Welcome to the cameo competition

[BG John]

A quick browse through the book to find guidance on dimensions for the proscenium arch came up with the following:

 

• Fascia elements “reasonably generous rather than erring on the skinny side”
• “Any fascia element less than 3 inches in breadth often look a bit wimpy”
• Start with 3 inches minimum for narrowest element, usually the layout profile fascia
  • If topography is gently undulating, settle for 3 inches average
  • If topography is rather more tortuous, go for 3 inches at lowest point
• Wings can be same width or greater than the fascia, and not necessarily symmetrical
• Proscenium is widest element, and set forward 3-4 inches to enable overhead lights hidden behind it to light front edge of layout
• The proscenium is the widest element and ideally needs to extend far enough upwards so viewer isn’t unduly aware of its top edge
• Avoid ‘tall but short’ openings
• Don’t normally consider opening with height greater than 25% of its length
• Opening of about 18% usually works for Iain Rice

That seems to be about all the numbers the book puts on it. It seems like a good starting point, so I'll base my mock up on it, and see how it looks. Don't forget that the proscenium needs to hide the lighting. I didn't read that far though, as I'll worry about that later.

 

Viewing height copied from competition rules:

A ‘realistic viewing height’ should seek to put the ‘horizon line’ incorporated in the model as close as possible to the eye level of the viewer – typically, to a tolerance of +/- 2 inches. So the height at which the layout needs to be displayed for this to be achieved has to take account of how it is intended that it should be viewed, e.g., standing/seated on a high stool or seated at normal chair height.  For persons of average stature, those alternatives typically equate to eye levels of about 63ins standing/high seat and 45 ins normally seated.

 

I think I'll aim to stick rigidly to those heights if I can. Then I can pass the buck if anyone complains about the height!

[Tricky]

^{Very useful post, thanks.}

[BG John]

I'm currently getting confused by the 63" eye level, and trying to translate that into rail level!

[The Fatadder]

I’m giving serious thought to designing the height to be viewed from a seated position,

 

In my mind it gives two advantages; in that it can be seen by people of different heights easier (including those in wheelchairs) and should be easier to operate scale couplings (by standing up looking down) than at eye level while standing.

The down side is that in an exhibition you are limited to 2 people viewing at one time, where as having it at 60 inches or so would mean a lot more viewers at one time.

[Tricky]

I'm currently getting confused by the 63" eye level, and trying to translate that into rail level!

Me too. I've been thinking about this and think the horizon is about 5" above rail, so floor to rail is about 58". I had another go at the light pelmet last night and with height percentages of between 18 and 25% of the width still doesn't come down far enough!!!

[BG John]

I’m giving serious thought to designing the height to be viewed from a seated position,

 

In my mind it gives two advantages; in that it can be seen by people of different heights easier (including those in wheelchairs) and should be easier to operate scale couplings (by standing up looking down) than at eye level while standing.

The down side is that in an exhibition you are limited to 2 people viewing at one time, where as having it at 60 inches or so would mean a lot more viewers at one time.

Does that help? You need a closed top on it to support the lights, to keep the glare out of standing viewers (and operators) eyes, and to stop uncontrolled light getting in. The only access is through the front. I think the book suggests that vastly overscale humans placing parts of their anatomy into the scene to operate it isn't what it's all about. I didn't look this up, as I've no intention of doing it!

[BG John]

Me too. I've been thinking about this and think the horizon is about 5" above rail, so floor to rail is about 58". I had another go at the light pelmet last night and with height percentages of between 18 and 25% of the width still doesn't come down far enough!!!

I'll try to get a rough proscenium arch knocked up later, and see how it works.

 

I got a bit carried away looking up the proportions of people, the normal ratios of head size to total height, and the position of the eyes in the head. Not sure it it will help, but it's kind of interesting!

[The Fatadder]

Does that help? You need a closed top on it to support the lights, to keep the glare out of standing viewers (and operators) eyes, and to stop uncontrolled light getting in. The only access is through the front. I think the book suggests that vastly overscale humans placing parts of their anatomy into the scene to operate it isn't what it's all about. I didn't look this up, as I've no intention of doing it!

It’s an interesting point (and probably a good indication that I need to reread that particular section of the book once I get it back from a friend who has borrowed it!)

 

My lighting is designed to be supported by the arch, so a fully enclosed space wasn’t in my initial plan. Now I’m thinking about some form of removeable panel, giving me a fully controlled box when photographing the layout, but access for operation.

 

As for the avoidance of the hand of god, it’s a very difficult one deciding between realising for a part of the time when coupling vs a non prototypal coupling on show all of the time. Definitely an area I would be interested in hearing how others intend to solve. At the very least some testing of coupling / uncoupling at eye level will be worth a try.

[BG John]

My aim is for everything on my layout to be radio controlled, so I could operate it from the exhibition hall cafe if I wanted! As long as I have a video link to see what I'm doing, but I'm not planning that . It will be narrow gauge, so I'm not restricted to 3-link couplings. Some form of chopper coupling, maybe even butchered tension locks, wouldn't be out of place. I think that after putting so much effort into controlling viewing angles, giving the opportunity to do some really creative things with the space, sticking a giant hand into the scene as part of routine operation would totally destroy the illusion.

 

I think some kind of hands free coupling and uncoupling is essential. Maybe this is an area where some creativity is needed, so that something that looks like a 3-link coupling is seen by viewers, but an unrealistic coupling/uncoupling operation takes place hidden behind some scenic feature.

[5050]

 

I think some kind of hands free coupling and uncoupling is essential. Maybe this is an area where some creativity is needed, so that something that looks like a 3-link coupling is seen by viewers, but an unrealistic coupling/uncoupling operation takes place hidden behind some scenic feature.

Dinghams?

[The Fatadder]

Dinghams?

I have given a lot of thought to using dinghams and memory wire plus a basic decoder. The problem is the cost needing to fit to both ends of every piece of stock which will need to be uncoupled.

 

For my main Brent project I think the will be the only way forward for passenger workings (with the yard operated with scale couplings)

 

For my cameo It would be easier for the fixed rakes of clay hoods / CDAs which will only need one dcc dingham on each end. The vans, slurry and bulk clay hoppers will be more mixed, and would have to auto couplings on each wagon.

 

My plan is to have construction finished for September, giving me another 5 months to get on with stock etc at which point I will make the final call on couplings after actually running the layout in anger

[davknigh]

DCC Dinghams may be a bit more than you need. An electromagnet will give the hands free uncoupling with a fraction of the expense. The key is well tuned couplings and careful spotting of the wagons.

 

HTH

 

David

[The Fatadder]

What are the rules on exhibiting the layout prior to the end of the competition (either as WIP or complete)?

[Stubby47]

What are the rules on exhibiting the layout prior to the end of the competition (either as WIP or complete)?

I'm showing one at the SWAG member's day and at Hayle in May - I don't think there are any restrictions.

[NHY 581]

Mine has already appeared at the Small Cardiff show last month and is due to appear at two more this year.

 

 

Rob.

[Captain Kernow]

What are the rules on exhibiting the layout prior to the end of the competition (either as WIP or complete)?

You may get reported to The Management and as a consequence, your sausage allowance may be reduced.