sem34090's next 3D Printing/CAD project.

[sem34090]

So, I asked recently for requests, but on second thoughts I decided to select a short-ish list of  locos I am considering doing next, along with a few other questions. I can't promise how long it will be until they are made available for sale, but I could do with getting them done all the same!

 

Any Questions? Yes? My greatest apologies sir, but no we don't do cycling lions. I am most awfully sorry sir, but you understand that this is the pre-grouping segment of this board on which ideas can be exchanged. Good Day sir, if I may escort you to the door...

Edited February 20, 2018 by sem34090

[Killian keane]

Primarily LCDR and SER by my votes

[sem34090]

You said I should focus on the LCDR, then promptly gave me SER suggestions! Well, after a point they are one of the same...

[Killian keane]

You said I should focus on the LCDR, then promptly gave me SER suggestions! Well, after a point they are one of the same...

I have affection for both! It just happened the R was a bit late for my taste

[BlueLightning]

You have my votes. I'm sure they wont shock you!!

 

Gary

[sem34090]

What a suprise! Suprised you chose the L over one of the others (I know you've done a C2...): Is that as a cop out in case you don't finish yours in time for November 11th this year? If so, you'll be pleased to know that (subject to refinement) it will fit a Hornby (Railroad Loco Drive, DCC Ready) A3 Chassis...

[BlueLightning]

That is exactly what it is!! I wouldn't mind seeing a Peckett or Manning Wardle either!! but I don't think we have long to wait for an R-T-R D Class!!

 

Gary

[sem34090]

Neither do I, but I have a homeless Triang L1 Chassis! Might do an LBSC B4 instead... NO: Finish what I've started!

 

The Peckett is likely to happen regardless, as I have a friend who wants one!

[BlueLightning]

A B4 on a Tri-ang chassis! A great Idea if you ask me!!

 

Gary

[sem34090]

May do that then...

[Nick Holliday]

Whilst I appreciate that 3D printed locos appeal to a slightly different market from etched brass and white metal kits, I feel that, since there can be almost as much work required to complete each type, and the costs are currently comparable, it would make sense generally to avoid those prototypes that are already available in other materials, although I accept that if they can be made to accurately fit an easily available RTR chassis, along the lines of Golden Arrow resin kits, then there is potential. (Langley have long had a WM L Class kit designed to fit on an A3 chassis)

I would therefore suggest going slightly off-piste, as with the SER F Class on your list, whilst perhaps leaving the preserved types, such as the NLR tank, to the big boys who now seem to be polishing them off, albeit slowly. What about the LCDR M classes of 4-4-0, or their 0-6-0s which formed the basis of the later C Class, and the T class 0-6-0, which I suspect was what you meant when you said R, which is the 0-4-4 tank which is now available from SEFinecast. The 0-6-0 tank and tender classes were also the basis for the Hull and Barnsley Railway's first locos, so further potential there.

As a Brighton modeller, I would have to admit that a 3D print of one of the smaller 4-4-2 tanks, I1, I2 or I4 would fill a gap, as would a B2 or B2X 4-4-0, and perhaps an E5X or E6X 0-6-2 tank, these last two surviving into BR days, and could use SEF etched chassis kits. A K class 2-6-0, one of the best looking goods locos ever, IMHO, might be nice, as the previous kits for this loco have long disappeared.

Edited January 15, 2018 by Nick Holliday

[sem34090]

They will be made to fit RTR chassis.

 

I listed the locos I have already started research and basic CAD on, and you say the cost is cheaper than traditional kits: an LBSCR D1 in HO worked out about £20 (Including postage from Belgium), so in 00 would work out roughly £25 - £30. 4-4-0 Tender locos should work out the same. In order to make a bit of money, I'd price nearer to £40 for a loco, but I've got a few things to sort out before I start selling.

 

All of the locos mentioned are on the eventual to-do list, and I have drawings for virtually every SECR, LBSCR and LSWR Tank Engine, along with Maunsell SR Designs and 'Leader'. A K Class is high up the list, and once I get my hands on some drawings it should progress quickly.

[Guy Rixon]

You say that the bodies will be made to fit RTR chassis. Will they be distorted to do so? If I were to buy any of these (and an ex-SER F class is on my want list), then I would be building my own chassis and would not want a model that had been warped to fit RTR.

 

Also, in what materials are these to be printed? If it's Shapeways WSF or equivalent finish from another printer, then count me out. If it's Shapeways FUD or equivalent, then I'd probably be interested even at a higher price than suggested above.

 

The LCDR R was an 0-4-4. Did you mean the SER R 0-6-0?  Or the LCDR T 0-6-0? Personally, I'd prefer an R1 0-4-4, which is on my must-have list and which I'd expected to build from scratch.

[sem34090]

I will design it so that it is able to be printed in WSF, but will offer it in this and in finer materials. 

 

I now see that I fell into a trap! I'll make that an R (And R1) 0-4-4T then!

 

I base all my models from drawings, normally either Railway Modeller drawings, Works Drawings, or drawings from several books. I will then try and find an RTR chassis that is the closest match, and make internal adjustments to suit. If I cannot find an RTR chassis to fit the body, I will then copy the file into a new version and offer a 'warped' version for an RTR chassis alongside a 'scale' version that would require its own chassis to be made. I understand that there are some, like myself, who don't really want to build a chassis, and other who would prefer an exact-scale version to fit a scratch-built chassis.

[Edwardian]

I confess, I am underwhelmed by what has been achieved, so far, in 3D printing!

 

It is very good for some things.  I have some 3D printed wagon parts, wooden bodies and frames, and a dome for my T7, very kindly designed for me.  These I am very happy with, but, in order to get anything like an acceptable starting point for panelled coach sides or the complex curves of smooth steam locomotive bodies, you really need to go for the best finish possible and this means the most expensive material.

 

Knuckles of this parish has actually produced a must-have loco so far as the CA project is concerned, but I have not rushed to order it because the prices in the better materials are eye watering.  Not his fault, but still a problem for me.

 

It seems to me that for a lot of money you can buy an etched kit of a coach or locomotive, where every piece needs to be assembled in a most labour-intensive way, but, in a medium that leaves you with the nice smooth sides that you need.

 

Or, also for a lot of money, you can buy a 3D printed coach or locomotive, which requires the minimum of assembly, but where every square millimetre needs the most careful and repeated rubbing down, followed by undercoating and yet more rubbing down in a most labour-intensive way in order to create the nice smooth finish that you need.

 

Unless you happen upon the perfect match for a donor chassis, where locomotives are involved, you still need to be able to motorise, so the traditional kits and 3D prints are neutral. 

 

I am not persuaded that for locomotives and coaching stock, 3D printing represents a decisive advantage or value for money as things currently stand.

 

You don't mention the material when you give those prices.  I doubt it's FUD or FXD.  I wouldn't buy that sort of model in WSF.  I have, throughout  a life fascinated by model railways, feared and eschewed etched kit construction, but, faced with the alternative of all that endless sanding, with the constant risk of damaging essential relief detail, I think I'd rather take a deep breath and pick up a soldering iron .... 

 

And the cost of the finer materials I find is prohibitive.  The cost of a machine of your own that would deliver acceptable results would doubtless be prohibitive, leaving little choice but Shapeways, which is just too damn expensive.

 

I say all this not to be unkind, but because, unless I am alone in these reservations, you may be up against it.  It seems to me to be very difficult to deliver acceptable quality for an acceptable price in this medium at present and I do not believe it yet offers a decisive advantage over more traditional media.  Doubtless that will change in time. 

[Nick Holliday]

You say that the bodies will be made to fit RTR chassis. Will they be distorted to do so? If I were to buy any of these (and an ex-SER F class is on my want list), then I would be building my own chassis and would not want a model that had been warped to fit RTR.

 

Also, in what materials are these to be printed? If it's Shapeways WSF or equivalent finish from another printer, then count me out. If it's Shapeways FUD or equivalent, then I'd probably be interested even at a higher price than suggested above.

 

The LCDR R was an 0-4-4. Did you mean the SER R 0-6-0?  Or the LCDR T 0-6-0? Personally, I'd prefer an R1 0-4-4, which is on my must-have list and which I'd expected to build from scratch.

I have to agree with these sentiments. My comments were based on the prices I have paid for items from Shapeways, around £90 for an E2 tank in FUD and nearly £80 for an LYR rail-motor in WSF. A quick look on their website showed a wide disparity for various tender locos, from £40 - £90, presumably again depending on material chosen. If you can get decent quality prints for the prices mentioned I would be very interested, quoting HO versions might be misleading.

I would also like to know where all these drawings are coming from, as there are some distinctly iffy plans around, and buyers have to take a leap of faith when making a purchase based on a computer generated image, with no reviews of the actual product to be a guide.

BTW SEFinecast already produce a kit for the LCDR R1 http://www.sefinecast.co.uk/Locomotives/New%20and%20Revised%20Loco%20Kits%20Page%206.htm

[BlueLightning]

Sir Eustace, (yes I'm sticking with it)

 

As someone who like you doesn't want to build a chassis where possible, what about a 3d printed chassis? I have one of these that I got with my Millwall Extension Railway Manning Wardle. and it seems strong enough to me?

 

Just an idea.

 

Gary

[Regularity]

Or, also for a lot of money, you can buy a 3D printed coach or locomotive, which requires the minimum of assembly, but where every square millimetre needs the most careful and repeated rubbing down, followed by undercoating and yet more rubbing down in a most labour-intensive way in order to create the nice smooth finish that you need.

 

As a lawyer, you will be well aware that time equals money...

As an independent contractor/consultant (give me your watch, and I’ll charge you to tell you the time) I am certainly acutely aware of it.

Unless you happen upon the perfect match for a donor chassis, where locomotives are involved, you still need to be able to motorise, so the traditional kits and 3D prints are neutral. 

 

Well said. Things being made to fit an existing chassis were the bane of the hobby, and one of the big advances brought to us by Airfix and Palitoy in the 70s.

 

Remember the errors in the Triang diesel shunter, made to fit their (soundly engineered) “Jinty” chassis?

The Wills J39, fitted onto the same? What a monstrosity!

I am not persuaded that for locomotives and coaching stock, 3D printing represents a decisive advantage or value for money as things currently stand.

 

You don't mention the material when you give those prices.  I doubt it's FUD or FXD.  I wouldn't buy that sort of model in WSF.  I have, throughout  a life fascinated by model railways, feared and eschewed etched kit construction, but, faced with the alternative of all that endless sanding, with the constant risk of damaging essential relief detail, I think I'd rather take a deep breath and pick up a soldering iron .... 

 

If you can build pcb track, you can do the rest.

And the cost of the finer materials I find is prohibitive.  The cost of a machine of your own that would deliver acceptable results would doubtless be prohibitive, leaving little choice but Shapeways, which is just too damn expensive.

 

I say all this not to be unkind, but because, unless I am alone in these reservations, you may be up against it.  It seems to me to be very difficult to deliver acceptable quality for an acceptable price in this medium at present and I do not believe it yet offers a decisive advantage over more traditional media.  Doubtless that will change in time.

 

That was my point. A quality finish, whether from SLS or hand finishing 3D prints, is uneconomical for a single model. However, if it is being used to develop patterns for small-batch resin castings, then the economics of it changes completely, as these costs can be spread over, say, 40 or 50 models from the first production run.

 

But yes, I am sure it will change in time, and in two ways.

 

Firstly, we may see ever increasing realism in virtual railways, and the 3D design will really come to the fore here. For those who are “frustrated train drivers”, is there any need for Model railways at all?

 

Secondly, there will come a time when high quality reproduction units will be usual in the home, and rather than buy most things, people will order a design, download it and have it printed and rendered. We might have to insert a small motor.power pack, but that would be it.

 

Neither of these will happen immediately. But then again, back in 1990 I saw what was being done in voice and speech recognition technology and thought, “That’s a long way off,”* but look at it now - you only have to have a DJ shout “Alexa” or “Siri” over the radio and chaos ensues in several million homes!

 

* 28 years ago, but we have been able to tell our phones to make a call for a long time.

[Guy Rixon]

I no longer trust Shapeways to print pre-assembled bodies for rolling stock in FUD. They (or their printing sub-contractors) don't seem to be able to get a consistently decent finish. There seem to be a few problems.

 

1. If you print a closed body (loco, van, coach), you pay a lot for the empty space inside, both for the height of the model (which increases the time to print) and for the support wax.

 

2. If you print an open wagon with the interior facing up the z-axis, then it's cheaper because they can nest other prints inside yours. But then there is support wax between your print and the other ones and the finish of your wagon floor suffers. (It may be that they no longer do this; I'd be happy to be corrected on this point.)

 

3. Anything under an overhang is next to support way and the surface is degraded.

 

4. There is some bug in the rasterisation software such that two out of four vertical sides of a body get a pattern like chequer-plate and the embossed detail sometimes disappears. This kills printing panelled coaches. Prints of loco bodies would typically be OK as they are slightly easier to clean up.

 

The last point is the one that's blocking me at present. My proposed way forward is to print a kit with the panelled sides and ends moulding side upward. This should overcome all four issues.

[Edwardian]

I no longer trust Shapeways to print pre-assembled bodies for rolling stock in FUD. They (or their printing sub-contractors) don't seem to be able to get a consistently decent finish. There seem to be a few problems.

 

1. If you print a closed body (loco, van, coach), you pay a lot for the empty space inside, both for the height of the model (which increases the time to print) and for the support wax.

 

2. If you print an open wagon with the interior facing up the z-axis, then it's cheaper because they can nest other prints inside yours. But then there is support wax between your print and the other ones and the finish of your wagon floor suffers. (It may be that they no longer do this; I'd be happy to be corrected on this point.)

 

3. Anything under an overhang is next to support way and the surface is degraded.

 

4. There is some bug in the rasterisation software such that two out of four vertical sides of a body get a pattern like chequer-plate and the embossed detail sometimes disappears. This kills printing panelled coaches. Prints of loco bodies would typically be OK as they are slightly easier to clean up.

 

The last point is the one that's blocking me at present. My proposed way forward is to print a kit with the panelled sides and ends moulding side upward. This should overcome all four issues.

 

I should have mentioned that I also bought Guy's excellent GER coach fittings.  I shall give these a plug as a satisfied customer: https://www.shapeways.com/product/8DZ6QHBP7/ger-6w-coach-fittings-set-a?optionId=64070109

 

Mike Trice does something similar for GN coaches.

 

I make two points here.

 

First, 3D printing is really good for these sought of things, and probably compares favourably with traditional materials, not to mention that for the CAD enabled, it's relatively easy to produce such items.

 

Second, if you look at the prices and compare what it would cost to assemble a similar collection of accessories in, say, white-metal of lost wax cast brass these days, you realise that 3D printing is perfectly cost-effective.

 

My doubts centre on these whole loco and whole coach body prints; they can cost a small fortune and require a heck of a lot of work, to my mind.

 

Who actually needs a whole body print anyway, especially of a coach; if there is one thing everyone should be capable of it's glue the sides, ends, floor etc to form a box!

 

So, I am far from a 3d-print Denier, and I read with interest what Guy is proposing. Perhaps he can find a satisfactory solution that minimises the disadvantages of the process whilst retaining its advantages and, dare I say, keeping the cost manageable?

[sem34090]

Right, a few issues worth addressing here!

 

First of all, I too find Shapeways' prices expensive, so generally use 'Imaterialise' as I have found them cheaper. In their equivalent of WSF, a bogie coach worked out at £35 rather than £65 on shapeways.

 

People still seem to be hooked that I mentioned RTR Chassis, and think that I mean I will make every model with dodgy proportions to fit. I make the model to scale, then copy the file and start adapting it to fit a chassis. I would then offer both the RTR Chassis version and a version for a scratchbuilt chassis or even a 3D Printed chassis,

 

An L&YR Railmotor is considerably larger than, say, an LBSCR Baltic Tank, and therefore costs more. Moreover, I don't know how much of a markup Simon put on that model. The E2 at £90 is also more likely to be in a higher-grade material.

 

Finally, you don't have to buy it if you don't want to! I don't intend to make any money out of this in the short term at any rate.

 

I've attached a rather poor phone shot of the HO D1, without flash, so you can make your own judgement. I didn't sand it, just crudely painted it and stuck on the only transfers I had to hand, though they are incorrect for the class. The ridging on the boiler was a design flaw on my part: at the time I didn't know how to add more than 24 segments in a circle.

 

 

[Edwardian]

 

 

First of all, I too find Shapeways' prices expensive, so generally use 'Imaterialise' as I have found them cheaper. In their equivalent of WSF, a bogie coach worked out at £35 rather than £65 on shapeways.

 

 

 

Good to hear.

 

 

 

 

I make the model to scale, then copy the file and start adapting it to fit a chassis. I would then offer both the RTR Chassis version and a version for a scratchbuilt chassis or even a 3D Printed chassis,

 

 

 

Good idea, and, of course, one of the advantages of the medium

[sem34090]

The photos didn't attach, so I'm trying again.

[sem34090]

Thanks James, as I say, there is a broad church in this hobby, and one model won't suit everyone. I'd be honoured if you would try one of my prints! 

[Regularity]

I make two points here.

 

First, 3D printing is really good for these sought of things, and probably compares favourably with traditional materials, not to mention that for the CAD enabled, it's relatively easy to produce such items.

 

Second, if you look at the prices and compare what it would cost to assemble a similar collection of accessories in, say, white-metal of lost wax cast brass these days, you realise that 3D printing is perfectly cost-effective.

 

Like all technologies, it has its place and utility, but it is not a panacea for all situations. Edited January 15, 2018 by Regularity