We are privileged to live in this extortionary time where manufacturing technology is now available at an affordable price to the hobbyist. The problems arise when you realise the software that runs your machine is extortionary complicated, those who have programming experience find them easy to use while the rest of us stare at the screen asking now what do I do.
I am a member of the G1 3D circle, a group formed to exchange and promote 3D tech, while some members do produce models the majority spend their time discussing the complexities of said tech.
What is required is a programme that is user friendly, think back to the first PC's when you had to master DOS to be able to do anything on your machine. Then came along Mr Gates and his Widows programme, what happened? Vast numbers of people became computer literate overnight. I contend the same is required for hobbyist to be able to master these wonderful machines.
Mike
No, I have to disagree with you! What is required is basic programming training. Anyone can produce a program, however it takes training to produce a GOOD program. Systems have come and gone over the years but a program written to a specific programming methodology can be looked at by a commercial programmer and he should be able to carry on. I still use SSADM , JSP and GRAPES. Modern systems are OOP and BLOB.
I have the e-mailed .scad program from JRFC. It has no commercial style - but it works. Speaking as an MIAAP yhe program is overly complex and could do with a complete reworking on the editing and layout. John has written a program for himself - whilst I am trained to write programs for other programmers to edit.
If you examine the .scad files that I have written in the WIKI they will look simple, short, and obvious. It has taken 40 plus years to get to this level!!!
Regards
Ralph
Ralph
I think you have proved my point, programming is second nature to you. It's like the person who writes the instructions to a piece of kit you may buy, they are familiar with the product and thus assume you will understand their instructions.
Sucsessful instructions work if writer places themselves in the receivers position and assumes the receiver do's not have any prior knowledge of the product.
If you are selling a piece of kit, and recommend the buyer does a basic programming course before attempting to use the item, all well and good but I don't think you would sell many of the items?
Everything is easy when you know how!
Now let's help one another, what would you recommend I do to start understanding basic programming.
Mike
I am "out" at the moment but this evening I will write you your reply. In the meantime I would ask you to look up the language called Pascal.
Regards
Ralph
Hi, All,
I have been following your adventures into 3D printer programming with mixed feelings. A few years ago I was tempted to buy one of the early machines as I could see the possibilities for making stuff relevant to our hobby. Man! Am I grateful I did not do any such thing (apart from the fact that those systems were several times more expensive and vastly less capable than today's machines.) I have looked at Open Scad, and after Ralph's suggestion, at the Wiki about Pascal. Neither of them ' despite using English words mean anything to me, even when explaining a function, or a term's use, I am none the wiser. Words like "Translate" and "Render" have no meaning for me in this context, let alone "String". So I need a primer, preferably in print that starts at the VERY beginning. Any suggestions? I did work in BASIC for a while (in the '70s), and can draw in 2D Autosketch fast and accurately, drawing in Autosketch is not programming-it is drawing by alternative means-is there a similar system for 3D ??
In the meantime there is no way I'll be buying a 3D printer, shame!
John
If you can use Autosketch then try turboCAD. I am on the train home from Sheffield. Give me half an hour to get a cheese doorstop in my stomach and I will give you my thoughts!
Regards
Ralph
I hope this works!
Ralf
Thanks for your PDF, but again you assume we know what all this means? I like John have zero knowledge of programming. Just instructing someone to write lines of abstract symbols doe's not work.
Your analogy of poetry is fine if you can speak English, but without a basic knowledge of the language it means zero.
You mention TurboCad, I have been using this programme for years as it is similar to old style engineering drafting and I understand this process, and not to difficult to learn.
But programming!!!!! yes frustrating for all of us!
Mike
Errrmmmm....
Is this the entry where I point out that I am not English, English is not my native language and ( to be honest ) I have never actually heard anyone speak English...
My native language is German. German forename and German surname - bit of a giveaway!!! Most computer languages are based on English. Forth is the only language based on German and APL the only language based on God Knows What(!) Some think it could be Finnish or Basque.
But the techniques of programming can be taught regardless of the language used. Forth uses Reverse Polish Notation which is to my mind easier to work than Arabic.
Come and find me at the AGM.
Regards
Ralph
I've been using Open SCAD for a little while but I am far from being expert.
I use SCAD for 3D printing relatively simple objects, with my key criteria being that if I can sketch them on paper by combining a few basic components - then I can probably work out how to 'define' those parts and combine them to get what I need. Things like motor 'saddles' (e.g. rectangle less cylinder) or funnels (cylinder with different diameter ends) can be scripted without worrying too much about how to "programme" things per-se in my experience. For John's work, I think I'd be looking into 'Modules' if I was using SCAD but I've taken another approach.
Have a look at this SCAD tutorial for a stage by stage approach. http://files.openscad.org/tutorial/ (http://files.openscad.org/tutorial/)
I would also recommend printing out the SCAD Cheatsheet http://www.openscad.org/cheatsheet/ (http://www.openscad.org/cheatsheet/)
For objects as complicated as John's design - personally, I would not use Open SCAD (although hat's off to John for doing so). I've been a TurboCAD 2D user for well over 20 years but recently decided to bite the bullet with 3D CAD and invest some time to learn it. Coming late to the scene, I decided to use Solid Edge 2020 Community Edition which is a free-to-download "lifetime" licence and runs locally (no Cloud!). There are some excellent eLearning tutorials available which will get you going. I've used SE2020 to design more complex items for 3D printing and it is extremely capable...
If I wanted to teach my Grandson to design & print 3D objects - then I'd still quick-start him with Open SCAD and it's ideal for 'sharing' because the 'source code' is a text file and usually very easy to customise. However, for my broader engineering needs, Solid Edge will be my choice of design tool going forward.
As for 'programming' languages I've been using Micromite Basic (MMB) for a while and I'd recommend it for anyone who needs to get things done quickly without frying their brain. MMB is fast and available on a wide range of platforms including PIC32 and ARM Cortex boards. The reason it's easy to use and quick to debug is because it's very interactive compared to something like Arduino (although not as interactive as Forth of course) and it was originally written for mere mortals (like myself) who never have (and never will) programme professionally.
If all you need to do is "tinker" (e.g. make things work without spending all your time on it) then MMB is the language for you. Otherwise, learn 'C' or Python and disappear down the programming rabbit hole. Find the PDF "Getting Started with Micromite" at the bottom of this page https://geoffg.net/micromite.html (https://geoffg.net/micromite.html) and if you want to give it a free MMB test drive then also download 'MMB for DOS/Windows' as well (same page).
You can then run simple (or complex if you need to) MMB programmes on your PC (albeit without most of the I/O and graphics available on other SBC versions). It is more than fast enough for most things (e.g. you won't know it's interpreted) and can use the PC's serial ports and filing system. So you could (for instance) use a Micromite (PIC32 chip) to gather data (e.g. read an analogue port) and then feed it (via serial) back to your PC for analysis in Excel (using .CLS files) - with programmes written in MM Basic running on both machines.
So - just my personal take on these things but hopefully of use to some here.
Regards
IanT
In my opinion Mike is absolutely right. Both members on here saying its easy were employed for many years by computer companies. Maybe the yooth of today will have a better understanding of it, but there is probably a large majority of members who have no knowledge of programming and no desire to learn it. They will, tonight, be working with their milling machines and soldering gear rather then using an on-line forum.
Mike
That clinches it. No way am I going anywhere this technique, and no-one is more disappointed than me! I looked at the two links suggested by Ian, and a lot of websites of the suppliers of software. My degree of puzzlement may be gauged by the fact that I could not decide if the software on offer was to design the object or to drive the printer. (Do you need both?)
If you can't make it out of cut sheet material, I will have to buy the item ready made.
John
For 3D printing John - you need a programme that produces a .STL file - to feed to your 'slicer' which actually drives the printer itself. I use a slicer called Cura (also a free download) and it's pretty simple to use, although you can make it do more complicated things if you want to dive deep into it.
I printed a couple of test pieces on my newly assembled printer straight away and was printing my own stuff the next day. It's not that hard to get started but does become more difficult as your ambition grows - and John is clearly very ambitious. :-)
If you want to cut metal (or wood) then your CAD drawing needs to be passed to a CAM package to generate the G-code most CNC machines understand. I've not ventured there yet as the costs (compared to 3D print) tend to start climbing quite sharply - depending on what you want to do. John's new machine is interesting because it can handle two different technologies additive 3D print and subtractive CNC (Laser & Router).
Regards,
IanT
I installed CURA before receiving the Snapmaker and installing Luban but found that the list of CURA supported printers does not include the Snapmaker (possibly because it is a multi-role machine). You can define the parameters as a "Custom" printer but since the settings are part of Luban there didn't seem much point in the exercise.
The Snapmaker Luban combines the three functions (printing/laser/CNC milling) and generates the G-code from imported files of various types.
There are lots of settings to configure the printer environment, as well as laser and CNC(a few are visible in the screenshot).
It seems that Luban should (in 3D print mode) be able to do anything that CURA can do .... or am I missing something?
Regards,
John.
(https://i.ibb.co/DkpX8zJ/luban-screen.jpg) (https://ibb.co/DkpX8zJ)
May I describe what I thought , in my naivete , the 3D design and printing process would involve? This may go some way to explain my befuddlement with all the language surrounding 3D techniques.
I thought that, as preparing a 2D drawing for laser cutting only needed a clean outline in .dxf format, then a 3D one would need plan, side and other elevations, as per an engineering drawing. These views have all the information needed for a human machinist to turn the drawing into reality. I assumed that the printer software would take these views and turn them into a printable solid, and then print it. I did not expect to get into programming.
So I will cease and desist my involvement in this topic, but follow your achievements, gentlemen, with awe and amazement.
John
Well it's certainly interesting to hear members views on this subject. My conclusion is the possibility of a Widows style program for 3D printing aint going to appear any time soon. So if you want to learn to swim jump into the deep end, I had to with the CNC mill, and some programs are easier to learn than others.
As to programming I think Ralf's statement
" If you examine the .scad files that I have written in the WIKI they will look simple, short, and obvious. It has taken 40 plus years to get to this level!!! "
says it all, and as we all know there is not substitute for experience, know where's my hammer.
Mike
I would add (for the benefit of the disbelievers) that it is NOT difficult to master the basics of OpenSCAD.
Yes, I did learn computer programming in the mid-1960's (my interest was sparked when I attended a series of lectures at the Science Museum, given by English Electric Computers, later to become ICL) but have not "used it in anger" since the early 1980s.
As Ralph has commented, it is similar in structure to BASIC but it is far, far simpler to construct a 3D print model than write a suite of programs to run a business.
Pretend you are a brainless machine waiting for instructions as to what to do.
Basically, you need to know what shape to draw, how big and where to place it.
The most basic instructions are cube,sphere,cylinder and with those you need only specify the dimensions and the x.y,z co-ordinates telling the machine where to place the object within the workspace.
Yes, there are very much more complex objects, some of which do need to be extruded from 2D designs, examples being a circle extruded to form a ring and a polygon for solid shapes which are not cubic and some do involve angles and more complex parameters.
I assure you that if you start with something simple, you will soon get the hang of it.
I put off trying for far too long and within a few days I was able to produce chimneys, domes and coach sides.
Regards,
John.
John C. - 'Slicers' basically take a .STL file and convert it to something the 3D Printer can understand - so they are all the same in that respect. However, once you need to start digging under that level of simplicity, things do get more complicated with respect to how much and what kind of customisation you can actually do.
I've only used Cura myself, so cannot make comparisons but I believe there are differences between products once you start customising things like supports, object scaling and placement, infill proportions & patterns etc. These differences might just be finding the right menu choices for your particular slicer - or that some just cannot do things that others can. I'd recommend following the Gauge 1 3D Circle at Group.IO for useful information in this area. They also have some G1 wagon designs that could probably be scaled up to G3 just using slicer scaling.
John B. I would download Open SCAD and try typing in some simple objects. It is much easier to learn in steps than might be suggested by looking at complicated scripts. Generally (I think that) 3D Printing is easier and more affordable than any form of CNC.
Having said that, there are now fairly affordable 'router' style CNC machines that would probably be capable of cutting the work I suspect you have in mind.
I've thought about this myself recently and considered getting a 6040 type CNC machine (but fitted with an 800w water-cooled spindle) which would be powerful enough most of what I might want to do. This would cost about £1K (pre-Jan). You can buy much cheaper set-ups with smaller tables (3020) and small DC motors but YT is full of 'upgrade' videos to make them more usable. You can programme these machines directly in G-code (perfectly possible for simple cuts) but you will eventually need some kind of CAD/CAM software to do more complex work.
Your idea of the software taking a 2D 'plan' and turning it into '3D' is interesting but in many ways is the opposite of what actually happens. In 3D, you sketch a 2D plan, then extrude the third dimension. This continues in stages until you have built your model. You can export this in different file formats - so .STL for 3D print or perhaps .DXF for CAM/CNC.
One of the great benefits of modern 3D CAD is that it is parametric, so any changes are reflected back into the overall design. If you need traditional 2D drawings, then it's just a drag and drop operation. Change your design and everything is updated automatically, including all drawings and their dimensions etc. For the kind of work I know you do - I think spending time learning 3D CAD would be well worth while. I'd recommend Solid Edge - and it's quite capable of '2D' drawing as well as '3D' (something I didn't realise at first).
I'm busy re-building my small mill at the moment - something I'd been putting off. But I managed to break the back-gear last year and finally decided to bite the bullet. I think I'm moving to the view that I might be better to fit an inexpensive DRO to my mill - rather than just dive into CNC - but everyone has different needs & interests. A small CNC router (for thin non-ferrous & ply work) might still be on the cards though.
Regards,
IanT
I've been reading this thread with interest. As I have mentioned here previously, I use Fusion 360 extensively and it does everything I need it to do (and a huge amount besides). Yes, the learning curve was steep and it took me three months of winter evenings until I became confident with it. At the same time I had a long and hard look at OpenSCAD (inspired by Ralph's Wiki to do so). Eventually I rejected it because I didn't want to go back to writing code (I stopped doing that 30 years ago), and because I like the facility to work with the 3D object directly on the screen. I'm not making a case for one or the other, I am just saying that anyone getting into CAD should seriously consider both the scripting and graphic options before making a decision.
Ian, please don't buy a 6040 machine or anything of that type, you will be wasting your money if you want to work with anything other than plastic or wood. The problem is not power, speed or accuracy, it is rigidity (lack of). The frame is simply not rigid enough, you will get tool chatter and a good surface finish is impossible on any harder material. Any machine made of flat plates, no matter if they are strengthened, will vibrate far more than we want. Cast iron is better, but best of all is epoxy concrete which is what many industrial CNC machines are made of because it damps vibration so well. I have some familiarity with them - even the small ones are massively constructed for a very good reason.
Nick
This screenshot shows the OpenSCAD file (the full code) to print the ducket for the LNER Gresley PBV.
It is a fiddly shape to produce by fabrication but the program is very short and quickly produced.
No cut or burnt fingers....just make a coffee and let the machine do the work.
Regards,
John.
P.S. You will (eventually) be persuaded that learning SCAD it is worth the effort!
A second file showing a "see through" version of the ducket (the version above was deliberately infilled.... the blue bit).
When printing the "see through" version, the software will automatically insert a fine mesh support structure which is easily "poked out" when printing has completed.
John.
The people who use text based systems and those who use graphical based systems operate in two different modes... Here sat in Stoke station I can write .scad files on my phone without using OpenScad and by practice I can visulise what I am creating. The processing power required is very low.
If I run a program such as Bryce, I select the primative enter the position (x,y,z), colour, material and surface finish. The principle is the same as a .scad file but you use a mouse and enter numbers into the boxes.
The processing power is vast (!)
A 3D CAD system is as complex as you want it to be. Text based systems appeal to me because I only use what I need.
Regards
Ralph
2 hours and 6 mins printing time at 50 microns and 50percent infill.
The completed ducket is loosely sitting on the pattern for the side panel section (it will not become part of the resin casting .... the side panel is in its enclosure, ready to pour the silicone rubber mould).
Another ducket is already being printed .... only the later LNER builds of Gresley coaches had duckets and then only on one side of the coach (left, looking forward.... the side most signals would have been sighted).
Regards,
John.
is the one side only an april fool john? as when they arrived at a terminal, they'd have to take the coach away to a turntable and turn it so the ducket was on the left for the return journey ?
But if there were a brake end at the other end of the train, it would have its ducket on the right, that is left, side, when going home so as long as the guard travelled at the right end, that is the last vehicle, he would be on the left, that is, the right side to see the signals.
Are we all clear?
John
No, not a joke!
John B has summed it up nicely ...... important trains were made up of sets and would have a brake carriage at each end. What is puzzling is that Gresley's GNR carriages did have duckets BOTH SIDES but his early LNER designs had none at all and the later ones had them on just one side. The logic escapes me but it may have been to save costs. Not sure how much use they really were in practice. The GWR didn't bother with them post-Dean and the SR switched to periscopes under Bulleid.
Regards,
John.
The OpenSCAD for the 8ft 6ins width gangwayed end (as fitted to Gresley LNER bogie PBVs and van sections of many passenger brake coaches).
The gangway connector will be produced and separately fitted to completed models.
It took about 20 hours to produce the program and I will soon know how long it will take to print .... it will be used as a pattern for resin casting.
While looking at the finished item in OpenSCAD, I hit the "thrown together" view option.
The astonishing result is also shown ..... that design reminds me of the symbol for a certain organisation.
Regards,
John.
It took just over 20 hours to print at 80microns and 15percent infill and will be used as pattern to make a mould.
I am now "hooked" on 3D printing and have ordered a liquid resin printer, the Elegoo Mars 2 Pro.
Previously wary of the "mess" and smell associated with the process, I have also ordered the Elegoo Mercury wash and cure machine which receives the print still attached to the production plate, so you don't have to touch the resin before it has been washed and cured.
The Mars 2 Pro printer has a capacity of 129x80x160mm and is fitted with a carbon filter to remove the particles from the cooling system exhaust. It will be used to produce smaller parts than the Snapmaker can handle but should be much faster and give an even better "finish".
Regards,
John.
John
No stopping you now, let us know when you are ready to receive orders for rakes of coaches. A set of GWR clerestory would suit me!!!!
Mike
The Gresley coach project is now well advanced with the patterns produced for six different LNER diagrams.
The Snapmaker has now clocked-up getting on for 200 hours ... it is rattling away as I type.
OpenSCAD works well for me but for those less confident in their abilities, I wonder whether "Tinkercad" could be a solution?
It is web-based (you work through your web browser) and, from a brief look at the tutorial (link below) works by manipulating pre-defined shapes.
https://all3dp.com/2/tinkercad-tutorial-easy-beginners/?utm_source=push (https://all3dp.com/2/tinkercad-tutorial-easy-beginners/?utm_source=push)
https://www.tinkercad.com/ (https://www.tinkercad.com/)
Regards,
John
Following emails expressing interest in the Gresley coaches, here is a little more detail.
The patterns have been printed for modules which (on a "mix'n'match" principle) can accurately produce at least 8 different coaches and probably many more if one were to trawl through the diagrams.
The 17 modules so far prepared can definitely produce the following:-
Gangwayed stock
D186 TO (61ft 6ins)
D191 BTO (61ft 6ins)
D216 TO (52ft 6ins)
D217 BTO (52ft 6ins)
D113 PBV 61ft 6ins
D111 PBV 52ft 6ins
Non-gangwayed stock
D129 PBV 51ft 1.5ins
D120 PBV 32ft (4-wheeled)
Attached is a photo of part of a 3rd class module.
I have received enquiries as to whether I am proposing to sell coaches (either complete or as kits) but (at my age... getting on for 73) do not have the time/inclination to commit to such an enterprise.
Regards,
John.
John, If you get to do the additional parts for an RB . . . just sayin' :) :) :)
The "Cambridge Buffet Express" trains often included a Gresley buffet . . . 8) 8) 8)
"LNER Gresley 61'6" "RB" (Vestibuled Buffet) No.W9135E (ex-LNER No.650) built at York 1937, Diagram 167, Order No.761, in (somewhat incongruously) BR Rail Blue & Grey livery. Used on the Cambridge Buffet Expresses and not withdrawn until 1977, such was the quality of Gresley coaches and bogies. This was the last wooden-bodied passenger vehicle in service on BR."
https://www.flickr.com/photos/camperdown/24181021436 (https://www.flickr.com/photos/camperdown/24181021436)
Robert 'D'
QuoteJohn, If you get to do the additional parts for an RB . . . just sayin' :) :)
An excursion would need a buffet (somewhere for the Dads to retreat to when fed up with the kids asking,"Are we nearly there?").
I had already been looking at the various diagrams of refreshment vehicles and 167 looks as good as any....so there is a possibility.
My wife's family (on her Mother's side) had been Cambridge residents since the 1850s but I never travelled on the Cambridge Buffet Express (or "Beer trains", as the regulars called them!) which ran from KingsX rather than Liverpool St.
Regards,
John.
1B66 was the reporting mark for the Cambridge Buffet Express which ran past my hometown of Stevenage hence my interest.
Now that ALD Models are developing diesels in Gauge 3, their Class 23 Baby Deltic looks an ideal match with a Gresley Buffet car and 7 x MKI coaches. Although their Class 24 would also be a contender.
Many's the time I came home from KX behind a double-headed pair of Class 31's in BR Blue with original 4-digit numbers and arrows of indecision.
I also miss the warmth of steam heated MKI's and gloriously comfortable but very dusty seat cushions.
Robert
The latest component to be prepared for the Gresley coaches is the gangway connector.
Anyone with a 3D printer requiring a "Pullman" type gangway connector may find this OpenSCAD design useful. This example is based on the LNER design as fitted to ECJS and Gresley coaches but similar connectors were used by SR and BR (as well as Pullman).
The component has been designed so that a folded piece of thick paper (or other material) can be inserted down the sides, to represent the expanding bellows.
I have uploaded the file to the G3Wiki and it can be downloaded from http://www.gauge3.info/openscad/Pullmangangwayconnector.scad
(http://www.gauge3.info/openscad/Pullmangangwayconnector.scad)
Regards,
John.
(https://i.ibb.co/gvZKphS/gway1.jpg) (https://ibb.co/gvZKphS)
(https://i.ibb.co/HBB9r8B/gway2.jpg) (https://ibb.co/HBB9r8B)
At last! Another design contribution from someone else! I look forward to others.
Regards
Ralph
QuoteAt last! Another design contribution from someone else! I look forward to others.
Yes, I know I have rather neglected the G3Wiki for quite a while but have not done a lot of modelling for past 18 months, until the Snapmaker recently arrived.
My main (largely unseen) contribution to the G3Wiki and G3Forum has been to sort out issues with the server whenever there is a hitch!
I have other designs (e.g. the LNER ducket and GCR loco parts) which I will be uploading.
Incidentally, I once looked into the reason for the guard's lookout being called a ducket .... it seems it originated from Glasgow, where a dovecote is pronounced "doocot".
I have received notice that there will be some disruption to service when the server is replaced and this will happen within a few weeks.
If all goes well, there should be minimal "downtime" and I will give the date when I have been notified.
I haven't yet run the resin printer (Elegoo Mars 2 Pro) and am a bit concerned that there is mention of 7 percent shrinkage with the type of resin used in 3D printing. It is easy to "upscale" the designs but sounds as though it will be necessary to do a few trials to get it right.
Regards,
John.
The gangway connector hot off the print bed!
It took 1hr 56mins at 80 microns.
Lurid green wasn't my first choice of colour! I ordered five reels of PETG but grey and black were out of stock....so I chose red and green.
I am using it as a pattern for a mould, so colour doesn't matter.
I will probably print the "bellows" as separate parts, to insert into main casting, rather than mess about with folding thin card,etc.
(https://i.ibb.co/b2HJmZB/gway3.jpg) (https://ibb.co/b2HJmZB)
Regards,
John.
The bellows have been printed (same lurid green PETG) and the file is available at http://gauge3.info/openscad/Gresleygangwaybellows.scad (http://gauge3.info/openscad/Gresleygangwaybellows.scad)
A nice short file (for once) and time taken was 44 mins to print a pair at 80 microns.
Regards,
John.
John,
Consider yourself lucky! My great niece requested a Kilo reel of genuine Barbie Pink. So I could print her things...
Regards
Ralph
Next off the press will be.....LNER standard battery boxes (as used in pairs under most passenger stock).
Just started printing with time to complete shown as 2hrs 28mins.
(https://i.ibb.co/xLS9rHz/battbox.jpg) (https://ibb.co/xLS9rHz)
The files (you need 5 which need to be held in the same directory on your PC) are available at:
http://gauge3.info/openscad/Gresleybatterybox.scad
http://gauge3.info/openscad/gresleybattboxhinge1a.scad
http://gauge3.info/openscad/gresleybattboxhinge2a.scad
http://gauge3.info/openscad/gresleybattboxhinge3a.scad
http://gauge3.info/openscad/gresleybattboxhinge4a.scad
The "hinge" files are "called" by the main file, so need to be in same directory.
Reason for separating the hinges, is to enable the design to be manipulated and the individual elements used to produce variants, as required.
Regards,
John.
P.S. It has printed and picture attached but it was very difficult to photograph .... the combination of lurid green and the translucent nature of the PETG make it very difficult to capture the detail but it is all there.
The parts to make a coach dynamo (LNER type).
(https://i.ibb.co/Q6NJ7xT/LNER-dynamo.jpg) (https://ibb.co/Q6NJ7xT)
The OpenSCAD file file is available at
http://gauge3.info/openscad/LNERdynamo.scad
Print time 30 mins.
John
John,
I will install these files onto the openscad page of the g3wiki on Sunday morning.
Regards
Ralph
Perhaps I should do a database "back-up" first, just in case there is another problem with the server losing the pages?
Regards,
John.
LNER Brake vacuum reserve tank
(https://i.ibb.co/HNTWjmN/vactank.jpg) (https://ibb.co/HNTWjmN)
Pairs of these vacuum tanks were fitted to most LNER bogie coaching stock.
The file for this can be downloaded at http://gauge3.info/openscad/LNERvacuumtank.scad
Print time 25 mins.
John
The brake cylinder is in 4 parts, main body, domed top and the two supports (which locate over the trunnions on the main body).
The actuating lever and V-hangers will follow as a separate file .
available at:
http://gauge3.info/openscad/Vacuumbrakecylinder.scad
John
The Snapmaker spent 30hrs producing a Gresley coach Ist Class side module, so the "minor" parts had to queue.
The brake cylinder is now complete (in black PLA rather than green PETG) and took 2hrs 58 mins to print.
When assembled it is free to pivot, making it easier to align with the other brake linkages when positioned on the coach underframe.
http://gauge3.info/openscad/Vacuumbrakecylinder.scad
(https://i.ibb.co/fMWBdqb/vaccyl1.jpg) (https://ibb.co/fMWBdqb)
(https://i.ibb.co/B6WV9CS/vaccyl2.jpg) (https://ibb.co/B6WV9CS)
The files for the V-hangers and the brake linkage are
http://gauge3.info/openscad/Vhangers.scad
http://gauge3.info/openscad/vacuumbrakelinkage.scad
Printing the brake linkage took just 18mins but the V-hangers (a set of 4) took 2hrs 56mins.
John
Stone's Glass Vane Vents.
Some early diagrams of Gresley LNER open coaches and catering vehicles were fitted with Stone's vents to the large windows. These vents were composed of seven glass vanes which pivoted through 180 degrees, about their (vertical) centre . This was to enable the passengers to direct them to adjust air intake according to the direction of travel. In the 1930's, the design was superseded by the more familiar sliding pattern but many Gresley coaches retained the Stone's type until withdrawal in the 1960's.
One of the designs to carry Stone's pattern vents, for which I have prepared side modules, was dia.4 , an Open First.
I have been unable to find a detailed drawing, so have had to rely upon photos and small drawings of coach sides to extract info. Drawings do not appear to reflect the actual appearance in photos and different photos do not appear to show same detail.... more than probably result of reflections according to angle of photo.
The OpenSCAD file I have prepared shows what I believe to be a good representation but any comments/suggestions welcome.
I don't yet know whether it will be possible to print batches in a clear transparent material or whether a pattern will need to be printed, from which to prepare a mould for casting in clear polyester resin.
John.
One of the "bugbears" (for me) in building Gresley gangwayed coaches, is the complex curvature of the roof ends.
I decided I will cast the domed ends which have, at their inner ends, a recess to accept 3mm thick timber planking for the plain section and, at the outer end, are shaped to engage with the carriage end casting.
The pattern for the mould (from which the parts will be cast in polyurethane resin) has been 3D printed, taking just over 6hrs (a good reason for casting rather than printing multiple parts).
Rendering the OpenSCAD file almost crippled my PC..... it took four minutes to make the calculations and display!
If I contemplate programming more complex designs, I may have to look at upgrading the PC.
The file is at http://gauge3.info/openscad/gresleyroof.scad
John.
(https://i.ibb.co/xMzJ4pF/domeend.jpg) (https://ibb.co/xMzJ4pF)
(https://i.ibb.co/8syGTYh/domeend1.jpg) (https://ibb.co/8syGTYh)
No John, your PC is just fine! I have just ran the same script on MINE and it come out at 3 mins 27 seconds. The problem is that you are using massive amounts of virtual positional calculation for a 3space object before you produce it.
There are other methods that would produce the same shape - but to be honest yours is about as simple as it gets. It might be a bit CPU intensive - but there is nothing wrong with it.
Regards
Ralph
Thanks Ralph.
I needn't worry then ... just need to be more patient and drink more coffee!
I haven't had such a long wait for an image to resolve for nearly 30 years....... then with a Pentium 75, 10MB and a hand-held scanner!
Regards,
John.
In the end I had to print the pattern a second time.
There was shrinkage problem with the first attempt..... it was undersized by about 1.5mm in width and that prevented it fitting over the coach end. I had not experienced any such problems with the dozen+ previous items, all using the same reel of PLA. The roof end was (by far) the tallest item so far printed and I am wondering whether the weight caused compression of the lower layers and led to the problem or the heat from the bed not penetrating to the upper layers perhaps caused inconsistency in layer thickness as the PLA cooled faster and did not "spread" as much as lower layers.
I revised the program to compensate (incidentally, the uploaded OpenSCAD file is the revised version) and the second print was a good fit. It has been fettled (to remove the surface striations) and the corners profiled to provide a good match with the pattern for the ends.
Now ready to prepare the mould for resin casting.
Regards,
John.
Very impressive work John.
I very much like the idea of using 3D printed parts (as patterns) for casting, resin or otherwise. You really do seem to have made great progress with Open SCAD and your 'component' designs will be a very useful asset to other G3 modellers, myself included. Thank you.
Regards,
IanT
I have just finished updating the OpenScad section of the G3WIKI. I will have some Gresley Teaks to build for my EE-1 loco to haul out of Brassica. I thankyou for the parts to print. I will load the queue and go to sleep. This is what machines are for!!
Regards
Ralph
Roof end loosely attached to an end pattern with Blu Tack.
Now going to check whether the garage has warmed up enough to mix some silicone rubber for the moulds .... it was bloomin' freezing earlier!
Regards,
John.
These vents are to fit into the 4ft windows of both sides of LNER Open stock and the passenger compartment side of end vestibule coaches (the corridor sides of end vestibule stock had different window widths). They also fit windows of the passenger sections of catering vehicles. Early LNER stock had the Stone's pattern but the sliding type soon became the standard fitting for new coaches.
The Stone's vents were entirely of glass except for the outer frame. I have printed in black PLA since I intend making a mould to cast in clear polyester resin. You could print from clear PETG or other filament but (as I understand it) you will not be get a "see through" result .... just a translucent effect.
The Stone's vent can be fitted either left or right facing ... the attached pattern has recesses top and bottom, which sit over the glazing of the main window.
https://gauge3.info/openscad/LNERStones4ftvent.scad
https://gauge3.info/openscad/LNERsliding4ftvents.scad
The opening toplight for the lavatory window is
https://gauge3.info/openscad/LNERLavwindow.scad
John
In 1934/5 the LNER decided to "get trendy" and built open coaches (intended largely for excursion work)with the style of seats found in motor coaches and cars and of that period........but they began to receive complaints that, for longer jouneys, there was a lack of neck support, as provided by more traditional railway seating!
The Gresley stock I am currently working on included diagrams which were built with this type of seating and I have produced an OpenSCAD file for this type of seat, based on this photo of a preserved example of dia 186. (rather a long link URL).
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/bc_HDGA7UsEEToRucY1DO-wFGQw6Qe4NdOrd1XJDRvp3z-74uABS7boWIn8Vnq8NQBmNbDOFnSXvav2R21avbk_lcHDgzSOZzG2nJEv1S1WcLArsJE33Ggaq2BNIEaZgliGD4jZbsyp0EAxb5uMSnkLxF_z6FoiHHD4y5kS8e8nDjLd4otwmTJWiSTkdTl_TC10BD2-q7XqycU91wiWNegQLIQYq3K2veeY_24rAOoqhgosFtA16JjkX9oLQ2DLYmP5EgWBvbV6WqNsGjCD-fUTxiMt-sdjWhR14A1npI-PVEgExG9aUkayA4TP2Ua-fkfqlP7RyZ8s8WyYxC8jKHynyDw5ONXVypk8xoOaE6d_ls847srLYMCBuWpvFYKaC2oaw8ieMhwthhtKe08GXpmyF-YswXjDFSi23VbB6osGW97MaweNNGRwokOcGs9vkGF5iM1uc6kwNUw5XBBkCvTQ2CmlSs58PJuSj3Z_xyf9AYfPS6gkfeZrApAsTM3fzQjurLoOkK0ngf5c0L6XCdI3P6Rk7_y46QNz5BI251iM=w846-h635-no
Since I intend to use as basis of a pattern for casting, the pedestal for the seat is in a separate file.
Pair of seats http://gauge3.info/openscad/LNERtouristseats.scad
Pedestal for seats http://gauge3.info/openscad/LNERpedestalforseat.scad
More traditional pattern seats will follow for 1st and 3rd class.
John
After the spell of building Open 3rd coaches with trendy motor coach style of seating, the LNER reverted to the traditional bench type seat!
https://www.svrwiki.com/LNER_52255_Open_Third#/media/File:52255_interior_RH.jpg
The pattern here is for two-a-side 3rd class Open stock. The "wings" are separate from the main seat and are "handed" (the armrest top rolls being printed on the outside face). The wings were fitted on the gangway edge only, the other edge fitting flush with the coach wall. When assembling, fit the wing flush with the back edge of seat and the with the lower edge of the squab.
The support legs are printed separately, again for convenience of using as patterns for resin casting.
Main seat structure http://gauge3.info/openscad/LNER3rdOpenSeating.scad
"Legs" http://gauge3.info/openscad/SeatingSupport.scad
Next will be seats and tables for the First Class Open/catering cars.
John.
These are the 1st Class seats (2+1 arrangement) as fitted to LNER 1st Class Open stock prior to 1928, when it was decreed that future First Class seating should be more like armchairs, with a central division/armrest on the double seats.
The wings are thicker than for the 3rd Class (more padded) and should be used in pairs, glued back-to-back, fitted on the gangway ends of each seat unit plus a single on the other end with the arm roll rest facing the seat(i.e. three printed/cast wings required per seat unit.... handed to suit the location).
Double seat unit : http://gauge3.info/openscad/LNERdoublefirstseat.scad
Single seat unit http://gauge3.info/openscad/LNERsinglefirstseat.scad
John.
John,
I have been following the unfolding saga of LNER coach parts and 3d printing with great interest. I really look forward to a blow-by-blow account of how such parts are used in the preparation of moulds for batch production of cast resin components.
I have had open scad installed for some time, and I have paste-and-copied both your and Ralph's texts for various components, with complete success. I have also played around with them to try and identify which bits of text affects which bit of the object being defined. I have to admit defeat, as I cannot work out the process you follow to decide what goes where. For instance, why do you not start at the origin (0,0,0), but at some other point? What does "Translate" mean etc etc. I'm not asking you to explain, but could you point me at an idiot's guide that does not assume even a basic level of understanding? I'm fairly adept at 2d design using an Autodesk product, but this is very intuitive. I need a mental image of how what I write will be interpreted on screen, and none of the texts I have seen so far says, "seat" or "coach end" to me. Do you start with pencil and paper and work out all the coordinates of all line junctions in 3-d space before starting to write? Maybe I am a lost cause, but I would love to post one day that my machine is busy printing a Pullman table lamp whilst I quaff a pint of Tribute!
Best,
John
John,
The easiest question to answer is what "translate" does .... it simply shifts the object around in the 3D space by specifying co-ordinates.
The only item, so far, which involved plotting co-ordinates on graph paper is the coach roof end where a smooth curve had to be produced to the correct profile.
Most items can be plotted by specify dimensioned objects (cubes, spheres, cylinders, etc) and manipulating them into position (translate, rotate, and so on).
2D objects (circles, squares, polygons, etc. can be extruded into 3D objects, either as straight objects , using linear_extrude command, or as circular devices using the rotate_extrude command.
All I can say is, "give it a go", it is not as difficult as it looks but complicated shapes will take many hours to perfect.
Regards,
John.
Hello JohnB,
Have a look at the Open SCAD Tutorial at the bottom of this G1MRA '3D Circle' page....
http://www.cs.rhul.ac.uk/~adrian/GaugeOne3DCircle/index.html (http://www.cs.rhul.ac.uk/~adrian/GaugeOne3DCircle/index.html)
It will download as a PDF. There is other material here that might be interesting too.
Regards,
IanT
I was curious John - so loaded the coach end into SCAD and then exported & saved it as a .STP file.
I then imported the .STP file into Solid Edge and saved it as a .PAR file in SE, which (I think) should let me use it as part of a Solid Edge 'Assembly'. SE works by constructing 'Parts' which can then be combined into 'Assemblies' - which in turn can be combined with other assemblies (ad infinitum - or until your memory hits the buffer I would guess).
I haven't played with it beyond this simple exercise and I'm sure there will be some "gotchas" in there somewhere (I don't know enough about these things - still a White Belt) but if not then this work will be useful beyond Open SCAD designs too.
(https://i.ibb.co/jMvCLPN/Greasley-SE2020.png) (https://ibb.co/jMvCLPN)
Regards,
IanT
The tables for the 3rd class two+two Open stock
The file provides the option of having a leg at both ends, rather than having one end fixed to the carriage wall (as on the real thing).
http://gauge3.info/openscad/LNER3rdclasstable.scad
John.
Ian,
Glad to know that my work is being used if only for experimental purposes at this stage.
If there is an easier way than OpenSCAD, then perhaps more members will "give it a try".
Only wish I had "jumped in" a few years ago but then the quality of the equipment (certainly at the "hobby" price level) was nowhere near as good as it now is.
Regards,
John.
These are the tables fitted in LNER Open coaches with the 2+1 seating arrangement.
http://gauge3.info/openscad/LNER1stclasstables.scad
Now giving my fingers and eyes a rest for a day or two!
John.
As you will know John, I've used TurboCAD 2D for many years but never managed to get to grips with the 3D version. I always struggled to know what 'plane' I was drawing on (sounds simple but really wasn't! ). TC isn't parametric either, which can make for a lot of work when making changes to more complicated designs.
Ralph suggested Open SCAD as an alternative for 3D printing and I found that I could script simple objects very quickly and learn step-by-step. But it wasn't a replacement for TC in terms of engineering drawing & design or for more complex parts (at least for me). I think SCAD's main strength is it's portability and ability to fairly easily customise other folk's designs. Anyway, as previously stated, I've been learning Solid Edge 2020 to replace TC 2D - not SCAD, which I will still use for some designs.
I've found Solid Edge to be very powerful and generally intuitive - no issues with visualising 3D objects or knowing what 'plane' I'm drawing on. However, these high end 3D CAD systems do need some time invested to learn the basics well and some aspects of the SE2020 UI can be puzzling at times. There are usually good logical reasons why some things work (and others do not) but they are not always that obvious.
I'm on my fourth version of a loco bogie frame at the moment, not because the 2nd or 3rd weren't generally good enough but because I know I'm still not 'thinking' about the drawing process correctly. I still tend to 'sketch' as I would with (non-parametric) 2D CAD, where anything & everything can be changed in retrospect - whereas clever Solid Edge is keeping tabs and quietly making assumptions about my "design intent" - something I need to learn to work with, rather than fight against. So I'm trying to get some of this clever tech figured out before I draw too many more parts and find they don't meet my (future) drawing standards any more.
Of course, Open SCAD has it's own challenges, especially if you want to draw more complex parts, where the scripts become longer & larger. So I think the lesson is that all of these 3D CAD tools are potentially very powerful but do need time & effort to learn them well.
Regards,
IanT
Ian,
There seem to be plenty of options....a case of "horses for courses", I guess.
Would it be more useful to have uploaded the .STL files, as opposed to .SCAD?
The G-Code files have been matched to the Snapmaker 2 A350, so I guess they would only be of use to someone with the same machine?
I have yet to investigate the laser and CNC milling heads of the Snapmaker (daren't use them in the house or I suspect the smell/smoke would set off the alarms....quite apart from objections from "the Boss") and that will involve learning different software.
Regards,
John.
No, not at all John, I much prefer the SCAD text files (the 'source' code if you wish).
They are not only compact but also readable and (assuming I can understand them) customisable. SCAD can create the .STL files very simply at the click of a button. So the SCAD scripts are ideal.
Regards,
IanT
John,
I own a reprap, a laser cutter and cnc router. Each of which has its own learning curve. The laser cutter is surprisingly easy to use. The main problem is with the % control... If my laser 4W is cutting at 100% then the smoke and flames obscure everything!!! I have found that 2% is superb! What you WILL need is a backing piece of ply covered with copper foil which will reflect and conduct the laser after penetration.
The router is a two year old with a bag of flour !!! The dust from it goes everwhere in the blast from the citterotor cooling fan.
Regards
Ralph
From 1906, "sprung equaliser beam" bogies were fitted to many GWR passenger coaches and NPCS, either as original fitments on new stock or replacements on older stock. It was commonly known as the "American bogie" since it was of a type common in the USA and one of a number of foreign innovations brought to the GWR by George Jackson Churchward.
It was made in both 8ft and 9ft wheelbases but the 9ft seems to have been the more common on the GW.
The OpenSCAD file has apertures left to accept alternative patterns of axlebox. The box I have initially prepared is of the familiar, arched-top, "OK" pattern.
My plan is to use this bogie under autotrailers and Siphons.
I have a copy of John Lewis's definitive study, "Great Western Autotrailers, Part One", which covers the pre-group trailers, including the steam railmotor conversions.
I particularly like the gangwayed pairs and the matchboarded types, which are very different from those more usually modelled.
Be aware that the bogie sideframe file is potentially a "computer crippler" and can take several minutes to "render".
http://gauge3.info/openscad/GWRAmerican9ft.scad
http://gauge3.info/openscad/GWRaxleboxOK.scad
John.
Very impressive SCAD scripting John.
Regards,
IanT
QuoteVery impressive SCAD scripting John.
Thanks Ian, I am really "getting the hang of it" now ...... am even considering the possibility (eventually) of a complete loco......the book with the LMS 10000 drawings is close-by!
Back to the present and the GWR sideframe took around 6 hours at 80 microns, while the axlebox took 45 mins.
Regards,
John.
The main visual differences between the 8ft and 9ft "American" bogies (apart from the WB) are two (instead of three) elliptical leaf springs and the different taper at the ends : On 9ft the lower edge is horizontal, on 8ft the lower edge tapers upwards, with a less pronounced fall on the upper edge.
The dia. F14 "toplight" slip coaches ran on the 8ft bogie, which is one reason for my interest in them.
http://gauge3.info/openscad/GWRAmerican8ft.scad
Incidentally, for anyone who has already downloaded the 9ft file, I have uploaded an updated version with a couple of "tweaks" to the detailing.
Regards,
John.
GWR Collett 7ft bogie.
This 7ft bogie was widely fitted to all types of passenger carriage as well as to the more modern Siphon J.
It is a large file and will take many minutes to render.
The axlebox is a different pattern to that for the "American" bogies and will follow soon.
http://gauge3.info/openscad/GWR7ftbogie.scad
John.
This axlebox is of the type used on Collett's plate steel (as opposed to pressed steel) bogies.
It should be used with the 7ft bogie shown in previous post.
The other GWR axlebox design, which I provided earlier, is suitable for the "American" bogies.
http://gauge3.info/openscad/GWRCollettplatebogiesaxlebox.scad
John.
Since I have posted no new SCAD items for several days, you may have thought either my machine or I had given up the ghost.
Far from it .... I have been giving the keyboard a good bashing, while the Snapmaker has been pounding away almost non-stop! The first things to "give out" are likely to be my computers.... but more on that in a moment.
Recent focus has been on the GW milk train project ("Calcutta" needs a purpose) so files have been prepared for Siphons of types O5(6-wheel), "C" (4-wheel) and bogie Siphons "F" and "G" (the outside-framed O11 diagram). The bogie frames from last week will now have a use.
The items printed so far are sufficient vent louvres for a complete Siphon"G" plus a couple of other frame bits, including one door module (8 are required and they take 7+ hours each to print).
(https://i.ibb.co/V37q4F6/SG1.jpg) (https://ibb.co/V37q4F6)
(https://i.ibb.co/j8KQXJB/SG2.jpg) (https://ibb.co/j8KQXJB)
Now to the computer issues.... I wondered whether my computer could be speeded up by adding extra memory since the files for the door modules and framework were taking 30 minutes each to render (the desktop PC is Dell Inspiron with Intel Core i3 CPU with 8GB) . I spent nearly 2 hours just rendering the doors for the "C", "F" and "G" versions and each file revision took another 30 minutes. So I spent long periods just waiting for the computer to finish before I could resume work on scripting SCAD files.
I don't like using laptops for this sort of work but I wondered whether my HP laptop with Intel 8th Gen Core i5 and 12GB would be quicker. No, it took almost identical time for the "C" door file.
I checked on the performance and the CPU was working only at 28 percent capacity of which OpenSCAD was using just 25 percent. Memory was running at 57 percent, with OpenSCAD using just 30 percent.
Current consumption was in the red sector, "Very High", and the fan was blowing out very hot air.... the battery dropped from fully charged to 50 percent in just 45 minutes.
Clearly, adding memory or upgrading the CPU on the Dell was not likely to improve matters.
I know there are large amounts of calculation involved in rendering the SCAD files but what is holding back the processing?
The processing log is copied below to provide an insight as to what was involved in rendering the Siphon "C" door file.
One line which may provide a clue is "Volumes : 2".
The CPU has 8 cores and OpenSCAD was using just 25 percent of capacity. Could this mean it was using just 2 of the 8 cores? If that is the case, is there a way of making it use more CPU capacity?
Regards,
John.
Loaded design '//synologyds115j/Freecom Backup/GRESLEY coaches and other 3D parts/GWR Siphon C door.scad'.
Compiling design (CSG Tree generation)...
Compiling design (CSG Products generation)...
Geometries in cache: 66
Geometry cache size in bytes: 1658632
CGAL Polyhedrons in cache: 0
CGAL cache size in bytes: 0
Compiling design (CSG Products normalization)...
Normalized tree has 99 elements!
Compile and preview finished.
Total rendering time: 0:00:00.118
Parsing design (AST generation)...
Compiling design (CSG Tree generation)...
Rendering Polygon Mesh using CGAL...
Geometries in cache: 203
Geometry cache size in bytes: 27938720
CGAL Polyhedrons in cache: 8
CGAL cache size in bytes: 1193248
Total rendering time: 0:26:37.462
Top level object is a 3D object:
Simple: yes
Vertices: 90406
Halfedges: 505996
Edges: 252998
Halffacets: 325256
Facets: 162628
Volumes: 2
Rendering finished.
The problem may not be the computer but rather the operating system that it is using... I presume you are using Windows 10 of some version?
The time may have come to investigate Debian Linux...
Regards
Ralph
Ralph,
Yes, both the Dell and HP are running the same (latest update) Windows10.
The Dell has just set a new personal best for rendering a SCAD file ....1hr 22mins 50.935secs!!
That is almost three times the previous record (30 minutes for the door module).
The file was the end for the "Siphon G" .... which the Snapmaker is telling me will take 18+ hours to print.
By the time I have printed all the parts for the sides and ends of one Siphon G, the printer will have been working for something in the region of 170 hours!
(https://i.ibb.co/6JhTPRm/sgend.jpg) (https://ibb.co/6JhTPRm)
(https://i.ibb.co/qkC08yr/sgend1.jpg) (https://ibb.co/qkC08yr)
(https://i.ibb.co/qBXkZMC/sgend2.jpg) (https://ibb.co/qBXkZMC)
Regards,
John.
The Siphon G end has finished printing and the second end is under way (with 16 hours to go).
The completed end is shown below (the British Standard gangway connector, of the "scissors" pattern, will be a separate item to follow).
(https://i.ibb.co/kgXHKwG/endsiphong.jpg) (https://ibb.co/kgXHKwG)
When the final few parts have been printed (still a couple more doors to do at 7 hours each) and the body has been assembled and proven, then the entire set of files will be made available for you to "print your own".
Regards,
John.
Printing of the parts for both sides and ends of a Siphon G is now complete.
The components for one side are shown as separately printed and then loosely placed together to form a complete side (the sides will fit between the ends, the corner posts being part of the end castings).
The printed components will be glued to an internal plywood frame to provide strength and integrity and handrails and other minor detailing then added.
John.
(https://i.ibb.co/WtxbfFb/parts3.jpg) (https://ibb.co/WtxbfFb)
Impressive John. Really nice.
Mike
John
Excellent work, should make an impressive model.
I don't think I would have your patience to wait all those hours to print.
Mike
Quote
I don't think I would have your patience to wait all those hours to print.
Mike, The good thing is that I can be doing other jobs while the Snapmaker is churning out parts .... 24 hours every day!
The programs for the Siphons C and F were scripted while parts for the "G" were being printed.
If I decide I want more than one of each, I now only have to press a button.
The side for the "F" has been printed and is shown in photos below. To simplify assembly, I have combined the louvres with the framing, something I wish I had done with the "G".
The parts for the Siphon C sides are now printing, the only difference from the "F" being the width of the outer end framing (the doors and inner framing are same dimensions as for the "F").
Regards,
John
(https://i.ibb.co/fSR7RCC/sf3.jpg) (https://ibb.co/fSR7RCC)
The 4-wheeled Siphon C is the final louvred Siphon I shall be building (the Siphon H being left out, at least for the present) and the remainder of the milk train will be composed of the 6-wheel types with open-slatted sides.
There were differences between early and later-built Lots of the Siphon C. Mine will be an early one with 8ft width (later Lots were 8ft 6ins wide) so I can use the same end as I am scripting for the 8ft wide Siphon F.
Incidentally, for anyone intending to construct the Siphon G, the sides I have produced are for the later Lots which had 9 inch solebars and angle iron trusses. Early Lots had 10 inch solebars with queen posts and bars or rods for trusses and the doors were different, being fitted within a bottom step plate (the later Lots had doors which opened down to the base, omitting the bottom plate).
John.
(https://i.ibb.co/r2r2GhR/sc1.jpg) (https://ibb.co/r2r2GhR)
My machine has now clocked up several hundreds of hours, working through most nights.
Today, I had a string of events which caused the machine to abort prints and display "completed" message when only part way through the print. At first I thought it was a software glitch but after three re-boots the same file aborted at different points in the printing process, the final being 4 hours into the print (the previous two had aborted within tens of minutes of the start).
The consensus on the Snapmaker forum is that this is caused by the over-heat protection cutting in to prevent a fire, should the print head get too hot and ignite the filament. The thermistor is thought to be the cause, so I have fitted a new "hot end" and the machine is currently plodding along.
If it was a thermal runaway situation, then I at least know that the fail safe works.
The removed hot end is shown in attached photos together with a Siphon F door which aborted after 8 percent and another after 46 percent (latter interesting as it shows the internal structure of the print).
Is it time to have a dedicated 3D printing board?
John.
(https://i.ibb.co/VYBp2dQ/he1.jpg) (https://ibb.co/VYBp2dQ)
(https://i.ibb.co/12FFqLg/he2.jpg) (https://ibb.co/12FFqLg)
I have been "printing" since 2015. The machine is very reliable and typically a thermistor will last me about 3 months before "Abort Error 2" appears on the display.
I consider them to be "consumables" like the TC index tips on the cutters of my lathes. I have a store of them and I can swap one out in a few seconds after the head has cooled.
3D printing is becoming important in our hobby as it now produces what *I* need and the files can be used by others to make what *they* need.
A "makers" forum would be useful. But, mostly I would like a forum on lathes and mills. The only lessons I ever got on them were from my father in Bulawayo Shed on the Sunday Shift. Transferring the mechanics and operation of machines made by Cincinnati Milicron to those made by Sieg...
Regards
Ralph
Two more computer-crippling files completed : First ,the end for the Diagram O6 Siphon (the last of the 6-wheeled designs) and the other, with outside framing, is for the Diagram O7 Siphon F and Diagram O8 (8ft wide)Siphon C.
The open-slatted sides for the six-wheeled Siphons of Diagrams O1/O2/O3/O4/O5 and O6 are being die-cut on the "Cricut Maker" with ends,doors and side framework being 3D printed.
The final photo shows a die-cut side for the O5 and O6 Siphons. It is cut from thick card, which has been soaked in Ronseal wood hardener which leaves it like plastic card (wood hardener is styrene in a solvent).
John.
(https://i.ibb.co/4t2NrRb/O6end.jpg) (https://ibb.co/4t2NrRb)
(https://i.ibb.co/st3vVPZ/siphon-Fend.jpg) (https://ibb.co/st3vVPZ)
(https://i.ibb.co/fvtgBtG/O6side.jpg) (https://ibb.co/fvtgBtG)
John
The detail on the end prints is impressive also a smooth finish, is this down to your particular printer?
The reason I ask I have seen prints with lines where the layers have been printed, some people use acetone to smooth prints.
Mike
Quote from: 753 on Jun 07 2021 09:42
John
The detail on the end prints is impressive also a smooth finish, is this down to your particular printer?
The reason I ask I have seen prints with lines where the layers have been printed, some people use acetone to smooth prints.
Mike
I'll second the request and also ask that you post higher resolution photos of your work, these small ones are too small for my ageing eyesight.
Robert
Those ends are not real pictures at all are they? They look like computer images of what they might look like? If they are pictures of actual printed parts, then I'm very impressed!
Mike
The clue is in my post with the images viz
QuoteTwo more computer-crippling files completed
.
Mike is correct.....those are the rendered .stl files.
The first of the ends is still being printed...... they take 23hrs45mins each and initially I need 6 for C,F and O6!
The first should complete around lunchtime and I will post a photo later today.
There is a mild pattern on the surface (see the photo of the Siphon G end a few days earlier) but it can be easily removed by light sanding with emery but, with goods stock, three coats of paint will subdue it sufficiently. Printing at 80 microns (as I have done) leaves very little surface hatching....the machine will print at 50 microns but the time taken would increase by around 40 percent.
Look through the photos in the HMRS book of the Siphons and even photos of newly-built wagons show the irregularities in the planking. Unlike passenger stock, which was smoothed and painted with umpteen coats until as smooth as the proverbial "baby's bottom", non-passenger stock was simply painted over the planks as supplied.
For the passenger stock (e.g. the Gresley coaches and the GWR autotrailers in preparation) the 3D prints are being smoothed and used as patterns for resin casting.
Regards,
John.
There's no fool like an old fool.
Must look harder before posting!!
Mike
As promised and "hot off the press" the 8ft wide end for the 40ft bogie Siphon F and 27ft 6ins (4-wheeled) Siphon C (note that the later Lots of Siphon C to diaO9 were 8ft 6ins in width).
In the end the total print time was 22hrs 33mins........ printing of the second end is already under way!
John.
For those unfamiliar with the GWR milk and fish vans (telegraphic code Siphon) an explanation of the various types may be useful, since several examples will be appearing here over the coming months, since both Mike P and I are building milk train stock.
The first to appear was the short (18ft 4-wheel) Diagram O1, the type modelled by Mike.
There were were variations within O1, two patterns of door being the main visual difference.
The following designs (O1 to O6) were of 6-wheel vans, all being of 27ft 6ins length, with open-slatted sides but each diagram had variations, the principal visual differences being:-
Dia O1 : Not to be confused with the 18ft design....when the last of the 18ft design had been withdrawn, Dia O1 was re-used for a number of vans which had previously been O2 but were different to those which then remained as O2 ....... just to confuse matters even more, the remaining O2 vans were older than those re-allocated as O1.
Dia. O1 had a "three centre" (tri-arc) roof with body height of 6ft 8ins and two doors each side.
Dia. O2 had same side height as O1 but had an arc roof which reduced overall height to 6ft 4.5ins; these were converted from open carriage trucks and were older than those in O1 above, which had previously been included in O2 ..... have you lost the plot yet?!
Dia O3 were as for O1, the visual difference being the pattern of the roof supports ("sticks" in GWR speak) which were slender and followed the roof curvature.
Dia O4 was a complete change of design, with three (slightly narrower) doors each side but body height remained at 6ft 8ins over the tri-arc roof. There was one Lot (930) which was built on re-cycled underframes and dimensions varied from the norm.
Dia O5 Overall body height (over the tri-arc roof) increased to 7ft 6ins, the sides being increased in height but otherwise as O4.
Dia O6 differed from O5 in having end-loading doors (the only Siphons to have this feature up to the time of their introduction).
Dia O7 was the first bogie Siphon ("F") 40ft length and with end doors and differed from all earlier Siphons in having part louvred sides and dispensing with open slats.
Dia O8 was basically a shortened, 29ft 6ins length, 4-wheeled, version of O7.
Dia O9 was a widened version of O8 (from 8ft to 8ft 6ins...all previous Siphons had been 8ft wide).
Dia O10 was a "one-off" and was the prototype for the Siphon H (Dia O12) being 50ft in length and 8ft 6ins wide, with shallower louvres than the O7/O8/O9 and having end doors. It retained the Tri-arc roof and was later redesignated "Siphon G" even though it did not have the gangway connection of others of that type!
Dia O11 the familiar "Siphon G" with outside framing, as for O10 but with a British Standard "scissors" type gangway connector each end in place of end doors (note that the HMRS drawing erroneously shows a BS "suspended" type gangway which was not fitted, since it had not been invented when the O11 Lots were built). There were variations : The first two Lots had old-style queen post underframes with 10 inch solebars, whereas later Lots had angle iron trusses and 9inch solebars and the door framing was different between the two designs.
Dia O12 : The 50ft "Siphon H", with end doors (as O10) but with a much higher arc roof profile than O10 and O11, giving overall body height of 8ft 11.75ins.
Dia.O22 : A new "Siphon G" design with internal framework, giving a cleaner look, with horizontal planking beneath the louvres but otherwise similar in outline to the O11.
Dia. O33 These were a continuation of the O22 but 8ft 8ins wide (increase from 8ft 6ins) with vertical planking beneath the louvres and BS "suspended" type gangway connectors. They were electrically-lit.
Dia.O31 & O40 : These are the "plain Janes" amongst the ranks of the Siphons. Flush vertically-planked sides, insulated with no ventilation and plain ends... no gangway nor end doors. Only relief along the sides were the door hinges and, on one end, the steps to the roof and an electric-lighting control rod. The outline dimensions are as for the "Siphon G".
Not truly GWR!
Dia.O62 : Surprisingly,as late as 1951, BR built more "Siphon G" vans. They were almost identical to O33 but with sliding ventilators added along the lower body sides.
Final Comments:
There were many variations between Lots within diagrams, as well as other diagrams, which I have not mentioned (conversions from other vehicles, including converted ambulance trains returned by the War Department). Bogies were swapped around and bogies of varying types or with different wheelbases, could appear at different periods on a single van.
If you want to know more, then the HMRS publication,"G W Siphons" is a "must read".
John.
John, I assume milk was the same all over the country, so there would be very little long distance haulage? That being the case would I be right to assume that GWR milk vans would have been seen outside the GWR only rarely? Or is that a dangerous assumption?
Mike
Mike,
The earlier types (with open sides) were mainly confined to the GWR on milk and fish traffic but the later (louvred types) were used more widely for specific food traffic (several carrying roof boards with details). The larger "G" and "H" types were used for general goods/parcels,etc.
Examples of vans branded for specific traffic were "C" and "F" types for Harris sausage traffic from Calne which carried boards for destinations as far away as Newcastle and Glasgow as well as several cities in the Midlands (e.g. Stafford, Manchester, Sheffield, among them).
Another traffic was rabbits from Helston to Sheffield, while some vans were marked for return to Birmingham and Wolverhampton (the GWR northern mainline is often overlooked but was just as important as the West Country route and reached Birkenhead where the Woodside terminus was on the GWR/LNWR joint line).
Regards,
John.
It has been a while since I last posted but that doesn't mean nothing has been happening!
The Snapmaker continues printing 20+ hours per day and more OpenSCAD programs for various parts have been scripted.
I decided to add the dia O12 ("Siphon H") since the sides are identical to the "G", just the ends being different, having end loading doors and a high elliptical roof.
The latest item off the printer is a pair of ends for the dia. O12.
Meanwhile, the "Cricut Maker" (die-cutter) has churned out the slatted/planked base for the sides of each O1/O2/O3/O4/O5/O6, the six-wheeled Siphons (ends,doors and framing have been printed to overlay).
The milk train will consist of ten Siphons plus a 40ft full brake, with an estimated length of 20ft plus locomotive.
I have just finished the program to produce the 6ft spring W-iron / axlebox units for the 6-wheel Siphons.
It is of the J-hanger type as fitted to dia. O4/O5/O6 when built and subsequently retro-fitted to O1/O2/O3/, which had been built with an earlier swing-link arrangement. The hangers are, unusually, fitted to the outsides of the solebars, rather than bolted underneath the lower solebar flange.
John.
The "Siphon C" (diagrams O8/O9) were fitted with 4ft 6ins springs, with J-hangers attached to the solebar face and the program for this has been completed.
The OpenSCAD file for this has been uploaded (together with the file for the 6ft type fitted to the six-wheel Siphons) and are available at:
http://gauge3.info/openscad/GW_6ft_Siphon_spring_dia_O4_O5_O6.scad
http://gauge3.info/openscad/GW_4ft_6ins_spring_for_Siphon_C.scad
I am making these components available now in case they are of use to anyone thinking of building a GWR coach or van which needs these types of W-iron/spring/axlebox assemblies.
The files for the Siphon body components and other bits will follow when the various vans have been completed.
John.
John,
Your coding is starting to look very commercial! You need to indent and line up more to produce a "grapes" formatted program.
Regards
Ralph
First of four units for the dia.O8 "Siphon C" (print time 2hrs 48mins).
The PLA used is remarkably fracture-resistant, far more so than a similar item in cast resin or injected
polystyrene. Although the item is rigid, it can be bent or twisted without breaking and will return to shape.
John.
I have been asked (more than once) whether I can supply sets of signalbox interior fittings, as designed for the Monkton Priors box. I gave Mark Thatcher a set to fit in a kit he was reviewing for Garden Rail and that led to enquiries.
I am not able to supply kits of parts (too time consuming), although I have made a few exceptions and have supplied just a few members with parts FoC.
The original parts were resin cast from handmade patterns.
I have now prepared OpenSCAD files for the most fiddly (and fragile) items to cast .... the levers and 12-lever step plate. Printed in PLA, the levers are far more break-resistant than resin.
These files are available from:
http://gauge3.info/openscad/sbox_levers.scad
http://gauge3.info/openscad/sb_lever_frame.scad
John.
Thank you John, I have drawn it to the attention of a well-known, signal box producing member!
Tim
This is a template for producing your bespoke 3D station "running in" boards.
You can easily manipulate the size of board, text font/size together with number of lines and spacing/positioning (more specific instructions included in the .scad file).
John.
(https://i.ibb.co/v1nY6sX/riboard2.jpg) (https://ibb.co/v1nY6sX)
(https://i.ibb.co/0ymJHbC/riboard1.jpg) (https://ibb.co/0ymJHbC)
http://gauge3.info/openscad/nameboard1.scad (http://gauge3.info/openscad/nameboard1.scad)
Platform Signs (3D printing)
To add some extra "interest" to your platform scene, here are some more signs you can 3D print.
They are of the suspended type, found hanging from canopy struts, etc.
Place two back-to-back for a double-sided sign.
They are easily adaptable to suit your requirements and provide more options than with "off-the-shelf" etched brass offerings.
There will be more platform "furniture" but right now I need to be getting on with other matters!
John.
http://gauge3.info/openscad/sign1.scad (http://gauge3.info/openscad/sign1.scad)
http://gauge3.info/openscad/sign2.scad (http://gauge3.info/openscad/sign2.scad)
http://gauge3.info/openscad/sign3.scad (http://gauge3.info/openscad/sign3.scad)
http://gauge3.info/openscad/sign4.scad (http://gauge3.info/openscad/sign4.scad)
(https://i.ibb.co/kXDxGGg/plat-sign1.jpg) (https://ibb.co/kXDxGGg)
(https://i.ibb.co/p0NWdzB/plat-sign2.jpg) (https://ibb.co/p0NWdzB)
(https://i.ibb.co/vVcvLf6/plat-sign3.jpg) (https://ibb.co/vVcvLf6)
(https://i.ibb.co/N30syG6/plat-sign4.jpg) (https://ibb.co/N30syG6)
An annoying part of any project is to "almost be there" and find you cannot locate some small item of detail.
In this case it relates to the various control wheels in the loco cab.
In the planning for these locos (pre-3d print capability), I had prepared patterns for umpteen parts (including larger cab controls) and these had been cast in various materials.
In spite of all the custom made castings, I found myself missing the water valve wheels which sit on top of the tanks, just inside the cab entrance of LNWR Coal Tanks and the 5-spoke brake wheel.
I prepared a SCAD file to make both wheels which have 5 spokes but are vastly difference in size.
One advantage of OpenSCAD is that you can rescale entire items (or individual components thereof) with a simple instruction.
The attached photos show the water control valves (just 7mm in diameter) together with the oval baseplates upon which they sit also the hand brake wheel (16mm in diameter).
Apart from the difference in dimensions, the larger wheel has a handle on the rim. Both can be produced from the same file, with just a couple of tweaks which (literally) take seconds.
You can produce any size of 5-spoke control wheel from the file which I have uploaded to
http://gauge3.info/openscad/generic_control_wheel_5spokes.scad
(NOTE: Without tweaking, the file will produce a 20mm dia. wheel with handle).
Instructions for varying size of the wheel and including/excluding handle are contained within the file.
No reason in future to search for suppliers of correct parts or order expensive custom castings.
John
The fittings look good, John, and it's another example of how modern manufacturing methods are changing the hobby. I would, however, argue with your final remark:
No reason in future to search for suppliers of correct parts or order expensive custom castings
That makes an assumption about the suitability of the printing material. Many prototype fittings were made in brass and were not painted. I have yet to see a brass paint that actually looks like brass. To me, the only thing that looks like polished brass is, well, polished brass.
But there is a growing number of companies that will produce fittings in brass from solid model files, either by casting or directly by laser sintering, so the whole process is facilitated.
Nick
Nick,
Don't disagree with that ......also if you were building a live steamer, the plastic bits wouldn't be of much use!
As you point out (and in same way as many of my "prints" are being deployed) the prints do make useful patterns for castings, both resin and metal.
Regards,
John.