Ray H

I've had my printer for less than a week, as yet have hardly open any of the associated software packages and have no experience of 3D based design. I am a club member and give freely of my time (and associated costs, such as the car expenses to get there) for the benefit of the club and its members. I've used RMweb for several years (thanks, Andy & team) and gained numerous benefits from it - like answers to questions that I've asked/posted. I like to think that in return I occasionally offer useful responses to posts other RMweb users ask. Equally, I'm a MERG member and benefit from the time and effort a lot of their members put in to enable the likes of me to buy kits that I build to enhance both mine and the club's layouts. I hope one day to be able to design stuff for myself that I can 3D print. In all probability my requirements for the resultant output from those designs will be small/modest and I'll always have the files to fall back on if I want more. I'd be more than happy for others to have access to copies of my files to do with as they please - which includes disregard/delete them if they aren't what was wanted (or aren't up to a standard that was wanted). I wouldn't necessarily object to the downloaded files being passed to others although I realise that that may impact on my suggestion below. Like all the other people with an interest in our hobby, I'm gradually getting older and, one day, will no longer have cause (or the ability) to be concerned about anything happening to our hobby (or anything else on the planet). The same surely applies to a number of small (and possibly not so small) traders who, one day, care of mother nature, will cease to trade (or do anything else). What happens to all the effort that our departed self and colleagues have input into the hobby whilst they were able? Physically existing models/kits/components need ongoing production if they are to remain available. Somebody needs to take this on, it doesn't just happen. Data files - and that's all the .stl files really are - are different. They can continue to exist for an infinite period of time largely without too much effort by "somebody". I'm not that well versed in IT related facilities so don't know if this idea would work, nor how much effort would be involved, but here goes. Set up a depositary where .stl files could be uploaded to. The upload could include a photo (or two) and, perhaps, a brief description of what the file design covers. The file(s) then become available for download for a nominal sum - 50p/£1 per file - that is used to cover the cost of maintaining the server (or whatever) and any charges that fall due from the company (e.g. Paypal) handling the payment. Any monetary surplus would be used to restrict the need to increase download costs in the future. I have no idea how easy this would be to achieve and or run/maintain. Would it need an ongoing supervisory small group for maintenance of the system (including backing-up of stored data)? How many people would upload files - a number that may determine how much maintenance is required? Is there likely to be enough interest to generate the income required to run the system. Could some kind of (free?) membership to the scheme be a means of (limited) control over where files are uploaded to - e.g. not putting a frogmen's hut design in the area designed intended for wagon related files? Alternately, could each uploader have their own storage area where their files are listed. The list would also become part of the site's overall list of what's available on the site. The overall list provides a link either direct to the listed file or to the uploader's storage area? Could/should the uploader's area also indicate a means of contacting the uploader or would this place an unacceptable burden on the uploader? Would it be possible for each uploader to have a dedicated email address courtesy of the server's facilities. This would serve to provide a degree of security to the uploader least any downloader starts to get irate. Should any such facility be associated with, for example, an existing site like RMweb to give it a little more credence but, hopefully, no more work for Andy Y and team? Just a thought?

My only comment is that you appear to have had to surrender two terminal sidings for the two tracks that form the run round loop. I suppose that it depends on your proposed method of operation, minimal shunting, one loco and a few wagons v plenty of shunting, two locos and scope for plenty of wagons. You've mentioned automation. I'm not sure I can see how you could incorporate that into this design other than for train arriving, running round and then train departing. Even that would require some pretty accurate coupling system yo be fully automatic. Maybe I'm thinking too deeply.

The afore mentioned spacer for the 3D printer's build plate has been printed and the printer is now merrily (I hope) producing its second item - a bracket that slides onto the projection that the Mars build plate is affixed to. The bracket provides a means to hold a completed item above the resin bath, whilst the excess resin slowly drips off. I'll include a picture in due course. And while the printer is busy I've been and looked at the fixed baseboard ends where the DIS will sit - the red lines represent the fixed baseboard ends. I've also removed the previous add-on piece - where the baseboard top is visible towards the bottom right in the right hand image - to get some idea of the likely impact of any lengthening of the fixed baseboard towards the door. Any benefit of doing so appears to be outweighed by both the reduction in the opening between the two fixed baseboard end corners (and that impact on getting into the garage) and either the odd resultant shape of the relevant end of the DIS or the fixed baseboard's width increase that would be necessary to avoid the need for the end of the DIS to be other than straight. I will exercise the option to lengthen the exchange siding slightly but not to the extent that the siding end will reach the fixed baseboard end. Meanwhile, thinking more about the track on the DIS - where thoughts had been straying towards the style in my earlier post, I've realised that I've just bought four lengths of new track to go on the DIS and those lengths would need to be broken down into their component parts to free up the rails thereon let alone designing and printing the replacements for the (rail) chairs. I think that I will stick to conventionally laid and ballasted track option (which will be achieved far more quickly as well). I might have gone with the previous idea had the overall track length been a lot less than the three plus yards involved here.

One thing I've come to realise is that the two curved DIS (drop in sections) have a high tendency to tilt - lowering the outside of the curve - without a means of keeping the DIS horizontal. Jim mentioned having a removable leg as a further support for the DIS this when we talked about it earlier in the week. It is one option but another small thing to do before the layout can be used. I just wonder if a Neodymium magnet at each end of each of the DIS would be strong enough to hold the DIS fast horizontally? In theory (at least?) I would have thought that the vertical locating pins could do the same job but I can't be certain that the pins would never move over time, allowing the track alignment to change. This would be the beginning of the ultimate tilt process. A hand operated sliding bolt on the underside of the DIS locating into a hole on the end of the fixed board might be a more positive option. True, something else to do before the layout can be used, but something that would be 100% preferable to having to fund repairs to any rolling stock that takes a nose dive off the tilted board.

You sir are a real Gent. Thank you for that. The only documentation that I can find on the plate that I bought suggest a spacer depth of 2.7mm is required. I recall that this was the measurement that I saw mentioned in a video I happened upon. I'll take a look at your linked video and go from there. I was thinking of fixing the magnetic plate to the build plate this morning to give the adhesive time to go off fully whilst I wait for the flexible steel plate to arrive (this evening). It looks like I'll first need to print the spacer before I stick the magnetic build plate to the original. Its a pity that Elegoo don't sink a couple of holes into the original build plate's sloped top into which magnets could be inserted either by them or the product's owner - it would be better for Elegoo to do it as they could seal them in. Thanks again. Meanwhile, back to the layout.

With the exception of the top (in the plan) left track, which I had as a two road sector plate, the plan mimics my first O gauge layout in a similar space. See my Puzzel Yard thread. I worked it as a (very) large shunting puzzle with around 20 wagons and 2 locos - remember that you'll need two as well. It kept me amused for hours (and hours). Its only downside was that I couldn't leave it erected all the time - the afore mentioned thread will show why.

Thanks for those words of wisdom. I'll take a look at UVTools. Yes, I am currently planning on using Chitubox as the slicer. What I thought was my flexible magnetic plate arrived (from the Amazon [?] )around 15 minutes before their 10pm curfew yesterday. I hadn't realised prior thereto that the Elegoo build plate wasn't magnetic, nor that the magnetic plate that I had just received therefore had to be stuck to the build plate. I spent some time wondering how what I had in my hand could be both flexible and fixed to the original build plate! I've since discovered the need for the flexible steel plate and an order for that is about to head to (the [?]) Amazon. The videos that I've seen of the magnetic plate suggest that there needs to be a spacer added to adjust the lowest height the build plate drops to in order to accommodate the extra bits that will be fitted. Did you find this to be the case and, if so, did you 3D print one yourself?

The plywood bases for the drop in sections have been cut to an approximate size. I now need to decide how to build & position their end supports aside from deciding their vertical height - see my previous post. There's not a great deal of space on the (garage) door side as can be seen here: The 15mm thick plywood strip is the support for the existing lifting flap but it serves to demonstrate the available space. I want to straighten the track breaks so that the break on both rails is at 90º to the rail ends. I also want to provide a more significant support for the rail ends, especially on the higher (LR) track. Fortunately (!) I can just about get to the underside of the baseboard so that I can screw a more substantial support in place from below. Jim's has lent me his scroll saw so I ought to be able to make some fairly precise cuts in the drop in section support that will match a similar shaped piece of timber under the end of the drop in section. A couple of (vertical) pins on the flap and matching sockets on the support will help to hold everything together (and the pins/sockets can be the means by which track power is passed to the drop in boards). The length of the present flap was determined by the presence of some pipework at the other end of the flap as can be seen here. I'm thinking that I might extend the fixed part of the layout to nearer the door frame - which will reduce the length/weight of the drop in sections. I can do this as part of providing the enhanced supports for the rail ends on the fixed board and provision of the fixed board fitted supports for the drop in flaps - see also the comment above about squaring off the track ends. I previously added a small overhanging section to the fixed baseboard as part of the means to try to disguise the old hinge mounting supports as can be seen here. That does narrow the entrance into the garage slightly and is no longer required for the original purpose so will be removed. I'm glad in a way that I've started this before turning the 3D printer on otherwise I could see me trying to do both at the same time! More anon.

That's today's jobs over and done with . . . . (and I now seem to have volunteered myself for another extracurricular job tomorrow which'll again reduce modelling time as a consequence). Anyway, part of today's plan was to head to my preferred model shop and relieve them of four yards of O gauge track (in exchange for the plastic alternative to money). I spied upon this book just as I was leaving. This was a complete co-incidence as Jim and I were discussing how to portray the new drop in sections yesterday. The book is now in my ownership. And lo and behold the first picture therein was this British Rail offering from a bridge at St Pancras. It represents an example of an idea we were batting around yesterday. We came up with a couple of options of how we could do something similar (even if it isn't 100% accurate). Doing something like the above will impact on the height that the drop-in sections need to sit at. This is obviously a rather important part of deciding the height of the board edge supports for the drop in sections. I could try 3D printing the flat-bottom rail baseplates but I think what they're affixed to may need preparing some other way because, unlike the picture above, all of track that I'll be laying is on a curve - I've also just realised that I'll need to fix the rails securely to something as well and that's not something I've worked out how to do.

I hope that I'm not talking out of turn here but I wouldn't have thought that running a dcc fitted model onto an incorrect route would have caused the decoder to fail unless the decoder or something else moved or came into contact with something it shouldn't have done. Presumably the railbus stopped and your controller indicated that you had a short. It might just be worth trying to reset the decoder, perhaps more than once in succession. Equally you could simply place the railbus on your programming track and see if you can read a CV - CV8 would be a good one because that should show you a value of 145. Equally, try reading CV1 (or even try selecting the loco using the default address of 3). ✌️

I have no doubt about that, which is why it is probably fortunate that I made a start on the above layout changes before I started tinkering with the printer. I am, however, taking advantage of the time between layout work to gen up on the 3D software. I also keep finding additional items that I hope will make life easier once I start using the printer and am using their delivery times as another reason for not starting on the printer.

The lifting access flap has now been - you've guessed it - lifted, but only off the layout. In theory it could go back in place but only as an overweight drop-in section as some of the scenery around the hinge mounting blocks is no longer recognisable as such. The two drop in replacements have been cut and await their side pieces - pieces to help prevent them from becoming mis-shaped over time. Jim's lent me his scroll saw for cutting said side pieces which I hope to have a go at on Wednesday. I also need to come up with a plan for securing the new sections in situ on the layout as well as sorting out where they're going to be "stored" when not on the layout.

I was already considering the inclusion of piers at the edges of the fixed baseboards. Great minds . . . . .

We - Jim & me - had a site meeting this morning 🙂 The lifting access flap is destined to disappear to be replaced by two separate drop in pieces - one for each level - although the lower one may yet morph into two pieces, one for the BR track the other for the exchange siding. The securing blocks for the present flap will disappear and the lower level scenery (such as it is) will be pruned back to nearer baseboard level. Each drop in piece will be made to look like a steel bridge - even if a bridge just over 1m is one heck of a span at full size! The exchange siding may gain a couple of inches into the bargain. The builders are due to start work tomorrow (with a trip to get a suitable piece of plywood) with the intention of going to the PW depot (on Tuesday) to buy a few lengths of track. Obtaining extra track will allow us to construct the new arrangement whilst retaining the present flap, just in case we have to back track for any reason. Watch this space!

Thanks for the suggestion. The long wall of the garage is on the left. Hinging the flap on the other layout edge will cause the overhang to impact more on the entrance into the garage. I can't leave the flap vertical because the overhang at the top would be about head height. Likewise, I don't want to move the spring loaded fire door because that would then open against the layout and as it is an inward opening door I keep it open whenever I'm in the garage. I should add that there is no longer a practical & quick exit from the other end of garage I don't know the regulations for having the door open into the house but the wall you can see beyond the door is narrower than the width of the door so that option's not really practical either.

A (not so) quick "play" with Templot has produced the above "either/or" options - the letters A & C correspond with the same letters in the image in the earlier post. Option C doesn't look quite as bad as I thought even if it does span a baseboard joint.

Thanks chaps. It isn't normally too bad but someone else in the room - no names, etc. although I will add that we've been married (to each other) for almost 50 years - was the culprit for waking me this morning and I just couldn't clear my head afterwards. I would have got up but we're currently hosting daughter's dog and I knew that if I started moving around - to go into the computer room - I'd disturb said animal. Unfortunately I'm already on tablets . . . . . . .

And on the night went . . . . I've not been totally happy with the lifting access flap arrangement for a while and have a nagging feeling that this arrangement might even be contributing to the limited use I'm making of the layout. It is a bit cumbersome (although not too heavy) and its near 90º shape causes it to overhang the front edge of layout quite a bit when folded back. The hinge mounting posts are quite prominent with their tops obviously higher than the LR track and yet too low to form the abutments of a bridge over the BR track. Various bridge options have been considered with the latest and most favoured being a footbridge over the (lower) BR track with steps down to cross the LR at track level. This will depend on whether the bridge's required height to clear the BR track would leave enough room for the steps down to the LR rail level foot crossing. The flap is around forty inches at its longest point and a shade over sixteen inches deep (front to back). There's just room for it to be stowed, as a drop in, rather than hinged flap, to sit above the baseboard to the right in the image above. It wouldn't protrude any further (when stowed) than the fixed baseboard and could have a wall mounted support for the back and a couple of "legs" to support the front. I wonder how cumbersome lifting it up and down would be? It would avoid the need for the hinge supports but would need the use of electrical connections for track power. Another thought that won't go away is to have a separate drop in trackbed - no scenery - for each level (albeit that that would be harder to disguise scenically). I could use aluminium angle to brace a single layer of 3 - 4mm plywood (or even MDF as it is indoors) and one board could sit upon the other when stowed off the layout. I could try mocking up the latter idea as an experiment and retain the existing flap away from the layout in case the experiment fails.

And as the night dragged on . . . . . The rail mounted crane wasn't the only thing I've been thinking about. The railway would probably need lifting gantry somewhere near the shed. This could go just in front of the lean-to track - the left hand track of the two seen in the image in the previous post. Why stop there - especially as I now have the potential to 3D print things if I can get to grips with the printer's CAD software? There's no inspection pit to aid loco preparation and disposal. I have to be a bit careful about adding this because the LR track on the baseboard level below is on a gradient here so the depth of any pit may have to be very shallow.

One of the disadvantages of an extra evening drink, even of just tea whilst at club, is that as you gain a few years, you tend to have to arise at silly o'clock for reasons that should be obvious to those similarly afflicted. 😒 And so it was at around 03.30 (local time) this morning that I found myself mulling over numerous things as I lie in bed, still awake after originally waking 30 minutes earlier. I have been thinking for some time that the PHLR really needs a small rail mounted crane. So far I've only managed to locate one kit but one is better than none (although a 3D printed one could be a remote possibility in due course). It'll probably never get a run out but at least the railway will have one should it be needed. My thinking was that it could normally be found not too far from the loco shed, possibly with a kick back siding somewhere in the vicinity of the area marked C in the image below. I hadn't realised (as I lay in bed) that the track here is quite straight so I'd need to have a (more or less) left hand point, which may look a bit odd (and said point would also need to straddle a baseboard joint). Another possible position is in the area marked A in the same image. A much smaller/tighter radius point but it might help to disguise the brick pillar in the foreground on the right. And least anyone should think I'm losing the plot, the area marked B above is not a third option for the siding! Instead, it is the current location of two twin, surface mounted, mains sockets. Fresh from my recent success at raising the sockets at the other end of the garage, I'm now considering moving the sockets in the image above. I've yet to decide whether to surface mount them on the aforementioned brick pillar and above the top of the backscene or to mount them on the end of the cupboard that is just visible at the extreme top of the image above. An advantage of the latter is that the pattresses are currently aligned in line, horizontally and there is space to repeat that on the cupboard end (and I wouldn't have to drill holes in the pillar 😃) whereas they'd need to be mounted one above the other on the brick pillar and would probably need two new pattresses.

Does it run with lights and sound turned off?

I've just taken delivery of some new stock! I've thought of several things this 3D printer (and other components) can be used to produce and that's just in the short time I've taken to get it ordered and delivered. All I need to do is read the instructions that came with the kit and then carry on watching YouTube videos on how the create the 3D designs. I now have yet another excuse for delaying any (serious?) scenic work 🙄

What? Not even attached to one of your express trains?

Don't tell anyone but I think they're coating down hill (unless they're propelling) 😄

And don't mention Train Station 😬