History of Scale Drawings - 1:36 Series

Drawing Scale

To simplify explanations and calculations, the 1:36 series broke away from the semi-random scales of previous series to be fixed at 24 pixels per foot, or 2 pixels per inch. The scale when printed can therefore be obtained simply by taking the printing resolution in DPI divided by 2.

The images are actually 96 DPI by default, or 1:48, but to maintain consistency with the other drawings of the site (calculated based on 72 DPI) they are referred to as 1:36.

Behind the Series

Although the 1:36 series was introduced in February 2008, it can trace its origins back much farther.

Back in 2005, when I first started revising (and later completely remaking) drawings in the 1:55 series, the idea crossed my mind of introducing a new drawing size, done at a more easy-to-use scale. The history of different scales meant that the 1:55 series was drawn at 16.2 pixels per foot, which was hard to explain to other artists and a little awkward to work with. I thought of introducing a larger size, such as 20 or 24 pixels per foot, which would allow me to incorporate a higher level of detail. However, by this point I had amassed a collection of about 2000 1:55 drawings, and the idea of starting from scratch was quite daunting.  Perhaps more importantly, I was not convinced that I could find adequate reference material to draw a wide range of models at a larger scale.

The revised 1:55 drawings were positively received by site viewers, and I was satisfied with them too.  As a result, the idea of introducing a larger series was put on the back burner for a while. I had no serious intention, even until early 2008, of replacing the 1:55 series with another scale. However, every so often I received a request for larger-scale drawings or vector images.  Each time, I had to explain that the 1:55 series was all I had, and each time, the thought of a larger scale again crossed my mind.

In November 2007, I bought a new camera (Canon Digital Rebel XTi), which started an incredibly frenzy of roster and detail photography.  There were also many high-resolution photos becoming available online.  The net result of these larger images was that I was running into resolution barriers in 1:55; I was having to fudge small details that were now becoming visible in photos.

In late February 2008, I received several requests within a period of only a few days for either larger drawings, vector images or fine details that I couldn't draw in 1:55. That spontaneously led to the beginning of a new series on February 22, and the completion of the first 1:36 drawing on February 23.

Above: A nearly-completed view of the first 1:36 drawing, an EMD RM-1, as it appeared on February 23, 2008. A number of corrections and additions were made before it was uploaded, and a few more changes were made in the following weeks. Click here for the final version.

Making the Drawings

There's nothing revolutionary about the making of the 1:36 drawings. I retained the method I had used for all drawings up to that point: editing the images directly as GIF files in MS Paint.  Although the added detail can take more time to decipher and draw, the scale (24 pixels per foot) is very easy to work with and ultimately more satisfying than previous scales.

Beyond the added detail, dimensional accuracy is a key priority in the 1:36 series, as it was in the final 1:55 drawings. There's more to it, however, than merely observing the major dimensions, like truck centers and wheelbase, length over the pilots, length over the coupler pulling faces and height over the cab. Many other dimensions can sometimes be found with a little searching, in other drawings or in discussion forums--things like frame height, cab length, stanchion spacing, door height, fan diameter and so on.

The smaller dimensions can sometimes be found from listed data, but more often I calculate them from photos. How wide is a wheel bearing? How large are the door latches and hinges, and where are they positioned? How tall or how long is a radio antenna? What's the diameter of the sand lines, motor cables, air hoses or handrails? How wide are the jacking pads, and where do they connect with the main frame? What are the diameter and position of the holes on a truck sideframe? How many bolts are there around a grill or panel, and how are they spaced?

This may sound nit-picky, but I actually measure all of those kinds of details.  It really doesn't take much longer to draw a detail at the correct size than it does to "guesstimate" it.  I've learned that small dimensional inaccuracies can throw off many drawings when parts are shared.  I've also learned that site viewers may expect high levels of accuracy.

As a result, "common" parts incorporated into many different drawings are given special attention--even the seemingly simple and generic. Couplers are based off photos and patent diagrams, traction motors (often nearly invisible) are drawn separately before other truck details are added, and snowplows are traced from modified direct side views. The best part is that many of these details are identical between a large range of different models, so it really only takes time to draw them in the first place. Additionally, I only need accuracy to within a half-inch--because, at 2 pixels per inch, I can't divide the 1:36 drawings any further. In a way, that's an advantage of pixelation!

Accuracy can also only be taken to a certain point before inconsistencies in the prototype begin to surface. Wheels decrease in diameter over time, springs gradually compress, modifications and repairs are made, initial construction may not have been exact--and when inconsistencies like these appear, I take as-built specifications (if available) or else a median value from several measurements.

Also, for all the care taken, there are details that will just be missed. Photos don't always provide a perfect angle and require some interpretation--and I also have a tendancy to forget the last small details. For these I often rely on the help of site viewers.