Challenge to scratchbuilders?

Wolf, In the last six months I've built a water tank, a caboose and I'm finishing a 66' turntable. All made from scratch building articles in old MRs. I think its safe to say I learn from scratch building articles. So of course I would like to see more material along these lines in MR. MR serves the mainstream just as they always have. At one time scratch building was a big part of the picture............more important because so much less was available. But not so important today. I've seen the new RTR and kits. I would be hard pressed to build as fine a model as some of the RTR and the selection is huge. Even scratch building today is often more like packaging your own kit then building it with all the parts and details available. I don't need any trucks but even if I did and was capable of building them what would it prove? Scratch building proves nothing, has no value and serves no important purpose. It's just the forming of materials in clam and quite hours while the greater world goes about doing more serious, important, better things. But out of curiosity what kind of trucks are they? Thanks, Bruce

Agreed. But to me, the "modelling" part of model railroading is the fun part. I like to build things and apparently you do too. Aren't there enough of us left to justify more articles? Or even a magazine devoted to construction articles?

Of course, articles on building scenery, benchwork, track, etc. are also construction articles. On that basis, MR still has some scratchbuilding content :-).

Larry, I do enjoy scratch building. That and the fact that much of what I want to model is not available in RTR or in kit form is why I do it. As you mentioned there may not be many of us out there anymore. On the other hand there is a huge selection of parts, details, tools, paints and supplies for the scratch builder, and basher. So there must be some off us still around. Maybe scrachbuilders don't spend enough money on kits and RTR to make big advertisers happy and they don't want to heavily promote the idea of making something rather than buying it. But that would be a conspiracy theory. Maybe fewer are writing up building articles and submitting them. But if there are lots of guys still building stuff then why are there not more scratch building articles and plans? Possibly they are being submitted to such a wide range of magazines that it just looks like there are fewer. I think this is the case. Many things done in the various scales or narrow gauge can be found in magazines devoted to narrow gauge or a particular scale. Mainline Modeler in particular though general seems to have taken up providing the more dry documentary, historical and prototypical information that serves the more academic hobbyist and those with a tendency towards rivet counting. At one time MR was a monthly look at the entire hobby and this could be managed reasonably within the confines of one publication. However since the

70's the hobby has become so diverse with so many widely modeled scales, gauges, time periods, interests and other subsets all being handled by specialized publications its no wonder they have changed so in recent years. MR and to a lesser degree RCM sit in the middle and reach out over a landscape they can no longer fully encompass. They are the only providers that attempt to address the entire hobby and MR is absolutely the best at providing for the new modeler or first time layout builder. Besides if you get any of the other magazines besides MR you may actually have to be able to read. MR has addressed this problem better than anyone with many big color pictures. Along with frequently minimal text and depth its easy for non readers to avoid any MR articles that would give them a headache and still find value. :) Actually I think old MR is doing a good job. I still look forward to it every month even though part of what I look forward to now is getting a few gins out of Terry T's normally shallow editorials along with Strang's incredible ability to provide non information and his amazing discoveries of the obvious. Bruce

"Larry Blanchard" wrote in message news: snipped-for-privacy@uni-berlin.de...

...snip...

Bettendorf and archbar. No drawings, just description and photos.

Gentlemen, Now, somebody asked what the point of building from scratch was when you could buy good RTR stuff. Well, what's the point of hiking the Appalachian Trail when U.S. 1 goes the same way? You answer that question and you've answered both. Cordially yours, Gerard P.

From my point of view, I want to scratchbuild all my wooden structures and kitbash (from DPM kits) my downotwn Orangeville blocks.

I don't want people coming in and saying, "oh, that is a ____ kit, I have one of those" OR "that building is ______ from ______".

I want them to look at the buildings and see the "Catarct Junction House" or "Boston Mill's" or "Church's Falls Brewery", not "ABC" company from "(insert manufacturer here)".

I'm building a freelanced garden railroad in G scale, standard gauge,

1/29. I want it to feature a variety of early- to mid-century freight cars, along with steam engines based on obscure prototypes like the Erie N1 2-8-2, with a nice little Elesco up front and a short fat Vandy behind. So I have to learn to research, kitbash and scratchbuild--there's no other choice besides running stuff that doesn't do much for me.

The one magazine that's been most useful for me is Mainline Modeler. I buy another chunk of back issues every month. MRs from the 60s are good, too.

Wolf, I'm sending you an email.

Patrick

G at 1:29 is only 4ft 2.75 inches.

Why you feel the need to distort scale in such a large size model baffles me, especially when 1:32 is so much easier to calculate sizes etc.

Keith Make friends in the hobby. Visit Garratt photos for the big steam lovers.

I suspect it's because Aristocraft is building standard gauge trains in

1:29.

Has anyone ever stated the rationale for the manufacturers adopting this 'peculiar' scale?

Jim.

There is no such scale as "G scale". There is only "G" Gauge which is 45mm. Manufacturers have applied various scales to this _gauge_ for Garden railways, 1:20.3, 1:22.5 etc through to 1:29.

The correct scale name for "standard gauge" is #1 scale, which is 1:32 on

45mm gauge track. 1:29 scale is "1:29 scale on G gauge."

Regards, Greg.P.

I think it's because strict 1:32 scale suffers from two problems. 1)

1:32 trains are small enough that they "get lost in the weeds" visually. and 2) 1:32 trains built strictly to scale are outrageously long and require curves too large for most back yards. The only 1:32 scale train I have ever seen was a short diesel pulling a drag of short hoppers.

Pretty hard to solve both of the problems simultaneously. One compromise is 1:29 sort-of-scale with shorter-than-scale rolling stock and under-gauge track.

I wonder why nobody goes 1:24 three-foot narrow guage. Seems like the perfect choice for a garden.

Dave,

Must have some pretty big weeds :-) I've seen several outdoor Gauge

1 layouts in the UK and never thought that there was a danger of losing anything in the undergrowth.

I thought that 1:29 scale models will be larger than 1:32 scale models, so any 1:29 train should be longer than a similar 1:32 train.

You have to admit that that is an even bigger bastard than the UK 00 scale :-)

Jim.

It seems that I vaguely recall reading somewhere that the people at Aristocraft thought the 1:29 proportion trains "looked better" on the #1 gauge track than the more correct 1:32 proportion trains. I have not seen these side-by-side so I can't comment on whether they're right or not. I'm just guessing that USA Trains followed Aristocraft's lead for compatibility purposes.

What looks better than correct scale proportions? My guess is that they tried to have a foot on both camps, #1 scale and narrow gauge G.

Rick Jones is right. Aristocraft did in fact choose the 1:29 scale deliberately, as 1:32 trains didn't look hefty enough. It was a purely cosemtic choice, made consciously, in order to create the illusion of big trains. (Source: Model Railroader, but I can't recall when.)

NB that that most 1:24 buildings are of small structures or selectively compressed, so they will look OK with 1:29 trains. Another advantage of the odd scale, perhaps.

I've seen these 1:29 trains at several shows and they look good, because they look _big_. What looks right has far more to do with the angle of view, the scenic context, colour and lighting, etc, than with exact scale fidelity. Unless of course you are the kind of person (most of us, as it happens) whose interpretation of the visual is strongly influenced and even controlled by notions of how things ought to look. Funny, that, but a distinctly human trait. IOW, a "serious modeller" will be put off by 1:29 trains because he "knows" they are wrong. But the general public will be impressed by how big and massive those trains are, "just like the real thing." IOW, the impression of reality that we strive for in our layouts is inherently an illusion. See "The Magic of Illusion" (Sam Posey, Model Railroader, December 2001). An excellent brief treatise on the subject. Highly recommended.

Not really on-topic, but what is a "Vandy" when it is at home?

A Vanderbilt tender?

" think it's because strict 1:32 scale suffers from two problems. 1)

1:32 trains are small enough that they "get lost in the weeds" visually. and 2) 1:32 trains built strictly to scale are outrageously long and require curves too large for most back yards. The only 1:32 scale train I have ever seen was a short diesel pulling a drag of short hoppers."

Does making them 10% larger really solve that problem?

Considering the fact that 1/32 scale figures and vehicles are available and 1/29 are not makes it a rather stupid choice of a scale.

Eric

20% selective compression?