While the finish on that is very nice, he has got a point that you need to put a lot of effort in to get a result like that.Peter Butler wrote: ↑Thu Apr 16, 2020 8:51 pmYou really think so?....tom_tom_go wrote: ↑Thu Apr 16, 2020 8:21 pm
I am still not sold on 3D printing for garden railways as you don't get a clean finish after printing and people seem to have to spend a lot of effort to achieve a finish that is not on par of what a resin moulded part would give you.
I used to (naively) hope that 3D printing would save on effort when producing models, but there really is no substitute for putting in the work to get a nice model. I made the Hudswell Clarke BE loco as an experiment in making something quick with minimal 'manual' input, printing fully pre-detailed parts, sanding only where necessary for fit, gluing the components together and quickly dusting over with a rattle can. It looks pretty nice and densley detailed from a distance, but the finish breaks down when close up.
You can either print the components and spend most of your time fettling to get a nice finish, or you can spend most of your time making the components out of plasticard or wood and less time getting a nice finish. I think the best way is somewhere in the middle. If I were to build the Hudswell Clarke again with the goal of getting a better finish, I would probably build the major components from sheet stock, and use printed parts for the details like axleboxes, springs, etc. Small detailing parts are the best use of printing for model railways in my opinion - being able to knock off 4 identical leaf springs or 10 buffers at once is much less effort than making the same quantity by hand, and the printing defects can get hidden in the details.
Good luck with the rest of the build Rik, it will be interesting to see what £80 in components can achieve.