Annoying HO Project

[finescalerr]

What you see below is the result after about four false starts. I experimented with varying thicknesses of laser cut basswood, Strathmore cardstock, cardboard, and inkjet printed typing paper along with a frustrating variety of interior reinforcement methods. The model is a six inch long HO depot of my own design. I built it because the drawing looked reasonably attractive.

Unfortunately the actual structure now seems rather boring. Worse, it was no fun to construct because small details in HO scale require far too much concentration to attach, cutting (terribly fragile) window mullions in that scale challenges a laser's (and builder's) limits and, until I shot the photos, my eyes could barely resolve what I had created!

Yes, I said I would build my "second-tier" projects in HO because I'm almost out of storage and display space but this depot has been no fun at all. It wasn't a "quickie" model, as I'd hoped. Not even close! Maybe the answer will be to build fewer models, but in 1:48 scale or 1:32, or to focus on design rather than construction.

Anyway, here's the result.

At least I built something.

Russ

[Lawrence@NZFinescale]

Lovely job and the windows are technically excellent.

It's an interesting philosophical problem.

I used to obsessively labo(u)r over scratchbuilds, but that doesn't really get me going that much anymore.

Why?  Well, I'm no less obsessive.  But I know that I can use low volume manufacturing to produce something that is far better.  Assembly at the workbench is less, but less frustrating.  If I want things to be distressed or uneven for character I can do that on the digital side and in finishing. The digital side takes time, but doesn't need magnifiers and can also be reused on multiple projects.

The basics of the attached 1:64 car took around a day's modelling to accomplish.  Painting and finishing quite a bit more.  The digital side, I'd hate to think, but much of that is spread over my full fleet (and a bunch of commercial sales as well).  The model has it's faults, but in the context of a layout runner it's to a higher standard than really needed.

I need to do some buildings soon.  There will be scratchbuilding in that but things like sash windows will be fold up etches (capturing the glazing) in 3D printed frames.

Remember that my layout is a 5m x 600mm or so wide 'diorama' where virtually nothing has been obtained commercially.  So the car and similar models are just small components of the whole.  While I relish the close up photography, they are really intended to be viewed from 2-3' distance.  More importantly the entire project actually now seems achievable, whereas individual scratchbuilds probably wouldn't be.

Is it easier in 1:64 versus HO or O?  I don't think so, just different.  The larger the scale the more details you have to model, and the more you can leave out in smaller scales. Granted, if you are wedded to HO and need window mullions then you need a method that's achievable without sacrificing sanity.

[Bill Gill]

Russ, I'd offer to save you further frustation with that model by taking off your hands, but alas, small as it is, it's too big for the available depot space on my tiny C&V RR.

Actually, I think it looks very good, nice proportions and colors. I currently am erratically working on a much smaller depot. It's a freelanced design, based on several small prototypes and, like you, I'm finding every step frustrating.

One thing you might find interesting for ideas for your paper/cardstock models is a large series of YouTube videos about an N scale model railroad being built in England. The structures are designed with Inkscape, usually printed on "stickyback labels" and cut out by hand with a scalpel. https://www.youtube.com/c/Chandwell
The current project is a stone cathedral.

[Stuart]

Russ -

Dispite your frustrations with working through various materials and assembly methods I'd say you've done an admirable job, very neat and clean.

I used to work in HO scale but found the scale pieces to be too delicate and the size too small to create the detail I wanted. For that reason I moved up to O scale. That was better but I was still after more detail. So I now work in 1/12th scale. I can go crazy with detail but the large size certainly takes up vast amounts of "real-estate". There always seems to be some kind of compromise to work through even in a hobby.

Stuart

[Peter_T1958]

Russ – I see a very attractive scale model of an also great subject! And, as Stuart wrote, it is a very carefully and clean built. Alas you see it with your own eyes (the eyes that know all the struggle) – looking at it with fresh eyes, as we do, is no longer possible for the builder himself.

Where I have to agee with you is the finding, that modeling isn't always fun. And I feel that more and more.
But isn't it, because the youthful easiness has gone. In earlier days I built things relatively straightforward. Now, my expectations have grown (unlike my abilities   ). Logically, that doesen't lead to more satisfaction...
But is there any option? No 

[finescalerr]

Lawrence, I've modeled in 1:87, 1:48, 1:32, 1:24, and 1:20. For basic construction, the small and delicate parts of an HO model are more frustrating to work with. Everything you wrote is correct, of course, but I no longer enjoy working with tiny, delicate components so the step up to 1:48 is a little more comfortable.

Bill, misery loves company so thanks for admitting your frustration with tiny HO parts. And it's nice to know someone as talented as Stuart shares our frustrations.

Finally, I think Peter has described me perfectly: As the years go by we tend to build more complex models but also expect them to be more perfect. In my case, by the time I was 35 construction had become a chore; something I must to do bring a drawing to life. But CAD design is more fun for me! Oh, well.

To make matters worse, a friend asked me to create a kit of a structure from the California ghost town of Bodie. I found photos, drew as accurate a plan as possible, broke it into components for the laser, and created the kit. But what scale does he want? HO! Okay, fine. I'm thinking about building just the front wall for myself. In 1:48.

If we actually complete anything I'll post the results so we can all have a laugh.

Russ

[Lawrence@NZFinescale]

I used to model in smaller scales, but steam locomotive valve gears were off-putting. There are certain absolutes that cannot be avoided.  If you want a 1/2" bar in 1:64 that's 0.2mm, which is both obtainable and relatively robust. The verticals on my car gate use it.  In a smaller scale the gates still need verticals, but they become harder to make, materials/methods are not robust, and a scale result is hard to achieve. To Peter's excellent points, the results do not meet our needs.

It's certainly possible to make very fine models and if that is what you want and they are going to live in a glass case then that's fine. If mullions make you miserable and/or the model is going to be on an operating model railway, then HO is arguably too small for finescale work.

I struggle too with large scales.  There is just too much detail that should go in for life like accuracy, unless one is building a pristine object.  Every dent, scratch and discarded butt is needed in 1:12 which doesn't attract me.  Which is not to say that others (with more patience) are not doing great work. Personally, the sweet spot is between 4 and 7mm.  At the lower end of that for large scenes, and the upper end for showcase models.

But it's a very individual decision, and it's important that what you do brings you pleasure.

[Ray Dunakin]

Well Russ, at least it turned out well. But yeah, when it stops being fun, it's time for a change.

[Kevin Sikorsky]

Hey there Russ. Ya know. Everyone picks apart their own builds. In a way I guess, it's the only way to successfully build. But plain and simple, it's always great to build. Don't lean so hard on this one. I like it. And paper - in HO, it's even better.