Jump to content
 

Recommended Posts

A very interesting way of doing things, I particularly like the look of the capped rail. 

 

Had you considered simply doing the sleepers in template for points? With, as you say maybe just the check rails and the wing rail extensions printed, along with maybe some half chairs?

 

While the Sintered Nylon doesn't look as clean, with some ballast and weathering, it might look like track grime, maybe a little thick but close? Definitely interested to see how these progress! 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Should you want to take a closer look I've made this crossing model available on Shapeways. Look there for "Trackoman". The price is "at cost" to Shapeways. (Unfortunately Frosted Ultra Detail resin is still a bit pricey but I think that will change in the future.)

 

I was sort of hoping my attempts might inspire others to take something like this and run with it, but I might have been a bit too optimistic :)

 

Despite that I'll be happy to share my work if anyone is really interested.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

Probably not the best paint job, but it's always possible to print your own chairs. The rail is SMP Code 75. Shapeways printed the chairs to my design. They are quite nice, but they are also a bit fragile.

 

post-25691-0-41087300-1526624105_thumb.jpg

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

This is a test panel. The chairs have six slightly different jaw dimensions to test the fit with various Code 75 bullhead rails.

 

post-25691-0-53474100-1529514717_thumb.jpg

 

Some of the chairs glued on to laminate with CA and painted.

 

post-25691-0-28630100-1529514745_thumb.jpg

 

  • Like 7
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...

Meanwhile, back to my FDM home printer, here's a recent example. I think this represents a reasonable trade-off between robustness and detail. The detail is not anything like as fine as the resin printed chairs above but these FDM chairs are really quite strong. The 2D turnout design was imported from Templot into CAD. The rails are SMP Code 75 bullhead.

 

If anyone want to "play-along" at home let me know and I'll post the STL file.

 

EDIT: You can find the file here:  http://85a.co.uk/forum/view_topic.php?id=2734&forum_id=6&jump_to=29611#p29611

 

DSCN4799.JPG.61626f37d717de6202792bbfdc50e75e.JPG

Edited by AndyID
More info
  • Like 10
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Andy, 

 

That looks really good. Is threading the rail and sorting out the crossing nose reasonably straightforward? 

 

Two questions spring to mind. With the components drawn, does this mean that various geometries are easy to configure or does each have to be done from scratch? 

 

Speak softly, but is 16.2 gauge possible? 

 

Alan 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
4 minutes ago, Buhar said:

Speak softly, but is 16.2 gauge possible?

 

Hi Alan,

 

Andy is in the land of nod for the moment, so I'll answer for him -- it is 16.2mm. It's in a gauge called H00-DN which you can find in the Templot gauge list (other gauges menu item).

 

cheers,

 

Martin.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

Interesting project, think I will have a go out of interest. I have sliced it with Cura with 0.4mm nozzle with 0.06 layer height. Intention would be to print it in dark wood PLA to layer 14 then change filament to silver for the chairs.

Link to post
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, martin_wynne said:

 

Hi Alan,

 

Andy is in the land of nod for the moment, so I'll answer for him -- it is 16.2mm. It's in a gauge called H00-DN which you can find in the Templot gauge list (other gauges menu item).

 

cheers,

 

Martin.

Thank you, Martin. Although I've followed many threads on 4-SF I'd not registered (H)00-DN. A bit of digging led me to the horrors of a long-forgotten tussle in 2015 when you renamed 00-SF. @AndyID made a contribution there that produced this topic that may help viewers here. 

 

Alan 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Further to the above, @AndyID outlines there his thinking behind the proportions used in respect of sleeper size and spacing.  However, a warning if you do decide to read the thread, it quite quickly gets side-tracked unhelpfully (as does almost any topic where 16.2mm is mentioned).  I've read through this so you don't have to.  When you get fed up, jump to Page 10 where sanity returns.  I'm still reading so an update may follow if nonsense returns.

 

Alan

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I know it says "bullhead" and "turnouts" at the top but this is neither.

 

DSCN4839.JPG.08b49e104c99ecffc70631db146efe9e.JPG

 

It's a flatbottom track panel. Unpainted obviously and the rail is Code 72.5

 

As I don't have too much SMP bullhead rail I bought some FB a while ago. I've been messing around with the clip design and rather than go straight to a turnout I thought I'd test the clips on some track. This is the result (so far).

 

Exactly what these clips represent is a bit of a mystery. Certainly not Pandrol or anything else that ever appeared on BR but they are probaably the best I can achieve on a FDM printer with a 0.3mm nozzle. 

 

STL file attached and also a DWG file. You might be able to open it in CAD.

 

 

 

 

FBpanel4.stl FBpanel4.dwg

Link to post
Share on other sites

On 18/05/2020 at 03:19, Buhar said:

Thank you, Martin. Although I've followed many threads on 4-SF I'd not registered (H)00-DN. A bit of digging led me to the horrors of a long-forgotten tussle in 2015 when you renamed 00-SF. @AndyID made a contribution there that produced this topic that may help viewers here. 

 

Alan 

 

767981637_UKHOties1.jpg.16d79dbf571e4b71a46fa3115e7aa284.jpg

 

In reference to the quoted topic: This is what UK sleepers look like manufactured in true HO scale. Which of course matches the scale of the UK 00 16.5 mm track gauge.

 

I agree that making 00 sleepers and spacing 3.5 mm scale, as well as the gauge, will probably create a very "UK" appearance, while retaining the practicalities, interchangeability and flexibility of 16.5 mm gauge.

 

Andy

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
8 minutes ago, Andy Reichert said:

I agree that making 00 sleepers and spacing 3.5 mm scale, as well as the gauge, will probably create a very "UK" appearance, while retaining the practicalities, interchangeability and flexibility of 16.5 mm gauge.

 

Hi Andy,

 

Well it looks like a 3.5mm/ft model of UK track, until you put 4mm/ft models on it. It then looks daft, as if they are running on matchsticks. As for example when running on Peco Streamline.

 

UK 00 gauge models are made to run on 4ft-1.5in gauge.

 

Prototype UK track built to that gauge has sleepers 8ft long and 10" wide. At 4mm/ft those dimensions scale to 32mm x 3.3mm, and the 4ft-1.5in gauge scales to 16.5mm.

 

Those have been the 00 gauge dimensions for over 60 years, and haven't changed -- which merans the sleepers in your picture are not for 00.

 

cheers,

 

Martin.

Link to post
Share on other sites

356487067_UKHOties2.jpg.f8432285e4af5bd14d05f2c1e6645071.jpg

 

You've stated previously that modellers should have a choice of gauges within scales . So no problem. Here are manufactured UK wood sleepers in exact 4mm scale which will be both correct to scale and give a full UK "appearance" on 18.83 mm gauge.

 

Note that my previous post was in reference to quoting AndyID's simalr sizing experiments with non exact 4mm scale sleepers on less than 18.83 mm gauge track

 

Andy

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
1 hour ago, Andy Reichert said:

You've stated previously that modellers should have a choice of gauges within scales .

 

Hi Andy,

 

Of course they should. Your sleepers are marvellous. But neither of them are 00, as you referred to for the first ones. 00 sleepers are 32mm long.

 

Likewise AndyID's experiments are marvellous. But he doesn't call them 00.

 

My point is that "00 gauge" has a meaning, which hasn't changed for a lifetime. It doesn't need me or you (or Peco) trying to change it, which is where all the 00 confusion arises. New sizes are scales are great and I welcome them. But not calling them 00. I made that mistake with naming EM-minus-2 as 00-SF in Templot and was called out for it. I changed it to 4-SF for that reason. Likewise AndyID's experimental size is called H00-DN in Templot, not 00.

 

cheers,

 

Martin.

Edited by martin_wynne
  • Friendly/supportive 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

The track gauge for 00 has always been 16.5mm in the UK but people have been tinkering with the sleepers for as long as I can remember and have never agreed on standard lengths and spacing.

 

Whatever lengths and spacing somebody chooses, there is always going to be an element of personal choice as to which compromises somebody prefers to adopt.

 

The only certainty is that there is no single "correct" approach.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, this topic has had plenty of airing over the years on this forum.  There are at least 3 commercial versions of 16.5mm gauge on 4mm sleepers, all I believe slightly different.  Appearance and fidelity is why I adopted P4 thirty+ years ago.  To my mind 16.5mm spaced rails on 32mm sleepers accentuates the narrow gauge look.  Great for 3ft gauge in 5.5mm scale!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
5 hours ago, t-b-g said:

The track gauge for 00 has always been 16.5mm in the UK but people have been tinkering with the sleepers for as long as I can remember and have never agreed on standard lengths and spacing.

 

Yes they have. The BRMSB set the standard for 00 gauge at 32mm a lifetime ago. It was adopted by almost everyone until Peco muddied the waters with their introduction of Peco Streamline.

 

It's great that folks ignore the standards, do their own thing and invent their own scales and gauges -- that's what true model-making is about. Otherwise there would never be any innovation or progress.

 

But to say that there is no existing standard is daft.

 

Martin.

Edited by martin_wynne
typo
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
8 minutes ago, martin_wynne said:

 

Yes they have. The BRMSB set the standard for 00 gauge at 32mm a lifetime ago. It was adopted by almost everyone until Peco muddied the waters with their introduction of Peco Streamline.

 

It's great that folks ignore the standards, do their own thing and invent their own scales and gauges -- that's what true model-making is about. Otherwise there would never be any innovation or progress.

 

But to say that their is no existing standard is daft.

 

Martin.

 

I am with you 100% on that Martin. I did not say that there wasn't ever a standard published. Just that there isn't one that everybody sticks to and agrees with. If peco don't agree with it, then that is a big chunk of the 00 world not sticking to it. I haven't got any Hornby Dublo or Triang/Hornby track to measure but in my youth, I remember huge differences in the way Triang, Triang/Hornby and Hornby Dublo sleepers looked.

 

I am happy to go my own way when working in 00. I don't expect anybody else to adopt it or use it. For pointwork, I use EM plans, either EMGS ones or from Templot. I then reduce them to 90.6% on my copier and adjust the checkrails/wingrails  accordingly.

 

It looks OK to my eyes and works well. In a way, it is slightly larger in scale than H0.

 

OO_Track_050.jpg.1e178c75cd12f8e270c48c8bda28ae96.jpg

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
44 minutes ago, Jeff Smith said:

To my mind 16.5mm spaced rails on 32mm sleepers accentuates the narrow gauge look.

 

Hi Jeff,

 

Narrower than what? It's a scale model of 4ft-1.5in gauge track, so naturally it looks narrower than 4ft-8.5in gauge track. Which in turn looks narrower than Irish 5ft-3in gauge track.

 

For 4ft-1.5in gauge track, an 8ft sleeper is the optimum length. Anything longer would be a waste of timber to no advantage. It could be shortened a fraction, but sleepers significantly shorter would not adequately support the weight of main-line traffic, needing constant packing and maintenance. Branch lines and light railways might possibly use shorter sleepers, or wider spacing.

 

cheers,

 

Martin.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...