The limiting factor is getting more on the build platform across the X & Y axis. ?Roughly speaking the print time doesn’t increase massively if you add more stuff in a layer as the system has to scan the entire layer anyway. Adding layers i.e. increasing Z adds to the time even if just one spiky bit is taller than the rest.
Back to back doesn’t work. Because for the resin flow reasons mentioned previously the print has to lean away from vertical. This would mean that the facing back print would end up with the support connection points all over the viewing side. This is something I have avoided so far because you don’t then have to put much effort into clean up
.
Printing vertical and increasing the number of sleepers in a strip is probably a dead end. My trial failed because I got mean with the supports but the longer strip with its inclination cut capacity faster than the strip length increased.? There is also an issue that isn’t just down to the printing. The 8 sleeper strips are noticeably harder to thread onto the rail.
I am having an e-mail discussion with the Formlabs people about being able to edit the bases. As far as I know at the moment the software just generates them and you have no control. You can overlap the bases to pack the parts in more densely, but I need to understand the ramifications. You can also print without the bases, but this method tends to increase the support connections to the part but could be scope for experiment.
In a bizarre way due to the need to live a life not dominated by the damned printer the ideal would be to pack it full and it take 23 hours to print. Then at 11 am when it finished I could empty the prints into the cleaning process, clean and reload the printer and set it off for another run at Midday, knock off for lunch, fish the printed bits out of the cleaner and stick them in the UV cure. Printer minding done for the day!
“I'm also assuming that this potentially opens the way to printing to order to a specified sleeper size and spacing” in a word NO! ?If this goes anywhere it will be one style of base and ME rail either Code 70 or Code 83.?
The main reason for saying this is the niggly thing of this being my livelihood. At the moment I am doodling with this experimenting with what the printer can do. To go into production, it has to make a profit and pay back some of the development costs. That alone risks making this not viable with just one style. Lots of different styles just dilutes any chance of making a living.?? I do, of course, do commissioned work so on that basis I could develop your flavour of track – roughly a week’s work at ?45 an hour and you can have the track you want.
Karlgarlin Rail – again NO!?? I can’t supply it economically. I have talked to Richard about having it as a stock item but me being VAT registered, him not and there being no dealer margin would mean I would have to sell it at 20% more than anyone else. I am not interested in selling just sleeper bases for a rail I can’t supply.?? Again, its this making a living niggle that gets in the way. I can get ME rail trade that gives me a little extra margin to absorb a bit of the high cost of printing and still make a few quid.
This making a living is a bit of a nuisance. The internet is full of very iffy 3D printed models for stupidly low prices. If you like this stuff buy it when you see it because those prices have made no allowance for the producer making a living, they’ve conveniently not thought about repaying the cost of, maintenance or replacement of the machine. Doing it at home they most likely haven’t even considered the electricity it uses. When they realise any of those things or realise they’re working for bugger all return they’ll disappear
My experiments will continue.
?
?
?
Paul Martin