Experimental Plug Track: continued

[Martin Wynne]

Thanks Michael for the link will devour..........

Martin as offered i have attached my box file I hope it is ok but please let me know either way.

Keith

Ps typing this as you posted Martin so again many thanks for the links

@KHC1

Thanks Keith.

What is the size of the work area on your FDM printer?

cheers,

Martin.

 

[KHC1]

It’s an Ender 3 pro so 220 x 220mm and a hot bed and using pursa slicer

 

[Steve_Cornford]

Hi Keith,
I would recomend that you make a start by creating a new template with just a piece of plain straight track that will fit easily on your build plate, with your chosen sleeper length. Using the real shove timbers option, you can determine the distance between centres of the opposite end timbers, then add the width of 1 timber to get the target th distance between the outer faces of the end timbers.
Then perform a trial print and then measure the sleeper lengths and the actual distance between outer faces & compare with target dimensions as a means of calibrating your FDM printer.

 

[KHC1]

Thanks Steve all suggestions greatly received and will give it a go. But have a tadpole unit body to print first. At this rate might need a second printer and a resin one as well.

Keith

 

[Martin Wynne]

.
3D Builder in 241b

It's possible to avoid using the online mesh fixing by using instead the 3D Builder program from Microsoft.

As you have probably noticed in 241b, I have tried to integrate 3D Builder into Templot for mesh fixing. That's easier said than done, because unlike the preview functions, 3D Builder isn't a bog-standard Windows executable. It's a Microsoft Store app, which means it doesn't respond to the normal means of being launched from other programs. Unless anyone knows otherwise?

So Templot relies instead on 3D Builder being associated with STL files. That will normally be the case if you download and install 3D Builder from the Microsoft Store. But if it is already installed on your system you may need to change the STL file association manually. Based on my experience that may not work, although others have had no difficulty.

My general recommendation therefore, is that if 3D Builder isn't installed on your system, download it. If it is already installed, uninstall it first and then download it again. That will get you the latest version and also solve the STL association issue.

---

In 241b the previous STL-FILES folder is now replaced with 2 folders for new work:

STL-FILES-RAW

STL-FILES-FIXED

When you create an STL file, by default it will be saved in the STL-FILES-RAW folder.

Unless you have changed to using some other folder, you will then see this:

If you click the green bar, Templot will put a copy of your file also in STL-FILES-FIXED, and then open it in 3D Builder. It is important to understand that at this stage it is not yet fixed, despite being in a folder called STL-FILES-FIXED.

You will then see:

3D Builder will then open, showing a preview of your unfixed STL file.

Follow the instructions above.

After clicking the Save icon you will likely see this message:

*Ignore the message and click Continue.

3D Builder will then save the now-fixed STL file back to STL-FILES-FIXED.

When you close 3D Builder and return to Templot, that folder will be opened for you. You can then if you wish right click on the file to rename it as "fixed" and/or to open it in your slicer program.

Please note that Templot has no means of knowing whether files in that folder have been fixed or not. Only you know that. If you completed the instructions above they will be. If you closed 3D Builder without doing the repair, they won't be. If you try to slice an unfixed STL you are likely to get error messages in your slicer and/or a failed 3D print.

That's the best I can do at present for 3D Builder integration in Templot. If I discover how to do more I will do. If I can discover how to establish if any given STL file has been mesh-fixed, I will get Templot to rename it accordingly.

*If you choose instead to save the fixed file from 3D Builder in 3MF format, the Cura slicer for FDM files will happily accept it. It would be a good way of knowing which of your 3D files have been fixed. Unfortunately the Chitubox slicer for resin printing doesn't accept 3MF. Or at least the free version bundled with printers doesn't -- it needs to be STL.

I'm finding it exhausting writing this stuff nowadays, and there is so much of it still to write. Time for a coffee.

cheers,

Martin.

 

[Michael Woods]

Hi Martin - thank you for the new release. On the layout I plan to build I need a couple of catch points......given what is now available in plug track any thoughts on what would be the best way to make these?

 

[Steve_Cornford]

Hi Michael,
See https://85a.uk/templot/companion/catch_points.php
Steve

 

[James Walters]

Hi Martin & Co,

Sorry I've been a bit absent from here lately, I've been busy doing some actual track laying!
Just a quick note to say how much I like the 2D/3D export dialogue in 241b. It's so much clearer now and easier to use - I think it's a real step forward in making Plug Track accessible to all. So, Thank you for all your hard work on the developments.

Also, I'm looking forward to there being some Plug Track on show at Scaleforum, if any Templot Club members are visiting Scaleforum do please pop over to my demo table and say Hi. It would be nice to put some faces to names, etc.

All the best,

James

p.s. visit www.scaleforum.org, for Scaleforum details.

 

[Phil G]

Sorry I've been a bit absent from here lately, I've been busy doing some actual track laying!

Hi James,
I have been watching your Bexhill west you tube channel
and I note on the channel you are using Exacto scale chairs. Is that because you don't have a resin printer? Or simply you prefer there chairs to plug track chairs?
cheers
Phil,

 

[Michael Woods]

Martin - started to get into the new version this morning. Layout etc superb - I did not think that I would use the viewer but it is very helpful. Thank you.

 

[Martin Wynne]

Hi James,
I have been watching your Bexhill west you tube channel
and I note on the channel you are using Exacto scale chairs. Is that because you don't have a resin printer? Or simply you prefer there chairs to plug track chairs?
cheers
Phil,

@Phil G @James Walters

Hi Phil,

James has omitted to mention plug track in his videos because he has been honouring my request to treat the whole thing as an experimental project, and I'm very grateful to him for that.

"Experimental" means that it is not yet ready to be put forward as a viable means of track building. Anything may change at any time; parts made one day may not be compatible with those made at a different time; ideas which sound promising may turn out to be a failure; money may be wasted on materials and equipment.

But we are getting closer with 241b. We now have a full set of filing jigs, and the clip-fit plugs are now easier to install. But there is still a long way to go -- no K-crossing chairs or diamonds yet, nothing yet done about a tie-bar/stretcher, and if it was promoted now there would be a queue of folks lining up to tell me that I have got the "A" chair wrong.

The Scaleforum event in 3 weeks time might be the time that the "experimental" tag can be finally removed, and to tentatively suggest to folks that the developing plug track idea might be something they want to look at. Members of the Scalefour Society have already seen that in effect with an article in the recent issue of their Scalefour News.

cheers,

Martin.

 

[James Walters]

Hi James,
I have been watching your Bexhill west you tube channel
and I note on the channel you are using Exacto scale chairs. Is that because you don't have a resin printer? Or simply you prefer there chairs to plug track chairs?
cheers
Phil,

Hi Phil,
I have been using up my stock of exactoscale chairs, and will switch to Plug Track. You may have noticed that in my recent track laying videos I've been using 3mm timbering. No one has commented upon it being a tad thick for the exactoscale chairs, which has surprised me.
The reason for the thickness is to ensure compatibility with the next boards which will be plug track exclusively.
My next major track laying project will include a scissors crossover. I had thought I'd use a mixture of plug track and rivets under the common crossings. I'm not sure about that now, and think it'll probably be plug track all the way. I've been getting really good results with it and my confidence continues to grow the more I experiment.
Btw, in a recent video I showed a mock-up of a turntable I've been working on. I used plug track chairs to hold the circular race rail, with the loose jaws on the inside. It made fitting the race rail and ensuring its alignment an absolute breeze.

All the best,
Jamed

 

[Phil O]

Hi James,

I hope to visit the show around Sunday lunchtime, so long as I have got over jet lag and I hope to remember to look you up.

 

[Phil G]

Hi James,
Thanks for the reply makes more sense now, along with Martin's comments in his post.
What fooled me was, I was assuming you were using plug track to laser cut the timbers, and also laser cut a timber trace in the cork as well, However to be honest, having re watched most of your you tube trackwork videos, you don't mention using any of Martin's work to laser cut the timbers, only the use of Templot in the design stage, So I have either made a false assumption, or simply translated this myself because of your posts on the forum re laser cutting timbers.

would be great for you to do a video in using plug track to do a simple turnout, assuming Martin is ok with that idea.
I will re watch the turntable video and see if I can pick the use of the chairs
out of interest what resin printer do you have?
cheers
Phil

 

[Martin Wynne]

Just a quick note to say how much I like the 2D/3D export dialogue in 241b. It's so much clearer now and easier to use - I think it's a real step forward in making Plug Track accessible to all. So, Thank you for all your hard work on the developments.

Martin - started to get into the new version this morning. Layout etc superb - I did not think that I would use the viewer but it is very helpful. Thank you.

@James Walters @Michael Woods

Hi James, Michael,

Thanks for the comments. Glad you like it.

But there is still a lot to do. The functions for adding and positioning the 3D brick connector clips are still very clunky and tedious to use -- little more than the original proof of concept. I think perhaps I should make doing something about that a priority for 241c, if we are saying it will soon be time to remove the "experimental" tag.

That would also mean accepting that the original temporary kludge of re-using the background shapes for the 3D utilities is here to stay. Starting a completely fresh function for them as I originally intended would now be a lot of work. But it's a good idea to keep the 3D stuff and the background shapes proper (baseboard outlines, etc.) in separate BGS3 files.

Also at present there is nothing comparable for the 2D exports for laser-cutting. I don't know what or if I can do anything about that. It is likely that each user would have their own ideas for their particular laser machine. An FDM (or resin) removable connector unit might be one way -- the same idea might work for CNC-milled panels. At present the 3D shapes are ignored in 2D and exported as the underlying 2D background shapes. They can be turned off if not wanted by removing the SBGSHAPE layer.

cheers,

Martin.

 

[Michael Woods]

Hi Michael,
See https://85a.uk/templot/companion/catch_points.php
Steve

Steve - i am sure that the answer is staring me in the face...

How do I change the chairs on the straight through rail......I have deleted the rail but now need to change the chairs....

 

[Martin Wynne]

Steve - i am sure that the answer is staring me in the face...

How do I change the chairs on the straight through rail......I have deleted the rail but now need to change the chairs....

View attachment 6719

@Michael Woods

Hi Michael,

That requires the "chair heaving" function -- which I haven't yet done.

Sorry about that. I'm not sure folks believe me when I say there is still so much still to do. But there is -- plug track is nowhere near being fully implemented yet.

In the meantime you can get what you want by splitting out that rail onto a separate plain track partial template. You will need to shove the timbers on it to align with the switch timbers, and hide them, so that their chairs can be captured by the switch timbers.

0. if there is any approach track on this template, click the split approach button to make it a separate template, and then make the switch template the control again.

1. omit the main-road stock rail as you omitted the crossing rail.

2. store the template.

3. convert to plain track (plain track button).

4. omit the TS running rail.

5. real > shove timbers... and click the hide all button, to leave only the chairs showing.

6. use the along mouse action on each sleeper in turn to align its chair centrally over the underlying switch timber:

7. store the template. If creating a brick, use the same brick colour.

8. the exported result will be:

Sorry that's quite a lot of work, but as I may have mentioned it is still all very experimental.

cheers,

Martin.

 

[Steve_Cornford]

Although it seems like a like a lot if work at least it is possible to achieve exactly what Michael requires, and the more practice we get at using these individual steps in this process the better one is equipped to solve more complex problems when they arise in the future.
Steve

 

[Martin Wynne]

Although it seems like a like a lot if work at least it is possible to achieve exactly what Michael requires, and the more practice we get at using these individual steps in this process the better one is equipped to solve more complex problems when they arise in the future.
Steve

@Steve_Cornford

Thanks Steve. The chair heaving function can be found on this button:

But as you can see, it doesn't get you very far at present.

It will be possible to select any of the chairs on a timber and swap it to a different type.

There's a lot of work involved. Not so much in swapping the chairs, but in saving the details in the BOX file and keeping it compatible with existing BOX files.

It will probably have to wait until after I have done the K-crossings.

cheers,

Martin.

 

[Michael Woods]

@Michael Woods

Hi Michael,

That requires the "chair heaving" function -- which I haven't yet done.

Sorry about that. I'm not sure folks believe me when I say there is still so much still to do. But there is -- plug track is nowhere near being fully implemented yet.

In the meantime you can get what you want by splitting out that rail onto a separate plain track partial template. You will need to shove the timbers on it to align with the switch timbers, and hide them, so that their chairs can be captured by the switch timbers.

0. if there is any approach track on this template, click the split approach button to make it a separate template, and then make the switch template the control again.

1. omit the main-road stock rail as you omitted the crossing rail.

2. store the template.

3. convert to plain track (plain track button).

4. omit the TS running rail.

5. real > shove timbers... and click the hide all button, to leave only the chairs showing.

6. use the along mouse action on each sleeper in turn to align its chair centrally over the underlying switch timber:


View attachment 6721

7. store the template. If creating a brick, use the same brick colour.

8. the exported result will be:

View attachment 6722

Sorry that's quite a lot of work, but as I may have mentioned it is still all very experimental.

cheers,

Martin.

Thank you - I will have a look at this.....dont worry about not everything being finished.....there is more than enough for me to be getting on with....

 

[Steve_Cornford]

Mark 1 of my attempt at a stretcher bar worked ok, but there is a lot of room for improvement.
The 0.4mm thick double sided pcb could do with being shorter. I this mark 1 version they are 5mm long by 2mm wide. They were set 13mm apart on the nickel silver stretcher bar and this resulted in the gap between blade & stock rail being a targe under 1.7mm wide, so mark 2 will perhaps have the pads 12mm apart to be on the safe side.the n-s stretcher seems flexible enough & despite some rough switching robust enough.
The pads give insulation between the blades but also inhibit the blades from rising as they rest under the stock rail.
In an ideal world the blades should be a bit shorter, easy to see once they are in situ & photographed!

The coffee stirrer is just to support the stretcher bar whilst soldering the pads to the blades.
the n-s strip is 0.015thou by 0.06thou, with a couple of 90° twists to simulate an REA bar, but I need to revise the positions of the twists & the extension length. All part of my trials & tribulations.

Steve

 

[Steve_Cornford]

A Bachmann bogie an a hornby cattle truck ran smoothly through both routes of this B8 Oo-SF turnout.

Guess what the 20p piece was for?
Steve

 

[Phil G]

Hi Steve,
Now that I can see your photos I think your onto something here, well done.
At first I could not work out how you were getting the stretcher bars to be prototypical, but with a bit of playing with the small bits of PCB I think it can be done.

Especially if you adapted a prototypical two stretcher bars between the switch blades and a third non-prototypical under the ballast version, for the job of actually switching the road.
I guess from there dummy pull rods and cracks could be made to work backwards. (IE a servo actually throws the switch blades) which in turn case the dummy pull rods and cracks to mover as well. (genuine push instead of pull scenario.)
once again great innovative thinking
cheers
Phil,

 

[Steve_Cornford]

Not my inovation I am afraid, but a modification iof one that used pcb as the stretcher. As I wanted to put a couple of twists in the stretcher to match the REA drawing I swapped out pcb for nickel silver strip. Just need to revise dimensions & try again.
Steve

 

[Martin Wynne]

.
Currently I have returned to the brick connector clips, which I have hardly looked at while working on the chairs.

At present if attached to a splint or slab outside the timbers the clips are easy to use and can be added almost anywhere -- it all disappears under the ballast.

However, if you want them between the timbers it can get tricky, and it is very easy to create an unusable clip.

To make clips easier to position I am adding a couple of guide lines through the clip. These appear in white when the clip is the currently selected background shape, and black otherwise. They appear only on the trackpad, they are not part of the 3D clip:

The guide lines mark the width which must be kept clear of obstructions in order for the clip to work. That is sometimes easier said than done:

Where there is closed-up timber spacings at rail joints, for example, it is impossible to fit a clip with the space between the white lines clear of the timber side flanges. They would conflict through the clip in the STL file and prevent the clip parts fitting together.

Possible solutions are:

1. (best) don't have clips at rail joints. Often this will be another way of saying don't have the brick boundaries aligned with the template boundaries.

2. switch off one or both of the offending timber side flanges. In this case the Far-side flange (far from the template datum, CTRL-0):

The disadvantage there is that you are weakening the very timber to which you are attaching the clip for the whole brick, especially if the clip is close to a thin socket wall. It would be possible to mitigate that by adding a narrower slab rectangle to replace the missing flange:

That's quite tricky to adjust. But it might not be if I add it as an option to be created as part of a clip.

3. If the timbers are not at a rail joint, but still too close, the timbers might be shoved a fraction to clear enough space for a clip.

Or 4. have a smaller clip. I think the present size is probably near the minimum for a practical FDM-printed clip, but it might be possible to have a slightly smaller clip option available for use in difficult locations.

5. would be narrower side flanges. At present that can only be set to apply to the whole STL file and would rather defeat the object of having the stiffening side flanges. Making the flange-width adjustable and timber-specific for each timber would be a lot of work.

So that's quite a lot of practical trials needed to see what's best.

cheers,

Martin.

 

[Steve_Cornford]

Hi Martin,
I adopted your option 1 as a rule when deciding how to split my test templates up.
It worked well especially for the B8 turnout with bases in resin.

I used the F8 function to move the peg to roughly between the two chosen timbers, then the heave timbers function not to move timbers but to calculate the mid-point between the timbers.

Would it be possible to implement a "snap to midpoibt" function?
Or does this already exist.


I will thank you again for addi g the "review" export facility.
Steve

 

[Steve_Cornford]

ps.

Then the "notch over peg", then "add clip at notc"
I found that i needed to increase the "clip size" to 3.0mm to ensure they connected with the timber as well as the flange, just as you advised, so it might be worth considering making this the default (at least for 4mm scale)

Then used "add paired clip" to get the other half, remembering to amend the brick colour inbetween.
Would it be worth popping a small window to confirm the colour when adding a clip, with opportunity to amend the colour?

You can probably tell that i like your "Bick" colour facility!

STeve

 

[Martin Wynne]

@Steve_Cornford

Hi Steve,

Thanks for your thoughts.

Yes, that's how I intended add clip at notch to work, but it's a bit clunky to use, requiring you to jump through several stages.

I'm in the middle of creating a new dialog which doesn't require repeated access to the menu. We already have the blue locator function (used for the symbols), so an obvious option is to use it to position a clip and then slide the clip into position:

Automatically finding the mid-point between timbers would be a tricky bit of coding, especially where the template is curved and/or has equalized timbering. All things are possible, but sometimes something which looks so simple to the human eye is very complex to do in code. Hopefully with the new guide markers and an ability to slide a clip along a centre-line, it will be easier to position the clip centrally. It doesn't need to be spot-on, if using paired clips.

Setting the default clip size was tricky, and I changed it a few times. The problem is that if it is too large it can break into the sockets if not carefully positioned, making them unusable.

However, I've been writing some code to discover any clips which are conflicting with sockets, and adjust the clip size so that it doesn't. If I can get it working, the default clip size can be made much longer, and there will seldom be any need to adjust it.

When creating a new clip, it uses the colour currently showing in the little "bricklaying" dialog. You can see and change that as required before creating the new clip. But there are sometimes occasions where you don't want to change it because you haven't finished creating the first brick. I'm intending to add a panel on the above new dialog for setting/changing a shape colour independently of the current brick colour for the templates. A good solution would be able to copy a colour from an existing shape by clicking it on the trackpad, so I shall look at that too.

cheers,

Martin.

 

[Phil O]

Mark 1 of my attempt at a stretcher bar worked ok, but there is a lot of room for improvement.
The 0.4mm thick double sided pcb could do with being shorter. I this mark 1 version they are 5mm long by 2mm wide. They were set 13mm apart on the nickel silver stretcher bar and this resulted in the gap between blade & stock rail being a targe under 1.7mm wide, so mark 2 will perhaps have the pads 12mm apart to be on the safe side.the n-s stretcher seems flexible enough & despite some rough switching robust enough.
The pads give insulation between the blades but also inhibit the blades from rising as they rest under the stock rail.
In an ideal world the blades should be a bit shorter, easy to see once they are in situ & photographed!

View attachment 6731

The coffee stirrer is just to support the stretcher bar whilst soldering the pads to the blades.
the n-s strip is 0.015thou by 0.06thou, with a couple of 90° twists to simulate an REA bar, but I need to revise the positions of the twists & the extension length. All part of my trials & tribulations.

View attachment 6733

Steve

Hi Steve,

I used a variation of your stretcher bars, I used 0.4 brass wire, as GW stretchers are round. I put a pigtail in the wire, close to the near switch rail, which hides the drive wire from the servo. I would take a photo and post it, but the lens on my camera isn't long enough to reach across the pond.

Perhaps, I should add that I'm currently in Chicago, between trains. I arrived this morning from a very hot and sticky Washington and head for Seattle tomorrow and arrive on Sunday.

 

[Martin Wynne]

.
Another day, another tick-box.

I've been working on the "official" plug track switch drive design (tie-bar) for FDM timbers.

A couple of ribs have been added on the side of the S1 and S2 timbers:


View attachment 6750


"Official" because I know many folks have their own preferred designs for the switch drive. If the ribs are not wanted they can be switched off:

(That should and will say "slider" ! )

The idea is that a resin-printed (or home-made) slider runs between the ribs and the timber webs and flanges, having sideways slots for a 1mm dia. brass pin:

The pin is retained in the slider with a soldered collar (not strictly necessary, but it makes assembly easier) which might be a small washer or a wrap of copper wire.

The top of the pin is bent over and soldered to the foot of the switch blade in the usual way.

If suitable pins are hard to find, the pin could be replaced with 1mm brass wire, bent over at 90 degrees below the slider.

The ribs are angled at 45 degrees to enable the rib to be FDM printed more accurately. The short slot in the slider (rather than a plain hole) allows for the curving of the open switch blade.

(On a curved turnout the two timbers are not exactly parallel, although this is barely noticeable at any normal model radius.)

The whole gubbins is hidden below a thin card or thick paper cover which can have some ballast sprinkled on it and/or be covered in the usual track gunge, having a couple of openings for the pins. If made from paper, the openings can be simple knife slits, which would close round the pin very effectively.

Dummy model stretcher bars can then be added, which can be resin-printed and fully detailed. This drive design also maintains full daylight below the rails between the timbers, not relying on the underside of the rail to hold the switch blades down on the slide chairs -- the slider does that. On the prototype the stretcher bars do that, and can be modelled with dummy extensions. (And full dummy rodding added, if wanted.)

The actual sequence of assembly is still to be determined. If built on the bench it can be fitted from below quite easily. If built in-situ, it might be necessary to insert the slider and pins before adding the rails.

Obviously none of this works for plywood timbers, but folks building plywood track probably already have their own preferred means of driving the switches.

cheers,

Martin.

 

[Phil G]

Hi Martin,
That does look like a good practical way of addressing the issue,
In order to address the Laser or CNC made timbers (plywood) would it be possible to have the option to make the "slider ribbed timbers" as resin printed timbers? Noting only these two timbers for each switchblade! I.e. an option when being ready to print the tie bars that the slider and two ribbed timbers could be printed as well, effectively making up a full switch blade slider mechanise.

I have a feeling the smooth resin would be a better surface then FDM. the Rib would certainly form well on a resin print. so its just possible a resin switching mechanism could be the better way to go, no matter how the rest of the timbers are made. just a thought
cheers
Phil

 

[Phil G]

Hi Martin,
Just to clarify my thinking, that parts of the turnout brick would be made as normal, no matter what material is used to make the timbers.
Then when the stretcher bars and slider mechanism is being made the two ribbed timbers are also re made.
When the turnout is being assembled you can swap out the original switch timbers, the replacements is used which is how you known the correct location for the two ribbed timbers.
cheers
Phil,

 

[Martin Wynne]

@Phil G

Hi Phil,

That's an idea to think about. In fact you can do that now -- just split out those two timbers on a separate partial template and resin-print them. The slider ribs will be in 241c soon.

It would need some thought about aligning the two parts. With an FDM main base you can use the various splint, slab, and brick wall options to create various means of location and link together the two FDM parts. Here you go:

With a plywood or CNC-milled main base I'm not too clear what might be possible. You might have to rely on aligning them manually when laying the track?

But my test FDM prints are looking good -- I tweaked some settings in Cura to cope with the rib overhang which seems to have worked. I'm inclined to try it FDM-printed at first. In theory dissimilar materials should slide more easily. A smear of grease might be worth adding.

cheers,

Martin.

 

[Martin Wynne]

.
There is a slight prototype issue -- we need separate sliders for A, B and C switches because the first 2 toe timbers are at different centres:

A switches 27.5" centres.
B switches 28" centres
C switches and longer 28.5" centres.

(Table 9, BRT3 p.86 refers)

Always something else to think about. The sliders need one, two, or three dots marked on them to identify for A, B and C+ switches.

Another thought -- if building loose-heel switches, the electrical droppers for the switch blades could be attached to the pins if fine multi-strand wire is used. Having the deeper timbers throws up lots of new ideas.

cheers,

Martin.

 

[Phil G]

In theory dissimilar materials should slide more easily. A smear of grease might be worth adding.

Hi Martin,
I agree two dissimilar materials would slide better, the grease idea could come unstuck with ballast dust being present, but again worth a try.
Just thinking though the idea, how hard would it be to give a depth option for the web of the timber brick? if that's not already an option,
I was also wondering if there could be a center bossed hole in the middle of the slider bar to allow for the servo pin?
As you say if you make the two end pin holes slots that the allows for a nice mechanical fit between the slider bar and the webbed and ribbed timbers.
The location pins are also a very logical electrical connection point for the switch rails. all in all a very good idea
phil,

 

[Martin Wynne]

@Phil G

Hi Phil,

You can already set the thickness of the webs and flanges. Although it applies to the whole STL, not just the toe timbers.

Yes, I already intended an (optional) centre hole for a vertical drive wire. Also holes in extended ends of the slider, or clamps/clips/whatever. All optional with some more tick boxes.

I don't know yet about the long-term strength and wear resistance of the ABS-Like resin we are using. The slider might need some stiffening ribs between the pin holes. I'm hoping it will be ok. Changing to a different resin just for the drive sliders could get messy and expensive.

cheers,

Martin.

 

[genixia]

When you get a chance, can you give some thought to ballast-reduction methods? Many people in recent years have thinned-out timbers to reduce both cost and weight of ballasting. I've just printed a timber base with the default settings and noticed that the thickness of the webbing and timbers combined is relatively thick. I don't recall seeing anywhere a discussion of what the practical minimum needed for the chairs, but maybe I missed something. An alternative to thinning the timbers would be to thicken the webbing, and to close the holes in it (aside from where that might be problematic, such as tie-bars). It may take longer to print but with good infill settings that (and the additional plastic used) could be minimized, and ballast replaced with mostly air.

As I wrote that, I've just started wondering whether all those infill air pockets would help in noise absorption too...

 

[Martin Wynne]

@genixia

Hi Genixia,

Many thanks. Already using 45-degree angled ribs, I have edited this topic to read more clearly.

Re ballasting. If you want thicker webs or wider flanges you can already do that. All the settings can be changed to whatever you want:

You could print a solid slab of web 2.5mm thick with just 0.5mm top timbers if you wished. Your infill settings in the slicer can be whatever you set of course.

Likewise you can set shorter chair plugs and use a thinner base if you wish. However anything less than 3.0mm doesn't work well with the loose jaws and is very fiddly to assemble. With solid jaws and plain press-fit plugs you can go a lot thinner if you want, but it makes locating the chaired rail over the sockets very tricky and frustrating. If you look back to the start of these topics you will see that originally I had much thinner timbers and shorter plugs.

But the deeper timbers have other advantages too. Dropper wires can be pre-attached to the underside of the rails and bent at 90 degrees to run to the side of the track. The track bases can be fixed in place with screws or pins through the webs, instead of gluing. That makes it easy to tweak alignments, and re-use track in the event of a re-design.

For deep ballast the idea is to use a lightweight bottom fill of crumbled cork or expanded polystyrene or similar, with just a thin top layer of crushed walnut shells. It can all be very light, it doesn't need to be any heavier than all the other scenic materials which are typically added to a layout.

If using screws or pins, some masking tape on the heads before ballasting over them keeps them free of ballast if you need to lift the track.

cheers,

Martin.

 

[genixia]

Thanks for the quick and detailed reply! I'd seen some earlier renderings which were thinner, and hadn't really absorbed that it had later changed, hence my question. There so much information spread organically throughout the many many comments, and it's not easy to keep track all the changes that have happened so far during Plug Track's development. I really shouldn't be surprised that web and flange depths are configurable as it seems that everything in Templot is. The options can be somewhat daunting, but I guess I need to face my fears and start tweaking some!

Ian.

 

[Phil G]

Hi Martin,
I am having some issues trying to set a brick up for just two timbers, could you please point me I the right direction.
If I am being honest I don't think I fully understand how to create bricks, of exactly what I what, which is the real issue here
cheers
Phil.