OO scale and artistic license ?

[Fran]

Being new to scale modelling I'm still trying to my head around producing every day objects to OO scale. With trains, carriages and tracks being mass produced to this scale, along with other items, this appears to make life easier in creating a layout. 

A couple of weeks ago I tried laser cutting a 'Sunburst' gate out of 3mm MDF, this was successful to a degree but not true to scale as it's to thick. 




I thought that I'd give 3D printing a try and designed a farm field gate 12' wide x 4' high, in real life the galvanised tubes are 48-50mm diameter which is 0.6mm at OO scale. 
The printer did manage to create them (gates under the ruler) however they aren't particularly good with stringing even after 2 attempts.
I made the gates slightly thicker ( 0.8mm picture above the ruler) they're better and a little more 'rigid'.

Maybe a gate is a bad example to choose but if there's houses, farms or industrial estates in a layout, surely these can be separated by fencing?  Stone and brick walls or a hedge line might be a better option?

Is it generally 'OK' to take 'artistic license' and be practical to make sure the item is fit to be used or is it 'best practice' to stay true to scale?
Ultimately it's down to the builder, however, there's no point in getting into bad habits when starting on this journey. 

 

[Galteemore]

Hi Fran. That’s very fine work! Depends what the item is. If you are making, for instance, working level crossing gates to be motorised, then making them able to move is important, and may involve some compromise of scale to make it robust. Generally though, the emphasis in a railway model is scale fidelity. This is where physics comes in and some materials such as plastic have limitations - they are simply too fragile when very thin. The sunburst gate you have so beautifully drawn would work best as an etching on brass, which would be thin enough to get the right definition but also strong enough to stand up by itself. 

Edited Wednesday at 06:00 by Galteemore

[Mol_PMB]

I agree with the above but there are plenty of areas where items are made a little over-scale thickness to ensure that they are robust, so I wouldn't worry too much about a small percentage increase. 

Something to think about is the typical viewing angles, especially for static scenery items. You probably wouldn't be looking down on the gate, it's more likely to be in the distance and looking across at it. So an increase in thickness in one direction is more noticeable than in the other, and I think you have done the right thing in this case - the gates at the top of your image look great.

On the tubular gate the thickness can also be made less obvious with a bit of weathering or toning down the colour.

For the sunburst gate, I agree that etching is the way to go because the wrought iron is so thin. It's something that would fit nicely in Weshty's scenic range.

[David Holman]

Well said.

Like it or not, pretty much everything in our hobby is about compromise - starting with track gauge and wheel profiles. The etched brass route for some items is a great idea.

 Before CAD, there was little option other than scratchbuilding things like gates from microstrip - not always successful either, for the same reasons mentioned. Yes, you can buy ready made, but the right thing is not always available. For me, 3D printing is the ideal medium for such items if you have the CAD skills. From what little I know, the time needed to draw out (almost) 2D items is much less than more complex stuff - plus you are developing skills as you go along.

 I think we are entering a new era of scratchbuilding, where CAD, laser cutting, 3D printing etc are much more accessible in terms of cost and availability of the key tools. Don't forget the "three foot" viewing rule (though should be 900mm these days!), nor the effect of a coat of paint. What you have shown us is great, can only get better and is very much the way forward in terms of opening up new opportunities for enhancing our layouts.

[Flying Snail]

As mentioned above, OO is a scale built on the premise of compromise so I would strive to be 'as accurate as is practicable', rather than as accurate as possible. The gates look great, and its most likely that they won't look out of scale to most eyes anyhow.

[Fran]

Thanks to all for the feedback, I was hoping that there was a little wriggle room (artistic license) and this seems to be the case. 

  On 26/3/2025 at 8:41 AM, Flying Snail said:

I would strive to be 'as accurate as is practicable', rather than as accurate as possible

Expand  

After this tentative 'dipping the toe in the water' it makes me admire the patience and skills that you 'layout builders' have. 

[Galteemore]

All modelling is a compromise Fran  Key thing is actually consistency. As long as everything on the layout is of a similar standard it works. Judging by the quality you are churning out you won’t have an issue. And it is always far more satisfying to look at a model and think ‘I made that’.

[Fran]

I made a few modifications/compromises to allow for the small scale and changed the filament colour to silver/grey, there's a little clean up required but it's getting there.
Working in 1/32 seems to be easier but I imagine the skillset will be more honed working at OO 

[Mol_PMB]

Super!

[Jarl]

I like the gate. Just the sort of everyday item that must find a place on many layouts. An opportunity in the market, maybe?!

[Galteemore]

  On 26/3/2025 at 4:28 PM, Jarl said:

I like the gate. Just the sort of everyday item that must find a place on many layouts. An opportunity in the market, maybe?!

Expand  

Agreed. I think a lot of people would snap these up. 

[jhb171achill]

Reading all these posts, a few comments.

Yes, 00 scale is a compromise in many ways. Even for its intended scale gauge of 4' 8 1/2" the track isn't right. For scale irish standard gauge, it's positively narrow gauge in scale terms.

A stout 9 inch square gatepost in scale is just 3mm wide. A farm-style wooden post that you'd make a post-and-wire fence out of might be under one millimetre in thickness if to scale. Thus, the smaller the scale you're dealing with, the "coarser", and thicker, and thus less to scale, are the smaller pieces you're making.

With my extremely belated forays into what galteemore of this forum describes as the "burnt fingers club", i.e. brass modelling, this certainly seems the finest and most durable so far, for extremely small fiddy things. Mind you, one's manual dexterity and eyesight might make such things hard to assemble, but that's another issue.

Early 3D stuff was so crude and rough it was instantly dismissable to any modeller, not just those who wanted accurate fine detail. But 3D seems to be advancing in absolute leaps and bounds. I am lucky enough to have several of the late Ken McElhinney's wagons and one of his (sadly, never to be developed) six-wheel DSER coaches. These were made with what was state of the art 3D printing at the time of his unfortunate passing. So 3D, as many wiser than me will suggest, seems to be definitely the way we are going.

To anyone making anything, the finer you can get from day one, the better. A fairly crude, perhaps slightly overscale model will satisfy those who aren't concerned about accuracy or detail, and just want something which is fairly representative, but it won't satisfy people who want something more realistic. But if it's as realistic as it can be from day one, it will satisfy both those groups and all in between.

Personally I would take a couple of pairs of gates, especially as I hope to be shortly in a position to get going with more scenic work. There are many types. the MGWR, for example, had a unique design of their own, used on the Clifden, Achill, Killala, Kingscourt and several other branches. I know they used other types too, though - the "starburst" (or a variant of it) amongst them. Similarly the GSWR, and I saw a picture of a "starburst" on the Castlegregory branch somewhere too.

So, thumbs up from me, anyway!

[Fran]

Thanks for the input @jhb171achill and comments @Galteemore and @Jarl , I need to perfect my technique and expand my range before even considering ...

  On 26/3/2025 at 4:28 PM, Jarl said:

An opportunity in the market, maybe?!

Expand  

It is cool that you consider that the gate is good enough. Thanks for the encouragement.

Edited Wednesday at 19:35 by Fran

[Mayner]

I produced some etched brass Irish farm gates many years ago, the main expense is the one off 'set up' or photo tool cost for a min 290mm X 135mm brass sheet, I use 0.4mm for the majority of applications incl. locos, rolling stock and architectural features.

To minimise cost of producing the gates and make the best use of the sheet of brass, the gates were added to a window, door and quoin set for a station building.

The section drawn black retains the full thickness of brass, red 1/2 thickness in this case etched from the front, in more complex models blue is used for half etching from the rear and the white area etched through completely. I use PPD in Scotland for my photo engraving for 15 years, they are geared up for doing small custom jobs as well as large contracts and can also laser cut in metal. 

In any form of production system you have to allow for material and process tolerances, in some processes its necessary to draw a part larger than scale because of these tolerances. Generally in photo etching a solid object such as a rectangle or a circle is smaller than drawn and openings in the object larger that the opening because of a process tollerance called etched factor, not dissimilar to kerf (or blade width) when cutting an item with a saw. The PPD https://ppdltd.com/artwork-guide.html website has guidance on producing artwork (drawings)

I have been using a drawing/3D modelling programme I first used about 25 years ago mainly because I am familiar with the user interface, though other programmes may be easier to use.