What is scratch building in 2012?

[Buckjumper]

 

Castings/wheels etc. is a total red herring in the discussion.

 

Why?

 

Nobody has yet etched a dome or 3D printed a motor (not that I know of anyway!).

 

No, but you can scratchbuild a virtual dome in CAD and send it the the 3D printing machine or load up the CNC lathe. For those of us less skilled with using a lathe in the traditional manner, one could design a physical template (on paper, card or sheet metal to ensure all the curves were correct.

 

See what I did there?

 

Granted, motors can't be printed...yet. One day, who knows?

 

So all methods of creating models usually require a degree of buying in. I know some models don't require buying in but they really are the minority.

 

But because they are a minority, it doesn't negate them from the debate (and it's been a fascinating debate from all sides).

[Pugsley]

I seem to get the impression from some of the posts on here, that if you want to cut metal without the aid of a machine, or enjoy using the piercing saw and files, you should be humoured for being deficient in some manner.

Not at all, if that's what you enjoy, then great. Not everyone does, and some have other preferred methods to achieve the same results.

 

It is not just in modelling either, My last carpentry apprentice he thought sawing and chiselling by hand was below him. Could not saw straight, keep a chisel sharp, or calculate the length of a rafter from a printed graph. But love to get the circular saw and router out to do the most minor jobs. The most depressing thing is they past him as qualified in 2 years.

Again, just different tools for the same job. Why is it depressing that he passed out in two years? His work must have been of an acceptable standard to the qualifying body to do so, is it just because he didn't use your preferred tools?

 

Not necessarily for etching parts as not sure if it is done here, but for the plans themselves.

It's a fairly common process now, so I'd be surprised if you couldn't find somewhere to do it. The only problem you may have is finding someone who is prepared to do, or is set up for doing, one off pieces or small runs.

[billbedford]

Nobody has yet etched a dome or 3D printed a motor (not that I know of anyway!).

 

This is laser cut rather than printed, but the motor was made integrally :-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VxSs1kGZQqc

 

As for etched domes, the Kemilway Gresley coach kit roofs come close.

[Bernard Lamb]

Again, just different tools for the same job. Why is it depressing that he passed out in two years? His work must have been of an acceptable standard to the qualifying body to do so, is it just because he didn't use your preferred tools?

 

 

Depressing because there would be occassions during his working life when the preferred tools would not be available. What would the numpty do then?

In engineering an apprentice had to learn to file and drill and maintain the tools. Even if many of them were only ever likely to work on computers and robots. The ones I trained certainly had to. How would they be able to do my home work if they were not fully up to standard?

Bernard

 

 

 

[N15class]

 

Again, just different tools for the same job. Why is it depressing that he passed out in two years? His work must have been of an acceptable standard to the qualifying body to do so, is it just because he didn't use your preferred tools?

 

It was is depressing because they have taken a 4 year coarse Cut out a lot of the subjects in it. His ability to use a saw and chisels are paramount in being a carpenter, and after 2 years he still could not saw straight. Yes I know the power tools have their place but they do not replace the hand ones

[Guest Natalie Graham]

Sorry, but you (and others) keep labouring with this misconception particularly about 3D printing that you do the design, press print and "out pops" a finished model. Which may or may not be the case - it will depend on the printer and material used and the skill of the designer. There are some things that are easy to incorporate in a 3D design, but there are others that would be much more effective etched so the reality is for the best models I suspect you will end up with a mixed bag of multi-media parts that still needs assembling.

 

Now that is odd because the only person I have seen who has said this is Rumblestripe with his assertion that all the manufacturer does if 'press go' and the machine does the rest, while seeming not to recognise that it is 'the rest' that is the 'building' of the part orf the model. Those of us who consider 3D printing as a different mehod of making a model than srcatch-building have been at pains to stress, unsuccessfully it seems, that just because we see this as a different means of modelling does not mean we don't appreciate the skills involved in CAD or the quality of the finished items. I am working on a CAD design project at the moment which, when funds alow witll involve both etched parts and 3D printed parts. I know what is involved. I don't regard that project as scratch-building though, for the same reasons I gave in an earlier post regarding cast metal kits which I designed and could have cast. To address an earlier question, to me, the ownership of the machinery is immaterial, it is the process involved which is the determining factor.

 

I will refer back to the field of architecture which is a big user of CAD in designs far more complicated than those for a model railway item. There the building process is not automated and still relies on the considerable skils involved in a whole array of building techniques. Now if, tomorrow, someone were to announce they had created a fantastic automated machine whch could read an architect's CAD design and automatically reproduce the full size building from them, without the use of bricklayers, electricians, plasterers and the rest, the input of the acrchitect would not have changed. He would still be doing the exact same design process, the only difference would be that the building process had become automated. It is the same with CAD design of models for 3D printing. Just because there has been technnological innovation which allows fast, automated reproduction of CAD designs as one-offs at a reasonable cost, does not mean it is the designer who is doing the building.

 

I also have great difficulty with a defintion of scratch-building which is dependent upon ownership of the item in question. If I scratch-build a loco, using traditional model making tecnhniques, (for the sake of forestalling the inevitable, I make my own wheels, motor and gears for this model) that model is, and forever will be, scratch-built. If I build it for, or sell it to, someone else it is still scratch-built. If they then pass it on to another person, it remains scratch-built. If they advertise it for sale they can legitimately advertise it as scratch-built. As long as it survives, or its existence is recorded, it will remain, in perpetuity, a scratch-built model. Compare this with what is being argued for a 3D printed model, where it is said that if the designer orders it, it is scratch-built but if someone else orders the identical model, made by the same process on the same machine, using identical materials, that model is not scratch-built. I proposed a test whereby someone design and have printed a model and I would order five more and we put all six in a box and the designer could pick out the scratch-built one. I was told that of course they would be identical but the designer's one was scratch-built because he had done the CAD work for it. However, what if one of us orders all six or we do so jointly? How do we tell the scratch-built one then? If the designer orders all six are they all scratch-built, even the ones I take? If I order all six and the designer picks out one for himself, does that one become scratch-built at the point he lifts it from the box? Supposing he decides to put it back in the box and pick a different one? Does the first one cease to be scratch-built and the status of the second one then become scratch-built? How about if he takes it away and finishes it, then decides the livery is not appropriate for his layout and I swap it for one of the ones I took? What happens then?

 

I submit it is quite ridiculous to determine the description of the way something is made on the basis of ownership of individual units of what amounts a production run, even if that run is for only one item. I also submit that if it possible to reproduce an identical model, by identical means, without going through the whole process, 'from scratch', the resultant model is not scratch-built, regardless of the method(s) used to make it.

[Rumblestripe]

Now that is odd because the only person I have seen who has said this is Rumblestripe with his assertion that all the manufacturer does if 'press go' and the machine does the rest, while seeming not to recognise that it is 'the rest' that is the 'building' of the part orf the model. Those of us who consider 3D printing as a different mehod of making a model than srcatch-building have been at pains to stress, unsuccessfully it seems, that just because we see this as a different means of modelling does not mean we don't appreciate the skills involved in CAD or the quality of the finished items. I am working on a CAD design project at the moment which, when funds alow witll involve both etched parts and 3D printed parts. I know what is involved. I don't regard that project as scratch-building though, for the same reasons I gave in an earlier post regarding cast metal kits which I designed and could have cast. To address an earlier question, to me, the ownership of the machinery is immaterial, it is the process involved which is the determining factor.

The point I was making was that no-one else has made an intellectual or skill based contribution to the model. By taking ownership of the 3D printer or photoetcher the item is entirely created from scratch. There was nothing when I started the process with a CAD drawing and now through my efforts and the tools I posses here is this model. Scratchbuilt.

 

 

 

Just because there has been technological innovation which allows fast, automated reproduction of CAD designs as one-offs at a reasonable cost, does not mean it is the designer who is doing the building.

Then who has? The "Building Pixies"? Throughout the history of technological development machines have been removing humans from the manufacturing process through automation. The Spinning Jenny, The Lathe, The 3D Printer. Welcome to the 21st Century! In the construction industry as in modelling it is the end result that is important not how it was done. Would you refuse to buy a modern house because it had been designed with CAD? Of course not. Would you judge it by different criteria when assessing it? Of course not.

 

 

 

I also have great difficulty with a definition of scratch-building which is dependent upon ownership of the item in question. If I scratch-build a loco, using traditional model making techniques, (for the sake of forestalling the inevitable, I make my own wheels, motor and gears for this model) that model is, and forever will be, scratch-built.

Firstly, I doubt such a model exists, anywhere within the field of Railway Modelling which is what we are discussing here NOT House Building or Weaving! And I would agree that the model you describe is indeed scratchbuilt. What you have failed to do is list the tools you are using. A lathe, a milling machine, a 3D printer? Or are you using hand tools? And that IS the point of defining ownership of the tools the use of ANY tool is defined by the skill of the user. There is an acronym much used in computing circles GIGO, Garbage In Garbage Out if you issue inaccurate instructions to your 3D printer you will get a lump of rubbish out. Hence the need for skilled input (which is done by the modeller NOT by someone at the printing company). By taking ownership of the tool (for the sake of this argument) the process is clearer. Your argument was that "someone else" was building the model. This is demonstrably NOT the case.

 

 

 

Compare this with what is being argued for a 3D printed model, where it is said that if the designer orders it, it is scratch-built but if someone else orders the identical model, made by the same process on the same machine, using identical materials, that model is not scratch-built. I proposed a test whereby someone design and have printed a model and I would order five more and we put all six in a box and the designer could pick out the scratch-built one. I was told that of course they would be identical but the designer's one was scratch-built because he had done the CAD work for it. However, what if one of us orders all six or we do so jointly? How do we tell the scratch-built one then? If the designer orders all six are they all scratch-built, even the ones I take? If I order all six and the designer picks out one for himself, does that one become scratch-built at the point he lifts it from the box? Supposing he decides to put it back in the box and pick a different one? Does the first one cease to be scratch-built and the status of the second one then become scratch-built? How about if he takes it away and finishes it, then decides the livery is not appropriate for his layout and I swap it for one of the ones I took? What happens then?

Again you are talking here about a component, an etched chassis or a 3D printed dome NOT a full model. This is just a hairshirt approach. Even using "traditional" methods, reproduction of identical parts is considered sensible. Create eight hand made axleboxes or one master and cast up eight? Personally I'd like to be able to model a RAILWAY in my lifetime not an AXLEBOX.

 

 

 

I submit it is quite ridiculous to determine the description of the way something is made on the basis of ownership of individual units of what amounts a production run, even if that run is for only one item. I also submit that if it possible to reproduce an identical model, by identical means, without going through the whole process, 'from scratch', the resultant model is not scratch-built, regardless of the method(s) used to make it.

And I would argue that it is ridiculous to exclude methods of modelling because they are "reproducible". Once any model has been created it is possible to reproduce it if you wish by casting (old school) or 3Dscan and reverse engineer.

[AJ427]

Well we've been around the houses on this one. Most enjoyable it's been too.

 

I've flicked back through the posts and had a bit of a rethink as to my own though process. Rightly or wrongly, there does seem to be a perception (myth even) that scratch-building is some form of elite modelling.

 

The OP asks What is scratch-builing in 2012? - should it include 3d or etching?

 

The question is posed slightly from the point of view of the status quo, those who use what we might call 'traditional' (for want of a better term) scratch-building techniques. Naturally enough these people seek to exclude these new technologies from scratch-building but concede that they are valid forms of modelling. That's the way it's always been. That's the way it should stay. These new forms are something else.

When faced with this question and attitude, those who embrace these new technologies understandably seek to validate their own skill sets and have them included in the term scratch-building. We'll call them 'modernists' (again for want of a better term).

Which is exactly what happened.

 

So to summarise:

 

1) The traditionalists say scratch-building is something along the lines of:

My model has to be made by hand tools. I can use power tools and other processes as long as they do not have the ability to record a pattern of a part and endlessly reproduce it.

I can use an unspecified and arbitrary amount of off-the-shelf parts such as chimney castings, turned brass parts, wheels, etc. The only limiting factor to how many I use is my own integrity.

My model has to be a one off. However, it can be reproducable, but only in a way that differentiates it from the copies.

Once I have created (and acquired as appropriate) all of the parts I must assemble them myself.

 

2) The modernists say scratch-building is something along the lines of:

I create from scratch the entire model in cad software. The screen shows a virtual representation of how the model will look. In reality the drawing is vector information that describes mathematically where each line/arc/solid, etc starts and ends. This information is then sent to a 3d printing machine which prints it out following the vector instruction in the cad file.

My finished model is built entirely without any pre-existing parts.

A happy side-effect is that my model can be printed ad infinitum and each version will be almost identical.

 

 

Natalie said some pages back:

 

If you had posed the question 'What is scratch-building in 1952?' The answer would have been a blank look and the response. 'It is how you make models'.

 

And that's very poignant because back then there were no pre-existing parts you could use. Everything had to be created from scratch.

So, which of the above methods most closely follows that ethos? It's not no1.

 

So maybe the question should have been:

 

What is scratch-building in 2012? Should it include hand-built models using bought in parts?

[Colin_McLeod]

Do any of the scratch builders smelt their own ore to produce the metal used, or grow their own trees to produce timber and brick paper (remember, no artificual fertilizer allowed LOL)?

 

Are all the tools purchased or made (presumably by using other tools etc)

 

 

At some point something is always bought in, be it materials, hard to make parts etc. Even the person who builds model ships from match sticks, probably purchased the glue in a shop.

[Buckjumper]

AJ427: Alternatively there are those who might scratchbuild the body of a loco in the traditional way using sheet metal and piercing saw, draws the artwork (by hand or on computer) and has the frames and rods etched for accuracy, buys in the wheels, motor and gearbox because they're available and that shirt is too hairy when something suitable already exists, turns up the dome and chimney on a lathe, makes patterns for the cab controls and had them cast in white metal and brass in the traditional way, and finally produces the buffers in CAD and has them 3D printed. it's a unique model. Our model maker might even design their own transfers on the computer if the subject is suitably off the beaten track.

 

As was said a couple of hundred posts or so ago, we need some new terminology, or failing that, perhaps some qualifiers; our modeller might say: this is my unique model of a Trumpton and Chigley 2-10-4 well tank, largely scratchbuilt with some hand turned fittings as well as bought-in castings, plus 3D printed parts of my own design. If you'd like one of my 3D printed Pugh Pugh Barney McGrew* lubricators so you can build one yourself, drop me an email.

 

So just how scratchbuilt is the model? About as scratchbuilt as many of us get, but does it really matter? If our modeller is happy with the fruit of their labours, then great. If they had tried to build it all from hand tools and given up half way through with frustration, then what good is that?

 

*Name changed to protect the innocent.

[AJ427]

AJ427: Alternatively there are those who might scratchbuild the body of a loco in the traditional way using sheet metal and piercing saw, draws the artwork (by hand or on computer) and has the frames and rods etched for accuracy, buys in the wheels, motor and gearbox because they're available and that shirt is too hairy when something suitable already exists, turns up the dome and chimney on a lathe, makes patterns for the cab controls and had them cast in white metal and brass in the traditional way, and finally produces the buffers in CAD and has them 3D printed. it's a unique model. Our model maker might even design their own transfers on the computer if the subject is suitably off the beaten track.

 

As was said a couple of hundred posts or so ago, we need some new terminology, or failing that, perhaps some qualifiers; our modeller might say: this is my unique model of a Trumpton and Chigley 2-10-4 well tank, largely scratchbuilt with some hand turned fittings as well as bought-in castings, plus 3D printed parts of my own design. If you'd like one of my 3D printed Pugh Pugh Barney McGrew* lubricators so you can build one yourself, drop me an email.

 

So just how scratchbuilt is the model? About as scratchbuilt as many of us get, but does it really matter? If our modeller is happy with the fruit of their labours, then great. If they had tried to build it all from hand tools and given up half way through with frustration, then what good is that?

 

*Name changed to protect the innocent.

 

Absolutely. If everything in a model is created from scratch then it's scratch-built. In some ways it's all a bit of a moot question anyway as most of us will be building to some form of mixed media techniques and technologies.

[buffalo]

That's a pretty good summary. Andrew.

 

...Rightly or wrongly, there does seem to be a perception (myth even) that scratch-building is some form of elite modelling...

When the comparison was simply between scratch building, kit building and RTR there certainly was a form of hierarchy of skills and achievement. Even then, however, this did not take into account other factors like finishing and painting where an equal level of skill might be applied no matter what the origin of the model. Unfortunately, some seem to want to cling to this outdated hierarchy, presumably because, if their favourite technique is not to be included in the scratch building category, it must by definition be a lower form of activity. This, I think is quite wrong. Modern techniques with a significant CAD element just broaden the range of possibilities at the more skilled end.

 

There may even be an another view/myth emerging from a minority of your "modernists", that their methods are somehow superior simply because they are more modern. For example:

...The whole of our advanced civilisation is based upon working smarter, not harder, and I don't see why model making should be any different.

Sorry Martin, modelling for me is mostly about enjoyment of the process and its results, irrespective of which techniques I use. There is a great deal more to our "advanced civilisation" than efficiency and removing humans from processes. Maybe if I was doing it professionally I might take a different view though I doubt it would be as extreme as what you appear to imply.

 

Back to Andrew's post:

...2) The modernists say scratch-building is something along the lines of:...

My impression is that many in your "modernist" camp are not saying "this is what scratch building is", but want to extend the meaning of what has in the past been a fairly restricted term to include all "modern" methods. To me, that dilutes the term and limits its utility as a description of anything. Far better to say what you are doing in a way that succinctly communicates your methods to the reader/listener.

 

...So maybe the question should have been:

 

What is scratch-building in 2012? Should it include hand-built models using bought in parts?

I think that misses the point that, in practice, most models include parts made by more than one method, some of which may be bought in. It really isn't something to get agitated about. Whilst it may be possible, I doubt there are more than a very small handful of modellers who would contemplate or argue for creating an entire model from basic materials. After all, you still have to paint it whatever method you use. Unlike computer-based modeling, we've yet to see affordable 3D printing with texturing and rendering. Maybe that's something to look forward to?

 

Returning to the OP question, the meaning of a term at any time comes from the way it used within a community. Rather than discussing hypothetical examples of engines hewn from solid rock with etched domes and 3D printed valve gear it would be better to look through the contents of the Kitbuilding & Scratchbuilding area and elsewhere on RMweb. Strangely, given some of the things said in this thread, it seems to me that most contributors talk about scratchbuilding when they are describing physical models built by hand from basic materials. Others talk about designing their own etchings using 2D CAD or paint programs. Yet others discuss creating 3D CAD models and sending them to a printing service. In other words, they just describe what they do. As far as I can see, whilst relative merits for specific purposes may be discussed, no one claims their favourite method is of higher status than others.

 

Nick

[martin_wynne]

I also submit that if it possible to reproduce an identical model, by identical means, without going through the whole process, 'from scratch', the resultant model is not scratch-built, regardless of the method(s) used to make it.

 

There's nothing new about reproducibility. 40 years ago I made some loco parts using templates I made for a pantograph miller. I could have made as many copies as I chose. In fact I still can -- I think I've still got the templates somewhere. Will a 40-year gap be possible with the new methods?

 

Since it's the practice to restate a position several times over in this topic, I'll restate mine. If you can show the drawing from which you made something, you scratch built it.

 

Martin.

[coachmann]

It seems that in every thread to do with railway modelling there are those who seek to ridicule anyone who actually chooses to do things with their hands. Instead of glibly taking the pee because they have only ever known the land of plenty, ridiculers might learn something from looking at old railway modelling magazines to see how modellers of yesteryear overcame adversity and the lack of scale models. Saying a RTR loco beats a kitbuilt or scratchbuilt loco everytime is missing the point. In all probability the loco was built years ago when their was no option but to use ones hands. I used to do artwork for etching by hand....Now a computer is used, and why not?

 

Choosing to buy everything RTR and not to do any modelling is a choice that folk can actually make today, and many of us old guys are in the queue right there with you! But belittleing folk who construct from scratch by saying this or that isn't scratchbuilding is weard.

[Revolution Mike]

Now that is odd because the only person I have seen who has said this is Rumblestripe with his assertion that all the manufacturer does if 'press go' and the machine does the rest, while seeming not to recognise that it is 'the rest' that is the 'building' of the part orf the model.

 

Just like you I get tired of repeating answers, but you are still very narrowly focussing on one specific part of the process. A 3D printed or etched part does not make a finished model...there will still be some assembly/manufacturing/building to do - how much will depend on the design.

 

To address an earlier question, to me, the ownership of the machinery is immaterial, it is the process involved which is the determining factor.

 

Which is why I asked you about how you feel about printing of transfers or do you hand paint every single thing on your models?

 

I will refer back to the field of architecture which is a big user of CAD in designs far more complicated than those for a model railway item. There the building process is not automated and still relies on the considerable skils involved in a whole array of building techniques. Now if, tomorrow, someone were to announce they had created a fantastic automated machine whch could read an architect's CAD design and automatically reproduce the full size building from them, without the use of bricklayers, electricians, plasterers and the rest, the input of the acrchitect would not have changed. He would still be doing the exact same design process, the only difference would be that the building process had become automated. It is the same with CAD design of models for 3D printing. Just because there has been technnological innovation which allows fast, automated reproduction of CAD designs as one-offs at a reasonable cost, does not mean it is the designer who is doing the building.

 

That seems completely irrelevant to me - CAD is being used for different purposes in architecture (anything from visual design to structural planning without the cost of building the thing).

[Guest jim s-w]

To me it's simple. To scratch build something you need to start from an idea, work out how to do it, draw the parts, cut them out and stick them together.

 

Drawing it using a pencil or a computer makes NO difference.

Cutting them out using scalpels drills and files, acid etch or resin powder makes NO difference.

 

The process is exactly the same, idea to object though personal effort.

 

There will always be those who look down on new tools or look with green eyes on something that (in their opinion) bring something to the masses that wasn't there before. Perhaps it's natural because it means it belittles their efforts (in thier opinion only) or makes what they do less special (again in thier opinion only).

 

Historically those who truly excell do so because they use the best solutions availible to them for what they want to do at the time. For someone to scratch build something available rtr will always impress some but they should be aware that some will look at that approach and merely think "that's stupid".

 

Railway modelling is a visual hobby (thats why we have shows and forums) Its the final effect that matters not how it's reached.

 

Cheers

 

Jim

[Bernard Lamb]

To take things to the extreme it would be possible in 2012 to build a loco body without using any conventional hand tools. It will never catch on as it would hardly be cost effective and the equipment needed to produce it beyond the means of the vast majority of people.

Rougly it would go something like this. Produce a CAD drawing. Calculate ( using a bought in programme containg the required information would be cheating) all the developments for the formed parts. Programme a machine to pierce or laser cut the parts. Make flat parts. Programme another machine to form parts. Form parts. Programme various machines to turn or mill boiler mountings etc. Turn or mill same same. Programme a robotic solder station to assemble all the parts. Assemble all parts. Now you will have a loco body without ever having been near any tin snips, drills or files let alone any thing as sofisticated as bending bars or holding and forming tools. You could be extra clever and move the parts robotically so that no part is ever touched by human hand. The quality of the result will be entirely dependent on the skill of the builder. If done well it would exhibit engineering skills of the highest level. Would it be scratch built? To me it would.

Bernard

[billbedford]

To take things to the extreme it would be possible in 2012 to build a loco body without using any conventional hand tools.

See post #278 to see how it could be done.

[Guest Natalie Graham]

Then who has? The "Building Pixies"? Throughout the history of technological development machines have been removing humans from the manufacturing process through automation. The Spinning Jenny, The Lathe, The 3D Printer. Welcome to the 21st Century! In the construction industry as in modelling it is the end result that is important not how it was done. Would you refuse to buy a modern house because it had been designed with CAD? Of course not. Would you judge it by different criteria when assessing it? Of course not.

 

No not the building pixies, rather the incredibly complex and advanced technologies which are incorporated into the 3d printer or whatever you are using to translate the row of 0s and 1s on your computer chip into a model. Try converting your CAD design to a real model without it and you will see what it adds to the process. Why on earth would I refuse to buy the house any more than I would refuse to buy the model? My view on whether it represents value for money would seem to have no relevence to the matter in hand. As to judging the house by different criteria, maybe you should address that question to the mortgage lenders who will not lend against houses built from pre-fabcricated, factory-built systems as opposed to traditionally built ones.

 

 

 

Firstly, I doubt such a model exists, anywhere within the field of Railway Modelling which is what we are discussing here NOT House Building or Weaving! And I would agree that the model you describe is indeed scratchbuilt. What you have failed to do is list the tools you are using. A lathe, a milling machine, a 3D printer? Or are you using hand tools? And that IS the point of defining ownership of the tools the use of ANY tool is defined by the skill of the user. There is an acronym much used in computing circles GIGO, Garbage In Garbage Out if you issue inaccurate instructions to your 3D printer you will get a lump of rubbish out. Hence the need for skilled input (which is done by the modeller NOT by someone at the printing company). By taking ownership of the tool (for the sake of this argument) the process is clearer. Your argument was that "someone else" was building the model. This is demonstrably NOT the case.

Maybe not many, currently, but plenty of models have been constructed using scratch-built wheels, gears and motors. The skill of the individual and the quality of the finished result are another red herring. You could have someone completely ham-fisted make an absolute hash of hand-building a model from basic materials. At what standard do you consider his model becomes scratch-built? Onwership of the machine does not affetc the process. As I asked previously was Mr Wills scratch-building all the plarts he put in his kits because he owned the casting machine?

 

 

 

Again you are talking here about a component, an etched chassis or a 3D printed dome NOT a full model. This is just a hairshirt approach. Even using "traditional" methods, reproduction of identical parts is considered sensible. Create eight hand made axleboxes or one master and cast up eight? Personally I'd like to be able to model a RAILWAY in my lifetime not an AXLEBOX.

I agree it is more sensible to make a mould and cast eight identical axleboxes rather than srcatch-building them individually. It would be even quicker to buy rtr stock. Another red herring I am afraid as the speed of production does not make it scratch-build or not.

 

 

And I would argue that it is ridiculous to exclude methods of modelling because they are "reproducible". Once any model has been created it is possible to reproduce it if you wish by casting (old school) or 3Dscan and reverse engineer.

Another selective response as I said reproducable by the same means. Taking a mould and casting does not produce an identical model constructed in the same way. In any casre such a model could hardly be said to be scratch-built, even by your view of what constitutes the term. Taking a mould from a pre-existing model can not be said to be starting from scratch.

 

Since it's the practice to restate a position several times over in this topic, I'll restate mine. If you can show the drawing from which you made something, you scratch built it.

 

Out of interest how would you consider a freelance model of a building made from card with scribed brick-work but just drawn and cut directly from the card without the use of a drawing? I think it shows how difficult it is to pin down every model as scratch-built or whatever term you want to use.

 

Just like you I get tired of repeating answers, but you are still very narrowly focussing on one specific part of the process. A 3D printed or etched part does not make a finished model...there will still be some assembly/manufacturing/building to do - how much will depend on the design.

I am focussing on that point because the point of who builds the model and how is what defines scratch-building.

 

Which is why I asked you about how you feel about printing of transfers or do you hand paint every single thing on your models?

 

I do tend not to use transfers, if you can point me to someone who makes 2mm GSWR ones I will gladly use them on my current loco. However that is another red herring since I expect you would use transfers on a 3d printed or photo-etched model. Therefore if both use them it is not relevant to discussing the distinction between the two processes.

 

Does no-one want to address the point I made about the status of a scratch-built model not being dependent upon the ownership of the model? Plenty of people have been only too willing to challenge my denifition of 'what is scratch-building'. How about coming up with a workable defintion which includes CAD designed parts or models but which excludes mass produced items or other items made for other people from the same design, and which is not dependent upon proof of ownership of the original design? Come on people, if you don't like my defintion what do you think is the answer to 'what is scratch-building'?

[coachmann]

I was the proud owner of a brass Stanier 5MT 2-6-0 in the 1970s. It could have been described as scratchbuilt or batchbuilt seeing as the very fine builder made a master and then used a pantograph machine to cut out loads of identical parts. Then he built each individual locos from these parts. There wasn't all this armchair theorising and putting things in neat boxes in those days, or if there was the folk doing it were politely ignored. Maybe the armchair modellers handwrote letters to editors and editors put them in the bin, so we havent come very far with computers when we can't get away from the beggars...

 

I cannot imagine for one minute that someone who builds from scratch is afraid the etching process or 3-D process will somehow compromise his ethics. He has the choices of carrying on as before or using newer technologies. I've heard folk say "What do I need with a Mobile" but I would not assume they are protecting the rights of carrier pigeons.

[Pugsley]

Come on people, if you don't like my defintion what do you think is the answer to 'what is scratch-building'?

I think Jim sums it up neatly for me:

 

To me it's simple. To scratch build something you need to start from an idea, work out how to do it, draw the parts, cut them out and stick them together.

 

Drawing it using a pencil or a computer makes NO difference.

Cutting them out using scalpels drills and files, acid etch or resin powder makes NO difference.

 

The process is exactly the same, idea to object though personal effort.

 

Railway modelling is a visual hobby (thats why we have shows and forums) Its the final effect that matters not how it's reached.

And I'll add to that the inclusion of commercially produced parts, such as motors, wheels, gears and fittings such as buffers and domes, where appropriate.

[Karhedron]

if you can point me to someone who makes 2mm GSWR ones I will gladly use them on my current loco.

Totally OT for the current discussion but Steve at Railtec Models has produced a couple of sheets of very nice custom N gauge transfers in the past. No connection, just a satisfied customer.

 

http://www.railtec-models.com/xfer.php

 

Does no-one want to address the point I made about the status of a scratch-built model not being dependent upon the ownership of the model?

 

Because I believe this is a red herring. If someone builds a scratch built model and then sells it on, it does not stop it being scratch built. It just has not been scratch built by the purchaser. If you design the CADs and produce all the parts then the model is scratch built, just as much as if you draw the parts on paper and then cut them out of brass. The fact that CAD allows parts to reproduced multiple times has no bearing on the matter.

[Pugsley]

Sorry Martin, modelling for me is mostly about enjoyment of the process and its results, irrespective of which techniques I use.

Likewise, although the end result is far more important to me than how I get there. I still have to enjoy it though, else I wouldn't bother doing it.

 

There is a great deal more to our "advanced civilisation" than efficiency and removing humans from processes. Maybe if I was doing it professionally I might take a different view though I doubt it would be as extreme as what you appear to imply.

I'm not quite sure what you think I'm implying here. That quote was to address a specific point made by another poster that at one point said "CAD is easy", inferring that modern techniques and skills are somehow inferior to marking up and fretting out by hand. I can assure you that the research and design phases still take just as long, if not longer in some ways, it's no short cut.

 

I also agree that there is a great deal more about our 'advanced civilisation' than efficiency and removing humans from processes, but here isn't the place to have this discussion - we've already been warned about politics once. What I will say, though, is that a human still designs the parts, and humans control and program the machines, so we still have a use at the moment!

[Revolution Mike]

No not the building pixies, rather the incredibly complex and advanced technologies which are incorporated into the 3d printer or whatever you are using to translate the row of 0s and 1s on your computer chip into a model. Try converting your CAD design to a real model without it and you will see what it adds to the process.

 

Try building your models without tools (of any kind) and let me know how you get on...

 

You may claim that is reductio ad absurdum, but it is no different to what you are doing. You are claiming that the 3D print/etch only works because of the tool (3D printer/etching process) used, well take away the hand builders tools and that is no different. Of course a 3D printer is a sophisticated machine (but then so is a lathe compared to a saw or a file), but it is still just a tool and without a skilled input it will still produce rubbish.

 

You could have someone completely ham-fisted make an absolute hash of hand-building a model from basic materials. At what standard do you consider his model becomes scratch-built? Onwership of the machine does not affetc the process. As I asked previously was Mr Wills scratch-building all the plarts he put in his kits because he owned the casting machine?

 

Quality/standards don't come into it. Nor does ownership of the machine. I am not sure why you persist in arguing that the person with the 3D printer is material to the output of the 3D printer (let alone the final model which is not the same thing as the output of the printer) - they aren't, it depends entirely on the skill of the 3D design work.

 

I am focussing on that point because the point of who builds the model and how is what defines scratch-building.

 

But you are only focussing on a very specific and limited part of the complete build process.

 

I do tend not to use transfers, if you can point me to someone who makes 2mm GSWR ones I will gladly use them on my current loco. However that is another red herring since I expect you would use transfers on a 3d printed or photo-etched model. Therefore if both use them it is not relevant to discussing the distinction between the two processes.

 

I am not talking about whether I use transfers, but asking whether you use them. It is the closest parallel to 3D printing - the only difference being ownership of the machine (which I agree with you doesn't matter).

 

To make it simpler:

 

- you claim it is the use of a programmed machine and the repeatability that stops something being scratch built. In which case by your criteria you couldn't claim that a hand built model with homemade transfers was hand built unless the hand painting was done for all the decoration

- I am claiming that it doesn't matter - that (as Jim S-W has said) it is the fact that I am the creator of the design and I am the assembler/manufacturer/builder that matters.

 

Does no-one want to address the point I made about the status of a scratch-built model not being dependent upon the ownership of the model?

 

This has been answered on multiple occasions - you just don't happen to like the answers.

[47137]

... The skill of the individual and the quality of the finished result are another red herring. You could have someone completely ham-fisted make an absolute hash of hand-building a model from basic materials. At what standard do you consider his model becomes scratch-built? ...

 

'Scratch built' describes a method of building (still in draft form!) but not the calibre of the result; and so, such a model becomes 'scratch-built' straight away. The term carries more weight when it is qualified by the name of the builder ... in which case, curiously, the word 'scratch' is often dropped.