Wright writes.....

[jwealleans]

Good picture, Porcy. I wonder if that non-standard placement of the numbers was Stratford being independent minded again? The LNER era markings on these were nothing like any other vehicle.

[Clive Mortimore]

 

Is this scratchbuilt or a kit? It started life as a MTK kit, the chassis was binned before work was commenced, replaced by a shortened Mainline Peak chassis. The body was built, it was an etched brass kit, many a burnt finger trying to solder the engine room roof hatches etc. Looked good. I ran it on my then diesel depot layout and it clouted the fuel point canopies. No other loco did. The reason was it was 5mm too high in the body. Where does one take out 5mm both sides from an "U" shaped lump of brass. Out with the 40 thou plastic card and a replacement body of the correct height was made. The buffer beams and two little casting that sit between the bogies are all that remain of the kit.

 

Of course it is not scratchbuilt as I did not make the power unit. :no: Neither are the Class 40 and the Baby Deltic, they too have Slaters' flatpack bodies on commercially available power units. The crane is scratch, except its wheels.  

 

As for an original piece of 3D printing where the designer has done the research, and the drawing, what do we call it. It is on a par with traditional scratchbuilding, possibly more involved as many scratchbuilders do not do their own drawings. Or is the 3D drawing the same as marking out on flat sheet? Original 3D printed models are as creative as scratchbuilding, isn't 3D printing also called rapid prototyping. How about calling it something on the lines as "prototype modelling."

 

 

[salmonpastures]

Is a model scratchbuilt if for instance contains very few hand-cut, hand shaped parts and relies on commercially produced items for most of its features? If it is, then is it very much different if almost the whole model is made by a computer-powered machine but using instructions that had to be built up from very basic beginnings by an amateur, intending to create and own the model? If of course the business of programming the machine to make the model becomes so user-friendly that it simply consists of selecting component shapes from an extensive library of "ready made" features, my view would be that it can no longer count as scratch building, or indeed physical or real "building" of any sort. If all of the parts have been designed, prepared or manufactured by somebody else then it's certainly not my idea of scratch building, although it might still be building of a higher form than kit-building if the parts required extensive fettling and fitting either because of limitations of manufacture or because they were never designed to go together in the first place.

 

How do we quantify the percentage of input to a model that has to be by hand, or (if using self-designed but machine made parts) requiring design work almost "from first principles" in order for it to count as scratchbuilt?

 

Do we need a new category for models built up either from wholly commercial parts (but ones that were not meant to go together or which came from several different sources) or produced largely from parts created by personal CAD-CAM, "cottage industry" CAD-CAM, or kitchen table resin casters? If we were talking about mixing kits it would be kit-bashing or cross-kitting, but in many cases these models are not from kits so what would be a good, short, new name for such a category?

Graeme,

My initial reaction to all this is "in the end does it really matter"??

For me "scratch building" is taking a drawing and a few bit of brass and having a go at recreating the original in a smaller scale.

And I thoroughly enjoy the process.

You achieve the same results but from a completely different starting point and perspective.

I have to assume if you did not enjoy the different process you would stop doing it.

The end results are the same,,, we produce something you cannot buy in a box, and to me that is very important.

The guys who are computer literate and can get a machine to do all the hard work in my eyes are without doubt much smarter than me,,, but they are also producing something you cannot buy in a box ,,, and good luck to them.  [i struggled with a polaroid camera!!!]

 

Your comment on, quote "the business of programming the machine to make the model becomes so user-friendly that it simply consists of selecting component shapes from an extensive library of "ready made" features"  to me proves the point that the first ever computer was obviously invented in Swindon!!!

 

SAD

Edited September 24, 2016 by salmonpastures

[gr.king]

I quite agree that none of it really matters.

 

Swindon designed CAD-CAM machines? I think I grasp your meaning. Would they produce twenty supposedly different models that all look the same?

[Focalplane]

As a geologist I am often reminded of fossils I have little interest in, namely the dinosaurs. My grandchildren know more about them than I do. I know of T. rex because of their music, not because they named the band after a nasty carnivore.

 

So, where is this going, you might ask? Anyone who says 3D design and printing is not for them is the 21st century equivalent of a dinosaur, in my most humble opinion. Having seen quite a few dinosaur footprints in my time I am sure you won't mind me treading on a few toes, as I only weigh 82 kilos.

 

But dinosaurs had their choices and so do we. Except our brains are larger and more advanced. To ignore progress is to defy who we are as a species.

 

Simply put, 3D printing can only get better.

[jjb1970]

Technology evolves and skills have to evolve with technology changes. I think most people who have spent a reasonable period of time working in any sort of manufacturing or engineering environment will have had to learn new skills and knowledge over the course of their career and will continue to do so. Some make the mistake of judging 3D printing by what can be achieved with existing printers yet the technology is advancing rapidly and some of the 3D printing technologies used in engineering are delivering excellent results. The ridge surface issue will be resolved for models and definition will continue to improve. I think the potential is immense and that it can transform the hobby, and I do not see it as diluting skills. One of the problems with how some perceive 3D printing is that there is still a commonly held misconception that 3D printing is like scanning a picture and a finished model appearing out of the ether. Designing a model takes a lot of knowledge and technical capability, and transforming the 3D components into a finished model still requires a lot of traditional modelling skills. For mass produced models I can't see 3D printing replacing injection moulding any time soon (although I don't write off the possibility like some do) but it opens up all sorts of opportunities for bespoke models.

[Tony Wright]

 Somewhere I have the original photographer recorded. I'll remove the phot should anyone object. Brixham Station, August 1950. The number appears to be 70086 with an E Prefix centrally placed above. The small lettering is unreadable.

 

1427_Brixham-Sta.7-8-1950_Dia67-8Sm.JPG

 

P

 

P.s. Has Vernon had his knee done yet?

Many thanks - just the job.

 

Re Vernon; last week, round at Roy's, I was told his op' had been postponed because of a mosquito bite (or something like). There was a risk of infection, apparently. 

[billbedford]

 Somewhere I have the original photographer recorded. I'll remove the phot should anyone object. Brixham Station, August 1950. The number appears to be 70086 with an E Prefix centrally placed above. The small lettering is unreadable.

 

 

 

That's the late LNER goods livery, with an 'E' prefix to the number. The number and data panel was put on the door because it would otherwise have been covered when the door was open.

 

This is not quite right. The top line would originally have been 'NE' and the 'N'  looks as if it has been painted out.

Edited September 24, 2016 by billbedford

[Tony Wright]

A most interesting discussion indeed on modern technologies and how we might fit them into the different categories. 

 

My experience of scratch-building (a loco) was to take a scale drawing of the prototype I wished to model; then identify which parts could be bought-in, either because I had no means of making them or if a commercial component were available it would save me time. Items in the former category included wheels, axles, motor, etc'. Items in the latter category included chimney, dome, whistle, safety valves, smokebox door, valve gear bits, cylinders, axleboxes, buffers and what have you. Essentially, I cut-out and formed the major parts from brass strip and/or nickel silver sheet, soldering the lot together. When I've been requested to act as a judge, any loco built in that way I'd qualify as being scratch-built. Anything built in plastic in the same way I'd class as the same.

 

All those years ago, scratch-building was out of necessity if one wanted, say, a Thompson Pacific. Mike Edge got me going by building two, 40 years ago, then I built the A1/1, carrying on with an O1, K1, K1/1, K4, plus (amazingly!) a GWR County, among many others. 

 

Now, either because of better (traditional) kits, new technologies or RTR/modifications, that need has disappeared in many cases. 

 

As for those new technologies, I'm definitely with SAD on this one. The cerebral skills required to write a programme to produce a 3D-printed model are way beyond my comprehension, and always will be. It's definitely 'scratch-building' but in a different way. Yes, the are still the manual artisan traditional skills necessary for finishing it off and probably always will be. If the end-product is as good as a loco built by 'traditional means', then good on those who can do it. At least they do it, and that's the crucial thing. They do not get others to do all their modelling for them and they are to be commended because of this. Whatever the media/methods used to make anything, to me, it's vital that folk make things for themselves. If the new technologies allow more to participate in a cerebral/practical way, then that's surely to the good. 

 

That 3D-printed N1 looks as good as many a metal equivalent I've seen. However, may I be constructively-critical, please? Why put such a fine body on such an 'awful' chassis, with its caricature wheels and huge flanges? Were it mine, I'd immediately build a Comet replacement. 

 

 

 

 

This is an old Airfix N2 which I fiddled with and put a Comet chassis underneath. The 3D-printed body is probably superior to this, and will fit with ease. 

 

As for me, as intimated, because of my signed-up Luddite status, I really have no wish to embrace the 'shock of the new'. Despite their becoming extinct (which is inevitable for every species) the dinosaurs roamed the earth for millions of years, and probably made less of a mess of it than humans have done in 'only' tens of thousands of years; so, I'm happy to be called a dinosaur-modeller, and rejoice in the epithet.

 

 

Having a small brain and nasty temperament have allowed me to get cracking on the building of a 16XX. This was one of the last Nu-Cast kits, now reintroduced by SE Finecast. Being a hypocrite, I'm happy to embrace its superlative etched nickel silver chassis. New masters have also been made for the moulds, and the castings are extremely good. I erected the frames a week or so ago and this is yesterday's progress. It'll be going in the RM.

 

 

 

The above said, I'm once more returning to my modelling roots and erecting a loco in a manner I thoroughly enjoy (even if I'm using a modern jig to get the frames straight and true). No prizes for guessing what it's going to be. 

 

When complete, I intend to put together another V2 using Graeme King's excellent cast resin body, fitting it on top of a Comet chassis. 

 

Long live personal modelling whatever form it takes. 

[jwealleans]

In that vein, back in June I was asking about the origins of an etched wagon kit which I obtained via Tony. The original post can be seen here.

 

I've now painted and lettered it and it will be running on Grantham at Warley.

 

Edited October 15, 2018 by jwealleans

[t-b-g]

As a geologist I am often reminded of fossils I have little interest in, namely the dinosaurs. My grandchildren know more about them than I do. I know of T. rex because of their music, not because they named the band after a nasty carnivore.

 

So, where is this going, you might ask? Anyone who says 3D design and printing is not for them is the 21st century equivalent of a dinosaur, in my most humble opinion. Having seen quite a few dinosaur footprints in my time I am sure you won't mind me treading on a few toes, as I only weigh 82 kilos.

 

But dinosaurs had their choices and so do we. Except our brains are larger and more advanced. To ignore progress is to defy who we are as a species.

 

Simply put, 3D printing can only get better.

 

 

3D printing and CAD drawing is just another (quite different) set of skills that can be used to produce something in model form.

 

Unlike dinosaurs, those who prefer more traditional methods can exist side by side with those who prefer modern methods, quite happily and with no need for name calling!

 

It is just the difference between people adopting modern manufacturing techniques to get the model they want or people using traditional craftsmanship methods.

 

To me, the process of making a model is just as important as having the finished item. Choosing what to build, obtaining either a kit of parts (not a one part lump of resin/plastic) or a drawing and some sheets of metal and getting to work. It is the filing, cleaning up, cutting and soldering that I enjoy most of all.

 

So please don't try to tell me that I should give up what I enjoy and spend my time drawing things in CAD instead. I find that totally uninteresting and dull and would rather take up another hobby altogether.

[Focalplane]

So please don't try to tell me that I should give up what I enjoy and spend my time drawing things in CAD instead. I find that totally uninteresting and dull and would rather take up another hobby altogether.

I don't try to tell anyone what to do, that's your interpretation. I like traditional methods as much you you do but I am not shy of embracing new ideas and encouraging younger entrepreneurs to advance the pastime with new techniques. That is hopefully what we can all learn from this discussion.

 

Species become extinct because they stop evolving in order to match changes in their environment.

[trw1089]

That 3D-printed N1 looks as good as many a metal equivalent I've seen. However, may I be constructively-critical, please? Why put such a fine body on such an 'awful' chassis, with its caricature wheels and huge flanges? Were it mine, I'd immediately build a Comet replacement.

 

...

 

Long live personal modelling whatever form it takes.

 

Thanks Tony.

 

My approach to the N1 was to see what could be done with 3D printing and as I had an N2 from an Olympic Trainpack, waste not, want not. Besides, if I wanted to build a chassis I would've bought the whole LRM N1 kit and saved the trouble of the 3D print. The Hornby N2 chassis ran very sweetly, and taking a leaf out of your book, running well is one of my key requirements. As for the look of the wheels, when it is running it is hard to notice the flanges etc, perhaps only in pics but that is when you see the stepping of the 3D print as well. But then if I were building a replacement chassis, I'd fill in the Romford axle nuts. Nothing gives the game away more for me.

 

In the end, your last statement is the one we should most remember I believe.

 

Cheers

Tony

Edited September 24, 2016 by trw1089

[jrg1]

Developing 3D programme requires intellectual skills; scratchbuilding requires manual skills.  I call 3D de-skilling as producing the model is done by the machine, not the modeller.  Doesn't really matter to me-I am sure the quality of 3D printing will improve dramatically, and the price will plummet, giving the hobby another convenient avenue to explore, just as etched technology did previously.  I look forward to a marriage of Sketchup and 3D to directly print buildings-just think of the time saving there.

[DougN]

All this talk of skill lose in modelling building is all rather strange... I look at what my day job in building is doing. We have so many new tools and machines in use now the skill level and type for the tradesman has changed. Ok I can drive a nail but the speed at which I can do it with a nail gun is a lot higher! The number of cabinet makers using cnc driven table saws has now increased so much that the time to cut complex and simple shapes is now practically the same though the skill to put it all together remains the same with the battery drills! 3D printing is offering another way to produce a model with the same number of options to etched brass, white metal and hand cut tin plate! So it is no less valid way of modelling. Personally I don't have time to learn to drive a 3D program or Cad though years ago I did learn to drive CAD at uni!

 

I will stick to etched brass to achieve my desired out come.

 

The idea of a 3D print on RTR chassis should be encouraged as this is practically what the RTR manufacturers are doing. The modern plastic moulds of aluminium with short run options is only changing the 3D cnc from the mould to that of the actual body! The N1 above is a great example of a efficient way to achieve larger variety of loco's rather than the traditional kit building BUT is there any difference to that to the old white metal body line kits of yester year? The skill is still in building painting and detailing of the starting point.

[Clive Mortimore]

Developing 3D programme requires intellectual skills; scratchbuilding requires manual skills.  I call 3D de-skilling as producing the model is done by the machine, not the modeller.  Doesn't really matter to me-I am sure the quality of 3D printing will improve dramatically, and the price will plummet, giving the hobby another convenient avenue to explore, just as etched technology did previously.  I look forward to a marriage of Sketchup and 3D to directly print buildings-just think of the time saving there.

Scratchbuilding requires quite a lot of intellectual skills.

 

 

It didn't come with a set of instructions.

[t-b-g]

I don't try to tell anyone what to do, that's your interpretation. I like traditional methods as much you you do but I am not shy of embracing new ideas and encouraging younger entrepreneurs to advance the pastime with new techniques. That is hopefully what we can all learn from this discussion.

 

Species become extinct because they stop evolving in order to match changes in their environment.

 

I am not against new technology myself, having been one of the first people scanned and printed by Alan Buttler as a test, before he became Modelu. I have 3D printed figures of me dotted around various layouts now. I just don't like the idea that I have to adopt new technology or become extinct!

 

My modelling environment consists mostly of a shed with a layout in it that has parts dating back 70 years. I have learned more about building model railways from that than I have done from computers. My skills are constantly developing and changing but just not in the same direction as those who sit at keyboards to do their model making.

 

As time goes by and my skills and ideas develop, I actually enjoy making more from scratch, using traditional techniques. I have never found any part of the hobby more rewarding than creating what I know is a one off, totally unique model, using the skills I have developed over the years. Even if I make two, the second one will be slightly different as I can't work as accurately as a laser cutter, etcher or 3D printer.

 

So to take the evolution theme, perhaps we are developing into different species. Aren't the birds we see today directly descended from dinosaurs? Hardly extinct. People still argue about what killed off the big dinosaurs but if it was an asteroid/meteor strike that wiped out their food supply by changing the climate, it was hardly their fault for not adapting. Humans are getting fat and lazy. So much new technology is designed to save us work and make things easier for us that we now spend a huge amount of time each day sitting at desks, looking at screens and tapping keys. I used to spend all day every day at work sitting at a computer screen. I really wouldn't have wanted to come home and do the same for a hobby.

 

But I would never try to suggest to anybody else that they shouldn't do so and enjoy it if that is what they want to do. I prefer to keep the old skills going, as I enjoy it and also because, to me at least, I feel that I am following in the footsteps of some of the pioneers of the hobby. The people whose work I have always admired. There are no "heroes" like Frank Dyer and Peter Denny in the world of 3D printing for me to aspire to.

[gr.king]

As a geologist I am often reminded of fossils I have little interest in, namely the dinosaurs. My grandchildren know more about them than I do. I know of T. rex because of their music, not because they named the band after a nasty carnivore.

 

So, where is this going, you might ask? Anyone who says 3D design and printing is not for them is the 21st century equivalent of a dinosaur, in my most humble opinion. Having seen quite a few dinosaur footprints in my time I am sure you won't mind me treading on a few toes, as I only weigh 82 kilos.

 

But dinosaurs had their choices and so do we. Except our brains are larger and more advanced. To ignore progress is to defy who we are as a species.

 

Simply put, 3D printing can only get better.

Far from stating that 3D printing is not for them, I think what many are saying with very good justification at this stage is that it is simply not yet sufficiently developed to produce loco and rolling stock models above the smallest scales with a satisfactory surface finish at an affordable price.

 

I take the view that at the opposite end of the spectrum to the "technophobes / dinosaurs" lie the "techno-addicts" who believe that everything that can be done by a computer or digital method must per se be best if done that way. It is not the case. They have lost sight of the fact that if a job can be done quickly and without fuss by means of say a pencil and piece of paper, there is no need to use a computer instead.

[gr.king]

 There are no "heroes" like Frank Dyer and Peter Denny in the world of 3D printing for me to aspire to.

 

I have a mild reservation on that point. Bearing in mind that it is still relatively early days for 3D printing, Atso is making a fair job of coping with the uncertainties at the cutting edge....

[Headstock]

In that vein, back in June I was asking about the origins of an etched wagon kit which I obtained via Tony. The original post can be seen here.

 

I've now painted and lettered it and it will be running on Grantham at Warley.

 

 

It looks cool, has it got a motor?

[Headstock]

I've done a bit of modeling, a bit of soldering, gluing etc. My Jurassic brain was somewhat befuddled by some of the instructions, but minds immeasurably superior to my own lent assistance.

[Tony Wright]

Developing 3D programme requires intellectual skills; scratchbuilding requires manual skills.  I call 3D de-skilling as producing the model is done by the machine, not the modeller.  Doesn't really matter to me-I am sure the quality of 3D printing will improve dramatically, and the price will plummet, giving the hobby another convenient avenue to explore, just as etched technology did previously.  I look forward to a marriage of Sketchup and 3D to directly print buildings-just think of the time saving there.

I think there's a 'danger' (if I may be so bold) in your first statement in that two could be interpreted as being exclusive.

 

I have to say that some of the most 'intellectual' folk I've known down the years have been totally useless at manual skills. As cerebral individuals, they've left me miles behind (as have many other individuals, to be fair). I suppose, also to be fair, if those intellectual skills allow those with fewer manual skills to become makers of models for themselves by designing models on a computer, then that must surely be a good thing; or at least I think so. I've said, to the point of the record having stuck, that the making of things personally is the most important thing in railway modelling, whether that be scratch-building, kit-building, modifying RTR or what have you, as long as modellers do things for themselves then it should be applauded, however the end result is achieved. If that end result is 'scratch-building', say, a loco by designing it via a programme and then using a printer to produce it, then a load of intellectual skills will be required. As for the opposite, where (by implication?) those with numerous manual skills need to be less-intellectual, then who knows? The clever guy who's designed the thing on a computer will still need to finish the whole thing off. And, the ability to read a traditional drawing and then interpret it in metal still needs a certain amount of ability to think. 

[Headstock]

I was also lamenting the destruction of the London extension as mentioned further  up the thread. Mostly gone but not forgotten.

 

all photographs courtesy of Derek Shore and Chris Nevard.

[Tony Wright]

Thanks Tony.

 

My approach to the N1 was to see what could be done with 3D printing and as I had an N2 from an Olympic Trainpack, waste not, want not. Besides, if I wanted to build a chassis I would've bought the whole LRM N1 kit and saved the trouble of the 3D print. The Hornby N2 chassis ran very sweetly, and taking a leaf out of your book, running well is one of my key requirements. As for the look of the wheels, when it is running it is hard to notice the flanges etc, perhaps only in pics but that is when you see the stepping of the 3D print as well. But then if I were building a replacement chassis, I'd fill in the Romford axle nuts. Nothing gives the game away more for me.

 

In the end, your last statement is the one we should most remember I believe.

 

Cheers

Tony

Mutual thanks, Tony. 

 

Good running is essential and, if the chassis you used runs sweetly, then you're quite right to exploit it. The chassis I built was as a replacement for an old Airfix thing. It ran like a lame dog and deafened all but those with hearing difficulties. The new Hornby chassis is obviously much better. You're also quite right about my need to fill the slots in the wheel centres; a dead-easy job with Plasticene, and it's indolence on my part that it hasn't been done. 

 

From what I've been told, not much of Hornby's Olympic link-up stuff sold all that well; yet it must have cost a bomb to obtain the franchise. As an aside to the last point, I read many years ago that when BR were approached by the likes of Tri-ang, Trix, Hornby-Dublo or Graham Farish (or kit makers) as to the latest liveries, there were folk in the organisation who'd help out in every way they could - providing colour swatches, lining diagrams and copies of coats of arms, etc. All free of charge, or at least no huge franchising-payment. How times have changed.

 

I noted your use of 'having saved the trouble of the 3d print'. From what you've achieved (which is excellent), may I suggest the 'trouble' was well worth it?

 

Kind regards,

 

Tony.  

Edited September 25, 2016 by Tony Wright

[Headstock]

Developing 3D programme requires intellectual skills; scratchbuilding requires manual skills.  I call 3D de-skilling as producing the model is done by the machine, not the modeller.  Doesn't really matter to me-I am sure the quality of 3D printing will improve dramatically, and the price will plummet, giving the hobby another convenient avenue to explore, just as etched technology did previously.  I look forward to a marriage of Sketchup and 3D to directly print buildings-just think of the time saving there.

 

You've got to think of the 3d modeller as the pattern maker, no one would begrudge the pattern maker for not producing the finished casting.