What is a Cameo Layout?

[NCB]

 

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

 

 

Rob.

 

 

No or limited backscene? No fascia as such? Such things as optional?

[Porcy Mane]

No or limited backscene? No fascia as such?

 

 1/10 for presentation.

[NHY 581]

No or limited backscene? No fascia as such? Such things as optional?

Anything is optional but the lack of finish would trouble me. The enclosing of the scene draws the eye in and holds it. Decent lighting and a plain backscene focus on the actual modelling of the scene.

 

 

Rob.

[Arthur]

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.

 

Let me be absolutely crystal clear.

 

My issue with NCB’s post was simply his assertions that this was some proselytising thread raising the Cameo concept above all whilst diminishing the value of others.

 

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".......

 

 

 .....But to promote peepholes as generally desirable I think is mistaken. Too precious.

Nowhere is anybody suggesting that.

 

I have no issue with his critiquing of the concept, outlining why he does not like idea, offering suggestions for consideration.

 

.

[Robin2]

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;

I find it very strange that the cameo idea does not suggest ways for lightness. If the layout is a box with a backscene, front and sides (the exact Cameo prescription) it could be made from 3mm ply and be quite strong enough to stand on.

 

IMHO most model railway baseboard construction would be better suited to house-building.

 

...R

Edited March 12, 2018 by Robin2

[Neil]

No or limited backscene? No fascia as such? Such things as optional?

 

For several years I've been a bit troubled by a particular conundrum of layout design, particularly as it applies to smaller layouts. If a lyout is small then the conventional wisdom is that it benefits the most from a backscene and managed viewing angles so that it looks bigger than the dimensions it actually occupies. However by constraining the field of view by framing the layout a sense of claustrophobia is added which runs counter to what we seek (in most cases) to achieve. A good few years ago I came up with a possible alternative which I thought may have potential. It's taken several years for the theory to be put into practice, and even then some compromises have been made from my stated ideal. Though at an early stage of development I think it has promise.

 

 

[Regularity]

Arthur,

 

It wasn’t aimed at you.

[Arthur]

 

Thanks Simon, your clarification is appreciated.

[Regularity]

No problem.

It wasn’t really aimed at anyone.

Just needed to get it off my chest: it has happened and on this thread a while back, and elsewhere, too.

[Captain Kernow]

For several years I've been a bit troubled by a particular conundrum of layout design, particularly as it applies to smaller layouts. If a lyout is small then the conventional wisdom is that it benefits the most from a backscene and managed viewing angles so that it looks bigger than the dimensions it actually occupies. However by constraining the field of view by framing the layout a sense of claustrophobia is added which runs counter to what we seek (in most cases) to achieve. A good few years ago I came up with a possible alternative which I thought may have potential. It's taken several years for the theory to be put into practice, and even then some compromises have been made from my stated ideal. Though at an early stage of development I think it has promise.

 

plan 22.jpg

 

plan 54.jpg

Quite right too, Neil.

 

And of course, it's something that the Baron Harrap has adopted further, although in his case, he's introduced the new concept of the operator wearing the actual backscene.

[Captain Kernow]

Ah someone else has learnt how to use a B0ll0cks Generator. (No offence Capn.)

 

None taken, Dear Heart, although the aura of the negative space implied by an over-indulgence of backscene elements can endanger the devious simplicity of the exploration of montage elements.

[Regularity]

None taken, Dear Heart, although the aura of the negative space implied by an over-indulgence of backscene elements can endanger the devious simplicity of the exploration of montage elements.

That’s easy for you to say...

 

Orotundic, Smithee, orotundic.

[NHY 581]

Croissant.

Edited March 14, 2018 by NHY 581

[Siberian Snooper]

Croissant.

Thank you, but no.

[steve howe]

As I'm just about to start my cameo project (of which more anon in another place) I had a quick glance at this thread.

 

There seems to be a great deal of blethering going on about not much at all. Its a model railway. No one died. Worlds won't be saved. Get over it.

 

I wonder how many of the Bletherers on here are actually getting on with the job of building anything?

 

Steve

[westerner]

I think most of them.

[Regularity]

As I'm just about to start my cameo project (of which more anon in another place) I had a quick glance at this thread.

 

There seems to be a great deal of blethering going on about not much at all. Its a model railway. No one died. Worlds won't be saved. Get over it.

 

I wonder how many of the Bletherers on here are actually getting on with the job of building anything?

And reactivating this discussion differentiates you from the blathering in which way, exactly?

[LBRJ]

And reactivating this discussion differentiates you from the blathering in which way, exactly?

 

Is it not fair to make a comment as one finds something to comment on - Time limits are not that hard n fast are they?

 

I for one am rather pleased at the comment, if only because I am now aware that Steve will be soon creating yet another fabulous small slice of railway

[Regularity]

You’re no fun.

[NHY 581]

The first of my Cameo entries is in Taunton this weekend at the Rmweb show.

 

One down , one to go.

 

 

Rob.

[steve howe]

And reactivating this discussion differentiates you from the blathering in which way, exactly?

 

I don't propose to join the arguments, I'm too busy building things.   

 

Steve

[Not Jeremy]

I don't propose to join the arguments, I'm too busy building things. 

 

Steve

Excellent, I look forward to receiving your update!

 

Simon, busy doing Cameo administration....

[Regularity]

I don't propose to join the arguments, I'm too busy building things.

Glad you are enjoying yourself.

But your statement is inherently self-contradictory: you already did join in, and in fact re-ignited it.

 

As with my previous statement, lack of a smiley does not preclude humour in the comment.

 

But back to the OP and the question.

There are three answers:

1) A layout fitting exactly the criteria laid out by Iain Rice;

2) A layout built to meet the specific criteria for entry into the competition;

3) However you personally interpret Iain’s suggestions.

 

Unless working towards a competition entry, then item 1 is a starting point for 3, and the answer boils down to, “Whatever you wish it to be.”

 

As for layouts, I am having fun re-working the layout I built over 20 years ago. It is too long for the competition (rules out definition 2), and presented at too low a height to meet Iain’s criteria (option 1 out of the window) so I simply eschew the third option, but take on board some of Iain’s developed ideas about presentation and how I might use them to better present the layout (which us all it is: no need to categorise it further beyond scale, subject and size). As such, other people’s ideas and achievements might also inspire me, but the competition result per se doesn’t interest me.

 

Unless entering the competition, I don’t think I will ever use the word “cameo” in this context. Like most threads on any forum, the discussion is fun, sometimes informative, but usually spurious.

[davknigh]

Glad you are enjoying yourself.

But your statement is inherently ...massive snip.... but usually spurious.

Ah, but you’ve built a layout (or rebuilt if you wish) and that was the objective of the whole Cameo thing in the first place, to get people building.

 

Cheers,

 

David

[Regularity]

The rebuilding is 100% independent of the cameo layout, competition or otherwise, being a consequence of less happy circumstances resulting in it coming back into my hands.

 

What I wonder is, how many of those building a cameo layout have never built a layout before, and how many were looking for a new challenge for their talents? I (sadly) suspect it to be more of the latter, but it would be wonderful if there were a large number of new, first time builders.