Can I truthfully call this progress?

[TEAMYAKIMA]

I've been working on my fiddle yard today and discovered two faults in the wiring of the points which I didn't know I had, even though we have exhibited the layout four times - they are faults which only became apparent when I attempted to trial some more complex moves that we have never attempted at a show.

 

So, I will get the soldering iron out and sort the problems out.

 

At the end of each day I like to look back and consider the progress I've made that day and so my question is .................

 

In some senses I will have made progress as I will have solved these problems, but at the same time when I went into the shed this morning I didn't know I had those two problems and so by the end of the day I will end up where I thought I was when I started today - so can I really boast that I've 'made progress'? 

[Danemouth]

Most definitely progress - you could have been at an exhibition and discovered the fault! It's progress because in enhances the running of the layout.

 

Dave

[The Johnster]

I was once a member of a club which never built layouts that could be operated to their full potential, the reasoning being that so long as you could keep something moving to keep the punters happy at a show, the operation was adequate, so when it came to my turn to operate  and I tried to access siding A from bay platform B to stable an auto train, 'you can't do that we haven't wired the point or the single slip for that move'.  'Why not'.  'Ran out of time'.  'But I suggested 6 weeks ago that we put the layout up and run it to practice operation'.  'Don't worry, there'll be enough movement to keep the punters happy'.  We parted company, this was only one of the reasons.

 

This was on a model of an actual place, where it seemed to me that at the very least every movement in the WTT should have been capable of being replicated, and my opinion was that any movement possible at the real location, even if it had never actually ever been performed in reality, should have been possible on the model.  But the overall view of the rest of the members was that it was important to get the trackplan, buildings and structures correct and that basic running was ok.  It is important to get the trackplan, buildings and structures correct, but that is not the whole story IMHO.  But I was a bit of a wilderness crying in a voice; MHO was ignored.

 

I absolutely condone and approve of your approach.  You have extended your ability to operate the layout at shows, and having seen it in operation at the WWE show a while back I can state that this is one of the best presented and best operated layouts that I've ever seen already.  Yes, this is progress, proper progress,

[TEAMYAKIMA]

5 hours ago, The Johnster said:

I absolutely condone and approve of your approach.  You have extended your ability to operate the layout at shows, and having seen it in operation at the WWE show a while back I can state that this is one of the best presented and best operated layouts that I've ever seen already.  Yes, this is progress, proper progress,

 

Wow! Thank you for that.

 

I am feeling under great pressure at the moment because the next time I/we exhibit the layout there can be no excuses. If things don't work, if things don't run, I cannot claim that I ran out of time, I can't claim that it's a work in progress - I've been furloughed for ten months!

 

TBH, in my last two exhibition layouts I envisaged operating practices which mostly never happened and built-in features which were never exploited at an exhibition - the operators preferring to 'keep trains moving'.

 

I guess it's human nature up to a point - it's one thing demonstrating some 'special move' to a personal friend visiting your home layout and then basking in the glory of them telling you what a clever chap you are - it's a totally different thing repeating that 'special move' forty times a day to an audience some/many of whom drift off half way through.

 

Hopefully, I've learnt from my mistakes. When the layout is next exhibited I will have made so many changes that it will be virtually a 'Beijiao.v2' and we will fully exploit all the features which I've built-in but so far have never been seen.

[Captain Kernow]

8 hours ago, The Johnster said:

I was once a member of a club which never built layouts that could be operated to their full potential, the reasoning being that so long as you could keep something moving to keep the punters happy at a show, the operation was adequate, so when it came to my turn to operate  and I tried to access siding A from bay platform B to stable an auto train, 'you can't do that we haven't wired the point or the single slip for that move'.  'Why not'.  'Ran out of time'.  'But I suggested 6 weeks ago that we put the layout up and run it to practice operation'.  'Don't worry, there'll be enough movement to keep the punters happy'.  We parted company, this was only one of the reasons.

I've never heard of such a lazy, lackadaisical approach to layout building. Unbelievable!

 

[Captain Kernow]

9 hours ago, The Johnster said:

Yes, this is progress, proper progress,

I completely agree with my Learned Colleague!

 

It is one of the Laws of Physics and The Universe that this unknown, undetected fault would have emerged to cause you problems at some stage, probably at the most inconvenient time!

 

[Oldddudders]

30 minutes ago, Captain Kernow said:

I've never heard of such a lazy, lackadaisical approach to layout building. Unbelievable!

 

I think I see both points of view. It is the fundamental question of why one builds a layout with intent to exhibit. Is it the cynical 'keep the punters happy' by running loadsa trains over the same safe routes, or aping the big railway by making all the moves such a layout would see in an average day? The former favours the use of guest operators, enabling the home team to go and enjoy the rest of the exhibition, confident that not much can go adrift in their absence. The latter favours the discerning punter, as well as the operator who thrives on executing prototype practices, and probably gets more plaudits for doing so. 

[bbishop]

10 hours ago, The Johnster said:

I was once a member of a club which never built layouts that could be operated to their full potential, the reasoning being that so long as you could keep something moving to keep the punters happy at a show, the operation was adequate,

 

You lucky s0d.  I was a member of a club where the aim seemed to have stationary trains, to they could be admired by the punters.  You could always spot our layouts - no-one watching.  And if you tried to acquire the controller, you got a mouthful of abuse along the lines of "not your turn".  Like The Johnster, no longer a member.  Bill

[Zomboid]

Not that it's happened lately, but the group I've been involved in doesn't "do" exhibitions. The sole point is to get together and run trains, and not please anyone else. Suits me fine...

 

And yes, fixing a previously undetected fault is progress, even if it's not what you intended. The layout is now better than it was before you started, therefore progress was made.

[The Johnster]

I have always considered the ideal approach to exhibition operating to be Frank Dyer's phenomenal Borchester, but this was not originally concieved as an exhibition layout and I realise that operation of this standard and comlexity is beyond the capacity of most exhibiting clubs.  The club I was in didn't suit me, but was the only game in town and to be fair I learned a great deal as a member.  I have mental health issues now that I feel make me an unsuitable candidate for clubs and exhibiting; I find exhibitions stressful even as a punter, exhibiting would probably drive me totally gaga!

 

The basic problem was that the club in question was small in membership but built big layouts; there were never enough people to finish the wiring or operate it properly at shows, which frequently featured a certain member spending much of the show on his back beneath the layout with a soldering iron to keep things running, but the mistakes seemed never to be learned from...  Borchester needs a set number of trained operators, and at a show manning levels must be sufficient to allow breaks for refreshement and looking around the show yourself.  Another club in my part of the world built excellent layouts that operated beautifully, but hardly ever operated themselves; as soon as they could hand over to willing volunteers, they were off to the bar, famous for it!  I preferred operating their layouts to ours, but of course sometimes wanted to go for a beer myself!

 

I do appreciate that the logistics of properly manning a large or complex layout, and they are easier nowadays with DCC than they were back in the period I'm talking about, the 80s.  An exhibition requires travelling/transport, setting up, operating, taking down, and taking everything home, several days of intense and exhausting 'fun'; it stopped being fun for me a long time ago, but the ethos was that you built a layout to take to shows, and it had a working life of about 3 years during which you built the next one.  The one most suited to the club's ethos was a simple 4 road main line roundyround, each road leading to 4 fy roads, no station or goods yard, but there was a loco shed and connections to the running lines that were purely cosmetic.  The shed was for members to pose locos on; nothing ran on it.  AAARRRGGGHHHH!!!!.  Continuous tail chasing was theoretically barred, but happend all the same; running trains in the way that the real railway ran them was simply not high on the priorticy list, but buildings and scenery were.

[simontaylor484]

Johnster i suffer from mental health problems too i couldn't cope in an exhibition hall you are not alone.

 

Going back to the original topic i see fault finding, debugging testing call it what you will progress as you are unlocking the full potential of your layout be it a stay at home or exhibition.