Cabooses

The do look huge. I've looked at photo's of the 3-window 01400-14089 series since the 1980's so the windows in the Shapeway's models really stand out. If I ever do get a Shapeways FUD version of the 3-window, I'd like to see the digital files revised to fix the windows first.

If I can remember, and it's hard during the week when I'm working long days, I'll try to measure the size of the brass 3-window cabooses I have; they look right so they should be pretty close.

 

Paul, since you have more than one model, you might try Simple Green on your frosted detail parts instead of or in addition to Bestine. I find a five to ten minute soak to be far more effective at cleaning the support wax residue from the surface of the FUD parts than Bestine. Bestine will etch the surface after a soak leaving it like a fine emery cloth, which can be a finish you desire for some situations. It also will make the translucent material more opaque and white compared to Simple Green.

For really stubborn wax residue, a short soak (less than two minutes!) in acetone can be very effective, but warping and shrinkage are possible (likely for a longer soak). Isopropyl alcohol can also be effective for short baths but warping and especially shrinkage are real problems, so I avoid isopropyl alcohol after learning the hard way.

Rarely you may get a FUD part with one or more sides with a sticky, honey-like finish. This is a manufacturing defect and the part should not be cleaned or used. Shapeways should be notified and they should replace it. Having said that, I have found a short bath in acetone (it's great having daughters by the way - I have an endless supply of fingernail polish remover) can many times harden the uncured resin and the part can then be cleaned up and used.

 

nPaul,

I checked the link with the various models and it does look like the sample show has correct looking side windows. If I decide to sink some money into getting one, hopefully I can verify the side windows have been corrected. I would like to add a solid black painted riveted caboose to my fleet and eventually some correct wide-vision cabooses (several Atlas WV cabooses are stand-in's at present).

The information listed regarding Shapeways modernized D&RGW 10400 caboose didn't make it clear if it is the riveted version (01400-01469) or the welded version (01470-01490). I assume if it is the riveted version, then you'd see the rivet patterns on the side. I think the welded version, the sides a smooth except for maybe along the top and bottom?

I also wonder what is the difference between the HO shapeways caboose labeled as 01469 vs. the one labeled 01400 rebuilt. The samples appear to be the same visually unless it's only in the cupola?

From my observations, the 01400 had a few different side windows:

1) original were the 4 pane wood sash side windows.

2) revised side windows has single pane but square corners.

3) later version were modernized gasket seal side windows with rounded corners.

Also note some had rain drip gutters mounted just above the side windows and others nothing.

Even at $80 for the body + $20 for the frame, it's a bit pricey, however, I paid $150 each for the two unpainted OMI 01470-90 version welded cabooses I have. Yes, you still have to provide trucks and some details so it may end up being only a little less than the brass models, although the hard part is finding those brass models!

Cheers, Jim Fitch

 

Paul, Thanks for the update and great that the windows have been corrected!

I suppose you could use the rebuilt caboose version for the welded series 01470-01490 too since the sides were largely devoid of rivets being welded. It sounds like it should be possible to get it pretty close!

 

Leaving the rivets off is a wise choice by the modeler for this type of model and here's why. Say you are 3D printing a station platform and overhead roof on pylons from the platform level up, The model is printed in thin layers starting with bottom side of the plaform. As the printer passes over each successive layer going vertically, the printer begins to deposit material only on the layer of the pylons until it reaches the bottom layer of the roof. If the printer has not been printing a support substrate for that first bottom layer of the roof with only air below it, the layer has nothing to rest on for the next layer and the print will be unsuccessful. The solution is to print a supporting layer of wax underneath each area that overhangs the model.

Another example is a mushroom: if you were to print a model of a mushroom, the area under the cap would be printed in wax except for the stem which would be printed in the finished material. If it's more economical to print the mushroom upside down so that the stem is supported by the cap and wouldn't require the layers of wax, that's the way it will be printed. Our one piece boxcar and caboose "shells" without the floor are often printed this way: the roof is printed first then the sides and ends rest upon the roof as the printer passes over each layer until it reaches the bottom edges of the sides and ends. To print the model right side up would require the entire interior of the model be printed in wax to support the roof when the printer reaches that point. As you can imagine that's a tremendous amount of material that's lost in the post processing step and a big difference in cost between a model printed upside down and one printed right side up.

The trouble with the support wax is it often scars the underlying resin. Any surface that faces the bottom of the printer during the print process has the worst surface texture and detail fidelity. Likewise, any surface that faces up in the printer gets the best detail fidelity and unless there is support wax above it, the surface will be very clean. Any protruding objects on the sides and ends of the model will require support wax all the way up from the bottom of the printer to the bottom surface of the protruding detail. So if the design has rivets, there will be a waxy "trail" left behind on the model from the bottom of the printer to the bottom of the rivet, which depending on how the model was positioned in the printer could be from the roof eave down to the top of the rivet or from the bottom up.

Going through this process and spending money on useless and unrecoverable 3D printed models led me to a crossroads: either keep the detail and find a way to preserve it or eliminate the detail and deal with finishing one-piece models. The designer of Paul's caboose chose the one-piece body with details on the sides to be added by the end user. Some designers try to include all the detail and make it one part, but my experiences have shown you can't expect consistent results this way. I might get lucky and like the model I test print for myself, but will my customers like it if it's printed differently? Since I have no way to specify how the model is printed in FUD or FXD I chose not to take the risk. I decided to go with flat kits where the bottom of each part faces the interior of the model and the exterior faces up in the printer. I get the best detail fidelity and resolution with the least amount of cleanup. The downside is the additional cost of the individual parts that must be purchased to make a single body and the fact that they have to be assembled, which isn't difficult but let's face it isn't as easy as opening a package.

One benefit to the flat kit method is the parts of a particular model type are interchangeable and can easily be mixed and matched to a particular prototype. My International Car Company cabooses have three basic roofs depending on the position of the cupola, one basic cupola design, and a few variations on sides and ends to match specific prototypes. For such a common prototype with so many variations in the real world, this is probably the best way to do it. But the cost of one of my four part bodies (sides, roof, cupola, ends) is automatically at least fifteen dollars more than a one-piece caboose body of similar dimensions because Shapeways charges $5 per part for FUD and FXD materials. I'm hopeful this cost will come down in time as better printers and processes and materials become available. If that happens I have several larger models I'd like to bring out, but only if I can do it to the level of detail I expect and do it consistently.

Anyway, I hope this gives some insight into the mind of the designer. I can't speak for the designer of Paul's cabooses but I would be surprised to learn if there wasn't a lot of thought and effort put into his or her models. I know I spend a lot of energy on my models, especially the virtual ones.

 

That's an education for sure and good info to keep in mind when tackling a 3D printed caboose project. You've blazed a mean trail there and I've sure enjoyed following your SSW wide-vision caboose project on Atlas Recue Forums in the Sunday Photo Fun section. I look forward to seeing your Rio Grande caboose!

When I get caught up and have some budget free, I may pick up one of the modernized caboose since I need a plain black caboose to add to my fleet. I don't have any correct wide vision cabooses either so that's another thing on the want/need list.

 

Here's one for the CB&Q /BN folks. It's a Bachmann caboose. It's basically correct except for the tool box under it. I did this one for my BN collection.
I removed the tool box, body mounted the Kadee couplers and replaced the original trucks with Kadee trucks.

 

I agree, the Bachmann BN NE-12 cabooses are very good starting points. So far, I've done four as both BN and CB&Q.

 

There's another one here waiting to get painted CB&Q Silver with the red.

 

Ken
The GN homemade cabooses had a sloped cupola caboose but they were completely different from the CB&Q/BN ones

 

I used the MDC caboose for my private road

 

D&RGW Caboose 01319 is an ex Denver & Salt Lake caboose which went to the D&RGW after it acquired the D&SL during the 30's and 40's. I am not sure if they were ever used in mainline operation - they may have been when first acquired but by 1960 I think they were yard service only.