Lacathedrale

Definitely out of era, but my first effort at 3D printing has come out OK - an LMS D1666 5-plank open: My justification for this rather out of character diversion is twofold: I have a yard-long Gauge 1 display track I built a few years ago I can't bring myself to throw away, and that my daughter was watching Thomas the Tank Engine - which is widely known for its use of G1 props - and I'd briefly considered getting a few of the large-scale toys for her until I found out they cost more than the printer itself and at that point it was a no-brainer. Whether there's anything more substantial than the very (!) notional idea of some kind of G1 effort remains to be seen... I have printed some components in ABS-like resin and they've come out quite well too

After a replacement motherboard, the FDM printer is alive! I think this is mostly going to be for larger consumable-type items: off-the-shelf STLs for Gauge 1, for example. I have also started modelling up the windows for my Edwardian Terminus and have some ready for a test print, but it's too cold to run the resin printer at the moment!

Following up on this, how did you get those strips around curves? I've got a long curved platform end I'll need to manage!

Admittedly a bit of a nothing sandwich, but have finally replaced the card fascia of my station building with something made out of foam core. A short step before filling in the rest of the buildings on the platforms and encasing the rear of the layout with a low backscene .

I've been slowly getting into 3D printing for my wargaming hobby and decided to try some railway stuff as well. It turns out that G1MRA 'Fine' and G1MRA 'Standard' are pretty close when it comes down to brass tacks: Ripping these off a resin-printer build plate was not fun at all, though!

Thank you - I wasn't very clear in my explanation - but I understand what you're getting at!

I am not - I'm using one component's sketch or body as the basis for another's - presumably a rigid joint?

Thank you @Quarryscapes - so basically in this case I should ignore my slicer’s protest?

I've been modelling an LBSCR Guards Lamp as my first project and had some success, where each major part (lamp, bulb, body, handle) are separate components. This works fine in Fusion360 and as I understand is the preferred method of creating designs of more than one piece - but when I export as STL and then I import it into my slicer (Lychee) it shows up as containing errors. I believe I know what the problem is: when component bodies are in contact with each other, they are both rendered separately with faces touching each other - rather than merged as a single entity. Because these are If I preview the slices I can see artefacts, as shown below: If I pull all the bodies into a single component and then Modify > Combine before exporting to STL, then those faces are removed and the model imports fine: If I import my STL into MeshLab and choose Cleaning & Repairing > 'Remove Duplicate Faces' then 'Merge Close Vertices' then 'Remove Mon-Manifold Edges' - the file also imports fine - but it feels like this has got to be a simple fix in F360 rather than having to either a) move all the bodies into a single component then merge them, or b) Rely on Meshlab to clean up the file? Does anyone have any insight that might be able to help me, please?

That is very, very similar to my Minories++ - including the double-slip as exit to the headshunt off the outermost platform (though in my case the very outermost track is just a carriage siding).: An early shot showig the entire track arrangement Up at the town end

@Nearholmer I have blamed you already for my dalliance with Old Fashioned Gauge 0 and one of the most striking things was how much more railway like it was - the combination of sound (motor), momentum, weight, inertia, size, etc. all combined to make it much more like a train than the 00 equivalent - but I'm not sure if it was more railwaylike.

Ah, moving locomotives isn't a problem - the layout is wired up for DC control - but since it was built with the Peco Unifrog bullhead turnouts there is no isolation. That said, I may be able to jerry-rig some switches under the layout to isolate the platform road feeds. The other problem is that half of my stock (and all my locos) have tension-lock couplings and the other half has either three links, or nothing at all - and I can't really figure out how to determine if the 3-Link is going to work or whether I need to look at S&W/etc. - the track is 4'6" off the floor so great for viewing but not so great for coupling up on a rear platform!

That's really lovely @Matloughe - particularly the shot with the Bulleid Pacific in there. I think the cropped look works very well, and rossover aside your resistance to adding 'just a bit more' is admirable. I've got quite a large Minories++ sitting in my garage which is at the moment mostly unloved - a combination of disparate coupling types, the need for DCC (and lack of funds for it), etc. all mean it's laying in quiet repose for now. Maybe it is a character flaw in me - but part of me thinks I should've gone N/2mmFS (and is my knee-jerk suggestion to you). I reckon those people who denigrate 2mm and 3mm as too small while modelling in 4mm themselves have their calibration of "what is too small?" off by at least an order of magnitude - IMO if you're going to go small (i.e. >Gauge 0) then you may as well go for the smallest practical rather than a halfway compromise. This is a somewhat rambling diatribe - but to bring it back around - if you pull back and look at the wood, rather than the tree then 00 and N are effectively the same choice and occupy adjacent slots on a much wider spectrum of scratch-building, model engineering, kit building, motorised toys, etc. and personally, I reckon I'd have had no less fun or enjoyment with my layout in N than I have done in 00 in a quarter of the space. I am my own proof that RTR stock (my own justification for 4mm at the time) is not the biggest obstacle in getting a finished layout together, even if it does help in those early stages. EDIT: I should add that many people in the 2mmFS world are using high quality XPS foam or foamcore with a thin ply shell to keep things from being stove in, instead of softwood/MDF - maybe a good option if your strength and mobility are more limited?

It feels like there's a big gulf between where it is and where I want it to be before I sit down and play trains - backscene boards, major building carcasses, finishing the fitting of 3-link couplings, and buying a bloody DCC controller and fitting chips to my four or five locos. All of these are fairly small tasks but in sequence they represent a significant investment of time and money to get to the figurative starting line before the real push of painting and detailing occurs. The layout isn't going anywhere - in both a negative and positive sense. Unlike previous escapades I've no urge to scrap the whole thing and start again (well ... just a little) and so it's in a quiet proving stage. My motivation is pretty low on it right now but I know that'll come back around. For now, my interaction with Brighton Trafalgar (still not sure about that) is limited to 10-20 minutes every few days between workouts (my home gym is opposite my layout).

I've been scanning through this thread and WOW! I've never really been in a position to do 3D printing until a few months ago when I got a small resin printer and it's blown me away, so I've just ordered myself an FDM printer too. I'm a bit wary about how the layer lines will turn out for the filament but I'm hoping since it's a relatively modern printer and I'm in no great hurry, that I can print finely and avoid the majority without having to go hardcore with spray putty and sanding. For example, the sides on that PAB hopper look silky smooth - what was the process to achieve that please?

Thank you for the replies - I think there is definitely merit in @KeithHC's suggestion to work on my skills. For example, I'm almost certainly going to try to draft up the fuel tanks and cab interior fittings and ease myself into the process - but having just got myself a printer I don't want to then spend the next six months figuring out modelling software before I print something I've been pining after. @Covkid and @DGO -I found a few people on fiverr.com who have quoted £50-75 for a diesel cab including revisions and physical prototyping. I was able to provide accurately dimensioned drawings and reference photographs. I'm quite happy with orthogonal components as I've done a good deal of that already, but no way do I want to fart around with compound curves at this early stage.

I've been thinking about some models I'd like to print which currently don't have anything available online. I've got the rudiments of 2D and 3D CAD under my belt already, but some things are just beyond the ken of most mortals (for example, the curvature on the bonnet of a Warship) and I feel might be better outsourced to those with the skills to whip that kind of thing up very quickly. Is there anyone here who takes commissions for models and part-models? If not, is there a known-good place to ask for tenders for that kind of work? With no context of my own - what kind of cost are we talking for say, the cab of a diesel loco?

Just the variant commissioned by TrainTimes

Very sad to hear TrainTimes are no longer going to be commissioning LBSC 113 - an E1 in the only actually prototypically accurate freight livery for the Marsh period :( I still have Poitiers on preorder so there is at least that, I guess...

Seeing your stock lined up is very impressive indeed. As for the layout idea, I'm not sure I would model both sides of that canal basin - I would be inclined to curve the mainline around the back or side of the scene, with the dock wall (and maybe a bit of water/mud) as the front edge. You can still have your wagon turntables, the crossing and tipping point, etc. but just have them all on the same side.

Even on a crossover? Guess where I found some of the psuedo blue-nosed, 19th Century LBSCR platform edging with a straight, non-corbelled platform face? Clapham Junction! It may well really be bricks (given the red corners) but it's good enough for me. I'm a little unsure about what to do with the track across the board joints - I've used brass screws to both secure the rail ends and also mount droppers, and cut away fairly significant portions of the foam roadbed underneath too, so it's not so easy to just slide sleepers underneath. My gut feeling is to 'make good' and then cover it with a magnetised, planked barrow crossing - but that may adjust how the platform ends look...

Engagement is very low indeed normally, between 2-5% feedback should be expected - and I think you are well above that in likes and comments in proportion to reads and views. I vehemently disagree with the idea that you are diverging too far from railway modelling. If I have to suffer through another 'how to weather a BR Black locomotive' article/blog/forum post I think I'll go mad - whereas literally every blog entry you have created is interesting, enjoyable, readable to the highest degree, etc. - please don't stop. I'm very much interested in early railways and I would also be interested in the crossover period from broad to narrow gauge too - and not just locomotives: signals, permanent way, wagons, etc. are all fascinating and given your treatment of the subject so far I have no doubts you have many more rich furrows to plough.

As my Minories++ lumbers slowly onwards I took a picture of the throat to illustrate the timbering I've added back in and thought it would be prudent to share in this thread too: I've always thought that the throat could be compacted down with the use of a single slip instead of two turnouts back-to-back (in the top-right of the picture) so that's what I did - but the bones of Cyril's plan are very much in evidence! Time will tell how interesting the layout is to operate. Layout build link is in my signature.

@Caley Jim @simon b the height of that platform is pretty much the correct height for a side loading dock (i.e. level with the top of the solebars) as far as I understand, and end loading dock is slightly higher again to account for an end-door to clear buffers/etc. ? The plan was always to ramp up at the end. Luckily nothing is glued into place yet, so there's lots of moving around that can be done. I'm fairly happy with how the panorama is looking: I've also started to add back in the missing turnout timbers. The equalised timbering of the peco turnouts is a bit rubbish - but I think that's just the track nerd in me and I reckon overall it'll have a nice effect:

Just trying out something - thoughts?