Acceptable standards at exhibitions

[CloggyDog]

7 hours ago, The Johnster said:

Even my allegedly perfect operation is flawed; there are no scale operating shunters to couple up and connect vacuum & steam heating pipes, so I must imagine them, but allow time for them to complete the task and get clear and for the brakes to blow off before moving, and if the equally imaginary passengers are able to board the train, time for the brake continuity test to be completed, for example.  

 

You could adopt Lance Mindheim's approach and mount working model engineering vac/steam bags on the layout fascia at a point where such activity is likely to occur, perhaps along with a handbrake wheel, or a wagon brake lever where pinning down of brakes might happen. 

 

http://www.miniaturerailwaysupply.com/vacuum/vacuum.htm

 

Like you, I do like to see prototypical operation (though perhaps not to the extent some of our Colonial Cousins across the Pond, with full paperwork for trains and a 2 or 3 man crew for each train).

 

So when operating a layout (as I was at Scaleforum last month), I do stop short, then buffer-up, allow time for the invisible miniature shunter to hook-up and the brake test to be carried out. I'll even put instanters in the short position as required :)  I just find it more satisfying to do so. 

[t-b-g]

1 hour ago, Grovenor said:

Indeed, Stoke primarily appealed to those who liked to see trainsets correctly assembled with the right coaches etc. No operational interest as such so I never watched it for very long.  One ECML express is much like another to me. But it had enough fans to keep a crowd the times I saw it.

Copenhagen Fields is  more of a giant diorama, and marvelling at the scenic modelling has been the main attraction for years, but more recently the addition of yards that do actually get shunted and where you can see more of the train than just the roofs has enhanced the appeal for me.

When I see a layout with sidings and facilities that just have some stock parked while the trains run round and round then I tend to assume that either the points are unreliable or the operators can't be bothered to use them. But there are layouts where the sidings etc do get used as they should be and those are the ones I linger at.

All these approaches have their place, it would be a boring world if we were all the same.

 

I have a similar outlook. When I see a layout with points sidings and operational potential that is being completely ignored, then I rarely enjoy watching them. There have been (and still are) some very "big name" layouts that fall into this category. Enough people really like them to make me realise that they cannot all be wrong and that it is just a different point of view.

 

Copenhagen Fields is such a superb model that if there were no trains running at all it would still be worth spending time looking at it.

[Northmoor]

I perhaps wouldn't have worded it the same (or named a specific layout) but I tend to agree with the OP and find some of the reactionary responses to the idea that perfect scale representations of long lost rolling stock, shouldn't crash into each other at a scale 30mph, rather baffling.

 

It would be nice if all those who have been so offended by the idea of (perhaps) treating accurate operation equally with scale, livery, structures et al., could use this thread to solumnly swear that they will, never ever again refer to my children's generation as "Snowflakes".

[newbryford]

11 minutes ago, Northmoor said:

 

 

It would be nice if all those who have been so offended by the idea of (perhaps) treating accurate operation equally with scale, livery, structures et al., could use this thread to solumnly swear that they will, never ever again refer to my children's generation as "Snowflakes".

 

There are some older than me (I saw the 15 guinea special, so that dates me somewhat) that are seemingly easily offended. 

 

[Peter Kazmierczak]

Shunting was/is a rough old game at times. I used to watch a rake of HUOs given a good old "bash" to get them rolling, then stop suddenly so that the brake van was fly-shunted off into a siding. I've also seen, at the same location, a rake of HUOs come off the road, bob around on the sleepers, make a terrific racket and subsequently end-up blocking the mainline. So I don't want to get bogged down in all the niceties of shunting, just to see a little meaningful shunting - and I stress the word meaningful - at times on layouts being exhibited.
 

We come back to the old BBC adage of to inform, educate, and entertain.  Models shows need a mix of the three. Even a poor layout can inform, by showing how not to do it...
 

To me, whether a layout is OO, P4, EM,  or XYZ doesn't really matter. The YouTube videos of layouts at exhibitions all show degrees of informing, educating and entertaining. Not my place to judge another's work, skill, effort etc. 

[bradfordbuffer]

1 hour ago, newbryford said:

 

There are some older than me (I saw the 15 guinea special, so that dates me somewhat) that are seemingly easily offended. 

 

Who knew it was so expensive to travel behind the rocket?

[The Johnster]

1 hour ago, t-b-g said:

 

I have a similar outlook. When I see a layout with points sidings and operational potential that is being completely ignored, then I rarely enjoy watching them. There have been (and still are) some very "big name" layouts that fall into this category. Enough people really like them to make me realise that they cannot all be wrong and that it is just a different point of view.

 

Copenhagen Fields is such a superb model that if there were no trains running at all it would still be worth spending time looking at it.

Copenhagen fields is a massive and ongoing project of amazing breadth, and must be a massive logistical operation to operate; yhe approach to a London terminus, the North London line, and numerous goods yards, depots, and facilities.  Ot is impossible to take in all that is going on unless one takes a lot of time with it, and then there is the reproduction of a sizeable chunk of North London, with streets, tenement houses, shops, factories, churches as well as the railway.  It has taken years and is a marvellous layout, all of which works and all of which is used to move traffic, a sort of urban railway landscape that only exists in model form now, and on very few layouts!
 

The best operational layout I’ve ever seen, by a handsome margin, is undoubtedly Borchester; run to a timetable, to the rules as far as possible, and fully signalled.  It fails to tick some of the scale boxes and when I first read about it in MRC back when trilobites were still alive and before dinosaurs ruled the earth, it was stud contact and coarse scale, but I didn’t and don’t care; it is is so cleverly arranged that it looks realistic, the stock was excellent even when it was first built, it had a believable back story, and the operation was/is intense, something going on all the time and often several movements happening simultaneously, all at reasonable speeds for the movement concerned and all correctly signalled.  The down side of this is that almost as many operators are needed as a real Borchester would have had to have had, and they need to be trained up to be competent in operating it.  This seems entirely right and proper to me, indicative of a serious and railway-like approach, but there does seem to be a body of opinion amongst contributors to this thread that operating as properly as you can is not important to the public presentation of a model railway.  
 

This layout above all others shows that realistic operating is not only possible but desirable, and that smaller scale operations such as BLTs are practical to operate in this way at home by individuals.  If you’re not interested in the operating side, fine; I can live with the 00 compromise and am less interested in scale modelling than I am in operating, but I do the best my ability and finances allow anyway, as I think we all do in our ways.  But make no mistake, correct operating to the best standard you can manage is as important as any other aspect of presenting a ‘finished’ layout, at home or in public.  
 

IMHO. 

[t-b-g]

6 hours ago, The Johnster said:

Copenhagen fields is a massive and ongoing project of amazing breadth, and must be a massive logistical operation to operate; yhe approach to a London terminus, the North London line, and numerous goods yards, depots, and facilities.  Ot is impossible to take in all that is going on unless one takes a lot of time with it, and then there is the reproduction of a sizeable chunk of North London, with streets, tenement houses, shops, factories, churches as well as the railway.  It has taken years and is a marvellous layout, all of which works and all of which is used to move traffic, a sort of urban railway landscape that only exists in model form now, and on very few layouts!
 

The best operational layout I’ve ever seen, by a handsome margin, is undoubtedly Borchester; run to a timetable, to the rules as far as possible, and fully signalled.  It fails to tick some of the scale boxes and when I first read about it in MRC back when trilobites were still alive and before dinosaurs ruled the earth, it was stud contact and coarse scale, but I didn’t and don’t care; it is is so cleverly arranged that it looks realistic, the stock was excellent even when it was first built, it had a believable back story, and the operation was/is intense, something going on all the time and often several movements happening simultaneously, all at reasonable speeds for the movement concerned and all correctly signalled.  The down side of this is that almost as many operators are needed as a real Borchester would have had to have had, and they need to be trained up to be competent in operating it.  This seems entirely right and proper to me, indicative of a serious and railway-like approach, but there does seem to be a body of opinion amongst contributors to this thread that operating as properly as you can is not important to the public presentation of a model railway.  
 

This layout above all others shows that realistic operating is not only possible but desirable, and that smaller scale operations such as BLTs are practical to operate in this way at home by individuals.  If you’re not interested in the operating side, fine; I can live with the 00 compromise and am less interested in scale modelling than I am in operating, but I do the best my ability and finances allow anyway, as I think we all do in our ways.  But make no mistake, correct operating to the best standard you can manage is as important as any other aspect of presenting a ‘finished’ layout, at home or in public.  
 

IMHO. 

 

I would agree that in terms of enjoying watching a layout operate, a Borchester wins hands down for me over a Stoke Summit any day. Yet, as I said, enough people enjoyed Stoke Summit and similar layouts for me to have to accept that it is a personal preference, not a case of one being right and the other wrong.

 

My favourite articles on operation were those by Frank Dyer in early MRJs.

 

Although not  seen at shows, Buckingham is similar to Borchester in many ways. Correctly signalled, worked to a timetable using block bells and instruments and you really have to know the layout well to make it "sing and dance" properly.

 

When I see any layout either at a show, on video, or in a magazine, I always consider "If that was mine, would I enjoy operating it?". To me, if the answer is no, then that is a big box remaining unticked.

 

One of my most enjoyable experiences operating layouts at shows was when we took Leighton Buzzard out. Apart from the aspect of showing a bit of model railway history. It was great fun operating it and despite it being a tiny branch terminus, people watching enjoyed it too. I recall when we exhibited at Warley, with all the huge choice of layouts to watch, people spending an hour or more. Possibly my best ever compliment at a show was when one chap watched for an hour early in the day, came back for another session later and commented that of all the layouts there, LB was the most interesting to watch because of the way it operated.

 

One day I hope somebody says something similar about one that I have built!

[CKPR]

It's interesting and informative to read the reports of model railway exhibitions from the 1950s and 1960s which seemed to be based around admiring  superb glass case models and watching correctly operated model railways, many of which were still 3-rail  together with instances of clockwork and live steam power. Whilst there were examples of superb finescale modelling combined with running to the book, e.g. the MMRS' 'Presson' layout, operational fidelity seems to have been the key factor for exhibition layouts back then. Similarly, published accounts of  private coarse scale O gauge layouts run to the book such as 'Sherwood' and the less well known 'Millport & Selfield' and 'Manchester Central' all seem to convey an air of authenticity that far surpasses the standard of modelling, which appears poor by comparison to  current r-t-r. 

[Compound2632]

5 minutes ago, CKPR said:

It's interesting and informative to read the reports of model railway exhibitions from the 1950s and 1960s which seemed to be based around admiring  superb glass case models and watching correctly operated model railways, many of which were still 3-rail  together with instances of clockwork and live steam power. Whilst there were examples of superb finescale modelling combined with running to the book, e.g. the MMRS' 'Presson' layout, operational fidelity seems to have been the key factor for exhibition layouts back then. Similarly, published accounts of  private coarse scale O gauge layouts run to the book such as 'Sherwood' and the less well known 'Millport & Selfield' and 'Manchester Central' all seem to convey an air of authenticity that far surpasses the standard of modelling, which appears poor by comparison to  current r-t-r. 

 

But of course the operators had first-hand experience of the operation of the traditional steam railway - something that now has to be learnt from books and articles, with a good deal of sifting the wheat from the chaff.

 

But to my mind, a lot of unprototypical operation is down to unprototypical layouts - as is witnessed by those topics one sees on here asking "how do I signal this layout" to which the first response is a variation on "if you want to get to there, don't start from here". A prototypical layout, prototypically signalled, more or less forces prototypical operation. 

[t-b-g]

8 minutes ago, CKPR said:

It's interesting and informative to read the reports of model railway exhibitions from the 1950s and 1960s which seemed to be based around admiring  superb glass case models and watching correctly operated model railways, many of which were still 3-rail  together with instances of clockwork and live steam power. Whilst there were examples of superb finescale modelling combined with running to the book, e.g. the MMRS' 'Presson' layout, operational fidelity seems to have been the key factor for exhibition layouts back then. Similarly, published accounts of  private coarse scale O gauge layouts run to the book such as 'Sherwood' and the less well known 'Millport & Selfield' and 'Manchester Central' all seem to convey an air of authenticity that far surpasses the standard of modelling, which appears poor by comparison to  current r-t-r. 

 

Presson is an interesting example as although the railway side of things was modelled to a superb standard and the running and operating was from all accounts of a very high standard, the scenic treatment was very basic.

 

I agree with you that there are very few layouts which combine those two factors of appearance and operation. Perhaps the best recent example I can think of was watching "St Merryn" at several shows. It was superbly modelled and very interesting to watch being operated.

[4069]

18 hours ago, D9020 Nimbus said:

Stephen Williams, the creator of Faringdon, is a professional model maker (at Pendon), so one would imagine that his priority lies in accuracy of appearance — which isn't to say that he isn't interested in accurate operation, and probably he knows quite a bit about how things actually operated at Faringdon.

 

 

I'm not sure what you mean by 'professional', but everyone at Pendon (including Stephen) is a volunteer.

[Joseph_Pestell]

Perhaps not enough layouts shown at exhibitions have been designed with exhibition in mind. Entirely understandable as many have been designed for home use by the builder. I overheard one well-known layout builder say (this weekend) that he had never previously seen the "public side" of his layout as it had been built in his shed where it takes up all the space. The landscape on that layout, a prototype location, is fairly flat but is sloping down from the viewer towards the operator so not ideal for exhibition.

 

With luxury of space, surely the ideal exhibition layout is a four-track mainline with a goods yard (or similar) which can be shunted while traffic continues on three of the mainline tracks. Perhaps not too many such locations out there on the "real" railway.

 

But simpler layouts can also be entertaining if operated prototypically. How often have I seen a freight train reversed through a crossover onto the other running line and held to allow another train to pass? Not often if at all, yet it was very much a feature of the steam railway.

[Barry O]

22 minutes ago, Joseph_Pestell said:

Perhaps not enough layouts shown at exhibitions have been designed with exhibition in mind. Entirely understandable as many have been designed for home use by the builder. I overheard one well-known layout builder say (this weekend) that he had never previously seen the "public side" of his layout as it had been built in his shed where it takes up all the space. The landscape on that layout, a prototype location, is fairly flat but is sloping down from the viewer towards the operator so not 

So to get the slope correct you need to alter how the tracks are positioned so irs no longer like the prototype?

 

It does actually work better that way.. you could always have asked the owner about it...

 

Seems like we need big roundsy round high speed main lines with shunting yards which don't get in the way of main line trains... should have brought my Battlespace turbocar along at the weekend. 

I didn't like Borchester in rhe flesh. The quarter  of an hour non operation every hour was a pain. Especially  when the first train of the next session fell off!

 

Baz

[Joseph_Pestell]

8 minutes ago, Barry O said:

So to get the slope correct you need to alter how the tracks are positioned so irs no longer like the prototype?

 

It does actually work better that way.. you could always have asked the owner about it...

 

Seems like we need big roundsy round high speed main lines with shunting yards which don't get in the way of main line trains... should have brought my Battlespace turbocar along at the weekend. 

I didn't like Borchester in rhe flesh. The quarter  of an hour non operation every hour was a pain. Especially  when the first train of the next session fell off!

 

Baz

 

No, but perhaps consider whether that is the best prototype to choose for an exhibition layout. Or accept that there are compromises involved. After all, getting it into the shed at all involves curves that weren't there in the real world. No easy answers.

[Jol Wilkinson]

24 minutes ago, Joseph_Pestell said:

Perhaps not enough layouts shown at exhibitions have been designed with exhibition in mind. Entirely understandable as many have been designed for home use by the builder. I overheard one well-known layout builder say (this weekend) that he had never previously seen the "public side" of his layout as it had been built in his shed where it takes up all the space. The landscape on that layout, a prototype location, is fairly flat but is sloping down from the viewer towards the operator so not ideal for exhibition.

 

With luxury of space, surely the ideal exhibition layout is a four-track mainline with a goods yard (or similar) which can be shunted while traffic continues on three of the mainline tracks. Perhaps not too many such locations out there on the "real" railway.

 

But simpler layouts can also be entertaining if operated prototypically. How often have I seen a freight train reversed through a crossover onto the other running line and held to allow another train to pass? Not often if at all, yet it was very much a feature of the steam railway.

I think that the opposite may be the case, in that some people build "exhibition" layouts but don't base them on any particular prototype location, track layout and design, running/operating practises, signalling, etc. When much of what many modellers use are RTR/RTP products, they are restricted by what is available off the shelf/online or they have collected over the years.

 

My own layout wasn't of a prototypical location but used trackwork based upon the designs of the prototype railway in the period modelled, as were the signalling (planned by the author of the book on that specific subject), buildings, and stock. The only thing I couldn't accurately replicate were the Edwardian operation practises. However, we found that at most exhibitions, the viewers didn't know either and were mainly interested in just seeing trains run.

 

That was probably the reason why layouts such as Stoke Summit always attracted a good crowd.

[Joseph_Pestell]

1 minute ago, Jol Wilkinson said:

I think that the opposite may be the case, in that some people build "exhibition" layouts but don't base them on any particular prototype location, track layout and design, running/operating practises, signalling, etc. When much of what many modellers use are RTR/RTP products, they are restricted by what is available off the shelf/online or they have collected over the years.

 

My own layout wasn't of a prototypical location but used trackwork based upon the designs of the prototype railway in the period modelled, as were the signalling (planned by the author of the book on that specific subject), buildings, and stock. The only thing I couldn't accurately replicate were the Edwardian operation practises. However, we found that at most exhibitions, the viewers didn't know either and were mainly interested in just seeing trains run.

 

That was probably the reason why layouts such as Stoke Summit always attracted a good crowd.

 

I have enjoyed your layouts a lot.

 

Modelling a non-prototypical location but "getting it right" involves a lot of knowledge and research. As you say, many of the public won't care that much and yet I think some of them may go away with a niggling feeling that what they have seen is unrealistic and could be so much better.

[ERIC ALLTORQUE]

The fact that Thomas the tank is front runner to win show layout is a telling thing,you get all walks in shows,and we need the young to be involved.It seems frowned upon as its an older generation thing and when i used to help run the local club layout we got a few times youngsters who stood on a chair and was quite happy until there parents tried to get them to move,as long as people enjoy it,thats the trick.If running a real world sinario is your thing is fine but it takes all sorts and makes the hobby stronger.

[newbryford]

50 minutes ago, Joseph_Pestell said:

Perhaps not enough layouts shown at exhibitions have been designed with exhibition in mind. Entirely understandable as many have been designed for home use by the builder. I overheard one well-known layout builder say (this weekend) that he had never previously seen the "public side" of his layout as it had been built in his shed where it takes up all the space. The landscape on that layout, a prototype location, is fairly flat but is sloping down from the viewer towards the operator so not ideal for exhibition.

 

 

Maybe it was designed that way?

 

There was one superb layout that was a steelworks railway behind the exchange sidings, with the steelworks set back and below the exchange sdgs.

I can't recall it's name

You had to look "down and in" as the viewer was drawn in towards the rear of the layout.

 

My own layout is flat [*], because the prototype location on which it is based is flat.

[*]with a minor climb of the mainline at one end.

 

 

 

 

[t-b-g]

15 minutes ago, Barry O said:

So to get the slope correct you need to alter how the tracks are positioned so irs no longer like the prototype?

 

It does actually work better that way.. you could always have asked the owner about it...

 

Seems like we need big roundsy round high speed main lines with shunting yards which don't get in the way of main line trains... should have brought my Battlespace turbocar along at the weekend. 

I didn't like Borchester in rhe flesh. The quarter  of an hour non operation every hour was a pain. Especially  when the first train of the next session fell off!

 

Baz

 

My dad went to see the original Borchester in the 1950s and said that you had to wait your turn to get near it. He said it was mesmerising to watch.

 

My impression is that Borchester Market ran better when Frank Dyer was at the helm. I saw it a couple of times at shows after he died and it was under new ownership. They had none of the original locos and stock and didn't have a place to set the layout up permanently to practice running it. It did show in the way it ran later.

 

One of my favourite older layouts was one called Pontypool Riverside. Another terminus and another fictional one and the operation was superbly organised and slick. It must be 35 or 40 years ago that I saw it and I always wanted to build something like it. I like to think that Narrow Road came close. The idea was that as one train came to a halt, another was moving somewhere. I think the most locos we had moving at one time on Narrow Road was 5.

 

 

[Gilbert]

1 minute ago, t-b-g said:

 

My dad went to see the original Borchester in the 1950s and said that you had to wait your turn to get near it. He said it was mesmerising to watch.

 

My impression is that Borchester Market ran better when Frank Dyer was at the helm. I saw it a couple of times at shows after he died and it was under new ownership. They had none of the original locos and stock and didn't have a place to set the layout up permanently to practice running it. It did show in the way it ran later.

 

 

I saw Borchester Market at the Bristol show at the harbour side venue in the 1980s - it was a delight to watch - I spent most of my time at the show looking at the one layout. I have also seen it since the change of ownership but it was in a badly lit hall with new stock - it was not the same sadly.

Chris H

[Barry O]

21 minutes ago, Joseph_Pestell said:

 

No, but perhaps consider whether that is the best prototype to choose for an exhibition layout. Or accept that there are compromises involved. After all, getting it into the shed at all involves curves that weren't there in the real world. No easy answers.

So you didn't notice the real incline and the start of the overhead electric installation? The location was chosen the layout builder wanted it the way it is. 

 

We, in Leeds, have moved away from the "let's have a tail chaser based on no particular location" as we now have the skills and knowledge to do so. 

 

Personally while Stoke and Gresley Beat had very nice stock they were particularly boring to operate (according to friends who operated them)

 

I suppose we need to though away any ideas of protype locations..

 

Bas

[Barry Ten]

11 minutes ago, newbryford said:

 

Maybe it was designed that way?

 

There was one superb layout that was a steelworks railway behind the exchange sidings, with the steelworks set back and below the exchange sdgs.

I can't recall it's name

You had to look "down and in" as the viewer was drawn in towards the rear of the layout.

 

 

 

Sounds a llittle reminiscent of Walker Marine?

[Barry O]

It was borchester at London MRC show and Frank was the driver.. A Brush Type 2 A1A A1A..  and her indoors made sure they heard her comments..

 

Baz

[newbryford]

6 minutes ago, Barry Ten said:

 

Sounds a llittle reminiscent of Walker Marine?

 

That's the one! (Not a steelworks...)