WellThatDiddntGoToWell
Active Member
Hello Gentlemen of technical knowledge and wisdom. Last winter I started my wintertime/rainy day indoor railway project, based heavily on a stuck in the head, childhood read of the 1979 Model Railway Constructor annual and the layout described as South for Moonshine. A bi level out & back layout with hidden storage sidings that allows for train's in and totally different trains out!
As Summer finally came(!) and attention turned to outdoor activities, I left it at the half built baseboard stage and now it's time to finish them off. My take on it will feature twin termini which as a London boy, will allow me to mix my favourite stock, including some Underground, set in the span of the 70's to the early 90's. The original was built in OO and that was how I was proceeding. However, with all the new models that have taken 40 years to appear in N Gauge (sorry 2mm, 2FS) and others promised, I am tempted to go back to that scale and double it's size and add another level through the excess width of the boards.
This was the original thought with the build but there were two items of stock missing that made me stick to OO, namely the class 121 and the class 166. Despite it's dodgy silver window frames, Dapol have addressed the 121 and although Bachmann said a long long time ago that they would duplicate their OO range in N, this is only just starting to happen and I cant see a 166 happening as it's now an old model. So, after that long winded introduction here comes the question.
I have found 3d bodies of the missing 166 available on Shapeways as a scratch aid: http://www.shapeways.com/model/627470/nse-class-166-3-car-dmu-n.html but there is very little information on their quality in the wider world of the web, other than this: http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/in...lass-165-166-networker-turbos-from-shapeways/
What is your opinion or knowledge of 3d modeling in smaller scales or items and how much do you feel the layering effect would exaggerate in the overall appearance of these body shells?
Dean
As Summer finally came(!) and attention turned to outdoor activities, I left it at the half built baseboard stage and now it's time to finish them off. My take on it will feature twin termini which as a London boy, will allow me to mix my favourite stock, including some Underground, set in the span of the 70's to the early 90's. The original was built in OO and that was how I was proceeding. However, with all the new models that have taken 40 years to appear in N Gauge (sorry 2mm, 2FS) and others promised, I am tempted to go back to that scale and double it's size and add another level through the excess width of the boards.
This was the original thought with the build but there were two items of stock missing that made me stick to OO, namely the class 121 and the class 166. Despite it's dodgy silver window frames, Dapol have addressed the 121 and although Bachmann said a long long time ago that they would duplicate their OO range in N, this is only just starting to happen and I cant see a 166 happening as it's now an old model. So, after that long winded introduction here comes the question.
I have found 3d bodies of the missing 166 available on Shapeways as a scratch aid: http://www.shapeways.com/model/627470/nse-class-166-3-car-dmu-n.html but there is very little information on their quality in the wider world of the web, other than this: http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/in...lass-165-166-networker-turbos-from-shapeways/
What is your opinion or knowledge of 3d modeling in smaller scales or items and how much do you feel the layering effect would exaggerate in the overall appearance of these body shells?
Dean
