Errors on drawings

[Roger]

Mar 19, 2014 0:25:03 GMT davebreeze said:

For the Maid of Kent people, have you seen this?

www.m-niggemann.com and click on 'modelbau'

Looks like he has done a 3d CAD model and is selling metric drawings.

Indeed he has, and from the original plans. Unfortunately the text on the pages doesn't automatically translate into English but you can copy and paste it into Google Translate to see what it says. He's currently charging 88,70 EURO for those. There are some great closeup pictures of the partially build locomotive there that would be useful to builders.
I've just added the link to the Maid of Kent Wiki

I've also just emailed them to ask how UK customers can buy the plans and to alert them to the fact that their web site can't be viewed in other languages.

[KennLindeman]

Had a look at his web site. I see that his loco is a outside valve version. Wonder if he also did inside valve drawings. His cad drawings look good.

[Roger]

Mar 19, 2014 11:28:03 GMT KennLindeman said:

Had a look at his web site. I see that his loco is a outside valve version. Wonder if he also did inside valve drawings. His cad drawings look good.

If there are two versions of the locomotive, that would be a good thing to get onto the first page of the wiki, I wouldn't have known that.

[Roger]

Ok, I got a response from Thorsten Niggemann about Maid of Kent and posted all I found out on the wiki

[Geoff]

Mar 19, 2014 19:53:38 GMT Roger said:

Ok, I got a response from Thorsten Niggemann about Maid of Kent and posted all I found out on the wiki

Thanks Roger,
I see you have added some information on this to the wikia. I have added the Don Young modifications as well but I am still coming to grips with the way that site works and wasn't sure if I could embed the photos within the page.

[Roger]

Mar 20, 2014 0:39:28 GMT Geoff said:

Mar 19, 2014 19:53:38 GMT Roger said:

Ok, I got a response from Thorsten Niggemann about Maid of Kent and posted all I found out on the wiki

Thanks Roger,
I see you have added some information on this to the wikia. I have added the Don Young modifications as well but I am still coming to grips with the way that site works and wasn't sure if I could embed the photos within the page.

Hi Geoff,
Adding photos and getting them in the right place is not that intuitive really. You've got a placeholder for a video that needs to come out of there. If you go into Edit mode and hover over it you will see there are options to Modify or Remove that.
While in that mode you can click on the Photo Icon and that will place a photo wherever the cursor is. Don't worry about where it goes, just play with the options there to get it the size you want. You can always go back and use the Modify option to get you back there. I click on the  Source Tab in the page I'm editing and then cut and paste the line that you can see is the .jpg image, and move it just under the heading which will have ==this== style of text.
Have a look at SPEEDY's wiki in Source view when you go into edit mode and you'll see what it look like. That seems to work pretty well. I'll fix it for you if you get stuck.

[peter99]

Browsing thro' the drawings of my model engineers loco what I find so amateurish is the way that the
details of a sub-assembly such as a brake cylinder or the reversing linkage are scattered across 2 or 3 drgs.
Nothing appears as if drawn in a logical manner. No wonder items and details are left out.
A sub-assembly drawing? You have got to be joking!
I suppose it's just what 'model engineers' have to put up with!
We just have to keep smiling!
PS I thought CAD would solve this prob but it appears not so.
Like all computer programs, if its rubbish in, its rubbish out!

[masahiraoka]

In 2001 and 2002 Peter Lewis wrote a series of excellent articles in Model Engineer describing the trials and tribulations of building his Keith Wilson designed 5 inch gauge rebuilt Merchant Navy, General Steam Navigation, see table below. In his articles he mentions a number of other builders of Keith’s loco including Peter Theobald of Ballarat in Victoria Australia, Fred Grosvenor in Sydney Australia and Ken Whittle I guess in the UK, all of whom provided him with invaluable advice as to the many errors with Keith’s design.


It would seem from the tone of Peter’s comments that there are “pages and pages” of errors, rather more than those listed in the two and bit pages helpfully uploaded by Sparticusrye, see www.dropbox.com/s/lsqvn4ww0s0vhql/Ariel_Errors.pdf
but maybe I’m wrong – I have yet to do a careful cross reference between Peter’s articles and this list.


I would welcome the opportunity to establish contact with any or all of Peter Lewis, Peter Theobald, Fred or Ken with a view to documenting the errors that they have found in the design. If anyone can help in this regard it would be much appreciated.

Thanks Martyn


Vol Issue Page Date Year

187 4155 273 21-Sep 2001

187 4157 378 2-Nov 2001

187 4160 550 4-Jan 2002

187 4162 652 8-Feb 2002

188 4164 90 8-Mar 2002

188 4166 203 5-Apr 2002

189 4179 345 4-Oct 2002

Peter Lewis’ articles on his Merchant Navy

[peter99]

Mar 14, 2014 19:24:29 GMT Roger said:

I know I'm in danger of being known for banging on about this, but until individual builders take this into their own hands and contribute to a knowledge base then it will always be so. It's a waste of time complaining to anyone or posting things on Forums where these corrections will surely be lost in time.
If you're going to build this locomotive then please start a Wiki along the lines of the one I've started for SPEEDY, don't leave it for someone else to do. It's really easy and everyone can contribute their own information because nobody owns the wiki.
Take a look at the one I started here and you'll see what I mean.

I take your point Roger, but after due consideration I do not wish at least for the time being, to list and detail drawing errors I have found on my unfinished loco.
I am just a retired amateur and for all the probs found I do not wish to 'do down' someone who is running a business and I am sure is doing his or her best, which all in model engineering do.
It is my opinion perfectly OK to publish errors on loco drawings for such designs where the mainstay of the design is long gone, like 'Curly,' God bless him.
It is just a pity that the supplies of loco drawings and castings etc do not take a more professional interest in the publication of drawing errors to update the drawings they supply.
But I guess this is asking too much. 
The whole problem is that the model engineering loco business has the flavour of an amateur supply to an amateurs hobby.
If we rant and rave and publish too much the business will get a bad name and it will fade away, even more quickly! 
Therefore, your case of 'banging on' is falling on my deaf ears for the time being!
So, all I can say is that like  in all things one buys these days, 'let the buyer beware'!

[Roger]

May 15, 2014 11:30:58 GMT peter99 said:

Mar 14, 2014 19:24:29 GMT Roger said:

I know I'm in danger of being known for banging on about this, but until individual builders take this into their own hands and contribute to a knowledge base then it will always be so. It's a waste of time complaining to anyone or posting things on Forums where these corrections will surely be lost in time.
If you're going to build this locomotive then please start a Wiki along the lines of the one I've started for SPEEDY, don't leave it for someone else to do. It's really easy and everyone can contribute their own information because nobody owns the wiki.
Take a look at the one I started here and you'll see what I mean.

I take your point Roger, but after due consideration I do not wish at least for the time being, to list and detail drawing errors I have found on my unfinished loco.
I am just a retired amateur and for all the probs found I do not wish to 'do down' someone who is running a business and I am sure is doing his or her best, which all in model engineering do.
It is my opinion perfectly OK to publish errors on loco drawings for such designs where the mainstay of the design is long gone, like 'Curly,' God bless him.
It is just a pity that the supplies of loco drawings and castings etc do not take a more professional interest in the publication of drawing errors to update the drawings they supply.
But I guess this is asking too much. 
The whole problem is that the model engineering loco business has the flavour of an amateur supply to an amateurs hobby.
If we rant and rave and publish too much the business will get a bad name and it will fade away, even more quickly! 
Therefore, your case of 'banging on' is falling on my deaf ears for the time being!
So, all I can say is that like  in all things one buys these days, 'let the buyer beware'!

Hi Peter,
That's fair enough, we don't all agree about this. Personally I want to help others not keep repeating the same mistakes over and over and that's why I started the Wiki. I wouldn't worry too much about the suppliers, they've had it too easy for too long, selling drawings that aren't fit for purpose and resting on their laurels with regard to the quality of castings etc. If they disappear, much better ones will sprout up in their place in my opinion because there's a need for these things. I can't think of another area of business where these things would be tolerated. I guess it's because we wear the 'Amateur' badge the lets suppliers get away with it.

[andyhigham]

I think the time is long overdue for drawings to be re drawn in CAD. Mistakes / errors can easily corrected.
The drawings could then be sent to the customer either as a CAD or PDF file and printed off by the customer, the parts of the drawing he needs at the time.
My Sweet Pea/Metre Maid drawings are almost unreadable along the fold lines.

[Roger]

May 15, 2014 12:18:08 GMT andyhigham said:

I think the time is long overdue for drawings to be re drawn in CAD. Mistakes / errors can easily corrected.
The drawings could then be sent to the customer either as a CAD or PDF file and printed off by the customer, the parts of the drawing he needs at the time.
My Sweet Pea/Metre Maid drawings are almost unreadable along the fold lines.

I agree, and if it's 3D modelled, those drawings won't have any blatant errors such as missing lines. Maybe it's a pipedream, but I think if a supplier had the inclination to do this, the amount of goodwill and purchased parts would easily pay back the investment.
These days, I only glance at the drawings as a starting point, then look at 1501s pictures before modelling the part. The drawings are largely a work of fiction.

[alanstepney]

I believe several posts here are incorrect in their assumptions.

Anyone who wanted to do a complete CAD version of an established design, would be infringing copyright.
They might, or might not, get away with it.

The original design was, in many cases, published in Model Engineer (plus there were others) and it is really for thme to make corrections.
BUT, would there be any benefit <to them>, and if so, would the benefit justify the cost, which would be high.

I dont agree that, if one dealer closed others would spring up.
Look back through the magazines and you can find innumerable suppliers, some with an amazing range, but who are no longer with us, and no-one else has taken over their range.

It is a complicated subject, and one that does not have a simple answer.

[Roger]

you're probably right about some designs, but some are very old indeed and I'm sure that nobody could claim copyright. Anyone undertaking a CAD version would certainly have to check. It would also be interesting to know how far down that road someone could go, amending errors, metricating perhaps, and rectifying the many departures from scale before they could claim it to be a new design and claim copyright themselves. Clearly the full size locomotive is the real article, is someone infringing copyright of the original by making a model of it? I have absolutely no idea, and it's a potential minefield.
Personally I doubt if anyone would come forward and contest a redesign, I guess you would have to approach the suppliers of the plans today and ask them to show proof that they have the copyright.
I notice that there's a guy in Germany doing just this, so it's not without precedence. He's selling the CAD data and parts made to that redesign.
I suspect the loss of model engineering suppliers is that there wasn't enough demand for their wares. Companies like Chronos, RDG tools, Warco and Chester have stepped in and taken some of that business away, and that may have made them unviable.

[andyhigham]

Is re-drawing the drawings into an electronic format any different to printing them onto A0 sheets before selling them?

[Roger]

I don't think the format matters, it's the content. You see the kind of descriptions at the start of a movie that say these kinds of things. I don't think the copying element is a problem, it's the selling of something you don't have the rights to. Frankly, I doubt if most of the people selling the plans today have the copyright of them, but I may be wrong. I'd love to see them prove it.

[peter99]

The last set of the three drawings of my loco to which I am working to have been drawn using a CAD program of some sort.
Unfortunately there are CAD programs and CAD programs,some good and some not so good but all rely on the on the skill
and experience of the person using it.
By the mistakes on these CAD produced drawings it's pretty obvious that the detail
parts have not been 'proved' as sub-assemblies and then on to a General Arrangement Drawing.
However, I think by the various modifications and from what the designer has said the drive linkage has been CAD 'proved'.
I have no reason to disbelieve this.
With my loco, the CAD seems to have been used mainly as a convenient means of storing information on the drawings.
The construction of some of the detail parts using CAD is in some places very poor.
The CAD drawings are basically a copy of the original hand drawn drawings with the details 'shotgunned' throughout a set of drawings
with no obvious signs of planning or system or organisation.
I am afraid that a CAD program is only as good as the skill of the person using it.

[Roger]

May 15, 2014 16:53:46 GMT peter99 said:

The last set of the three drawings of my loco to which I am working to have been drawn using a CAD program of some sort.
Unfortunately there are CAD programs and CAD programs,some good and some not so good but all rely on the on the skill
and experience of the person using it.
By the mistakes on these CAD produced drawings it's pretty obvious that the detail
parts have not been 'proved' as sub-assemblies and then on to a General Arrangement Drawing.
However, I think by the various modifications and from what the designer has said the drive linkage has been CAD 'proved'.
I have no reason to disbelieve this.
With my loco, the CAD seems to have been used mainly as a convenient means of storing information on the drawings.
The construction of some of the detail parts using CAD is in some places very poor.
The CAD drawings are basically a copy of the original hand drawn drawings with the details 'shotgunned' throughout a set of drawings
with no obvious signs of planning or system or organisation.
I am afraid that a CAD program is only as good as the skill of the person using it.

Quite so Peter, and 2D CAD is a poor substitute for 3D modelling. 2D CAD is little more than an electronic drawing board, although it is a step in the right direction. You only start to really get the benefits of CAD when you go to 3D, then the drawings will always be a true representation of the model. You can still make a hash of it, as I sometimes do, but it's a lot easier to spot the mistakes when you can assemble parts virtually on the screen. Even better is when those assemblies have constraints applied to them so they can be animated. That makes clearance errors much easier to visualise.

[alanstepney]

AFAIK, if Reeves, for example, sell a copy of a drawing, the copyright still belongs to Model Engineer (assuming that they originally published it) and Reeves are only selling it ontheir (ME's) behalf.

I believe that Copyright lasts for 70 years after the death of the author, so it would only be the very early designs that are outside the rules, and they are hardly likely to be of much interest.

As for the actual designs, take most of LBSC's models.
They were only roughly to scale and often simplified, as that was the only way people would be able to build them in those days.
So, if you drew a GWR Hall, (of which LBSC did two versions), and followed the actual BR/ GWR drawings, that would be fine (and very useful), but if you copied Ivy Hall, with the LBSC modifications etc, I believe that would fall foul of the copyright law.
Re-drawing with some changes to reflect todays workshops, plus converting everything to metric, would be, IMHO, a new design.

Then comes another hurdle.
As a new design it would need all the engineering calculations for the boiler to ensure that it was acceptable to the insurers.

I suspect it would require a massive amount of time and effort, and for little or no reward.

As for errors, I have yet to see any model engineering drawings that are totally error-free. (There might be, but I havent seen them.)
I wonder if CAD would totally eliminate mistakes. Somehow I doubt it.

[andyhigham]

CAD will not eliminate errors, just make them easier to correct. With a hand drawn drawing, to make a correction, a "velograph" copy needs to be made, the surface then needs to be shaved off with a razor blade to remove the lines then the new lines drawing in.
With CAD, highlight the parts to be removed, click delete, then draw in the replacement