Great Model Railway Challenge - Channel 5

[Hobby]

1. Perhaps less emphasis on the gimmicky. Having been to numerous model railway shows - from local affairs, to finescale society meetings to Warley - I have the very distinct impression that - on the whole - railway modellers are fairly conservative (whether modelling the Big 4, BR 70s or the railways today). This may come as a big surprise to a neophyte railway modeller when he/she turns up at his/her local model railway club expecting to see lots of the sort of animations featured on the programme.

 

The main problem for them is that of the 1.3m viewers MR enthusiasts don't represent a very large percentage, so refining it to meet their needs would put off a lot of casual viewers for whom such a "refinement" would equal boredom, for the non MR enthusiast "gimmicks" (and the "false jeopardy") are what make them view the programme as watchable... The subject of the programme could be virtually anything but it would still work if presented correctly... Leave as it is, it works for the non enthusiasts and draws some new people into the hobby...

Edited November 12, 2018 by Hobby

[Phil Parker]

Hi Phil

Well, that's what I assumed (although isn't Betamax [and the cameras?] still used a lot at the professional level?), However, the point is that digital camera closeups are not very kind to modelling (scratch building a lot myself, I often take close-up digital photographs of what I am working on to show me what I can't see is wrong with the model..) and there must be ways - lenses? filters? digital de-enhancement? - to better present a model in close-up? Of course, as you have rightly pointed out, even the long and medium-shots of the layouts - taken by team members - are taken on digital cameras. I think that that is the paradox of digital photography: in medium and long shot - things look better than they are "in real life"; whilst in close up - things can look worse than they are "in real life"

 

The human eye is very good at not seeing things, but looking through a camera changes your viewpoint. It's why every layout photo you see in a model railway magazine will have been subject to an hour or so of work to tidy up skies, baseboard joints and dust. You can't do this for video, or at least not on the sort of budget TV shows like this have. 

 

I wonder if this is being picky though? Most of the GMRC layouts are as good as the "readers layouts" sent into magazines. Perfectly good models that give their owners and builders a huge amount of pleasure. I suspect most people simply don't see the "faults" that seasoned modellers do. 

[Pacific231G]

OK, you're a purist

 

Playing devil's advocate a bit here, I think the Fawley team did a good job of making a layout that would appeal to purists, at least of a certain ilk, but not necessarily to the wider modelling public.

 

Why not? Because what they made, both times, was, essentially, an MPD. Certainly, the modelling itself was top notch. But even without the gimmicks necessary for GMRC, an MPD is, in my opinion, a little bit of a lazy option. It's easy to make it look good just by packing it with locos, but at the expense of operational interest.

 

Now, before everyone screams at me for dissing MPDs, I should point out that that's purely a personal opinion, and I'm well aware that others will differ. I've never really found MPDs all that interesting, but I know that some people really love them.

 

However, in the wider context of what appeals to the show-going public, I'm not sure that MPDs are the big hitters. To be sure, they will appeal to some. But they don't tend to attract the big crowds of, say, a Gresley Beat, a Penhallick or a Burntisland. Operational interest and a lot going on is what creates a crush at the barrier, just as much as detailed modelling.

 

 

Slightly and this is only my own view but I rather agree with you about MPDs. In theatrical terms they always seem to me a bit like watching the actors preparing to perform rather than actually doing so.  The drama takes place when the loco meets (and  ideally for me shunts) its train. They clearly have value for those with a collection of locos and no chance of a layout big enough to run them and theyre better than a glass case but they do very little for me at exhibtions.

 

Futuristic exhibiton layouts also tend to leave me cold- they usually represent "the future" with a monorail and the most unimaginative kind of glass box architecture- but the Aberdeen  effort was really imaginative. It was the sort of image of the future that I'd expect from a talented film or TV designer and it had a very strong idea (a vertically divided society) to drive it.  For me, that alone put it head and shoulders above anything else I'd seen in the entire series. It was a real leap of imagination but it was also very well executed. 

[Andy Y]

 the Aberdeen  effort was really imaginative. It was the sort of image of the future that I'd expect from a talented film or TV designer and it had a very strong idea (a vertically divided society) to drive it. 

 

I thought it had a touch of Jimmy Cauty to it.

[t-b-g]

Although I regard myself as more of a "serious" modeller, I do like to think that I take the modelling seriously but never myself.

 

Many times I have been to shows and one thing I remember afterwards is the "gimmick" on a layout. A working swing bridge, a boat that moves along, a working wagon hoist or suchlike.

 

So good "gimmicks" done well and realistically can really add something extra to the appeal of a layout.

 

A poorly modelled, unrealistic (unless it is supposed to be a "fantasy" model) poorly running layout with loads of "gimmicks" on the other hand, does nothing for me.

 

I agree about MPD layouts. In reality, most were very dull places operationally. Locos would be prepared and go off shed in the morning and come back later to be disposed. During the day there might be a few arrivals and departures but in general they didn't have a lot going on. Model MPD layouts usually just consist of locos being shuffled aimlessly about. I would much rather see trains shunting, being assembled and broken down. Much more entertaining for me than even seeing expresses whizz by.

[Zomboid]

The Aberdeen layout was very much like the world shown in Altered Carbon.

[Malcolm7mm]

Thanks!

 

Actually, for the final, Aberdeen were the last to know the rules and theme. Each heat winner was told the theme and that it would be a 50' layout when they were announced as winners. We were in heat 4, so were not aware until last. That's because the final was filmed the week after heat 5, so all of heat 5 teams were advised of the rules one week before our filming. So really, Aberdeen and the winners of heat 5 had a monster task to get ready in time! On top of this, there was no clear way forward on how the production team were planning on controlling the "star train" across all 5 layouts. This is why I wrote a set of instructions and supplied the busses to all teams. There was enough to do without everyone needing to think about how to do this!

 

Again, well done to all and thanks to the production team. See you at Warley!

as team leader of strangers we were not told until the end of heat 5 (Saturday) so we had 4 days to find an idea organise all the supplies and get our team into final mode  i found the interaction of the judges and presenters a great irritation this time  

[Andy Y]

i found the interaction of the judges and presenters a great irritation this time  

 

I could see some of the clips were spoken through gritted teeth Malcolm.

[Pacific231G]

Hi Phil

Well, that's what I assumed (although isn't Betamax [and the cameras?] still used a lot at the professional level?), However, the point is that digital camera closeups are not very kind to modelling (scratch building a lot myself, I often take close-up digital photographs of what I am working on to show me what I can't see is wrong with the model..) and there must be ways - lenses? filters? digital de-enhancement? - to better present a model in close-up? Of course, as you have rightly pointed out, even the long and medium-shots of the layouts - taken by team members - are taken on digital cameras. I think that that is the paradox of digital photography: in medium and long shot - things look better than they are "in real life"; whilst in close up - things can look worse than they are "in real life"

A bit more

Television production went almost entirely tapeless some time ago.  Betacam (and its various later digital descendants)  was derived from Betamax but the recording sysem was different. It's probably still used in a few places but the vast majority of professional video cameras now record onto  cards or drives and broadcasters stopped accepting programmes on tape several years ago .

For me the big breakthrough was in the early 1990s when the original DV digital tape system emerged. It made filming possible at far lower cost and with far lighter gear (not just cameras and mounts but it needed less lighting as well) That enabled me, when appropriate, to do some of my own filming without a crew  and the new cameras were small enough to enable things like footplate filming of 2ft gauge locos. If I could get myself somewhere I could film it.

 

In terms of filming scale models the big difference was the small sensor that gave a much greater depth of field than film (photographic and cinematographic) and enabled a model to be filmed in very great detail. Though i don't use it anymore, I have a Sony DV camera that will, with a supplemental lens, fill the frame with a matchbox. To do that with analogue cameras would have required some very specialist gear. Clearly that sort of small detail shows up the quality of modelling but also every defect in a way that the human eye tends to edit out (for example if I see a layout with well ballasted and painted code 100 track at a show it looks fine to my eyes even on a branch line but very overscale in a digital photo)

 

I'm not sure though about the practice of digitally enhancing photos of layouts for magazines to remove all the warts. Could that be off-putting for other modellers by setting a standard that isn't actually being achieved? It's a bit like the argument that photographic models (of the other sort) are so airbrushed that their apparent perfection leaves real people feeling inadequate.  

Edited November 12, 2018 by Pacific231G

[Phil Parker]

I'm not sure though about the practice of digitally enhancing photos of layouts for magazines to remove all the warts. Could that be off-putting for other modellers by setting a standard that isn't actually being achieved? It's a bit like the argument that photographic models (of the other sort) are so airbrushed that their apparent perfection leaves real people feeling inadequate.  

 

The warts aren't removed from photos, I never said they were, but things like skies generally need to be replaced because 3/4 views of a rectangle don't fit on the page very well - and you don't want to see the clutter around a layout. Baseboard joints are also a lot more obtrusive in photos than in real life. Finally, dust - sometimes you can't see it until you look at the photo! We leave the modelling alone however, life's too short to fix that in Photoshop!

[hicksan]

But of course it only won because it had the futuristic vision and they managed to pull it off so well.

 

A difficult task to pick a winner because they all the layouts were so good and very different. I wish I could built at that speed, never mind to that quality!

 

The vertical forced perspective may have played a role. That was very clever. Also the evocative use of glass fibre as clouds. Worthy winners, I thought, not just for being different.

[RedgateModels]

The warts aren't removed from photos, I never said they were, but things like skies generally need to be replaced because 3/4 views of a rectangle don't fit on the page very well - and you don't want to see the clutter around a layout. Baseboard joints are also a lot more obtrusive in photos than in real life. Finally, dust - sometimes you can't see it until you look at the photo! We leave the modelling alone however, life's too short to fix that in Photoshop!

 

I wanted Andy to use this composite shot in the Summat Colliery article, the Spit is Josh's first go at an airfix kit

 

 

We toyed with suspending it over the layout during the shoot but ran out of time, so Photoshop was the only option

Edited November 12, 2018 by RedgateModels

[hmrspaul]

1. Don't underestimate the intelligence of the viewers. It wasn't quite "Jackanory - The Railway Version", but at times I felt that it was far too simplified, fortunately without tipping over into condescending (but having said that, it does seem that much of current programming today- of all types - does, too often, veer into what could be called "CBBC Territory"  ["can you say ecosystem?" "Good! That's a big word, isn't it?"]). I don't envy the production team one bit in trying to walk the fine line between being incomprehensible to "outsiders" and simplifying to the point of "dumbing

iD

 

I don't accept this is true of Bake off or Celebrity Masterchef, as examples. Both use many terms that are unexplained and not in everyones vocabulary - well mine anyway - either of techniques, finished product or the ingredients. My work required me to have some familiarisation with some unusual tropical/exotic fruit but one in this weeks CMC failed me.

 

Examples like use of static grass were largely unexplained - and most of us wouldn't have heard of it 5 or so years ago. DCC was mentioned with no explanation that I noticed - including its failures.  On the otherhand, because of having children, the vast majority of the audience will have had some experience of model trains - if only via the exceptionally popular Thomas of the past few years. (Personally I'd never heard of it when I saw the Rev. Audrey with his layout in the Central Hall during the 1960s)

 

Paul

[Golden Fleece 30]

 

 

Examples like use of static grass were largely unexplained - and most of us wouldn't have heard of it 5 or so years ago. DCC was mentioned with no explanation that I noticed - including its failures.  On the otherhand, because of having children, the vast majority of the audience will have had some experience of model trains - if only via the exceptionally popular Thomas of the past few years. (Personally I'd never heard of it when I saw the Rev. Audrey with his layout in the Central Hall during the 1960s)

 

Paul

It has been mentioned many times The show was not about how to do this, that, and the other., just as it was not meant for the rivet counters etc  It was reality TV show competition/challenge for family entertainment. There are plenty of specialist clips on YouTube for all of that.  Lets just leave the show as it was and the contestants (who know what it is all about) and programme makers can decide if there needs to be any change.  We are all individuals and you will not please everyone.

 

Regarding your comment about static grass, I personally would not want the show wasting time describing it.

 

Here is a link if you would like to know about it, it is as easy as that -  https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=static+grass

 

Garry

Edited November 12, 2018 by Golden Fleece 30

[Zomboid]

There was actually an explanation of static grass in one of the episodes. Didn't take very long and evidently wasn't all that memorable...

[hmrspaul]

It has been mentioned many times The show was not about how to do this, that, and the other., just as it was not meant for the rivet counters etc  It was reality TV show competition/challenge for family entertainment. There are plenty of specialist clips on YouTube for all of that.  Lets just leave the show as it was and the contestants (who know what it is all about) and programme makers can decide if there needs to be any change.  We are all individuals and you will not please everyone.

 

Regarding your comment about static grass, I personally would not want the show wasting time describing it.

 

Here is a link if you would like to know about it, it is as easy as that -  https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=static+grass

 

Garry

You completely miss my point. I was suggesting that the post I quoted was not accurate in suggesting it was at the level of CBBC and nor that the similar programmes it has been compared with such as Bake Off and Masterchef veer into CBBC. They don't explain their numerous technical (kitchen related) terms either. Or not more than once.

 

And yes I know they did quickly explain static grass - although not sure that the kick it can give you (as one of  my club colleagues mentioned) if you mis-use it.

 

Paul

 

Paul

[Pacific231G]

The warts aren't removed from photos, I never said they were, but things like skies generally need to be replaced because 3/4 views of a rectangle don't fit on the page very well - and you don't want to see the clutter around a layout. Baseboard joints are also a lot more obtrusive in photos than in real life. Finally, dust - sometimes you can't see it until you look at the photo! We leave the modelling alone however, life's too short to fix that in Photoshop!

No you didn't and I'm sure you don't but I have spoken to others who've gone further than that in terms of enhancement; not actually adding missing rivets but sometimes "improving" things like paint faults which is very easy to do in most photo packages. The boundary between presenting a layout in its best light and making it look better than it really does is bound to be a little blurred

 

Personally I find it quite useful to see how well whatever method a layout builder has used to join baseboards has worked and how close to them they've placed pointwork. (In that the unmodified photos that appear on RMWeb can be particularly valuable) Ditto the height of their backscenes. Hiding the clutter with the equivalent of an infinity cyc.is fine and I often do that with photos of layouts I've taken just for my own use but would you replace the original perhapsd rather plain backscene with a complete skyscape? 

[Andy Y]

Image editing is going a little too far off-topic for this one.

 

Reset.

[andyram]

Only just managed to watch the final. I thought that Aberdeen were worthy winners so well done to them. There seemed some very nice finished models in the show although, because there were so many teams in the final, there was not enough time given to the build for each one. Apologies if this comment has already been made, but I have not had the chance to read through all of the previous comments. 

 

Maybe in the next series the final could be edited to 90 minutes to give more time to the builds or even there could be a further round between the heats and the final. Just a thought!

[sharris]

I agree about MPD layouts. In reality, most were very dull places operationally. Locos would be prepared and go off shed in the morning and come back later to be disposed. During the day there might be a few arrivals and departures but in general they didn't have a lot going on. Model MPD layouts usually just consist of locos being shuffled aimlessly about. I would much rather see trains shunting, being assembled and broken down. Much more entertaining for me than even seeing expresses whizz by.

 

I suspect MPD layouts may be more popular with people who like modelling/collecting locos rather than running full trains as they're a good way to display a lot of locomotive models without them actually having to go very far. (the last 2 words of that sentence may be optional)

 

I don't accept this is true of Bake off or Celebrity Masterchef, as examples. Both use many terms that are unexplained and not in everyones vocabulary... 

 

Examples like use of static grass were largely unexplained - and most of us wouldn't have heard of it 5 or so years ago...

 

 

One thing I liked was Scrapheap challenge which used to include graphics to illustrate the concepts of how each contraption was supposed to work. Didn't they also allocate an 'expert' to each team to point them in the right direction (probably essential as some of those challenges might have been lethal without some guidance!) ?

[TEAMYAKIMA]

Although I regard myself as more of a "serious" modeller, Many times I have been to shows and one thing I remember afterwards is the "gimmick" on a layout. A working swing bridge, a boat that moves along, a working wagon hoist or suchlike.

 

So good "gimmicks" done well and realistically can really add something extra to the appeal of a layout.

 

 

 

Funny you should say that. I apologise for going slightly off topic, but ....

 

I realised early in the planning stage that my new exhibition layout will turn off many established modellers - it's foreign - VERY foreign - and so I know from experience that many established modellers won't give it a second look at shows. 

 

And so, from the early design stage, I decided that I would need to introduce 'gimmicks' to attract/interest the non-enthusiast show attendee. It's a fine balance - gimmicky enough to attract the family market and yet not so 'gimmicky' to put off the more broad minded wing of our 'serious hobby'.

Edited November 12, 2018 by TEAMYAKIMA

[Zomboid]

A well executed "gimmick" can elevate a layout into something memorable, rather than just another roundy/ BLT/ depot. The marathon runners for example, or forced perspective such as the Tamar bridge. The waterworld theme park as well.

[phil-b259]

I suspect MPD layouts may be more popular with people who like modelling/collecting locos rather than running full trains as they're a good way to display a lot of locomotive models without them actually having to go very far. (the last 2 words of that sentence may be optional)

 

 

One thing I liked was Scrapheap challenge which used to include graphics to illustrate the concepts of how each contraption was supposed to work. Didn't they also allocate an 'expert' to each team to point them in the right direction (probably essential as some of those challenges might have been lethal without some guidance!) ?

 

Its been said on here before that despite appearances, the show was actually heavily scripted.

 

From the pre selection of experts (and their ideas for solving the challenge), to deliberately hiding all the necessary items within the heap so said idea could actually be built through to giving the teams more like a full days 'tinkering time' rather than the hour the TV presenters said they had) the show was all about entertaining the public. Like the model railway challenge it wasn't interested in getting into precise details, but was really just a concept to hang the old "Lets put a bunch of ordinary people in a competitive environment and see how they do"

[Andy Hayter]

Funny you should say that. I apologise for going slightly off topic, but ....

 

I realised early in the planning stage that my new exhibition layout will turn off many established modellers - it's foreign - VERY foreign - and so I know from experience that many established modellers won't give it a second look at shows.

 

And so, from the early design stage, I decided that I would need to introduce 'gimmicks' to attract/interest the non-enthusiast show attendee. It's a fine balance - gimmicky enough to attract the family market and yet not so 'gimmicky' to put off the more broad minded wing of our 'serious hobby'.

I understand exactly where you are coming from. Here in France I have seen some “wonderful” examples of the use of modern electronics to enhance a layout to the point of lunacy. One layout had:

 

2 gendarmes on their bikes having pulled over some miscreant. With flashing blue light.

Road woks demanding a series of blinking bollards

A police car, also with flashing lights, chasing (motionless) a car with a baddie and his gun.

The ubiquitous workshop with blue flashing arc welder

A house on fire with smoke generator and red yellow leds

Fire engines in attendance with flashing lights

Breakdown truck attending failed car with flashing yellow light

 

all in around 3 meters! I do wonder if this is a danger to those with photo - sensitive epilepsy.

 

I have become a follower of “just because you can, doesn’t mean you must”: however in the context of this series of programs, one objective is clearly to create instant interest, and in that context, such gimmicks do indeed creat3 interest and visual impact.

 

The balance is fine and depends on circumstances.

Edited November 12, 2018 by Andy Hayter

[Coryton]

Its been said on here before that despite appearances, the show was actually heavily scripted.

 

From the pre selection of experts (and their ideas for solving the challenge), to deliberately hiding all the necessary items within the heap so said idea could actually be built through to giving the teams more like a full days 'tinkering time' rather than the hour the TV presenters said they had) the show was all about entertaining the public. Like the model railway challenge it wasn't interested in getting into precise details, but was really just a concept to hang the old "Lets put a bunch of ordinary people in a competitive environment and see how they do"

 

I know someone who was on scrapheap challenge; they said that the teams were told what their design was going to be at the start.

 

I had enjoyed the model railway challenge all the more because from what I've read on here it wasn't like that at all.