What is a Cameo Layout?

[Captain Kernow]

Times change, so do words and their meaning.

That film about Turner is still carp, though!

[Robin2]

That film about Turner is still carp, though!

Something fishy going on here!

 

...R

[bgman]

That film about Turner is still carp, though!

 

Far too much spittle for my liking and not a spittoon in sight ! I prefer to use thinners myself 

 

V.Gof

[Regularity]

That film about Turner is still carp, though!

If you approach the infamous Tallington Level Crossing (during the morning rush hour, the gates are supposedly down for 45 minutes) from the east, there is a sign advertising the Tallington Carp Lakes. I still haven’t read it correctly, despite living in the area for more than 16 years.

[LBRJ]

I don't believe that cameo layouts are intrinsically any better than any other form of layout; as with others there will be good and bad among their ranks. Applying a name or a set formula to layout is no guarantee of success. 

 

I agree with you there, my obviously missed point was that its not all about trains etc , it is about the creation a sense of place. As the creator of Shell Island I suspect you know this already

[Captain Kernow]

If you approach the infamous Tallington Level Crossing (during the morning rush hour, the gates are supposedly down for 45 minutes) from the east, there is a sign advertising the Tallington Carp Lakes. I still haven’t read it correctly, despite living in the area for more than 16 years.

For a moment, I thought you were going to tell me that this was where they filmed the railway sequences in the Turner film.

[NHY 581]

Nutbush.

[Regularity]

For a moment, I thought you were going to tell me that this was where they filmed the railway sequences in the Turner film.

Well, that would have been a case of you having your cake and eating it, wouldn’t it?

[Siberian Snooper]

Nutbush.

City limits?

 

I. Turner.

[Regularity]

Nutbush.

Teabag.

[Captain Kernow]

Well, that would have been a case of you having your cake and eating it, wouldn’t it?

More like having my gluten-free, sugar-free, enjoyment-free health food bar and eating it.

 

Oh, and it's sausage-free as well.

Edited January 6, 2018 by Captain Kernow

[Regularity]

I am glad to hear it, my good captain. The combination of sausage gobbling and nutbush was eye boggling.

[NCB]

I've been delving into these threads from time to time, even bought the book, but the more I do so the more I dislike the concept. Not so much Cameo Layouts as Precious Layouts. There is too much loaded, onto a simple abstract idea, in the form of prescriptive demands of what such a layout should look like.

 

People used to moan at the plethora of Great Western branch line models which seemed to sprout everywhere. To me the production of layouts to a specific physical formula is worse. If you care to look through the peephole (or maybe it should be slot) of such layouts you may see a difference, but overall there is a sameness about the presentation which is frankly boring. Leave it to the constructors to decide how to present their models; don't go down the road of hailing a particular approach as being "good", and by implication other possible approaches "bad".

 

Me, I dislike peepholes, because they limit the number of possible views of a layout. Often you can get a lot by viewing a layout from above, or from an acute angle, which a full frontal approach doesn't allow. From a practical approach, you can get more people having a decent view of a layout if the view of the layout isn't restrictive. If you can see the storage sidings, then from a modeller's point of view, and maybe others, these can be interesting. These matter because on the sort of layout in question, the peephole may show you the scene the creator wants you to see, but the layout itself is simplistic enough not to hold the attention for very long.

 

Not all peepholes are bad. Dave and Shirley Rowe, who really originated this approach, produced some great ones, but that was because of the particular characteristics of the models they produced, such as Exebridge Quay. But to promote peepholes as generally desirable I think is mistaken. Too precious.

[Arthur]

 

What!!? Too precious??

 

Nobody anywhere is presenting nor claiming that the Cameo concept, the peephole view if you will, is better than any other concept or design, nor implying that other approaches are bad.

 

Nobody is promoting Cameos as being particularly desirable over any other form of layout presentation.

 

It is simply one form of layout presentation described in a book to which the publishers have linked a competition.

 

If it’s not for you, fine, move on, nothing for you to see here.

 

.

[queensquare]

I've been delving into these threads from time to time, even bought the book, but the more I do so the more I dislike the concept. Not so much Cameo Layouts as Precious Layouts. There is too much loaded, onto a simple abstract idea, in the form of prescriptive demands of what such a layout should look like.

 

People used to moan at the plethora of Great Western branch line models which seemed to sprout everywhere. To me the production of layouts to a specific physical formula is worse. If you care to look through the peephole (or maybe it should be slot) of such layouts you may see a difference, but overall there is a sameness about the presentation which is frankly boring. Leave it to the constructors to decide how to present their models; don't go down the road of hailing a particular approach as being "good", and by implication other possible approaches "bad".

 

Me, I dislike peepholes, because they limit the number of possible views of a layout. Often you can get a lot by viewing a layout from above, or from an acute angle, which a full frontal approach doesn't allow. From a practical approach, you can get more people having a decent view of a layout if the view of the layout isn't restrictive. If you can see the storage sidings, then from a modeller's point of view, and maybe others, these can be interesting. These matter because on the sort of layout in question, the peephole may show you the scene the creator wants you to see, but the layout itself is simplistic enough not to hold the attention for very long.

 

Not all peepholes are bad. Dave and Shirley Rowe, who really originated this approach, produced some great ones, but that was because of the particular characteristics of the models they produced, such as Exebridge Quay. But to promote peepholes as generally desirable I think is mistaken. Too precious.

Cripes.......presumably you've not entered then!!

 

Jerry

[bgman]

I'm lead to believe there is a follow up book being published purely for lovers of the Victorian Railway scene...

 

 

Leonard Sachs

 

 

 

 

[New Haven Neil]

Hmm.  Troll o'clock.

[Captain Kernow]

I've been delving into these threads from time to time, even bought the book, but the more I do so the more I dislike the concept. Not so much Cameo Layouts as Precious Layouts. There is too much loaded, onto a simple abstract idea, in the form of prescriptive demands of what such a layout should look like.

 

People used to moan at the plethora of Great Western branch line models which seemed to sprout everywhere. To me the production of layouts to a specific physical formula is worse. If you care to look through the peephole (or maybe it should be slot) of such layouts you may see a difference, but overall there is a sameness about the presentation which is frankly boring. Leave it to the constructors to decide how to present their models; don't go down the road of hailing a particular approach as being "good", and by implication other possible approaches "bad".

 

Me, I dislike peepholes, because they limit the number of possible views of a layout. Often you can get a lot by viewing a layout from above, or from an acute angle, which a full frontal approach doesn't allow. From a practical approach, you can get more people having a decent view of a layout if the view of the layout isn't restrictive. If you can see the storage sidings, then from a modeller's point of view, and maybe others, these can be interesting. These matter because on the sort of layout in question, the peephole may show you the scene the creator wants you to see, but the layout itself is simplistic enough not to hold the attention for very long.

 

Not all peepholes are bad. Dave and Shirley Rowe, who really originated this approach, produced some great ones, but that was because of the particular characteristics of the models they produced, such as Exebridge Quay. But to promote peepholes as generally desirable I think is mistaken. Too precious.

Well, given that the overriding reason for building any layout is (or should be) the enjoyment of the builder, there is one significant advantage that 'cameo' layouts have over larger ones (assuming we are talking about portable layouts here) and that is that they should fit easily into the rabbit hutches that masquerade as 'modern homes'. Not everyone has the space for something larger.

 

One other factor, again thinking only about portable layouts, is that not all of us are in a position to lug bigger layouts, quite possibly with larger, heavier baseboards, around from home to show and back. For those who are finding themselves possibly less physically able than they were in their younger days, regardless of the reason for this, a smaller layout can keep you on the exhibition circuit and not end up costing you a fortune in chiropractor or osteopath fees.

 

As for the other stuff about viewing angles, many 'cameo layouts' can be viewed on at least two sides and many have a fiddle yard that can also be seen. If anything is not immediately visible, perhaps a polite request to the layout owner to come round the back could be made?

[Porcy Mane]

Leonard Sachs

 

A man known for the regularity, cyclicity, methodicalness, periodicity, orderliness and uniformity of bashing his gavel.

 

 

perhaps a polite request to the layout owner to come round the back could be made?

 

I beg your pardon. Please not in the Cameo thread!

 

___________________________________________

 

In all seriousness: I think NCB does have a point but in that, he misses the point of a Cameo. Some of us may desire something larger (in layout terms) but practicality dictates otherwise.

 

The description "Cameo" may seem a little pretentious to some but it love it or hate it; it seems to have become the descriptive word generally associated  with small working model railway layouts and if the fact there is a competition to build a Cameo, motivates some of us to do some modelling then where's the harm?

 

Maybe if we could think of a more sesquipedalian (It's Leonard Sachs fault!) word than "Cameo" to describe a cameo, some may find it less offensive?

 

P

Edited March 11, 2018 by Porcy Mane

[TomHolley]

City limits?

 

I. Turner.

Motorcycles not allowed in it...

[NHY 581]

I've been delving into these threads from time to time, even bought the book, but the more I do so the more I dislike the concept. Not so much Cameo Layouts as Precious Layouts. There is too much loaded, onto a simple abstract idea, in the form of prescriptive demands of what such a layout should look like.

 

People used to moan at the plethora of Great Western branch line models which seemed to sprout everywhere. To me the production of layouts to a specific physical formula is worse. If you care to look through the peephole (or maybe it should be slot) of such layouts you may see a difference, but overall there is a sameness about the presentation which is frankly boring. Leave it to the constructors to decide how to present their models; don't go down the road of hailing a particular approach as being "good", and by implication other possible approaches "bad".

 

Me, I dislike peepholes, because they limit the number of possible views of a layout. Often you can get a lot by viewing a layout from above, or from an acute angle, which a full frontal approach doesn't allow. From a practical approach, you can get more people having a decent view of a layout if the view of the layout isn't restrictive. If you can see the storage sidings, then from a modeller's point of view, and maybe others, these can be interesting. These matter because on the sort of layout in question, the peephole may show you the scene the creator wants you to see, but the layout itself is simplistic enough not to hold the attention for very long.

 

Not all peepholes are bad. Dave and Shirley Rowe, who really originated this approach, produced some great ones, but that was because of the particular characteristics of the models they produced, such as Exebridge Quay. But to promote peepholes as generally desirable I think is mistaken. Too precious.

 

Right, that's quite enough CK.

 

 

I thought we had seen the last of your 'Arty' posts........now you are posting under an alias...

 

 

 

Rob.

[Regularity]

I've been delving into these threads from time to time, even bought the book, but the more I do so the more I dislike the concept.

 

You could probably have stopped there.

To which point, the only response is, “Fair enough. Each to their own.”

 

I appreciate your explanation of why you don’t like them, but in explaining your point of view, you do run the risk that readers will re-interpret your point of view as a personal attack on them, their friends, or the concept you dislike.

 

Sadly, based on recent personal experience, extending this courtesy to the reader base means that a few will decide your views are offensive, and that you should quite possibly be burned at the stake. If you attempt to explain yourself further, you will be accused of protesting too much, or of prolonging the debate.

 

Even reasonable people will think, and some might even say, that if you don’t like it, don’t read the thread and will suggest that you don’t comment, which is a shame as I think you have provided a reasoned rebuttal to the concept, which if nothing else provides a critique for those who do like the concept to respond to: at the very least, something on which to hone the arguments for cameo layouts.

And then we can all simply say, “That doesn’t work for me, but the debate has really helped my understand why it doesn’t work, but also to appreciate what others are trying to achieve.

[Porcy Mane]

I've been delving into these threads from time to time, even bought the book, but the more I do so the more I dislike the concept. Not so much Cameo Layouts as Precious Layouts. There is too much loaded, onto a simple abstract idea, in the form of prescriptive demands of what such a layout should look like.

 

 

 

I thought we had seen the last of your 'Arty' posts........now you are posting under an alias...

 

That was my thoughts exactly. Well not quite. I thought, Ah someone else has learnt how to use a B0ll0cks Generator. (No offence Capn.)

 

Actually I thought there speaks a man whose work must work explore the relationship between the universality of myth and recycling culture. 

 

With influences as diverse as Machiavelli and Andy Warhol, new synergies are synthesised from both mundane and transcendant layers.

 

Ever since he was a child (i Thought) he must have been fascinated by the endless oscillation of the mind. What starts out as hope soon becomes finessed into a tragedy of distress, leaving only a sense of dread and with it, the chance of a new reality.

 

As temporal derivatives become clarified through diligent and diverse practice, the viewer is left with a clue to the edges of our existence.

 

Nowt like looking through a non voyeuristic peep hole.

 

P

Edited March 11, 2018 by Porcy Mane

[NCB]

Well, given that the overriding reason for building any layout is (or should be) the enjoyment of the builder, there is one significant advantage that 'cameo' layouts have over larger ones (assuming we are talking about portable layouts here) and that is that they should fit easily into the rabbit hutches that masquerade as 'modern homes'. Not everyone has the space for something larger.

 

One other factor, again thinking only about portable layouts, is that not all of us are in a position to lug bigger layouts, quite possibly with larger, heavier baseboards, around from home to show and back. For those who are finding themselves possibly less physically able than they were in their younger days, regardless of the reason for this, a smaller layout can keep you on the exhibition circuit and not end up costing you a fortune in chiropractor or osteopath fees.

 

I'm fine with moderate-sized layouts which fit into whatever space the modern home allows. I have a secondary interest in addition to my main one, and a space of length 8' 6" for it, and portability would be highly desirable. Taking your secondary point, which is very relevant, I've been thinking about how such a layout could be made extremely light weight yet sound.  So I bought the book, hoping to pick up ideas about how others approach this scenario. Not much in it for me I'm afraid; one reference to modified L girder construction, which might tie in with my ideas for using very thin ply, and that's about it.

 

It's not the small layout aspect which I disagree with; it's the requirements on such things as fascias, backscenes and the like which are deemed necessary to make a "cameo layout". These are things best left to the judgement of the person or people whose layout it is. To me the cameo layout concept comes with too much baggage.

[NHY 581]

I'm fine with moderate-sized layouts which fit into whatever space the modern home allows. I have a secondary interest in addition to my main one, and a space of length 8' 6" for it, and portability would be highly desirable. Taking your secondary point, which is very relevant, I've been thinking about how such a layout could be made extremely light weight yet sound.  So I bought the book, hoping to pick up ideas about how others approach this scenario. Not much in it for me I'm afraid; one reference to modified L girder construction, which might tie in with my ideas for using very thin ply, and that's about it.

 

It's not the small layout aspect which I disagree with; it's the requirements on such things as fascias, backscenes and the like which are deemed necessary to make a "cameo layout". These are things best left to the judgement of the person or people whose layout it is. To me the cameo layout concept comes with too much baggage.

 

Well, what do you see as an alternative?

 

The Cameo concept suites me. I like the idea of the production of a small self contained scene, a snapshot if you like of what we all know to be a bigger scene. The use of backscene and fascia is crucial to the final appearance of the scenic section of tge layout.

 

This approach has allowed me to produce two small but detailed self contained layouts in the last two years which have made me an active modeller once again.

 

 

It therefore works for me and I intend to commence my third such layout very soon.

 

 

If this approach does not appeal to you that's fine but, as I say, what's the alternative?

 

 

Rob.