Scaleforum 2022 - in images

[Will L]

I must admit that I was always perfectly happy with the "getting it all right" tag line as it goes a long way to explaining my attitude to modelling and why it was the one society I stayed a member of in the family yaers when railways got to occupy a rather distant back seat.

But then I, like anybody with any sense who has fitted an electric motor to their steam locos, have always interpreted it to mean "getting as close as you can realistically manage". I.e. as a personal objective not a general demand and it would happily cover my earlier efforts in 00 bc (before children). It ought to be (but probably isn't) perfectly acceptable to the most opinionated RMWeb-er but its not a very snappy tag line.

[jim s-w]

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.

I've no problem with that. But as a counter point then surely visitors need to accept more prototypical operation from a p4 layout and understand that the keep things moving because I have the attention span of a goldfish, 'trainsetty' style operation is not what they are going to get.

Can't have it both ways. If you want more prototypical operation then you need to understand there will be times when nothing happens too. (I'm not meaning there's three trains a day stuff but perhaps several minutes)

Jim

[jon price]

Can't have it both ways. If you want more prototypical operation then you need to understand there will be times when nothing happens too.
Jim

Time for the more up to date DEMU P4 modellers to invest in a Faller replacement bus system

[jim s-w]

dont forget all the low loaders too. All the interesting stuff on the modern railway goes by road these days.

[Rod Cameron]

I must admit that I was always perfectly happy with the "getting it all right" tag line as it goes a long way to explaining my attitude to modelling ...

But then I, like anybody with any sense who has fitted an electric motor to their steam locos, have always interpreted it to mean "getting as close as you can realistically manage" ...

As I've mentioned on here before, it originally came about during Jim Summers's tenure as SN editor, and was meant as a response to comments about us being obsessed with track and wheel standards while, in extremis, paying less attention to everything else. So operation yes, but also the rest, especially beyond the boundary fence. I'll see if I can find out from when it first appeared.

[Terry Bendall]

But as a counter point then surely visitors need to accept more prototypical operation from a p4 layout

Yes and perhaps there is a place for the occasional explanation from the operator, or perhaps to avoid distractions, someone who just has the job of explaining - assuming you have someone available to do so. That of course may not be possible. Alternatively part of the layout information on display might include something explaining aspects of the operation e.g loco running round, connecting the coupling and brake pipes, pause to bring up pressure in the brakes (happens on steam, diesel and electric hauled trains), pause for the fireman/second man to get back on the loco, etc. All part of educating the visitors about what railway operation involves.

Terry Bendall

[Rod Cameron]

As I've mentioned on here before, it originally came about during Jim Summers's tenure as SN editor, and was meant as a response to comments about us being obsessed with track and wheel standards while, in extremis, paying less attention to everything else. So operation yes, but also the rest, especially beyond the boundary fence. I'll see if I can find out from when it first appeared.

So it ("Getting it all right") first appeared on the cover of SN139 in September 2004. Editoratthetime Jim Summers explained it thus in his editorial:

IMG_6911.JPG

[Daddyman]

Presumably others have noticed that "getting it all right" allowed two possible readings? - "perfection" and "just about passable".

[Noel]

Presumably others have noticed that "getting it all right" allowed two possible readings? - "perfection" and "just about passable".

The editorial states 'the emphasis is on the "all", so an alternative with the same meaning is 'getting everything right'. Interesting to see that operation is one of the things listed to get right...

[martin goodall]

I always had misgivings about the “getting it all right” slogan, because I felt there was a risk of its being interpreted as advocating a perfectionist approach to model-making, and that it was therefore in danger of being treated as an expression of the elitism of which we have so often been accused.

I certainly don’t pretend to ‘get it all right’ in my own model-making (and I am not just referring here to my reprehensible departure from the strict P4 wheel standards). I am content to fall back on the excuse that my models are only intended to be “an artist’s impression”. This may be an excuse for laziness on my part, but I really am content to produce models that may not be dimensionally accurate but which I nevertheless hope capture the essential character of the prototype.

However, on the subject of operation, we do need to be aware of the way things were actually done on the real railway. This still leaves plenty of scope for a wide choice of operational formats, provided that the moves that are actually made on the layout (especially if it is on show to the public) do generally comply with full-size practice in the period we are seeking to represent. But it should always be borne in mind that compliance with the Rule Book was sometimes less than punctilious, and that some sloppy operating practices were encountered in the real world.

As a final note, all trains arriving at my terminus in Burford carry ‘authentic’ headlamps. The passenger trains run under ‘B’ headlamps, and the goods trains carry ‘K’ headlamps. Yet in both cases, they carry only a single lamp mounted above the centre of the buffer plank. I am offering no prizes for the correct explanation, but I shall be interested to see what the ‘experts’ make of this, before I reveal the answer.

[bobwallison]

So it ("Getting it all right") first appeared on the cover of SN139 in September 2004. Editoratthetime Jim Summers explained it thus in his editorial:

I see that operation and smell are both mentioned in Jim's 3rd paragraph, and I'm sure that if there had been room for a longer list, correct head and tail lamps would have been mentioned too. So, judging by our own standards, it was entirely reasonable of the OP on RMWeb to comment as he did.

I was one of those who thought that the slogan "getting it all right" sounded elitist, perhaps even arrogant, but having read Jim's covering comments I find myself in agreement with everything he said, except that a more accurate statement of the "Scalefour Approach" might have been "Getting all of it as right as we reasonably can". Not very snappy, though.

Of course, the best OO gauge layouts now match the best P4 layouts in all except track gauge and wheel profile, so the Scalefour Approach is no longer our sole prerogative. I think that's a good thing, for which the Society can claim some credit.

Bob

[David Knight]

Well, "getting it all right" is a lot easier to remember and say than "getting as much as possible correct within the bounds of time, sanity, finances and still preserving domestic harmony though not necessarily in that order."

Cheers,

David

[CDGFife]

"Getting it all right" is a tricky one for me - on one level I see entirely the benefit of encouraging folks to get everything as right as they can in their modelling and we try to operate Cadhay as close to prototypically as we can given a vastly accelerated and over train-ed daily timetable! That said I do believe in the ethos of "it's my layout and we'll run it the way I want". The problem seems to me to be where do you draw the line between an "acceptable" level of layout and an "unacceptable" layout. To be extreme, the lego layout that does the exhibition rounds up in Scotland is entirely un-prototypical but gives much pleasure to people who may well go on to be high fidelity P4 modellers. It's always good to see it at an exhibition. I have 5 Marillion 0-4-0 P4 locos that I occasionally run on Cadhay - should I offer my resignation now as operating them is not correct for my period (I know they've been around for ages but no members of Marillion were born before 1930 when Cadhay is set) They don't (unlike the rest of my stock) even have headcodes!!!

Taking my tongue out of my cheek, I do worry that there is a danger that folks are put off by some perceived requirement to model and operate everything correctly if taking up P4, when shouldn't it be a case of seeing what is good in people's layout and maybe trying to positively encourage a more prototypical approach, whilst accepting that one person's red line, "must have" feature is another person's "maybe I'll get round to it eventually". If we removed every layout that did not model and operate entirely prototypically from every exhibition (including ours) how many would we be left with? I'd certainly have to put Cadhay in the skip - it has AJ couplings!

I sometimes think it a shame that some folks can't just move on from an exhibition layout that does not float their boat without the need to slag it off on social media!

[jim s-w]

I sometimes think it a shame that some folks can't just move on from an exhibition layout that does not float their boat without the need to slag it off on social media!

Yes to this. We all know that not every layout will appeal to all of the people all of the time and thats absolutely fine. Just move on and find something that does (however if you look hard enough i do think you can always find some little snippet to maintain your fascination for a moment of two). I once had someone say that he could appreciate the modelling on Brettell Road but he couldn't really look at it because rainy evenings made him depressed! Someone on RMweb said, when it was in MRJ, that it was dismal. Which I took as an unintended compliment because thats exactly what Im aiming for!

What i do object to is comments like this 'I too have seen it at shows, at DEMU this year in fact set up as you describe. It certainly didn’t attract many viewers, and there was plenty of hand of god sorting derailments.' While i did have a few problems early on as it was my first show for my 03 and the COG was off. Said poster who was across the aisle (helping with Modelu) never came anywhere near the layout all day so i can only assume he posted this out of nothing but spite.

Jim

[iak]

The standard I try follow, derives frae an aphorism from a famous musician.
"Perfection is impossible. However, I may choose to serve perfection..."
For me, the on going "debate" elsewhere seems unfortunate.
Different aspirations and standards should be respected; wildly "gobbing off" helps nobody...

[martin goodall]

I think people should take a broad-minded approach when viewing exhibition layouts. I happen to model mainly GWR subjects in P4, and I am not at all interested in modelling, say, the LNER, nor am I interested in making models in other scales or gauges; but I nevertheless approach all the layouts in an exhibition with interest, irrespective of their subject matter or their chosen scale and track and wheel standards. Some layouts might not appeal to me in their totality or in their operation, but good model-making can be seen in layouts in all scales and gauges, portraying a wide variety of subjects. These layouts can be a source of inspiration to all of us, irrespective of our own model-making preferences. I can think of layouts which I admire, which portray the LNER, LMS or SR (and their pre-grouping predecessors) or railways in other parts of the world. I also admire some of the layouts built in N Gauge, TT3 and 00 Gauge (among others).

If a layout is crude and scruffy it may not engage my interest, and I may perhaps look askance at shunting being carried out at unrealistically high speeds, but even in these cases there may still be aspects of the layout worth looking at. I am certainly not fussy about the finer points of railway operation, such as the display of correct headlamps or signals that don’t work.

The final point comes under the heading of what might be called ‘etiquette’. If I see a layout or other model which I think is complete rubbish, I pass no comment and move quietly on. I certainly wouldn’t dream of airing my negative views online or anywhere else. It is frankly impolite to do so.

[Paul Willis]

I always had misgivings about the “getting it all right” slogan, because I felt there was a risk of its being interpreted as advocating a perfectionist approach to model-making, and that it was therefore in danger of being treated as an expression of the elitism of which we have so often been accused.

Yes, my primary reaction has always been that it is an arrogant and exclusionary statement, and certainly when read without the supporting text of Jim's editorial.

It might have been better expressed as something like "Striving for realism", as a way of describing the outlook of the Society at that point in time. But that is all water under the bridge, and the history that we have is the history that we have.

When I have put our current slogan of "Inspiring modelling" in an advert, I'm always conscious that it is a statement can be read two ways: as a description or as a motivation. It all depends upon how the image or words move you

Best,
Paul
Scalefour Publicity (a.k.a. promoting what's great about being a member of this Society)

[nf.newling]

What about "Trying to get it all right"

[Noel]

"Trying to get as much as we can right"?

[martin goodall]

I think I once suggested that a more accurate slogan (at least so far as my own model-making is concerned) would be: "Getting some of it right some of the time, and fudging the rest."

[Jol Wilkinson]

Unfortunately any statement that can be mis-interpreted will be, by those who want to sustain the image of a Society of aloof, arrogant people, but of which they really know very little.

I think that Paul's "Striving for realism" really covers what most of us are trying (and in my case, failing) to do. Perhaps "Striving for more realism" might be more appropriate, but that could be perceived as "more" than modellers who don't do P4, by those who want to find fault.

[bobwallison]

What about "Trying to get it all right"

Bob

[zebedeesknees]

My 'Quest for Prototype Fidelity' started in the Scalefour News in 1996!!
Still looking - batteries on board with radio control is only the latest instalment...

Ted.

[jim s-w]

Since someone will always choose to be offended by even the slightest thing these days why not just go for it with

'the Scalefour Society - it's just better than what you're doing so suck it up sunshine!'

Really though do we need a catchphrase at all and if we do what's wrong with something like 'help and support for modellers working in p4' isn't that what we actually do?

Or 'Scalefour society, it's not as difficult as you've probably been told it is'

[martin goodall]

What about "Trying to get it all right"

Bob

Well, I can't even claim to be trying (at least not most of the time).

As regards striving for "realism" [Paul's suggestion], what I am aiming for myself is "artistic realism" (a term also used by John Sutton in relation to his Southwell Central layout in TT3). P D Hancock, creator of the Craigshire layouts, wrote that he wanted to "paint a picture in three dimensions", which pretty well sums up my own approach.

It is no coincidence that my favourite artists are the French Impressionists (such as Monet, Renoir, Morisot, Pissarro and Sisley, among others), and other painters who painted in an 'Impressionist' style, such as the Scottish Colourists. They were clearly not aiming for what might be termed 'photographic' realism, but a much more subjective interpretation of their chosen subjects.

I want my layout to be convincing (in a pictorial or artistic sense), but I am not too bothered about dimensional accuracy, or technical brilliance. So I really can't claim to be "getting it all right"