SCC - Sparkshot Custom Creations

[Will L]

[quote="Knuckles"}... I saw Bill Bedford wrote a good bit on it somewhere so will look again.[/quote]

Not just Bill.

[Knuckles]

Well yeah, obviously but I just referenced what I rememberd seeing last. Can't remember all who write about each subject.

If you wrote a lot on it or others I'm happy to read.

[Will L]

Deep sigh... click below my signature.

[Knuckles]

Oh yeah, sorry.
Suppose you think me a right muppet now.




Could make it a wee pic - never noticed but I did perceive you were hinting.

[billbedford]

In trying to "sell" CSB I have discovered that half the world won't accept things if you don't explain how/why it works and certainly won't believe its true without such an explanation, and the other half of the world find the explanation far to much to think about and therefore presumes the whole thing is much too difficult/complicated for them. If anybody has an sensible ideas as to how you can publicise a good idea in a way that satisfies both groups.... I'm interested

Just produce the kits and don't mention CSBs........

Works for me:-)

[Winander]

This appears to be the future of 3D printing.

https://www.ted.com/talks/joe_desimone_ ... anguage=en

Unless it's all a fake

[billbedford]

I don't think it is fake, as someone else was showing similar technology at CES this month. What I would question is, that given the amount of money Cabon3D has taken from venture capital, whether they are going to pitch their machines at the sub $5000 market.

[Knuckles]

I haven't looked at the 4D printing or whatever yet but if I do I'll reply to it.

I posted similar on RMweb so posting here too.

I got a wee issue.

I just noticed the prices on my Shapeways shop have all gone up 1 or £3 or so.

I haven't changed anything! Is this some sort of automatic exchange rate adjustment? I'm not happy about this as I spent ages trying to sort out all the prices and now they have been buggered up and raised. If it is the exchange rate then what chance have we got in setting any price and it staying?

Any help please appreciated.

Updated bogey designs as well so they aren't just a block now, motivation was extra photograph evidence.

[MarkS]

Hey Knuckles,
in case you have not come across these drawings in your search for Furness Baltic Tank info.

FR Baltic tank, 4-6-4T - Drawing - Railway Modeller - APR 1966, JAN 1977

[Knuckles]

Thanks MarkS.

I have 4 drawings aquired so far so if I can get that as a 5th it may help. Typically I'm finding detail and dimension differences again after scaling them up.

Any idea how or is it just a back issue order job?

I have decided though to do this loco later as it is much bigger than the already expensive E2 and thanks to Shapeways' (in my opinion) high prices I fear it will be a bad choice currently.

Not happy that Shapeways' prices have shuffled themselves higher than I wanted either. Any idea if there is anything to do about it other than constant faffing? Really naffed off anout the pricing issue to be honest.

I want to get them lower but am lacking much power to do so.

This is also why I am looking to get my own printer at some point.....OR.....Make a really good mould and cast. I got the stuff but no experience with it and a Loco body isn't simple.

Good news though, I already started work on the next loco. It's another Furness jobby but smaller.

[dal-t]

I don't know what currency you see Shapeways prices in, Knuckles - to me they're in Euros, but that could be driven by my French IP address - but if they are in sterling, increases would not be surprising. Shapeways will incur most of their costs in Euros and US dollars, and the pound has fallen significantly against both in the last two months. Nothing to what will happen if Cameron's referendum goes wrong and the great unwashed electorate actually vote for a Gbexit, of course - the watchword may well be get your 3D prints quick, before the rest of the world moves on and UK gets left behind (again). Or develop a home-based 3D printing empire, of course - providing you can afford the machines from America ...

[Knuckles]

I'm interested in the B9 Creator 3D printer. £2000 as a kit or £3500 assembled, plus err...your implication of import shipping. Will probably be the same amount!

If I did get it I'd probably never make enough to cover the cowt but it'd be fun for me anyway so still want one.

Politically I can't say as I haven't looked into it enough to properly give an informed opinion.

Shapeways show prices in all 3 of those currency and it is a bit awkward but you have to set things in dollars and it tells you what it is in pounds. There is an option to change the euro visual to pound as I have done but I think it may be in account settings.

Really disparing on this one as I'm powerless here.

I-Materialise I heard is UK based so would solve the price issue (maybe) but I also heard minimum wall thickness is 1mm which is naff for some things and also apprently they don't let you sell a model unless you brought it and got it printed by them. If this is true then it isn't viable.

Cry face.

[Knuckles]

Maybe this inflation and automatic price changing is just a necessary evil we have to put up with.
Open to suggestions if there is anything that realistically can be done.

On the plus side, I'm pleased to be working on a new design.

There was a clue in a previous post too. If you guess the prototype you get a biscuit.

[grovenor-2685]

Are you providing removable boiler cladding?
Regards

[Knuckles]

Are you providing removable boiler cladding?
Regards

I wasn't planning on it no. What did you have in mind and what is the purpose?

Odd question!

[grovenor-2685]

Well, your drawing looks to have a bare, unclad boiler.
Regards

[Knuckles]

Oh I see.

No, that's just the wireframe giving a bad illusion.

[Coronach]

The Furness is certainly attracting the spotlight now if that's a J1, Knuckles!
Must source some CR and G&SW material for you. A Pickersgill 113 would be a sure fire hit!(he said with no hint of impartiality whatsoever!)

Dave.

[Knuckles]

You make me laugh.

It is a J1 indeed.
I'll have a look at the Pickersgill 113...
EDIT - looked. Looks like a K2 on steroids! Beefier. I do like it though.
EDIT 2 - I wonder if the following quote/suggestion from page 1 about the Fowler tender is the same 4-4-0 Pickersgill in mind?

It's a pretty good example, isn't it, of someone who can't find something he wants that's readily available and, instead of just moaning about it, goes out and actually does something about it. Hats off to you, Knuckles, even although there's nothing in the range that I actually want. Now if you were to turn out a nice CR Pickersgill 4-4-0 (no kit or RTR currently available) that might be different.......

DT

--


I have decided to hit the Furness hard for a bit because there literally is bugger all out there in kit or RTR.. Ok maybe a few but not much. I'm finding the research fun and absorbing too.

As my planned layout is mainly pre-Grouping all my research and development prototype builds will have a home...well, once I've built the P4 chassis for them. Still need to find a way to easily marry springing with printed chassis but I'll crack it eventually.



You guessed correct - it is (will be) a J1. What biscuit would you like?

[Knuckles]

Hello everyone.
Apart from the Shapeways and Paypal unexpected price inflation issues that I have little control over sadly (will be good if/when it drops though eh?) I have come across another problem.

I’m working on the Furness Railway J1 Class 2-4-2 Locomotive and just like the issues with the Cambrian Class 61 and the Furness Class 21 (K2) the exact same type of issues have risen from the ground as a great plague, just to try to make our lives a misery. Ok maybe that is over dramatic, but if you are interested and especially if you think you can help please can you read the following (presentation?) carefully and provide any advice you can. I have tried to write it clearly but if there is anything hard to understand let me know and I’ll try to clarify. I’ve broke it down into sections as there are three distinct sets of problems.

-----------Section 1------------

The Drawing I originally obtained we shall call ‘Drawing A.’ Found here…

http://www.cumbrianrailways.org.uk/Draw ... 20drwg.pdf

I scaled it to the information freely given by Mike Peascod from the Scalefour website found here…

http://www.scalefour.org/resources/furness.html

…to the 5' 7.5” Drivers and the 3' 7" ponies/radials – Any info here appreciated. What operating system the smaller wheels?
Drawing A has a scale drawn on in feet (wish they all did!) and so the wheelbase matches to be 8'.
The rail height to buffer centre test fits perfectly too at 3’6” / 14mm’s.

Problem area is this...

The wheel edges seem to go wider than the cab door edges and at the front the tank edges. Looking at prototype photographs the other drawing I acquired (Drawing B) matches better. Drawing B found here…

http://i1340.photobucket.com/albums/o73 ... 4agake.png

Hmm.

This drawing was also linked to the book information to a different opinion of 5' 6" and 3' 6" respectively.

It thus had a wheelbase less than 8' by half a millimetre but the wheels look better compared to the photographs and don’t foul the edges. The rail top to buffer height was slightly lower though, also strange was that the length of the running plate was about a full foot longer, but the photographs of the running plate matched better with Drawing A.

Hmm.

So I found a side on photograph shot and faffed about doing the fake ruler test thing I did with the Cambrian Class 61 and the Furness Class 21. I used assumed driving wheels of 5' 6" and used that to scale the ruler - wheelbase then turned out to be less than 8' and the ponies also were 3' 6" just like Drawing B.




Hmm

So then I used an 8' assumed wheelbase to scale the ruler. Once done I found everything lined up perfectly with Drawing A too.

EDIT - Carrying wheels in pic above should state 3'6" not 5' 6".




Hmm!!!!

What is going on here?

So then I decided to get Drawing B and scale it to the bigger wheel sizes like and waddaya know?

It also matches the bigger wheel sizes, the 8' wheelbase, the rail height to buffer centre is also now correct and the wheels don't look like they are stretching too far sideways like on the Drawing A.
So Drawing B scaled up to the bigger published dimensions like on Drawing A is partly the more accurate answer I believe.

BUT….
Certain details like the dome, chimney, buffer profile and the running plate length look more in tune with the photographs on Drawing A.

The only answer seems to be to go in between the drawings in some areas as one is more accurate for ‘this’ and the other more accurate for ‘that’ etc.
So what is the moral of the story? Like other drawing examples it seems you can't just trust one drawing if you want accuracy and knowing which drawing and published dimensions to trust is still not as easy as it should be. They are all a convoluted mess.
I thought I was pretty settled on the issue but there is more to consider…

---------------Section 2-------------

A friend of mine has been helping out a lot with the Furness and Cambrian research so I extend my thanks for that. I won’t mention names but he knows who he is so if he wants to pipe up I’ll leave it up to him. There are clues anyway if you want to know that bad.

Now the J1’s were apparently rebuilds of the E1’s. You would think the E1 and J1 would have the same wheelbase and diameters but apparently not. Further to this what wheelbase do we go with?
The 3D model is currently using the bigger wheel sizes with a wheelbase of 6’6” + 8’ + 6’6” but this can change. Also the E1’s cannot make up their mind if they are 5’ or 5’6” drivers.
Below are a few things he said to me following our conversations. (He also said I can make our exchanges public so no issues there.)

With wheel size though I have listed 3' 6" & 5' 6" for both the Cumbrian and Cambrian 2-4-0/2-4-2 classes as that’s what I’ve got on paper. If you want to stick to your scale ruler guns that is fine, as like with some other stuff it could be off on maybe some of the batches but I would find it surprising that both company stats would be equally short of the actual diameter and I’ve not come across anything that would suggest there were changes outside later cab and with the CR engines their chimneys to improve their draft ( still need to explore this as i on read it passingly ).
Visually I can't see it but plan wise I see the driving wheelbase issue you've brought up. I've got 7' 9" vs 8' 6" while you've got 8' 0". That is quite a margin-are you talking about the Small Passenger class there? With the difference I would say it’s the same thing as with the K2s and Large Stuarts. The Small Passengers were built between 1863 and 65 while the E1s were built between 1870-82, so just seems to be a generally design improvement by Sharp and Stuart.
The wheelbase for the E1s/J1s are in my Oakwood press book-here is the scan so you can see all the classes you are interested in.

Rather than show everything I have picked out the relevant information.

http://i86.photobucket.com/albums/k112/ ... 1%20J1.jpg

If anyone has anything to bring to the table to iron out these issues it would be appreciated so I can get this model accurate. I again really do not know what to trust. I’m currently using the Mike Peascod dimensions given above from the Scalefour website but I still need to have confidence these are correct over all the above. Evidence can only be trusted when it is a tight argument. My ruler drawing bodges seem to give an 8’ wheelbase. But as well as the diameter and wheelbase issues I also want to get the E1 cracked as I might do that loco’ after, undecided currently.

Also an 8' 6" wheelbase will foul the tanks on both scale drawings as the 8' one is already a scrape as it is.

--------------Section 3 ---------------

One more issue. The tanks unlike a lot of tank engines do not seem to go into the boiler sides and there is a visible gap. As I currently have no photographs or drawings from a top down view it is guess work how far in the gap goes. I’m guessing ass the J1’s were apparently E1 rebuilds they may for reasons of speed just slammed the mostly rectangular tanks to the side and left it like that without bothering to mesh them in properly. Any ideas on this too will be greatly appreciated and hopefully ensure an accurate model. 
Here are a couple of links to good pictures showing it the gap almost head on…

http://i1340.photobucket.com/albums/o73 ... 45xwa8.png

http://i1340.photobucket.com/albums/o73 ... xccfil.png

Ok will leave it there and look forward to (hopefully) a conclusive conclusion. Many thanks in advance if you can help out here. My only motivation is an accurate and truthful representation.

[steves17]

I'm a little out of depth with all the measurement stuff but i'll add my 2 cents on this forum. I don't know about the extra inch and a half on the driving wheels but looking at the carrying wheels i'm willing to concede the info stating 3' 6" is off. The K3 and K4 boogies are this but visually there seems to be slightly more room in the level side on pics than with the E1 & J1s, so i'm now inclined to ignore the FR Oakwood Press and Cambrian plans/stat data I have and go with Mike's 3' 7" measurement.
With the 8' 6" wheelbase data I supposed the E1s were a slight enlargement over the earlier Small Passenger engines on the Cambrian ( much the same as with the Large Stuarts and the K2s ) but seeing the plan on the Cumbrian Railways site I think that notion is now twaddle and that Sharp and Stuart just provided a very close repeat of their design-i'm sure a quick scale measurement of the headstock on both company engines would confirm this of corse though

With the side tank issue i'm sticking to the notion you brought up prior that there is a gap between them and the boiler,

( Cambrian tank conversion of the Small Passenger class )
but they would be just about touching each other with the outwardly protruding firebox ring. I might be able to tell better when I receive some extra photos but with this example

there looks to be a fasting device for it to be held steady by the boiler. The rivet line on the narrow facing edge of the tank suggests to me the lower quarter section holds no water and is instead a part of how the tank is attached to the frame and then as it goes along to the rear there are spaces missing to allow for the driving wheels. My technical/engineering knowledge is limited though so perhaps others know better, but at the bottom of the tanks on the short end you can also see an L shaped attachment that is then secured along the width of the running plate.

Oh you might of spotted this since but on the first measurement pic you have the carrying wheels "matching" the diameter of the drivers

[billbedford]

The Drawing I originally obtained we shall call ‘Drawing A.’ Found here…
http://www.cumbrianrailways.org.uk/Draw ... 20drwg.pdf

signed by Ross Pochin, well respected Furness historian and modelmaker.

Drawing B found here…

http://i1340.photobucket.com/albums/o73 ... 4agake.png

Scanned from The Furness Railway Locomotives and Rolling Stock By R.W. Rush. A book that anyone would be advised to use with caution.

The wheel edges seem to go wider than the cab door edges and at the front the tank edges. Looking at prototype photographs the other drawing I acquired (Drawing B) matches better. Hmm.

So what is the problem, apart from not allowing for parallax in the photo? There is obviously a box splasher in the cab which only needs to clear the wheel at the level of the footplate.

The only answer seems to be to go in between the drawings in some areas as one is more accurate for ‘this’ and the other more accurate for ‘that’ etc.
So what is the moral of the story?

Make sure that you understand the sources you are using?

One more issue. The tanks unlike a lot of tank engines do not seem to go into the boiler sides and there is a visible gap. As I currently have no photographs or drawings from a top down view it is guess work how far in the gap goes. I’m guessing ass the J1’s were apparently E1 rebuilds they may for reasons of speed just slammed the mostly rectangular tanks to the side and left it like that without bothering to mesh them in properly.

All tank engines had rectangular boxes for side tanks. Later engines has splash plates fitter between the top of the tanks and the boiler cleading, in an attempt to stop water flooding the axle bearings, but they were not usually fired to locos with small boilers and high tanks.

[Noel]

Later engines has splash plates fitter between the top of the tanks and the boiler cleading,

Also vertically between the front of the tanks and the boiler cladding. Since firemen commonly climbed on top of the tanks to fill them, there were also safety reasons for the later practice.

Noel

[Knuckles]

Oh you might of spotted this since but on the first measurement pic you have the carrying wheels "matching" the diameter of the drivers

'Ello, I read what you said. I can see the fasting device - looks like a simple pipe bracket joining to the bottom of the dome almost. Also the J1's seem to have the front of the tanks extend downwards then in a bit to meet with the boiler whereas the Cambrian conversion seems perfectly vertical. I put a small edit in the big post to account for my error, thanks for picking it up as I missed it.

signed by Ross Pochin, well respected Furness historian and modelmaker.

Aye, this is the drawing I'm taking most cues from as it matches the photographs loads better overall. The scale rule on the drawing gives a driving wheel wheelbase of 8' so the model currently has that. Other sources of 7' 9" and 8' 6" are making me seriously wonder what is going on and part of my reasons asking for help on all this. To someone researching something already searched (research in a nutshell) anomalies and contradictory information causes much problems knowing what to believe initially.

Scanned from The Furness Railway Locomotives and Rolling Stock By R.W. Rush. A book that anyone would be advised to use with caution.

I've been picking up on this notion incrementally. It seems he caused the confusion with the classes making the 21 Class the K2 and all that. It is also seeming that his drawings and details are in a few areas off on many occasions. I wonder why though. Any ideas?

Me

The wheel edges seem to go wider than the cab door edges and at the front the tank edges. Looking at prototype photographs the other drawing I acquired (Drawing B) matches better. Hmm.

You

So what is the problem, apart from not allowing for parallax in the photo? There is obviously a box splasher in the cab which only needs to clear the wheel at the level of the footplate.

I know the parallax will effect the picture scale and proportion especially towards the edges but my worry was more with Drawing A. There are other side on photo's I have too with the same effect. Basically the photographs show the wheels are within the tanks but a bit tight, Drawing A seems to show them fouling almost. Drawing B in this area visually looks more in tune with the photographs by sitting more comfortably inside. The box splasher is already modelled in its rough state so it is not a problem so much for the rear driver looking like it is fouling slightly but more so the front. I'm putting more trust in Drawing A anyway.

Model so far has the 8' wheelbase the drawing has too.

Me

The only answer seems to be to go in between the drawings in some areas as one is more accurate for ‘this’ and the other more accurate for ‘that’ etc.
So what is the moral of the story?

You

Make sure that you understand the sources you are using?

That's what I'm trying to do, thus these posts asking for some clarification in areas.

All tank engines had rectangular boxes for side tanks. Later engines has splash plates fitter between the top of the tanks and the boiler cleading, in an attempt to stop water flooding the axle bearings, but they were not usually fired to locos with small boilers and high tanks.

Ah! Sweet, this helps a lot, thanks.

Also vertically between the front of the tanks and the boiler cladding. Since firemen commonly climbed on top of the tanks to fill them, there were also safety reasons for the later practice.

Noel

Again many thanks, this helps too.

On section 3 issue then would you say this pic is roughly how it would look? I say roughly as it is still early with no detail whatsoever.

Queery tank.jpg

[Armchair Modeller]

Scanned from The Furness Railway Locomotives and Rolling Stock By R.W. Rush. A book that anyone would be advised to use with caution.

I've been picking up on this notion incrementally. It seems he caused the confusion with the classes making the 21 Class the K2 and all that. It is also seeming that his drawings and details are in a few areas off on many occasions. I wonder why though. Any ideas?

There was once a golden age of the so called "Gentleman Draughtsman" who could sit in a comfy armchair by a cosy fire one evening with a glass or two of whisky and conjure up a drawing of a loco from as little as one or two known dimensions and a very poor photograph. Very little or no background research or checking was done. These were then published as accurate drawings in modelling magazines and other publications.

In fairness, a lot of information nowadays available would have been difficult to get hold of in the days before the Internet, accessible and comprehensive photo collections and the thoroughly researched specialist publications we have access to these days. Between them they created a plethora of misapprehensions and myths!

Some do seem to have had access to some other information like railway company diagram books for at least some of their work, but these were little more than sketches in many cases - never intended by the railway companies to be accurate drawings. Classic faux pas include a drawing of a van showing outside framing. The diagram used was in fact showing framing on the inside of the body. This makes it likely that no photo of the subject has been consulted.

Looking back through back copies of old magazines and other publications, it looks to me likely that (in my opinion) many drawings suffer from too much optimism and too little information - and not just those of one or two draughtsmen. The ones whose output was like a production line, covering a very wide range of subjects and railway companies should always be treated with caution.