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

[Barry Ten]

But the term finescale IS totally meaningless, despite many people feeling that that they do understand it.

 

 

 

 

So if I offered you the option of attending an exhibition with a finescale bias, and one without a finescale bias, you genuinely wouldn't know what I was talking about?

 

I think most of us get it. When we hear about finescale, it brings to mind the more exact scale/gauge ratios. We can expect to see a bias towards P4, EM, S, 2mm and so on, rather than commercial 00. Similarly, because of the likelihood of encountering the more exact scale/gauge ratios, we're more likely to see kit or scratchbuilt models of engines and rolling stock, with - perhaps - a skewing toward the more historical prototypes. That's not to say that you won't see contemporary modelling, but if you've developed the skillset to build track and chassis, more options become open to you.

 

To return to the original question - speaking for myself I have a reasonable sense of my own practical limitations as a modeller. I've built chassis and track, but it's not my natural comfort zone, and even in 00, I'm operating at the limits of my ability to get stuff to work as reliably as I'd like. I could focus my efforts on the engineering skills needed to work to the finer standards, but something else would have to go - and as it is I like spreading my hobby time among many different projects and techniques, ranging from scenery to buildings. This is not defeatism so much as an acceptance that there is only so much modelling time in a lifetime.

[highpeak]

I think a number of us warned at the start of this thread that it should not become a debate on what exactly finescale is. In some respects it's a bit like Justice Potter Stewart's description of pornography: I know it when I see it. And Barry Ten makes a similar point above.

 

From a possibly pedantic perspective you could make the case that qualifying scale with "fine" is indeed meaningless. But are we the only group of people who qualify things with the adjective "fine" when no qualification would seem to be necessary? How does fine art differ from art? The art world seems comfortable with the distinction. Fine wine? Fine dining? Maybe less of the food comes out of a can or microwave.

 

Perhaps instead of worrying about the meaning of scale, we could look at the meaning of fine and seek an answer there: "of superior or best quality; of high or highest grade; very thin or slender; of delicate texture or workmanship" and so on (Random House College Dictionary, not a particularly fine work but adequate).

 

The question then becomes more a matter of what keeps us from achieving the best quality, the finest workmanship and so on, and we can hopefully dispense with the semantic arguments. We have had some good accounts of the problems we face, in particular the limitations our eyesight and trembling hands and the time constraints we face in relationship to the outcomes we wish to produce.

[Torr Giffard LSWR 1951-71]

....can't see what all the fuss is about...progression in the finescale direction is usually slow and not necessarily with intent. TG won't have anything 'straight from the box', will feature plenty of kit built items, some scratchbuilt too, all track on the scenic section will be handbuilt with assistance from wherever I can get it, built on top of Templot templates again created with assistance from anyone competent to offer it. You can call it finescale, roughscale, nothingscale or anything else you like....I'm doing it because it pleases me and I would urge you all to do what pleases you too....never mind the boll@@ks about the label which you may or may not want to hang on it.  

 

If anyone likes the end result then great...if not, go and build your own!

 

Dave 

[cromptonnut]

forget the boll@@ks

 

Bow Locks was the name of an East London canal interchange layout someone I once knew built... what do you have against canals?

[Andy Reichert]

So if I offered you the option of attending an exhibition with a finescale bias, and one without a finescale bias, you genuinely wouldn't know what I was talking about?

 

I think most of us get it. When we hear about finescale, it brings to mind the more exact scale/gauge ratios. We can expect to see a bias towards P4, EM, S, 2mm and so on, rather than commercial 00. Similarly, because of the likelihood of encountering the more exact scale/gauge ratios, we're more likely to see kit or scratchbuilt models of engines and rolling stock, with - perhaps - a skewing toward the more historical prototypes. That's not to say that you won't see contemporary modelling, but if you've developed the skillset to build track and chassis, more options become open to you.

 

To return to the original question - speaking for myself I have a reasonable sense of my own practical limitations as a modeller. I've built chassis and track, but it's not my natural comfort zone, and even in 00, I'm operating at the limits of my ability to get stuff to work as reliably as I'd like. I could focus my efforts on the engineering skills needed to work to the finer standards, but something else would have to go - and as it is I like spreading my hobby time among many different projects and techniques, ranging from scenery to buildings. This is not defeatism so much as an acceptance that there is only so much modelling time in a lifetime.

 

I know the term of course, but yes, I genuinely wouldn't know what to expect !!!

 

For example Terry Flynn (the Australian MRA Standards promoter of using 16.2 mm gauge for RTR HO) vehemently describes "modern 4mm and 3.5 mm scale RTR as "fine scale". So in his eyes there is no currently shipping non-finescale RTR equipment.  But I doubt whether you or Adam would agree with him to that extent.

 

Andy

[Adam]

I know the term of course, but yes, I genuinely wouldn't know what to expect !!!

 

For example Terry Flynn (the Australian MRA Standards promoter of using 16.2 mm gauge for RTR HO) vehemently describes "modern 4mm and 3.5 mm scale RTR as "fine scale". So in his eyes there is no currently shipping non-finescale RTR equipment.  But I doubt whether you or Adam would agree with him to that extent.

 

Andy

 

Now given that I haven't heard of Terry Flynn until now, I can see where he's coming from; it's a reasonable point given where the label 'finescale' came from and where RTR models now are. Why not use the label in that way? It is probably fair to say that Flynn's take isn't how 'finescale' is now used, by most people, however, but the Wikipedia entry shows some overlap:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finescale_standard

 

Like most labels for concepts its use is subjective, just as are the following examples from my day job: 'medieval'; 'modern'; archaeological'; 'historical'; 'prehistoric' (especially the last one). I cannot say that, hand on heart, I worry overmuch about how any of these are applied unless I'm in teaching mode and want students to think about how they use labels, the very point of them is to provide a common frame of reference and inevitably that will lack precision. The fact that they can be used in different ways doesn't render the terms meaningless, it merely reflects that they are subjective and dependent on context. The OP wasn't a semantic question as I read it and, broadly, I would agree with Neil's characterisation of what the OP had in mind though modelling styles are really very different. I make models; the railway ones are built to EM track and wheel standards. That involves a bit of work, but the work is the thing I actually enjoy. 

 

Adam

[47137]

I thought finescale meant what you could see looking at a model without using a rule or vernier - perhaps 1/64 inch. The "finescale track/wheel standards" cited are admirable, even useful at a detail level, but they don't deliver on the things everyone can see at a glance, like curve radii or the extent of a railway station or goods yard. Moreover, they don't work at the most useful common denominator - interoperability. An accurate scale rendition of a real thing can be useful sometimes, but it isn't necessarily superior. Going back to the OP, I'd rather watch a 00 train on a shared club layout than an EM or P4 conversion on a personal plank. I'd like to make models that appeal to me, and I'll happliy pursue finescale in everything except wheels and track, so I can run my trains elsewhere.

 

- Richard.

[Andy Reichert]

Now given that I haven't heard of Terry Flynn until now, I can see where he's coming from; it's a reasonable point given where the label 'finescale' came from and where RTR models now are. Why not use the label in that way? It is probably fair to say that Flynn's take isn't how 'finescale' is now used, by most people, however, but the Wikipedia entry shows some overlap:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finescale_standard

 

Like most labels for concepts its use is subjective, just as are the following examples from my day job: 'medieval'; 'modern'; archaeological'; 'historical'; 'prehistoric' (especially the last one). I cannot say that, hand on heart, I worry overmuch about how any of these are applied unless I'm in teaching mode and want students to think about how they use labels, the very point of them is to provide a common frame of reference and inevitably that will lack precision. The fact that they can be used in different ways doesn't render the terms meaningless, it merely reflects that they are subjective and dependent on context. The OP wasn't a semantic question as I read it and, broadly, I would agree with Neil's characterisation of what the OP had in mind though modelling styles are really very different. I make models; the railway ones are built to EM track and wheel standards. That involves a bit of work, but the work is the thing I actually enjoy. 

 

Adam

 

I can see I'm dealing with a finely tuned mind here. . . . . . . . .

 

{              }  Insert positive/neutral/negative reaction of your choice

 

Andy

 

Temporarily residing in  Lake Wobegone,  where all the children are above average.

[Ravenser]

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.

 

 

The trouble is that it would be a very different meaning and debate. I build quite a lot of stuff - in fact my boxfile , which is very far from finescale (quite a lot of the structures have bits of Bilteezi  factory in them, suitably reworked) has precisely one unmodified RTR wagon in a fleet of   roughly 25 wagons , and most of the stock is kits. Of the 4 available locos not one is RTR , though they sit on ready made mechanisms (2 Beetles, one Tenshodo and a chassis from an old style Bachmann 04)  .   

 

I'd politely but strongly protest against the idea that anyone not working in finescale doesn't make anything. As another example - my Croydon Tramlink project was based on turning Alphagraphix card kits into working light rail units and never in a million years could that be described as finescale . But equally it was light years away from "what can be bought readymade" and I learnt a huge amount from my Manchester Metrolink unit, even if I can't get it to run reliably through one particular point in one direction. The project ground to a halt when I tried repeating the trick with aCroydon unit and couldn't get it round any kind of curve whatever

[martin_wynne]

Instead of struggling to define what Finescale is, it is much easier to define what it isn't. For example, it isn't this:

 

 

Martin.

 

[Jol Wilkinson]

Perhaps those seeking a definition of Finescale need look no further than here;

 

http://www.ebay.co.uk/sch/Collectables-/1/i.html?_trkparms=65%253A12%257C66%253A2%257C39%253A1%257C72%253A7386&_sop=10&_sc=1&_nkw=Finescale&_pgn=6&_skc=250&rt=nc

 

and here:

 

http://www.ebay.co.uk/sch/Collectables-/1/i.html?_trkparms=65%253A12%257C66%253A2%257C39%253A1%257C72%253A7386&_sop=10&_sc=1&_nkw=Finescale&_pgn=2&_skc=50&rt=nc

 

Or any of the other listings in that section of Ebay.

 

I suggest this rather tongue in cheek, but it does show - other than ebay traders tendency to live in a parallel,and somewhat surreal world - what a wide concept it can be. Perhaps it is this rather confused state of affairs that acts as one deterrent to expanding one's modelling horizons.

 

Jol

[Zero Gravitas]

Two observations:

 

(1) The Term "finescale" is a word that has acquired meaning through usage, and de facto that meaning is different depending on who is using the word. Consequently, until a standard common definition is put in place, discussions about what is and is not finescale are, at best, difficult; and, at worst, divisive -  which brings me to my second point.

 

(2) There are OO layouts that absolutely capture the atmosphere of place they portray, and make me feel like I'm looking at the prototype from a distance, in spite of the fact I know the rails are a bit too close together. And there are P4 layouts that leave me absolutely cold - whilst technically everything is a far more accurate scaled down replica of the prototype, I know I'm looking at a model that has no soul...

 

And if we thought defining "finescale" was difficult, wait until we start talking about "soul"....  

 

But for me, that's a far more relevant question - what are the things that stop my models from having more soul? For me,modelling is far less about the standards to which I work (although I appreciate, as an engineer, that standards are important) and far more about trying to capture that essence that makes the model a convincing representation of the original.

 

Right, back to the shed to go and search for some soul...

 

Best Regards,

 

ZG.

[Jol Wilkinson]

But are we the only group of people who qualify things with the adjective "fine" when no qualification would seem to be necessary? How does fine art differ from art? The art world seems comfortable with the distinction. Fine wine? Fine dining? Maybe less of the food comes out of a can or microwave.

 

In my experience putting the word "fine" before art, food, wine, etc. usually means something expensive and therefore available to a limited section of society. And they don't necessarily appreciate it for what it is, but often want to impress themselves, their friends and acquaintances by showing that they can afford it.

 

Whereas in a modelling context it doesn't have to be expensive although use of the word fine may still be used to hopefully impress others. 

 

Jol

[Jol Wilkinson]

(2) There are OO layouts that absolutely capture the atmosphere of place they portray, and make me feel like I'm looking at the prototype from a distance, in spite of the fact I know the rails are a bit too close together. And there are P4 layouts that leave me absolutely cold - whilst technically everything is a far more accurate scaled down replica of the prototype, I know I'm looking at a model that has no soul...

And there are OO "finescale" layouts that are mediocre and P4 layouts that are stunning. And in every case the modeller(s) that built it probably enjoyed doing so and worked to a standard that they were comfortable with. So as usual there are two sides to every coin, despite an attempt by some to prove otherwise.

 

The track/wheel dimensions are irrelevant other than that in EM and P4 they can add to the whole, whereas in OO unless carefully handled they can detract from it. At York several years ago I saw three similar sized OO layouts. They were all pretty much to the same high standard of modelling except for the trackwork which clearly differentiated them as good, better and really good.

 

Soul, atmosphere, call it what you will, is different things to different people. A layout that might get you excited could leave me cold. So suggesting it is something else to debate is entering a real minefield.

 

Jol

[hayfield]

Jol

 

You are correct in the fact that this word in Railway Modelling terms can be both miss used and misunderstood

 

Many of the new locos and rolling stock produced today can de described (ignoring the narrowed track gauge) as fine scale  as can some of the buildings and building kits available. I would guess most modellers now own many finescale models without realising it

 

Yet again look at the fine buildings made by the likes of Alan Downs, they may not be brick by brick accurate but capture the real thing much better than other models which may be finer scale but lack the look of the real thing.

[hayfield]

And there are OO "finescale" layouts that are mediocre and P4 layouts that are stunning. And in every case the modeller(s) that built it probably enjoyed doing so and worked to a standard that they were comfortable with. So as usual there are two sides to every coin, despite an attempt by some to prove otherwise.

 

The track/wheel dimensions are irrelevant other than that in EM and P4 they can add to the whole, whereas in OO unless carefully handled they can detract from it. At York several years ago I saw three similar sized OO layouts. They were all pretty much to the same high standard of modelling except for the trackwork which clearly differentiated them as good, better and really good.

 

Soul, atmosphere, call it what you will, is different things to different people. A layout that might get you excited could leave me cold. So suggesting it is something else to debate is entering a real minefield.

 

Jol

 

 

Jol

 

This illustrates your point perfectly

 

 

 

Dewsbury

[Andy Reichert]

Jol

 

This illustrates your point perfectly

 

Dewsbury

 

A very attractive miniature scene. 

 

Andy

[Ravenser]

Perhaps those seeking a definition of Finescale need look no further than here;

 

http://www.ebay.co.uk/sch/Collectables-/1/i.html?_trkparms=65%253A12%257C66%253A2%257C39%253A1%257C72%253A7386&_sop=10&_sc=1&_nkw=Finescale&_pgn=6&_skc=250&rt=nc

 

and here:

 

http://www.ebay.co.uk/sch/Collectables-/1/i.html?_trkparms=65%253A12%257C66%253A2%257C39%253A1%257C72%253A7386&_sop=10&_sc=1&_nkw=Finescale&_pgn=2&_skc=50&rt=nc

 

Or any of the other listings in that section of Ebay.

 

I suggest this rather tongue in cheek, but it does show - other than ebay traders tendency to live in a parallel,and somewhat surreal world - what a wide concept it can be. Perhaps it is this rather confused state of affairs that acts as one deterrent to expanding one's modelling horizons.

 

Jol

In OO there's a rough and ready working usage - handbuilt track = finescale, and there's a presumption that anything in EM, P4 (and also S, 2mm FS and S7) is automatically finescale

 

The big factor queering the pitch is Peco's insistance on calling their code 75 track finescale, when I believe the flangeways are no different and just as coarse as their code 100

 

If you strip out the Peco track from those listings they are actually fairly consistant and accurate - even where stuff like a vintage Leeds wagon in O pops up , it's because its been rewheeled with wheelsets to the O Fine standard. The most spectacular example of ebay language is unrelated - an assembled and painted loco body and tender from a BEC D11 kit solemnly described as MIB (= mint in box) . I don't think so......