Possible New Layout Competition

[David B]

All are welcome.

Previous competitions have been open to non-members - Jonathan mentions the D&E challenge. The more open we are, I would hope the more people will become involved. I would like to think that some might even become members. It would not be helpful to shut the door at the outset.

[Steve Carter]

All are welcome.

Previous competitions have been open to non-members - Jonathan mentions the D&E challenge. The more open we are, I would hope the more people will become involved. I would like to think that some might even become members. It would not be helpful to shut the door at the outset.

With the new point kits being available via both the members Society Stores and British Finescale, then availability for members and non-members will be covered.

I hope this new initiative by the Society happens and helps more people on their route to 4mm finescale modelling.

Steve

[Paul Willis]

All are welcome.

Previous competitions have been open to non-members - Jonathan mentions the D&E challenge. The more open we are, I would hope the more people will become involved. I would like to think that some might even become members. It would not be helpful to shut the door at the outset.

It's a good topic to run in some magazine adverts, or maybe even place an article or two...

Show that the Society is not just a closed shop, talking to itself - which I hope that the practical experience of our newer members proves that it isn't.

Best,
Paul

[Mark Tatlow]

Just to comment that I am still watching and taking on board what is being discussed.

So do keep posting any suggestions or indications of interest to potentially submit a layout if the challenge comes to be.

[PeteT]

So do keep posting any suggestions or indications of interest to potentially submit a layout if the challenge comes to be.

Stop it! I should be concentrating on finishing the one underway, but there are a few ideas which could be taken forward and seen as quick wins/progress more quickly if using this pointwork was part of the remit. I am watching with interest!

[ClikC]

So based on the comments above, perhaps we can have some additional categories to the competition?

Best Novice layout built to P4 standards. For people who have never exhibited a layout before.

Best Intermediate layout built to P4 standards. For people who have exhibited layouts built to alternative standards.

Best Advanced layout built to P4 standards. For experienced P4 modellers attempting to really push the standard.

Best solo layout built to P4 standards.

Best club or group layout built to P4 standards.

Perhaps a range of layout sizes for the above categories?

Regards

Matt

[Terry Bendall]

So based on the comments above, perhaps we can have some additional categories to the competition?

Thst could happen although I think it might make things a bit complicated and the number of entries may mean that there might not be much competition in the different groups. The 1883 challenge attracted 50 entries and 27 of these actually made to a sufficiently complete state to be exhibited. The D&E challenge was of course more restricted but still had 22 entries with 15 making it to the exhibition. Lots of different catagories might make voting for the best one difficult. The KISS pinciple applies.

Terry Bendall

[buckie5507]

What about this for an idea

Title: "1966 challenge" with the strap line “they [thought it was] all over, [isn’t] now”
Imagine that Beeching never happened and produce a model of a station/yard/shed etc

Period: 1949* or 1960 to the present day
*formation of The Branch Lines Committee

Size: 1966 sq inch scenic (approx. 6x2 or 13’x1)

Trackwork: P4, mini x2 turnouts

I will concede that the time frame will exclude anyone modelling pre-grouping

Jonathan

[Worzels Works]

such is life and work etc had a busy time lately, nice to see the idea of a layout competition gaining traction!

looking at the suggestions above it seems we are all in agreement that this is a great idea for encouraging new members and new layouts for the exhibition circuit.

I particularly like the idea of a 'novice' 'intermediate' and 'advanced' categories, personally my idea would be to swing the requirements to be as open as possible and a bit of friendly competition with a 'best layout', but what would the society and committee feel about having 'commendations' to go with for things like ingenuity in pushing the engineering/scenic/trackwork/rolling stock and possibly a prize of a years membership to the society, is that something people feel could encourage a few more people both in and outside of the society to enter?

Happy to put my name down as a volunteer to join the competition 'team' if those are being sought!

[ClikC]

Thst could happen although I think it might make things a bit complicated and the number of entries may mean that there might not be much competition in the different groups. The 1883 challenge attracted 50 entries and 27 of these actually made to a sufficiently complete state to be exhibited. The D&E challenge was of course more restricted but still had 22 entries with 15 making it to the exhibition. Lots of different catagories might make voting for the best one difficult. The KISS pinciple applies.

Terry Bendall

Granted Terry,

No reason why 'best overall layout' can't be the biggest award, my idea was that with some additional categories for awards, perhaps more people would be interested in picking up the challenge.

I also thing there is some credence to perhaps starting with the same 'starting point', two of the new turnouts and a 'standard' baseboard. Working within limitations often makes people think outside the box.

Regards

[Porcy Mane]

What about this for an idea

Title: "1966 challenge" with the strap line “they [thought it was] all over, [isn’t] now”
Imagine that Beeching never happened and produce a model of a station/yard/shed etc

Trackwork: P4, mini x2 turnouts

Jonathan

I like the idea of two turnouts. Not to much financial outlay and probably not too time consuming so to distract from main projects or building stock/loco's specifically for the "challenge".

Maybe it could be called "What's the point" or "The point is? challenge".

Even if only ten folk took up the challenge the sale of twenty kits would probably be a good start for viability?

P

[Winander]

If it is to be two British Finescale turnouts then you are excluding participation from people who don't wish to use them. I have not seen them but have been told, from a reliable source, that their appearance isn't as good as hand built track.

[Neil Smith]

I will concede that the time frame will exclude anyone modelling pre-grouping

I did raise a question on the thread about these British Finescale P4 turnouts, asking about the sleeper length. Sadly no-one yet has responded with the answer, which is slighty surprising as these products have been vetted prior to launch, but if they are not available in 9' sleeper lengths for the plain track parts, then they are of no real use to 20th century pre-grouping modellers anyway. (Yes they might work for 19th century modellers who want to bury the entire formation in ballast...)

Of course, Grouping era modellers will probably be happy with the shorter sleepers, unless they want to model GWR loose heeled blades, but they would not be happy with Jonathan's suggested BR era and later timeframe.

Personally I cannot understand why there is any appetite to apply any timeframe to this sort of competition. Imagine if the 18.83 challenge had ruled out pre-1948 models, and the world had never seen Burntisland??! Surely the best way of attracting entries is to make the criteria as open as possible? Yes the sleeper length(s) will define the possible eras (and so potentially rule out a pre-grouping modeller like myself) but otherwise if the competition is to promote the new pointwork, it should be made to be as welcoming as possible.

All the best

Neil

[Jeremy Good]

Neil

They are not available in 9ft sleeper lengths. Sorry I didn’t respond earlier - a bit busy in the day job!

These turnouts needed to be commercially viable for British Finescale to develop a P4 turnout and therefore aimed at the largest possible market and target market.

Jeremy

[Neil Smith]

Thanks Jeremy.

That's a shame, understandable but a shame.

[buckie5507]

The time frame i suggested was to fit with the societies 60th (if my dodo maths is correct then the society came into existence in 1966 (2026-60) and the strap line was a play on the famous line "They think it's all over" from closing moments of the 1966 FIFA World Cup Final given a railway slant.

I agree that we shouldn't mandate the use of British Finescale turnouts as only using B7s would limit a lot of creative freedom.

Jonathan

[dcockling]

The inaugural meeting of the Scalefour Society was on 14th February 1976.

2026 will be the Society’s 50th anniversary but it will also be the 60th anniversary of the publication of the P4 Standards.

All the Best
Danny

[grovenor-2685]

But then the merger with the Protofour Society pushed the founding date back.

[Tim V]

The 1966 connection is the publishing of the Protofour (abbreviated to P4 these days) standards for the first time in the August 1966 MRN.

In 2026, it will be 60 years since the standards were published and 50 years since the formation of the Scalefour Society.

A pair of anniversaries!

[dcockling]

In what sense Keith? The merger with the Protofour Society took place in 1987.

Danny

[garethashenden]

I am unlikely to participate, what with living on the wrong continent and things like that, but I do like the idea of a layout competition. I might build a layout to its standards anyway, if I don't embark on a larger project first.

I think something along the lines of X square feet with Y turnouts would be a good start.

If we're specifying eras, the 1883 challenge should be rerun with only layouts set in 1883. Something that occurs to me is that we could encourage people to explore a different era. Since the challenge is small and finite it would be a good opportunity to scratch that itch.

[grovenor-2685]

In what sense Keith? The merger with the Protofour Society took place in 1987.

Danny

In exactly the sense that the current Hornby believes that it began in 1920 with Frank Hornby producing his first Hornby train, rather than tracing its origin back to Rovex/Triang. The date of the merger/takeover is irrelevant.
But Tim's reference to the 1966 publication of the standards is more appropriate as the Society was not founded till 1969.

[Julian Roberts]

Lots of sensible suggestions here but I'll just add my thought in case it's of interest.

To expand my previous post of a simple size criteria - how about three sizes based perhaps not on the layout size but the method of transport:

1. A small layout that can be brought to the exhibition by train or other public transport.
2. A medium layout transported by car.
3. A larger layout that can only be brought by van or lorry.

Ingenuity of design would thus be part of the criteria. Of course defining exactly could be problematic. Where what we call a car becomes a van for example. But Gareth could bring his layout from Canada

[Terry Bendall]

1. A small layout that can be brought to the exhibition by train or other public transport

Such layouts exist and can be very interesting but they obvioulsly impose design constraints and B7 turnouts may be too large.

3. A larger layout that can only be brought by van or lorry

Van hire is now getting very expensive. I paid around £400 for a four day hire recently. Given the rise in other costs, especially accommodation, adding van hire may be enough to cause an exhibition organiser to think whether the costs can justify inviting a layout to an exhibition. Not a lot of point in building a large layout to go to exhibitions if you don't get any invitations.

KISS

Terry Bendall

[Worzels Works]

Van hire is now getting very expensive. I paid around £400 for a four day hire recently. Given the rise in other costs, especially accommodation, adding van hire may be enough to cause an exhibition organiser to think whether the costs can justify inviting a layout to an exhibition. Not a lot of point in building a large layout to go to exhibitions if you don't get any invitations.

Terry Bendall

FWIW; in my experience over the last few years of road tripping around on the crew of a large layout requiring a van I think that there are plenty of shows (especially non specialised events) still with an appetite for larger layouts and have certainly been surprised by the number of van requiring layouts at the one's we have attended. It is certainly felt by exhibition organisers though with the costs, but from my experience witnessing the organisation all it takes is a good attitude to be taken towards marketing to get the right numbers through the door, a not for profit still has to make even! I'm rambling a bit now but my point is I think encouraging the building of new large layouts is a brilliant idea, certainly something I would be encouraged to do. even more so as part of a competition/challenge (I do completely get your point Terry, just providing a hopefully encouraging outlook to accompany very real concerns)