Martin,

What would be a reasonable minimum thickness for the timbers?

I might also be able to reduce the cost by hollowing out some voids although that might not work because there is a charge for support material (I believe it's wax that is dissolved once the resin has cured.)

Andy
__________
message ref: 21803

Andrew Barrowman wrote: What would be a reasonable minimum thickness for the timbers?Hi Andrew,

Which bullhead flexible track are you aiming to match?

The two common sizes use the technical terms "thick" and "thin".

1. "Thin" is the original design aiming to match traditional rivetted ply with a sleeper thickness of 1/32" (0.8mm). That applies to SMP Scaleway, Ratio EMtrack bases, C&L original (thin), and now also DCC Concepts.

The height to rail top is 0.8mm sleepers + 0.6mm chair base + 1.9mm code 75 rail = 3.3mm overall.

The 0.6mm chair base is of course the essential feature which provides the daylight under the rail above the ballast, in contradistinction to most flat-bottom track.

SMP Scaleway may be a bit thinner to match their soldered copper-clad pointwork kits:

 3/64" SRBP copper laminate (1.2mm) + 1.9mm rail = 3.1mm overall.

Ratio EMtrack bases had 1.0mm sleepers but with only 0.4mm chair base, so the end result was the same.

2. "Thick" matches the new Peco bullhead and the C&L/Exactoscale (thick) bases, originally matching 1/16" (1.6mm) plywood:

 1.6mm sleeper + 0.6mm chair base + 1.9mm code 75 rail = 4.1mm overall

which also matches Peco code 75 flat-bottom to rail top.

There are pros and cons. The "thin" is prone to curling and gauge variations if not carefully stuck down, but generally regarded as easier to ballast. Lots of layouts have used it successfully.

The "thick" is generally more robust, stable and accurate, but more difficult to ballast (Peco foam inlay anyone? ).

If you decide on turnout bases in multiple sections you don't really have much choice. It would have to be the thick version, if allowing for a sub-base.

Say a sheet of 40 thou (1.0mm) plasticard as the sub-base, with 0.6mm timber sections stuck onto it (with what, he asks?)

Or maybe 30 thou (0.8mm) plasticard or 1/32" plywood sub-base, with 0.8mm timber sections stuck onto it.

I can see the Peco bullhead rapidly dominating the market. As they do.

Over to you.

p.s. If doing this commercially you should obviously ignore my figures and check actual products yourself.

Martin.

__________
message ref: 21804

Thank you Martin.

I suspect if it's one it has to be thick, but it would take but a few clicks of the mouse to slice the model down to thin.

I think the difference in cost might be quite significant so perhaps the customer would get to decide.

There might even be an ultra-thin version for further savings. The timbers might be packed together requiring separation and gluing onto sub-timbers. The reason for packing them is because there is a cost for the overall volume "box" the part occupies on the print platter. It's not as significant as the resin volume, but it's still a cost.

Andy
__________
message ref: 21805

Jings! It will be snowing again here soon enough, and other than splitting a lot of logs for the shed's stove I don't seem to have accomplished very much at all. But I have been pondering:

I'd like to make it possible for anyone to obtain 3D printed turnout bases from Shapeways (or some similar service). Once I get everything set up, in theory anyway, it should be possible to order many different turnout designs in a lot of different gauges/track standards. However, the printing processes have certain limitations (see above).

At the moment the very best detail and accuracy can be achieved from UV cured resin. For the money I think the detail is pretty phenomenal. Unfortunately the resin is a bit fragile and I'm concerned that threading rails through resin chairs might lead to disappointment (not to mention a fair bit of hate-mail in my in-box )

Oddly enough it's really simple to print just about everything, including the rails, check rails, wing rails, Pandrol clips, (switch rails excluded) and that doesn't add much to the cost at all. Obviously, unless you happen to be a member of the "Dead Rail Society" that idea has about as much appeal as a chocolate teapot.

But hold on a minute. Who says the rail has to be metal all the way down to the chairs or baseplates? The only bit that really needs to be metallic is the rail's head (which is pretty much the same for bullhead and flat-bottom rails {ok, except for the tilt}).

I think it is possible to produce a metallic rail "head-cap" that snaps (or is glued) on to a printed rail's web.

A lot more mucking about is required!

ab



__________
message ref: 22633

Andrew Barrowman wrote:The only bit that really needs to be metallic is the rail's head (which is pretty much the same for bullhead and flat-bottom rails {ok, except for the tilt}).Hi Andy,

Flat-bottom is tilted too, at the same angle as bullhead (1:20 in UK, 1:40 in USA).

EXCEPT for flat-bottom pointwork in the UK renewed between about 1970 and 2000, which used vertical rails. But only for pointwork, plain track was still inclined.

If you could really design a clip-fit metal cap I think you could be on to a winner there. That might be a big if. And it is not going to work for the moving switch blades.

cheers,

Martin.

__________
message ref: 22634

Good morning Martin,

Thanks for the information regarding tilt. It should be possible to include that in the designs but I'll probably defer that for a bit.

It might be possible to roll-form 8 thou nickel silver strip into a channel for the cap but I have not been able to find a source for the material yet. I'm going to experiment with brass and phosphor bronze first. I have some CRS too, but it is tin plated.

Yes, the switch rails will likely have to be solid metal.

This isn't a new idea. You can buy G track in the US which is nearly all plastic except for the rail head. It looks really horrible too, but it would probably look a lot better if it was painted.

Regards,
ab
__________
message ref: 22643

PS Do wheels in the US have a corresponding cone angle? And, did they have to reprofile wheels on UK equipment when it was running in the US?
__________
message ref: 22644

Hi Andy

I love this thread and where you are taking things but a word of caution re the metal rail cap idea, not sure of the resistance of nickel silver but the c.s.a. of the metal will be seriously reduced when compared to a normal rail and will likely compromise the overload protection of a dcc system without a large number of droppers. Attaching the latter may well be difficult too.

Edit: will not only be problematic with dcc but also analogue systems.
Regards

Mike

__________
message ref: 22648

mikewturner wrote: Hi Andy

I love this thread and where you are taking things but a word of caution re the metal rail cap idea, not sure of the resistance of nickel silver but the c.s.a. of the metal will be seriously reduced when compared to a normal rail and will likely compromise the overload protection of a dcc system without a large number of droppers. Attaching the latter may well be difficult too.

Edit: will not only be problematic with dcc but also analogue systems.
Regards

Mike
Hi Mike,

You are quite correct. Nickel-silver isn't a very good conductor, and the cap would have a small CSA. It definitely will require droppers.

I have some ideas about how best to attach them.

Regards,
ab

__________
message ref: 22650

Andrew Barrowman wrote: mikewturner wrote: Hi Andy

I love this thread and where you are taking things but a word of caution re the metal rail cap idea, not sure of the resistance of nickel silver but the c.s.a. of the metal will be seriously reduced when compared to a normal rail and will likely compromise the overload protection of a dcc system without a large number of droppers. Attaching the latter may well be difficult too.

Edit: will not only be problematic with dcc but also analogue systems.
Regards

Mike
Hi Mike,

You are quite correct. Nickel-silver isn't a very good conductor, and the cap would have a small CSA. It definitely will require droppers.

I have some ideas about how best to attach them.

Regards,
ab

Vertical holes which the rail cap slots onto, with dropper rods going vertical to attach to dropper wires perhaps?

__________
message ref: 22652

Well, I'm not saying it's going to work, but it might.

This is a rather crude rail head "cap" channel. This sample was made from 8 thou phosphor bronze (annealed). The manufacturing process involved a box-cutter blade, aviation snips, and a small ball-peen hammer.



I'll try to make a better tool now.

__________
message ref: 22732

These were stamped with a soft (brass) tool.



Looks like it might actually work but I'm not sure the caps will snap on to the resin rail web.

I have found a source for nickel-silver strip. It's on its way from Tucson and should arrive in a couple of days.

Gosh! Isn't this exciting

__________
message ref: 22778

Andrew Barrowman wrote:Gosh! Isn't this exciting Yes!

How easily does that channel curve? Or bend for the knuckle? How much of the turnout do you plan to use that channel for, and how much solid slide-in rail? Presumably the switch blades at least will have to be solid rail?

In stamping them, what did you use for the die? A proper tool or a block of rubber?

To fit onto the printed rail web, how about that brush-on hot-melt adhesive we used to use for mounting photographs? Is it still available for ironing designs onto fabric? Brush some of that in the channel, clip in place, run the soldering iron along it.

What are your plans for electrical connections?

That's quite enough question marks for one post.

cheers,

Martin.

__________
message ref: 22779

I was, of course, being facetious, but I suppose it could be quite exciting if it actually works. Those were the first two samples off the tool (it's brass, and only two inches long) but I might be able to use it to produce some decent lengths with step-and-repeat. I should probably create a complete 3D model for a turnout crossing now and get some test prints from Shapeways. That's probably the quickest way to find out what will happen when I try to install the rail head. Stay tuned for more exciting episodes of "What to do with your time when you are no longer gainfully employed".
__________
message ref: 22780

Andrew Barrowman wrote:Stay tuned for more exciting episodes of "What to do with your time when you are no longer gainfully employed". I've heard it said that some folks build model railways.

Martin.

__________
message ref: 22781

Now available in nickel silver.



__________
message ref: 22799

Oh dear! I seem to have become ensnared in a toolmaker's nightmare. What I need is a real toolmaker to sort me out. If only I knew of one

After an inordinate amount of mucking about I'm reasonably convinced it's practical to produce rail heads in nickel silver. I tried making them in a rolling mill but that didn't work too well (actually it was a disaster). Eventually I reverted to stamping them which is where I started in the first place. My "production" stamping tool should be completed this week. (Please understand I'm using "production" in the loosest possible sense here.)

So, it will soon be time to start work on the actual 3-D model that I'll send to Shapeways. The question is, what prototype turnout should the model represent? The scale will be 1:76.2 and I'm inclined to make the gauge 16.2 mm, but other than that I'm open to suggestions (as long as they are not X-rated). Now is your chance!

I'll post a rendering of the model here to allow everyone to critique it before I submit it for printing. Hopefully that will be this year, but don't hold your breath.

Andy.




__________
message ref: 23077

Finally managed to get my rather crude stamp tool to form and trim the NS to produce a 9" long rail "cap". It's not perfect, but I think it should be good enough to demonstrate that the concept can work.

The cap is "springy" and quite flexible in the horizontal plane. I thought it might tend to twist but that doesn't seem to be a problem.





__________
message ref: 23170

Andrew Barrowman wrote: Finally managed to get my rather crude stamp tool to form and trim the NS to produce a 9" long rail "cap". It's not perfect, but I think it should be good enough to demonstrate that the concept can work. The cap is "springy" and quite flexible in the horizontal plane. I thought it might tend to twist but that doesn't seem to be a problem.Hi Andy,

Well done. That looks very promising.

On the other hand, this post from John strikes me as brilliant:

 http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/124414-00-bullhead-printed-pointturnout-bases/page-2#entry2975376

p.s. did you ever manage to find a toolmaker?

Martin.

__________
message ref: 23182

Hi Martin,

Yes, I think John's method would work. Having come this far I will press on with the "cap" method. It may have advantages and it probably has some disadvantages too. Hopefully time will tell (if it's not too long)

My toolmaker jest was aimed at someone we all know on this forum - initials MW.

I don't think there's much point in worrying about production tooling on this side of the Atlantic. The market is probably in the UK mainly so I'm assuming the "cap" would be manufactured there.

Hope you are enjoying the festive season. It's been snowing quite a bit here and it's extremely cold although it does look very nice.

Cheers!
Andy
__________
message ref: 23183

The chair library for a turnout is complete. I'll probably have to make some adjustments. Here's a rendering of the switch



and this is the crossing.



I still have to add fishplates and "drill" the chairs for the metal points. The printed part should have this amount of detail. Not sure if I'll add webs between the timbers or not. I probably should for added strength.

Keen observers will note that the rail head is undersized to accommodate the NS cap.

__________
message ref: 23325

Andrew

Top marks for the design, great concept.

One question from the photo the PL3 and PL4 chairs seem to be either out of position, wrong way round or on the wrong sides. The central block should be between the two rails
__________
message ref: 23326

can I be a devils advocate here

whats the " point" of essentially making a RTL ( ready to lay) point , PECO is beginning its odyssey into 00 gauge track , so is DCC, and we have kits etc from C&L, Marcway etc

surely the point is that people handbuild points precisely because the equivalent they are looking for is not commercially available , I would suggest the primary reason for doing so in 00 is so the prototype geometry can be followed


Hence what we need are " aids" for hand builders , personally Id prefer a system that allowed me access to track bases that could accommodate a variety of crossing angles etc .

I see little advantage to producing what amounts to a RTL product . This is not a criticism of the excellent technical work done here , merely a whats the point query ?
__________
message ref: 23327

Hi John,

Yes, P3 and P4 still have to be drilled to accept the metal switch rails. Wait till you see the fishplates!

BTW, this is bullhead but it could just as easily be flatbottom rail (assuming I had created all the chairs of course.)

Andy

]Hayfield wrote: Andrew

Top marks for the design, great concept.

One question from the photo the PL3 and PL4 chairs seem to be either out of position, wrong way round or on the wrong sides. The central block should be between the two rails

__________
message ref: 23330

madscientist wrote: can I be a devils advocate here

whats the " point" of essentially making a RTL ( ready to lay) point , PECO is beginning its odyssey into 00 gauge track , so is DCC, and we have kits etc from C&L, Marcway etc

surely the point is that people handbuild points precisely because the equivalent they are looking for is not commercially available , I would suggest the primary reason for doing so in 00 is so the prototype geometry can be followed


Hence what we need are " aids" for hand builders , personally Id prefer a system that allowed me access to track bases that could accommodate a variety of crossing angles etc .

I see little advantage to producing what amounts to a RTL product . This is not a criticism of the excellent technical work done here , merely a whats the point query ?
Whoa Nellie!

Let's not get too far ahead of ourselves here. First thing is to find out if it actually works. It's likely this prototype will unearth all sorts of unforeseen problems.

If it does actually work it opens the door to lots of possibilities, but I'd rather not go into that yet ('cos I don't know where it's going to go myself.) So one step at a time is probably the safest approach for now.

Regards,

Andy

__________
message ref: 23331

Here we go!

I have uploaded a model to Shapeways for printing. It might be violating one of their design parameters a bit but the fastest way to find out if it's really a problem is to ask them to do a trial print.

As the weather is atrocious here at the moment I'm sort of locked-out of my workshop. Maybe I'll take a crack at John's favorite while I'm waiting to see how Shapeways get on - a slip! (Single first naturally.)

Hands up if anyone would like to see a P4 example. I'll need to tweak the check and wing rails a bit because of the narrower flangeways but other than that it's pretty much a case of "rubber-stamping" the chairs on to the timbers.

__________
message ref: 23333

Andrew Barrowman wrote: madscientist wrote: can I be a devils advocate here

whats the " point" of essentially making a RTL ( ready to lay) point , PECO is beginning its odyssey into 00 gauge track , so is DCC, and we have kits etc from C&L, Marcway etc

surely the point is that people handbuild points precisely because the equivalent they are looking for is not commercially available , I would suggest the primary reason for doing so in 00 is so the prototype geometry can be followed


Hence what we need are " aids" for hand builders , personally Id prefer a system that allowed me access to track bases that could accommodate a variety of crossing angles etc .

I see little advantage to producing what amounts to a RTL product . This is not a criticism of the excellent technical work done here , merely a whats the point query ?
Whoa Nellie!

Let's not get too far ahead of ourselves here. First thing is to find out if it actually works. It's likely this prototype will unearth all sorts of unforeseen problems.

If it does actually work it opens the door to lots of possibilities, but I'd rather not go into that yet ('cos I don't know where it's going to go myself.) So one step at a time is probably the safest approach for now.

Regards,
Andy
Hello,
Mr Pritchard's 00 / OO has the traditional Min TG of 16.5mm.
Some folks prefer to knock that pesky 0.3mm of gauge widening off straight track, gentle curves and visible P&C work ( 00-SF aka 4-SF, with flangeways around 1mm).

RTL xx-SF is probably not going to come from the big players.....but someone may yet surprise us...


Regards,
Rodney Hills

__________
message ref: 23334

Hi Rodney,

It's not obvious from those renderings, but the gauge of that prototype is, in fact, 16.2 mm

Cheers!
Andy



__________
message ref: 23346

Andrew Barrowman wrote: Hi Rodney,

It's not obvious from those renderings, but the gauge of that prototype is, in fact, 16.2 mm

Cheers!

Andy,

Thanks for that. Yours is a most interesting project....

BTW, in 3 days time it will be 11 years since I set up the 00-SF Yahoo group as a focus for sharing information and experience and, for most of those years, acting as a conduit for suppying interested parties with the all-important construction gauging tools created by  Brian Tulley. 
Martin, of course, has just been so supportive and so helpful,  even when the "flame wars" were raging on RMweb. 'Nuff said.

Regards, Rodney Hills
https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/00-sf/info

__________
message ref: 23348

I just received the following from Shapeways. My model is "pushing the envelope" a little bit but it looks like it's going to be OK. The sample is now on the way here.

To save some cash in the event that it turned out to be a disaster I only ordered the crossing half of my test turnout but it should be sufficient to experiment with the "iron-on rails" and find out if the whole idea is worth pursuing or if it should be consigned to the rubbish-bin of history 

"
Hi Andrew,
Congratulations - your products have gone from a First To Try product to a successfully printed product in some materials.
Why did this happen?
After the most recent purchase of your products, we calculated a print success rate that is now greater than 80% for the following products and materials:

• All chairs21xx is no longer First To Try in:
  • Frosted Ultra Detail
  • Frosted Extreme Detail

What does this mean?
This means that we can confidently make your product, and you can confidently sell your product to customers in these materials.

We've updated each product page so that these materials are now listed as "Products". This is to help your customers feel confident that they're purchasing a product that can be successfully made.
__________
message ref: 23378

This just arrived.







__________
message ref: 23411

That looks rather good Andrew. How strong or brittle does it feel?
__________
message ref: 23412

d827kelly wrote: That looks rather good Andrew. How strong or brittle does it feel?
It's reasonably flexible, but it would not take a lot of rough handling. I was interested to see how well the rails would support the timbers. Seems to work OK but it would be more robust if I added webs between the timbers.

Now I need to make some more rail cap, attach it then paint everything. That will take a little while.

__________
message ref: 23413

Hi Andy,

That's looking very good. Well done.

I'm a bit disappointed that you didn't include the spacer blocks in the crossing, and bolt heads on the rail. Moulding the rails and chairs in one piece gave you an opportunity to go one step beyond other systems and do that. Maybe for the next test shot? Here's a pic again showing the spacers and bolts:





Of course, they would need to be deeper than scale to allow for model wheel flanges.

cheers,

Martin.

__________
message ref: 23414

All in good time Martin

The primary objective at the moment is to see if the method actually works.

Mind you, it's surprising what you can actually do with 3D printing. Some things would be very expensive if not impossible with injection molding, but you would know a lot more about that than me.

Now I must to the workshop!


__________
message ref: 23419

It certainly shows there is some milage in the idea.

The quality looks great too, I wonder about how viable seperate chairs
__________
message ref: 23424

Now with rail heads.



and paint (not very good paint!)





__________
message ref: 23436

Hi Andy,

Brilliant! That looks great!

How did you make the rail head for the nose of the vee?

How do you envisage electrical connections to the rail heads? Etched fishplates with a tail into the ballast?

How long did it take to make and fit the rail heads?

What are your plans for the moving switch blades?

cheers,

Martin.

__________
message ref: 23437

Hi Andy,

That's looking so promising I'd like to clarify where it might lead, in addition to supplying the finished pointwork.

e.g.

1. user designs turnout in Templot. Up to what size?

2. user exports a file from Templot. In DXF? Some other format?

3. user opens file in your software, chair library, etc. User specifies type of chair needed at each timber? (I have already some experimental stuff for that in Templot.)

4. user creates 3D file from your software.

5. user sends file to Shapeways for 3D printing.

6. user buys capping section and special glue from Andy's Patent Track Supplies Inc.

cheers,

Martin.

__________
message ref: 23438

Martin Wynne wrote: Hi Andy,

Brilliant! That looks great!

How did you make the rail head for the nose of the vee?

How do you envisage electrical connections to the rail heads? Etched fishplates with a tail into the ballast?

How long did it take to make and fit the rail heads?

What are your plans for the moving switch blades?

cheers,

Martin.
Hi Martin,

It would look even nicer if I hadn't botched the paint job In my haste I used a rattle can of camo paint.

The vee was made by filing two sections of head in a filing jig I use for solid NS rail, similar to the method you'd use with solid rail. They were soldered together with a quick dab with a hot iron. (The resin is somewhat heat resistant.) I think that's an area that needs work. Might be better if it was a single stamping.

For electrical connections I was thinking of substituting short sections of the plastic rail with solid rail that's been modified to insert into the NS head and soldered to the head. Where the adjacent rails are track the head rail could be soldered on to the end of the modified track rail in a similar fashion. That's just an idea though. There are probably much better ways of doing it.

The heads don't take long although at the moment I have to dismantle the tool to remove the stamped part. It's a sort of punch/shear that forms the head from a piece of soft 1/8th inch NS strip in one operation. I load it into my 12 ton hydraulic press and keep pumping until the NS surrenders with a loud bang   (I'm sure there are much better ways to make it.)

The switch blades will have to be regular NS rail firmly anchored to the base. I might have to resort to soldering them to a piece of laminate that goes into a pocket in the timbers. I wish I could getaway with making the blades and tiebar a single rigid assembly and pivot it, but I don't think too many people would care for the appearance.

Cheers!
Andy

__________
message ref: 23439