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

User avatar
Atlantic 3279
LNER A4 4-6-2 'Streak'
Posts: 6527
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 »

I seem to remember looking at the Drummond 700 chassis when I was toying with ideas too, but I can't remember how its dimensions and the drive layout worked out. Worth a look anyway......
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

Post by Nova »

Atlantic 3279 wrote: Wed Jul 05, 2017 8:51 pm I seem to remember looking at the Drummond 700 chassis when I was toying with ideas too, but I can't remember how its dimensions and the drive layout worked out. Worth a look anyway......
I recall looking up that one. it's one of the 0-6-0s with 5ft+ wheels



also, on the subject of the chassis. I might have found a solution that will for the time being allow me to create a more accurate J26/J27, along side the one designed to fit on an RTR chassis, for those more experienced modellers without having to create my own chassis.


https://52fmodels.sharepoint.com/Pages/J26_J27.aspx
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: an A7 tank and other updates regarding J27. D20, etc

Post by Nova »

I must admit that until very recently any plans of starting up a kit company proper had gone on the backburner. but very recently I saw a video on 3D printing for model railway use that convinced me to give 3D design a go. up until this point I had always been under the assumption that 3D design required a learning curve in the realm of years.

But here I am working on an A7/1 with the basic body roughly complete after only 10 hours of total experience with TinkerCAD, and a lot of that has been a lot of exploring of the functions to find out what does what, as well as redoing mistakes when I inevitably make them, all in all I would strongly recommend giving it a go if you're interested in getting into 3D design & printing

please be aware that this is nowhere near finished, but results so far, at least to my uneducated eye, look promising, no doubt helped thanks to Isinglas's fantastic scale drawings.
Image

when designing it I've taken into account provisions for weight directly over the drivers, it is a heavy frieght & shunting tank after all, so adhesion is essential, as a result I've designed the sidetanks to essentially act as glorified upside down buckets that can be filled with DCC concepts "Liquid Lead" or some other similar ballasting product. likewise the boiler is mostly intact so that once a motor (and flywheel!) of choice is fitted more weight can be placed ahead of it.

It is worth pointing out that this will naturally drive up the cost compared to if it were simply a massive empty cavity, but I'm sure that a slightly more expensive model with enough pulling power to move the earth is preferable to a cheaper model that can't pull the skin off a rice pudding. (if cost does become big enough of an issue I might produce a modified version with a simple cavity as a budget model).
Image



if you've seen the thread in the Loco and rolling stock section you'll see that I encountered some confusion interpreting the scale drawing when designing the cab, immediately after I posted that thread I went and made a placeholder cab interior. which is soon to be altered following the input of other members of this forum.

the cab interior is designed to be a separate piece that it painted and detailed separately, then dropped in from underneath. to account for this I've added small lips in the cab interior designed to stop the cab floor from sitting too high up
Image

Image


for those that use DCC, myself included, the bunker interior will be designed so that there is enough space for a Decoder, speaker (should one desire DCC sound) and stay-alive capacitors. If you use conventional power this can be used to fit yet more ballast (more pulling power is always a good thing!).


in the general scheme of things, this won't be the first kit to be released, but I currently only have drawings for an A7 (from a time when I was planning to scratch built one), so naturally it was the only one that I could work on at this current time. next month I will most likely order some drawings for a J27 and a D20, as these are more likely to gain interest as first models (not to mention they will be cheaper than a whopping great heavy freight tank!). I'm also interested in eventually making a kit for the B16 and a bodyshell for the Thompson-reboiled O4/8.

I'm ever drawn to big tank engines, so the T1 4-8-0 is an natural followup to the A7. and I'm extremely tempted to design a kit for the S1 0-8-4 designed to fit a suitably modified Bachmann O4 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
mick b
LNER A4 4-6-2 'Streak'
Posts: 3727
Joined: Tue May 30, 2006 4:43 pm

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

Post by mick b »

Interesting last post.


J27 as mentioned before maybe available r.t.r in the near future ? Perhaps a J21/J25 might be more viable using the same Tender as the J27. It is a shame that the current r.tr. chassis's are very hard to get hold off these days other than via eBay.

The A7 Cab photos now posted are very interesting .
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: an A7 tank and other updates regarding J27, 20, etc.

Post by Nova »

mick b wrote: Sun Apr 29, 2018 10:11 pm Interesting last post.


J27 as mentioned before maybe available r.t.r in the near future ? Perhaps a J21/J25 might be more viable using the same Tender as the J27. It is a shame that the current r.tr. chassis's are very hard to get hold off these days other than via eBay.

The A7 Cab photos now posted are very interesting .
I'll be going ahead with making a kit of the J27 anyway, as chassis in 3D printed kits are usually comparable to an etched chassis so naturally have a better appearance, there will also be the provision for compensation, which will appeal to the finescale modellers. Plus if Hornby or Bachmann do make a J27 I can simply make bodyshells of the variants that they will inevitably fail to produce (how long has it been since the O4 came out with no major LNER subclasses like the Gresley and Thompson reboilered versions?).
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: 247
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2016 12:46 pm

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

Post by Dave S »

Nova wrote: Mon Apr 30, 2018 12:50 am I'll be going ahead with making a kit of the J27 anyway, as chassis in 3D printed kits are usually comparable to an etched chassis so naturally have a better appearance, there will also be the provision for compensation, which will appeal to the finescale modellers. Plus if Hornby or Bachmann do make a J27 I can simply make bodyshells of the variants that they will inevitably fail to produce (how long has it been since the O4 came out with no major LNER subclasses like the Gresley and Thompson reboilered versions?).
If I have read this correctly you are suggesting that a 3D chassis is superior to an etched one ?

What do you propose the 3D chassis is made from ? I ask this question over and over on RMWeb as the favourite is WSF, the issue with that is that it does not takes glues easily and has a lot of flex.

Before going too far with the design I would suggest that you look at chassis, motor and gearbox or you could end up with a design that looks good but is too difficult to motorise.
Atso
LNER A3 4-6-2
Posts: 1383
Joined: Wed Dec 13, 2006 11:58 pm
Location: Hertfordshire

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

Post by Atso »

Hi Nova,

I agree with Dave S regarding the chassis and would look at using either a donor commercial chassis or design some etches. I've played around with some 3D printed chassis in N gauge and have found that the results can be 'a bit variable'. I'm now looking at designing some etches for my own use (as N gauge driving wheels are too hard to come by for a commercial venture).
Steve
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: an A7 tank and other updates regarding J27, 20, etc.

Post by Nova »

Dave S wrote: Mon Apr 30, 2018 9:09 am
If I have read this correctly you are suggesting that a 3D chassis is superior to an etched one ?

What do you propose the 3D chassis is made from ?
You misunderstand, I was saying that a 3D printed chassis designed with a similar logic to an etched chassis, but printed as one piece, looks superior to a cast metal block as used with RTR, as it replicates the appearance of the real thing.
Atso wrote: Mon Apr 30, 2018 3:17 pm Hi Nova,

I agree with Dave S regarding the chassis and would look at using either a donor commercial chassis or design some etches. I've played around with some 3D printed chassis in N gauge and have found that the results can be 'a bit variable'. I'm now looking at designing some etches for my own use (as N gauge driving wheels are too hard to come by for a commercial venture).
I will be using Shapeways FUD as it’s firmer than WSF and takes glue like a regular plastic, it’s also proven to be reliable enough in performance to make a compensated P4 chassis (video for context: https://youtu.be/PymLnRggKX0) if I decide to brand into N, then I will most likely design Etched chassis as the primary medium.

Given the fact that I’m working In 4mm scale and not 2mm scale I have less physical considerations to take into account in regards to chassis-plate thickness and working tolerances.

My goal is to provide an easy entry for those just getting into loco kit building, and if the chassis is already complete (sans wheels, axles, etc,) then that’s less for a novice to worry about, I can tell you that having not yet constructed an etched chassis the prospect of having to get it dead-square lest it be unusable is a daunting one, and one that may no doubt put off some modellers.

I do intend to learn to build etched chassis eventually, but I can sympathise with those intimidated by this aspect of kit building, thus I want to provide an easy entry that may inspire them to go for something more challenging in future

I will of course be doing extensive testing before I approve the kit for general sale, with both rigid and compensated printed chassis. If a 3D printed chassis isn’t up to standard then I will look into designing etches for the chassis. (Hope for the best, plan for the worst and all that :) )
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: 247
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2016 12:46 pm

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

Post by Dave S »

Nova wrote: Mon Apr 30, 2018 4:14 pm
You misunderstand, I was saying that a 3D printed chassis designed with a similar logic to an etched chassis, but printed as one piece, looks superior to a cast metal block as used with RTR, as it replicates the appearance of the real thing.


I will be using Shapeways FUD as it’s firmer than WSF and takes glue like a regular plastic, it’s also proven to be reliable enough in performance to make a compensated P4 chassis (video for context: https://youtu.be/PymLnRggKX0) if I decide to brand into N, then I will most likely design Etched chassis as the primary medium.

My goal is to provide an easy entry for those just getting into loco kit building, and if the chassis is already complete (sans wheels, axles, etc,) then that’s less for a novice to worry about, I can tell you that having not yet constructed an etched chassis the prospect of having to get it dead-square lest it be unusable is a daunting one, and one that may no doubt put off some modellers.

I do intend to learn to build etched chassis eventually, but I can sympathise with those intimidated by this aspect of kit building, thus I want to provide an easy entry that may inspire them to go for something more challenging in future

I will of course be doing extensive testing before I approve the kit for general sale, with both rigid and compensated printed chassis. If a 3D printed chassis isn’t up to standard then I will look into designing etches for the chassis. (Hope for the best, plan for the worst and all that :) )
I like FUD but I'm not so sure about it as a chassis.

I'd also say your aiming a bit too far by talking of producing a rigid and a compensated chassis in FUD,and if that doesn't work drawing for etching, with all the variations and proto testing you'll be out of cash before you've started.

What about trying to bash a RTR chassis like Manna ?
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: an A7 tank and other updates regarding J27, 20, etc.

Post by Nova »

Dave S wrote: Mon Apr 30, 2018 9:19 pm I like FUD but I'm not so sure about it as a chassis.

I'd also say your aiming a bit too far by talking of producing a rigid and a compensated chassis in FUD,and if that doesn't work drawing for etching, with all the variations and proto testing you'll be out of cash before you've started.

What about trying to bash a RTR chassis like Manna ?
Dare I ask have you actually tried a FUD chassis? There are a number of kits on shapeways with FUD chassis for you to try out.
Or are you simply being dismissive because it’s a new medium for kit building?

Sparkshot (who runs SCC) offers not only rigid and compensated chassis, but also in the three main “standard gauges” in 4MM scale, all across multiple kits. I am also currently in communication with him so I do have to ability to ask for input and advice when designing these chassis.


I never said that I would be developing all those avinues at the same time. I have a clear path of progression in mind, starting with a rigid FUD chassis and testing & altering until it is running consistently and reliably, all at a pace that suits my current budget.

If the rigid chassis is viable then I will progress to developing the compensated chassis.

If the original rigid chassis doesn’t work out then I will work on an etched chassis

I plan to etch from home in this instance so there is less cost involved

I also eventually intend to buy my own liquid resin printer, so there’s less time and cost between trialling one chassis and designing the next amendment

I have already stated multiple times that my intention is to provide an avenue for amateurs to start building locomotive kits, and from taking with a fair number of younger modellers the most intimidating aspect they face when starting out in locomotive kit building is the prospect of having to solder an etched chassis. But at the same time I want these kits to be as accurate as possible, so shrinking it or enlarging it to fit an RTR (which also IMHO defeats the point of providing way to ease modellers into kit building) chassis is an unacceptable compromise in my book.

I will use etched chassis if 3D printed ones don’t work, but I also believe that the FUD chassis should be given a fair chance before consigning it as a bad idea that will never compare to the status quo (which is very much the impression I’m getting of the general attitude from users here).

All I’m asking during the development process is that people give both myself and the chassis in question a decent chance, after all, if we didn’t strive to explore new avinues and techniques we would still be using XO4 motors and 3 rail
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: 247
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2016 12:46 pm

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

Post by Dave S »

Easier to answer in post

Nova wrote: Tue May 01, 2018 2:14 am
Dare I ask have you actually tried a FUD chassis? There are a number of kits on shapeways with FUD chassis for you to try out.
Or are you simply being dismissive because it’s a new medium for kit building?

Have you ? I have and have built 4 3D loco's as well as motorising another, These had WSF chassis. FUD is actually very fragile which is why I would avoid it as a chassis material, also the wall thickness required for rigidity may well may well make it more difficult to motorise. The WSF chassis were ideal for the specific loco's but the motorising was in the tender on 3 of them as the available room within the boiler was insufficient.

I never said that I would be developing all those avinues at the same time. I have a clear path of progression in mind, starting with a rigid FUD chassis and testing & altering until it is running consistently and reliably, all at a pace that suits my current budget.

If the rigid chassis is viable then I will progress to developing the compensated chassis.

If the original rigid chassis doesn’t work out then I will work on an etched chassis

I plan to etch from home in this instance so there is less cost involved

For kits where someone is paying money for a product I doubt home etching is going to be of sufficient consistent quality, get it done by the professionals, I do.

I also eventually intend to buy my own liquid resin printer, so there’s less time and cost between trialling one chassis and designing the next amendment

I have already stated multiple times that my intention is to provide an avenue for amateurs to start building locomotive kits, and from taking with a fair number of younger modellers the most intimidating aspect they face when starting out in locomotive kit building is the prospect of having to solder an etched chassis. But at the same time I want these kits to be as accurate as possible, so shrinking it or enlarging it to fit an RTR (which also IMHO defeats the point of providing way to ease modellers into kit building) chassis is an unacceptable compromise in my book.
This is the often repeated mantra that no one wants to attempt etched chassis, there might be an element of truth in it but do you get people to expand their abilities or limit them.

I will use etched chassis if 3D printed ones don’t work, but I also believe that the FUD chassis should be given a fair chance before consigning it as a bad idea that will never compare to the status quo (which is very much the impression I’m getting of the general attitude from users here).
Right. . .but you just said that modellers don't like etch chassis and are daunted by them :roll: . . .
All I’m asking during the development process is that people give both myself and the chassis in question a decent chance, after all, if we didn’t strive to explore new avinues and techniques we would still be using XO4 motors and 3 rail
But we don't, we use multi media kits that use a mixture of Etch brass & Nickel silver, whitemetal, resin, lost wax cast brass and plastic. I like 3D but it is not a replacement for what's gone before just another complimentary material. It has it's place, but I don't think it is the right material for a chassis in a commercial undertaking as it is too fragile.
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: an A7 tank and other updates regarding J27, 20, etc.

Post by Nova »

Dave S wrote: Tue May 01, 2018 9:30 amFUD is actually very fragile which is why I would avoid it as a chassis material
but wasn't Atlantic-3279 able to make a perfectly fully functional chassis made from cast resin that was able to take a High level gearbox? (link to the specific post, images posted here purely to save having to click between pages: viewtopic.php?p=119062#p119062)
Image
Image
Image

To my understandinding cast resin is also a lot more brittle than FUD resin and will break rather than flex.

I have a FUD body shell and on a section of continuous splasher measuring 67mm long by 1.7mm thick it actually has a certain amount of "give" to it but at the same time it doesn't flex unless subjected to a level of force stronger than the type of stresses a chassis of equivalent thickness would be subjected to in normal layout operation, and from handling it (and not timidly, mind you) I've yet to get the impression that it's at risk of breaking . the thickness of the sides on that resin chassis is a lot thicker than the equivalent 3D printed chassis would be (though it would be very simple to design a chassis with walls as thick as that resin one.


The WSF chassis were ideal for the specific loco's but the motorising was in the tender on 3 of them as the available room within the boiler was insufficient.
what motor and gearbox did you intend to use? Sparkshot tests all his kits personally and they all accept a LRM London Road Models GB4 single stage gearbox which allows the motor to be positioned in the boiler.

For kits where someone is paying money for a product I doubt home etching is going to be of sufficient consistent quality, get it done by the professionals, I do.
See the video in the link supplied: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EJsBZWqrN-g
do you get people to expand their abilities or limit them?
In what way does still allowing beginners to fit and ream bearings, install axles and wheels, solder end caps to crank pins and set up pickups without worrying about getting the chassis square limit a modeller when compared to, say, bodging an RTR chassis that will undoubtedly require the bodyshell to be incorrect
Right. . .but you just said that modellers don't like etch chassis and are daunted by them :roll: . . .
Highlight on novice modellers and if the 3d printed chassis doesn't work
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: 247
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2016 12:46 pm

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

Post by Dave S »

Nova wrote: Tue May 01, 2018 3:29 pm but wasn't Atlantic-3279 able to make a perfectly fully functional chassis made from cast resin that was able to take a High level gearbox?

Yes, but which resin ? some are a lot more flexible than others, they are also very different to FUD/FXD, If there are thin areas of resin I stiffen them by placing wire in them when I cast, you are not able to do this with FUD.

To my understandinding cast resin is also a lot more brittle than FUD resin and will break rather than flex.

I have a FUD body shell and on a section of continuous splasher measuring 67mm long by 1.7mm thick it actually has a certain amount of "give" to it but at the same time it doesn't flex unless subjected to a level of force stronger than the type of stresses a chassis of equivalent thickness would be subjected to in normal layout operation, and from handling it (and not timidly, mind you) I've yet to get the impression that it's at risk of breaking . the thickness of the sides on that resin chassis is a lot thicker than the equivalent 3D printed chassis would be (though it would be very simple to design a chassis with walls as thick as that resin one.

And will the FUD chassis perform the same when the motor gets hot ?


The WSF chassis were ideal for the specific loco's but the motorising was in the tender on 3 of them as the available room within the boiler was insufficient.
what motor and gearbox did you intend to use? Sparkshot tests all his kits personally and they all accept a LRM London Road Models GB4 single stage gearbox which allows the motor to be positioned in the boiler.

It wouldn't matter what gearbox and motor combo I used, if the boiler is smaller than the motor it ain't gonna fit, it ended as a 1424 mashima with a gearbox at each end driving 2 axles on the tender, The tender frames were drawn and etched and they can pull a house down.

See the video in the link supplied: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EJsBZWqrN-g

So you've not actually done it. . . .like I say etches are straightforward to draw and easier and more consistent to get done by the professionals.

In what way does still allowing beginners to fit and ream bearings, install axles and wheels, solder end caps to crank pins and set up pickups without worrying about getting the chassis square limit a modeller when compared to, say, bodging an RTR chassis that will undoubtedly require the bodyshell to be incorrect

Out of what you've listed above, I'd say that soldering crankpins is probably harder than assembling a chassis square,

Lik I say, I like 3D but in its place as part of a multi media kit, it isn't the answer to everything.
MikeTrice
LNER Thompson B1 4-6-0 'Antelope'
Posts: 676
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 4:45 pm

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

Post by MikeTrice »

Just a note of caution. The video was very interesting however I note the test piece was 5thou brass. For a chassis I assume you would want a minimum of 12thou. Etch factor if you include tab and slot might be difficult to control accurately.

Of course if you sell lots you might find the video method a bit long winded. I have only used professional etching companies in the past but that is not to say I am not open to ideas for doing small custom pieces as shown.

It will be interesting to hear how you get on.
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: an A7 tank and other updates regarding J27, 20, etc.

Post by Nova »

Dave S wrote: Tue May 01, 2018 4:39 pm Yes, but which resin ? some are a lot more flexible than others, they are also very different to FUD/FXD, If there are thin areas of resin I stiffen them by placing wire in them when I cast, you are not able to do this with FUD.
you're honsetly better off asking Atlantic, I HAD the link to the site that he used which he sent me but it seems to have closed down since.


And will the FUD chassis perform the same when the motor gets hot ?
if you've reached the point where the motor has heated up to 80 degrees C you probably have bigger problems to deal with regarding the electrics of the layout as a whole than the chassis integrity...

It wouldn't matter what gearbox and motor combo I used, if the boiler is smaller than the motor it ain't gonna fit, it ended as a 1424 mashima with a gearbox at each end driving 2 axles on the tender, The tender frames were drawn and etched and they can pull a house down.
then that is a problem down to the general size of the locomotive and has nothing to do with the chassis used. I very much doubt that I will be unable to fit motors in an A7, B16, D20 or J26/26 regardless of what chassis is used.

You have voiced potential problems with using a 3D printed chassis, and that's fair, likewise I'm willing to counter those concerns by eventually buying a 3d printed loco kit out of my own money and testing it to literal destruction, and I promise you I will not stop until it is unusable as anything more than dressing in a scrapyard diorama, and document the entire process on video to ascertain how capable a medium FUD resin is. that includes constant running over months without a break, and extraordinary levels of stress and heat. that way we'll both know for sure how well it will perform, sound fair?
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