Jump to content
 

LNER V2 4mm 3D Printed Body - Now in production


MikeTrice
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • RMweb Premium

I've really enjoyed reading through the posts on this thread, both before and after posting my own expression of interest.  What a lovely outburst of really happy, unalloyed enthusiasm for a great new product.  What a lovely tonic for the times we're in.  Well done, Mike.

 

Pete T.

 

  • Agree 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

On 19/06/2020 at 13:41, Tony Wright said:

'The Comet chassis is way too high'

 

Ignorance was bliss. 

 

Why don't the six V2s I've built with them tower over other locos/stock? 

 

Afternoon Tony,

 

the quick drawing below should explain. The Bachmann running board and boiler is the original model.

 

V2 Frames.jpg

Edited by Headstock
Add space
  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Headstock said:

 

Afternoon Tony,

 

the quick drawing below should explain. The Bachmann running board and boiler is the original model.

 

V2 Frames.jpg

 

So, how would this affect Mike's body moulding? Tony W seems to have got it to fit OK without, as he suggests, the loco being too high. 

 

As an aside, Mike, is it your intention to incorporate Tony's modifications into your model to allow the Comet frames to fit without their modification?

Link to post
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, ScRSG said:

 

So, how would this affect Mike's body moulding? Tony W seems to have got it to fit OK without, as he suggests, the loco being too high. 

 

As an aside, Mike, is it your intention to incorporate Tony's modifications into your model to allow the Comet frames to fit without their modification?

 

Good afternoon ScRSG,

 

You would have to ask Tony for a more exact account. It looks as if he has had to cut away a lot of detail produced by Mike that I want to keep. I think that the motion bracket that crosses the top of the Comet frames is a big issue. As far as I can tell, the Comet specific print, has this detail  removed so that the modeler doesn't have to do it in order to accommodate the Comet motion bracket etc. The Bachmann version is the original model produced by Mike and is a close copy of the arrangement of the real locomotive. As my other V2's follow the arrangement of the real engine, I wish this one to be the same. For that reason Mike has advised me to go for the more prototypical Bachmann version rather than the Comet version. That way, I can modify the Comet frames to suit the body

Edited by Headstock
Add space.
Link to post
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, ScRSG said:

 

So, how would this affect Mike's body moulding? Tony W seems to have got it to fit OK without, as he suggests, the loco being too high. 

 

As an aside, Mike, is it your intention to incorporate Tony's modifications into your model to allow the Comet frames to fit without their modification?

 

Just to add a postscript, It has nothing to do with the height of the locomotive. It is to do with the gap between the boiler and the running board, a feature of a large number of LNER locomotives. Being too high, the Comet frames fills in that gap so that you cant see into the frames as on a real V2.  Being too high, the motion bracket obliterates the slope or the running board back to the frames. The effect is then more like an LMS locomotive such as the black 5 or Duchess.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Andrew. The original V2 body was designed to be a drop on replacement for the Bachmann body and has cutouts to suit. As Andrew says the Comet chassis has a motion bracket arrangement that does not follow the prototype and as such the recesses between the front and middle driving wheels on the moulding get in the way of the body sitting correctly. Tony solved this by filing away this recess and in fairness it does not look too bad having done so. The other change Tony made was to cut a slot in the rear to take the rear footstep support bracket which is supplied as part of the Comet chassis but was missing from my V2 print. With the body modified as suggested the loco will sit at the correct level on the chassis but due to the higher sideframes Andrew mentioned, they protrude above the recess effectively filling what should be a visible gap. On the prototype the frames do not go up as far as the footplate.

 

Since I last reported I have been making some further tweaks to the model prior to going into production. I have now done prints for the cab seats previously missing and bodies for the front buffers which can be sprung with turned heads.

 

I have added further detail to the rear half of the body and am about to do a test print shortly. I have also added that footstep support bracket and the missing lower edge of the firebox. These will certainly be present on the Bachmann version of the body and I might keep them on the Comet version as it just means when building the Comet chassis you leave off the crosspiece. Undecided about that at present, depends how it prints.

 

Andrew's drawing shows a running board support bracket. These are quite prominent on the real thing but missing from the model and Comet chassis. I am wondering whether to print them as extra items. Hopefully once the Comet chassis I ordered arrives I will be able to resolve some of these options.

 

Hope that helps.

 

P.S. Model does not currently include a whistle and I am wondering whether I should do one of them as well, which would have to be part of the main moulding rather than separate.

 

IMG_3002.JPG.5acb2d47451c1518966dca5e905bf867.JPG

 

The seats in the above image look slightly lopsided. This is to compensate for the over scale cab sides.

Edited by MikeTrice
Added image
  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, MikeTrice said:

Thanks Andrew. The original V2 body was designed to be a drop on replacement for the Bachmann body and has cutouts to suit. As Andrew says the Comet chassis has a motion bracket arrangement that does not follow the prototype and as such the recesses between the front and middle driving wheels on the moulding get in the way of the body sitting correctly. Tony solved this by filing away this recess and in fairness it does not look too bad having done so. The other change Tony made was to cut a slot in the rear to take the rear footstep support bracket which is supplied as part of the Comet chassis but was missing from my V2 print. With the body modified as suggested the loco will sit at the correct level on the chassis but due to the higher sideframes Andrew mentioned, they protrude above the recess effectively filling what should be a visible gap. On the prototype the frames do not go up as far as the footplate.

 

Since I last reported I have been making some further tweaks to the model prior to going into production. I have now done prints for the cab seats previously missing and bodies for the front buffers which can be sprung with turned heads.

 

I have added further detail to the rear half of the body and am about to do a test print shortly. I have also added that footstep support bracket and the missing lower edge of the firebox. These will certainly be present on the Bachmann version of the body and I might keep them on the Comet version as it just means when building the Comet chassis you leave off the crosspiece. Undecided about that at present, depends how it prints.

 

Andrew's drawing shows a running board support bracket. These are quite prominent on the real thing but missing from the model and Comet chassis. I am wondering whether to print them as extra items. Hopefully once the Comet chassis I ordered arrives I will be able to resolve some of these options.

 

Hope that helps.

 

P.S. Model does not currently include a whistle and I am wondering whether I should do one of them as well, which would have to be part of the main moulding rather than separate.

 

 

Afternoon Mike,

 

the running board support brackets is an awesome suggestion. I'm always having to drill them out and file them up to suit.  I would mean I could concentrate on a replacing the Comet motion support bracket.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Mike,

 

I must say the V2 body looks very good.  Forgive my ignorance but I have a question about the 3D process.  Are the extensive supports for the printed body added by a facility within the CAD system or print software, or are they something that you have to design in yourself?  If the latter, it presumably adds quite an overhead of time to the design process.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The main model is done in Blender which a freebie but far from intuitive. Were I starting over again I would use Fusion 360 instead. The workflow I use is to produce a number of reference drawings in Inkscape (another freebie) and import them into Blender as a number of background images. The 3D model is then produced against these drawings and represents by far the majority of the effort. Once the model is ready to be printed it is exported as a .stl file which is then imported into Chitubox to be orientated and have the supports added. Chitubox then slices the model and supports which can be saved as a .photon file for the printer. Most times I actually do the following:

Export from Blender as .stl then open the stl in chitubox to add the support then save from chitubox as .stl again. Open the .stl file in Blender and edit it prior to reexporting the .stl which then goes back into chitubox o be sliced and the .photon file produced. The .photon file then gets opened in the Photon File Validator and has small unprintable islands removed and the "fixed" .photon file saved. This is finally sent to the printer. Phew, well you did ask!

 

Chitubox does have an automatic support generation option but usually I add them one at a time where I want them.

  • Like 1
  • Informative/Useful 3
  • Craftsmanship/clever 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
13 hours ago, MikeTrice said:

The main model is done in Blender which a freebie but far from intuitive. Were I starting over again I would use Fusion 360 instead. The workflow I use is to produce a number of reference drawings in Inkscape (another freebie) and import them into Blender as a number of background images. The 3D model is then produced against these drawings and represents by far the majority of the effort. Once the model is ready to be printed it is exported as a .stl file which is then imported into Chitubox to be orientated and have the supports added. Chitubox then slices the model and supports which can be saved as a .photon file for the printer. Most times I actually do the following:

Export from Blender as .stl then open the stl in chitubox to add the support then save from chitubox as .stl again. Open the .stl file in Blender and edit it prior to reexporting the .stl which then goes back into chitubox o be sliced and the .photon file produced. The .photon file then gets opened in the Photon File Validator and has small unprintable islands removed and the "fixed" .photon file saved. This is finally sent to the printer. Phew, well you did ask!

 

Chitubox does have an automatic support generation option but usually I add them one at a time where I want them.

 

This little Bear has a sudden need to lie down in a darkened room until my brain stops hurting....

Link to post
Share on other sites

MikeTrice

Posted 19 hours ago

The main model is done in Blender which a freebie but far from intuitive. Were I starting over again I would use Fusion 360 instead. The workflow I use is to produce a number of reference drawings in Inkscape (another freebie) and import them into Blender as a number of background images. The 3D model is then produced against these drawings and represents by far the majority of the effort. Once the model is ready to be printed it is exported as a .stl file which is then imported into Chitubox to be orientated and have the supports added. Chitubox then slices the model and supports which can be saved as a .photon file for the printer. Most times I actually do the following:

Export from Blender as .stl then open the stl in chitubox to add the support then save from chitubox as .stl again. Open the .stl file in Blender and edit it prior to reexporting the .stl which then goes back into chitubox o be sliced and the .photon file produced. The .photon file then gets opened in the Photon File Validator and has small unprintable islands removed and the "fixed" .photon file saved. This is finally sent to the printer. Phew, well you did ask!

 

Chitubox does have an automatic support generation option but usually I add them one at a time where I want them.

 

Thanks Mike - very informative and interesting.  I think you may have cured me of the desire to get into such things!

 

Regards,

Bob

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Tony, she looks magnificent.

 

A quick update for everyone. First off thank you for those that have expressed an interest. I will not hold you to them and if anyone wants to change their mind I won't be upset.

 

I have just about got the various parts to a state I would feel happy putting into production. When I did these just for my own amusement I took liberties and left some things off. Not for the production ones.

 

I have added more detail to the rear half of the model adding rivets, a whistle, footplate bracket and rear footstep brace and under firebox all of which were missing from Tony's body. My next task is to join the bits together and try them on the Bachmann chassis to see if I need to adjust them to fit. For the Comet version I can leave off the rear footstep brace and add a slot to take the etched one. The Wakefield Lubricators have been changed slightly and now have a pin and hole location system. I kept them separate in case they get in the way of painting:

IMG_3006.JPG.9686da3607a88e2d77cdd15934a30d51.JPG

 

IMG_3007.JPG.bf1dc35aae6b9a581d1eeac546d23b9c.JPG

 

I have been building up supplies of the necessary consummables which includes a number of spare parts for the machine.

 

Mention was made on Tony's build regarding the brittleness of the resin mouldings and I will be actively doing something about this. Some special resin is order (coming from France) and once it arrives I can start doing some sample strength tests before starting the production run.

 

My Comet chassis arrived today so I can swop modes from 3D Resin to metalwork to finalise once and for all the changes Tony had to make for the body.

 

Watch this space.

  • Like 7
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Interested in this thread and the parallel discussion about the V2 on the Wright writes thread, as it suggests 3D printing really is becoming something great.  
 

With regard to brittleness, I wonder if you saw the comments from Arun Sharma on the WW thread on Monday at 16.59 (last post on page 1877)?  (Wish I could link it or quote it here, but not sure how!)  They suggest that it would be better to use a 3D print as a master for a polyester resin casting as it would overcome the brittleness issue.  It would also, presumably, reduce your time and effort input for producing individual 3D prints that I think you mentioned earlier in this thread.  Perhaps there is some loss of detail or other disadvantage?

 

I make these comments from the point of view of somebody reading both threads and with no knowledge of the specifics of these production methods, so apologies if I’ve missed something obvious or discussion that covers this.

 

Anyway, more “power to your elbow” in your 3D adventures and investigations!

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...