What are the things that make you reluctant to move into more finescale modelling

[Paul Cram]

I wonder if any have been flogged on eBay so far...?

I haven't seen any and I have one sitting on my shelf as well which will not be going on ebay,

[Paul Cram]

I don't see how politely saying I differ philosophically can be considered disparaging at all. I certainly didn't expect such an aggressive response.

 

"We" all clearly admire and support  the same "Proto"  "track and wheels standards" goal that is the fundamental difference between a "Proto" modelling society/group and one that uses a compromise in those areas because of it's easier availability. I just attempt to support that goal in practice, fundamentally differently.

 

I'm not in the UK, nor a S4 Soc. member, so am not party to what sometimes happens in your P4 community.  But I don't see the validity of a comparison between offering an apparently too limited supply of completed, RTR vehicle conversions, twice in two years 

 

. . . . .. vs.  . . . . 

 

Offering simplified, inexpensive, instant, ASSEMBLY ONLY,  conversion parts for HO Scale RTR trackwork, and just about all HO RTR diesel locomotives and all HO RTR rolling stock, continuously 24/7/365 for the past decade at least. Many parts of which, incidentally, could also serve P4 modellers.

 

The Scalefour Society has effectively existed for almost 50 years, and has the benefit of receiving a considerable income from dues over than time to boot. So I don't see how their performance in that manner, can be either reasonably supposedly compared, or its choices considered accidental or unintentional. But presumably it reflects the wishes of the majority of its membership.

 

Andy

I am not sure what you are getting at here but I agree with Jol and read your original post as having a pop at the S4 society. I used to be a member but it lapsed a while ago. During the 80s we produced etched components for converting ready to run vehicles and other manufacturers followed suit. There is plenty of support for P4 modelling without being a member of a society and the fact that they are pro actively producing ready to run locos to help entry is a good thing in my opinion.

 

With the diversity of interests it would be difficult for a  society of around 1800 members to produce ready to run locos for all interests.

[Ravenser]

The major obstacles to me doing finescale are time and lack of craft skills, with lack of space , the severe restrictions that the whole thing imposes and the uncongenial company and atmosphere

 

Basically the whole point of finescale is a decision to reject any compromise from scale or prototype. These things mean that work becomes extremely laborious and therefore progress very slow.  I'm time-poor and I don't have a craft background - I could never cut it as a skilled watchmaker , no matter how long and hard I tried, and since a fully compensated steam chassis is in many ways comparable to watchmaking in craft terms, for the same reasons anything that depends on building sophisticated compensated chassis and pointwork that works with 100% reliability as a sine qua non is not a practical option for me . Any thought of building my own pointwork for Blacklade was immediately dropped when I remembered a single slip was required. I could not , as a novice , have built one that would have worked reliably - so I bought Marcway

 

Then there's the attitude that it's better to make nothing than to make a mistake or a compromise . It does seem that in finescale compromise is seen in terms of sin , for which atonement is due. My circumstances mean that compromise in some respect is necessary to achieve anything, so finescale is out of the question (As an example Blacklade has a minimum radius of 2'6, and  as a reverse curve min 3' which is pretty generous by most standards , it would need to be at least 4' to be workable in finescale)  . A finescale boxfile is a total contradiction in terms.

 

And although P4 has largely managed to put the rather Stalinist culture of its early days in the 70s behind it, there are still dinosaurs in the swamps.  I remember not so long ago, helping on a society stand at a show . The box file was decorating the stand . Late in the day a well-known finescale modeller drifted into view . He contemplated the stand coolly for a few moments then told us that  as far as he was concerned OO was an abomination. "But that's just me". No doubt the sight of the boxfile polluting the hallowed halls was particularly hard for him to take

 

Or the occasion when in a club context I felt it necessary to point out that I can't, and am never likely to be able to, produce structure work to the standard of Dewsbury Midland or East Lynn  and was promptly accused of "trying to make people do bad modelling" . If you work in finescale and can't achieve those sort of standards with a building - you don't make buildings

 

I do understand the point about some finescale work being clinical and sterile. The problem I think arises when the layout has not been modelled - it has been precision engineered , and that is a mentality that finescale can cause some people to slip into

 

To be honest I would never ever work in P4, simply on principle

[Paul Cram]

Hi Ravenser

 

I won't quote your entry but do not recognise the finescale world you portray.I wouldn't class my self as a watch maker and managed to build my first P4 chassis without too much problem . It was a J72 perseverance chassis with a mainline body. I replaced the buffers and it still runs happily today. My coaches are Ian Kirk kits with replacement underframes and D&S kits as per instructions. In all of these there are compromises but they look right. I have no problem with people modelling in OO but for me it doesn't look right. The wheels and flanges are too big and the chassis to narrow. Gilbert's Peterborough North and Tony Wright's Little Bytham are great because the track looks realistic and from some angles the narrowness of the chassis is not apparent but the over wide wheels are and for me that detracts.

 

I have demonstrated at several exhibitions trying to show how easy it is and largely successfully so. There has to be compromise in all modelling but in my experience P4 is trying to minimise it where possible.

[grahame]

 

 

[Jol Wilkinson]

I don't see how politely saying I differ philosophically can be considered disparaging at all. I certainly didn't expect such an aggressive response.

 

"We" all clearly admire and support  the same "Proto"  "track and wheels standards" goal that is the fundamental difference between a "Proto" modelling society/group and one that uses a compromise in those areas because of it's easier availability. I just attempt to support that goal in practice, fundamentally differently.

 

I'm not in the UK, nor a S4 Soc. member, so am not party to what sometimes happens in your P4 community.  But I don't see the validity of a comparison between offering an apparently too limited supply of completed, RTR vehicle conversions, twice in two years 

 

. . . . .. vs.  . . . . 

 

Offering simplified, inexpensive, instant, ASSEMBLY ONLY,  conversion parts for HO Scale RTR trackwork, and just about all HO RTR diesel locomotives and all HO RTR rolling stock, continuously 24/7/365 for the past decade at least. Many parts of which, incidentally, could also serve P4 modellers.

 

The Scalefour Society has effectively existed for almost 50 years, and has the benefit of receiving a considerable income from dues over than time to boot. So I don't see how their performance in that manner, can be either reasonably supposedly compared, or its choices considered accidental or unintentional. But presumably it reflects the wishes of the majority of its membership.

 

Andy

Andy,

 

the S4 Society doesn't exist to manufacture items for it's members, whereas you have set out on a different road;

 

"Designers and Manufacturers of Truly Realistic and Prototypically Accurate Model Track, Precision Electro-Mechanical Mechanisms and Prototypically Working Miniature Engineering Items for Small Scale Model Railroads"

 

I used the example of the RTR locos converted to P4 by the S4Society as a response to the third paragraph oh your post #39. Like Paul Cram, I considered your comment was an implied criticism of the S4 Society. As you said, "I'm not in the UK, nor a S4 Soc. member, so am not party to what sometimes happens in your P4 community", which rather sums it up.

 

Jol

 

The major obstacles to me doing finescale are time and lack of craft skills, with lack of space , the severe restrictions that the whole thing imposes and the uncongenial company and atmosphere

 

Basically the whole point of finescale is a decision to reject any compromise from scale or prototype. These things mean that work becomes extremely laborious and therefore progress very slow.  I'm time-poor and I don't have a craft background - I could never cut it as a skilled watchmaker , no matter how long and hard I tried, and since a fully compensated steam chassis is in many ways comparable to watchmaking in craft terms, for the same reasons anything that depends on building sophisticated compensated chassis and pointwork that works with 100% reliability as a sine qua non is not a practical option for me . Any thought of building my own pointwork for Blacklade was immediately dropped when I remembered a single slip was required. I could not , as a novice , have built one that would have worked reliably - so I bought Marcway

 

Then there's the attitude that it's better to make nothing than to make a mistake or a compromise . It does seem that in finescale compromise is seen in terms of sin , for which atonement is due. My circumstances mean that compromise in some respect is necessary to achieve anything, so finescale is out of the question (As an example Blacklade has a minimum radius of 2'6, and  as a reverse curve min 3' which is pretty generous by most standards , it would need to be at least 4' to be workable in finescale)  . A finescale boxfile is a total contradiction in terms.

 

And although P4 has largely managed to put the rather Stalinist culture of its early days in the 70s behind it, there are still dinosaurs in the swamps.  I remember not so long ago, helping on a society stand at a show . The box file was decorating the stand . Late in the day a well-known finescale modeller drifted into view . He contemplated the stand coolly for a few moments then told us that  as far as he was concerned OO was an abomination. "But that's just me". No doubt the sight of the boxfile polluting the hallowed halls was particularly hard for him to take

 

Or the occasion when in a club context I felt it necessary to point out that I can't, and am never likely to be able to, produce structure work to the standard of Dewsbury Midland or East Lynn  and was promptly accused of "trying to make people do bad modelling" . If you work in finescale and can't achieve those sort of standards with a building - you don't make buildings

 

I do understand the point about some finescale work being clinical and sterile. The problem I think arises when the layout has not been modelled - it has been precision engineered , and that is a mentality that finescale can cause some people to slip into

 

To be honest I would never ever work in P4, simply on principle

Ravenser,

 

In OO, the majority modelling gauge/scale in the UK, there are no standards for anything as far as I can see, other than scale (4mm:1ft), ratio (1/76.2) or gauge 16.5mm. And that's why finescale (especially OO finescale) is a myth, a misnomer, a shibboleth, as you can't have a finer version of something for which there is no definition. What is the standard for modelling a loco, painting a building, laying some scenic feature? There isn't nor can there be a standard for any of that, other than it satisfies the builder or viewer. Some may say the standard is when a model creates an atmosphere, rather than being a collection of well made items, but how do you define that?

 

I build locos and rolling stock to 4mm scale using 18.83 gauge and track standards. Those are the only standards set by the  S4 Society (or the EMGS ). All other standards are defined by modelling the prototype (loading gauge, platform height, etc.) or by setting them yourself. I build to a "standard" I have developed for myself, which fits my abilities, objectives and aspirations. That standard isn't fixed, but changes with advancing years, changing capabilities, new products and techniques, etc. And that approach would be the same irrespective of the scale I were modelling. I can't build locos as well as Tom Mallard or John Hayes, paint models as well as Ian Rathbone or Chris Wesson, make buildings as good as Geoff Kent or layouts as exquisite as Gordon and Maggie Gravett, but I do endeavour to do the best I can and hopefully achieve a balance within my model making.

 

Does your comment about one P4 modeller mean that you tar all those that have adopted those track standards with the same brush, me included? If you want to take a different approach, then fine, that's your choice. And are there not also dinosaurs in the other (bigger) bits of the 4mm swamp? 

 

As for reference to political regimes, isn't OO a sort of dictatorship for many modellers, where someone else decides what you will model.

 

Jol

[Horsetan]

 

 

Now there's someone rendered speechless!

[Pugsley]

lack of craft skills

I've never let that bother me

 

The skills can be acquired with a bit of practice - I've done stuff within the hobby that I never imagined a few years ago.

 

Also space needn't be a constraint - EM stock will happily go round 3' curves, even long air braked vans such as the Bachmann VGA.

['CHARD]

In OO, the majority modelling gauge/scale in the UK, there are no standards for anything as far as I can see, other than scale (4mm:1ft), ratio (1/76.2) or gauge 16.5mm. And that's why finescale (especially OO finescale) is a myth, a misnomer, a shibboleth, as you can't have a finer version of something for which there is no definition. What is the standard for modelling a loco, painting a building, laying some scenic feature? There isn't nor can there be a standard for any of that, other than it satisfies the builder or viewer. Some may say the standard is when a model creates an atmosphere, rather than being a collection of well made items, but how do you define that?

  

As for reference to political regimes, isn't OO a sort of dictatorship for many modellers, where someone else decides what you will model.

 

Jol

 

That frankly combative and derisive post exemplifies what stops me thinking along finescale lines.

[MartinWales]

Rather than a little mud slinging would it be possible to focus on the essential point here, that is the reasons why people aren't able to make that first big step into finescale modelling

 

• And try and overcome their concerns to let them enjoy a Finescale future!  

Having been there myself some 20 years ago, I think the best way is to explain the processes, overcome the difficulties, giving those concerned a little confidence.

[drduncan]

First, its sad that people are giving/taking offence, whether intentionally or not, in this strand; I think we should draw a line under such things and move on.  It is also worth remembering we are a broad church, encompassing every variation possible from pure collectors to pure engineers and all points in between.  If you are enjoying yourself you are doing something right, if you are unsatisfied with your modelling - in what ever form it takes - try doing something different!

 

I feel that the question first posed in this thread is a vital one for the future of the hobby - essentially why we enjoy doing what we do, and what one section may or may not be getting right to attract new adherents. 

 

I model in EM gauge, I'm not an engineer (actually I'm a historian) and I find some aspects of working to a finescale standard more challenging than others, which I am sure must be true of every member of the hobby whether they work in finescale or not.  However, I feel that many of the ideas about how good a modeller you have to be in order to work in a finescale are perhaps over-emphasised - in fact what I think is the most important thing is being open minded and willing to learn as the one thing that I am certain of, with regard to finescale modelling, is that there are almost endless methods to achive the same or similar ends and what works for one person may not work for others.

 

Why did I go into EM gauge?  Partly because the club I attended at the time had a moribound OO layout, but and active EM one.  Partly because I usually enjoy making things - I started with airfix kits as a boy.  Partly because as I leant more about the prototype I wanted to reflect this in my modelling.  Partly because I have had the good fortune to meet some very kind people in the hobby who have encouraged me to try my hand at different things. 

 

Now I have also had the pleasure of forming an EM section at a club, I have to say most of the modellers who joined the EMpire project weren't existing EM modellers, but wanted to try something different in what I hop is a friendly and supportaive atmosphere.  Also, experimenting with finescale in a club means you can dabble in it rather than have to jump in at the deep end, but this deosn't mean you have to join a club to be a finescale modeller in the slightest - it just worked for me, and seems to work for some others.

 

In short enjoy your hobby - however you do it, but do not be put off from trying your hand at finescale modelling - if you want to give it a go.  If you want a few books about some of the things that might be putting people off - track, whitemetal kit and chassis construction, try Iain Rices' books - they only represent one approach of course, which may or may not work for you, but they certainly helped me.

 

drduncan

[Andy Reichert]

As a recent magazine edition and subsequent debate showed, there is the perception that a lot of readers don't even know what "Finescale" is, let alone exactly where the crossover is....

 

I model in HO, so I'm already blessed with being able to use the correct track gauge, and not using P87 allows comparability with other modellers' layouts. If everyone I knew modelled in P87, I probably would too.

 

I hope this isn't going to mistaken as some sort of attack as well. 

 

But some time back I looked it up and there is no such word as finescale in all the dictionaries I've checked, nor any reference to the two words separately.  So it's quite meaningless and not a definition of anything. Using it to describe the difference between two models is pretty much creating a follow on unsettleable argument.

 

Andy

[Ravenser]

 

 

Ravenser,

 

In OO, the majority modelling gauge/scale in the UK, there are no standards for anything as far as I can see, other than scale (4mm:1ft), ratio (1/76.2) or gauge 16.5mm. And that's why finescale (especially OO finescale) is a myth, a misnomer, a shibboleth, as you can't have a finer version of something for which there is no definition. What is the standard for modelling a loco, painting a building, laying some scenic feature? There isn't nor can there be a standard for any of that, other than it satisfies the builder or viewer. Some may say the standard is when a model creates an atmosphere, rather than being a collection of well made items, but how do you define that?

 

 

 

There are in fact some technical standards for OO here: http://www.doubleogauge.com/standards/index.htm

 

But you have in fact made my argument for me - effectively you've said that because I model in OO , nothing I do can ever be finescale , and I can never work to a higher standard than unmodified RTR . Which is  in broad terms an attitude I've encountered before, and as for practical reasons I work in OO it means that in the eyes of some modellers seeing themselves as finescale I'm perminantly "below the salt" in modelling terms , and anything I do would not be acknowledged. At which point I get very disinclined  to chase after "finescale" as these gentlemen would consider it.  

 

The confusion of "a high standard of modelling" with a datasheet laying down near scale flangeways and tolerances is exactly the state of mind that leasds to the rather clinical "precision engineered not modelled" layout. I'm not for a moment suggesting this is typical of finescale layouts - I am suggesting that this is an error into which finescale modelling can slip 

 

 

 

 

Does your comment about one P4 modeller mean that you tar all those that have adopted those track standards with the same brush, me included? If you want to take a different approach, then fine, that's your choice. And are there not also dinosaurs in the other (bigger) bits of the 4mm swamp?

 

As for reference to political regimes, isn't OO a sort of dictatorship for many modellers, where someone else decides what you will model.

 

Jol

 

 

 

 

I thought I'd made it clear that I wasn't tarring all P4 modellers with that brush - and in fact noting that the culture of P4 was vastly more friendly than 30 years ago. However there are still enough folk in high end finescale with such attitudes to put me off . Or , more accurately, I've had quite enough of such folk already in a slightly different context , want to avoid them, and don't really want to go into something where I'd see even more of them...

 

I didn't actually say the person in question was a P4 modeller and I'm not sure if he'd be happy to hear himself called such

 

Nobody dictates what you will model in OO - except for the folk I once had on my back trying to tell me exactly what I would model , how I would do it, when ,and to what standard they expected it to be done. Very few of them modelled in OO, and quite a few didn't seem to have built a lot themselves . I remember a beautiful phrase from John Sutton of the 3mm society about "the sort of person who's built 3 wagons and a tree"  and is highly critical of the inadequecy of others work. I seemed to be exposed to a lot of them at one time. I wouldn't - for example - refuse to buy a brake van because 4 bolts were missing from the end platform and some of the rivets were displaced from position by the scale equivalent of 1"  . Especially not if was made clear that the only available kit was equally intolerable , the only other available RTR brake for the same region was barely better and the remainder of the kits - oh my dear! . Where does that attitude  get you if you want to model the railway/region in question????

 

It would be unfair to suggest that  P4 modellers are often armchair modellers , but it certainly is the case that armchair modellers are generally committed to finescale. The reason's obvious - in theory everyone's in favour of perfection : the difficulties are merely practical. If you never make anything, there's no pressing reason to depart from perfection, and finescale offers you all sorts of reasons and justification for taking forever to build not very much .  . So if you don't actually intend to make much but criticism of other peole's efforts, then ahigh end finescale gauge - of which P4 is the most prominent - is avery attractive choice of gauge in which to make not very much....

 

That's not acriticism of active modellers in P4 like you or Paul - it's an explanation of why inactive modellers are drawn to the most dead scale gauges

 

As far as my comments about watchmaking - I think we geniunely underestimate and undervalue the amount of skill and craftsmanship displayed in building something like an etched brass kit with outside valve gear and compensated chassis . Betting the whole project on your ability to make it work relaiably from a standing start acrossa whole set of models is a bit daunting 

 

I've already had a project (Tramlink) stall and founder because it depended on me building afleet of rolling stock on some "stick your neck out" texvhniques and I got into trouble making things work reliabilty. Pose those sorts of challenges on several fronts and the learning curve needed to deliver the project successfully starts to look like the White Cliffs of Dover, as seen from the beach 

[Horsetan]

....I didn't actually say the person in question was a P4 modeller and I'm not sure if he'd be happy to hear himself called such....

Ah, an EM modeller.......

[Andy Reichert]

I'll pick up on one point mentioned which I think historically has lead to a lot of confusion across the whole hobby. And I'm not trying to take sides, as I don't think this aspect has any.

 

e.g.  In reference to a clinical "precision engineered not modelled" layout. ............................

 

One of the very special and interesting differences between railway modelling and other "model building" hobbies is that we are modelling a real-life precision engineered system of almost 100% reliability,  track guided vehicles . That's the only reason the real thing works! There is a required very rigid specification of the track dimensions and the wheels, or else nothing full size (and very heavy) could move safely, or even at all. And for comparison, note the typically around 1/4", tolerance on track and wheel dimensions of the real railways translates to a tiny 1/10 of a mm in 4mm scale. 

 

And in order to re-create such a system in miniature, the track and wheels part of the model railway DOES have to follow some similar precision engineering rules, even though the way the miniature version operates can be (and in non-proto-scale cases has been) partly altered to make it simpler and less costly) to construct.

 

Proto-scale modeling emulates the way the shallow wheel flanges (1") are kept on the track by the narrow flange ways and built-in springing and equalization - hence the need for scaled down similar dimensional tolerances to the real thing.

 

Non Proto-scale modelling uses a just as valid engineering alternative method of having much deeper wheel flanges, so that models can use simpler and cheaper mass produced rigid bogies and chassis, less precise, moulded body supports, and less flat trackwork. Mass manufactured, deeper wheels flanges are typically fatter, which leads to needing wider flange ways, and even wider flange way clearances to allow for train set sharp radius curves, All these larger dimensions include larger tolerances, which, in the case of home made, hand crafted,  track and vehicles, need less precise making skills to construct. The dimensional aspects may be cruder that proto-scale, but they are still subject to being controlled by a set of "track and wheel standards", or else the running reliability and interchangeability will quickly disappear.

 

The conclusion after my long-winded argument, is that a model railway must always be fundamentally part "precision engineered", even if for non-proto scale, the "precision" is far less.  There is no way a model railway can ever be "all just art".  Not if you want it to work as well as just look good.  But therein lies the misunderstanding.

 

Andy

 

[As an aside note that today's modern manufacturing machines and systems, can almost certainly manufacture much tighter tolerance proto-scale parts (in high volume) almost as easily and cheaply as non-proto scale. But they are not being asked to, as the train set and RTR market are almost completely happy with what they currently have. - So the "chicken and egg" situation for enjoying the same volume cost savings for proto-scale parts is not there.]

[Adam]

Looking at this the other way about - i.e., why do I spend my time making models to a track/wheel standard that can't be bought out of a box? Ok, so 'finescale' should mean more than that but mostly it's because, very simply, I like making things and doing it as well as I can. I don't think of this in terms of being 'finescale' because modelling, for me, is a form of escapism and debating terminology and minor detail is what I do in the day job. In other words, it's fun and I derive my enjoyment from working in EM for no better reason that because it's the standard dad works in.

 

But some time back I looked it up and there is no such word as finescale in all the dictionaries I've checked, nor any reference to the two words separately. So it's quite meaningless and not a definition of anything. Using it to describe the difference between two models is pretty much creating a follow on unsettleable argument.

 

Andy

Possibly, Andy, that's because dictionaries are records of usage rather than deliberate attempts to define it. Obviously, dictionaries are read as setting out how language should be used but that isn't what the compilers had in mind. The non-appearance of 'Finescale' is because it's a very specific piece of hobby nomenclature so unless there are modellers on the staff of the OED or Websters it's unlikely that they'd have picked it up; very few people actually use the word taken as a proportion of the population as a whole. That doesn't make the word meaningless, it's just not commonly understood and that's probably why people argue about it.

 

Now, where did I put that soldering iron...

 

Adam

[MartinWales]

Wise words there Adam, which encapsulates much of my philosophy towards the hobby and I, like yourself model in EM gauge, as coming back into the hobby some 20 years ago I found myself totally disatissfied with the then current RTR baseline. I think Duncan has also raised a valid point-I too approach the hobby from an historical point of view and have had to learn techniques which would have been required for any Finescale modelling (I chose EM as a happy medium).

 

I do believe however that concerted lobbying from both EM/S4 societies has benefited the hobby as a whole in the long run-witness the wonderful array of closer to scale items now on offer-but I still believe that there is room for individuality within the the hobby too.

 

In other words what I see is this:

 

Take the best of available products that will suit your sphere of interest

Add individual touches-scratch/kitbuilt buildings/locos/signals/stock

'Imagineer' a history to suit-there are countless never built projects from the Victorian era

Blend into a believable whole

 

Inspiration?-Try attending a larger provincial show or studying the pages of MRJ

 

Or simply buying that book you've promised yourself!

[fender]

I have seen countless layouts OO where I have done a double-take to see if it was actually a picture of a real railway.

 

anyone who thinks OO cannot be synonymous with a high standard of modelling needs to spend more time actually looking at the standards that skilled modellers can achieve. a good place to start would be the realistic models thread.

 

moreover, I think that much of the above series of misunderstandings and jumping-to-conclusions (by both sides of the debate) stems from a lack of definition of the word "finescale". I don't know whether it defines the track standards, the overall standards (including the track), or the overall standards of which the track may be a part if the modeller chooses to go down that route. perhaps someone could point me to an official definition.

 

I hope this is not getting off the topic, but I think this is an important question and one which needs to be rationally answered, otherwise all debate is meaningless. how do we know what we are discussing if we can't agree on one of the words in the title?

 

another question:

 

in what way do track standards predetermine the potential quality of the overall layout?

 

it seems to me that many people have certain expectations when they see "P4" in a layout description. why? it seems to me that the only expectation there should be is that the track is set to 18.83 and that the rolling stock runs reasonably well on it. what does the quality of the modelling of the rest of the layout have to do with the track gauge? I would really like to know.

 

why are people prejudiced to expect high overall standards with P4 and (apparently according to some people) not as high with OO?

 

does that make any sense?

 

sure, it takes time to build track and correctly re-wheel stock, but it also takes time to scratch-build buildings and trees. is the P4 modeller also supposed to hand-build everything else? surely not! I never knew that was a requirement when I "signed up"! I just like realistic track and I like building the track. I am certainly going to try my best at all other aspects of the layout, but it strikes me that many "amazing" layouts are actually the result of collaborations. I don't know anyone else who can build my buildings for me, so I'm either going to have to build kits, go for RTP, or try my hand at scratch-building. what is the difference between me and and an OO modeller who builds all their own buildings and scenery but feels they cannot, for whatever reason, make the track and re-wheel stock? there is no difference.

 

the track is only one element of a layout. there are many others. the track is not the beginning element of "what is a good layout". it is not the foundation upon which the rest of the project must stand or fall. it works in conjunction with all the other things.

 

so don't feel like you should be put off by the attitudes of others. if there are finescale snobs out there, good for them. life is full of people like that. you just have to ignore them, same as in any other field, but I'm definitely not going to let some such idiot put me off my modelling.

[Jol Wilkinson]

There are in fact some technical standards for OO here: http://www.doubleogauge.com/standards/index.htm

 

But you have in fact made my argument for me - effectively you've said that because I model in OO , nothing I do can ever be finescale , and I can never work to a higher standard than unmodified RTR . Which is  in broad terms an attitude I've encountered before, and as for practical reasons I work in OO it means that in the eyes of some modellers seeing themselves as finescale I'm perminantly "below the salt" in modelling terms , and anything I do would not be acknowledged. At which point I get very disinclined  to chase after "finescale" as these gentlemen would consider it.  

 

The confusion of "a high standard of modelling" with a datasheet laying down near scale flangeways and tolerances is exactly the state of mind that leasds to the rather clinical "precision engineered not modelled" layout. I'm not for a moment suggesting this is typical of finescale layouts - I am suggesting that this is an error into which finescale modelling can slip 

 

I thought I'd made it clear that I wasn't tarring all P4 modellers with that brush - and in fact noting that the culture of P4 was vastly more friendly than 30 years ago. However there are still enough folk in high end finescale with such attitudes to put me off . Or , more accurately, I've had quite enough of such folk already in a slightly different context , want to avoid them, and don't really want to go into something where I'd see even more of them...

 

I didn't actually say the person in question was a P4 modeller and I'm not sure if he'd be happy to hear himself called such

 

Nobody dictates what you will model in OO - except for the folk I once had on my back trying to tell me exactly what I would model , how I would do it, when ,and to what standard they expected it to be done. Very few of them modelled in OO, and quite a few didn't seem to have built a lot themselves . I remember a beautiful phrase from John Sutton of the 3mm society about "the sort of person who's built 3 wagons and a tree"  and is highly critical of the inadequecy of others work. I seemed to be exposed to a lot of them at one time. I wouldn't - for example - refuse to buy a brake van because 4 bolts were missing from the end platform and some of the rivets were displaced from position by the scale equivalent of 1"  . Especially not if was made clear that the only available kit was equally intolerable , the only other available RTR brake for the same region was barely better and the remainder of the kits - oh my dear! . Where does that attitude  get you if you want to model the railway/region in question????

 

It would be unfair to suggest that  P4 modellers are often armchair modellers , but it certainly is the case that armchair modellers are generally committed to finescale. The reason's obvious - in theory everyone's in favour of perfection : the difficulties are merely practical. If you never make anything, there's no pressing reason to depart from perfection, and finescale offers you all sorts of reasons and justification for taking forever to build not very much .  . So if you don't actually intend to make much but criticism of other peole's efforts, then ahigh end finescale gauge - of which P4 is the most prominent - is avery attractive choice of gauge in which to make not very much....

 

That's not acriticism of active modellers in P4 like you or Paul - it's an explanation of why inactive modellers are drawn to the most dead scale gauges

 

As far as my comments about watchmaking - I think we geniunely underestimate and undervalue the amount of skill and craftsmanship displayed in building something like an etched brass kit with outside valve gear and compensated chassis . Betting the whole project on your ability to make it work relaiably from a standing start acrossa whole set of models is a bit daunting 

 

I've already had a project (Tramlink) stall and founder because it depended on me building afleet of rolling stock on some "stick your neck out" texvhniques and I got into trouble making things work reliabilty. Pose those sorts of challenges on several fronts and the learning curve needed to deliver the project successfully starts to look like the White Cliffs of Dover, as seen from the beach 

Ravenser,

 

I think I have been misunderstood by several members of this forum. 

 

People modelling to EM or P4 gauge use the Societies' track/wheel dimensions but thereafter it's down to individual choice. The same applies to those using either of the DOGA  two sets of track and wheel standards. 

 

So, beyond those wheel/track dimensions and because you cannot define a "standard" for modelling a loco body, painting a carriage, etc. then surely it isn't possible to say you have improved upon that a non existent "baseline". Pedantic perhaps, but that's the reasoning behind my comment that you can't have a category called finescale because their is no definition of what it is. I totally agree with Andy's post #65 that it's meaningless and not a definition of anything.

 

It seems I put it badly but what I was trying to say was that we all work to a standard we define for ourselves.  In essence I see no difference between someone modelling to P4 or EM track/wheel standards and the DOGA standards. They don't define how you do the rest of your model making so it's nothing unusual or surprising to see OO or EM layouts that are every bit as well modelled as any P4 layout. The same applies to layouts using proprietary track, although the pointwork does tend to look "wrong" when you are used to looking at models with finer flangeways etc. 

 

So I am not saying that because you model in 00 you can't model in "finescale", I am saying nobody can because no one can define what it is. I describe my own modelling as 4mm Edwardian period LNWR - it's not up to me to define what standard/quality my modelling is and anyway it would be meaningless.

 

Over the years I have encountered too many unfounded criticisms, as far as I am concerned, of the S4 Society and it's members. You said "I didn't actually say the person in question was a P4 modeller and I'm not sure if he'd be happy to hear himself called such"  I'm not sure what you mean by the second half of that comment. That he didn't want to be seen as a P4 modeller because that had a negative implication?  Perhaps I am not thick skinned enough to happily accept it any more.

 

Let's remember that many of the kits, etc. on the 4mm market today have been produced by members of the S4 Society because they wanted a model that didn't already exist (or wasn't sufficiently accurate, easy to build, etc.). So many 4mm modellers that want to extend their modelling beyond RTR items have benefited. 

 

You are right that no one dictates what you model in OO, but unless you build kit/scratchbuild you are restricted to the RTR models that are available. So if you wanted to model the early LMS, then you could do so AFAIK but only with a very limited selection of stock. It's going beyond those limitations - imposed by someone else's decisions - which is what I think the OP is about.

 

Jol

 

Edited to amend the final para to clarify what I really meant!

[cromptonnut]

But you have in fact made my argument for me - effectively you've said that because I model in OO , nothing I do can ever be finescale , and I can never work to a higher standard than unmodified RTR . Which is  in broad terms an attitude I've encountered before, and as for practical reasons I work in OO it means that in the eyes of some modellers seeing themselves as finescale I'm perminantly "below the salt" in modelling terms , and anything I do would not be acknowledged. At which point I get very disinclined  to chase after "finescale" as these gentlemen would consider it.  

 

A similar attitude exists amongst some members of the O gauge fraternity where unless you scratch-build everything yourself out of biscuit tins and cornflake packets (particularly those of us who dare to enjoy ready-to-run stock and Peco track) then you are not a 'real modeller' either.

 

The fact that "standard O gauge" is called Finescale (to differentiate it from pre-war coarse scale 3-rail stuff) and that there are 'super-finescale' standards where half a millimetre really does seem to make a difference is of course lost on people.

 

What really irks me is when people show you their superior, kit-built superdetailed models... only to admit that they actually paid someone else to build and paint them.  Surely that makes them no different to the "out of the box" modellers which they look down on!

['CHARD]

You are right that no one dictates what you model in OO, but you are restricted to the RTR models that are available.

?

[Barry Ten]

You are right that no one dictates what you model in OO, but you are restricted to the RTR models that are available.

Jol

 

Thank heavens for time travel, in that case, as I'm really enjoying my 1366 tank, soon to be produced by Heljan.

[Neil]

It's a shame that the F word is such an immediate trigger for tribalism. Particularly so in the context of this thread, which might have been more productively titled 'What are the things that make you reluctant to move beyond what can be bought ready made'. I'm not even sure that greater accuracy leads to better models (a theme which I intend to expand on elsewhere). But I do know that there can be great satisfaction from making things for oneself, whatever the standard, and that breaking down any perceived barriers to this has to be worthwhile.

[Andy Reichert]

SNIP

Possibly, Andy, that's because dictionaries are records of usage rather than deliberate attempts to define it. Obviously, dictionaries are read as setting out how language should be used but that isn't what the compilers had in mind. The non-appearance of 'Finescale' is because it's a very specific piece of hobby nomenclature so unless there are modellers on the staff of the OED or Websters it's unlikely that they'd have picked it up; very few people actually use the word taken as a proportion of the population as a whole. That doesn't make the word meaningless, it's just not commonly understood and that's probably why people argue about it.

 

SNIP

 

Adam

 

But the term finescale IS totally meaningless, despite many people feeling that that they do understand it. But when and if asked,  each of those many people will tell you a different personal definition.  And even if some of those definitions sound close, they won't, if they get into sufficient detail to answer yes or no to the thousands of minor aspect possibilities.

 

That's the whole point and the whole problem.  As someone who had to write many specifications professionally, I wouldn't know where to start on making a deliberate attempt to cover all the bases, and still have more than a handful of other people like it. I would almost bet money you wouldn't.

 

Scale is an absolutely definitive mathematical ratio.  Putting any adjective before it cancels the meaning of scale.  Having that adjective itself undefinable just makes the possible interpretations infinite.

 

Andy

[Nimbus]

I hope this isn't going to mistaken as some sort of attack as well. 

 

But some time back I looked it up and there is no such word as finescale in all the dictionaries I've checked, nor any reference to the two words separately.  So it's quite meaningless and not a definition of anything. Using it to describe the difference between two models is pretty much creating a follow on unsettleable argument.

 

Andy

 

Well, the term was coined, along with 'modern image' by a professional wordsmith, Cyril Freezer, rather than by the practitioners of exactitude.

 

The Nim.