I know I am not the fastest of modellers but I like to think that I am one of life's plodders and usually methodically work through the little projects that I put in front of myself. One of these projects which fortunately is comming to an end is a initial batch of 4 GWR China Clay wagons.
I found that once uploaded it worked out much cheaper to add multiple parts to the single file so I doubled up the quantity of bodies to make it slightly better value. 4 bodies were then promptly ordered. I don't know if anyone else has noticed but the quality of Shapeways parts, especially in FUD has greatly improved recently, so when the bodies turned up all they really needed was a dunk in an ultrasonic cleaner and a light sanding in a couple of places with a file. Once I was happy they then had a coating of grey primer.
Next up was the chassis for them. Fortunately the 2mm Scale Association produces an etch chassis (2-361) which works out to be a really good fit on the wagon bodies and 4 of these were soldered together over a period of just over a week.
So above is where I have got now. They need transfers, couplings, and weathering, but I am very happy with the results so far. I have made the bodies available for anyone to order so if anyone else fancies a go at these then all the bits are there.
Other bits and bobs I have been working on has been mainly signals. More precisely the 4 starter signals I need for the layout. These have now got the little LEDs fitted and I have made a start on the details for them.
Julia :o)
Nice Julia. What CAD program did you use to draw the bodies up with? Seems to be quite a few 2mm Scale models on Shapeways these days. Some SDJR ones are heading this way soon along with my LNWR D15 Beer Van. I can see some China Clay wagons heading for Toshalt in due course once David H moves onto stock.
ReplyDeleteThanks Kevin.
ReplyDeleteI use Autodesk Inventor for my 3D stuff, its what I have been trained to use so I dont have any problems producing bits when I need to. You are right about the number of printed bodies (and complete wagons) on Shapeways too, we are spoilt for choice at the moment. I have my next one in the pipeline already. Although the quality of the prints is nowhere near as good as the tar wagon the prints are certianly useable.
J.
I agree on the quality of the prints - I got my last lot of LNWR ones done in FED rather than FUD and it is better but still not at the Tar wagon. Not that it matters for a timber body, but I think it may be an issue for a metal one.
ReplyDeleteInteresting Kevin.
DeleteI considered printing with the FED but the results I have seen so far seem to show there isn't much advantage over the FUD material. As I previously have commented, the FUD seems to be more than adequate at the moment, especially for simple things like wagon bodies. Previously I have avoided detail like rivets, catches, etc but the quality has improved enough for me to include all this now.
J.
The wagons look great Julia. What thickness did you use for the sides?
ReplyDeleteI must check back in my DN&S book though, I must have missed the picture of the clay train... or is there another Cornish layout in the offing? ;-)
Regards, Andy
Hello Andy.
DeleteThanks, the side thickness is 0.5mm, I haven't had any trouble printing them this thickness so far.
I haven't seen any on the DNSR either! Its been a bit of an experiment that's got out of hand right now! We all do things that we really shouldn't don't we!
J.
They look great. although I think one of the bodies is the wrong way around relative to the brake levers. I too am interested in the body thickness you used, as well as the width of the planking gaps.
ReplyDeleteGood spot Chris, thank you. It shouldn't be a pain to swap the body around.
DeleteAs I mentioned to Andy, the body thickness is 0.5mm plus the plank gap depth is 0.1mm by 0.1mm wide.
J.
Great to know that 0.5mm works. I am doing some LNWR and LYR wagon bodies and 0.5mm (3") is scale plank thickness for these.
DeleteWhich LNWR bodies Chris??? (sorry to hijack Missy!)
DeleteVery nice Julia. It does look like the quality of prints coming from Shapeways is improving!
ReplyDeleteChris,
It may or may not help, but for the cattle wagons and vans I've done I made the gap between the planks 0.15mm with the depth of those gaps 0.2mm (in retrospect that depth probably could be less but i was worried that I would lose the plank gaps in paint). Examples of my early prints can be seen here http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/gallery/image/45309-gwr-of-van-1904-non-brake-side/ , here http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/gallery/image/45309-gwr-of-van-1904-non-brake-side/ and here http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/gallery/image/44584-2mmfs-gwr-w1-cattle-wagon-brake-side/
Regards,
Ian
Thanks Ian,
DeleteI think you are right with regards to the plank gap dimensions. As the min thickness is 0.3mm I simply added 0.1mm to account for the depth of the planking gaps and another 0.1mm to allow for tolerances between exporting the file from Inventor to a STL file. I have been caught out in the past with this when 3D modelling things to minimum thickness's and the exported data measuring less than I wanted it to.
I personally feel its worth making the extra effort to get things looking as fine as possible (but not too fine that it fails the requirements to print), especially in 2mm scale.
J.
I'm not too fussed if the plank gaps disappeared. These are massively overdone on RTR N Gauge wagons and vans and to me spoil the look completely. As fine as can be managed is also for me the aim. On a well-built wagon (the real thing I mean) they are almost nothing.
DeleteAccording to my GWR wagons book, there were two other underframes used with these bodies from 1940 onwards, so potential for a nice variety in a train.
ReplyDelete