# "Scratch" Building- A few Thoughts



## jack.39 (Jan 2, 2010)

First I started seeing the term, it basically meant, to me, building without drawings prepared by someone else. Now, I don't think I really know if "scratch" defines exactly at a 100% level.

My locomotive was scratch built. Evidently, this process is attempted for several reasons; in my case, it was because I had insufficient funds to buy a kit, or even basic castings, and, I wanted to approximate the size, shape, and appearance of a locomotive no longer in existence, whose original blueprints were destroyed.

My early impressions of scratch building suggested to me that the finished product was, by implication, inferior in many ways, because, after all, how many are able to "scratch design" a whole locomotive? Later, I altered that view after realizing many builders also lacked original drawings, and further, wanted to pursue the challenge inherent in scratch building which is lacking when a machinist-capable person throws castings on a lathe or mill, follows the specs shown on a drawing provided to him/her (sorry, ya gotta be P.C. now, no?), and produces results pre-conceived by someone else. In many instances, one winds up with a much finer-looking model, than if it were completely scratch-made.

But, what about the definition? Suppose a guy has available a set of drawings original to a specific locomotive, and proceeds to use ONLY those drawings, no purchased pre-shaped parts or castings, to build the machine shown in the drawings? Has he "scratch-built? I really don't know; guess it depends on the impression of the definer. But, IMO, he has NOT scratch-built. 

A prototype steam locomotive, especially the last ones built, the "Superpowers", had an astronomical number of details pertinent to their appearance, as one viewed them, that I believe it is IMPOSSIBLE to 100% duplicate such a locomotive, in sub-size scale, no matter what degree of dedication to originality exists. The innumerable brackets and mountings, with their curves and gussets, the rows upon rows of rivets, piping lines, tanks, pumps, heat exchangers, doo-dads about which I know nothing at all, are what make me think as I do. Added to that thought is the FACT, that certain aspects of size-reduction for modelling purposes ABSOLUTELY cannot be scaled-down and made workable or even viable.

As I made my way through the process of design, making parts, learning along the way that there was far more yet needed to be learned, I tempered my views regarding how far it seems reasonable to go, in achieving a final result so like the original, in appearance, and began to wonder just HOW do they do it? Well, some work at a single model for 20 years! That, I could not imagine myself doing. So, I drew the line, so to speak, wanting my engine to be USEABLE if not critically pretty, and adopted the stance that as long as EACH individual builder is SATISFIED with his/her final result, regardless of petty factors, that is what counts, more than anything else!

The following 2 pics show an unusually well-detailed model, the first being during construction, and the second being the finished item. 















Mine is below. Am I ashamed to show it alongside the magnificent example above? Hell, No! Mine was SCRATCH-BUILT! Thanks fer lookin'! jack

PS: Text has gone off-page for some reason; slide it left to see the front of the nice loco above.


----------



## gbritnell (Jan 2, 2010)

Hi Jack, I always thought the term meant building something without castings, extrusions or in general kit form. When someone builds a boiler for example and makes his own safety valve, water gauge and fittings I would consider this scratch building. Naturally most people aren't going to build their own pressure gauge. One would have to work from a drawing or sketch, especially on a complicated part, unless his mind can hold a lot of dimensions.
gbritnell


----------



## mklotz (Jan 2, 2010)

Wiktionary

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/scratch-built

captures most of my feelings on the subject. Inevitably, the term will mean different things to people with differing skill levels. (And, no, I'm not gonna smelt my own metals in order to consider some of my engines scratch-built.)


----------



## Jadecy (Jan 2, 2010)

Regardless of definition the two locomotives shown are impressive. Maybe I'm not a purest but I have seen many variations at models shows which include everything from ground up to kits with detailed instructions and I appreciate them all. From the guy who just built his first barstock steam engine to the one who for example built a complete Dusenberg or Ferarri or Motorcyle Engine or tiny traction engine or ... I like to look at them all. It is true that some are more talented than others and some models are more impressive but I still like to look at them all and can appreciate the work in each of them.  

I've seen a lot of discussion lately about definition of terms. The other term I saw was craftsmanship. Everyone has their own opinion and interpretation and that is their right. I guess it has some to do with why you do what you do. I build models for me and I enjoy talking to other model builders. I pick something I like and I change things to match what I like. I display my models and others seem to enjoy looking at them but they weren't built to obtain affirmation from others. They are not the most impressive models but I am happy with them and I had a lot of fun building them so they served their purpose.

Nice job on the locomotive. Very impressive! I appreciate you sharing the picture. 

Even though I sincerely mean it I doubt it gives you the feeling you got from making all the parts, assembling the model, and then seeing it operate for the first time.

Just a differing opinion. Use the definitions that work for you. ;D


----------



## itowbig (Jan 2, 2010)

HUMMMMM  SMELT (isnt that a fish)


----------



## jack.39 (Jan 2, 2010)

itowbig  said:
			
		

> HUMMMMM SMELT (isnt that a fish)



Ha! So SMELT a smelt, let the casting cool, and hang it on the wall........

jack


----------



## Deanofid (Jan 2, 2010)

Jack, there is a lot of "what it means to me" going around, but a great majority of the words and phrases in our language have a definition. That means their characteristics are definite for the purpose of having a somewhat usable language.

"Scratch built" is building without the use of shapes that are already the shape you want, and/or using what you can get your hands on to do the job. Having, or not having prints or drawings doesn't change the item from being scratch built to something else. I mean, if you thought up a piece in your head, and you know what size you want it, you have a print. It's just not tangible, yet. Should that keep you out of the "Scratch Built Club"?

Having something down on paper doesn't make you less of a scratch builder any more than taking someone else's drawings and changing a couple of things around makes them a designer. 
From the looks of your loco, I'd say you were both designer and (scratch) builder. You may have used a number of previously manufactured parts to build it, like pipe fittings and etc. but that wouldn't take anything away from it, and wouldn't make it any less scratch built, if that's what you're after. 

As far as "throwing a casting on a lathe" goes, if you think about it, using castings is often harder than building from bar stock. Having a piece of "something" that looks like what you think it should look like on the outside is little comfort to the guy who has to machine it without the use of any datum surface what-so-ever. Stock metal shapes at least offer that! 



> Added to that thought is the FACT, that certain aspects of size-reduction for modelling purposes ABSOLUTELY cannot be scaled-down and made workable or even viable.



I don't know if that's a fact, but tend to think it is not after seeing some of the very small exact scale engines out there.  Because it seems unlikely in the extreme sense, doesn't mean it can't be done.

I have a few engines that I used no prints or drawings to build, and some that I had prints for. They were all built from what I had in the way of bar stock, or scrap parts. They're scratch built. Because one of them had a piece of paper with some marks on it doesn't make it less scratch built than the others.

Dean


----------



## Cedge (Jan 3, 2010)

I'm with Marv.... Building something from available basic materials is good enough to qualify as being "From Scratch", at least here. I'm just not sure why there is any need to define the term or to make any sort of specific distinction. 

My last build was based on a Philp Duclos design and I used his drawings/instructions as a starting point. After seeing the build log, I doubt anyone could define that build as being anything other than "From Scratch". 

In her day, Mom made a lot of biscuits from scratch,, but she never milled the flour or laid the eggs.... both being required materials for Grandma's recipe. Try telling those two great ladies it wasn't "from scratch" and I'll buy tickets to watch the carnage unfold.

Steve


----------



## Maryak (Jan 3, 2010)

Viewing the problem from upside down 

Model your with happy are you if. ??? ???

matter it does what. ???

boB

Regards Best


----------



## RobWilson (Jan 3, 2010)

What no castings ,,,what about the bloke who took the time to build his own foundry set up ,learn to cast ,make patterns ,as to throwing castings on a machine ,i will give that a go ,maybe that's were i am going wrong ???

Regards Rob


----------



## steamer (Jan 3, 2010)

!!me with agrees Bob 8)

If you made something that didn't exist before with your own hands AND brain and your happy......it's scratchbuilt....JMO.

...and Cedge...I'll buy a ticket to watch your grandmother open a can of W(*^*% ss......or perhaps she should make her own?...


----------



## Loose nut (Jan 3, 2010)

When ever I build something it usually has scratches all over it.


----------



## shred (Jan 3, 2010)

LOL... ;D

Scratch built for me means "I didn't get a kit of pre-cut, finished (or nearly so) parts in a box and stick them together according to the instructions".

The scratch part is when you take raw stock and convert it into parts.


----------



## jack.39 (Jan 3, 2010)

Deanofid  said:
			
		

> I don't know if that's a fact, but tend to think it is not after seeing some of the very small exact scale engines out there.  Because it seems unlikely in the extreme sense, doesn't mean it can't be done.........Dean.....



The intent behind the statement referred to above, was that safety, not extreme small size difficulties, makes certain scaling of parts absolutely impossible. This stems from the fact that in scaling we are stuck with what algebra geeks call a "cubic function".

This means that often the qualities of strength of a given part makes it impossible to scale because it's dimensional sizes would assure failure in service.

jack


----------



## kvom (Jan 3, 2010)

Scaling up can also run into the same issues. My 3x CO2 build ran into the laws of physics as well.


----------

