Etching ideas - (biased towards diesel handrails)

[stuntman]

SP  
and DRGW specific handrails for these have me lining up, Mr. Wallet in hand and properly sedated.  Even if IM igored the differences they are noticeable to the knowledgeable among us.  

Adding details IM missed (or ignored)  like anticlimbers (where applicable), split equiptment cab subbase doors, 4hole plate jacking pads, horn brackets (to use those nifty new brass horns), cab vents (oval, round and roof), locotrol and antenna platforms pushes the desire meter way past the 'skip meals if necesary' mark on the budget balance sheet.  Last physical tunnel motor count means I need at least 32 sets immediately to repair/upgrade my 'fleet' to the standard they should have been if the IM hype had been true...

 I'm there man!   Gary, If you could do the artwork for this stuff. I would be willing to put up money for a decent run.   I already have the molds for SP anti-climbers..... Etched handrail sets and equipment box doors would be awesome! ;D

[lashedup]

Hey Gary,

It's ironic that you created this thread as I was recently thinking of a number of brass projects that would be helpful to have including handrails as I have a bunch of SD70ACE units and GEVO's here that could use some replacements. It seems like a no brainer to offer a fret that has the complete or near-complete replacement on it. Skibbe's (as well as others here) has done some drawing work to create the etched stuff and I'd be willing to do some leg work to make it happen as well.

Also like Mike said, we've got plenty of server space if you're looking to create a page or spot to upload stuff. Just let me know what you were thinking. The whole idea behind the Model160 thing is to create a great n-scale resource and we're working on building out the site now and sifting through the bugs and logistics. The thought of offering some simple and needed n-scale pieces had occurred to us. I know I could think of lots of things I'd like to have that shouldn't be too difficult to produce and have made if others were interested or could help with some leg work - etched windows for Walthers kits that would look more realistic, hand rail kits, step and rail kits and numerous other simple things. I was thinking along the lines of a community built open source type thing where it would be possible to keep track of all of it and have people submit drawings, suggestions and more.

Thoughts?

[Packer]

The whole idea of etching handrails as one piece seems rather familiar:

http://therailwire.net/forum/index.php/topic,20043.msg182829.html#msg182829

I'm definately liking the idea. Any chance of doing HO scale locos too?

You also might be able to squeeze in various detail parts on the sheet in the areas where there are no stanchions.

[GaryHinshaw]

Packer, yes indeed we had a very similar thread a year ago, and in the intervening year, I've done exactly zero to move this forward.    The thing that brought it back to life was a real-world example I could hold in my hand and evaluate.  And in looking back at my entry in the earlier thread:

http://therailwire.net/forum/index.php/topic,20043.msg182852.html#msg182852

the Athabasca kit is exactly along the lines I was thinking: one piece etched from .010 stainless that is quite rigid and well detailed.  (And it's been around since 1998...)

Jamie, given how affordable PPD seems to be, I think the time is ripe to collect and post files that people can share, improve, modify, and submit for production.  I think it is really the only viable business model for the kind of esoterica we trade in.  It would probably also make sense to have a forum where people can organize a bulk group purchase (that could be done on Railwire).  I'm all for having model160 serve the files.

To that end, I spent some time climbing the modest learning curve of DraftSight (free 2d CAD) and produced a very-very basic outline for one of the 70MAC rails.  I'd love it if someone familiar with CAD could look at the .dwg file and verify the basic setup, especially the units.  Then I'll keep going: finishing the base layer and getting on to the detail layers and attachment points.

One thing I noticed while working on the drawing is some pixel aliasing with the display of the stanchions: the apparent size of different stanchions along the railing would change, depending on where the vector data landed on a screen pixel.  While I understand this is a display artifact, it does raise the question of what resolution PPD prints masks at.  Does anyone know off-hand? (I could go look it up...)

Cheers,
Gary

P.S. Here's a quick screen grab just to show some progress:



No fill, or any attempt to fillet corners where needed, yet.

I think it makes sense to make some standard entities, like an EMD or GE stanchion as a module that can be replicated as needed.   Do most CAD programs support standard object libraries?  Can these objects be multi-layered, and if so, how do object layers get assigned once imported to a model?  (Probably getting too detailed now, sorry.)

-gfh

[ednadolski]

You also might be able to squeeze in various detail parts on the sheet in the areas where there are no stanchions.

Considering that the areas w/o stanchions would just get etched away as waste, this is a really great idea.   These areas could include things like see-thru steps, cut levers, window frames, brake chain, and so on.   Since the whole kit is inherently model-specific, these could be tailored for the specific model.   AFAICT the only additional cost is the effort to make the design/mask.

A single fret, sporting all (or most?) parts needed for a single loco model, would be ideal.

Any chance of doing HO scale locos too?

Hm, well, the cost goes up in proportion to the area of the metal, and full length stanchions in HO would take up about 4x the area.  However scale diesel stanchions are sorely needed in HO too -- possibly even more than in N, since N has the GMM stanchions, and the only stanchions in HO are the Smokey Valley cast brass (or plastic) ones, which nowadays have become as rare as hen's teeth.   So a stanchions-only kit (using wire for the actual handrails, rather like the N-scale GMM fret) would be very welcome in HO.


Ed

[Chris333]

Jamming as much as you can in there is the way to go. It costs no more for something the same overall size.

[James Costello]

I know I have a couple of simple ideas for some etching projects, so I am interested. My biggest constraint so far has been the time to try and draft something up.

As far as the handrails go, if they do look like a rod (rounded) as suggested by Gary's photo and not a bar (due to the flatness of the sheet) than I am in... and echoing requests, but the list is endless really.  

[ednadolski]

Here's a quick screen grab just to show some progress:

Gary have you considered including the sidesills?   To me that seems pretty important if you want to have a kit that is easy/quick to put together, esp. for a Kato diesel with the separate walkways that are made from the plastic that is tricky to trim/drill/glue.   Without a sidesill to give some strength, it might be very easy to unintentionally bend/kink the handrails themselves during despruing and assembly, since they run nearly the whole length of the loco.

Also I think that it would be very desirable to try for a .008" cross section, rather than 0.010".   Even tho it may not seem like a big difference, the smaller size is much closer to scale, and will be a noticeable difference given that the cross-section is square instead of round (esp. in close-up photos).

Ed

[ednadolski]

if they do look like a rod (rounded) as suggested by Gary's photo and not a bar (due to the flatness of the sheet) than I am in

Yes, that is why I strongly recommend 0.008" over 0.010".   Even a small difference like that makes a surprising impact on the overall look and feeling of mass of the finished model.

Ed

[unittrain]

I got the full version of ACAD 2007 if you need dimensions verified I could do it. As far as creating objects is concerned the easiest is by drawing the entire object then creating a Block with it using the block command.

[GaryHinshaw]

unittrain, I'll send you a PM about having a look at this file.  Thanks!

Ed, I definitely want to have some kind of tie across the bottom (this was just a very preliminary drawing to try the software).  I think you're right that a simple side-sill overlay is the best way to go.  I've been mulling various foldable tabs, etc. but nothing I really like yet.

Re the cross section, there may be a bit of a problem: the guidelines on the page,

http://www.ppdltd.com/custom.html#Stock%20Metals

indicate that stainless is only available in .005" and .010" (in the range of interest) and that line width should be >1.5 times thickness.  Other metals can go down to 1.2 times thickness (brass, nickel silver & phosphor bronze).  I really don't want to go to .005 stainless, any opinions about the other metals, strength-wise?

Cheers,
Gary

[Chris333]

You guys do know there is undercut all around your parts right? So lets say you draw the top railing at .010" wide and you use .010" thick material. You will loose 1/3 the thickness from each side. 0.003" from each side leaves the railing being only .004" wide.

I would draw up .005" thick brass railings to be .015" wide and they would end up .012" wide. This is a Z scale caboose railing:


While you draw you have to always be thinking about how the etchant will work to know where to add a little more thickness.

The only N scale locomotive railing I have done at home:

This is two .005" pieces glued together. It is hard to do .010" thick at home so that is why I did two .005" pieces.

I did make .010" thick railings (got lucky) for a NW2 also (no pics)

[James Costello]

It would be great if we could engineer the bottom tie to sit under the Kato walkway.

Trying to match paint on a side sill over-lay could be a PITA.

[Sokramiketes]

Re the cross section, there may be a bit of a problem: the guidelines on the page,

http://www.ppdltd.com/custom.html#Stock%20Metals

indicate that stainless is only available in .005" and .010" (in the range of interest) and that line width should be >1.5 times thickness.  Other metals can go down to 1.2 times thickness (brass, nickel silver & phosphor bronze).  I really don't want to go to .005 stainless, any opinions about the other metals, strength-wise?

Cheers,
Gary

PPD can do .2mm Stainless, which works out to almost .008" thickness.  Don't know why they wouldn't list it, but they've run quite a bit for me at that thickness.  The guidleines for line thickness and hole sizes, gaps, etc are guidelines also, depending on what you are ultimately looking for.  Sometimes James get's worked up when I draw slots at .15mm for a .2mm sheet, since they don't cleanly etch all the way through... but the remaining material is so thin that it's easy to push a tab through or break a folding part free. 

[Sokramiketes]

You guys do know there is undercut all around your parts right? So lets say you draw the top railing at .010" wide and you use .010" thick material. You will loose 1/3 the thickness from each side. 0.003" from each side leaves the railing being only .004" wide.

Chris-

Did you see the same undercutting on the sheet that PPD just did for you?  I haven't noticed quite that much undercutting, and am wondering if you're having to leave parts in etchant longer at home than PPD has to with their equipment.  I guess I should measure some of my parts to check it out.