What is a Cameo Layout?

[Liam]

I have an intention of building one - what is the maximum size allowed?

[Not Jeremy]

My reading of the book and Iain's cameo concept suggests to me that "operation" is a key part of what Iain has in mind, and I think that you can interpret "operation" as widely as you wish. I take Graham's point about operation wanting to be a bit "hands on" but on the other hand some layouts are too hands on, and as a result provide unenjoyable operation.

 

I say that based upon my own experience with "Pomparles Siding", which is the small G1 layout that is fleetingly mentioned in the book. It's "problem" is that the working of the wagon turntables is incredibly fiddly, being manually operated and in positions with minimal clearance for stock being turned, and that the points are operated by scale board mounted McNee levers but the electrical switching of the crossings is done separately by switches - an absolutely guaranteed recipe for forgetting one operation or another with operationally unimpressive results.

 

People are getting too hung up on the height thing. "Spotty Siding", as it quickly became known, was designed on a flat plywood base, with all wiring above, such that it could sit in a table at exhibitions, which it did. The most realistic views are undoubtedly to be had from near track level and it may have looked better at shows higher up. Of course you can always sit down to view it, and the digital camera will open up all sorts of views whatever height the layout is sitting at. 

 

I suspect that in the larger scales the "height thing" is less of an issue as in scale terms the model is closer to the viewer no matter what height it is displayed at, a 2mm model displayed at the same height will look less "natural" - unless you are an aeroplanist of course. But at the end of the day, build it to a height that you are happy with and which suits you, but perhaps giving some thought to providing natural viewing angles.

 

Was Spotty Siding a cameo layout?

 

It lacked wings and a proscenium arch, but then again I'd given quite a lot of thought to its "framing" and the lighting, and so I'd contend (possibly controversially) a "yes" on that front.

 

On the other hand it was an unwieldy shaped layout, which made it near impossible to store, and it took absolutely ages to set it up and take it down again, breaking down into a myriad of awkwardly shaped and delicate parts. On this Cameo criterion it failed spectacularly...

 

Operationally, although tedious as I have described above, it worked pretty well as there was quite a lot you could do with it. The highlight of its operation was was chain shunting wagons in and out of the kick back siding - which could and did result the situation as in my Avatar!

 

And finally, it was built as a direct result of the RMweb "Six Square Feet Challenge" of 2007, without which I would not have come up with the idea, much less built it, and would have missed out on truckloads of fun as a result.

 

Did I win the competition? No - but that bothered me not one jot and I will remain eternally grateful to the original "competition" for getting me off my **** and building something.

 

As an aside, I'm hoping to have a bash at a cameo in G1 by cunningly re-using bits of Spotty Siding, but however far I get with it it won't be an entry in the competition.

 

So, don't worry about rules, be inspired by the concept and take it in whatever direction you wish - no-one is going to be "wrong" whatever they do.

 

As far as the competitive element does go, I suspect (as various folk here have already alluded to) that the "key" aspect or ingredient is most likely to be an element of theatre, so I'm personally trying to think entertainment and presentation as I consider my own cameo contribution.

 

Let's go Cameo!

 

Simon

[t-b-g]

This does seem a little unfair Tony, both Highbury and Tucking Mill are cameos and both are a lot of fun to operate - and I could name many others.

I don't really understand all the negative comments from those who obviously have no intention of building one. As for the feigned confusion over what a cameo layout is. Well, if they read the book it would be blindingly obvious, it really isn't rocket science. And if they have no interest in the book or the idea of cameo layouts, that's fine too - but many do.

 

Jerry

 

I agree that your layouts are in the category of those that I find interesting but you 2mm folk have a huge advantage. Giving a 2mm, a 4mm and a 7mm modeller a space of around 4' or 4'6" will allow the 2mm modeller to create a nice overall scene, the 4mm modeller to model a tiny place or a corner of something bigger and the 7mm modeller a decent radius crossover.

 

My comments were aimed more at the 4mm potential entries as in 2mm, operational interest in that sort of space is far easier to achieve. 

 

When I saw the competition, I thought of my Sutton Dock layout. It has a scenic section of just over 4'. The baseboards are 4' from the floor. If it was any lower, you could see the tops of trains sneaking back to the fiddle yard over some buildings. I have had parents of small children and people in wheelchairs walk past muttering comments about the layout being no good for them.

 

It has a facia with lights. It is not integral as we carry it separately and bolt it on at an exhibition. It has a fiddle yard some 18" long, which is also not integral because there was a thought about joining Sutton Dock to another layout one day.

 

It is OK to operate at exhibitions but wouldn't sustain interest for long at home, not when I have a nice big layout to play with.

 

So it strikes me that Sutton Dock is not a cameo layout now. If I took the bolts out of the lights and fiddle yard and glued the lights and fiddle yard on and stuck an extra 12" onto the legs, it is!

 

I wouldn't be able to operate it as I wouldn't be able to get my arms over the backscene. If I made the layout higher, viewers would be able to see the top of the backscene so I would have to stick another 12" on top of what is there, which would mean that I couldn't see over it from the back unless I stood on a box.

 

So I am looking at the competition and finding it all rather contrived.

 

If it sells a few books and inspires a few modellers to build a layout they wouldn't have done otherwise then there is nothing wrong with that. I have enjoyed reading Ian Rice's articles over many years and he has done no end of good for the hobby as far as I am concerned. I would have preferred it if the competition had been clearly defined as for Iain Rice inspired layouts, so high, so long, with certain features and given different overall sizes for certain scales.

[Chris M]

What a completely pointless post. I was always taught, if you have nothing to say, say nothing.

Jerry

Ok, I'll express myself more carefully.

The original question seems to have been answered. Following on there has been a lot of discussion here about how high a cameo layout should be but I would respectfully suggest there should be more discussion about what makes a cameo layout interesting for the paying customer at exhibitions. Is movement important? Should there be explanations of the scene and the movements? Is a model of a real location more interesting than a fictional one? Should the operator be at the front, side or rear? Are cameo layouts only of interest to serious modellers or should they be aimed at the general public as well? It has been mentioned that allowing youngsters to interact adds to their enjoyment, perhaps we should all try to do more of this. What thoughts do others have on allowing interaction? Due to the size, simplicity and usual location of the operator cameo layouts are probably better able to offer interaction than large layouts. It seems to be agreed that a cameo layout is about the way a scene is presented but what is the best way of providing entertainment value with this genre?

 

 

For me, The End of the Line is a fantastic example of how to create a well modelled and very interesting/entertaining small layout. Absolutely brilliant.

[PMP]

I build layouts for me. If an exhibition manager requests one of them for a show, they get them as they are designed to be used. That is operated at a height of about 54 inches (track level), and explained that that's as it comes. Best entertainment value with this genre? Well I enjoy my trainset and that's it's primary function, through the build to operating it. I didn't think 'Shelfie' would entertain me as much as it has, it was a DVD project layout (Right Tracks 19), and it seems to have captured those whom have used it too. I'd suggest 'competitors' just read the book and build something that fits the pretty simple 'design brief' Simon and Iain have outlined.

 

'Shelfie'' 4ft 6in x 15in 55in track level from floor, to be at a good viewing height, fascias and integral lighting.

 

 

 

 

It's not that difficult surely?

[PaulRhB]

Two layouts at different heights, using the same design but aimed at different audiences, one on top of the other?

 

That's fine for kids but not for those in wheelchairs

I agree with Simon, people are getting very hung up on height but I can also see it's frustrating to visit a show where you can't see some layouts. It's been discussed before and like Jerry does a periscope, camera and screen or dropping the layout are options that allow it to be eye level for everyone. I've got two solutions to that problem and it's just deciding which to go for

 

As to operation I think even very simple layouts can be successful if you use the track to force more moves, tight sites hemmed in by buildings or nature do that. Adding other animation like Giles and others are doing. Sound can fill gaps in movement too. The Guinness railway had to lift the two foot locos into five foot, three inch carrier chassis to shunt the standard gauge

Think outside the box to fit it in the box sort of thing

Edited May 7, 2017 by PaulRhB

[PaulRhB]

One thing that is interesting reading the book are Iain's comments on controllers. He prefers the tactile rotary knob and switch rather than the common buttons on DCC throttles. I would have agreed a while ago but I actually find I can operate without looking on the phone as you learn where the touch points are and can hit them consistently. Maybe it's just what we are used to from using items frequently? I wouldn't say either is better now as an actual controller but I do prefer not to have a cable hanging around

[BG John]

I've currently got the plan for my O gauge potential entry on screen. It's another of my "half station" layouts (see Abbotsbridge and Small, Broad & Totally Pointless for other examples), and is a Colonel Stephens branch terminus set in 1905. The basic design is just another BLT, except that the viewer only sees half of the station. I hope to make it stand out by building it to a high standard of appearance, and making it work exceptionally well. Being set in a period that isn't often modelled should be a feature too, especially as most people seem to think the Col. Stephens lines were overgrown, run using decrepit trains, and the sidings were full of the rotting remains of old rolling stock. They should be in for a surprise when they see a very neat little operation from the early days! It may well be suitable for exhibition visitors to have a go at operating, as the controls should be pretty simple and straightforward. I just need to make sure that no one walks off with the radio control handset!

 

For a potential O gauge modeller, I hope it will show what can be done in slightly under 8ft, with 4ft 6in being scenic, and the rest fiddle yard.

 

So my intention for this one is something fairly conventional, but a little unusual, and well presented. Although I'm not 100% sure it will fit in the space successfully yet, but it looks good so far!

 

My other potential entry is O-16.5, and will be as eccentric and whimsical as I can make it! This one was already planned when the competition was announced, but fits the concept pretty well. It's not certain that either will be entered, or finished in time, though .

[Barry Ten]

I guess this would have counted as a cameo?

 

initial concept:

 

 

End product:

 

 

 

It's ten years old now - like the layout Simon mentions, it was built for the 2007 RMweb 6 foot challenge. In that time it

has been exhibited a dozen or so times and while it would bore me senseless if it was my only layout, it's fine for a weekend

of relaxed shunting.

 

At one show we set it  about a foot lower than usual, and it attracted little or no attention. During a quite spell, we jacked it

back up to the normal operating height and it immediately started pulling in visitors again.

[BG John]

That's fine for kids but not for those in wheelchairs

I agree with Simon, people are getting very hung up on height but I can also see it's frustrating to visit a show where you can't see some layouts. It's been discussed before and like Jerry does a periscope, camera and screen or dropping the layout are options that allow it to be eye level for everyone. I've got two solutions to that problem and it's just deciding which to go for

 

As to operation I think even very simple layouts can be successful if you use the track to force more moves, tight sites hemmed in by buildings or nature do that. Adding other animation like Giles and others are doing. Sound can fill gaps in movement too. The Guinness railway had to lift the two foot locos into five foot, three inch carrier chassis to shunt the standard gauge

Think outside the box to fit it in the box sort of thing

I wasn't being entirely serious .

 

I stirred up a bit of a discussion about height because I was concerned about the relationship between the height off the ground, and the height of the proscenium arch from baseboard level. I came to the conclusion that it will have to be pretty much trial and error.

 

I agree about animation other than moving trains. It's something I want to start experimenting with, but will only use it if it's absolutely convincing, and not gimmicky or unnatural. Giles hasn't cracked walking horses yet!

 

One thing that is interesting reading the book are Iain's comments on controllers. He prefers the tactile rotary knob and switch rather than the common buttons on DCC throttles. I would have agreed a while ago but I actually find I can operate without looking on the phone as you learn where the touch points are and can hit them consistently. Maybe it's just what we are used to from using items frequently? I wouldn't say either is better now as an actual controller but I do prefer not to have a cable hanging around

There's no way that I'll ever use DCC. My aim has been to go from DC to Battery Powered Radio Control, since I got back into modelling. From the pages of discussion that takes over most DCC layout topics, the so called simplified electrics seem far more complicated than DC, and I want avoid all the wiring possible. I'm aiming for wireless handheld control panels, so I'm no Luddite, and my desk is currently covered with Arduinos and an assortment of bits to attach to them! I should be able to control trains with buttons, a twiddly knobs, sliders, levers, or even touch switches if I want. The option of full automation is appealing too.

[Porcy Mane]

Think outside the box to fit it in the box sort of thing

 

Surely you mean, "think outside the cameo box?"

[NHY 581]

My answer to what is cameo layout?

A layout which is almost invariably boring to watch.

As someone who is vertically challenged (5' 2") I can't see much of them anyway but I'm not bothered because I know I ain't missing much.

Now where did I put that tin hat?

 

Ok, I'll express myself more carefully.

The original question seems to have been answered. Following on there has been a lot of discussion here about how high a cameo layout should be but I would respectfully suggest there should be more discussion about what makes a cameo layout interesting for the paying customer at exhibitions. Is movement important? Should there be explanations of the scene and the movements? Is a model of a real location more interesting than a fictional one? Should the operator be at the front, side or rear? Are cameo layouts only of interest to serious modellers or should they be aimed at the general public as well? It has been mentioned that allowing youngsters to interact adds to their enjoyment, perhaps we should all try to do more of this. What thoughts do others have on allowing interaction? Due to the size, simplicity and usual location of the operator cameo layouts are probably better able to offer interaction than large layouts. It seems to be agreed that a cameo layout is about the way a scene is presented but what is the best way of providing entertainment value with this genre?

For me, The End of the Line is a fantastic example of how to create a well modelled and very interesting/entertaining small layout. Absolutely brilliant.

 

Neither post contributes a great deal I'm afraid but in true cameo style have used few points.

 

However,

 

Is movement important? Yes.

 

 

Should there be explanations of the scene and the movements? If you want but we all have tongues in our heads....

 

Is a model of a real location more interesting than a fictional one? Subjective to the viewer but otherwise irrelevant.

 

Should the operator be at the front, side or rear? Whatever.

 

Are cameo layouts only of interest to serious modellers or should they be aimed at the general public as well?

 

Again irrelevant. Build it and find out. If its P4 Thomas the Tank engine then so be it.

 

It has been mentioned that allowing youngsters to interact adds to their enjoyment, perhaps we should all try to do more of this. What thoughts do others have on allowing interaction?

 

I' m happy for anyone to play with my train set.

 

Due to the size, simplicity and usual location of the operator cameo layouts are probably better able to offer interaction than large layouts. It seems to be agreed that a cameo layout is about the way a scene is presented but what is the best way of providing entertainment value with this genre?

 

Consider a magic show or juggler.......Strange question really......

 

 

In making mention of your appreciation for The End of the Line, you have arguably answered all the questions raised in your second post for yourself.

 

 

My advice is to build something which caters to your tastes.

 

Rob.

Edited May 8, 2017 by nhy581

[PaulRhB]

I wasn't being entirely serious .

 

I stirred up a bit of a discussion about height because I was concerned about the relationship between the height off the ground, and the height of the proscenium arch from baseboard level. I came to the conclusion that it will have to be pretty much trial and error.

 

I only mentioned it because I'd raised the same thought some time ago in one of the height topics and realised it could be seen as almost patronising chair users

I even wondered about sticking a small HD camera out on a stick above the light rig and putting a monitor underneath at a comfortable height.

Of course with a micro cameo you could put three chairs out front to control everyone's eye level and still give them a full view from one spot.

[BG John]

I only mentioned it because I'd raised the same thought some time ago in one of the height topics and realised it could be seen as almost patronising chair users

I even wondered about sticking a small HD camera out on a stick above the light rig and putting a monitor underneath at a comfortable height.

Of course with a micro cameo you could put three chairs out front to control everyone's eye level and still give them a full view from one spot.

You could issue numbered tickets to anyone who wants to view it, then get an announcement made over the exhibition hall PA when there's a vacant viewing space. The layout height could be adjusted at regular intervals, and tickets could be colour coded so those waiting to view could choose their ideal height. "Red 27, you may view XYZ layout at your selected viewing height for 5 minutes at 12:37" .

 

The problem with the chair idea is that they'd have to be fixed to the floor, or people would move them around, turn them round for kids to stand on, or run off with them to view another layout, or to have a rest in a quiet corner!

[Captain Kernow]

I build layouts for me. If an exhibition manager requests one of them for a show, they get them as they are designed to be used. 

 

I completely agree. For me there can be no other way.

 

I will be using metal trestles for mine (first time I've used them to support a layout), and I will set the height when the layout is advanced enough, to enable me to operate the 3-link couplings over the top of the backscene. That then will be the height.

 

I'm not prepared to schlep a wooden box along to shows for me to stand on (knowing my luck, I'd probably manage to fall off it at sometime during the proceedings), nor am I prepared to risk exacerbating an existing predisposition to lower back trouble by having to stoop excessively.

 

 

Edited for typos.

Edited May 8, 2017 by Captain Kernow

[BG John]

I completely agree. For me there can be no other way.

 

I will be using metal trestles for mine (first time I've used them to support a layout), and I will set the height when the layout is advanced enough, to enable me to operate the 3-link couplings over the top of the backscene. That then will be the height.

 

I'm not prepared to schlep a wooden box along to shows for me to stand on (knowing my luck, I'd probably manage to fall off it at sometime during the proceedings), nor am I prepared to risk exacerbating an existing predisposition to lower back trouble by having to stoop excessively.

 

 

Edited for typos.

I had to go to several exhibitions where Petherick was appearing before I actually got to see it, because there was always a crowd, and I'd have been knocked over if I tried to stoop down to see it! That memory from long ago is why I'm concerned about height. Hopefully any layout I build won't become famous enough to suffer from that problem!

 

My own view on couplings, and layout operation in general, especially on something this small, is that giant hands appearing from the sky is a big no no, that shatters the illusion. I think my aim will be to operate from the front of the fiddle yard, so I don't block the view, and use automatic couplings. I can stand, or use a stool the right height that I can operate comfortably to avoid back problems.

[PaulRhB]

I completely agree. For me there can be no other way.

I'm not prepared to schlep a wooden box along to shows for me to stand on (knowing my luck, I'd probably manage to fall off it at sometime during the proceedings),

How about these velcro'd to your feet?

 

[Robin2]

Should there be explanations of the scene and the movements? If you want but we all have tongues in our heads....

 

It is not specific to Cameo layouts but IMHO layouts should have an explanation of what they are and what is happening from moment to moment. If the viewer does not know anything about the rationale for the movements the whole thing is not much different from watching a 5-year old running Dinky toys over the carpet. But with an explanation of what a train represents and why it is running the whole thing is suddenly meaningful. Of course that does require the operators to have a plan

 

And if the viewer has been told what is happening s/he will probably feel much more comfortable asking questions.

 

...R

Edited May 8, 2017 by Robin2

[Stubby47]

How about these velcro'd to your feet?

 

IMG_7372.JPG

 

He has enough problems standing on his own feet...

[Neil]

....  I'm not prepared to schlep a wooden box along to shows for me to stand on (knowing my luck, I'd probably manage to fall off it at sometime during the proceedings), nor am I prepared to risk exacerbating an existing predisposition to lower back trouble by having to stoop excessively. ....

 

I may have the answer ......

 

[Porcy Mane]

In a similar vein: Richard Browning lives in Wiltshire he's got a family, a job, he loves cameo layouts & couldn't care a less about what height they are!

 

 

"One day in the near future, it will not matter to what height you build your model railway".

 

                                                  Richard Browning 2017

 

[Liam]

Neither post contributes a great deal I'm afraid but in true cameo style have used few points.

 

Hmm, that could present a problem. Kinlet is looking to be using quite a few points.

[The Bigbee Line]

Since this Cameo lark has started my view of cameos has changed. It's not just a small layout. It's a detailed peek into a facet of rail operation. Most seem to be using small locos.

It would be interesting to see what could be done at the other end of the scale - as a kid, Dad used to sit me on the bonnet of his Morris Comercial to look over the fence and watch engines on the turntable at Brighton.

[The Bigbee Line]

How about a round layout, say 4' diameter that slowly rotated. The proscenium arch being formed by a 1/3 scale coach window. The layout rotates slowly with shunts and train movements as seen from a moving train..,,,

[Barry Ten]

It is not specific to Cameo layouts but IMHO layouts should have an explanation of what they are and what is happening from moment to moment. If the viewer does not know anything about the rationale for the movements the whole thing is not much different from watching a 5-year old running Dinky toys over the carpet. But with an explanation of what a train represents and why it is running the whole thing is suddenly meaningful. Of course that does require the operators to have a plan

 

And if the viewer has been told what is happening s/he will probably feel much more comfortable asking questions.

 

...R

 

 

I've never bothered with any of that. If people are interested enough to stop and look at the layout for more than 5 seconds - before moving on because it isn't Blue Diesels/Green Diesels/ EWS diesels on a certain day in 1998 - then I smile and tell them it's set in France, and if there's interest beyond that I say that it's nominally set somewhere near Paris and features a set of sidings belonging to a paper factory. I then explain that there's no real pattern to the shunting, it's largely random but does follow certain "rules" in that sidings have to be worked in a specific manner, with propelling moves, run rounds etc. Is that like being a 5 year old with Dinky toys? I wouldn't say so, because the operations are conducted at scale speed, with hands-off operation for the most part, and if you happen to watch the layout for a few minutes, you won't see any "illogical" moves, just plausible shunting operations.