Creating Cameo Layouts

[Not Jeremy]

The entry form doesn't set out any parameters, a cameo layout's recipe is set out in the book and further guidance is given in the MRJ piece that introduces the competion.

 

In answer to Ian's question, the competition is for layouts that are being built or new build projects, so completed projects are effectively out.

 

I should say, a condition of actual entry to the competition is the purchase of Iain's book. Beyond that I don't think there are any "conditions" or hard and fast rules, although as I said above Iain is looking for a piece of railway that can be operated and not "just" a diorama.

 

Simon

[Neil]

 

 

 

 

So what is the proper definition of a cameo layout?

 

 

 

 

 

I'm not sure that there is one. I have an idea that they're a bit like art where there's no clear definition beyond the creator saying that it's art as opposed to shark taxidermy or sloppy housekeeping. However, like art, once your creation is out in the public domain it will be judged (in an informal sense) by others who will bring their sense of what a cameo layout is to bear. I guess that we all have our informal concept of what constitutes a cameo layout, the rules, like politicians promises, appear to have sufficient flex in them to accommodate many approaches. For example at first reading I took the guidance 'it seeks to present its subject in as realistic and natural a manner as possible, using 'staged' presentation and eye level viewpoints' as meaning layout in a box, high off the ground. Thinking about it some more I realised that there are many ways of staging a layout that doesn't involve a box, here's one of my current favourites that also gets over the problem of no singular eye level suited to all. I'll not be entering as I find competitions to be the kiss of death to whatever mojo I have amassed to deploy at a particular subject, but I am looking forward to seeing what others create.

[ruggedpeak]

I think there should be some limit on size to avoid disputes later, or clear judging rules that ensure size does not confer any advantage There was suggestion earlier of 7 feet, which strikes me as enormous! Sadly I don't model anywhere near finescale so won't be entering, but will be interested to see the results. I do have a OO micro/cameo layout under way that is about 4 foot including fiddle yard and 10 inches wide, which seems about right.

[Captain Kernow]

here's one of my current favourites

The link just takes me to a 'General Error' I'm afraid, Neil.

[Captain Kernow]

I should say, a condition of actual entry to the competition is the purchase of Iain's book.

OK, clever marketing tactic that, although I think that there is more than enough testimony on this thread alone as to the quality and 'worthwhileness' of the book.

 

Yes, it's definitely worth buying, even if you're not planning on entering the competition.

 

I had already planned to build my small layout before I became aware of the competition.

 

But how does one prove purchase/ownership of the book, Simon? Mine was bought for me by a friend, to whom I gave the money, and there is no paper trail to prove to any auditor worth his or her salt as to the veracity of my claim. For all anyone knows, there could be a cameo layout 'ring' here in South Devon, all using the one copy and surreptitiously passing it around between our houses via discreet couriers in unmarked white Ford vans.

[Stubby47]

The link just takes me to a 'General Error' I'm afraid, Neil.

 

The link worked for me earlier, now it fails, I think the other hosting server has been overwhelmed with referred links from Neil's post. 

 

It's a marvellous layout though, right up my (quirky) street.

[Neil]

I think there should be some limit on size to avoid disputes later, or clear judging rules that ensure size does not confer any advantage There was suggestion earlier of 7 feet, which strikes me as enormous! Sadly I don't model anywhere near finescale so won't be entering, but will be interested to see the results. I do have a OO micro/cameo layout under way that is about 4 foot including fiddle yard and 10 inches wide, which seems about right.

 

I'm less convinced of the need for dimensional rules, I think that the judges would be able to tell if anyone is taking liberties with the concept of cameo. Looking at the rules or guidance it seems as though deliberate wriggle room has been built in.

[Neil]

The link just takes me to a 'General Error' I'm afraid, Neil.

 

Yes I've just got that too; try this link for an image or google 'Thomas Schmid, Ill va Ou'

[Captain Kernow]

Yes I've just got that too; try this link for an image or google 'Thomas Schmid, Ill va Ou'

Ah yes,thanks. Very charming.

[Robin2]

I think there should be some limit on size to avoid disputes later, or clear judging rules that ensure size does not confer any advantage There was suggestion earlier of 7 feet, which strikes me as enormous!

I am perfectly happy to trust the judging panel and in general I don't see the need for detailed rules. My guess is that a large layout would actually be at a disadvantage - but that's just my guess.

 

What would be nice to know in advance is whether there are some conditions that would definitely rule out an entry so that some poor soul does not waste his/her time and money. For example is Peco 00 SetTrack admissable? Or Metcalfe buildings? (Personally, I don't see why not).

 

...R

[NHY 581]

I am perfectly happy to trust the judging panel and in general I don't see the need for detailed rules. My guess is that a large layout would actually be at a disadvantage - but that's just my guess.

 

What would be nice to know in advance is whether there are some conditions that would definitely rule out an entry so that some poor soul does not waste his/her time and money. For example is Peco 00 SetTrack admissable? Or Metcalfe buildings? (Personally, I don't see why not).

 

...R

If we go down the route of specific products being excluded this is going to get very complicated indeed.

 

 

Just keep it simple and work to Iain's bullet points which make no reference to excluding products or gauge.

 

Rob.

[Barry Ten]

 

 

What would be nice to know in advance is whether there are some conditions that would definitely rule out an entry so that some poor soul does not waste his/her time and money. For example is Peco 00 SetTrack admissable? Or Metcalfe buildings? (Personally, I don't see why not).

 

...R

 

Iain does say that he expects the entries to tend toward finescale track and wheel standards, so I'd take that to mean avoiding set-track.

[2mmMark]

The various "Dave Brewer" challenges run by the organisers of ExpoNG have often made the dimensions of the entry relate to the gauge of subject.  This might be a bit too specific but it could provide a sensible boundary for maximum size.

 

As for the use of commercial components such as Peco track, why not? A large part of the competition will be about the visual appeal of the end result. Making Peco track look good takes a lot of skill.

 

Nothing should be ruled out.  If we start getting into serious rules and "appealing the judge's decision", we're getting far away from the spirit of the competition.

 

It'll be a treat to see what the ingenuity of the entrants brings about.

 

 

Mark

[keefr2]

The modelling is executed to a high standard: 'small but exquisite' favouring fine scale wheel and track standards and a high level of detail.

That's me disqualified before the start then...!!   

 

Keith

[ruggedpeak]

Iain does say that he expects the entries to tend toward finescale track and wheel standards, so I'd take that to mean avoiding set-track.

This looks like a key debate then. My micro layout is built using mostly Hornby and Bachmann track and Metcalfe scenic features (see here http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/119429-modern-micro-layout/ ) and those were specific choices as part of the project. If cameo means finescale in a small space then this is different from just tiny layouts. To quote Mr Parker of this parish in his review of the book "There are a few hints at finescale snobbery - you CAN build cameo layouts in OO as several of Mr Nevard's models illustrating the pages show." Indeed my inspiration was from Paul Lunn's book "Building micro-layouts" from a competing publisher(!), which even has a section on the relative merits of Y points from Peco Streamline, Peco Setrack and Hornby.

 

Is the cameo (as against "micro"?) concept more about finescale than RTR? I think it would be worth some clarification.

Edited April 18, 2017 by ruggedpeak

[Barry Ten]

 

 

Is the cameo (as against "micro"?) concept more about finescale than RTR? I think it would be worth some clarification.

 

I don't think it has to be all that contentious; Iain's spent 30 years promoting finescale modelling, with a frequent emphasis on the benefits of handlaid track, allowing for greater design freedom in a restricted space, and he's generally preferred scratchbuilt structures over unmodified kits or ready-to-plonk, so I think he's set out his stall pretty clearly, both iin his general writings and specifically in the Cameo book. Where the freedom lies is in choice of scale, era, prototype etc - as well as the overall design approach to the whole layout as self-contained entity.

[Captain Kernow]

At the end of the day, anyone should surely be able to enter any cameo layout, whether using Peco or Hornby set track and R-T-P buildings, or something produced under the yoke of the most unforgiving hair shirt that Studiolith could produce.

 

It will then be up to the judges to make what they will of all the entries.

 

But everyone will have permission to have some fun on the way.

[Robin2]

At the end of the day, anyone should surely be able to enter any cameo layout, whether using Peco or Hornby set track and R-T-P buildings, or something produced under the yoke of the most unforgiving hair shirt that Studiolith could produce.

 

It will then be up to the judges to make what they will of all the entries.

That would certainly be my preferred approach. However it would be nice to hear the organizers confirm (or deny) it.

 

I reckon you can build a realistic looking and operating model with any sort of stuff and you can make an unrealistic model with P4 track and buildings with individual bricks and slates.

 

...R

Edited April 18, 2017 by Robin2

[ruggedpeak]

I shall flog myself verily until I am worthy of entering the finescale pantheon.

 

In the mean time I'll crack on with my current project at my current skill rating of 'Ready to plonker'! Whatever happens there will no doubt be some cracking entries.

[298]

Thinking about it some more I realised that there are many ways of staging a layout that doesn't involve a box, here's one of my current favourites that also gets over the problem of no singular eye level suited to all. I'll not be entering as I find competitions to be the kiss of death to whatever mojo I have amassed to deploy at a particular subject, but I am looking forward to seeing what others create.

To reiterate the point of how Ian portrays a "Cameo", to me it isn't a new concept as I can remember seeing North American themed layouts improving on this genre for years, and it might becoming a laboured point now but the emphasis on creating a "Stage" for the trains to perform on, which includes lighting and framing them properly with a Proscenium Arch and offstage fiddle yards as the wings. I even wonder why the concept is portrayed as something new (but then again you only have to look around the average show to see that presentation is often an afterthought). This might largely limit the concept to rectangular shaped shelf layouts, but I wouldn't discount curved fascias or backscenes, or even viewing in more than one side such as your own "Shell Island". I wouldn't class the layout in your link as a Cameo, instead it's more of a "Whimsy", along the lines of something that you'd expect to see imported into Warley from the continent and always remember over the usual fare that appeals to the great unwashed.

 

Regarding track standards, I feel it's not what has been used, but how it has been disguised, for want of a better word. The Micro/APA Box I started about 5 years has been stalled as I couldn't decide what trackwork to use, but then Brew St came along and inspired me to do something with modified code 100 setrack (albeit buried under a road surface), and now the project is heading towards completion. The same could be said for buildings, etc. regardless of the source, unless there is a category for straight of the cutting mat Superquik buildings, dyed sawdust and lichen, and Peco backscenes.

Edited April 18, 2017 by 298

[Captain Kernow]

I'm wondering something at this point - I'm relatively close to wanting to start my own new thread for the new cameo layout, but should I post this up in an existing area of RMWeb, or will there be a new Cameo Layouts section?

[bertiedog]

I had usually associated the rather vague term Cameo layout with a stand alone layout that can be viewed from all sides, with no background scenes, concentrating on the detailing and scenery adjacent to the railway, bar of course connection to a fiddle yard or incorporation into a loop. I have not read Iain Rices book, maybe he means with "the stage" a theatrical style very common at shows, but reduced to concentrate on details better.

Micro layouts are a bit different, small size is the paramount point, no standards for track etc are set, but they seem to be in his competition. As read from other postings two identical layouts in detailing and quality, but different track standards would mean favouring a P4 layout against a fine scale 00 layout.

Better get the book and read up on this, but no entry if display is involved as I can't travel.

[tractionman]

I had usually associated the rather vague term Cameo layout with a stand alone layout that can be viewed from all sides, with no background scenes, concentrating on the detailing and scenery adjacent to the railway, bar of course connection to a fiddle yard or incorporation into a loop. I have not read Iain Rices book, maybe he means with "the stage" a theatrical style very common at shows, but reduced to concentrate on details better.

Micro layouts are a bit different, small size is the paramount point, no standards for track etc are set, but they seem to be in his competition. As read from other postings two identical layouts in detailing and quality, but different track standards would mean favouring a P4 layout against a fine scale 00 layout.

Better get the book and read up on this, but no entry if display is involved as I can't travel.

 

I'm also trying to pin down what we might mean by a 'cameo' layout and what differentiates it from other layouts.

 

According to the Collins dictionary a cameo is

 

"is a short description or piece of acting which expresses cleverly and neatly the nature of a situation, event, or person's character."

 

So for a model railway I guess the key ingredients for a cameo layout is the 'clever' bit and 'neatly' encapsulating a scene through its character?

 

Something like Ruston's Nant y Mynydd I think would seem to fit the bill http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/118390-nant-y-mynydd/page-1

 

All the best,

 

Keith

Edited April 18, 2017 by tractionman

[298]

I had usually associated the rather vague term Cameo layout with a stand alone layout that can be viewed from all sides, with no background scenes, concentrating on the detailing and scenery adjacent to the railway,

If it viewable from all sides (and leaning on the emphasis that you are watching a performance), wouldn't that be more of a "Soapbox"...?

[The Bigbee Line]

Cameo in my mind is like a characature. So why does it need to be fine scale? Maybe fine modelling is enough?