What is scratch building in 2012?

[buffalo]

...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 may have been reading more into your words than was intended. It came across as a rather simplistic progress mentality; new and shiny means it must be good. No need to assure me when it comes to computers, though, I've been programming them for almost 45 years and first got into 3D modelling in the eighties.

 

Nick

[jjnewitt]

In an attempt to answer the question "what is scratch building?" I'll try giving a definition:

 

Scratchbuilding is the design and assembly of a kit of parts to produce a model, or part of a model, where the majority of components have been produced by the modeller themselves.

 

Scource Justin Newitt's concise modelling dictionary- Revised 2012 edition.

 

All three parts are vital to me: the design, the production and the assembly. If you don't have all three then it is kitbuilding. As I've said before I consider using photo etching etc to be producing my own components. I am not getting someone else to make them I am using a tool that belongs to someone else. I also think that just because components are cut by hand from sheet doesn't mean that is scratchbuilding. If someone say produces, by cutting out using hand tools, a kit of parts for a particular locomotive and then gives it to me I simply have a kit to build.

 

It been fascinating seeing all the different opinions that have surfaced on this thread and I've been amazed how much print has been generated in such a small space of time! The only comment that has annoyed me came in the thread where this debate originated where t-b-g said:

"I have argued long and hard that designing your own kit and then building it is still building a kit".

I took this to be an unenlightened swipe at those who didn't produce all their parts using hand tools but the more I think about it the more I think he has (almost) stumbled upon exactly what scratch building is. Scratchbuilding is designing, producing and assembling your own kit.

[Guest Natalie Graham]

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.

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

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

 

i think you need to argue a lot of this out with rumblestripe rather than me. Most of the comments you quote were a direct response to him claiming the opposite of what you are saying, I agree with more of what you are arguing against me with than disagree, for example that the machine does the work that the modeller with a lathe or saw and files does that the ownership of the machine is not material and that quality/standards don't come into it. One of the reasons that I am having difficulty with the counter-arguments is that the people most vociferously opposing my own view are doing so with diametrically opposed statements. I respond to specific comments by one person raising an argument and then get someone else telling me that is irrelevant.

 

Once again, I do not claim that a model which includes machine made parts is not scratch-built. I have set out my view on this quite clearly several times. That claim is ony made by those who insist that if everything ever made isn't counted as scratch built then a scratch-built model must be made entirely from raw materials. I have never believed that or said it. What I do say is that a process which can repeatedly produce identical components does not scratch-build something just because you stop after you have made the first one, or produces components whiuch are scratch-built if the original designer buys them but not if they are bought by someone else. Transfers would be emcompassed in my view of what constitutes a scratch-built model I have posted several times already. They would be in the same category as the commercial wheels, etched coach sides and 3D printing bogie sideframes. I have referred to.

 

What I tried to do in my original post on this thread was put forward my definition of what constituted scratch-building. Within that definition there will be models which are some may feel should not be and others which would be excluded which people, including myself might regard as scratch-built. As this thread has shown it is practically impossible to try and categorise every model as scratch-built or not. Even the simple defintion Martin Wynne proposed runs into difficulties if someone hand-builds a freelance model without drawings. That is why I have concentrated on trying to define scratch-building techniques and methods rather than to define what is a scratch-built model.

 

I fully believe that modern CAD methods are an invaluable addition to the modelling repertoire and I feel that as yet we haven't seen anywhere near the full potential of what these can offer. The difficulty I have is when these are counted as scratch-building. Not ony because of the objection that I don't believe a computer-controlled manufacturing process is within the scope of what has always been understood to be scratch-building but for the pragmatic reason that I think there is good reason to make the distinction between modern CAD controlled methods and more established methods of building models. I don't think lumping them all together as the same thing does either approach any favours.

 

I think there needs to be a boundary if the term scratch-building is to retain any meaning at all. My view is that using the term to describe established building methods is the most realistic place to do this. Even then you get anomlies such as pantograph cutters or die-stamping To broaden the scope to include CAD models (or whitemetal kits) assembled by the designer throws up just too many anomalies, such as what happens when someone else orders a copy of the 3D print. This leads to the absurd situation where the status of the model depends upon who ordered it even though there is no physical difference in either the model or the way it was manufactured, or else it broadens it out so far it includes everything made by a computer controlled manufacturing process and Hornby models can be termed scratch-built. At that point the term is meaningless and far-removed from its original usage to indicate a model built by the modeller rather than a commercial product. It also doesn't adequately recognise the process of producing the model. I would suggest that if you showed someone your new scratch-built loco and asked if they had any questions on how you built it they would be more likely to ask whether you used brass or nickel-silver than if you used Autocad or Draft Sight.

[t-b-g]

The only comment that has annoyed me came in the thread where this debate originated where t-b-g said:

"I have argued long and hard that designing your own kit and then building it is still building a kit".

 

I wrote "designing a kit", not designing a set of parts for scratchbuilding. If designing a kit and building it is not "building a kit", what else would you like to call it?

[54Strat]

Would people say a 3D printed model, or even an etch for that matter, is an original?

 

I'm not disputing that scratch building means compromising by using off the shelf components such as wheels, etched windows and the like no matter how they've been created; 3D prints, etched, machined, made by little elves under the stairs.. I think we all pretty much can agree on that process. It's whatever get's the job done to whatever level of compromise we might make.

 

However, we can't carry on thinking that a 3D print is a scratch built object. It's not, it's a copy of it's master, and the master is the file from which it was generated, created or born from.

 

Would you call a printed page from MS Word an original? Would you call a cast axle box an original? Or a newspaper? They're copies made from a master. You can't prove otherwise. So is a 3D print. The clue is in the name; a print implies exact reproduction.

 

So I'm with Natalie on this, and I agree it's a specific point but a conceptually crucial one.

 

We should consider the 3D virtual model, the original, as scratch built but it will only exist as such in the software. I mentioned intellectual property in an earlier post. Maybe this is the point of originality that could define it's scratch built status. But not the copy, please, it's just a copy.

 

New techniques need accompanying new concepts.

 

For fun, let's pose a possible (at a push) future scenario..

 

What if a 3D print website got hacked, and all your files were stolen and then pirated? Ok so it's unlikely, but it does illustrate how this new media needs to be thought of differently. You'd have to prove they were yours, but they're identical to the masters. You'd have to make sure your software was legal, and you didn't create them at work or with work's software. You'd have to prove that your work was original in the first instance, and proving that can be it's own can of worms.

 

The last paragraph was just to illustrate that new media and concepts needs to be thought of differently, I really don't want to discuss any of the above, believe me.

 

I do think it's important that we nail this one though.

 

Can 3D printing be included in scratch building? Absolutely.

 

Is a 3D print scratch built? Absolutely not.

 

Paul

[N15class]

 

Can 3D printing be included in scratch building? Absolutely.

 

Is a 3D print scratch built? Absolutely not.

 

Paul

I agree as usung a 3D printed part would then be no different to using as a casting.

 

I still can't accept using parts that have been cut out for you. Whether or not it is to your own design.

[Paul-2mm]

Having thought about this it occurs to me that there are very few truely scratchbuilt models. I am, however, unsure about why this appears to be an issue.

[Karhedron]

I wrote "designing a kit", not designing a set of parts for scratchbuilding.

But what is the difference?

 

A part is a part. Parts made for a kit are not distinguishable from parts made for scratchbuilding. If someone is making some wagon kits from "scratch" and wants to make a rake, do they suddenly cease to be scratchbuilt just because he cuts out several copies of each piece?

[t-b-g]

Having thought about this it occurs to me that there are very few truely scratchbuilt models. I am, however, unsure about why this appears to be an issue.

 

I don't think of it as an issue, it is more something interesting for us to chew the fat over! In the big scheme of things it matters not one jot how we describe our models but getting different views from people and a bit of written "cut and thrust" is good fun, as long as it is done in the right spirit, which I firmly believe has been the case.

 

Enough people think it is worth discussing to fill the most philosophical and well thought out discussion (and to fill 13 pages) on RMWeb for some time!

 

You can go back to the very early pioneers of modelling, like your Sid Stubbs and your Alex Jacksons. They really did scratchbuild everything, even though they didn't mine their own ore and smelt the metal.

 

Now we have views that range from that being the only true scratchbuilding to something that the "builder" doesn't physically touch until it arrives in the post from the 3D printers, ready for cleaning up, possibly detailing and painting.

 

I don't agree with such views but the people who hold them have just as much right to them as I have to mine.

[Karhedron]

I don't think of it as an issue, it is more something interesting for us to chew the fat over! In the big scheme of things it matters not one jot how we describe our models but getting different views from people and a bit of written "cut and thrust" is good fun, as long as it is done in the right spirit, which I firmly believe has been the case.

Very true, this discussion has been engaging and stimulating. There has been no resorting to flaming or personal attacks. I have certainly not agreed with everything that has been said but I would rather have an intelligent discussion with someone I disagree with than a stooge who just agreed with everything I said.

[t-b-g]

But what is the difference?

 

A part is a part. Parts made for a kit are not distinguishable from parts made for scratchbuilding. If someone is making some wagon kits from "scratch" and wants to make a rake, do they suddenly cease to be scratchbuilt just because he cuts out several copies of each piece?

 

The difference is between a part that I have made for myself and a part that I have designed and had made for me. As simple as that.

 

I am in the middle of scratchbuilding a rake of GCR fish vans. I am using commercial axleguards, etched brake gear and cast buffers, plus W irons and wheels. Everything else is plasticard, including strapping and bolt detail. I have cut out 5 sets of parts but the point is that I have taken a sheet of plasticard, measured the parts and cut them out myself. I class them as scratchbuilt because if anybody else wants one, they need to find their own plasticard and start cutting.

 

If I had drawn the parts out as artwork and sent them off to be etched, I would have considered myself to have created my own kit. I could easily have supplied the parts to others for them to duplicate what I have done but they wouldn't be scratchbuilding and neither would I.

 

The example I quoted previously was a kit designer, creating artwork for a kit of parts to be sold to the public as a kit, by a well known kit seller. He was then presented with a complete kit, in a box, with instructions and all the bits, as a "thank you" for doing the artwork. How can that possibly be anything else other than building a kit that he had designed?

 

If he had cut the parts for all the kits out by hand, that blurs the lines completely but as it is a completely hypothetical situation I don't want to hurt my brain thinking about it. As I said before, there are no hard and fast lines that can be drawn but a scratchbuilt loco from the parts in a commercially available kit box, I don't think so.

[jjnewitt]

I wrote "designing a kit", not designing a set of parts for scratchbuilding. If designing a kit and building it is not "building a kit", what else would you like to call it?

But your "set of parts for scratchbuilding" is essentially "a kit" and in designing them you are essentially designing a "kit". A kit is a set of parts that when assembled produces (in our case) a model. Your "set of parts for scratchbuilding" is in essence a "kit of parts" for building a model. If you put them in a box with the other items that would be needed to make the model you have a "kit". If you gave that box to me and I put them together then I am "kitbuilding". However we are all human and we wish to be recognised for our efforts. By saying that your kit of parts is a "set of parts for scratchbuilding" you wish others to recognise the fact that you have designed and produced them yourself and it is absolutely right that you would want to do that. As I said earlier I think that scratchbuilding is designing, producing and assembling your own "kit" so in answer to your question the answer is scratchbuilding. That is the process that everyone who has entered the scratch building challenge is going through. They are designing their own components, producing them and putting them together. Even using the terminology that you have used "designing your own kit" is designing your own kit, it is not "kit building" which recognised as the process of assembling a kit. There is a world of difference between designing and producing the contents of a kit and putting it together and I think that should be recognised. I don't know what you would call it if producing your own etches for your own model isn't scratchbuilding but I wouldn't want my efforts likened to that opening a box and putting together a kit because they are very different.

[t-b-g]

But your "set of parts for scratchbuilding" is essentially "a kit" and in designing them you are essentially designing a "kit". A kit is a set of parts that when assembled produces (in our case) a model. Your "set of parts for scratchbuilding" is in essence a "kit of parts" for building a model. If you put them in a box with the other items that would be needed to make the model you have a "kit". If you gave that box to me and I put them together then I am "kitbuilding". However we are all human and we wish to be recognised for our efforts. By saying that your kit of parts is a "set of parts for scratchbuilding" you wish others to recognise the fact that you have designed and produced them yourself and it is absolutely right that you would want to do that. As I said earlier I think that scratchbuilding is designing, producing and assembling your own "kit" so in answer to your question the answer is scratchbuilding. That is the process that everyone who has entered the scratch building challenge is going through. They are designing their own components, producing them and putting them together. Even using the terminology that you have used "designing your own kit" is designing your own kit, it is not "kit building" which recognised as the process of assembling a kit. There is a world of difference between designing and producing the contents of a kit and putting it together and I think that should be recognised. I don't know what you would call it if producing your own etches for your own model isn't scratchbuilding but I wouldn't want my efforts likened to that opening a box and putting together a kit because they are very different.

 

Aren't you falling into the trap of wanting your work to be classed as scratchbuilt because you regard that as a "higher form" and deserving of more recognition?

 

I actually think that producing your own kit is probably harder than scratchbuilding. Apart from deciding what parts you need and what shape and size to draw them, which is pretty much the same for a scratchbuild, you also have to know the ins and outs of artwork and the etching process. What you didn't have to do is to take a sheet of metal and start cutting parts out, which is why I am reluctant to put the word "scratchbuilding" to it.

 

I have tried to do a kit and failed, so your achievements, being able to design, have manufactured/etched/printed and build your own kit to your own design is not something I consider to be inferior to scratchbuilding.

[jjnewitt]

Aren't you falling into the trap of wanting your work to be classed as scratchbuilt because you regard that as a "higher form" and deserving of more recognition?

 

Is it wrong to want your greater efforts to be recognised? Is it wrong to want others to recognise that you have somehow done more than build a kit? Not that there is anything at all with kitbuilding! Wish there was more of them! Particularly of things that I want.

 

Ultimately I think this whole thread is about recognition. Those who have the traditional view of what scratchbuilding is are trying to get people to recognise that they are doing something more than kitbuilding by using the term. If they weren't bothered then they could say that they are simply making and building a kit which is ultimately what I think they are doing. Those who feel that modern production methods are equally as valid as traditional methods in doing this want their efforts recognised on an equal footing because they believe that ultimately cutting out a piece of metal using a piercing saw or getting parts etched out of a sheet to their design are not really any different. Everyone simply wants to be recognised for their efforts, which is only human, as 13 pages will testify to!

[billbedford]

A part is a part. Parts made for a kit are not distinguishable from parts made for scratchbuilding.

Err no. Though kits are frequently made up of parts that resemble that used in scratchbuilding, not all kits are. Think especially of injection mouldings. In fact I would say that the better a kit is designed, the less it will resemble a set of parts that a scratchbuilder would make.

[coachmann]

Whereas some kits, notably plastic and whitemetal, are indeed kits because the pattern maker has done all the donkey work (parts are ready formed and detailed), some kits are merely aids to scratchbuilding. Etched kits often fall into this category when the builder has to form the boiler, curves and flares.

 

As for recognition of being a scratchbuilder, this puzzled me. I always though modellers built models because they wanted the things the proprietory manufacturers didn't produce.

[micknich2003]

Though a new thread on here, this debate as gone on for years and world wide. I recall reading fifty years ago in the "Model Railroader" -"The true scratch builder, mines his own ore, smelts it and then forms it into sheet etc". Taking things a bit too far, but possibly the ultimate conclusion.

Many of the "Full size" builders bought in certain parts, such as cylinder castings, injectors etc. So what is the difference, when a modeller buys in his wheels, gears and screws etc? Mick Nicholson.

[Guest jim s-w]

 

Aren't you falling into the trap of wanting your work to be classed as scratchbuilt because you regard that as a "higher form" and deserving of more recognition?

 

I actually think that producing your own kit is probably harder than scratchbuilding. Apart from deciding what parts you need and what shape and size to draw them, which is pretty much the same for a scratchbuild, you also have to know the ins and outs of artwork and the etching process. What you didn't have to do is to take a sheet of metal and start cutting parts out, which is why I am reluctant to put the word "scratchbuilding" to it.

 

I have tried to do a kit and failed, so your achievements, being able to design, have manufactured/etched/printed and build your own kit to your own design is not something I consider to be inferior to scratchbuilding.

 

I tend to agree but you have missed something from your list. When designing a kit you need to try and factor in that it will be built by someone who doesnt know you. In the small parts I have designed there are factors and eliments included at the design stage that I didn't think I (personally) needed to complete the model.

 

Scratch building most certainly should be held in a different regard to a kit build but the way it's built should not. Just because it's designed to be done multiple times by other people doesn't make the original proccess any less valuable.

 

However I return to my earlier observation that it's a visual hobby. The process of scratch building should be held in high regard but a scratch built model that doesnt look as good as a rtr one doesn't make the end result ok.

 

That's just my approach, I want the best I can get, if that means I can scratchbuild better than what's available rtr I will. If I can't I won't.

 

Cheers

 

Jim

[jjnewitt]

As for recognition of being a scratchbuilder, this puzzled me. I always though modellers built models because they wanted the things the proprietory manufacturers didn't produce.

 

Absolutely. Seeking recognition for your work is not the motivation for producing something but by sharing what you have created with others that is what we are doing. You post details and pictures of all your wonderful coaches on this forum. By sharing your work you are showing everyone else what you do and seeking some sort of recognition from others for that. By using the term scratchbuilding someone is trying to communicate with others that they have arrived a model in a certain way. Having done the work they want others, when they see it, to recognise that. It isn't confined to scratchbuilding of course but extends to everything, kit building, modifying, even purchasing something.

[Guest Natalie Graham]

From someone who has done both, designing the parts for a kit is very different from designing parts for scratch-building. I don't think many people would be impressed to open a kit for a GCR fish van and find t-b-g's collection of bits of styrene sheet. Scratchbuilding only needs to fit one part at a time onto the build as it progresses. Parts for a kit, certainly a cast one, will be assemblies of individual pieces of the material cut and shaped and formed into a part of the kit like a boiler or a wagon side. Many of the parts equivalent to the parts for a scratch-build have already been put together when making the parts for the kit. Possibly the only ones where that is not the case are the early stamped metal kits. Even an etched kit will have things like raised details etched onto the parts which a scratch-builder will need to make for themselves.

 

Personally I scratch-build because I enjoy doing it. I don't really take into consideration whether there is a commercial alternative or if my scratch-built one won't be as good as the rtr option. I am far more likely to see a rtr model and think, 'That would make an interesting subject to build.' than I am to buy the rtr item.

[Guest jim s-w]

Hi Natalie

 

I think it comes down to whether or not the model you are making is to be viewed as an object in it's own right or as part of a bigger scene. A beautifully built wagon stands on it's own but as a scene or as part of a train you might need 50 of them for the effect you want.

 

That's why topics like this will always be and while the discussion is interesting there will never be any form of conclusions to be drawn from it.

 

Cheers

 

Jim

[coachmann]

You post details and pictures of all your wonderful coaches on this forum. By sharing your work you are showing everyone else what you do and seeking some sort of recognition from others for that.

A slight correction if I may. I'm one of the old fashioned modellers who tries to encourage others to 'have a go', and it is pleasing to know some folk are now building their own coaches. Seeking recognition isnt my game as, with my pro hat on, I do not wish to expand my regular clientel now i am semi-retired.

[buffalo]

Unlike "it's not scratch built, he/she bought in the buffers/wheels, etc.", motivation is not exactly a red herring in this context, but it is, I think, a quite different issue from how we describe our methods. It matters not whether we do it to seek recognition, to encourage others, for pleasure, for profit, or whatever, or whether "it" is the designing and/or building or the presentation of our work to others. All of these can apply to any form of modelling using any techniques.

 

Nick

[N15class]

Whereas some kits, notably plastic and whitemetal, are indeed kits because the pattern maker has done all the donkey work (parts are ready formed and detailed), some kits are merely aids to scratchbuilding. Etched kits often fall into this category when the builder has to form the boiler, curves and flares.

 

As for recognition of being a scratchbuilder, this puzzled me. I always though modellers built models because they wanted the things the proprietory manufacturers didn't produce.

I do not know about others I build models because I enjoy building models. Whether from kits or from scratch. Even when I modelled in 4mm I made and did not buy RTR.

I always thought of a kit as a selection of part that will make up into a specific model. To me it is the pre cut out parts that make it a kit. Saying thay because the boiler and flares etc have not be pre made is making it an aid to scratch building. Some are designed better than others.

[Dorsetmike]

I think the most significant comment I've seen after reading the dozen or so pages is this

 

Do I feel like I'm compromising myself? No - I do what I need to do to get the result I want.

 

One works with whatever is available at the time, be it bought in or hacked/bashed from a kit or RTR item, modelling the 1930s SR in N tends to force one into building your own or modifying what is somewhere near what one wants.

 

In N gauge a number of kits are designed to "fit" a proprietary chassis, I also use proprietary chassis with bodies made from "scratch", bashed from kits or hacked from RTR. I don't have the necessary skills to make a good free running chassis (being 78 don't help either) so I use what I can find, I have used chassis from Minitrix, Fleischmann, Farish, Arnold and Union Mills; I have no qualms using etched or cast parts where I can find them.

 

I do turn boilers from brass tube, turn chimneys and domes from brass and cut parts from sheet or section brass or nickel silver. I can also use a milling attachment on my lathe.

 

As for the original question and the subsequent responses, I'm reminded of a boss who would say "Don't confuse me with facts - my mind's made up" In other words we each have our own interpretation.