Jump to content
 

Printing Turnouts on a 3-D printer


AndyID

Recommended Posts

First attempt. Could use a little more refinement, but the chairs came out better than I thought they might.

 

post-25691-0-88451200-1436112657.jpg

 

Drawn with TurboCAD Deluxe 21. Printed in PLA on a Printrbot with a 0.25 mm extruder nozzle.

 

I suppose I'll have to attempt a complete turnout next :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Andy, that looks interesting, Please excuse ignorant question but I assume that it was the sleeper base you printed?

Thank you

 

Hi Richard,

 

That's correct. The rail is nickel-silver code 75 bullhead. The timbers might look a bit wide because they are turnout width rather than sleeper width. BTW, in my haste I messed up the gauge - it's actually slightly under 15 mm!

 

Rgds,

Andy

Link to post
Share on other sites

Would be interested to know the scaling of costs for printing this? How feasible is it too print larger quantities? Thx Tom

 

Hi Tom,

 

I was thinking of only using it to print the bases for turnouts. The advantage of using 3-D for this is that it should be possible to create a 3-D model fairly quickly from Templot. On my little printer it will probably take about one hour to print out the base for a single turnout, which might be longer than the time it takes to create the 3-D model in CAD! It should be possible to create a library of bits than can be quickly assembled to create many different turnout models.

 

The cost of the plastic material (PLA) is probably negligible. When things are going well, the printer can crank out parts with little supervision, but it usually takes a bit of time to get that to happen. It's a bit hard to estimate exactly what the costs should be - I suspect that can only be determined after quite a lot of real experience.

 

The quality is never going to be as good as components made with injection molding, but it might be sufficiently good for a lot of people. Again, we'd probably need to see some of it on a real layout. Of course there are other printing methods that could produce better results on more high-end printers, but I don't know much about that. I'm approaching this from a lowest possible budget perspective.

 

BTW, the PLA plastic has a very low melting point, so any soldering will have to be done before the rail is attached to the PLA base.

 

Cheers,

Andy

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the detailed reply Andy and seeing how you build the turnout(s) as I think this is a way that no standard and exotic track work could be produced with relatively good definition. Once enclosed in ballast and painted the level of detail may not be so much of an issue. I for one am keen to explore as I am not overly worried about prototypical fidelity :) once again..

Tom

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the detailed reply Andy and seeing how you build the turnout(s) as I think this is a way that no standard and exotic track work could be produced with relatively good definition. Once enclosed in ballast and painted the level of detail may not be so much of an issue. I for one am keen to explore as I am not overly worried about prototypical fidelity :) once again..

Tom

 

Hi Tom,

 

Yes, I have a similar view. I think this might produce BH turnouts that look a bit more convincing than turnouts constructed by soldering BH rail on to copper-clad timbers. They might also require a bit less skill to construct, but that remains to be seen.  It's likely the frog will have to be assembled in a jig before it is attached to the timbers.

 

Cheers!

Andy

 

EDIT: PS, the timbers and chairs look a lot better "in the flesh" than they do in that photograph. Without magnification they look as if they actually were injection moulded.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

Reminds me of the old SMP plastic-based point kits. The way I remember these (early 1980s), you filed the rails for the common crossing to shape, and slid them into the base. Then soldered them up. Perhaps, modern glues would remove the need for soldering up the vee in a printed base.

 

- Richard.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This looks interesting, and it will be very interesting to see what the practicalities are with a complete point. Threading in a V is the first obvious issue that arises.

 

There's always a danger in letting the best be an enemy of the good here - while the result might not match a handbuilt point using state of the art injection moulding components, if it is as good as or better than soldered copper clad it will be hugely better than what is currently available to the vast majority of 4mm modellers

 

The key market is not really the 10% of 4mm modellers who may build their own track - but the 90% who don't - and who are never going to build conventional handbuilt pointwork in any quantity. If you have a product capable of simple assembly which would appeal to the top 10% of that 90%, then you have a market as big as the entire existing 4mm handbuilt track market

 

(If it's accessible for the top 20% of that 90% , even better...)

Link to post
Share on other sites

This looks interesting, and it will be very interesting to see what the practicalities are with a complete point. Threading in a V is the first obvious issue that arises.

 

There's always a danger in letting the best be an enemy of the good here - while the result might not match a handbuilt point using state of the art injection moulding components, if it is as good as or better than soldered copper clad it will be hugely better than what is currently available to the vast majority of 4mm modellers

 

The key market is not really the 10% of 4mm modellers who may build their own track - but the 90% who don't - and who are never going to build conventional handbuilt pointwork in any quantity. If you have a product capable of simple assembly which would appeal to the top 10% of that 90%, then you have a market as big as the entire existing 4mm handbuilt track market

 

(If it's accessible for the top 20% of that 90% , even better...)

 

Pedant mode on...

 

10% of 100% is 10%. 10% of the 90% remaining is 9% of the original number of people...

 

However, I entirely agree with the sentiment!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

As a starter, how about two prints  (left- and right-hand), to mimic the geometry of a Peco code 75 medium radius point but with British style timbering? The idea would be, the modeller would lift their existing Peco point, and strip all the rails out of it. File up two new point blades from plain rail, and slot everything together into the printed base. This reduces the task of handbuilding a point to building a kit where you have to prepare a few parts - the point blades and the tiebar - but the difficult part - filing the vee and setting up the wing rails - is done for you. The check rails might be printed.

 

- Richard.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder if it might be ideal for the sleeper bases of pointwork not easily available even to the rtr user who is happy to do some cutting and shutting of commercially available items.

 

I am thinking of maybe staggered or curved 3-way turnouts, scissors crossovers, or x-crossings at varying angles; that sort of thing. They may need to be produced in sections, so that the rails can be threaded through before final completion, but that is probably how many of the originals were produced on the real railway.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

The key market is not really the 10% of 4mm modellers who may build their own track - but the 90% who don't - and who are never going to build conventional handbuilt pointwork in any quantity. If you have a product capable of simple assembly which would appeal to the top 10% of that 90%, then you have a market as big as the entire existing 4mm handbuilt track market

 

Why the assumption that everything is commercial? A constant theme on RMweb.

 

Andy is a model-maker -- he is experimenting with ideas for his own models, and showing the results for other modellers to try. Possibly he will make the printer CAD files available to others.

 

If he was developing a commercial product he would be keeping quiet about it.

 

It's looking good Andy. smile.gif

 

Martin.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Andy is a model-maker -- he is experimenting with ideas for his own models, and showing the results for other modellers to try. Possibly he will make the printer CAD files available to others.

 

If he was developing a commercial product he would be keeping quiet about it.

 

 

I fail to see the difference between one person drawing up CAD files on a computer, and then printing the results out on a 3D printer, and someone buying from a shop a product that has been printed out on a 3D printer from an initial CAD design.

 

What part of this process counted as model-making by the enthusiastic amateur,  is cancelled when the product is sold commercially?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Pete

 

You are now entering the minefield of making a few products to cover a host of variables in real life.  I think its a great idea to 3D print the track base and perhaps separate units for the switches and crossings, I also guess it would be possible to alter chair style

 

Another great idea for a conversion base for a popular brand of 00/H0 track to 4 mm scale, doubt though if Peco parts could be used for anything other than a conversion of an existing style/design/size

 

I look forward to watching your progress with this idea

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why the assumption that everything is commercial? A constant theme on RMweb.

 

Andy is a model-maker -- he is experimenting with ideas for his own models, and showing the results for other modellers to try. Possibly he will make the printer CAD files available to others.

 

If he was developing a commercial product he would be keeping quiet about it.

 

It's looking good Andy. smile.gif

 

Martin.

 

Because 90% of the modellers in 4mm are never going to build sufficent handbuilt points to build a layout. 

 

I'm interested in a new product or technique which could do something for them 

 

Telling 90% of the hobby to take a hike 'cos they don't deserve anything better than the very unsatisfactory products they have at the moment , and anyway they are below the salt and not really a part of the hobby anyway is profoundly unhelpful, devisive and destructive.

 

- The 10% who can build handbuilt points anyway don't need this product - they can already make it for themselves (by definition)

 

- I believe this approach could well be the route - or one of the routes - by which the 90% get a genuine OO point : something many of them have been crying out for for years, in the face of an intransigent monopoly providing a classic example of how a dominant market position can be used to suppress customers' demands (Think Trabant)

 

Whether Andy ends up looking at marketing some kind of commercial product is to a degree irrelevant. I'm interested in this as a "proof of concept" exercise for something which might be of real benefit to the top 10-20% of that 90%.

 

It won't attract those who can't or won't do more than buy a completely ready to lay product.  But I've very interested to see how simple to assemble and practical such a thing could be. 

 

A point base product that could be ordered from Shapeways with rail components sourced seperately, or based on CAD files which can be downloaded to your own 3D printer at home - or printed out for you by a modest network of distributors (eg local model shops) who can supply the rail and other bits as a package for very simple home assembly - is what I'm envisaging as a possible outcome of this concept. A commercial product, yes, but one for a cottage industry

 

(And the possibility of a point base that could reuse the rail out of a Peco code 75 point is a very interesting idea. By necessity it would be wooden sleepered flatbottom. And that is the very combination which is not served by C+L,  SMP, or any other "cottage industry" supplier, as well as being the most difficult to handbuild. It also happens to be by far the most common type of point needed by anyone (like me) interested in modelling Britain's railways in the last 50-60 years)

 

It's important to remember that just because 90% of the hobby don't built handbuilt poiints that doesn't mean none of them make anything at all, and none of them are entitled to be called modellers. A significant proportion are making various kinds of models , but not building their own pointwork by hand

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

The 10% who can build handbuilt points anyway don't need this product

 

Hi Ravenser,

 

There you go again, referring to Andy's models as a "product".

 

If I was posting details of what I was messing about with in the workshop and sharing my ideas with fellow modellers, I would find that intensely irritating.

 

It's not the 10% or 90% of the hobby who might be interested in it -- it's the assumption that it's being done for profit.

 

But I will leave Andy to comment himself.

 

Martin.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Looking back at post 5 AndyID seems to be thinking of supplying various bases and as Martin has said having an alternative method that might encourage more modellers to build their own turnouts must be a good thing

 

Quality and low melt problems seem to be a problem with the system AndyID is using, but its low cost has got to be a boon to development of the idea.

 

At the same time it would be an idea to look for a process/material where the quality is better and a more stable/heat tolerant item.

 

Building turnouts is a bit different to making a piece of plain track, the common crossing will need thinking through as the parts required built from rail cannot be just slid on. The easiest way would be to have a pre-built common crossing, this in its self may preclude many who this method would be of use. Perhaps what is called blue sky thinking is required to solve this issue, from some who have no previous experience of standard track building methods

 

Where the rail is concerned to keep costs down the builder must be able to cut, file to shape and bend it. I would also assume basic soldering will be a prerequisite. Any amount of prefabrication of these would soon escalate the costs.

 

As I said a great idea and must be to some extent the future of track building

Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow! 19 replies!

 

Sorry for the slow response - we have an "inundation" of children and grandchildren this week :)

 

Skimming through the thread I should make it clear that I have no intention of making products with this. It's just something I might use to make my own turnouts, but, obviously, it is still at the very experimental stage. The first challenge was to see if it's possible to print a reasonable representation of a chair that is also functional. That does seem to be feasible, but it's interesting that the CAD design has to be a lot more like an impressionists version of a chair rather than an engineering drawing.

 

I'll post progress as it goes along - still plenty of issues to resolve as many here have pointed out. I'll make the CAD designs available once I'm convinced they are likely to generate repeatable results.

 

I should also point out that I am using a rather small diameter extruder to improve the resolution. The typical 0.4 mm extruder is probably too coarse to produce satisfactory results.

 

Best to all!

Andy

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello,

     

 

or based on CAD files which can be downloaded to your own 3D printer at home

That is hitting the nail on the head.You could try http://www.thingiverse.com/

but I don't think there are that many usable railway specific items suitable.

The hardest and most time consuming part of 3D printing is mastering the software first to set up and run or repair your printer and the second is  mastering the software to acctually design something to print.

3D printers vary in type and complexity as do the materials they print with. It is a quickly evolving field and can be likened to the early computing revolution where people built and programmed their own machines.

The speed of change and advances are occuring in a similar fashion.It is very easy to find it taking up all your time whenever you enter into doing things like this.

The skills needed to be mastered soon mushroom and the goal of actually printing something required seems to get more complex.

I am into railway modelling but seem to spend more and more of my time learning new skills in the chase for ever more impressive results.

It is these computers that are to blame.Perhaps ignorance was bliss. :scratchhead:

I wish the smily emoticon was at the begining as it is surely the most used?

trustytrev. :yes:

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

I wish the smily emoticon was at the begining as it is surely the most used?

 

Hi Trev,

 

Just type a colon and right parenthesis (curved bracket) -- much quicker:


becomes this when posted: :)

 

Martin.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello Andy,

          

 

I should also point out that I am using a rather small diameter extruder to improve the resolution. The typical 0.4 mm extruder is probably too coarse to produce satisfactory results.

What size are you using? I have a RepRapPro Mendal and it came with a Standard nozzle size: 0.5mm However a 0.3mm nozzle is available. From what I understand the resolution also depends on filament size, adjstable feed and temperatures along with a few other variables. These are figures quoted by RepRap for my machine.  Accuracy: 0.1mm, Resolution:0.0125mm. The results also vary depending on the colour of the filament as well.

trustytrev. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...