Building NER carriages

Help and advice for those starting in, or converting to P4 standards. A place to share modelling as a beginner in P4.
David Thorpe

Re: Carriage ride height and springing

Postby David Thorpe » Mon Oct 19, 2020 6:48 pm

Just as a matter of interest, you replaced the supplied D&S bogies with some rather complicated fully sprung ones. Did you ever assemble the D&S bogies and, if not, would it be worthwhile building one to see if it gives you the correct ride height?

DT

User avatar
Noel
Posts: 1976
Joined: Wed Jun 23, 2010 1:04 pm

Re: Carriage ride height and springing

Postby Noel » Mon Oct 19, 2020 7:03 pm

Daddyman wrote:I wonder if part of the problem might be that the secondary springs are bend too close round the anchor points, making the spring stiffer? Here's the arrangement I've had until now, with the springs (not trimmed) bent hard up against the anchor points:


Probably. Springs have to be able to deflect, which affects the geometry of the spring. If held tightly at both ends, then in effect you have a rigid bar, which won't provide any springing at all. I'm not suggesting that you have that situation with your original set-up; there will be some movement, but probably very limited. If I've got the physics right [definitely not guaranteed] then the spring stiffness isn't affected, but its travel is.
Regards
Noel

Daddyman
Posts: 740
Joined: Sat Jun 03, 2017 1:09 pm

Re: Carriage ride height and springing

Postby Daddyman » Tue Oct 20, 2020 10:11 am

David Thorpe wrote:Just as a matter of interest, you replaced the supplied D&S bogies with some rather complicated fully sprung ones. Did you ever assemble the D&S bogies and, if not, would it be worthwhile building one to see if it gives you the correct ride height?

DT

That's a very good idea, David, thank you. One of the carriages came part built/part wrecked from ebay, so I still have the bogies, and one of the carriages still has the original D&S base-plate. This is certainly worth a try. However, I'm thinking - and Noel confirms me in this (thank you, Noel) - that the way I have set up the secondary springs is not helping; my jig (or more properly "gauge", I suppose) shows me that on the clerestory at least, where there is more weight as a result of the metal roof (145g to the Dia 127's 125g), the primary springs are now right, so the secondaries are the issue now. The first solution I will try, though work is busy this week, is to lengthen the secondaries by 1mm or so in the way mentioned in my last post; if that doesn't work, the 7-gauge strings should arrive today.

Thanks again to all!

User avatar
Will L
Posts: 2516
Joined: Sun Jul 20, 2008 3:54 pm

Re: Carriage ride height and springing

Postby Will L » Tue Oct 20, 2020 2:28 pm

Daddyman wrote:
David Thorpe wrote:Just as a matter of interest, you replaced the supplied D&S bogies with some rather complicated fully sprung ones. Did you ever assemble the D&S bogies and, if not, would it be worthwhile building one to see if it gives you the correct ride height?

DT

That's a very good idea, David, thank you. One of the carriages came part built/part wrecked from ebay, so I still have the bogies, and one of the carriages still has the original D&S base-plate. This is certainly worth a try. However, I'm thinking - and Noel confirms me in this (thank you, Noel) - that the way I have set up the secondary springs is not helping; my jig (or more properly "gauge", I suppose) shows me that on the clerestory at least, where there is more weight as a result of the metal roof (145g to the Dia 127's 125g), the primary springs are now right, so the secondaries are the issue now. The first solution I will try, though work is busy this week, is to lengthen the secondaries by 1mm or so in the way mentioned in my last post; if that doesn't work, the 7-gauge strings should arrive today.


I have a rake of the clerestory coaches on the D&S complicated compensated bogies, and I think they ride at the right height. At the very least the footboard on coach and bogie line up. Could you not resolve this by further reducing the height of the bogie mounting plate? As a mater of interest these weigh about180 grams and I would have said up to 200gm isn't out of the way for a brass coach. Knutsford East ran 5 coach rakes of such things up a 1:100 gradient routinely with 4 coupled locos. Dick Petter, who built many of the coaches, ran 11 couch rakes up a similar gradient with a curve in it but he did use locos to suit. My G4 4-4-2 tank could only manage nine.

Daddyman
Posts: 740
Joined: Sat Jun 03, 2017 1:09 pm

Re: Carriage ride height and springing

Postby Daddyman » Tue Oct 20, 2020 3:18 pm

Will L wrote: I have a rake of the clerestory coaches on the D&S complicated compensated bogies, and I think they ride at the right height. At the very least the footboard on coach and bogie line up. Could you not resolve this by further reducing the height of the bogie mounting plate? As a mater of interest these weigh about180 grams and I would have said up to 200gm isn't out of the way for a brass coach. Knutsford East ran 5 coach rakes of such things up a 1:100 gradient routinely with 4 coupled locos. Dick Petter, who built many of the coaches, ran 11 couch rakes up a similar gradient with a curve in it but he did use locos to suit. My G4 4-4-2 tank could only manage nine.


Many thanks for the input, Will. The idea of reducing the mounting plate was my first thought, but then Dave Bradwell pointed out that that might not be the issue, and that I needed to get the upper edge of the bogies frames at the right height first, which I've now done, before worrying about buffer height. I'm hoping that liberating the secondary springs from the stranglehold I had fixed them in will give me the last few fractions of a mill I need; failing that, the next solution will be to replace the secondary springs with 7-gauge wire; if that doesn't work, I'll attack the mounting plate.

davebradwell
Posts: 1174
Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2019 3:48 pm

Re: Carriage ride height and springing

Postby davebradwell » Wed Oct 21, 2020 8:51 am

Wrote this last night but it conforms where you're going.

It would be such a step backwards to remove the nicely designed sprung bogies with their smooth ride and replace them by compensated just for the sake of working out how to adjust them. After all on the full size they would have had to go round with their spanner to get the steps to line-up. Anyway the side profile is incorrect on the D&S bogies - DavidA and I had already established this. It would seem reasonable to make all coaches the same weight as the clerestory so that common settings can be used and it sorts the primaries out and saves me pleading for wire bending. We adjust the secondaries on my bogies by moving the bolster up and down essentially as WillL has suggested so this is certainly a sound option.

Just a little on springs, generally. There's a number of ways a leaf spring, which is what we have here, can be used. There's textbooks with all the variations and you just pick the case that applies and use the formula to determine the deflection. The case chosen here has the spring simply supported and the diagram shows knife edges to make this clear. If the spring is not as free, either because the holes are a little tight on the wire or the ends of the spring are bent over tightly or catching another part, then different formulae apply and you are probably hopping from one formula to another as the spring is defected. The spring action should be linear - twice the weight should give twice the deflection - but this all goes out of the window if the basic rules aren't being followed.

I feel you're getting there but slowly.

DaveB

Daddyman
Posts: 740
Joined: Sat Jun 03, 2017 1:09 pm

Re: Carriage ride height and springing

Postby Daddyman » Wed Oct 21, 2020 9:59 am

davebradwell wrote: I feel you're getting there but slowly.

Well, thanks to your - and everyone else's - help. Couldn't have done it alone...

Daddyman
Posts: 740
Joined: Sat Jun 03, 2017 1:09 pm

Re: Carriage ride height and springing

Postby Daddyman » Sun Jan 03, 2021 12:37 pm

Model:
20210103_121209(0).jpg


Swearbox:
20201215_192838.jpg


Only another 4 bogies to go...
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

User avatar
Neil Smith
Posts: 237
Joined: Tue Dec 03, 2019 12:53 pm

Re: Carriage ride height and springing

Postby Neil Smith » Sun Jan 03, 2021 1:22 pm

Well done!

What was the solution that worked in the end?

All the best

Neil

User avatar
Winander
Posts: 847
Joined: Thu Mar 20, 2014 12:19 pm

Re: Carriage ride height and springing

Postby Winander » Sun Jan 03, 2021 1:26 pm

David,

Persistence pays, literally!

An interesting and informative discussion and I imagine your satisfaction is tempered by the trials and tribulations but better for getting it 'all right'. A lovely looking model, be sure to post pictures when they're painted.

I am curious about the handrail, would staff had to go up there so often to need one? Was it to do with oil lamps?
Richard Hodgson
Organiser Scalefour Virtual Group. Our meeting invitation is here.

Daddyman
Posts: 740
Joined: Sat Jun 03, 2017 1:09 pm

Re: Carriage ride height and springing

Postby Daddyman » Sun Jan 03, 2021 1:47 pm

Neil Smith wrote:Well done!

What was the solution that worked in the end?

All the best

Neil

Listening to Dave Bradwell! And lots of jigs (the caption here was written for a more general audience - please excuse that):
20210103_124834.jpg


The 8-gauge wire was a dead end which wasted months: the carriage just wouldn't keep still, so it was virtually impossible to set up the footsteps- footboard alignment: even something as small as a whitemetal gas tank on one side and not the other caused the coach to lean! Dave kept saying I should use thicker wire and bend it on a jig to get the correct ride height, which as he said, "for some reason you don't seem to want to do." Please shout next time, Dave! So the solution was 9-gauge secondaries and 10-gauge primaries.

The other thing was finally abandoning the packing height recommended in the instructions - I went with 1mm plasticard (total) in the end (can't remember if the instructions said 1.5 or 1.8 total (etch plus PCB)- too much anyway).

Winander wrote: I am curious about the handrail, would staff had to go up there so often to need one? Was it to do with oil lamps?

I noticed it very late in the game and have never seen it modelled, so was going to let myself off. But Dave egged me on... It's visible here, and, yes, presumably for access to gas lamp tops (these never had oil) - possibly when they were gas proper (as built in 1895 - photo 3) and had hoods on the main roof, rather than gas mantle (after 1906 and as modelled here - photos 1 and 2).
20200920_091559.jpg

20200920_091550.jpg

20200911_084751.jpg
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

User avatar
Mike Garwood
Posts: 618
Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2008 4:51 pm

Re: Carriage ride height and springing

Postby Mike Garwood » Sun Jan 03, 2021 4:57 pm

That is a cracking bit of coach work!

Mike

Daddyman
Posts: 740
Joined: Sat Jun 03, 2017 1:09 pm

Re: Carriage ride height and springing

Postby Daddyman » Sun Jan 03, 2021 8:24 pm

Thanks, Mike!

DougN
Posts: 1252
Joined: Wed Sep 01, 2010 9:57 am

Re: Carriage ride height and springing

Postby DougN » Sun Jan 03, 2021 11:16 pm

Have to agree the carriage looks fantastic. Yes I have one (no where as nicely done as yours) in the snag pile! Can't remember what the snag was :? To push it forward?
Doug
Still not doing enough modelling

User avatar
Neil Smith
Posts: 237
Joined: Tue Dec 03, 2019 12:53 pm

Re: Carriage ride height and springing

Postby Neil Smith » Mon Jan 04, 2021 7:25 am

Thanks for the detail - duly stored away for future reference!

All the best

Neil

Daddyman
Posts: 740
Joined: Sat Jun 03, 2017 1:09 pm

Re: Carriage ride height and springing

Postby Daddyman » Mon Jan 04, 2021 8:14 am

Neil Smith wrote:Thanks for the detail - duly stored away for future reference!

All the best

Neil

I'll try and get some pointers for navigating the bogies' foibles put up in the next few days, Neil. There are quite a few areas where you need to be careful.

DougN wrote:Have to agree the carriage looks fantastic. Yes I have one (no where as nicely done as yours) in the snag pile! Can't remember what the snag was :? To push it forward?

Yes, there are a lot of potential snags on these, Doug. If you can find what it was, let me know - I may have a workaround for the snag in question.

User avatar
Chas Levin
Posts: 66
Joined: Mon Jan 25, 2021 9:39 pm

Re: Carriage ride height and springing

Postby Chas Levin » Tue Feb 16, 2021 9:33 pm

Daddyman wrote:
Here are some pretty pictures for anyone who's getting bored. You can see how crucial it is to get the ride height right, as the bogie steps have to line up exactly with the long footboards between the bogies - several days' work even with the rigid bogies fitted here:
10.JPG
20200927_101222.jpg


David, I wasn't getting bored but I very much enjoyed the pretty pictures nonetheless: beautiful rake you have there! :D
Chas

Daddyman
Posts: 740
Joined: Sat Jun 03, 2017 1:09 pm

Re: Carriage ride height and springing

Postby Daddyman » Wed Feb 17, 2021 7:26 am

Thanks, Chas. I'm currently having a blissful two weeks off the carriages at the moment, and undergoing some North British therapy. Back to the NER grindstone next week....

Daddyman
Posts: 740
Joined: Sat Jun 03, 2017 1:09 pm

Re: Carriage ride height and springing

Postby Daddyman » Sun Oct 15, 2023 7:49 pm

I thought this would be the weekend I got back to Bamburgh, but wanted to get some of the NER carriages off my back first - dash them off on Saturday, I thought, and get on to Bamburgh on Sunday. Hahaha.
So I sat back down to my D.5 composite-y toilet-y thingy yesterday, and in my usual fashion, looked to start with the job I least wanted to do. However, with bogie step supports, long stepboards, clerestory handrail, gas line along the clerestory roof, queen posts and trusses, and the toilet roof arrangement to do, it was hard to find the least appealing job. I opted for the toilet roof, and spent most of Saturday on it. It's taken me months on and off to work out the arrangements of vents and lamp tops there. Just to recap, my, um, contribution to knowledge on NER carriages is that the D&S box and instructions, as well as all drawings in NERA publications and in the modelling press, mislead the builder into furnish the roofs in a fashion that became obsolete from 1908, and had almost certainly disappeared by the grouping. First photo here is a perfect model (in 0 gauge, not built by me) of a carriage in that early condition: each compartment has a vent and a funnel-shaped lamp top; the lamp tops were the thing that changed, being removed toute de suite after 1908 once more efficient incandescent mantles became available.
23b.jpg

The photo earlier in this thread of my D.116 shows the later arrangement. Here's that same carriage painted in mid-1930s condition, before the long stepboards were removed [EDIT: this carriage (and all clerestories) needs the clerestory windows misting; I didn't know at the time of building and will treat it as part of a batch when I get to that stage on the other clerestories):
83b.jpg

The mystery though, was why some carriages retained two funnel-shaped lamp tops. The answer of course was that the lamp tops were over the toilets, and over the short corridors that led to the toilets. The incandescent mantles, as my model shows, were placed centrally in the clerestory roof, but that was no use for the toilets, which were positioned in a pair either side of the vehicle centre line, and were reached by short corridors into which centrally placed incandescent lamps would not penetrate. Different diagram, but you get the idea:
45 toilet arrangement.jpg

So on the D.5 there were two lamp tops on each side, one for the toilet and one for the corridor. The next problem was trying to work out what the actual fittings looked like. This photo of a D.116, seen earlier in the thread, shows that there was some handrail-knob-like thing, possibly with a square tee supporting it, which seemed to become less square later in the carriages' lives:
20200911_084751.jpg

Here's the later arrangement, less square:
Screenshot (2590).jpg

Here is the model, awaiting the gas lines that climb up onto the top of the clerestory to meet the main gas line (some clot put it down the wrong side of the clerestory so it had to be moved - yes, it was the same clot that drilled all the vent holes on the main roof in the wrong place):
20231015_202414.jpg

Here's where I'm at this evening - all the stepboards, trussing and gas tank (singular) done, but awaiting vacuum cylinders and vees; all in all a pretty miserable way to spend two days - so much so that scraping paint off the bodyside grab handles seemed "fun" (I might be using that word wrong):
20231015_195356.jpg

Here's another one, D.18. This has to go back into works: the S4 Virtual Group bullied me into de-wonkying the wonky castings for the ducket; that involved removing the beading from the ducket, and I initially fretted out an overlays to replace the beading (the condition it's in in the primer photo below), but then Dave Bradwell aided and abetted with an etch, expected soon [edit: this isn't the etch]:
73.jpg


I've also started cutting out the additional windows in the brake compartment (two each side - see the 0 gauge carriage above), as I can't find any photos of D.18s in LNER days without them. Pity as it spoils the ungainly look of the vehicle with such a long brake compartment.
82.jpg
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
Last edited by Daddyman on Mon Nov 13, 2023 1:09 pm, edited 5 times in total.

User avatar
Chas Levin
Posts: 66
Joined: Mon Jan 25, 2021 9:39 pm

Re: Carriage ride height and springing

Postby Chas Levin » Mon Oct 16, 2023 3:23 pm

Beautiful work as ever David! I'm fully with you on the system of doing the least pleasant task first, clearly some sort of childhood 'chores before play' overhang...
Last edited by Chas Levin on Mon Oct 16, 2023 9:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Chas

Daddyman
Posts: 740
Joined: Sat Jun 03, 2017 1:09 pm

Re: Carriage ride height and springing

Postby Daddyman » Mon Oct 16, 2023 4:35 pm

Chas Levin wrote:Beautiful work as ever David! I'm fully with on the system of doing the least pleasant task first, clearly some sort of childhood 'chores before play' overhang...

Thank you, Chas!

Yes, definitely a dad in there somewhere...

Daddyman
Posts: 740
Joined: Sat Jun 03, 2017 1:09 pm

Re: Building NER carriages

Postby Daddyman » Tue Oct 24, 2023 2:11 pm

This week has mostly been taken up with underframe and bogies. In this area, the D&S kits are found severely wanting. The bogies have compensation, so go straight in the bin without passing "Go", while the etches for the long centre stepboards and vertical fixing straps vary from kit to kit, and can't seem to decide which height of stepboard they're catering for - early (higher) or late (lower); more likely is D&S and their then-advisers in the NERA didn't know about the change - they admit to having no interest in the LNER period; fine, but my research shows that many of these changes (including lighting and all the associated roof mods) affect the last 15 years of the NER period too; yet all the published drawings only show the earlier condition. The crop below shows the later height of the stepboards (below the centre of the axleboxes) nearer the camera and the earlier one (through the centre of the axleboxes) further away. I don't know when this change occurred, and, returning the favour, am not much interested in the NER period. But my guess would be in the 1910s: the full photo - GMP10_0261 in the NERA digital archive - shows that the nearest carriage has gone over to incandescent lighting, so the stepboard change seems to have happened post 1908; those with more knowledge of BTPs and access to the NERA archive might be able to pin the date down further.
25 both different heights NERA-GMP.jpg

(It's odd that as the stepboards were lowered, the bodyside grab handrails were also raised - did northerners suddenly get taller after 1908?)

What D&S' choice means is that there's no chance of getting a rake of carriages with bogie stepboards and long centre stepboards lining up on all vehicles; some don't even have the correct number of uprights. I snapped these on their way to the bin:
20231024_133642.jpg


So I replace the stepboards with L-shape brass angle, 2.5mm x 1mm. The uprights I make by filing 0.6 wire flat (tack-solder it to a piece of pcb, file one side of the wire, de-solder, flip over, re-tack-solder, re-file). The uprights are soldered to the solebars at the correct positions (there are locating points etched on the solebars, but these sometimes need to be filed off owing to the aforementioned issue with the incorrect number of uprights - the D.53 at least is wrong). The stepboards are then attached to the uprights (which are left long), being jigged off the lower edge of the solebar with a piece of PCB filed down to 6.70mm:
20231024_134805.jpg


Here it is being used in anger (probably literally) - albeit after the fact as I forgot to photograph it during (the photo shows trussing and other fittings already in place, but in reality everything needs to be left off until the stepboards are on):
20231024_134732.jpg


Then it's the bogies. I may have mentioned these earlier in the thread, but my methods have possibly changed since then. The basics are that I use Mark's Miscellany Models/Rumney Fox bogies. These are beautiful etches with many alternative half-etched outer faces to represent carriages with, without, or nearly without, footboards. For those with footboards there's an ingenious system for folding up the supports for them. However.... they're in the wrong place for the later NER and LNER period (see above - "wrong" being relative as it was Mark's intention to model these carriages in their early life, making the footboard bracket position perfectly correct). The solution is firstly to use the half-etched outer bogie faces with no strapping on them (i.e. those intended for footboard-free bogies). However, I keep a stub of the strapping backing strips which are etched as part of the inner bogie frame - just to show me where the straps should go when I replace them. I then make my own straps (flattened 0.6 wire again), and I have two jigs which when used together set the footboard height, ensuring that they match the long centre stepboards once the bogies have their primary springing (10 thou) and secondary springing (9 thou) set up; the footboards are attached to the jig before the straps go on. (No idea how I jigged the straps as I bent up enough to see me out while on holiday with my sister, who imposed a soldering ban for the week - door handles filed from pins, and twizzles of 0.193 wire for clerestory and bodyside handrail brackets also got made by the hundred.)
20231019_184915.jpg

(I can provide dimensions for the big bogie jigs for fellow masochists.)

That's not the end of the hurdles: D&S' axlebox castings are too short to go between the damper uprights on the Miscellany bogies. This is because they lack the buckle thingy at the end of the springs. The solution was to add these to a D&S casting (with rod or tube, can't remember) and then make resin castings from the master. Nowadays I'd ask Justin to print them. Here is a bogie with all mods done, but awaiting bolsters from MJT:
20231022_193123.jpg


Anyone still reading? Right, dampers. The photo above shows my latest experiment, with the dampers. NER carriages had two types of dampers (if that's what they are): coil springs, and what look like big rubber drums. Looking at Record 2, it seems certain that the coils were the first design, and the rubber ones came in from 1908; both types were later mixed indiscriminately [EDIT: I mean that the bogies with each damper style could end up under carriages not built with them; both styles were never, as far as I know, mixed on the same vehicle - one bogie coil and one rubber]. Coils:
Screenshot (736).jpg


Big 'uns:
37.jpg


Bigger 'uns:
36.jpg


So far, I've always done the coil springs as these are supplied in the Miscellany kit:
83c.jpg


These have to be made up from lots of tiny little etched discs, alternating with slightly tinier etched discs, all of which (48 of each [sic] per carriage) have to be cut from the fret and de-tabbed! (Richard's going to tell me I left the tab on one. I know, but I needed a lie-down.)
20231024_141959.jpg


For the rubber dampers I used my own resin castings. These are a bit uneven so I've approached Justin for replacements.

Finally, general view of the underframe:
20231022_192911.jpg

This shows the single gas tank (always in the NW or SE corner when viewing from below) gradually fitted after 1908 in place of the original 4 (incandescent being more efficient than gas burners) (you won't find that in yer D&S instructions), twin vac tanks (21" from Lanarkshire - 21" being a guess). I don't do anything more brake-wise as I've no idea what was there, but it seems fair to assume the Westinghouse stuff had gone by the 1930s. Apologies to Mark and Justin for simplifying their beautiful bogie brake rigging; that's for when I put 00 wheels in - these carriages pose around on P4 wheels, pretending they're all that, but in reality they were intended for my dad's 00 layout. But his tendency to park stock on its side made my rethink...

You may just be able to see the vac. pipe running down the solebar on the non-gas-tank side. I'm not sure how much rhyme or reason there was to which solebar this went down, but in the photos where it can be seen, it is most often on the side with the end steps to the left. I have several photos of brake vehicles showing it on that side, and the only two clear ones I have of non-brakes also show it on that side.

Next up, finishing the scratchbuilt vacuum standpipes and fitting them to the ends. I'd use the lovely Lanarkshire ones if I could, but they're white metal so not robust enough to withstand being exposed to knocks when the underframe is detached from the body (for painting, etc):
20231022_192531.jpg


Stay tuned for the next exciting instalment, when I explain all about the direction of kink in LNER vacuum standpipes! Maybe even a clerestory handrail too!
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
Last edited by Daddyman on Sun Oct 29, 2023 5:52 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Winander
Posts: 847
Joined: Thu Mar 20, 2014 12:19 pm

Re: Building NER carriages

Postby Winander » Tue Oct 24, 2023 3:02 pm

Fascinating, but well below the solebar and getting dangerously close to the trackwork.
Richard Hodgson
Organiser Scalefour Virtual Group. Our meeting invitation is here.

Daddyman
Posts: 740
Joined: Sat Jun 03, 2017 1:09 pm

Re: Building NER carriages

Postby Daddyman » Tue Oct 24, 2023 3:34 pm

Winander wrote:Fascinating, but well below the solebar and getting dangerously close to the trackwork.

Harumph!

DougN
Posts: 1252
Joined: Wed Sep 01, 2010 9:57 am

Re: Building NER carriages

Postby DougN » Wed Oct 25, 2023 2:22 am

Wow and here was me thinking that the bogies were ok from D&S.

Interesting that you have done, what effectively I had done with out knowing, of adding straps to the foot boards to the bogies... I had always wondered about how the designer had thought they were going to be attached :? .

I watch with interest as I have a couple of kits still in the strategic reserve for "one day"..what you are doing is encouraging me to improve them even more.
Doug
Still not doing enough modelling


Return to “Starting in P4”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: ClaudeBot, magpie-crawler and 0 guests