Welcome to the cameo competition

[Stubby47]

Well it's been quite an entertaining thread so far but, really guys, isn't it time to call time on this whole sorry fiasco?

 

I suppose the original idea for a competition had some merit,  but the fact that it was obviously a cynical attempt at promoting the MRJ magazine and Rices book meant that it couldn't really be taken seriously and the subsequent confusion over the rules and what is allowed - and what isn't - has led to the current state of afairs where neither those people who embarked on an entry under the original rules - or the people who are entering under the revised rules can ever be happy with the outcome  - whatever it is?

 

So come on MRJ - time to pull the plug on this attempt - have a rethink - and maybe try again next year - with a decent set of easily understood rules from the outset.

 

I can't tell whether this is tongue-in-cheeck or serious.

 

Assuming it's serious, I can't see where the confusion in the rules are. If you don't like it, don't play, but what reason do you have to try to stop others getting involved?

[queensquare]

Well it's been quite an entertaining thread so far but, really guys, isn't it time to call time on this whole sorry fiasco?

 

I suppose the original idea for a competition had some merit,  but the fact that it was obviously a cynical attempt at promoting the MRJ magazine and Rices book meant that it couldn't really be taken seriously and the subsequent confusion over the rules and what is allowed - and what isn't - has led to the current state of afairs where neither those people who embarked on an entry under the original rules - or the people who are entering under the revised rules can ever be happy with the outcome  - whatever it is?

 

So come on MRJ - time to pull the plug on this attempt - have a rethink - and maybe try again next year - with a decent set of easily understood rules from the outset.

Might be worth noting that, quite apart from all the other tosh being spouted in this post, the competition has nothing to do with MRJ.

 

Jerry

[Liam]

Might be worth noting that, quite apart from all the other tosh being spouted in this post, the competition has nothing to do with MRJ.

Jerry

Yes, I don't read MRJ but still might be tempted to adapt my exhibition layout that I'm planning so it could be considered an entry in the competition.

 

And as for Iain Rices book (which currently I don't have) after the competition one still might be persuaded to take inspiration from the book for future layout ideas.

[Robin2]

 the competition has nothing to do with MRJ.

 

Jerry

Please explain?

 

...R

[peter220950]

Well it's been quite an entertaining thread so far but, really guys, isn't it time to call time on this whole sorry fiasco?

 

I suppose the original idea for a competition had some merit,  but the fact that it was obviously a cynical attempt at promoting the MRJ magazine and Rices book meant that it couldn't really be taken seriously and the subsequent confusion over the rules and what is allowed - and what isn't - has led to the current state of afairs where neither those people who embarked on an entry under the original rules - or the people who are entering under the revised rules can ever be happy with the outcome  - whatever it is?

 

So come on MRJ - time to pull the plug on this attempt - have a rethink - and maybe try again next year - with a decent set of easily understood rules from the outset.

Couldn't agree more, why waste my time encouraging me to do some modelling when I could be writing moronic posts on RMWeb instead, far more constructive. - and I wouldn't actually have to do anything except sit around on my fat a*se either, double bonus.

 

Perhaps MRJ could organise a Tw*t of the Year contest instead, I think I know who might have a pretty good chance of winning.

 

Peter

[Stubby47]

Please explain?

 

...R

 

It's a Wild Swan / Iain Rice production - MRJ is no different to RMweb - just a convenient mouthpiece to reach readers.

[queensquare]

It's a Wild Swan / Iain Rice production - MRJ is no different to RMweb - just a convenient mouthpiece to reach readers.

Wot he said :-))

 

Jerry

[PMP]

Perhaps MRJ could organise a Tw*t of the Year contest instead, I think I know who might have a pretty good chance of winning.

Peter

I'm not so sure it'd be the one horse race you think it might be.

[Stubby47]

I'm not so sure it'd be the one horse race you think it might be.

 

 

I added a 'Funny' to that - on second thoughts, maybe I shouldn't...

[Arthur]

Already, in the sinister world of the uber-rich, lizard Illuminati, wheels start to move.......

 

 

 

 

 

.

Edited August 15, 2017 by Arthur

[Not Jeremy]

It really is most excellent to see that our latest announcement has enlivened the cameo competition to such a marvellous extent and brought forth so many splendidly entertaining contributions - thank you all so very much.

 

Returning to the substantive aspect of our latest announcement:

 

Given that Iain quotes "Longwood Edge" at 2.1 metres long in his MRJ piece, and also in the light of other "extenuating circumstances", we have as of this morning made a couple of exceptions to the "2 metre rule".

 

For the record, these are:

 

• Josh Courtney's 7mm scale "Easton Mills"
  
• Geoff Nicholls' Gauge 3 "Aldeburgh Wharf"
  

 

Apologies to all for the apparent confusion, but both Iain and I are very concerned to keep entries both physically manageable and within the spirit of the book and original concept.

 

In this context and talking about the size of cameos more generally, when Iain talks about the Newport MRS's superb 7mm terminus Frecclesham within the book, he says:

 

This just might be the largest cameo I've met so far but then goes on to say whether you could ever describe Frecclesham as such is a moot point

 

Best Wishes

 

 

Simon Castens

[Stubby47]

Hmmm, 2 meters long eh,..... - Project #2 could become "The Garden, with large field behind"....

[Not Jeremy]

Hmmm, 2 meters long eh,..... - Project #2 could become "The Garden, with large field behind"....

 

Tsk, what a lightweight - a fourth entry surely!!

 

only joking……..

[Joseph_Pestell]

It had passed me by that 2m length was a rule rather than a recommendation. But I think that I can cope with 2m and perhaps even an old-fashioned 6ft.

 

As to the other guy's comment, it's just supposed to be a friendly event which encourages the production of some new layouts (and promotes a book). I am sure that Baron de Coubertin, if he had been a railway modeller, would have thought that the taking part was more important than too formal an adherence to precise rules.

[Tricky]

 

It really is most excellent to see that our latest announcement has enlivened the cameo competition to such a marvellous extent and brought forth so many splendidly entertaining contributions - thank you all so very much.

 

Returning to the substantive aspect of our latest announcement:

 

Given that Iain quotes "Longwood Edge" at 2.1 metres long in his MRJ piece, and also in the light of other "extenuating circumstances", we have as of this morning made a couple of exceptions to the "2 metre rule".

 

For the record, these are:

 

• Josh Courtney's 7mm scale "Easton Mills"
• Geoff Nicholls' Gauge 3 "Aldeburgh Wharf"

 

Apologies to all for the apparent confusion, but both Iain and I are very concerned to keep entries both physically manageable and within the spirit of the book and original concept.

 

In this context and talking about the size of cameos more generally, when Iain talks about the Newport MRS's superb 7mm terminus Frecclesham within the book, he says:

 

This just might be the largest cameo I've met so far but then goes on to say whether you could ever describe Frecclesham as such is a moot point

 

Best Wishes

 

 

Simon Castens

 

Thought for a minute there that 'Monk's Gate' may have been reconsidered...what's 400mm between friends?!

[Captain Kernow]

Well it's been quite an entertaining thread so far but, really guys, isn't it time to call time on this whole sorry fiasco?

 

I suppose the original idea for a competition had some merit,  but the fact that it was obviously a cynical attempt at promoting the MRJ magazine and Rices book meant that it couldn't really be taken seriously and the subsequent confusion over the rules and what is allowed - and what isn't - has led to the current state of afairs where neither those people who embarked on an entry under the original rules - or the people who are entering under the revised rules can ever be happy with the outcome  - whatever it is?

 

So come on MRJ - time to pull the plug on this attempt - have a rethink - and maybe try again next year - with a decent set of easily understood rules from the outset.

Oh ha ha ha ha ha!

 

One of the most amusing posts yet, since the Nutty Loco Person incident, which really did have an MRJ connection, unlike the Cameo Layout Competition.

 

Just who are you, O Trainman 864 of 4 Posts? Are you really Mr Castens in disguise, just keeping the interest going on the thread?

 

Or are you really one of the ANTB crowd!

 

I'll even check to make sure that it's not me.

 

(Just had a look, don't think so).

 

 

Oh, what larks!

 

Please keep posts like this coming, Mr Trainman, this is really top class entertainment!

[BG John]

Having read almost half of the book last night (the day it arrived, which is almost unheard of!), I think it's pretty clear from what Iain says on page 25, that Longwood Edge at 6ft6in x 2ft9in "takes the cameo concept to what is probably its practical limit in terms of size and complexity". There may not have been a size limit in the original rules, but, to me, it's certainly implied in the book.

 

This size surprised me. Maybe I should just build my proposed layout on a 6ft6in x 2ft6in door, rather than having to mess around doing woodwork. I can compensate for any extra weight by making a very lightweight top for it.

[Robin2]

It's a Wild Swan / Iain Rice production - MRJ is no different to RMweb - just a convenient mouthpiece to reach readers.

Now I'm completely confused. Isn't Simon Castens (aka @Not Jeremy) the proprietor of Wild Swan and Cygnet Publications?

 

In MRJ 254 where the competition was introduced it said "and to do so through the pages of MRJ - which has a starry track record in promoting such modelling challenges"

 

 

What is the purpose of trying to separate MRJ from the competition?

 

...R

[Not Jeremy]

Now I'm completely confused. Isn't Simon Castens (aka @Not Jeremy) the proprietor of Wild Swan and Cygnet Publications?

 

In MRJ 254 where the competition was introduced it said "and to do so through the pages of MRJ - which has a starry track record in promoting such modelling challenges"

 

 

What is the purpose of trying to separate MRJ from the competition?

 

...R

 

You are indeed labouring under a misapprehension regarding ownerships, but to be fair you aren't alone.

 

I "am" Wild Swan Books but not Cygnet Magazines.

 

Cygnet is a completely separate and different entity, effectively the "old" Wild Swan Publications crew carrying on with the magazines.

 

This happened because Paul Karau wanted the Wild Swan name to remain with future book publishing.

 

Hopefully everything is now blindingly clear(!)

 

Simon

 

And I have just checked and I don't think I am Trainman 864 either, it is quite an amusing thought though. Nor am I Spartacus before the first mate of MV Ferret starts piping up….

[Tove]

And I have just checked and I don't think I am Trainman 864 either, it is quite an amusing thought though. Nor am I Spartacus before the first mate of MV Ferret starts piping up….

 

 

 

And a chours rang out across the exhibtion hall........

 

'No i am Trainman 864.......' 

 

Brian.

[Robin2]

You are indeed labouring under a misapprehension regarding ownerships, but to be fair you aren't alone.

 

I "am" Wild Swan Books but not Cygnet Magazines.

 

Cygnet is a completely separate and different entity, effectively the "old" Wild Swan Publications crew carrying on with the magazines.

 

This happened because Paul Karau wanted the Wild Swan name to remain with future book publishing.

 

Hopefully everything is now blindingly clear(!)

Does this then mean that MRJ / Cygnet Magazines has no role in the competition other than carrying news about it. If so, I find that disappointing.

 

But life is like that.

 

...R

[Not Jeremy]

Does this then mean that MRJ / Cygnet Magazines has no role in the competition other than carrying news about it. If so, I find that disappointing.

 

But life is like that.

 

...R

I'm not at all sure that I'm not going to regret asking this, but why would you or anyone find this disappointing?

[Robin2]

I'm not at all sure that I'm not going to regret asking this, but why would you or anyone find this disappointing?

I like MRJ and I had assumed it was involved.

 

...R

[Stubby47]

Tsk, what a lightweight - a fourth entry surely!!

 

only joking……..

 

Oh, go on then...

 

Project #4 - The Return of the PSMT...

[Tricky]

I'm not at all sure that I'm not going to regret asking this, but why would you or anyone find this disappointing?

I agree. What's the big deal? No-one's died, it's not exactly a third-world problem! No-one's being forced to take part...!!