Scaleforum 2022 - in images

[bobwallison]

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

Well in that case, how about "Striving for better", then each of us can interperet "better" in our own way.

Bob

[Will L]

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

Well in that case, how about "Striving for better", then each of us can interpret "better" in our own way.

Which some bright spark, probably on RMWeb, will claim means "better than you" and round we go again.

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.

Quite. Such people are best ignored.

I migrated to P4 because with every model I made my skills improved I wanted to get closer to the original than last time. As far as I was concerned this comes under Rule 1 (i.e. it my railway) and if that makes me elitist then so be it.

[Terry Bendall]

do we need a catchphrase at all

These days probably not and as has been said, whatever we come up with will cause someone to get worked up. We all have our own approach and most of us will be happy to share that with anyone who is sufficiently interested. If as a result other people take up modelling to P4 standards then fine. If they don't also fine.

Terry Bendall

[Highpeak]

That "elitist" tag is another thing that is entirely undeserved. It's not entirely inaccurate but it seems to me that a lot of the time it's interpreted in an exclusionary sense. There's nothing exclusionary about it, the only thing stopping somebody joining this "elite" group is themselves and not wanting to try to do what Will so aptly put, that is to improve your skills with every model you make. The reward that comes from that is worth the effort involved, my last go at building turnouts is by no means perfect but it's a lot better than the first go was. The guidance for that all came from here and to me is the value of the Society regardless of how it might be perceived.

My daughters have a good approach to running. They know they'll never win a marathon, but that's not their aim. They want to see if they can do better than the last race and have made that their yardstick. Striving for better as a personal goal.

[Tony Wilkins]

The phrase I always liked was "Realism in miniature" used by a certain well known model railway magazine well before P4 was even thought of.
Regards
Tony.

[Paul Willis]

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"

That's very much my approach Martin - I wholeheartedly agree with you. It's about painting a 3D picture, exactly in line with your inspirations.

The Society is a broad church, each of us seeking realism in a way that satisfies us.

Best,
Paul

[Winander]

I don't recall seeing a slogan in this thread that distinguishes our brand of modelling. From a marketing perspective a brand must differentiate itself. If we use adverbs like better, or even inspiring, we are just making comparative claims that we cannot prove and are prone to rebuttal.

[Paul Willis]

I don't recall seeing a slogan in this thread that distinguishes our brand of modelling. From a marketing perspective a brand must differentiate itself. If we use adverbs like better, or even inspiring, we are just making comparative claims that we cannot prove and are prone to rebuttal.

Ah, but that's not always been ineffective. One of the best known case studies in Marketing is this: https://pg-designs.ca/avis-we-try-harder-campaign/

And much of today's television and media advertising across the world is based around the concept of aspirational lifestyles. So relative statements are effective, or people wouldn't be using them.

There are discussions of advertising for things *other* than Scaleforum slated for the next Committee meeting. So the whole question is being thought about.

Best,
Paul

[ACJ]

‘Getting it all right’ is an effective slogan that engenders excellence that the society stands for. That is not elitism. Getting it all right is certainly not easy, and I admire those that get close, in whatever form. I joined the society to be inspired by such a ‘wow’ factor.

[martin goodall]

I haven't spelt this out - but Paul has picked up the point (with which I entirely agree) - that our choice of model-making standards and style is uniquely our own individual decision. I would never seek to dictate to anyone else how they should approach the hobby, and I think this goes for most of us. It is unfortunate that the tone adopted by the 'founding fathers' of Protofour in their original articles in the Model Railway Constructor in the mid-1960s, and for some time after that, did rather create the impression that they looked down their noses at people who were not converted to the technical standards they were advocating. It was this which gave rise to the accusation of elitism, which has regrettably stuck to P4 ever since, even though most of us would stoutly deny that we are, or would wish to be, elitist in our approach to the hobby.

However, there is one point which goes far wider than model-making, and this is the mantra that one so often hears in relation to a wide range of sporting, recreational and hobby activities - that we should constantly be striving to 'up our game'. I simply don't agree. It's the old philosophical puzzle - Is it better to be a satisfied pig or Socrates dis-satisfied? My vote is with the pig. I recall a talk given by Iain Rice on one occasion in which he suggested that instead of aiming for the stars we should perhaps be aiming instead to model down to a standard, an achievable median level with which we are comfortable. It was a point repeated in one of the several magazine titles he edited, where it was suggested that we could achieve 90% of the result with 50% of the effort.

However, bearing in mind the point I mentioned first above, if you do want constantly to strive for ever higher standards, then you should go for it, even if old stick-in-the-muds like me choose not to follow your example. After all, this is your hobby, and Rule 1 applies.

It's just that maybe slogans, mottos and (heaven forbid) mission statements are best avoided in this context.

[Noel]

I recall a talk given by Iain Rice on one occasion in which he suggested that instead of aiming for the stars we should perhaps be aiming instead to model down to a standard, an achievable median level with which we are comfortable. It was a point repeated in one of the several magazine titles he edited, where it was suggested that we could achieve 90% of the result with 50% of the effort.

A proposition of his I read a long time ago, which made absolute sense to me. However, we have been discussing, in general terms, how we create the details of the picture we want to present, and how close, or otherwise, we can get to the prototype with the skills we have or want to learn. It does, however, omit the question of how accurate is the picture we are trying to create in the first place, however imperfectly we do it? Prototypical operation is one part of this, but the other part is getting the facts right, the overall picture, if you will, so far as the available information permits, and this seems sometimes to be overlooked completely. This is obviously most difficult when modelling an imaginary scene, where not only the detail has to be convincing, but so does the composition as a whole, which is in many ways more difficult to do, and where your work is so convincing.

[martin goodall]

Thanks, Noel.

Perhaps slightly perversely, I am prepared to go to some lengths in researching the prototype in order to establish the 'correct' way of doing things, but having done that I am then perfectly happy to depart deliberately from that position if it suits me to do so. I am not bothered if I purposely deviate from prototype practice, whereas I do try to avoid inadvertent errors as far as possible. That may not make sense to some people, but there it is.

Modelling an imaginary scene has both advantages and disadvantages. It gives you freedom of choice in what and how you model it, but I entirely agree that care is required in creating a scene that is nevertheless believable. In modelling the Burford Branch, I took as my starting point an actual station (Ashburton) which gave me the overall shape and arrangement of the railway facilities, and I also based most of the buildings (rather loosely in some cases) on real buildings - mainly in the Cotswolds in the case of the vernacular buildings surrounding the station. The prototypes for the various railway buildings, such as the station building and train shed, goods shed etc. are from Bitser (i.e.bitser this, bitser that).

[Tony Wilkins]

An interesting perspective, but I am not so sure that modelling a real place is necessarily any easier as there are so many more things that you can get wrong. There will always be some areas that photos don't cover. In my case things changed a lot over the decade I am choosing to portray the middle of and therefore decisions have to be made as to what to include as my historic window covers 5 years, the middle of which saw the closure of the goods yard for instance. I am choosing to include it operational. Some of the buildings will not be dimensionally accurate in all aspect due to space considerations. Like Martin and I suspect many of us, I am trying to create a 3D picture to the best of my abilities. Compromise is therefore inevitable, but the goal is to work to a consistent standard where nothing leaps out at you. I do admire those with the ability to create masterpieces, but the bar gets ever higher and at some point one has to say, this is the standard I choose to work to and accept the results.
Regards
Tony.

[Rod Cameron]

The Peter Principle as applied to railway modelling - 'striving' just gets you to that hoped-for level of ability that you can't quite achieve; and that ends in frustration and disillusionment. I was happier with skiing a blue run reasonably well rather than striving for the red and black runs. We're supposed to be enjoying ourselves!

But there's a difference between the improvement that hopefully comes with practice and experience; and improvement that somehow we feel we should be aiming for. I don't need the pressure.

[Winander]

Ah, but that's not always been ineffective. One of the best known case studies in Marketing is this: https://pg-designs.ca/avis-we-try-harder-campaign/

That is true but you have to differentiate entities marketing goods and services where 'we try harder' may work. We are offering a concept and there is a subtle difference. We also have a gauge monopoly.

Using the example of car hire, I would not be influenced by who is best unless there was choice locally and a lot of consumer choice is driven by proximity - e.g. the supermarket you use.

Perhaps we should have more focus on area groups and local activities to encourage membership present and potential. Active modellers are a powerful promotion.

‘Getting it all right’ is an effective slogan that engenders excellence that the society stands for. That is not elitism.

I agree, but it unfortunately seems to have been tarnished by that perception.

improvement that somehow we feel we should be aiming for.

Yes, striving = challenging which can = discouraging.

[Captain Kernow]

I do sometimes wonder whether some folk are now inclined to go that much further, in terms of 'striving to get it all right' (or whatever form of words you might choose to apply), now that the results of said striving are often viewed under the unforgiving, close-up lens of modern digital cameras?

[jon price]

I do sometimes wonder whether some folk are now inclined to go that much further, in terms of 'striving to get it all right' (or whatever form of words you might choose to apply), now that the results of said striving are often viewed under the unforgiving, close-up lens of modern digital cameras?

I agree, and I also think this is a results in a distortion of our expectation.

Sure we can take photographs, but unless we are purely making a photograhic diorama our actual experience of the layout is in person, through our eyes, and this does not produce the hyper-real effect of close up digital photography.

I am short sighted, and I can see a phenomenal amount more detail, at a distance of four inches eye to object, than most "normal" or distant-sighted people, and this can be very usefuil in some aspects of model making but it is not how I usually view my layout (such as it is), nor is it how I am likely to be allowed to view anyone else's layout.

Normal viewing is always going to be at least 24" away, usually more, and so the concept of "2' scale" accuracy remains valid

[Tim V]

I responded to the thread on acceptable standards at exhibitions on RMweb a couple of times.

The gist of my response was that on my layout Clutton, I strived to correctly operate it with correct lamping, correct signals and single line working. The scenery was understated, but plenty of it to look at while spending the time between trains.

Some people ‘got it’.

Most did not – the whole effort was wasted on them, they just wanted to see trains running.

And then the layout was subjected to horrendous criticism (some years back).

I realised that I was wasting my time, and when the time came to retire Clutton, it didn’t feel too bad.

Exhibitions are not the place to see correct operation. And it turned out the originator of the thread on RMweb would lift his engines off the line to change the lamp codes!

That thread puts me off exhibitions in general, and stoked up the memories of life on the exhibition circuit.

[bobwallison]

... the tone adopted by the 'founding fathers' of Protofour ..... did rather create the impression that they looked down their noses at people who were not converted to the technical standards they were advocating.

Indeed. Back in 1980 I shared an office with a member of the North London Group. He told me, with no hint of irony, that all P4 layouts should be vetted for quality (by the NLG, of course) before being allowed on the exhibition circuit. He also expressed utter amazement that CJF of the Railway Modeller had turned down the opportunity to publish a series of twenty six articles regarding the construction of Heckmondwyke (or was it Bodmin?]. It was a while before I could contemplate joining a society that fostered such views, but that was ages ago. There is no hint of elitism now, either in the Area Group that I belong to, or the operators and demonstrators I speak to at Scalefour events.

It's just that maybe slogans, mottos and (heaven forbid) mission statements are best avoided in this context.

I think the range of views expressed here might preclude a snappy slogan that satisfies all. But mission statement? The Objectives of the Society, as set out in our Rules and Constitution, come pretty close to a Mission Statement and seem to cover all the approaches described in this thread. It strikes me that they would be an excellent starting point for future advertising.

Bob

[JackBlack]

Most did not – the whole effort was wasted on them, they just wanted to see trains running.

I've often thought about building a beautifully rendered 4mm model of Derry Ormond/Llangybi, which is basically a single line halt on the Carmarthen Aberystwyth line. And then running it to a true timetable, six trains a day each way, three of which fall outside normal exhibition opening hours. And then having a "Next Train" time indicator on the front of the layout so people know when to come and visit to watch the train go past.

[DaveHarris]

Many years ago I was introduced to the late Guy Williams of Pendon fame. I mentioned that his level of ability was well beyond me and (smiling) he replied by saying that all of us are different with differing levels of ability. That we should work to the best of our ability in whatever scale we choose to work to, not criticise others for their chosen scale/region/timescale or ability. Again, with a smile he also said that 'rivet counters' also annoyed him but the secret was to ignore them and rise above their comments and enjoy the hobby.

[Philip Hall]

Most did not – the whole effort was wasted on them, they just wanted to see trains running.

I've often thought about building a beautifully rendered 4mm model of Derry Ormond/Llangybi, which is basically a single line halt on the Carmarthen Aberystwyth line. And then running it to a true timetable, six trains a day each way, three of which fall outside normal exhibition opening hours. And then having a "Next Train" time indicator on the front of the layout so people know when to come and visit to watch the train go past.

Many years ago (many, many years...) when I was but a whippersnapper in short trousers, my father took me to the Easter Show at Central Hall. There was a lovely little branch line terminus there where the passenger service was a SR two car EMU. The EMU ran in according to the displayed timetable, sat in the platform for about five minutes, and then departed again. Then it seemed that the shutters went up until the next time, I guess about fifteen minutes later. So it's been done before. Needless to say, we only stayed a little while...

One of the pleasures of building 'Mellstock' with some talented and capable friends has been that P4 has proved that it is mostly (for me) about the way the trains run. They glide over the crossings, even at speed, not a shimmer or a shake, although that is of course partly because of my insistence on perfectly concentric wheels. One day we will operate the railway reasonably properly, which will be very nice, but it will not be the principle source of enjoyment for me. It will be also for the social side and us all enjoying the trains running as trains should, not jumping and wobbling all over the place. As has been said many times by many people, we all do this thing in different ways. And none of them are wrong.

Philip

[Tony Wilkins]

Indeed. Back in 1980 I shared an office with a member of the North London Group. He told me, with no hint of irony, that all P4 layouts should be vetted for quality (by the NLG, of course) before being allowed on the exhibition circuit. He also expressed utter amazement that CJF of the Railway Modeller had turned down the opportunity to publish a series of twenty six articles regarding the construction of Heckmondwyke (or was it Bodmin?].

Bob

That would have been Bodmin. Not that it was intended to run to that many articles when we started out.
Regards
Tony.

[Rod Cameron]

The Bodmin series ran in the Constructor from January 1981 to October 1984 (not every issue); the original Heckmondwike articles had run in Model Railways over the period July 1973 to November 1979. That last issue included correspondence on Heckmondwike and on 18.83 vs 16.5 - and so it goes.

[Horsetan]

I responded to the thread on acceptable standards at exhibitions on RMweb a couple of times.

The gist of my response was that on my layout Clutton, I strived to correctly operate it with correct lamping, correct signals and single line working. The scenery was understated, but plenty of it to look at while spending the time between trains.

Some people ‘got it’.

Most did not – the whole effort was wasted on them, they just wanted to see trains running.

And then the layout was subjected to horrendous criticism (some years back).

I realised that I was wasting my time...

Pearls before swine.