Possible New Layout Competition

[Mark Tatlow]

Over in the thread on the new British Finescale turnout kits, viewtopic.php?f=5&t=8730, there have been several comments about the possibility of a layout building challenge.

I thought it would be sensible to start a fresh thread for this as it is something that has been muted to the committee and it is a possibility.

So I am really floating the question of who might be prepared to submit layouts if there were to be a new challenge and are there any views on what the basic parameter of the challenge might be; time, size and any restrictions?

What do we think?

[Worzels Works]

Having been one of the quiet observers of the new products I certainly would be interested in the competition! depending on Size and timescale

[ChrisMitchell]

So I am really floating the question of who might be prepared to submit layouts if there were to be a new challenge and are there any views on what the basic parameter of the challenge might be; time, size and any restrictions?

What do we think?

How about a single baseboard, excluding fiddleyard, with a minimum of 2 turnouts. Or might it be better to restrict the footprint as per the original 18.83 challenge?

Chris

[David B]

The idea is an excellent one, whether it be a competition, challenge or project. I have already spoken with a couple of people and whilst acknowledging the parameters have not been set, the low level of interest in shows and here on the Forum made them question support. It would be good to prove this wrong.

The concept is a worthy one and I feel people should not think they have to do this on their own. I would suggest collaboration is the best way forward, there being so much to be gained from working with others - skill development, exchange of ideas, socially and, of course, in the end product.

I would encourage members to talk through the idea, with friends (who may or not be members), in clubs or area Groups, of making something which could be a stand alone board or part of a larger project, perhaps one which could connect to someone else's board. A string of boards at a show would be something different! A few years I saw five different boards connected at a show in Utrecht but not seen it done in this country.

Ideas and thoughts will be welcomed by the committee. The next meeting is on the 19th July, so get them in soon.

[Will L]

...I would encourage members to talk through the idea, with friends (who may or not be members), in clubs or area Groups, of making something which could be a stand alone board or part of a larger project, perhaps one which could connect to someone else's board. A string of boards at a show would be something different! A few years I saw five different boards connected at a show in Utrecht but not seen it done in this country.

Ideas and thoughts will be welcomed by the committee. The next meeting is on the 19th July, so get them in soon.

We have discuses Modular Layouts before (in 2010) see viewtopic.php?f=9&t=803
See also https://www.fremo-net.eu/index.php?id=23&L=6 for the European version
and http://www.free-mo.org/ from our American cousins.

[David B]

I am not suggesting a modular approach to any 'competition/challenge' (or whatever it might be), just the suggestion of people arranging between themselves for their boards to link up. It might be just two boards; it could be two boards from a group layout, who knows?

A full modular approach, I suggest, is a step too far. Any 'challenge' needs to be kept simple. I am just putting out ideas. Let's have some more.

[jim s-w]

Why not break the trend of previous competitions and set a minimum not maximum size?

Or how about everyone starts from the same baseboard (or set of baseboards(l)?

Tim!

[nberrington]

The recent Cameo competition at Railwells seemed quite successful. Cameo layouts are also exhibition friendly. One could combine the concepts - a small (therefor “doable”) self contained layout using 2 or more of the new turnouts .

It might encourage those otherwise intimidated by finescale standards to give it a go.

[kelly]

The recent Cameo competition at Railwells seemed quite successful. Cameo layouts are also exhibition friendly. One could combine the concepts - a small (therefor “doable”) self contained layout using 2 or more of the new turnouts .

It might encourage those otherwise intimidated by finescale standards to give it a go.

This is perhaps where having A points would be more helpful.

[Tim V]

In three years time (2026), it will be 50 years since the formation of the society, and 60 years since P4 standards first were published in the Model Railway News.

This would give the competition a deadline to work to?

I did raise this with the committee when I was editor, a while has passed since then - raise the profile of P4 modelling?

[ClikC]

Definitely something to the golden jubilee/ anniversary of the society and/or the diamond anniversary of the P4 standards.

A minimum of 18.83’ (478.2mm) x 60’ (1524mm)? For the scenic area.

Layouts set between 1966 and 2026?

Layouts featuring at least two of the new turnouts? But perhaps not restricting them to only the scenic area, allowing them to be used within fiddleyards.

Just spitballing some ideas.

Regards

[Noel]

Layouts set between 1966 and 2026?

Or 1976?

[Andrew GW]

This initiative sounds a great idea, whether it's run as a competition or a non-competitive challenge.

Particularly if the challenge is being launched in conjunction with the new turnout kits, personally I'd suggest it could focus on real "toe-in-the-water" projects; mini-layouts that let new starters (or anyone else) quickly get something up and running in P4, with the bare minimum outlay of time and money.

The sort of criteria I have in mind would be:

- Highly portable; compact enough to set up on a table top, easy to carry and to store at home.
- Scenically complete and enjoyable to operate; a "mini-layout", rather than just a test track.
- Must include at least one turnout.
- Provide a "taster" of all the main elements of layout construction, but as little as possible of each!

[jim s-w]

raise the profile of P4 modelling?

The sort of criteria I have in mind would be:

- Highly portable; compact enough to set up on a table top, easy to carry and to store at home.
- Scenically complete and enjoyable to operate; a "mini-layout", rather than just a test track.
- Must include at least one turnout.
- Provide a "taster" of all the main elements of layout construction, but as little as possible of each!

Perhaps this is the question that needs to be answered before we get into details. What is any competition setting out to achieve? If it's the former, as Tim says, then I feel the latter (not picking on you personally Andrew) is probably the furthest from that we can get.

Cheers

Jim

[Mark Tatlow]

Thanks for the comments so far.

I am deliberately holding back from contributing too much to this discussion, as I wished to see what the membership had to say. As I said, whilst it has been floated to the committee, no firm decisions have actually yet been made as to either whether it will definitely occur and in what format.

However, I can confirm that if it were to occur it is intended that the competition would aim for a conclusion in 2026 as part of the society's anniversary celebrations. This gives entrants three years which I adjudge to be sufficient time to build a layout without being so long that everyone forgets what the competition is about!

In terms of objectives of the competition, I saw these as follows:

- to provide stimulus to the entrants to build a layout, on the basis that having an objective and timeline to build to will prompt this and that the builders will enjoy it!
- to generate a number of exhibitable layouts for society/non-society shows
- to promote P4 modelling more generally

In respect to the final point, I mean this to apply at a number of different levels; within manufacturers some of whom are making P4 or P4 friendly models, to existing members of the society and those on the outside of the society but have an interest in the finescale end of the hobby.

[Enigma]

Possibly not to 'compact' seeing that only B7 points will be available first. However I've not drawn anything up using these so I may well find that I am completely wrong.

Nothing new there then.......................

[DougN]

My couple of thoughts on this.

The previous challenge was well received - Ie the 18.83sq ft... one layout ended up a little larger than that.... Burntisland.
The new track needs to be supported... OK even I have thought to start again due to a stalled project.
Timing is good with the new anniversary coming soon.

Is there a way we could encourage people to do things by a challenge of Iain Rice designed or inspired layouts? Or the starting in P4 book that had society backing.

Dare I say sticking with the 18.83 guide lines for new layouts with the encouragement to use the new trackwork? the switch is around 310mm long so I am positive some one will be able to work out a nice layout. Infact I think this could encourage more people as it would be more likely for people to succeed.

[Julian Roberts]

- to provide stimulus to the entrants to build a layout, on the basis that having an objective and timeline to build to will prompt this and that the builders will enjoy it!
- to generate a number of exhibitable layouts for society/non-society shows
- to promote P4 modelling more generally

.

Given these sensible objectives, could I suggest that there are not a set of 18.83 type restrictive parameters, such as size period and other suggestions as have been mooted above.

But that there are categories of entry and judging. For example size, whereby a small tabletop layout isn't pitted against a club entry of more ambitious proportions.

There could be a category where only the new turnout kits are used. I would agree with the objective of promoting them and new members and entrants, but I think restricting the competition to that would limit the scope of meeting Mark's other objectives that I've quoted.

[Terry Bendall]

There have been two layout challenges in the past. The 1883 Challenge devised by Chris Challis came to its conclusion in 2005. The main criteria were a footprint of 18.83 square feet and operated by two people. As has been mentioned, some of these layouts subsequently grew a bit. The main background to this challenge was to encourage the development of some new layouts of modest size that could be invited to exhibitions.

The diesel and electric layout challenge was devised by me, stealing the great idea deveised by Chris, as a way of encouraging people to model the diesel and electric era to P4 standards and that was concluded in 2008. The criterial were that the layout should be transportable in a car and operated by two people and again one of the aims was to bring some new layouts onto the exhibition circuit but also to encourage people to model the D&E era to P4 standards which at the time (2006) was not very common.

In both cases quite a lot of the layouts are still on the exhibition circut with some having been extended or the context or period changed so the aim of adding to the pool of available layouts was certainly achived and a significant number of layouts in both challenges were first time efforts so that was also a success. The other important point is that in both previous challenges the "best" layout was judged by those attending the exhibition as has been done with the layout awards at Scaleforum and Scalefour North, and this year at Scalefour Crewe.

I believe the recent challenge run by the EMGS was to encourage the use of their new turnouts and one criteria was that at least two turnouts were used. As the contributions so far have shown, there are all sorts of criteria that might be used. Assuming that the committee decide to proceed with this idea, and find someone to manage it (without which it will not happen), criterial will need to be developed which might include those used previously or some of the thoughts suggested on here. What is important is to leave things as open as possible so restricting the period depicted is probably not the way to go.

Terry Bendall

[buckie5507]

I would love to see another layout challenge, having missed out on the 18.83 and D&E.

The agree that the criteria should be as open as practicable and would suggest the following -

- minimum 2 turnouts (either BFS or handbuilt)
- Max scenic length of 6' (60" would fit in with the societies 60th, but 5' is an awkward size)
- complete for display at Scaleforum 2026 and/or Warley 2026

As a thought, could the challenge be open to non-members?

Jonathan

[James Walters]

As many others have indicated, I too would be interested in another challenge of some description. Personally, I'd prefer the format of a challenge rather than a competition. The notion of a competition might deter those whom already feel shy of taking the finescale plunge, whereas a challenge by its very nature might encourage them to 'challenge' themselves to try.
As a thought, we could have categories of recognition for many of the different disciplines within our hobby, and perhaps give an encouragement to the development of new ideas. The new turnout kits are a great recent development, but I am sure there are other innovations waiting in the wings which could be showcased through this proposed initiative, the radio control kits being just one example.
Wouldn't it be great if by the 75th Anniversary, some wonderful outcome from this proposal could have become a 'standard' and our hobby have measurably moved forward as a consequence. One such positive outcome might be an enlarged community and less of the elitistism which is often unfairly directed at finescale enthusiasts.
With that it mind, and should this proposal develop further, might it be possible to open a dedicated area of the forum to non-members to discuss the challenge? I believe it would help engage non-members to take an interest and possibly have a go themselves - which would be a fantastic outcome.

Just thoughts....

James

[Noel]

As a thought, could the challenge be open to non-members?

I believe it would help engage non-members to take an interest and possibly have a go themselves - which would be a fantastic outcome.

Would the Society's constitution permit this, particularly if there were financial implications? Just curious, I haven't looked. There might also be "political" implications, since the EMGS also supports P4 modelling, or did last time I looked, which was a while ago.

[buckie5507]

Membership of the society was not a requirement for the D&E challenge

"6. Entry to the event is open to all. Membership of either the Scalefour Society or DEMU is not a
prerequisite to enter the event." - S4 news issue 151 (page 23)

Jonathan

[Steve Carter]

As a thought, could the challenge be open to non-members?

I believe it would help engage non-members to take an interest and possibly have a go themselves - which would be a fantastic outcome.

Would the Society's constitution permit this, particularly if there were financial implications? Just curious, I haven't looked. There might also be "political" implications, since the EMGS also supports P4 modelling, or did last time I looked, which was a while ago.

Maybe the Society Aims and Objectives help, in particular the last paragraph?

Aims and Objectives
The Scalefour Society was founded in December 1975. Its aims and objectives are:

To bring together persons interested in railway modelling to 4 mm finescale standards;
To promote and encourage the use of efficient modelling techniques and finescale standards among all 4 mm scale modellers;
To publish information of value to its members and other 4 mm scale modellers;
To undertake or support the design and development of components and materials for use in 4 mm finescale railway modelling; and
To trade on behalf of its members for the supply of model railway components, materials and publications.

The Scalefour Society is an entirely independent body, unconnected with any particular manufacturer or trade interest. It is run by its members solely for the benefit of its members, who range from absolute beginners to others with the expertise of a lifetime. All are welcome.

[Noel]

It is run by its members solely for the benefit of its members,