Wright writes.....

[Tony Wright]

I've looked at Jamie's etches for the girder bridge today; perhaps wait until after the holidays are over, because it's very complex (and very accurate). With a tum still full of Christmas over-indulgence, I'll wait until I'm in better condition.

 

 

Not wishing to waste time by blobbing out in front of horrendous TV, I've reached this stage with ENTERPRISE. The chassis was running on Christmas Eve (Christmas Day and Boxing Day I did no modelling due to family socialising), and this is the state of play so far today. I think the SE Finecast A3 makes up rather well (considering its Wills body age), though it's not as crisp as a DJH equivalent. However, it's still available and the DJH one is not.

 

An old mate popped over this afternoon and we gave 60111 a good deal of test-running on a full load. I always thoroughly test locos I'm building at this stage, before I complete them; which shouldn't be too long now - about 30 hours in total. 

Edited December 27, 2018 by Tony Wright

[grahame]

That's everything which N Gauge should be, Grahame - beautifully-done.

 

Why then, with such inspiration, do we still see far too many N Gauge layouts which shout out 'Because we can cram masses of stuff into a small space, let's'? 

 

 

Thanks. And yes, an interesting observation about many N gauge layouts, with which I don't disagree.

 

I think there are a couple of issues with N gauge layouts which cause them to fall in to the trap you mention. Firstly, there does unfortunately seem to be a large percentage of N gauge modellers who are a little odd/different in their approach to railway modelling and look for the easy way out, such as wanting to use the gross pre-ballasted plasticky Kato Uni-track and lots of RTR and RTP. And with a collector mentality want to have lots of track and trains (and often gimmicks) on show and running/working.

 

But probably the big issue is that building a layout in N/2mm to showcase the benefits of the scale (the ability to have long trains running in a fully modelled realistic landscape, even in relatively small spaces) requires more consideration and more care in the planning, the design and the construction (than many layouts seen in larger scales). And that the additional care needed often requires more skill and greater effort. Generally those at the 2mm fine-scale end of the N/2mm family tend to have more skill, ability and patience to build great looking trains and layouts - it's just unfortunate I'm not in that category. 

 

However, my urban themed layouts are also probably a little 'crammed', but crammed with buildings and structures to typify the location, rather than crammed with track. I like to keep things relatively neat with an overall consistency and to try and capture some of that elusive but important (to me) 'atmosphere', which is also perhaps also a little more tricky in N/2mm.

 

G.

[Tony Wright]

Thanks. And yes, an interesting observation about many N gauge layouts, with which I don't disagree.

 

I think there are a couple of issues with N gauge layouts which cause them to fall in to the trap you mention. Firstly, there does unfortunately seem to be a large percentage of N gauge modellers who are a little odd/different in their approach to railway modelling and look for the easy way out, such as wanting to use the gross pre-ballasted plasticky Kato Uni-track and lots of RTR and RTP. And with a collector mentality want to have lots of track and trains (and often gimmicks) on show and running/working.

 

But probably the big issue is that building a layout in N/2mm to showcase the benefits of the scale (the ability to have long trains running in a fully modelled realistic landscape, even in relatively small spaces) requires more consideration and more care in the planning, the design and the construction (than many layouts seen in larger scales). And that the additional care needed often requires more skill and greater effort. Generally those at the 2mm fine-scale end of the N/2mm family tend to have more skill, ability and patience to build great looking trains and layouts - it's just unfortunate I'm not in that category. 

 

However, my urban themed layouts are also probably a little 'crammed', but crammed with buildings and structures to typify the location, rather than crammed with track. I like to keep things relatively neat with an overall consistency and to try and capture some of that elusive but important (to me) 'atmosphere', which is also perhaps also a little more tricky in N/2mm.

 

G.

Grahame,

 

Though your not, by your own 'admission', in the '2mm fine-scale end' of modelling, I think you're more-than-capable of making things neatly, with a (very-fine) overall consistency, capturing entirely that elusive 'atmosphere'.

 

Your pictures of your work prove that. Please keep them coming.

 

Regards,

 

Tony.  

[Ben Alder]

And a similar frustration occurs when you have put in a bit of effort to add those last little refinements to a really nice RTR model of the BR cattle wagon, and along comes the latest Scalefour News with the unwelcome information that it is several feet too long.  Which of course it is.  I'm finishing the paint job today, but I haven't decided yet whether to segregate them from my lovely detailed Airfix conversions, or sell the damn things on eBay and hope to get my money back - if not my time.

 

As was said earlier, there is a casual carelessness about RTR wagon production that ranks alongside to their loco products 30 years ago.  I am looking forward to Accurascale's first steam-age wagons.  Perhaps they can be persuaded to produce at least one of those 5-plank open goods wagons that we so lack as accurate RTRs.

 

Tone

 

 

After all these years the venerable Airfix kit still makes the most accurate BR Cattle wagon. I was a bit surprised - should I be? - to see such a pragmatic approach to modelling appear in the Scalefour  News, but it tickled my curiosity so I went ahead and tried it out on one of my oversized Bachmann wagons. Here it is beside an original Airfix and the new Bachmann on the right.

 

 

Despite the strapping being a bit off, I think it passes muster as a layout runner and I'll tackle the four or five others in my fleet as and when. The difference in length between the two Bachmann models is more apparent to me than the slight drop of the end of the bodyside strapping. The Airfix one was in for a make over - I was going to scrap them but have decided to keep them running - a tidy up of the door hinging and some wire body rail makes a big difference to their appearance.

Edited December 28, 2018 by Ben Alder

[Atso]

In addition to his Stoney Lane and its predecessor, Hedges Hill Cutting, Grahame has also published lots of 'how to' articles in the N Gauge Journal (of which he is also the editor) which are inspirational reading.

 

Tony and Grahame have pretty well covered ever trap that I have fallen into during my previous N Gauge layout builds. For trying to cram too much in, to trying to make Kato track look sufficiently realistic, to visible 180 degree curves, I've tried them all and always become dissatisfied with the emerging results.

 

Therefore, following my first visit to Little Bytham, I decided that modelling a prototype was the way to go for me. This decision has seen me build code 40 turnout kits which then progressed to my first scratch built turnout. I'm sure that Tony will be pleased to hear that the baseboards for Hadley Wood are finally assembled and that 2019 may just see the start of track laying! If I can achieve 50% of the quality that Tony, Grahame and a whole host of others on here have achieved, then I will be very happy.

[Lecorbusier]

Though your not, by your own 'admission', in the '2mm fine-scale end' of modelling, 

I am still confused about this term 'finescale'.

 

I can see that it is used to describe certain individual components like finescale wheels etc  .... but how the sort of modelling I see on this thread can be called anything but finescale is something of a mystery to me. 

[CF MRC]

Showing your age there, Tim. How about "Marples Must Go"?

I grew up exactly one mile from the so named bridge on the M1 in Bedfordshire. It was pure vandalism when they painted over that graffiti!

 

Tim

[polybear]

I think the SE Finecast A3 makes up rather well (considering its Wills body age), though it's not as crisp as a DJH equivalent. However, it's still available and the DJH one is not.

 

 

 

Plus Dave Ellis of SEF is one of the nicest and most helpful guys in the game. 

[Chamby]

I am still confused about this term 'finescale'.

 

I can see that it is used to describe certain individual components like finescale wheels etc  .... but how the sort of modelling I see on this thread can be called anything but finescale is something of a mystery to me.

 

Its because the term has become associated with a set of standards, so it has come to mean different things to different people. To some, if you don’t follow their published standards, it’s not finescale. To most other people, it simply means modelling to a more prototypical scale, for example using code 75 rather than code 100 track, as used by PECO.

 

I agree that stuff seen on this thread is predominantly modelled in fine scale, but not necessarily to what a subset of modellers have adopted as Finescale Standards. It still looks fine to me!

 

Phil

[Lecorbusier]

Its because the term has become associated with a set of standards, so it has come to mean different things to different people. To some, if you don’t follow their published standards, it’s not finescale. To most other people, it simply means modelling to a more prototypical scale, for example using code 75 rather than code 100 track, as used by PECO.

 

I agree that stuff seen on this thread is predominantly modelled in fine scale, but not necessarily to what a subset of modellers have adopted as Finescale Standards. It still looks fine to me!

 

Phil

Hmmm .... I shall duck and keep fingers crossed that this is not another historic can of worms that should be left well alone..... and I fully accept that my reaction could be simply down to a misunderstanding of how the term is universally understood within the model rail fraternity, but from a post 2014 perspective .... 

 

Using the term 'Finescale' to narrowly define the standards  of a specific element I suppose one can just about understand  ..... but to me the word finescale seems quite a broad description which has definite overtones of 'quality' about it ...I much prefer more targeted terms ... 00-SF perhaps or DOGA or P4 or S4 (in 4mm)? - terms which all understand and which allow scope for a variation in the quality of application dependent on skill level. 

 

But surely 'Finescale' can't simply refer to such things ..... otherwise you can scratch build a wagon/carriage/loco for instance (or use a kit as a starting point) so that it reflects not just a historical  type but an actual vehicle at a point in time including extraneous additions even down to the weathering .... but if you use a particular wheel set for your own reasons then this is not 'Finescale'? -  alternatively, if you use such wheels and rail, but your modelling fails to live up to any of the other criteria you are 'Finescale'? from my naive position that would be tosh.

 

What about those elements of the model which don't even engage with track and wheel standards? What about scenic modelling ..... train make up  .... signalling ..... the schedule of train movements - one could go on?

 

I would submit that ''Finescale' might be seen more as an attitude or state of mind ..... something to be aimed at but from which all are going to deviate at some point out of pragmatism/need/desire/capability etc in some way or another?

 

As far as layouts are concerned (if used at all) it is perhaps a moniker that should be conferred by one's peers ... rather than simply appropriated.

Edited December 28, 2018 by Lecorbusier

[St Enodoc]

Hmmm .... I shall duck and keep fingers crossed that this is not another historic can of worms that should be left well alone..... and I fully accept that my reaction could be simply down to a misunderstanding of how the term is universally understood within the model rail fraternity, but from a post 2014 perspective .... 

 

Using the term 'Finescale' to narrowly define the standards  of a specific element I suppose one can just about understand  ..... but to me the word finescale seems quite a broad description which has definite overtones of 'quality' about it ...I much prefer more targeted terms ... 00-SF perhaps or DOGA or P4 or S4 (in 4mm)? - terms which all understand and which allow scope for a variation in the quality of application dependent on skill level. 

 

But surely 'Finescale' can't simply refer to such things ..... otherwise you can scratch build a wagon/carriage/loco for instance (or use a kit as a starting point) so that it reflects not just a historical  type but an actual vehicle at a point in time including extraneous additions even down to the weathering .... but if you use a particular wheel set for your own reasons then this is not 'Finescale'? -  alternatively, if you use such wheels and rail, but your modelling fails to live up to any of the other criteria you are 'Finescale'? from my naive position that would be tosh.

 

What about those elements of the model which don't even engage with track and wheel standards? What about scenic modelling ..... train make up  .... signalling ..... the schedule of train movements - one could go on?

 

I would submit that ''Finescale' might be seen more as an attitude or state of mind ..... something to be aimed at but from which all are going to deviate at some point out of pragmatism/need/desire/capability etc in some way or another?

 

As far as layouts are concerned (if used at all) it is perhaps a moniker that should be conferred by ones peers ... rather than simply appropriated.

I think that this question was at the heart of the schism between the Protofour Society and the Scalefour Society back in the 70s/80s. One was promoting the "finescale" ethos, where the aim was to produce as convincing an overall effect as possible, while the other was promoting "Fine Scale", which was focused just on wheel and track dimensions.

 

For the life of me though, I can't remember which was which!

[Tony Wright]

Plus Dave Ellis of SEF is one of the nicest and most helpful guys in the game. 

I'll second that, Brian,

 

Not only that, I don't know if everyone else knows that Dave will supply any of the bits/parts from any of his kits. Thus, if you want, say, smokebox doors, chimneys, domes, safety valves, snifting valves or any other smaller (or larger) bits and pieces, castings and etches, from any of his kits, just get in touch with him on 01342 824711 and ask. 

 

It's probably known that I dislike resin boilers in loco kits (I don't mean the high-end, Finney sort, because I've never made any), and I've substituted Dave's cast metal A2 boiler when I've built the likes of Crownline's Thompson Pacifics kits. 

 

I should probably add that I have no connection with SE Finecast other than as a very satisfied customer. Dave's also a very good friend. 

[Tony Wright]

Finescale or Fine Scale?

 

Iain Rice once tried to define (and differentiate between) the two terms, though I can't remember which is (or was) which, either. 

 

I'd probably suggest that just about everything seen on this thread represents fine, scale modelling (is that another differentiation?), in that (abstracting myself from this) it's fine modelling and it's to a generally-accepted scale.  Just the sort of stuff Grahame Hedges shows us, or Tim Lee (and many others). Though definitely not irrelevant, the scale/gauge combination is not the principal consideration in my view. 

 

Folk pick me up for calling Little Bytham a 'trainset', which it most definitely is. It is not, however, a train set, the like of which I was first given as a Christmas present over 65 years ago!

 

Regards to all,

 

Tony. 

[petrovich]

I think that this question was at the heart of the schism between the Protofour Society and the Scalefour Society back in the 70s/80s. One was promoting the "finescale" ethos, where the aim was to produce as convincing an overall effect as possible, while the other was promoting "Fine Scale", which was focused just on wheel and track dimensions.

 

For the life of me though, I can't remember which was which!

Do not want to start an equivalent of rage wars but to me most of the modelling on here could be called finescale it is that good. I shall now go back to my corner.

 

Regards

 

Peter

[polybear]

I'll second that, Brian,

 

Not only that, I don't know if everyone else knows that Dave will supply any of the bits/parts from any of his kits. Thus, if you want, say, smokebox doors, chimneys, domes, safety valves, snifting valves or any other smaller (or larger) bits and pieces, castings and etches, from any of his kits, just get in touch with him on 01342 824711 and ask. 

 

It's probably known that I dislike resin boilers in loco kits (I don't mean the high-end, Finney sort, because I've never made any), and I've substituted Dave's cast metal A2 boiler when I've built the likes of Crownline's Thompson Pacifics kits. 

 

I should probably add that I have no connection with SE Finecast other than as a very satisfied customer. Dave's also a very good friend. 

 

I purchased N4/N5 etches from Judith Edge Kits some time ago; Mike told me what castings I'd need to go with the etches   and Dave Ellis very kindly sold them to me, at a very fair price too  

Doesn't get much better than that....

[queensquare]

This is the opening to the editorial for my last MRJ, 266. I was actually discussing the art of compromise but I thought it might be interesting in the current debate. Essentially I argue that finescale has only a passing acquaintance with any particular set of standards, its a state of mind which involves the individual modeller doing the best they can within the inevitable (and infinately variable) compromises we all face. 

 

"Attempting to define finescale, a word synonymous with MRJ, in the context of model railways is a whole can of worms which could easily fill an editorial in its own right. Its not a debate I particularly want to get into here, suffice to say that it involves the modeller going that extra mile, beyond what the kit or RTR manufacturers provide us with, in order to achieve our chosen goal. The length of that extra mile and the individual’s goals are the variables in the equation and consequently, we are immediately faced with the need for compromise. Like death and taxes, compromise is inevitable no matter how much time, space, money or ability we have.

 I believe it was Cyril Freezer who, rather tongue in cheek, said that there were enthusiasts for whom operation was all and that they would be happy with trains made up from a string of tennis balls so long as they were correctly signalled and carried the appropriate head and tail lamps. This, of course, is an extreme example but it illustrates the point that the level of compromise is dependant on the individuals’ goals, not some dictat laid down by the finescale police."

 

Jerry

 

ps. I should add that the finescale police are fictional!

[Mallard60022]

This is the opening to the editorial for my last MRJ, 266. I was actually discussing the art of compromise but I thought it might be interesting in the current debate. Essentially I argue that finescale has only a passing acquaintance with any particular set of standards, its a state of mind which involves the individual modeller doing the best they can within the inevitable (and infinately variable) compromises we all face. 

 

"Attempting to define finescale, a word synonymous with MRJ, in the context of model railways is a whole can of worms which could easily fill an editorial in its own right. Its not a debate I particularly want to get into here, suffice to say that it involves the modeller going that extra mile, beyond what the kit or RTR manufacturers provide us with, in order to achieve our chosen goal. The length of that extra mile and the individual’s goals are the variables in the equation and consequently, we are immediately faced with the need for compromise. Like death and taxes, compromise is inevitable no matter how much time, space, money or ability we have.

 I believe it was Cyril Freezer who, rather tongue in cheek, said that there were enthusiasts for whom operation was all and that they would be happy with trains made up from a string of tennis balls so long as they were correctly signalled and carried the appropriate head and tail lamps. This, of course, is an extreme example but it illustrates the point that the level of compromise is dependant on the individuals’ goals, not some dictat laid down by the finescale police."

 

Jerry

 

ps. I should add that the finescale police are fictional!

 

If the can contained Lambton Worms the whole debate would immediately become even more contentious.

A. Wearside

[RThompson]

ps. I should add that the finescale police are fictional!

I thought the finescale police actually existed under the official name of "rivet counters"

 

End of the day, it's down to ones personal modelling how or what they model.

 

A loco I'm building for myself, I chosen a loco from the batch that had no rivets on the tank as I couldn't be bothered to punch them out!

[Compound2632]

I should add that the finescale police are fictional!

 

Plausible denial is evidence enough...

[Tony Wright]

This is the opening to the editorial for my last MRJ, 266. I was actually discussing the art of compromise but I thought it might be interesting in the current debate. Essentially I argue that finescale has only a passing acquaintance with any particular set of standards, its a state of mind which involves the individual modeller doing the best they can within the inevitable (and infinately variable) compromises we all face. 

 

"Attempting to define finescale, a word synonymous with MRJ, in the context of model railways is a whole can of worms which could easily fill an editorial in its own right. Its not a debate I particularly want to get into here, suffice to say that it involves the modeller going that extra mile, beyond what the kit or RTR manufacturers provide us with, in order to achieve our chosen goal. The length of that extra mile and the individual’s goals are the variables in the equation and consequently, we are immediately faced with the need for compromise. Like death and taxes, compromise is inevitable no matter how much time, space, money or ability we have.

 I believe it was Cyril Freezer who, rather tongue in cheek, said that there were enthusiasts for whom operation was all and that they would be happy with trains made up from a string of tennis balls so long as they were correctly signalled and carried the appropriate head and tail lamps. This, of course, is an extreme example but it illustrates the point that the level of compromise is dependant on the individuals’ goals, not some dictat laid down by the finescale police."

 

Jerry

 

ps. I should add that the finescale police are fictional!

Pendant head here on Jerry!

 

It should be infinitely (without an 'a'), and you you should have written dependent, not dependant in the context of what you meant.

 

I imagine the finescale grammatical police (of which I'm a superintendent!) will pick you up on those.

 

A Happy New Year, and all the best to you and Kim.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[queensquare]

Pendant head here on Jerry!

 

It should be infinitely (without an 'a'), and you you should have written dependent, not dependant in the context of what you meant.

 

I imagine the finescale grammatical police (of which I'm a superintendent!) will pick you up on those.

 

A Happy New Year, and all the best to you and Kim.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

I think you meant pedant, not pendant.

 

Likewise to yourself and Mo. See you at Southampton in January.

 

Jerry

Edited December 28, 2018 by queensquare

[Lecorbusier]

Pendant head here on Jerry!

 

It should be infinitely (without an 'a'), and you you should have written dependent, not dependant in the context of what you meant. 

 

....presumably a dependant is dependent upon something ... for instance a pendant would be a dependant, dependent upon a ceiling hook? ... or a pedant would be a dependant ... dependent upon the absence of typos?

 

Interesting to muse upon what a 'Pendant Head' might look like 

 

Edited December 28, 2018 by Lecorbusier

[Jol Wilkinson]

I thought the finescale police actually existed under the official name of "rivet counters"

 

End of the day, it's down to ones personal modelling how or what they model.

 

A loco I'm building for myself, I chosen a loco from the batch that had no rivets on the tank as I couldn't be bothered to punch them out!

There is a wealth of difference.

 

Rivet Counters concern themselves solely with rivets and are a sub-culture of the well established League of Armchair Modellers. Their views, ideals and considerable depth of knowledge can be regularly seen in any New Product topic.

 

The Finescale Police have a much wider remit, largely due to the lack of a legal Definition of Finescale. Hence members of the Force have different views on what Finescale is and how severely delinquents should be punished. This lack of consistency creates opportunities for the less scrupulous to claim something is Finescale, when it invariably contradicts at least one self appointed Officer's view.

[Headstock]

Finescale modeling should be embraced and applauded, it produces the very best in our hobby. I've always been confused by the term rivet counter, dose it apply to someone that produces exquiste work, or to those who only pass comment from the safty of their armchair?

[CF MRC]

The true art of finescale modelling is knowing what to leave out.

 

Tim