What is scratch building in 2012?

[N15class]

If someone creates the a model (or part of it) using CAD then I would say it is scratch-built. If someone else came along and printed out a set of parts from the same design I would consider it a kit because they had not been involved in the design process.

 

You could argue this is an illogical distinction because the 2 models would be the same. However for me, the key part of scratch-building is the process of designing a model which is not available commercially. A kit builder put the parts together, a scratch builder makes the parts.

Why does it rely on something not being commercially availible. I have scratch built models when there has been a kit.

 

What if you printed out extra sets and gave them away what would they be?

[54Strat]

So maybe the issue becomes abstracted to one of intellectual property and ownership?

 

Paul

[Karhedron]

Why does it rely on something not being commercially availible. I have scratch built models when there has been a kit.

Sorry, personal bias. I tend to make things myself that are not available commercially. My skills are such that things I make myself are rarely of comparable quality to modern RTR models. I did not mean to imply that something must be unavailable commercially for it it to be scratch built.

 

What if you printed out extra sets and gave them away what would they be?

Kits. Because the person who eventually put them together would have had no input to the design process.

 

Just to clarify, I do not believe that scratch-built = hand made.

 

All hand made models are scratch built but a scratch built model does not have to be hand made.

[craigwelsh]

I will finish with a quote from a non modelling wife of a good friend. She was shown an absoloutely gorgeous model, which was laser cut, having been commissioned and produced from drawings done on a CAD package. My friend and I enthused over the quaility, neatness and finish of the model.

 

"Very nice" she said "but it isn't model making"

Probably where the generation of the future will and clearly is in this thread disagrees with the existing view.

 

I wonder if CAD and 3D printers will be having this debate with users of VR controlled nanobots in the 22nd century .

 

My thinking was always that if I started with some parts and hopefully someone's instructions it was kitbuilding, if I started with a blank sheet and nothing on the table but my ideas I was about to scratchbuild. I certainly count the wagons I stuck in MRJ209 as scratchbuilt as that etch wont be repeated again...

 

Oh and Bill, you only need scratchbuilding skills to build a kit when you don't write down the thought process for someone to build the thing . Tongue in cheek there .

[Pugsley]

Why does it rely on something not being commercially availible. I have scratch built models when there has been a kit.

Normally someone builds a model from scratch if there is no kit available, for convenience. There's no reason why you can't scratchbuild something that is available, it's just unusual. If you designed the parts, made them somehow, then assembled them into a model, then it's scratchbuilt.

 

What if you printed out extra sets and gave them away what would they be?

A kit, as the person assembling the parts had no input into their design or manufacture.

 

I can't work out if you're struggling to understand other points of view, or merely trying to provoke an argument by raising ever more obscure points. Should I be engaging with you, or asking you to get back under the bridge?

[Karhedron]

So maybe the issue becomes abstracted to one of intellectual property and ownership?

Perhaps, although I was not thinking in those terms.

 

I think everyone agrees that someone who cuts out the parts from raw materials is a scratch builder but how about the following situation. A magazine provides a detail template for making a particular model. The modellers must cut out the parts themselves but no "creative" work is required. Anyone following the instructions and the templates will get exactly the same model as someone else.

 

This requires plenty of modelling skill but is it scratch built? The modellers are not starting from scratch because they are using a full set of existing plans. Someone has already done the design work.

 

To me scratch-building implies the process of creating something from scratch. For other it clearly means the process of manually fabricating models. I think we will just have to accept that people are using different definitions.

[CHAZ D]

How does the panel stand on 3D printing of a CAD designed part for a personal one off model or for a series of personal uses?

 

Having been involved in some 3D printing (very little input) the output is good but needs tidying. The resolution of the print is not that good in the parts I have seen, needing more "personal input".

 

Remember soon you may as some people I know have your own 3D printer!

[Guest dilbert]

So maybe the issue becomes abstracted to one of intellectual property and ownership?

 

And then made commercially available because of interest ? One of the reasons that the cottage industry is so useful is because of kits and/or elements such as buffers etc...that started off as "scratchbuilt" but were produced in a such a way that made batch manufacturing even in smallish quantities) viable. Long live the cottage industry... dilbert

[AJ427]

Who is suggesting that this isn't a valid approach? it is a perfectly vaild approach, one that quite likely would give a 'better' finsihed model than cutting all the parts by hand. It is just a different approach from scratch-building. If as you say, and I am not disputing it, CAD designing to get parts etched and 3D modelled is equally as skilled as cutting parts by hand why not be proud that your model is built that way and call it by what it is, a CAD designed model? If building models this way is so much more evolved than the traditional scratch-building techniques why are it's proponents so keen to associate themselves with those outdated techniques? Why not just say there is no need to scratch-build these parts now we can CAD design them and get them produced for us?

 

It seems to me that the you are more keen to disassociate those with new techniques from the umbrella term of scratch-building, which just smacks of skill snobbery.

 

As I said in my first post on this thread, I have made patterns for whitemetal kits from individual hand-cut pieces of metal soldered together, made the moulds in the vulcanising press and, on occasion, (I never liked this part) poured the metal into the casting machine. If I had then built one of those kits to completion would I have scratch-built it as I had done every single part of the process from raw material to finished model? I don't believe so. Had I soldered the patterns together as a finshed model then yes I would have called this a scratchbuilt model, but the introduction of a mechanical process to reproduce parts, in this case casting, in my view, stops the model from legitimately being called scratch-built.

 

There are those who have mentioned lathe turning as being a mechanical process. I would say that if the part is turned on an automatic lathe by the operator manipulating the cutting tools to shape the part that is a scratch-building technique. On the other hand if it is done on a computer controlled auto-lathe which is capable of reproducing that part as long as you keep feeding the brass rod in then it is not scratch-built. It is the capability to reproduce parts automatically which counts, not whether you make one or a thousand. It does not become scratch-building because you turn the machine off after it has made the first one.

 

My definition of 'scratch-builders'? Please point that out to me as I was not aware of having used the term, I may be wrong of course.Is there disagreement about what constitutes plastic or metal then? Perhaps we need a different thread to discuss it. I think it is safe to say, from the postings on this thread, that there is not a consensus as to what is meant by the term scratch-building, which is, I presume, the OP's motivation in raising the matter for discussion. My opinion is that scratch-building means physically fabricating the component parts of the model oneself without the use of mechanical processes or automated tooling capable of reproducing identical parts. If we go down the road of saying CAD design for automated production is a scratch-building technique then, as has been said, Hornby and Dapol are producing scratch-built models.

 

Whether something can be reproduced or not is irrelevant to the argument. All manufacture of any kind ultimately involves the production of a scratch-built prototype. To me, the design and creation of that prototype (by whatever means) is the definition of something scratch-built. The prototype may remain a one off but if that prototype is then used to create copies it doesn't suddenly cease to be scratch-built. Even your scratch-built models could (theoretically, depending on complexity) be mass copied by creating a mould.

[PaulCheffus]

Normally someone builds a model from scratch if there is no kit available, for convenience. There's no reason why you can't scratchbuild something that is available, it's just unusual. If you designed the parts, made them somehow, then assembled them into a model, then it's scratchbuilt.

 

Hi

 

Usually in my case its the other way around. I build something (scratch/kit bash/modify RTR) and then one of the manufacturers announce it in their new years catalogue.

 

Cheers

 

Paul

[S.A.C Martin]

Whether something can be reproduced or not is irrelevant to the argument. All manufacture of any kind ultimately involves the production of a scratch-built prototype. To me, the design and creation of that prototype (by whatever means) is the definition of something scratch-built. The prototype may remain a one off but if that prototype is then used to create copies it doesn't suddenly cease to be scratch-built. Even your scratch-built models could (theoretically, depending on complexity) be mass copied by creating a mould.

 

This is what I was trying to say earlier but has been very eloquently presented here. Well said.

[Adrian Wintle]

Whether something can be reproduced or not is irrelevant to the argument. All manufacture of any kind ultimately involves the production of a scratch-built prototype. To me, the design and creation of that prototype (by whatever means) is the definition of something scratch-built. The prototype may remain a one off but if that prototype is then used to create copies it doesn't suddenly cease to be scratch-built. Even your scratch-built models could (theoretically, depending on complexity) be mass copied by creating a mould.

 

Exactly. If you are scratch-building a coach, isn't creating a master for the bogie sideframe out of metal/plastic, making a mould from that master, and casting the 4 identical sideframes you need for the model from that mould a valid technique? If I read Nathalie's posts correctly, that would suddenly make it not a scratch-built part, a view that I would disagree with.

 

I am firmly in the camp that it is the creative process behind the model that makes the difference between scratch-built and kit-built, not the methods used to produce the parts or the relative amounts of bought-in parts (be they relatively generic parts like wheels or re-purposed parts like those intended for kits/models of something else) .

 

Adrian

[54Strat]

Exactly. If you are scratch-building a coach, isn't creating a master for the bogie sideframe out of metal/plastic, making a mould from that master, and casting the 4 identical sideframes you need for the model from that mould a valid technique? If I read Nathalie's posts correctly, that would suddenly make it not a scratch-built part, a view that I would disagree with.

 

It's simple, the master is scratch built and the rest are copies. The validity of technique is not in question, just the naming of the process behind it.

 

Paul

[buffalo]

...Whether something can be reproduced or not is irrelevant to the argument. All manufacture of any kind ultimately involves the production of a scratch-built prototype.

Not necessarily. Using modern CAD/CAM techniques you can go straight from CAD model to production without any 'prototype' involved. The model may be tested on the production machine first to ensure that the results are as expected, but that is not a prototype in the sense that you are using here. Although somewhat different processes, this applies whether the model leads to a (negative) mould or a positive object constructed using a 3D printing technology.

 

To me, the design and creation of that prototype (by whatever means) is the definition of something scratch-built. The prototype may remain a one off but if that prototype is then used to create copies it doesn't suddenly cease to be scratch-built. Even your scratch-built models could (theoretically, depending on complexity) be mass copied by creating a mould.

Again, like some others on this thread you seem to be confusing a virtual model and a physical, hand-built, prototype. Whilst both methods require significant skills, the skills are very different. Which ones we choose to employ depend on many factors. In my case, despite significant experience of using CAD and 3D modelling software in my work, on the whole, I just prefer to develop and use my blacksmithing, engineering and craft skills in my hobby. Maybe when I retire, I'll get more into using the computer to aid my modelling.

 

It seems to me that if the term scratch-building is to retain any utility we should limit it to the physical process of hand-crafting (with or without the aid of blacksmithing or machine tools) a single or small number of physical models from metal/plastic/card/etc stock, with perhaps some use of bought-in products such as wheels. If we choose to create a mold or master for casting purposes, I'd include that, too.

 

What is lacking here is a suitable term in common use in the modelling community for creating physical models directly from virtual models.

 

Nick

[billbedford]

My opinion is that scratch-building means physically fabricating the component parts of the model oneself without the use of mechanical processes or automated tooling capable of reproducing identical parts.

 

This is a GOOD THING?

 

Isn't it exactly why there are so many 25 year old layouts that are still unfinished?

[S.A.C Martin]

I think I am beginning to understand why the hobby gets such a bad rap for the "old man" image. There's a lot of things being said which I agree with on both sides of the debate, but I can't help feeling there is an undeniable train of thought which says computer skills are less valuable by default; and I don't like that idea particularly.

[Karhedron]

It seems to me that if the term scratch-building is to retain any utility we should limit it to the physical process of hand-crafting

Why should such an arbitary limit be imposed on the term?

 

We already have the term "hand made" which seems to adequately describe what you are saying. I think it is worth reiterating that a lot of people disagree with this definition. Scratch built and hand made are 2 different things. You are attempting to restrict the one to be the other.

[Southernman46]

I thought it meant dealing with that itch after being bitten by the "Railway Bug"

[Revolution Mike]

Again, like some others on this thread you seem to be confusing a virtual model and a physical, hand-built, prototype. Whilst both methods require significant skills, the skills are very different. Which ones we choose to employ depend on many factors. In my case, despite significant experience of using CAD and 3D modelling software in my work, on the whole, I just prefer to develop and use my blacksmithing, engineering and craft skills in my hobby. Maybe when I retire, I'll get more into using the computer to aid my modelling.

 

It seems to me that if the term scratch-building is to retain any utility we should limit it to the physical process of hand-crafting (with or without the aid of blacksmithing or machine tools) a single or small number of physical models from metal/plastic/card/etc stock, with perhaps some use of bought-in products such as wheels. If we choose to create a mold or master for casting purposes, I'd include that, too.

 

But I am not sure what the utility is of limiting the term scratch-building to hand crafting...

 

Surely we all choose a combination of techniques and materials that are suitable for the job and ultimately where we have a choice we use which we prefer. Nothing wrong with any of that, in fact it is perfectly sensible. So for example for the crane I am designing it may be a combination of 3D printing, etches and resin casting.

[N15class]

I think we need to send terms like kit/scratch building to the bin.

 

We would be far better using "CONSTRUCTED" and then defining more if needed, by say "FROM" CAD based etch, sheet brass, etched kit, or whatever.

 

The other terms are archaic and come from a period in time we have long sice past.

[buffalo]

Why should such an arbitary limit be imposed on the term?

Because the definition of terms involves the setting of limits, most of which are, ultimately, arbitrary. Without limits, a term becomes meaningless.

 

We already have the term "hand made" which seems to adequately describe what you are saying. I think it is worth reiterating that a lot of people disagree with this definition. Scratch built and hand made are 2 different things. You are attempting to restrict the one to be the other.

 

No, I am merely suggesting that we use different terms to describe different processes. As to hand-made, surely building kits results in a hand-made model? If you really want to stretch it, CAD models are hand made because we have to use our hands to manipulate them, though we would not normally describe them in this way. Both are very different to my personal interpretation of scratch building.

 

But I am not sure what the utility is of limiting the term scratch-building to hand crafting...

 

What is the utility of limiting the scope of any term other than to enable more concise description? Maybe we should just forget it and only ever talk about "making stuff"?

 

Nick

[jjnewitt]

I'm not sure about the term "hand made". You could reasonably argue that the Heljan Class 14 that is currently in bits on my desk was "hand made" as a person in China put the various mouldings together by hand. There are lots of terms like this in the catering industry like "hand cooked" which really means nothing at all!

[AJ427]

Again, like some others on this thread you seem to be confusing a virtual model and a physical, hand-built, prototype. Whilst both methods require significant skills, the skills are very different. Which ones we choose to employ depend on many factors. In my case, despite significant experience of using CAD and 3D modelling software in my work, on the whole, I just prefer to develop and use my blacksmithing, engineering and craft skills in my hobby. Maybe when I retire, I'll get more into using the computer to aid my modelling.

 

No, but the design part of the process, whether it be CAD, drafted, hand sketched on the back of a fag packet or just in your head, is completely necessary. I would no more think of a CAD drawing as a finished prototype as you would a sheet of brass or plastic.

 

It seems to me that if the term scratch-building is to retain any utility we should limit it to the physical process of hand-crafting (with or without the aid of blacksmithing or machine tools) a single or small number of physical models from metal/plastic/card/etc stock, with perhaps some use of bought-in products such as wheels. If we choose to create a mold or master for casting purposes, I'd include that, too.

 

That's an arbitrary boundary. Where do you draw the line?

 

What is lacking here is a suitable term in common use in the modelling community for creating physical models directly from virtual models.

 

I would agree with this.

[buffalo]

No, but the design part of the process, whether it be CAD, drafted, hand sketched on the back of a fag packet or just in your head, is completely necessary. I would no more think of a CAD drawing as a finished prototype as you would a sheet of brass or plastic.

I think I would disagree with that. A CAD model (it is something very much more than a drawing) could well be considered as a virtual prototype.

 

That's an arbitrary boundary. Where do you draw the line?

Yes, it is somewhat arbitrary, and it might vary between different people. For example, some might be happy to produce anything that can be turned on a lathe whilst others lacking the necessary skill or the machine would prefer to buy-in. Personally, I wouldn't want to draw a firm line but to allow some flexibility ranging over normal practice. So, I would perhaps describe a model where all the sheet work had be cut and shaped by hand, but wheels, buffers, boiler fittings, etc. were bought in as 'mostly scratch-built'.

 

Nick

[Guest Natalie Graham]

It seems to me that the you are more keen to disassociate those with new techniques from the umbrella term of scratch-building, which just smacks of skill snobbery.

 

How is it snobbery as if you read what I have said I have repeatedly stated that I regard other means of building models on the same basis as scratch-building? All are perfectly valid, if different means of producing models.

Whether something can be reproduced or not is irrelevant to the argument. All manufacture of any kind ultimately involves the production of a scratch-built prototype. To me, the design and creation of that prototype (by whatever means) is the definition of something scratch-built.

 

Again please read what I wrote rather than picking out half a sentence to make it mean something I didn't say. I think it was pretty clear (I repeated it three times) that I was talking about automated mechanical processes which could repeat the process of making the component, i.e casting, auto-lathe turning, 3d printing or whatever it might be, not whether the componenet itself could be used as a master for producing further models using a different process.

 

The prototype may remain a one off but if that prototype is then used to create copies it doesn't suddenly cease to be scratch-built. Even your scratch-built models could (theoretically, depending on complexity) be mass copied by creating a mould.

 

Didn't I address that when I wrote:

 

I have made patterns for whitemetal kits from individual hand-cut pieces of metal soldered together, made the moulds in the vulcanising press and, on occasion, (I never liked this part) poured the metal into the casting machine. If I had then built one of those kits to completion would I have scratch-built it as I had done every single part of the process from raw material to finished model? I don't believe so. Had I soldered the patterns together as a finshed model then yes I would have called this a scratchbuilt model, but the introduction of a mechanical process to reproduce parts, in this case casting, in my view, stops the model from legitimately being called scratch-built.

 

 

This is a GOOD THINGâ„¢?

 

Isn't it exactly why there are so many 25 year old layouts that are still unfinished?

 

I have no opinion on whether it is a good thing or not. I made no value judgement on the matter. Maybe it is why some layouts remain unfinished. It might also be why some people prefer to use 3D printing, kits, etching, rtr or wahetever. Of course not everyone's aim in enjoying the hobby is to build a layout as quickly as possible. Someone who takes 25 years to part finish a layout by scratch-building every item might well have had 25 years of complete satisfaction and enjoyment from doing so.