7:30 pm
Location: Scunthorpe, North Lincs

Re: 36C studios development thread: how about some Lowmacs?

Post by Nova »

Dave S wrote:
Nova wrote:
In house resin castings needs a lot of equipment to be done to professional standards and the raw materials are quite dangerous as well as leading to serious allergic reactions if you become sensitised.
Graeme King of this forum has had no issues making resin kits with largely positive reviews, that's the biggest reason I decided to go with resin casting.
I use resin in cold cast moulds and although I don't get any problems I do take precautions, each manufacturer of the silicon moulding material and the resins has their own "recipe" so just because you are ok with one doesn't mean you're ok with all.

Do you get any problems with what you use at present?
at present I don't use any because I don't have the work space to work with it. The shed that will hold my layout and work bench is currently under construction, though when it gets completed is something I have no control over (something that annoys me to no end) :?

as soon as it is completed I will begin attempting to cast in resin. I believe there will be a section on the layout that requires a cutting, a perfect chance to experiment with creating a cutting leading to a tunnel like this, though one without the arches spanning across.
Image
Image

it goes without saying that work to produce kits will begin around the same time
Coalby and Marblethorpe, my vision of an un-nationalised Great Britain in the 50s and 60s: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=11905


36C Studeos, kits in 4MM scale: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=11947
Nova
GER D14 4-4-0 'Claud Hamilton'
Posts: 371
Joined: Wed Jun 24, 2015 7:30 pm
Location: Scunthorpe, North Lincs

Re: 36C studios development thread: GCR 8-coupled musings

Post by Nova »

An update on the state of things.


as it stands I don't know when the shed that will not only house my future layout, but also the workbench from where I'll produce models for 36C studios, will be complete. externally it's complete, though I plan to paint it up like an LNER station building in green and cream.

It's currently being used as storage for random clutter over the winter, with wiring, insulation and decorating yet to be done. I suspect work will progress once the weather becomes fairer. At the least I'll begin sanding smooth the wooden cladding and painting the exterior around late March/early April, any pointers on suitable green and cream paints will be appreciated.

As per other discussions I will be producing conversion kits for the GCR 8-coupled locomotives including the Q4, Q1 and S1 using the Bachmann O4 as a basis. the S1 will most likely use much of the original bodyshell with addon tanks, rear-cab & bunker and other little details, meanwhile the Q1 and Q4s will utilise the chassis and possibly the diecast running board.

the above locos all have a special place in my heart as some of all three classes were stationed at Frodingham Shed (36C)

these conversion kits will be developed using scratchbuilt plasticard masters then cast in silicone with reproduction pieces in resin, much like Graeme King. Due to the speed of scratchbuilding compared to CAD/CAM they will probably be available before the NER J26/J27
Coalby and Marblethorpe, my vision of an un-nationalised Great Britain in the 50s and 60s: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=11905


36C Studeos, kits in 4MM scale: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=11947
Nova
GER D14 4-4-0 'Claud Hamilton'
Posts: 371
Joined: Wed Jun 24, 2015 7:30 pm
Location: Scunthorpe, North Lincs

Re: 36C studios development thread: GCR 8-coupled Musings

Post by Nova »

as another potential conversion kit, something I'm considering is using two Heljan 02 Chassis as a basis to create the U1 2-8-0+0-8-2.

obviously the chassis, if it's anything like the Hornby O1, will have a lot of diecast which will require some carving away. but I'm confident that the size of the water tanks/bunker will provide a good space to hide most of it.
Coalby and Marblethorpe, my vision of an un-nationalised Great Britain in the 50s and 60s: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=11905


36C Studeos, kits in 4MM scale: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=11947
Nova
GER D14 4-4-0 'Claud Hamilton'
Posts: 371
Joined: Wed Jun 24, 2015 7:30 pm
Location: Scunthorpe, North Lincs

Re: 36C studios development thread: furthar developments on the J26/27 project (input needed)

Post by Nova »

I haven't had much in the way of updates for quite some time, and this is purely because the situation at home does not allow me to be able to undertake the development and production of locomotive kits just yet. It's not a dead project, not by any means, I just don't have the facilities to undertake it at the current time. hopefully within the next year though things will change

However I have had a thought regarding the J26/J27 (this does to a lesser extent also extend to future project. Currently I do not feel I possess the necessary skill to assemble a locomotive chassis or produce one from scratch (though in time this will also change as I begin to build locomotive kits). as such I would not feel confident in producing a solid resin chassis from the get-go (though in time I will), and an etched chassis is way out for the time being. Right from the start one of my aims has been to in some way make it more enticing for novice modelers to start in locomotive kit building, so my idea is as follows:

the initial J26/J27 kit will be designed specifically to fit a pre-existing RTR model from one of the big companies. Meaning for newbies it's simply a case of buying the locomotive body shell and plonking it on a suitable chassis from a RTR 0-6-0 with a similar wheelbase and driver diameter. for experienced kit builders this also means they can put effort into finishing and painting the locomotive body and tender without having to worry about dedicating hours to the chassis. I also feel this will make it much easier to reach out to younger or less confident members to to convince them to give it a go.

I've been doing a bit of rudimentary research to find a good match for the J26/J27, whilst also understanding that the dimensions won't be totally perfect so the splashers will potentially need an altered size and spacing. currently there are two chassis that could be used. for reference the J26/J26 has a driving wheel diameter of 4ft 7.25in and a wheelbase of 16ft 6in.

there's the Hornby J50 with 4ft 8in driving wheels, 16ft 3in wheelbase. Or the Hornby J15 with 4ft 11in drivers and 16ft 1in. looking at the chassis of both models also reveals that only minimal modifications to the J50 chassis would be needed, and the J15 could be left as it is:

J15 Chassis: https://albionyard.files.wordpress.com/ ... g_3873.jpg

J50 chassis: https://albionyard.files.wordpress.com/ ... 78-cr2.jpg

choosing one or the other will produce a different set of compromises, for the J15 whe wheels will be slightly too big requiring larger splashers. Meanwhile the J50 has wheels which are only 3/4s of an inch larger but there is a noticeable difference in the spacing of the center axle.

I'm currently leaning towards using the J15 chassis as I feel having larger wheels will be less noticeable under normal viewing compared to the center axle being shunted forward a scale foot or two. But I would like to gain some input on the matter by the more experienced members of this forum, maybe even suggest a more accurate RTR chassis that I may have overlooked, so that a generally agreeable compromise can be met.


as a final note I am making it clear that in time I will produce a much more accurate version with a chassis that has the correct wheel spacings with an altered runningboard to suit. but for the time being I will be content with working towards one that fits on an RTR chassis.
Coalby and Marblethorpe, my vision of an un-nationalised Great Britain in the 50s and 60s: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=11905


36C Studeos, kits in 4MM scale: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=11947
Atso
LNER A3 4-6-2
Posts: 1383
Joined: Wed Dec 13, 2006 11:58 pm
Location: Hertfordshire

Re: 36C studios development thread: furthar developments on the J26/27 project (input needed)

Post by Atso »

Nova wrote: Tue Jul 04, 2017 11:54 pm I've been doing a bit of rudimentary research to find a good match for the J26/J27, whilst also understanding that the dimensions won't be totally perfect so the splashers will potentially need an altered size and spacing. currently there are two chassis that could be used. for reference the J26/J26 has a driving wheel diameter of 4ft 7.25in and a wheelbase of 16ft 6in.

there's the Hornby J50 with 4ft 8in driving wheels, 16ft 3in wheelbase. Or the Hornby J15 with 4ft 11in drivers and 16ft 1in. looking at the chassis of both models also reveals that only minimal modifications to the J50 chassis would be needed, and the J15 could be left as it is:

J15 Chassis: https://albionyard.files.wordpress.com/ ... g_3873.jpg

J50 chassis: https://albionyard.files.wordpress.com/ ... 78-cr2.jpg

choosing one or the other will produce a different set of compromises, for the J15 whe wheels will be slightly too big requiring larger splashers. Meanwhile the J50 has wheels which are only 3/4s of an inch larger but there is a noticeable difference in the spacing of the center axle.
Out of the two, I would agree that the J15 chassis would likely be the better donor. However, have you considered the Bachmann Jinty chassis? 8' by 8'6 wheelbase and 4'7.5 diameter wheels would suggest that it would be a good candidate. You'd need to create a tender chassis but, compared to a powered loco, this would be fairly simple.
Steve
User avatar
Atlantic 3279
LNER A4 4-6-2 'Streak'
Posts: 5914
Joined: Fri Jun 26, 2009 9:51 am
Location: 2850, 245

Re: 36C studios development thread: furthar developments on the J26/27 project

Post by Atlantic 3279 »

That's certainly the sort of chassis that I was looking at when I almost made my mind up to do a J26/J27. I don't see any advantage in using instead something with wrong wheel sizes and wrong wheel spacing, unless those chassis vastly reduce the problem of intrusion of mechanism and fixed weights into problem or exposed areas in the model.
BUT...the trouble with so many of the modern RTR 0-6-0 chassis is that the manufacturers still don't go for the idea of fitting the motor in an upright or steeply inclined position in the firebox area, totally out of sight, with the gearing also placed low down and out of sight. The mentioned J50, J15 and 3F tank engine have all been provided with a horizontal motor and a gear box of sorts in the very place that ought to be empty space in a good model of any loco with a raised boiler. The Bachmann 3F tender loco might be better arranged if I remember correctly, but its wheel are too big. I can't remember how the measurements work out for say the SECR C class chassis, which does appear to have a sensibly located motor and gears....
Most subjects, models and techniques covered in this thread are now listed in various categories on page1

Dec. 2018: Almost all images that disappeared from my own thread following loss of free remote hosting are now restored.
Nova
GER D14 4-4-0 'Claud Hamilton'
Posts: 371
Joined: Wed Jun 24, 2015 7:30 pm
Location: Scunthorpe, North Lincs

Re: 36C studios development thread: furthar developments on the J26/27 project (input needed)

Post by Nova »

Atso wrote: Wed Jul 05, 2017 1:28 pm
Out of the two, I would agree that the J15 chassis would likely be the better donor. However, have you considered the Bachmann Jinty chassis? 8' by 8'6 wheelbase and 4'7.5 diameter wheels would suggest that it would be a good candidate. You'd need to create a tender chassis but, compared to a powered loco, this would be fairly simple.
I completely forgot about the Jinty :oops:. I'll see how easy it is to obtain one. Might work out to be the best option as IIRC the J15 is some £100 whereas I could probably obtain a Jinty for less.
Coalby and Marblethorpe, my vision of an un-nationalised Great Britain in the 50s and 60s: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=11905


36C Studeos, kits in 4MM scale: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=11947
Nova
GER D14 4-4-0 'Claud Hamilton'
Posts: 371
Joined: Wed Jun 24, 2015 7:30 pm
Location: Scunthorpe, North Lincs

Re: 36C studios development thread: furthar developments on the J26/27 project

Post by Nova »

Atlantic 3279 wrote: Wed Jul 05, 2017 2:22 pm The mentioned J50, J15 and 3F tank engine have all been provided with a horizontal motor and a gear box of sorts in the very place that ought to be empty space in a good model of any loco with a raised boiler.
in complete fairness to the Jinty and J50 their motor is hidden away by the side tanks so I think they deserved to be excused. I'll just have to design a "sleeve" in the underside of the boiler to hide the motor and wiring. not ideal I know, but I will at some point be designing a full kit version so those that aren't satisfied could simply wait.

the Bachmann 2251 would be ideal as its motor is mounted vertically in the firebox, alas it's wheels are over 5ft

another option is the bachmann 5700: 4ft 7.5in drivers. 15ft 6in wheelbase. the motor is a bit further back so even less would encroach into the boiler:
http://www.modelrailforum.com/reviews/B ... 96-800.jpg
Coalby and Marblethorpe, my vision of an un-nationalised Great Britain in the 50s and 60s: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=11905


36C Studeos, kits in 4MM scale: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=11947
Post Reply