My first standard gauge loco in 3D print

[rue_d_etropal]

So far I have only designed narrow gauge locos for 3D printing, but with an idea to build a British HO mini layout, I thought I should try designing something for 3D printing. This is only a rough prototype design, still needing a bit more work,

Finding a r2r chassis is tricky, but nearest I have found is the Bachmann 03 chassis, assuming motor unit is not too wide.

As this is an industrial loco, I am not trying for a museum quality loco, but one that has actually done some real work. The computer images always look worse than reality, although I might have to smooth out the curves on saddle tank and cab roof. I see little point in putting in too much in design , as it is fun to finish off the model in reality.

[Knuckles]

A few more polygons on the curves would help indeed. Looking a good base so far.

If your aim isn't to give it too much detail that is fair enough. I find it makes life 10 times easier if you plot the hole positions for the hand rails and in virtual world drill them out or at least depress them.

 

This way it is a 2 second job adding hand rails when you have the model in your hand, less faffing about trying to mark the hole positions accurately with dividers, rulers and whatnot. Hope this helps.

[rue_d_etropal]

The way Shapeways display models is not best. Driiling holes no problem, having upgraded many old Triang/Hornby models in the past. Also might be variations, and prefer to have something than can be adapted to different types.

Chassis is biggest problem, but I think my old Fleischmann chassis will just fit, but the cab will be filled .

I prefer not to play around with polygon settings at the moment.I did change some settings when I first started, and it made no difference to outcome. I can fix the flattening by short chord cuts which is what I did with my track. It is not a big issue. Any decent modeller can file down surface, especially as there is not much detail (rivets etc) which could be lost. Too many worry about the small problems and end up with nothing produced.

[Joseph_Pestell]

Shrewd choice of model for HO given that some remained in mainland Europe after WW2, particularly on NS. Perhaps worth developing an etched chassis kit???

 

I wonder also if the potential of 3D printing will enable a resurgence of British HO models.

[Knuckles]

I have no interest in modelling H0 as a P4 and 00 modeller but it would be nice to see more on exhabition circuits.

What is the attraction mainly for those of you who are into H0?

 

 

On the printing side of things I recently have had a marathon session reworking the dome and chimneys on my current range because the Shapeways renders can make them look much worse - like you said. All good now though as they are better.

[rue_d_etropal]

One of the attractions for HO, is that is is the proper gauge if you don't want to have to build your own track.Remember that standard OO track is actually HO, gauge and sleeper spacing. My main interests are in French railways, so have done some HO modelling, and I can use an austerity in both French and British layouts. There are a few locos which could also be used for both.

 

By being slightly smaller in theory you can fit a bit more into same space, and anything 3D printed is cheaper. Something costing about £25 for OO would probably cost about £20 in HO, possibly less.

 

In some ways OO has been spoilt by too many extra detailed items, with a price to match(but still cheaper than continental models , often produced in same factories). I wonder where OO is actually going, the better the models the more the under-gauging actually matters. I do model a little OO, but don't want to go too far as it is too easy to want everything produced, so you become more a collector and less a modeller.

 

For exhibitions I think it is important to show something a bit different, and I can also have a bit of fun poking holes in OO finescale with its wrong gauge. However good the models are they will still have one big fault and that is the gauge.

[Knuckles]

Ok cool, thanks for the insight.

 

I guess in a way then it is similar in basic principle to the likes of us who decided to go P4 in ways then.

 

For me the P4 attraction is mainly track and wheels look right and you don't have to scratch build everything as many 00 things can be used. The wide 4mm modelling industry can also be used - buildings etc.

 

The disadvantage as you say is you need to build your own track, but there is another - space. P4 requires more space for a substantial layout due to curve radii needing to be more generous. I do enjoy track buildijg though.

 

Does P87 interest you?

[rue_d_etropal]

I have seen p87, worth checking out latest issue of Continental Modeller for an example, but I am not interested in doing anything myself. Have to be practical, and apart from track I want to use r2r chassis and most HO ones which are suitable have deeper flanged wheels. Bachmann still manufacture to European standards for Liliput, presumably because most people want them to.

Although I do plan to have some conventional track(possibly using Peco code 75) much will be my paved inset track using code 100 rail, and I have it on the highest authority that it looks as good as using code 75 rail for inset track. Only way to actually make it look better is to use proper tram rail. Again I am also looking at what is practical for the vast majority of people which also happens to be what I can do.

 

When it comes to products being available. For HO there are probably even more simply because it is the scale everyone else uses. OO is a British minority thing. By chance it is also close to popular military modelling scale, and for that reason has caused confusion in models produced for OO9 (HOe). The Minitrain German loco is near to 1/76, but the latest USA loco is HO scale. There are plenty of building kits for HO, although most are a bit foreign looking(one reason I am doing HO version of my 3D buildings), and some even include 1/76 scale parts(MKD/Hornby kits with Wills parts from before Peco takeover). Often see HO bits being used for OO scale models as well, and reviewed as such in British magazines. Nothing wrong in that, as long as people appreciate it especially when they are talking about modelling dead scale. Just try finding any boat kits in dead scale for OO.

 

Sorry to mix up OO and 1/76 scale, but HO is used as a 'scale' term, and for most people OO is perceived as a scale not a gauge. Possibly another reason to be moving towards HO modelling. Unless there are particular models (military, or urban/electric) then for standard gauge HO will probably be my choice for the future. I have so many other scales and gauges lined up for projects, I don't think it will worry me too much to not have some of the excellent(but wrong gauge) r2r models planned to come out. If there is a model I can not really do without, then I would probably get one and build a micro layout for it(still trying to work out how to get my Metropolitan electric loco into one project but do have an idea). I might be tempted by one of the GWR steam railmotors(easy micro layout), and the early GWR railcars. In fact I have a bit of a thing about these single car trains because they are compact and it is possible to build a micro layout to fit them. I might have to opt for a late GWR steam railmotor and an early GWR railcar, so both can be used on same micro layout, showing changeover from steam to diesel.

 

One thing I am not doing, is modelling 1950/60s in OO, and that is possibly the era I might use for my British HO . Fewer cars on road, so easier. I am looking at 3D printed road vehicles, and have a big interest in Scammell (family connections). I have already done a basic design for the French FAR version of the post war MH, including an HO version. When I have time, and find suitable drawings I plan to do the British versions. I think much of chassis etc is common to both the French and British versions.

[Knuckles]

By close military modelling I'm going to guess at 1:72 scale. I built some WWII Airfix tanks in that scale. Nice kits.

 

To be fair many people mix and match 00 and H0 products. People are an area where I think it is perfectly fine to mix and match considering we all have different heights and proportions. Many good H0 people pavks out there fit perfectly.

 

Then also a H0 building on a 4mm layout if used correctly can fit right in without a hitch, especially if placed further away for a gentle forced perspective.

 

I really wish the British industry stuck to 'Half Owing' sometimes, but as I understand it they were being stingy wanting to use old X04 motors or whatever so insisted on having bigger bodies. Plenty of H0 track about, lets use it. Sigh.

 

I suppose in a money minded way it was a smart move but it has left is with this quandry where accuracy can only be obtained in this scale bracket (3.5 - 4mm/FT) if you go full blown H0 or P4...or S4 even.

 

I had a look at your website and you got a pretty impressive range, the inset track I can see being popular.

 

Code 100 inset will look the same as 75 seeing as the height is hidden and the tops are flush!

[rue_d_etropal]

Thanks for comments. Biggest problem I have is getting info out to people. And then I find someone who says, wish I had known. Some get upset , but I don't push it when what I have said has proven to be correct, unless someone continues to push from other direction.

Designing stuff for 3D printing is very addictive. I also get a bit bored sometimes working on same design so not only do I try something different, but also I only take designs to a certain point. Although many will argue that having superb quality r2r models is good for the hobby, I remember the most popular trade stand at exhibitions being the company which supplied parts to modify r2r models,

From the threads about the partwork magazine with a loco each magazine(many were copies of old pre China models) there are still quite a few people happy to modify less detailed models and even create something new from them. Less likely to do that with current r2r models costing so much. I have had plenty of people happy with my narrow gauge models, putting in a lot of work and having fun doing it.

 

I am currently working on what is a much bigger project, my modular building system. I am actually learning a lot about design from this, but won't go back and redo some things on older models(don't fix if it ain't broken!). It has given me the confidence to design virtually any building for 3D printing. I know where the limits are and can, quite literally, build round those. I might do some research to find out how much professional modellers charge to build a model building, as I suspect 3D printing can compete. It does not do everything, and will still involve finishing off, sometimes even assembly(as my GWR coal stage does), but if I don't have to cut out each item each time then it is going to take a lot less time, and therefore money. That will offset the high cost of 3D printing. Luckily I have the time and energy at the moment.

Fine detail can still be difficult, but there are other material than WSF that could be used, if it is found absolutely necessary. Also some perfectly good, and easy to get hold of model bits that can be used. Availability is one of the main things I am pushing with 3D printing, having seen many small manufacturers with good quality items just disappearing. Even some kit manufacturers for buildings, although it is sometimes difficult to determine who is actually manufacturing the kits.

 

Yes you are correct about 1/72 for military modelling. Still have not found out if Airfix have actually changed scale on the models, as some are marked as 1/76 now. Granted many were marked as OO/HO in the past, and I know some of the actual scales used in military modelling kits are a bit flexible, and 'scale' is used as a marketing tool, even when it is wrong. Has happened with some 1/.32 and 1/35th scale kits in the past. Other more specialised companies are being more accurate, but it is still necessary to rubber scale between 1/72 and 1/76. Luckily with care it can be got away with, but does not do well in circles where people want everything dead accurate, but will still happily bend the rules when no-one is looking. I do notice, am happy to bend where necessary, but don't claim otherwise. If it looks OK, then chances are it is ok.

[Knuckles]

I've thought of making builds in 3D myself too.  Maybe one day but at the moment the price puts me off, as indeed the price puts a lot of people off 3D printing sadly.

 

With detailing I enjoy it too.  I used to bash up lots of the Hornby Super Detail range when you could nab a high quality pacific for between £50-90, now that they have shot through the roof to £125-175 I can't now.  Really annoying.

 

Strangely I trial uploaded a basic 4 wheel type coach body, no details just flat panel to represent a coach to Shapeways and in WSF and FUD the price was as I suspected really high.  So I decided to flat pack it joined by sprues as it takes up less space that way.

 

Well, the WSF price went down but the FUD one went much higher, makes NO sense whatsoever. :/

 

I think WSF would be a good building material for many things, anything with stone texture could be ideal.   As you know you can smooth it but I think as a base WSF would be good and certainly cheaper than the silly FUD prices.

 

I did test print HDA but they seriously with no exaggeration buggered up both attempts so I can't trust it.

[rue_d_etropal]

With buildings, it makes a lot of difference how you use the space. My modular system is for low relief building as it does not waste too much space. My GWR coal stage is pretty big, so actually by having empty space inside means to does not waste space. I have done a couple of tests and have found on occasions it is cheaper to have 2 items than one single item. I ant to experiment further with complete buildings.

 

I can compare prices easily because the shop unit uses more space and costs more. I keep wall thickness down to a minimum, and that helps. It has surprised me how low cost the austerity loco has come out at. I was expecting it to be higher, but then it is not as big as some of my large scaled narrow gauge.

For price comparison I have used r2p as a guide line. They come out about the same, obviously requiring some finishing off, but that is an advantage. They are ls a fraction of the weight, and as the years progress, layout weight has become more important for me.

 

I think most modellers ignore the time they actually have to spend building a model. If they cost that in I think it might scare them how much the hobby costs, but then they are having fun. One reason I would like to be a bit of research on professional model builders.

[decauville1126]

 

I think WSF would be a good building material for many things, anything with stone texture could be ideal. 

 

 

Which is why in irish modelling circles it's referred sometimes to as "ready snowcemed" !

[rue_d_etropal]

unless you want a dead smooth surface, and even a well worked steam loco is not that smooth then WSF is OK. For smooth surfaces such as non wooden coaches then maybe just creating frame using 3D printing, and some form of silhouette cut thin card/paper for sides is better. For smaller scales this is also better for wooden paneled coaches.

Most people have trains and road vehicles, far too new looking. Sorry if some don't like everything looking clean and new, but I prefer to model something which is a representation of the real world.

 

I am trying out various ideas, seeing if 3D printing is viable, mainly from cost angle. Small locos are OK, but get any bigger, and it is necessary to look sideways and see what else is available ij that scale to judge prices. As very little British stuff is available for HO, it is doubly good when the price works out. This is one model I would not do in another scale, unless asked for. I have a couple of other possibles, but these are also of use for other scales, as they are in effect narrow gauge locos adapted for standard gauge. Both had their origins in WW1.

[rue_d_etropal]

I think I have cracked it. Got hold of a Bachmann 03 chassis(current one), and with a fair bit of cutting to austerity body(I will modify design based on this), it fits , just.

 

 

I also think I might be able to include handrails in design, as the drainpipes on another design(a building) are about same size, so I should be able to do something similar to create handrails.

[MGR Hooper!]

Looks lovely!

[Dazzler Fan]

 

 

Designing for 3D printing is a choice of materials

for the parts being printed.

[rue_d_etropal]

I think it is chance, but the chassis is right length, just need to swap the couplings over, and modify the coupling rods. The fixing points are under the couplings, so it might be possible to use those. The WSF plastic takes a thread well. The motor in cab can be hidden.

Not perfect but pretty close.

[Knuckles]

I've found with WSF and FUD they self tap and take screws/bolts really well and you can take them and put them back repeatedly.

 

I've so far on my kits been using a 1.4mm diameter hole that a 10BA bolt screws into with great effect.

[rue_d_etropal]

Made model available. It still might need slight mods, but overall OK. I did look at handrails, but could not get them to look right. May try again.

I have cut out most of base. This means motor will be visible, but easy to fit thin(certainly thinner than 3D printed) sides under the saddle tank.

The undercut at front is because  of high chassis plate . Chassis is reversed and motor part fills cab.