tebee

9 minutes ago, 009 micro modeller said:

I did wonder if anything else used that gauge (not sure for Lego if it’s intended to be measured in metric, 37.5 or 38mm, or in inches). However:

 

Which sounds as if it’s starting off as something wider than 45mm.

Ah you could be right, think i got it wrong.Its 1/4 inch wider than G gauge not narrower, so 2 inches - was that gauge 2 ?

14 hours ago, Steamport Southport said:

 

It say's O Gauge.

 

But be aware it's US O Gauge rather than British O Gauge, which is something like 1:48 scale rather than our 1:43. It is noticeably smaller.

 

 

Jason

7 hours ago, 009 micro modeller said:

I think it’s the track gauge that @Ben B meant, not the scale.

They are a nominal 1:24 scale but 1.5in gauge roughly half way between O and G scale. Oddly enough the same as Lego(near enough) 

On 07/10/2022 at 00:58, tom q vaxy said:

i believe he is TeeBee on another forum i tend to frequent.

He's Tebee!

In the software I use I can resize in multiple ways.  I can include a part or a collection of parts in another part and specify the ratio of original size to current size. I can adjust the size when I turn it into an STL file .It's also a parametric cad so I could write a formula to calculate the optimum thickness based on the size of the part. I don't use this as I'm printing to multiple targets ( a couple of Shapeways materials , resin printers and FDMprinters ) preferring to adjust manually. 

I do normally design things for 4mm scale  and scale up or down from there - I use more than the minimum thickness in most cases and can easily thicken a part when scaled down if needed.

Tom  

On 28/12/2022 at 11:19, rockershovel said:

A layout which hasn't had a mention, presumably because it's only appearance was as "Layout of the Month" in RM is "Thistledome and Fishoek". 

 

I was much impressed by the almost entirely scratch built construction. It hadn't occurred to me that this was possible, and my own untutored attempts demonstrated how difficult it was. 

Now I remember the name and that I liked the layout, but have no recollection of what sort of layout it was or why it was good.

Can someone please enlighten me ? 

1 hour ago, TangoOscarMike said:

 

Nice. Fleischmann HO Anna? That counts as a pugbash, in my book.

 

Yes

1 hour ago, TangoOscarMike said:

 

 

 

Likewise nice. What chassis?

 

 

The Minitrix T3/dock tank 0-6-0t  - Like I said it was designed 12 years ago , there are probably better chassis around now.  It was originally on Shapeways, this is one of a batch of resin print one I did a few years ago. There is a side tank version I did later too.

Somewhere I have a picture of the original Pugbashes, but after they got wrecked coming home from an exhibition. The van was in a minor collision when a car pulled out in front of it from a side street. The stock box containing the locos went flying across it  and smashed on the dashboard.

For  comparison, this is the 009 version

And another 3D print, this time on a Black Anna chassis 

This is also sort of a  pugbash twice removed . Back in 1971 or so I did two 009 pugbashs to a Kerr Stuart Tattoo style loco with a bit of Bagnall thrown in. 12 years ago  I replicated this as a 3D print, Now I've taken that 3D, design reworked it as an SG saddle tank

1 hour ago, TangoOscarMike said:

 

Very nice! I've done a lot of work along these lines, and your saddle tank is much better than mine.

 

Also Tom

 

Well Thanks.

The saddle tank is actually a virtual kitbash - the boiler/smokebook/firebox tank came off an On16.5 Hunslet quarry tank and the cab is off a pug or more accurately a pugbash I recreated as a 3D print. 

It was your locos that inspired my friend to nudge me and remind me that I'd promised him some similar ones 2 years ago when I was building a freelance OO layout and he copied me  ! 

The good ol' Smokey Joe is not an easy chassis to design for the motor is high at the back and that clip is wide at a bad place for saddle tanks 

Are 3D printed replacement bodies bashing ? if so here 2 of mine done to fit the Smokey Joe chassis.

Originally done for a friend who's building a 00 freelance layout.

If you want to pint your own they are on Cults 3D as paying downloads 

Tom 

8 hours ago, Steamport Southport said:

 

They didn't as far as I know. I thought the only steam outline model they made was the BR 5MT 4-6-0.

 

......

They also made a number of G scale steam outline models 

19 hours ago, eeedelli said:

I have indeed. (I'm in the owners' club.) The general opinion was that I'm not going to find a replacement and that has, sadly, been the case (even with the specialist breakers). Basically they all went years ago.

 

We did discuss using a watch repairer but I've tried a few and it seems they don't do fine lathe work - it's all replacement of standard parts, testing for waterproofing, new watch straps, re-glazing etc. and that's about it. There's also the cost, even if I could find one - I should imagine they'd want to charge more than the value of the car whereas 3D printed parts would be minimal.

 

Is the durability an issue of stability over the long term (in which case, how are people coping when it comes to building rolling stock etc) or are you thinking of actual 'wear and tear'?

 

I did wonder about that but there's no real torque on either of these components. All they've got to to is be rotated around with a pointer on the end in fresh air and the only part that would rub would be the metal wire against the top bearing tube, which matches the original design. Neither the extension tube nor the splined end have to rub or drive anything that would resist them. That's why I was assuming it would be something that might work quite well in resin.

You need a watch maker rather than a repairer - I had an uncle who was one, but he retired about 18 years ago and is in his 80's now - I don't think there are many left !

Resin - think people are referring to the fact that most resins tend to be on the brittle side. However there are specialist resins that are more resilient - this is one I've used -  https://siraya.tech/collections/europe/products/tenacious-eu-1kg-by-siraya-tech

21 hours ago, Quarryscapes said:

Something that is distorted, but still looks good...

.... Although quick question - the corner facing the build plate always gets bent up a little, can this be mitigated at all? I was thinking longer supports might helps as they would give before the more substantial wagon superstructure. 

 

 

It's the support structure flexing slightly during the up and downs of the printing process.

I put 6 heavy supports in to minimise this -  3 along each long edge touching somewhere strong but inconspicuous.

If that doesn't cure it, increase the exposure slightly, so that the supports are harder and stiffer   

This just popped up on Facebook

Ferrocarril Central Argentino

No.9 'Cordoba' Canada Works, Birkenhead, works No.218 of 1867

5 hours ago, billbedford said:

That doesn't explain why the last few layers are thicker than the rest of the build. 

 

...

because it's semi-liquid it's getting squished outward in the build plates downward stroke, you get a little extra resin traped each time which then gets part cured.

Eventually  this extra resin slumps downward under gravity, forming the too thick layers.

My guess is it's not actually pooling but something similar,  because it's a solid mass you can't get pooling a such.

It's a transparent resin, so you need reduce the exposure due to UV bleed through from the layers below. But a side effect of this is that the last few layers are not exposed quite enough as there are no layers below. Coupled with the area being exposed reducing each layer as we near the apex, those last few layers will be underexposed,  more liquid and sag a little under their own weight, before being squashed outward when the build plate returns to the bottom. 

As the build plate rises after the print has finished, those layers will sag again giving layers of increased thickness..

I'd solve this by making it hollow, angling it front to back by 30 degrees and putting supports along the valleys and edges only   

7 minutes ago, jonhall said:

I'm a bit confused how you have the CAD skills to produce the images you have, and a 3d print farm, but can't do the Cad to get from one to the other?

 

Jon

Prepping things for print is a different skill from doing the CaD work

Are you intending to print these yourself or sell the files for people to print at home?

You don't get particularly good quality out of FDM printers in general - it's OK at larger scales and we've done some 4mm scale wagons that are acceptable, but I don't think you could do sellable OO scale locos with it.

Resin printers are a different matter - they are not quite as good as injection molding, but better than most of the whitemetal kits out there.

This is a little 009 loco I sell to fit the minitrix dock tank chassis 

This is straight off the printer, with just the supports removed, no cleaning up.

Generally for resin printers the files don't need to be split, it's just a case of getting the orientation and the supports right - but that is an art in itself.

For this little O&K coach 

It needs to be printed like this for the best results and ease of support removal 

If you do want to split files up, it's much easier to do in the original cad files, rather than trying to work with the STL's 

Somewhere I have an FR England loco we split up for FDM printing, but I wasn't happy with the quality we were getting - I'll see if I can dig out the files and the photos. 

BTW the little green tank in your Kickstarter is one of my designs - It OK you can use it, it's on the Thingiverse with free use, including commercial.

Tom

If it's your first printer I wouldn't advise buying one with the larger bed size.

They are slower and if you make a mistake and crack the screen it's very expensive to replace.

learn how  to do supports and the like on one of the smaller printers first - your mistakes will be smaller and cheaper. 

My choice would be one of the printers  with a 6 inch mono screen.

I prefer Elegoo simply because they come with vanilla Chitubox software which you can easily keep upto date. Anycubic  use their own bastardized version of this which is at least one release behind - it generates much poorer supports in particular.

So my choice would be the Mars 2 Pro - about £275 at the moment  

And there are several new photons coming out 

https://www.anycubic.com/pages/anycubic-5th-anniversary

Yes main advantage for home users is it's bigger. The speed is of more interest to people using them in a production environment. For the casual user the larger size = larger vat = more resin needed. if you are only using it occasionally there is always the chance  the resin in the vat might have gone off and you will waste more.  

And  the Saturn is an untried machine,the Mars has been around for a while and fixes for it's problems known already  

23 minutes ago, Andrew Dobie said:

Damn damn damn, I missed out on the pre-orders!

Looks like i'm going to have to wait for the general release, whenever that is....or get the Mars.

I missed out on the first batch, gave up and bought a Mars 

Not regretted it so far !

Gn15 loco 

Those settings are dissimilar to mine - I'm using .05 layer height and 50% support density are the two most relevant ones I think,

I use medium auto supports then add some heavy ones in the corner and anywhere else i think might distort.

Reason for those two prints both being at a sharp angle is that the are both about 15mm longer than the Mars can print - it's the only way I can get them to fit !.

Most of my stuff is about 15 angle and sometimes 8 or so in the other plane.

you're getting a lot more lines than me - what support structure are you using ?

6 minutes ago, Adam FW said:

 

....

 

The only issue I'm having is that compared to the translucent resins the grey has more clearly defined print lines, especially on flat surfaces which I'm still trying to overcome as I can't stand filling and sanding. I'm not sure if this is a by product of my settings or that the clear resins allowed UV light to cure outside each sliced layer and thus smoothing it

Is it possible it's just that you can see the print lines more clearly on the opaque gray, where as the translucent ones let the light pass through so you don't get the shadows cast by the imperfections.

I've been have problems with print lines originating from the corners of things - this seems to result in some sort of movement in model relative to fep film.