Scaleforum 2022 - in images

[Paul Willis]

The Society's work on a Retrospective of the Scaleforum 2022 show is still continuing.

However, to enable you to reminisce if you attended, or view what you missed it you didn't, I'm pleased to be able to share a very well produced video with you. It's on the YouTube channel of someone under the name of "Western Signalman". He has a number of other reviews of different shows, and if they are all of the quality of this one, I'll be browsing some more.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HYP3sG0KKN8

Enjoy, and I hope to see you at a show again soon.

Best wishes,

Paul Willis
Scalefour Society Publicity

[Rdawson28]

Thanks Paul, it’s a really nice record of the day.

[Albert Hall]

Excellent footage especially when watched on a big TV screen. Thanks Paul.

Roy

[John Donnelly]

That video has sparked a rather lively discussion on 'acceptable' standard at model railway exhibitions, particularly scale shows over on RMWeb:

https://www.rmweb.co.uk/topic/174579-ac ... hibitions/

[Winander]

a rather lively discussion

14 pages since 2nd October. No thanks.

[Philip Hall]

The originator of this lengthy series of posts seems to be still going down the road of presuming that 'if you model in P4, you want absolutely everything, but everything, correct and will brook no compromise' which is of course complete nonsense. And then criticises how people run their railways if it doesn't correspond with how he thinks it should be done. He might be right of course, about the way we run our railways, but that's the only place he's a bit right.

It may be that in the past, at least (hopefully not now) that this was the impression that those of us of this persuasion almost willingly fostered, and you would hope that this stuff had been buried well and truly by now, but still it rumbles on. We are never going to win.

I started reading this but (like Richard) after a page or two thought that cutting the grass and watching it grow again was probably more interesting.

Philip

[Neil Smith]

I agree with Richard and Philip's comments. I waded through the thread far enough to conclude that lots of people disagreed with him and very few agreed, with his critics pointing out it was perhaps not wise to criticise when he admitted to using for example tension lock couplers on his own layout.

But I was left saddened that the main grist of the original post appeared to boil down to nothing more than a deep rooted personal antipathy towards P4.

All the best

Neil

[Noel]

Interesting. I have read quite a bit of the thread, although by no means all, as I tend to lose interest after the first few pages [too much repetition and deviation, and not enough hesitation ], but I didn't see it that way at all. The OP seems to me to be suggesting that, in the same way as finescale modelling generally implies higher standards of the actual models, it should also imply higher standards of operation. I don't see that as at all controversial; whether or not you agree with the suggestion, there is a case to answer. The OP is apparently a former railwayman, and tries to operate to the rules. His modelling standards are not relevant to that.

[Jol Wilkinson]

I agree with Richard and Philip's comments. I waded through the thread far enough to conclude that lots of people disagreed with him and very few agreed, with his critics pointing out it was perhaps not wise to criticise when he admitted to using for example tension lock couplers on his own layout.

But I was left saddened that the main grist of the original post appeared to boil down to nothing more than a deep rooted personal antipathy towards P4.

All the best

Neil

Neil,

it is my experience that there are a number of RMweb members who are willing to make derisory comments, for no apparent reason, about those who model in P4. It is not uncommon to see a comment appear in a topic which no specific relevance to P4. Whether this antipathy is through an outmoded and inaccurate belief that P4 modellers are elitist, arrogant or what I don't know.

Jol

[Terry Bendall]

The OP seems to me to be suggesting that, in the same way as finescale modelling generally implies higher standards of the actual models, it should also imply higher standards of operation.

I have not read the thread in question and have no intention of doing so,but if we aspire to getting our models accurate in terms of track gauge and dimensional accuracy then it seems to me that we should try and get the operation of our layouts as close to the prototype as we can. That is slightly diferent from things like erratic running of locos or rough shunts which is where I think the RM web post started.

Probably most, if not all of those who take layouts to exibitions will have had the experience of jogging the contoller and getting a sudden burst of speed or getting a jerky move or perhaps not setting a turnout correctly. None of us wants that to happen, but being human it will happen to most occasionally. A simple apology to those watching will often work although that would not come over in a video.

The originator of this lengthy series of posts seems to be still going down the road of presuming that 'if you model in P4, you want absolutely everything, but everything, correct and will brook no compromise' which is of course complete nonsense.

There will be some people who will aspire to that, and a smaller number who will achieve it I think that most of us will try and get most things "correct" be it smooth operation, operation according to how the prototype did things or historical accuracy of the locos and stock that we run. Equally most of us will accept compromise in some way be it a compressed prototypical track plan, a missing signal, a track formation that would probably not have been in the assumed location or perhaps locos and stock that would not have been seen together. Often that will be acknowledge by the builder of the layout. It is our train set and that is what we choose to do and there is absolutly nothing wrong with that.

Terry Bendall

[Noel]

Seeing criticism as being driven by prejudice is a very easy way of avoiding rational consideration of the issue...

[jon price]

Like everything creative we deal in interpretations. The closer to the present time, the more detail we can add to our interpretation, and if we are able to drill down, and to be lucky in our surviving data we can present a very accurate snapshot of a particular day at a particular location (usually post WW2). The further back we go, and the further away from dense populations the more fragmentary the data becomes. In my case, in my chosen location at circa 1905 or 1906 we can't even be sure of the livery of the rolling stock, or indeed even what rolling stock existed. So we are all in the business of making interpretations based on varying amounts and accuracy of data.

As far as operations go we can take first hand accounts by living ex-employees, but these only really go back as far as WW2. Before that there are known rules and regulations, but as far as make-up of trains go it is pretty clear that there was considerable local variance from published documents. I can look at marshalling instructions for 1906 and find that the photos that exist often do not match these documents.

Our layouts are not documentary evidence, they are interpretations of documentary evidence. As far as oral testimony goes this may have validity, but not always. I dug on the Roman site at Castlefields in Manchester in the 70s. Whilst explaining what we were uncovering close to the surface in the foundations of 19th century cottages I was accosted by someone who told me that they had lived in one of the houses, and what I said was rubbish because he knew the houses had cellars. This is an extreme case of distortion in recollection, but we are all working in the field of history and archaeology, and all history and archaeology is interpretation. How far we take our interpretations is up to us, but we all start with a more of less imperfect set of data and construct a reasonable interpretation of that data. This applies to operation as much as it does to physical entities. We could create, at one extreme, static diorama layouts with absolute focus on the detail of infrastructure and rolling stock, or or we could create layouts like the L&Y teaching layout at the NRM where the focus is on absolute accuracy of operation with no concern for details of model infrastructure or rolling stock. In practice we all attempt a compromise between these two extremes.

[bobwallison]

But I was left saddened that the main grist of the original post appeared to boil down to nothing more than a deep rooted personal antipathy towards P4.

I don't see that at all - the OP goes out of his way to praise the skill and effort that is evident in the physical modelling. His main contention, repeated time and again, is that at a specialist finescale show he would hope for similar skill and effort to be expended on realistic operation. Since a desire for better operation has been a recurring theme in S4News, and the society's own motto until recently has been "getting it all right" (surely a rod for our own back?) it seems unfair to villify someone for making a similar point on another forum.

Perhaps Editor Tim's successor could reach out to The Johnster and ask if he would contribute an article to the News - he has some very useful and interesting things to say about prototype operation in his other posts. Better to avoid the word "Acceptable" in the title, though.

By the way, it wasn't jerky running or a rough shunt that set the OP going: the loco slammed into a rake of carriages at a scale 10mph and kept on going along the platform for a distance of about two carriage lengths. I saw it with my own eyes at High Wycombe.

Bob

[John Palmer]

After a glance at the thread in question I'd hoped to discover the extent of our group's naughtiness in its failure to observe requirements laid down in the 1955 Rule Book, but so far my quest for such a volume has been in vain. No doubt we'd be criticised for apparently running our passenger services under class F freight lamps, but I dare say that even amongst professional railwaymen there may be some who are unaware of the subtleties of Somerset & Dorset practice.

I do have sympathy for the point of view that striving to reproduce the prototype's operating practices helps promote the illusion that the observer is viewing a miniaturised version of the real world. But if that's the purpose of such a stricture then it's one having equal application to any model intended to represent some bygone scene, regardless of scale, gauge or construction standards. I couldn't see any justification for the chap taking a pop at P4 layouts in particular, but if he is predisposed to take offence at some heinous infraction of this elusive 1955 Rule Book that we've committed when operating our P4 model of Burnham, then he is entirely welcome to pass it quietly by.

And now I'm off to search for some scratch 'n' sniff cards that will capture for our onlookers that authentic 1950s-railway-by-the-sea aroma...

[Noel]

By the way, it wasn't jerky running or a rough shunt that set the OP going: the loco slammed into a rake of carriages at a scale 10mph and kept on going along the platform for a distance of about two carriage lengths. I saw it with my own eyes at High Wycombe.

An impossibility in real life, of course. Having watched steam engines approaching rolling stock, especially if occupied, many times in the 1960s, I would just walk away from any layout where the operating team permitted such actions, whatever the scale and gauge. It ruins the picture that they are, presumably, intending to present. It shows either willful ignorance [it isn't that difficult to find out how it was done in reality, even now] or laziness and lack of interest on the part of the operator.

[Highpeak]

Like Noel, I was quite surprised at the running round operation that appears to have been a key factor in triggering that long-winded and at times rather repetitive thread on RMWeb. I wouldn't have walked away because I have a lot to learn and any of the layouts at the exhibition would have been well worth close scrutiny, but I agree that it did rather spoil the effect.

Now, it's not as if the prototype procedure is a mystery, so I wonder what might have been the full story. I watched the four part video report on the exhibition and was keenly interested in the segment on Kitedale. It included a running round scene and there was no repeat of the loose wagon shunting technique. Perhaps the other video just happened to catch them at a bad time.

[bobwallison]

I couldn't see any justification for the chap taking a pop at P4 layouts in particular

Because he was commenting on a video taken at Scaleforum, perhaps? Nothing more sinister than that, I think.

Bob

[Jol Wilkinson]

Seeing criticism as being driven by prejudice is a very easy way of avoiding rational consideration of the issue...

Very true, Noel.

Sadly, unsocial media doesn't always encourage rational discussion. I have often reflected on questioning such anti P4 comments, but have usually concluded that it would probably be counter productive. Generally those that model to P4 standards tend to do so in particular topic areas where their approach is readily accepted by like minded modellers. The negative comments tend to arise in what might be called general topics, such as those about exhibitions, as in this case.

[mikeknowles]

Like Noel, I was quite surprised at the running round operation that appears to have been a key factor in triggering that long-winded and at times rather repetitive thread on RMWeb. I wouldn't have walked away because I have a lot to learn and any of the layouts at the exhibition would have been well worth close scrutiny, but I agree that it did rather spoil the effect.

Now, it's not as if the prototype procedure is a mystery, so I wonder what might have been the full story. I watched the four part video report on the exhibition and was keenly interested in the segment on Kitedale. It included a running round scene and there was no repeat of the loose wagon shunting technique. Perhaps the other video just happened to catch them at a bad time.

I exhibited my Boston Frodsham layout at the show. Whilst I try to make the operation as realistic as possible, notwithstanding the hand of God appearing to carry out coupling/uncoupling, I do however draw the line at changing lamps around on the stock!
What I did find at Scaleforum though was that the majority of the audience were modellers as opposed to families out with their children as is the case at general club shows (but I'm not knocking this before anyone starts)! As a result we were constantly answering questions about the layout, sometimes to the detriment of the operation. I'll confess to hitting the buffers at the stabling point on a number of occasions!
When people take and publish photos and videos of our layouts we don't get to see them before they go public so mistakes may be noticeable.

[Terry Bendall]

the loco slammed into a rake of carriages at a scale 10mph and kept on going along the platform for a distance of about two carriage lengths.

As I said in my post yesterday no one who operates a layout at an exhibition wants this to happen but it may have been an accidental movement of the controller or the operator being distracted or perhaps just not paying attention.

As a result we were constantly answering questions about the layout, sometimes to the detriment of the operation.

I have been involved in operating layouts large and small at exhibitions for about 40 years and in that time have probably done so at about 250 exhibitions. It is very easy to get distracted when responding to an enquiry from a visitor or perhaps simply getting tired at the end of a long day. Operating a layout correctly, setting the road, operating the signals, checking that the fiddle yard is set up correctly all needs quite intense concentration which is easy to loose. I have been involved with two layouts where there is a signalman operating a lever frame or control panel with all the required switches for turnout and signals and with fiddle yards at each end of the scenic section. Experience has shown that it is not sensible to do more than about an hour on this duty otherwise the mistakes happen. I would suggest that it is necessary to have expereince of doing the job to appreciated the demands.

Terry Bendall

[John Donnelly]

Experience has shown that it is not sensible to do more than about an hour on this duty otherwise the mistakes happen. I would suggest that it is necessary to have expereince of doing the job to appreciated the demands.

Same with the South Pelaw layout I'm involved with. Three of the team are full competent on the main panel and we take turns of generally an hour and no more than ninety minutes. With up to four trains running on the scenic section, being the signalman is a job that requires a lot of concentration.

[John Palmer]

Operating a layout correctly, setting the road, operating the signals, checking that the fiddle yard is set up correctly all needs quite intense concentration which is easy to loose. ... Experience has shown that it is not sensible to do more than about an hour on this duty otherwise the mistakes happen. I would suggest that it is necessary to have expereince of doing the job to appreciated the demands.

Hear! Hear!

When we exhibited Burnham at Scalefour 2018 the majority of my time was spent operating the despatch end of the fiddle yard. Whilst I enjoyed the exercise immensely, I was quite surprised to find that the concentration required had left me mentally drained for the best part of the week that followed. On the Sunday we had a couple of locomotive failures and I found it all too easy to lose track of the duties to which the substituted reserve engines were assigned. I would not have been suprised to find myself being taken to task for an impossible locomotive assignment by someone who had been closely following the prototype operating pattern we were seeking to simulate, and no doubt I would have incurred the opprobrium of those expecting me to demonstrate a higher standard of operating.

Because he was commenting on a video taken at Scaleforum, perhaps? Nothing more sinister than that, I think.

I'm not so sure. The premise of his criticism seemed to be that if you choose to adopt P4 specifications for an exhibition layout then you must be expected to adopt higher operating standards than others. As I've said, I believe that the employment of prototypical operating practices enhances the presentation of any exhibition layout, but I certainly wouldn't want to make the demonstrated application of big railway practice a prerequisite for exhibiting a layout built to P4 or any other standards.

[bobwallison]

The premise of his criticism seemed to be that if you choose to adopt P4 specifications for an exhibition layout then you must be expected to adopt higher operating standards than others.

Fair point, although he isn't the first to believe that, witness various discussions in S4News over the years and our erstwhile slogan "getting it all right". I detect in this thread a softening of attitude from days of yore, which I think is a good thing. Hopefully, I will never again witness a P4 operator on the verge of tears because his locomotive had derailed in front of the onlookers.
And yes, I do have experience of operating at exhibitions, so I am aware of how intense that can be.

Bob

[Terry Bendall]

our erstwhile slogan "getting it all right".

There may have been a time for "getting it all right" but the expression has fallen out of use. Some claim that it smacked of elitism which I don't think was ever intended. In addition to using a track gauge of 18.83mm and other dimensions to suit, together with wheels of the appropriate profile, I think most people will try to have a prototypical track layout, correct signalling where appropriate, locos and stock that are appropriate for the period being modelled, and which would have been seen in proximity with each other and operated in a prototypical manner. In other words, all the various aspects of what a model of the railway should include are as close to being "correct" as we can make them and within the limits of our personal knowladge of the prototype or what we can find out about it.

There will be degrees of how close people want to get to "correct" and that of course is fine. Many will want to depict something or run a partuicular loco which may not be corect for the period they are modelling and that is where modeller's licence comes in. In such instances the builder will usually try to ensure that any such anomolies are acknowledged and recognised. Others will want to get everything as "correct" as they can and that is just as valid.

I detect in this thread a softening of attitude from days of yore, which I think is a good thing.

It may be that Bob, it may be some will adopt a more a pragmatic approach based on their skill level, available time or other things. My personal approach has been "Trying to get it right" and on occasions getting fairly close to doing that.

Terry Bendall

[Noel]

The premise of his criticism seemed to be that if you choose to adopt P4 specifications for an exhibition layout then you must be expected to adopt higher operating standards than others.

I read it slightly differently - as a suggestion that if you choose to model in "finescale" [no, I'm not trying to reopen an old argument] then you 'should', rather than 'must', try and apply the same approach to operation - in other words, if you raise expectations, then not meeting them in one particular aspect of the model becomes much more noticeable, whatever that aspect may be.

One of the posters on the RMWeb thread mentioned 'Stoke Summit', which I have seen just once, but did enjoy watching, except for one aspect, which was the jack rabbit starts of trains exiting the loop or relief line [I can't remember which it was now] which ended front right of the scenic section. I eventually decided that it was probably the operator letting the previous train stop on a dead section in the fiddle yard, which was visible, and then just changing the points without touching the controller. Whether or not that was the reason, those starts have stuck in my memory...

And yes, I do have experience of operating at exhibitions, so I am aware of how intense that can be.

Me too .