|
Post by alanstepney on Feb 21, 2007 20:08:37 GMT
I prefer traditional methods.
When the new technology reaches the stage where I can hold a photo of an engine to a screen, tell it the finished size I want, and a complete engine drops out of a slot, then I will REALLY be impressed!
|
|
Myford Matt
Statesman
There are two ways to run a railway, the Great Western way, and the wrong way.
Posts: 621
|
Post by Myford Matt on Feb 21, 2007 20:34:50 GMT
DTME?
MM
|
|
dscott
Elder Statesman
Posts: 2,438
|
Post by dscott on Feb 21, 2007 21:54:35 GMT
What a wonderful discussion, now back to the River, ( the GWR River class I am having a go at between decorating all the rooms in our house) Reeves do a sutable wheel casting....but all those spokes...now if I draw out the profile...get these lazer cut...then a large disc, sorry 2 discs of steel cut out saves wastage. From 15mm, sorry 5/8"plate, thats better. The inner one can then be used for a tender wheel. Make several bosses turn the rim and fit all the spokes between. (you may have guessed that the spokes are of rectangular section and dont need a driving crank) they on the photo are very fine and building up is I think a good way of representing them. I did the drawing just before Christmas.
Off topic but the modern technology that Alan refers to is almost here with dating via the internet. Mouse down untill you find a model you fancy then click on shopping basket. She arrives a few months later, then you do have to resort to lazer cutting as there is not much time for chain drilling, hacksawing and filing anymore.
David.
|
|
paul
Member
Posts: 8
|
Post by paul on Feb 21, 2007 21:56:40 GMT
Although I'm a total noob I prefer traditional methods (if not traditional measurement systems!). If I wanted to make stuff with the computer I'd forget about real models and make perfect, instantly-changeable, wear-free, no-cost, any-size virtual models. There might be little point in learning 'hand skills' these days but why not if that's what you want to do? It gives you a better understanding and 'feel' of what it was like for those who have gone before.
Where's the skill in pushing buttons?
|
|
Peter
Active Member
Posts: 32
|
Post by Peter on Feb 21, 2007 23:01:13 GMT
On my first loco i was very glad to use laser cut frames rods and a bought boiler, It was mind boggling enough for me to work out all the other jobs and found it a confidence boost having a few parts already there. However a few projects on im planning the next one to be made totally from scratch so i can look at it and know that i knew it when it was flat sheet, bar stock and castings. I think both ways have there merits, its just up to what you want to do.
|
|
k1
Member
Posts: 2
|
Post by k1 on Feb 21, 2007 23:55:36 GMT
I for one would be interested then to hear the justification for buying the wheel castings. Surely a "real" model engineer could cast their own? Stuart I take that this is tongue in cheek. Absolutely! I am a tool and die maker by trade, but unfortunately do not possess any workshop equipment at home. Financial and space constraints are going to prohibit investment in workshop equipment for the foreseeable future but I still have a strong desire to make 5" gauge locomotives and rolling stock. The only way I am going to make any progress for the time being is to utilise whatever technologies are available to me, be it a quick half hour on the latest CNC machinery at work during my lunch break, going to the nearest laser cutting facility or even buying in some items pre-machined (gasp! ) In my case the choice is simple, start now and forge onwards by whatever means or continue to be an "armchair" hobbyist for the next 2, 5, 10 (?) years until my circumstances change. For certain as a tool and die maker I am far less skilled in some areas than someone who did my job 50 years ago but I also recognise that modern machinery allows me to be more precise and productive. Am I "cheating"? My boss doesn't seem to think so and I'm sure he wouldn't be too pleased to see me honouring the traditional methods. In fact we even buy in certain items at work because it is sometimes cheaper or quicker or more accurate to have certain components supplied by specialists. Stuart
|
|
Lurkio
Seasoned Member
Posts: 101
|
Post by Lurkio on Feb 22, 2007 1:19:32 GMT
This debate has cropped up before, and no doubt will do so again.
k1, You're right, time moves on and techniques change. (I should think that laser cutting of steel was science fiction when most (all?) of this forum's members were born). Some of us will *have* to take 'short cuts' if we are ever to see our projects completed!
If you want to take advantage of these changes, then fine....if not, well then that's OK too. If the hobby's giving you satisfaction, then you shouldn't fret about how others are doing it.
In LBSC's day you *had* to make most parts for a model - they weren't available to buy. The average chap didn't have much spare cash anyway. Now of course you can buy all sorts of bits - injectors, pumps, detailed castings (oh, and laser cut frames). Same with workshop tools, there's a vast range of tools available to the hobbyist now, and at low prices. This has all made the hobby easier to get into (a good thing surely) and good results easier to achieve. And it's given builders more choice in the way they tackle their model.
Spamcanpete, Personally though, I'm a believer in making as many of my own bits as I can. But if I could afford it I'd soon treat myself to one of those Aster spam can kits for the mantlepiece. What do you think?
Lurkio.
|
|
|
Post by Shawki Shlemon on Feb 22, 2007 10:04:04 GMT
For what is worth I like to mention that more than 30% of our club members buy their locomotives complete and they have as much fun and interest in the hobby as any of the builders .The hobby is made of builders of all kind ,buyers ,and if you like some part buyers and builders .As I mentioned before every one see things in a different way and achieve their objective in best way for them .We all are proud of our models whether was purchased , made or partly made . For the hobby to survive we need all kind of people ,builders, buyers and those who join clubs to participate in club activity without having or building a locomotive.
|
|
|
Post by dinmoremanor on Feb 22, 2007 10:04:18 GMT
Even if you buy laser cut frames/platework etc. there is still a hell of alot of traditional machining to be done to complete any loco......... I have a number of engines I wish to build in the future, time moves quickly and none of us are getting any younger, although I am probably one of the younger ones on here. Even so, I realise that to speed things up a little then the use of laser cut frames etc. would be an advantage and there will still be PLENTY left for me to do. The arguement "you may aswell buy a Model Works kit" just doesn't hold water with me, I think that is nonsense.
|
|
|
Post by dinmoremanor on Feb 22, 2007 10:06:04 GMT
For what is worth I like to mention that more than 30% of our club members buy their locomotives complete and they have as much fun and interest in the hobby as any of the builders .The hobby is made of builders of all kind ,buyers ,and if you like some part buyers and builders .As I mentioned before every one see things in a different way and achieve their objective in best way for them .We all are proud of our models whether was purchased , made or partly made . For the hobby to survive we need all kind of people ,builders, buyers and those who join clubs to participate in club activity without having or building a locomotive. Very well said Shawki, so very true.........
|
|
|
Post by 3405jimmy on Feb 22, 2007 10:06:17 GMT
As far as the 64ths debate goes and all the decimal measurements that now dominate the ME press. The one thing I have found preparing my own drawings in a CAD package. Is to draw everything is very straight forward but the thing that takes the time is converting plate thicknesses, holes sizes etc to available real world material sizes. If you then expand that to getting all the dimensions to conform to available units be they metric or imperial it’s all extra work and time.
As long as w still have people prepared to produce new designs and descriptions in the press I think we can all agree that is a good thing. I for one would cut them a bit of slack if they don’t convert everything to fit my 6” ruler.
Jim
|
|
|
Post by Laurie_B on Feb 22, 2007 11:34:24 GMT
The 2-6-4 of D Hewsons. You need to spend well into £1000 on lost wax castings as he doesn't give measurements for bits he wants us all to buy from him, the drawings are not complete. I would have liked to make this engine but 'I want to make it', I don't want to use every possible short cut as I haven't truely made it. Again.not wishing to detract from those who prefer using traditional methods,I sometimes wonder why so much is made of finishing items such as frame plates deploying hand-skills (or even shelling out cash to have parts cut out) to achieve the levels of accuracy required,when the resulting frame profile doesn't always bear much resemblance to the prototype upon which the model is suppose to be based. True,Doug Hewson does charge a lot for lost wax castings,yet his sand mould castings are quite reasonable.Bear in mind that Doug is a bit of a 'one-man-show'.But Doug has done considerable research using works drawings,to produce castings that are much more accurate,and that is reflected throughout his BR Std Class 4 tank loco design.These still need to be machined,drilled,threaded etc.I have used a lot of Doug Hewson's castings (rather than those from Reeves intended also for the 'Jersey Lily' design) in my 5" gauge BR Std Class 2 loco,and also using some of Doug's drawings,which I have found to have all the dimensions required. Both Doug Hewson and David Aitken,in their current construction articles,make reference to those wishing to build their locos by traditional methods.You don't have to buy their components. As Myford Matt asks-where do we draw the line?That is a matter for each individual engineer,dependant many factors,including the desire to produce engines more representative of the full sized version.If the intended loco is just going to be used to belt round the club track,then I suspect none of this matters too much.But if you are thinking of entering your engine into the competition classes of major model engineering exhibitions,then it becomes a very different matter.
|
|
dscott
Elder Statesman
Posts: 2,438
|
Post by dscott on Feb 22, 2007 16:24:46 GMT
Dear K1 and 3405,
Part of my hobbie is drawing and prepairing designs to be eventually published, I have no deadlines and they are in pencil so corrections take moments. For K1 there is S.I.M.P. which is aimed at someone with limited space in the corner of the kitchen using no castings, this is drawn in duel measurements to suit the new materials and would keep 3405 happy with his ruler, and is based on a De-winton. Build using the bolt one part in place, and drill through to position the next item. I am very happy with the design so far. No lazer cutting and brings us back to the days of winding our own cats whiskers to listen to the radio. To be driven wearing 1930's clothing of course. My other engines a Bulldog so I see our hobbie from both extreems.
David.
|
|
|
Post by Nigel Bennett on Feb 22, 2007 16:46:17 GMT
Or you could go even further than doing your own castings - mine the ore and smelt it first! How far d'you go? Personally, I do my own frames - jig drilling from a redrawn CAD drawing, using a DRO on the milling machine is all I need. I might be tempted to get laser cut if I was building a loco with bar frames, though!
|
|
|
Post by gilesengineer on Feb 22, 2007 19:12:06 GMT
A broad spectrum of opinion.....
Someone wondered 'where the skill was in pressing buttons' - well, perhaps in the design, judgements and decisions that have to be made when you're working it through on computer (or indeed paper for that matter). I think one gets a fuller understanding and 'feel' for the job when you have to work out and decide what type of material, what thickness etc.etc. is appropriate, than simply relying on working to somebody else's specific instructions? I work through my designs on computer, but I often have to go down to the workshop and just stand there and hold bits of steel to feel what's right and in proportion for a particular problem... The computer is just a tool..... I personally get more satisfaction from knowing I designed the loco (and hope it works...) and tend not to worry about not having sawn all that steel by hand.
What a good thing the hobby and it's members are so broad-ranging!
|
|
|
Post by havoc on Feb 22, 2007 19:14:10 GMT
Traditionalist by heart. I find it almost therapeutic to saw through a 65mm bar or file along a frame. You are imposing your will on massive metal and shape something out of formless lumps of steel. I admit I prefer steel above brass.
But I buy nuts and bolts...
|
|
simonwass
Part of the e-furniture
Cecil Pagets 2-6-2 of 1908. Engine number 2299. Would make a fascinating model....
Posts: 472
|
Post by simonwass on Feb 23, 2007 0:53:34 GMT
Both Doug Hewson and David Aitken, in their current construction articles, make reference to those wishing to build their locos by traditional methods. You don't have to buy their components. Not true, some of the lost wax parts for the class 4 are not externally dimensioned (certainly not in the construction articles in EIM), you cannot make the part yourself as there are no dimensions other than those needed to machine a complete casting. You could guess, or scale the drawing but if you purposely do not dimension a drawing and state lost wax castings are available, you are implying the builder to make a purchase. Doug has done this quite a few times, the component may be fiddly but the choice ought to be given to the builder to make from scratch. This way, both the cheque book modeller and the engineers are satisfied.
|
|
|
Post by Laurie_B on Feb 23, 2007 9:42:48 GMT
Not true, some of the lost wax parts for the class 4 are not externally dimensioned (certainly not in the construction articles in EIM), you cannot make the part yourself as there are no dimensions other than those needed to machine a complete casting. You could guess, or scale the drawing but if you purposely do not dimension a drawing and state lost wax castings are available, you are implying the builder to make a purchase. Doug has done this quite a few times, the component may be fiddly but the choice ought to be given to the builder to make from scratch. This way, both the cheque book modeller and the engineers are satisfied. But Simon,surely the point of these lost wax castings is that they need very little machining.Doug Hewson has already done the design work for them.I've just fitted 12 off B.R. pattern tender spring hanger castings and 6 off brake hanger castings obtained from Doug Hewson.I have no drawings for these,all I had to do was clean up the one face,take off a minute amount of 'flash',and drill the holes.My experience is that there are dimensioned drawings for Doug's sand-mould castings. Yes,you could resort to making the components yourself.But if you are going to that trouble,wouldn't you'd be better off going and measuring up the parts on one of the several 80xxx tank locos that have been preserved? And even if you obtain your castings from other suppliers,(and one in particular springs to mind!),you will still need to get the cheque book out! Personally I like Doug Hewson's overall approach,but there are a lot of alternatives to his designs.Unfortunately this isn't such a cheap hobby these days.Global materials prices (steel,copper,brass,nickel silver etc) are now filtering through into the model making world.
|
|
John Lee
Part of the e-furniture
Posts: 375
|
Post by John Lee on Feb 23, 2007 18:52:37 GMT
Hmmm I think Simon has a point though..... Just like the recent article on a bending machine, which really turned out to be an advertisment to buy the resultant machine from Warco, these "construction" articles are attempts to sell their own goods as well. If you want to go down the "measure it yourself" route then take it to the logical extreme, you don't need their plans or articles either. Yes ME is becoming more expensive, but leaving out measurements so somebody, if they wish to build the design, is forced down the "buy it" rather than the "make it yourself" route makes it even more expensive; and is, to say the least, destructive to a hobby that has its heart in craftsmanship, self reliance and skill IMHO. So, not to take it into "Let it Roll" territory, much ; the spirit of Thatcherism now descends into this hobby... Not in my workshop (fancy name for a big old outbuilding of horsey origin), I don't want to spend £1000's just to be able to say that my inside offset lubricator woggle bracket has the correct number of slots in the castellated nut heads. Ohh and the correct size split pin that I need to make sized .056 Is this not exactly why it is becoming (more) expensive?? Regards, John
|
|
|
Post by Laurie_B on Feb 23, 2007 21:46:57 GMT
Well,maybe.I can understand Simon's frustration.But this isn't a new problem,and isn't confined to the designs of Doug Hewson or David Aitken.
Earlier today I was looking at the drawings for Don Young's BR Class 2 tender loco.This dates from 1972.Here too,where castings are specified,the relevant drawing only gives dimensions for machining purposes and there is insufficient other information to make a fabrication.I suspect this generally to be the case.To have all the dimensions to make a fabrication you would probably need the drawings (if they exist) from which the patterns were made.
It is well known that Doug Hewson's 80xxx design is highly detailed,(even down to working tank level guages,for goodness sake!),and is aimed at those builders who enjoy replicating this level of detail from the prototype.Clearly that isn't going to appeal to everyone.Continuing your theme of 'the spirit of Thatcherism',wasn't a cornerstone of this,the much abused word-''choice''?!
And I don't think that Doug Hewson's obsessions with inside offset lubricator woggle brackets (and let's face it,Doug just loves them!),can be the only reason why model engineering is becoming so expensive.Folk have oft commented how expensive our friends at Reeves 2000 have become.They are best known for dealing with designs which appeared many years ago.
Talking of which,Sheet 8 of Don Young's Class 2 loco (the tender drawing) has no dimensions whatsoever for the tender superstructure,save for noting the wire for the window protectors is 16 swg (all I ever needed to know!),and the grab handles on the tank side are "3/32" (or 1/8") DIA" .More ''choice''!! So I am a little hesitant at ordering possibly well over £100 worth of brass sheet (maybe nickel-silver,I haven't decided yet),based on a drawing with no dimensions.And this isn't a small part of the design either,it's a major part!So yes I can sympathise with Simon!
The other day I was just wondering what LBSC might have made of the Laser vs Hacksaw/file debate.Any thoughts?
|
|