Is Scale Inaccuracy a Cardinal Sin?

Is scale inaccuracy a cardinal sin?

3D Printing has limits, some quite strict limits, I'd like to add; Shapeways' most detailed material (Frosted Ultra Detail) has a lower detail limit of 0.1mm, yet in N gauge I've struggled to model the wheel springs underneath the Metropolitan Twin Brake Van – I had to resort to stepping the springs into the sides to give the illusion of a multi-layered object.

A fine solution to a pervasive problem...

Probably not the best example given I've added no primer, but if you squint...

It's not just simple resolution either, definition is also a problem.  The Shapeways minimum detail level of 0.1mm is actually made up of four 0.025mm laser pixels in the printer; this is to ensure the position of any details that small will be reasonably accurate, which they are.  However, this means that if you go this small (as anyone has to if they deign to model N gauge), there is a 25% directional variation in the X and Y axes (god forbid both!).  The upshot is that your “super-fine detail” will often have poor definition, giving it an almost abraded look; to make matters worse, Shapeways uses Netfabb Professional to nest the models in the most efficient way possible, which will allow the most models into any one printing operation – This means your magnum opus could be printed at all kinds of unfathomable angles!

Looks like it hit a sandpaper block in a hurricane!

Let me introduce you to what is on the left:  That is a mid-2000s model of a Class 08 from Graham Farish.  It clearly displays all the hallmarks of the early chinese production (apart from the split gears, thank god!); This one was evidently designed in Poole and thus can trace it's roots back into the 90s at least.  The major manufacturers in N, Peco and Grafar, had some pretty low standards of detail compared to what even Hornby was capable of at the time, a fact I can verify by way of a 2005 Hornby Catalogue.  N gauge at the time was only slightly better than what FUD is capable of today, as can be examined below:

Circa 2005 I believe, got it as a birthday gift :) 

To examine models, I like to ask “Could this model be blown up to full size and be switched with the original for a few days before being noticed?”

Lettering is in an examplary state for the time, but as you'll see in a minute, still a bit wibbly compared to modern efforts

A bit wide, perhaps,  though if gave it a suitably proportioned etched grille, all but the most eagle-eyed would give the nod

Grafar ought to be proud for making it's 08s look like this in N!

What can be ascertained from an inspection?  Pretty much all moulded handrails with not a wire in sight, no cab glazing, it's clear that most of the effort was focussed on the lettering and other lines (which are still a bit too watercolour for my taste).  A folorn state when compared to the OO gauge models of the time, and sadder yet when you consider how even wagons have progressed in this day and age:

Lettering is razor-sharp even when weathered

Rail-Thin details all over from 2013

Underframe Pr0n :D

Yet in spite of all this progress, the Grafar 08 still has the basic shape of an 08 right, there's very few things about it that can't be fixed by detail etches and added handrails; even advances in adhesive technology such as the glue 'n' glaze can provide a superbly simple solution to it's window-related ills.  I think our attitude towards N gauge back then speaks less about the potential for psychotic levels of detail and more about the amount of effort we'd like to put into it, not to mention the comparison point of OO gauge we had back then.  If it weren't for Grafar moving its manufacturing to China and subsequently re-invigorating their models in a big way, N gauge would have indeed become a fairly large cult gauge, full of fanatical wizards etching and bending and soldering their way to victory.

Today, we've reached the point where unless you're doing a strict time and place – and thus need to re-number rolling stock or add appropriate dirt (such as china clay operations) – chances are an off-the-shelf model can be plonked on your track as-is and look great.  The kits of today are excellently appointed too, and with advances in design and tooling, they're not hernia-inducingly hard to get right.  The main case for improving detail is in the 3D Printing sector, as well as the material properties to make a decent chassis.  Let us further peruse The Metro Twin Brake Van:

Details are a bit dulled by the black paint, makes me sad indeed :(

A clear progression from right to left, though my Metro Twin Brake seems to have sprouted fluff whilst in storage!

If anything, comparing 3D Printing to these models has made me realize something about my craft:  with 3D printing in it's current state, it is essential it looks good out of the box – the fragility of these models is easy to underestimate if you're it's daddy and you're handling it like a baby, but real modellers won't care to be so careful.  The 08 has superior definition to the Metro Brake, of that we can be sure.  The details are also cast in metal so it's far more durable, and therefore more receptive to re-working.  If you play the cards right, you could probably turn this 08 into a reasonable representation of the real thing, as long as no recent Grafar models pull up alongside, of course!

So is it right to expect surgical precision?  Could an obsession over micrometres really have spelled the end of an entire scale?  If you ask me, it all depends on context:  Ask a Shapeways modeller to re-create the modern Grafar 08 and... he's fled!  Too much in the way of technical hurdles and that's before we even attempt to recreate the etched ladders and fitted handrails.  Perhaps this is why 3D Printing is the preserve of the most obscure wagons - wagons that only exist in highly-researched books on quirky and largely forgotten avenues of railway history.  An admirable intention, to effectively catalogue all of our railway's forgotten history in model form, but if you want a hand at this yourself, I recommend sticking to OO where you can fall back on WSF (Polyamide to other companies) and still have a reasonable amount of detail; N gauge 3D Printed rolling stock has yet to come of age, but I'm confident it will in the next 5 years.

Consider the Madder Valley Railway (Vid here), it's models grind and groan as they traverse the layout, and the style seems to make no sense with Beyer Peacock locomotives hauling distinctly American coaches; but it is a true survivor among layouts, it's visual appeal has failed to be quenched even as it's flock materials fade in colour and the wheels look comically disproportionate by modern standards.  This is how we ought to treat the hobby, not as an egotistical scoreboard, but to approach it with the aim to create an atmosphere; to immerse the viewer in a frozen sliver of time, or even just to amuse them with quirky cameos or even mechanical functions!

As for the debacle over “The end of N”, it was right to condemn Grafar for a lack of progress; you start a company to pool resources, to purchase industrial tools and manpower to surpass what an individual modeller can be expected to achieve.  The old Grafar 08 strikes me as a model that could have, potentially, been cast by an enterprising modeller in whitemetal.  My point is that we should not let detail take hold of us like money does to some people, because it produces the exact same sad result – a loss of humanity accompanied by a loss of compassion (we all know the rivet counters, do we not?  Who likes their company?  Silence...)

To follow your heart, is it worth losing your mind?