Some nice modelling there Cameron - well done.
Just some comments on a couple of topics in this thread:
Cambridge Custom Transfers
I have used these in the past and not found them to be particularly good at adhering to models. Like you, I airbrushed varnish over them. In the process, I found that the 'letters' are very susceptible to the formulations of varnishes. In some cases, I found that the 'ink' of the letters was dissolved and in other cases, the letters were dislodged.
In the end, I ended up binning them and buying better transfers such as HMRS.
...
Thanks Graham!
Fortunately I've not experienced any issues with the printing dissolving on these to-date, and I have used both the more conventional Phoenix Precision enamel varnish and the
Mr Colour GX 100 SuperClear III. Both of these were applied through the airbrush using a 'mist-then-wet' technique'. - Additionally; the latter is definitely significantly more agressive in its solvents, and would greatly reccomend proper ventilation and breathing protection!. Whilst I didn't have any issues with the automotive grey paint, the
Diag. X2 MICA B that was painted using Halfords rattle can enamel did slightly 'craze' its surface when applying the Mr Colour varnish, which I have put down to being too agressive with the 'wet' coat as I didn't have that issue on the Siphon (PP enamels).
My biggest criticism of the CCT transfers is the set I have has a couple of printing faults where there are small gaps (see below). That and the colour is more translucent than ideal, which is pronounced more by those faults.
The biggest thing I find them useful for is where CCT fills in the 'gaps' in lettering left by other manufacturers. - I probably have a complete set of GWR HMRS/Fox/Modelmaster/Railtec transfers now as well, so swap between them a fair amount (sometimes within the same model, lol)!
...
Parting of W Irons
I note that you mentioned issues with the construction of a brass kit as being unusual to accomodate wheel fitting.
This is actually an issue I come across frequently, having built 100's of wagon kits, both in 4mm and 7mm scales.
In my opinion, many kit manufacturers give poor advice on constructing chassis. Most advise to build the chassis and then prise the W irons apart to force-fit the wheels.
Personally, I think this is really bad advice.
My approach is to build the chassis of all rolling stock by fitting the solebars and W irons to the 'base plate' and at the same time, fitting the wheels as one side solebar is fitted. This means that there is no bending of W irons and the W irons stay as a tight fit, preventing sideplay in wheels sets. Using this approach also ensures that the chassis is square and the the wheels sit on the rails with no wobble. You have to get this bit right otherwise a model will never run well.
Too many kits advise building the body first and attaching the chassis to it. This is too late! Once the body is twisted, a chassis can never be square and a model can never run well unless the kit is particularly well manufactured.
I suspect that a lot of this also originates from the RTR manufacturers who mould their models and then prise W irons apart to fit wheels. As a result, many RTR models have a lot of side-play. Dare I say it, Dapol 7mm wagons are particularly bad in this respect.
Keep up the good work!
I realised it is always a bit is a bit of a contrivertial subject around W-Irons and the fitment of wheels into them. I can't comment much on 7mm approach having not tackled it personally, likewise I've had surprisingly little experience with modern RTR rolling stock (the only one being an Oxford Rail tanker), as the vaaaast majority of my stock has been kit built!
From what I have seen, there are the following main approaches for (modern) kits.
- Plastic kits with axleguards that spring apart to enable wheel fitment (with, or without pinpoint bearings).
- Brass kits/underframes with axleguards that spring apart to enable wheel fitment (e.g. MJT, Bill Bedford)
- Inside bearings (MJT, most locomotive/tender kits)
- Removable W-irons (Morgan Design)
(I'm aware of the historic usage of parallel and rounded axles, however both are a completely different ballgame when it comes to removing wheels!).
Agreed completely on the importance of ensuring the chassis is square and free-running. To expand-out on your approach with plastic kits, I try to do the following:
- Prepare the floor & solebars, cleaning off flash etc.
- Fit all the pinpoint bearings into their respective axleboxes using some butanone/plastic cement (this holds them well enough, but doesn't prevent them from being removed if required).
- Fit one of the solebars to the underframe floor and allow the glue to completely dry/set, ensuring that it remains totally square. - This provides a stable platform for the second one and wheels to be set out from.
- Fit the wheels into the axleboxes whilst holding the second solebar/axleguard with your fingers (I apply a slight bit of pressure to lightly flex the axleguards inwards). Then using some more butanone I flash a small amount between the solebar and floor. That finger pressure is held in place for a couple of minutes to enable the glue to set reasonably - this is one of the reason I like butanone as it evaporates quickly.
- Once things have again dried thoroughly I flood in a tad more butanone around the second solebar/floor connection to encorage the bond to 'mate' thoroughly.
- If the W-irons ended up tilting inwards to do this, I have in the past fitted some 0.25 or 0.5mm shim washers under the 'top hat' to bring the 'points' inwards.
The MJT/Bedford type of brass W-Irons I file in a small 'V' to the bearing face to minimise the amount of 'forcing apart' required when fitting/removing the wheels as-per the following diagram from the
CLAG website:
I've also had to do this on some of the 'tighter' plastic kits such as the Cambrian T12 sleeper wagon or Loriot W where you cannot flex the axleboxes outwards much.
My criticism/confusion between the
MJT/
Bill Bedford approach to that of
Morgan Design is simply that it adds in so many more points of fiddle/adjustment compared to the single-piece fold-up approach of the others. My view may be coloured in-part with the
inpenetrability of the instructions, however it doesn't follow the 'KISS' principal in my book. That said, I can't fault the quality of the end product, and have a couple more underframes stashed 'in the wings' to tackle in future....!
Best Regards,
Cameron.
