Jubilee Layout Challenge - Q&A

[Phil O]

For others, finding amusing loopholes in the rules is all part of the fun.

Exactly - But if you do find any then its best not to tell the world about them in case they get closed.

For example, you could prove it actually fitted in a car by taking out all the seats. Load the car onto a trailer for the journey to the show. Unload it round the corner from the show and push it round into the car park.

If you could get it over the super vicious speed bumps that is.

No arguments with that Jim, if in '26 it's still held at Cressex school, or whatever name it has then. Their speed humps are about the worst that I have encountered.

Will the society be passing on layout damage claims to the school or will we be taking the hit?
Cheers

Phil

[Tony Wilkins]

One question that comes to mind is under rule 3 which states:
3. There is no prohibition on using ready to run vehicles
or products but the use of professionals to construct
part or whole of the layout is not allowed.

Does this include baseboards?
Regards
Tony.

[Jeremy Good]

Tony

No.

Jeremy

[Winander]

Does the rule about being previously exhibited count for just the scenic part, enabling the re-use of previously exhibited fiddle yards?

[Mark Tatlow]

Does the rule about being previously exhibited count for just the scenic part, enabling the re-use of previously exhibited fiddle yards?

As long as it is the reuse of a smallish component, say a building or two, that is fine. Were it to be a whole board this will be more of a problem.

[Terry Bendall]

This was to attract as many entrants and interest as possible. Thus, until August next year we will not know how many entrants we will get (and hence some idea as to how many will be able to appear in September 2026).

Once we have a firmer idea on this point, and hence the implications on the nature and expense of the show, we will be in a position to answer your questions."

Yes appreciated Mark and whilst there may well be a large number of entries - e.g say 100, in practice it is likely to be smaller. The original 1883 challenge had 50 entries and 27 of these actually made to a sufficiently complete state to be exhibited. I think we would be doing very well to get something around the same figuress as the 1883 challenge which can be managed without geat difficulty as was shown in 2005. The important thing is that in the two previous challenges, all those who got a layout to a reasonably complete state were assured of a place in the final event. I think it would be rather sad if that did not apply to this challange. Taking a layout to an exhibition, especially for the first time, is a fairly unique and enjoyable experience and if that cannot be assured, then it may put some people off entering.

There will of course be a cost but currently the Society has a very healthy accumulation of funds and it is hard to think of a more worthwhile use of these funds than supporting this event.

Terry Bendall

[jim s-w]

Quick question with regards to the 3 turnout rule

Does a single slip or 3 way count as 2? (Same number of point blades and at least 2 vees)
Does a 4 way count as 3?

My first thought of doing something wouldn't fit the rules as it wouldn't have any

[kelly]

The single car thing is also very vague. An Espace has been mentioned. In the discussion thread there was mention of Urban Assault Vehicles - sorry, SUVs - when hopefully these b. things will have been made illegal by 2026.

If the manufacturer trend continues then SUV (or UAVs as you call them) and crossover type vehicles will soon be all that manufacturers will sell. We're already seeing the demise of a number of hatch, saloon and estate type vehicles and companies like Ford have said it is electric/hybrids and suv/crossover only going forward (plus pickups for the us market).

[Hardwicke]

If the manufacturer trend continues then SUV (or UAVs as you call them) and crossover type vehicles will soon be all that manufacturers will sell. We're already seeing the demise of a number of hatch, saloon and estate type vehicles and companies like Ford have said it is electric/hybrids and suv/crossover only going forward (plus pickups for the us market).

That's because all cars cost about the same, but they can sell a slightly larger car for a lot more profit. I read somewhere that Austin Mini's lost money on the cost of production,

[jon price]

I just joined Western Thunder, so I'm not sure how best to use it. Any suggestions as to where I should post about a Challenge entry

[jim s-w]

Id say the EM/P4 section seems the most obvious Jon

https://www.westernthunder.co.uk/forums/em-s4-s-scale.26/

[ginger_giant]

One question that comes to mind is under rule 3 which states:
3. There is no prohibition on using ready to run vehicles
or products but the use of professionals to construct
part or whole of the layout is not allowed.

Does this include baseboards?
Regards
Tony.

Could ask for further clarification on the use of "use of professionals".

Q1 I have a number of RTR locomotives that have been converted by an S4 member and I've subsequently purchased due to the member reducing his stock of locomotives. I am adding further detail to these locomotives along with renumbering/renaming, weather them. Would these fall foul of the "professional" rule?

Q2 If I use a company to convert these locomotives to DDC with the addition of sound would they then fall foul of the "professional" rule?

Regards
Ian

[Worzels Works]

Ian, the interpretation I got from above was that was reference the layout and scenic area being constructed by a professional for a fee, for this competition. one or two items of rolling stock to go on the layout does not fall foul of such rule, (although I imagine having a professional build a bespoke model fleet for operation on the challenge layout may get frowned upon) as then surely converted RTR items would also fall foul, which has been clarified they do not.

I think for most of the rules common sense applies, or ask yourself "would I be a bit miffed and think that's not sporting if someone else did this"

[ginger_giant]

Ian, the interpretation I got from above was that was reference the layout and scenic area being constructed by a professional for a fee, for this competition. one or two items of rolling stock to go on the layout does not fall foul of such rule, (although I imagine having a professional build a bespoke model fleet for operation on the challenge layout may get frowned upon) as then surely converted RTR items would also fall foul, which has been clarified they do not.

I think for most of the rules common sense applies, or ask yourself "would I be a bit miffed and think that's not sporting if someone else did this"

I suppose I was trying to ask if some of the rolling stock used on the layout could be converted to P4 by a person other than the builder of the layout would comply with Rule 3?? The person I bought the locomotives from wasn't a professional, just a regular S4 member selling their models at a fair price.. In fact, more that a fair price, far less than the purchase price of the RTR item before converting to P4. I'll be putting my own stamp on the models to make that mine. Would Rule 2 apply if I mention the member who converted the models in my presentation, blog etc...?

Just wanted to get confirmation before pining my flag to the flag pole of this challenge. The challenge has invigorated me to revisit my Rospeath Lane project. It has been damaged in the move to Cumbria and it's too large in its current state to fit in the new "Man Cave" along with Boscarne Junction. So the challenge for me would be to reduce the layout to fit the Jubilee Layout Challenge criteria.

[Captain Kernow]

I suppose I was trying to ask if some of the rolling stock used on the layout could be converted to P4 by a person other than the builder of the layout would comply with Rule 3??

I really, really don't see why not.

It's surely the layout itself that is the thing here, not the rolling stock on it.

Many people engage the services of professional loco builders, for a variety of reasons. I have some examples of locos that I personally commissioned from a professional builder, purely to ensure that I had some motive power for my layout (back in the day, I naively assumed that the layout would be completed within a year or so, nearly 20 years later it's still not finished!).

I would take a very dim view of my entry being disqualified, purely because I chose to run a loco that someone else had built.

But in any case, I will not be disqualified from this competition, because that would require me to enter it, and I'm not in a position to do so.

[Worzels Works]

I'm not the competition organiser so will wait further clarification if necessary but I can't see any issues with that at all Ian, just my understanding is rule 3 refers to the actual layout itself, not the rolling stock. If an entrant bought all the stock second hand but built the layout themselves I cant read that as being an issue, especially if new to P4, the spirit of the competition is to get more of us building operational layouts in my humble eyes. obviously as a collective I imagine we'd encourage anyone new (Hi, that's me!) to at least attempt to build a few kits or do conversions themselves!

[Winander]

I suppose I was trying to ask if some of the rolling stock used on the layout could be converted to P4 by a person other than the builder of the layout would comply with Rule 3?

Ian,
Rule 3 restricts the use of professionals and you have said the converter was not a professional. Bottom line is you could enter the layout under both your names (on the strict understanding, of course, that should it win, you kept all the dosh )

[ginger_giant]

I suppose I was trying to ask if some of the rolling stock used on the layout could be converted to P4 by a person other than the builder of the layout would comply with Rule 3?

Ian,
Rule 3 restricts the use of professionals and you have said the converter was not a professional. Bottom line is you could enter the layout under both your names (on the strict understanding, of course, that should it win, you kept all the dosh )

Thank you
I'll set too and see if I can make Rospeath Lane fit the Challenges crteria.

[nberrington]

Thanks to the committee for taking this idea and running with it! I think this is an excellent opportunity for folk to put together a manageable cameo.

One thought regarding those of us who live far away. The logistics of getting to the UK with a small layout in tow is fairly daunting. Of course one needs to compare apples to apples, so a “virtual” entry will never be on an equal footing. Perhaps you would consider a “virtual” category with its own separate award?

[HighlandRailwayman]

Hi,
Just wanting to clarify if the design i have in mind would pass muster.... I know the criteria is 3 ends of points. The plan i have only has one full set of points, but also has a double slip and 3 ends of trap blades - just wondering if that would be applicable for entry.

[grovenor-2685]

I count 6 ends there.
Double the minimum specified, not much room for doubt.

[HighlandRailwayman]

Thanks Keith, i thought it would be ok but just wanted to double check! Going a bit out of the norm for me (scottish region) and going for a slice loosely based on drybrook road in the forest of dean... chance for lots of lovely western signals in about 5' length. Now to see if i can make it fit.....

[Mark Tatlow]

Sorry for the delay in coming back to these queries; I have been flying the P4 flag in Crewe; as has the chaiman as he was operating my layout!

In coming back to the queries:

Having Non-professional Help

There are no rules prohibiting this so if you bought a few converted RTR locos from a mate or ebay, that is fine. If they are a professional builder then the comment about "moderate amounts of professional stock" above applies.

If the help gets to the point where the other person was in effect jointly building the layout with you, then you would need to mention that it is a group effort and this may or may not affect whether or not you are still eligable for the challenge for those who have not exhibited a P4 layout in the past.

Slips/Threeway Turnouts

Happy to count a slip - either double or single - as two turnouts and a three way also as two.

The point of this rule is to make sure the layouts have some operational interest, so trap points would not count as a turnout. Thus a slip plus one standard turnout would be sufficeint to meet the rules.

Changing Plans Part Way Through

We are fully expecting that some of the layouts that are completed to have changed in comparison to the plans/details submitted at the start of the process. This is fine but at a practical level please inform me if the changes result in revised footprints/viewing arrangements.


As a whole the rules are aimed at creating as wide a pool of qualifying entrants as possible whilst giving a level playing field for those that enter. Thus, please do adopt the suggestion of asking yourself "would I be a bit miffed and think that's not sporting if someone else did this" before raising questions because the stance will address many of them.

[Mark Tatlow]

Id say the EM/P4 section seems the most obvious Jon

https://www.westernthunder.co.uk/forums/em-s4-s-scale.26/

Yes I suggest that this is sensible; I will start a posting about the challenge later this evening.

[ginger_giant]

Has anyone tried using the pdf entry form?

I having a problem with the large fields not allowing more than one line of text when there's space for multiple lines.