Acceptable standards at exhibitions

[Paul H Vigor]

5 hours ago, TheQ said:

The branch train on the real line  I'm modelling, used pull into the bay platform, once the passengers were off, reverse back up the main line  1 in 200, disconnect the one or two carriages, then rapidly go down the main line while the carriages were diverted back into the bay. Then the loco would reattach to the carriages for the next trip up the branch.

Gravity shunting.

[AndyID]

15 minutes ago, whart57 said:

He did, but you can't eliminate all friction. Friction provides a braking force and that has a mass component 

It does. Less mass means less weight and that means less friction in the bearings. But that does not change the fact that the reason wagons of any scale slow down is because their kinetic energy is being converted into thermal energy due to friction.

 

Unfortunately small model wagons do not have a lot of kinetic energy and they do produce a lot of thermal energy (friction) relative to their mass so they lose their kinetic energy quite quickly. It's not about absolutes such as mass. It's about the conservation of energy.

 

 

[Paul H Vigor]

4 hours ago, Enterprisingwestern said:

 

Wellington, Salop, had a similar arrangement I believe.

 

Mike.

Craven Arms/Much Wenlock coaches were gravity shunted into the bay platform at Wellington (Salop). When I was living in Wellington, 1995-2014, there was a very fine exhibition layout of Wellington in the 1950s on the circuit that included this gravity shunt movement. I was suitably impressed!

[Paul H Vigor]

1 hour ago, The Johnster said:

My ‘can of worms’ warning seems to be earning it’s keep!

 

I’m the last person you would call a rivet counter, and did not wish to call into question others’ modelling standards, especially as my own are not above reproach (!), and as I said in the initial post of the thread, there is room for a variety of standards and approaches within the hobby.  My core belief is that a successful layout is one that gives enjoyment to it’s owner(s), or what’s the point?  My own layout is not in any condition to be exhibited, and I have no intention of exhibiting it. 
 

But this isn’t just a run-of-the-mill local show where the intention is to show Joe Public what railway modelling is about in all it’s variety of standards and skills.  This is Scaleforum, the national exhibition of 4mm modelling to these standards, and the intention is presumably to display the finest scale standards of 4mm scale modelling to an audience of mostly other railway modellers.  
 

As a bodger who can barely manage 00 RTR/RTP standards, I look enviously to P4/S4 modellers who can accomplish such feats for inspiration.  My assumption, unless I have misunderstood the point of finescale modelling to achieve greater realism (which it does, make no mistake), is that the realism is intended, and should be expected, to extend to the way the trains behave on the layouts; their speed, smoothness of starting and stopping, and their actual movements as much as the accuracy of stock, liveries, suitability to period, correctly modelled buildings if the layout depicts an actual location, and so on.  

I expect the highest standards from such a show, despite not being able to achieve them myself; after all, these are the people who say they can achieve them, not me!

 

I have for a very long time thought that operation, and it’s adherence to prototype practice, has been a poor relation within the hobby, and that there are those who are capable of producing the the most incredibly detailed and beautifully running masterpieces, true craftsmen, who have no interest in operation at all.  Fair enough, each to his own.  But, to my view (other views are available and ultimately you are probably best off forming your own, but mine informs my opinion, which nobody has to agree eith or take any notice of, bit to which I’m entitled all the same, as you are to yours, but it’s the only one I’ve got), a layout that purports to be a finescale working model representation of reality ought, surely, to apply the same underlying philosophy of the best representational realism you can manage to operating as much as to the other elements; indeed, I would content that the purpose of building realistic working models is to realistically work them, operate them, and that all other modelling activities are subservient to this.  Getting the scale, appearance, background, running, etc right is only to provide a believable backdrop to the main event, operating.  
 

Now, I am more than happy to accept that this pov is at least informed by an undeniable fact; that, as an indifferent maker of models who has to rely on opening boxes and doing a bit of weathering and detailing to provide this believable backdrop to my operating, my enthusiasm for operating and the importance I place on it’s correctness may well be because it is the only aspect of railway modelling that I’m reasonably good (as opposed to indifferent or hopelessly inadequate) at, the only one I can achieve to an acceptable level of realism.  My layouts are designed with correct operation as the prime specification, and every other aspect of them performs a supporting role; operating trains as correctly as I can is the main event for me, everything else is secondary. 
 

So, when people whose modelling skills are beyond mine get operating wrong, I get upset about it and wonder why they bothered; better off putting the masterpieces in display cases where poor operating standards don’t embarrass them. 
 

 

 

It surprises me at exhibitions when steam hauled trains are run with no accommodation for the guard. I usually bite my tongue for an easy life!

[The Johnster]

43 minutes ago, johndon said:

 

Are they?

 

I'm a member of the Scalefour Society and I'm building a rather large P4 layout but I've never once said (nor would I dream of doing so) that I can achieve the modelling/operational perfection that you appear to demand from my ilk...

 

 

No, you haven’t, at least as far as I know, and despite appearances I’m not demanding  perfection from your ilk, especially as I am so far removed from it myself.  But it is not unfair to postulate that the Scalefour Society, and by extension it’s members, actively promote standards of scale and the associated requisite skills that are beyond me, and modelling has been advanced considerably since the formation of the society all those years ago, but I’m old enough to remember it’s first stirrings in the pages of the late lamented Constructor.  I remember being blown away by a close-up photo of an S4 standard coach wheel in a (Triang) B1 bogie; outstanding!  There were plenty of naysayers but the founding lights stuck to their principles and argued, correctly, that if the rail/wheel standards were kept to and the curvature was of prototypical radius it would work, and guess what; it did!  
 

The hobby has benefitted immensely over time from this, as the trickle-down demand for more realistic models eventually permeated the RTR world, and my models are ‘better’ in every respect in consequence.  Compare a Triang Hornby 8750 to a Bachmann if you want to remind yourself how dire the RTR and kits we were offered in those days were; nobody batted an eyelid if you used a piece of code 100 rail as a fluted coupling rod, and only top quality scratch built locos had any brake or other detail below the running plate. 

 

The society and by extension it’s members regularly do build models to a very high standard indeed, high enough where prototype locations like Faringdon are involved to be useful as study reference material IMHO.  When it is let down by unrealistic operation (in this case it wasn’t by Faringdon but was by Kitedale), it seems to me to be a betrayal of such standards and intentions. 

[newbryford]

1 hour ago, The Johnster said:

My ‘can of worms’ warning seems to be earning it’s keep!

 

I’m the last person you would call a rivet counter, 

 My layouts are designed with correct operation as the prime specification, and every other aspect of them performs a supporting role; operating trains as correctly as I can is the main event for me, everything else is secondary. 

 

 

 

 

Yet you question the incorrect use/lack of lamps on locos....

 

I'm sure there are others reading this thread that are waiting for your solution..

 

 

[Nearholmer]

1 minute ago, newbryford said:

Yet you question the incorrect use/lack of lamps on locos....

 

I'm sure there are others reading this thread that are waiting for your solution..

 

I’ll jump in before Johnster even has a chance to read it:

 

Use a scale, probably minimum 7mm/ft, in which moving lamps about becomes a practical possibility, and move the lamps about, and explain to the viewer what is going on and why.

 

 

[TEAMYAKIMA]

I can only comment from my own perspective. I have absolutely no interest in operation other than operating my exhibition-only layout at exhibitions. 

 

At an exhibition I feel that I am telling a story and the operation of my layout is like the plot of a film or TV drama. Now, if you study virtually any film or TV drama you will notice that plenty of 'detail' has been removed in order to move the action along at a faster rate in order to keep the viewer's attention. If you don't believe me, think about characters getting out of taxis in a film or TV drama - they never stop to ask how much the fare was, let alone faff about to find the right money. They simply jump out, close the passenger door and they're off - driving the story onwards ASAP.

 

Maybe, some of these prototypical nuances are a bit like paying the taxi driver - they should be included for absolute authenticity, but they slow down the narrative of the storytelling. 

Edited October 3, 2022 by TEAMYAKIMA

[newbryford]

18 minutes ago, Nearholmer said:

I’ll jump in before Johnster even has a chance to read it:

 

Use a scale, probably minimum 7mm/ft, in which moving lamps about becomes a practical possibility, and move the lamps about, and explain to the viewer what is going on and why.

 

 

 

Possibly, but the OP commented about the incorrect use of them at S4orum.

I believe the OP models in the basic size as S4,  but has not offered a solution for the scale smaller than 7mm/ft.

Although the OP says he does it, he has not yet shown his solution

 

It's comments such as the original OP that can make people give up exhibiting.

Edited October 3, 2022 by newbryford

[The Johnster]

On 4mm layouts where scale couplings are used with shunting poles (I used to do this but it’s now beyond my eyesight and hand steadiness), where the ‘hand of god’ already makes appearances, I see no problem with changing lamps by hand; I do it at home and the appearance of correct lamps in the correct positions is worth the hand intrusions. Like the scale couplings and the pole, it’s a genuine real railway thing to do, admittedly without regard to scale.  Now, having them lit as well…

[johndon]

13 minutes ago, The Johnster said:

On 4mm layouts where scale couplings are used with shunting poles (I used to do this but it’s now beyond my eyesight and hand steadiness), where the ‘hand of god’ already makes appearances, I see no problem with changing lamps by hand; I do it at home and the appearance of correct lamps in the correct positions is worth the hand intrusions. Like the scale couplings and the pole, it’s a genuine real railway thing to do, admittedly without regard to scale.  Now, having them lit as well…

 

Manually hooking up scale couplings across the width of a large layout at a show, under the eyes of the public is bad enough but changing 3 lamps from one end of a brake van to the other without, at some point, knocking the van off the track requires, I'd suggest, a level of dexterity that very few of us possess...

 

I'm part of a team that operates a large EM layout (which happens to be of the same location that I'm modelling in P4)  and we have a move that requires a brake van to reverse on the scenic section of the layout, changing the lamps would be impractical so we have a set at both ends, surely preferrable to the potential for derailments when attempting to change the lamps.

Edited October 3, 2022 by johndon

[Free At Last]

I like to watch model railway operation. One of my favourites is Bradfield Gloucester Square, never saw it in the flesh but often watch it on Youtube. It runs through a day's timetable and is near two hours long.
The Bradfield Chronicles.

 

[AndyID]

With all this talk about loose shunting and fly shunting I'm a bit surprised no one has mentioned pole shunting. (It took a long time before I understood what those pockets were for.)

[newbryford]

3 minutes ago, AndyID said:

With all this talk about loose shunting and fly shunting I'm a bit surprised no one has mentioned pole shunting. (It took a long time before I understood what those pockets were for.)

 

Does that involve Eastern Europeans? 😁

 

(And yes - I know what pole shunting is)

[Nearholmer]

4 minutes ago, TEAMYAKIMA said:

but they slow down the narrative of the storytelling. 

It might be that for some these things are the story.

 

It might be that different people want to tell, or be told, different stories. One story might be an evocation of time and place through impressionistic depiction of a slice of town or country, of which passing trains are only a part (Madder Valley); another story might be about “snapshot” visual realism of the railway, or the railway in a landscape (Vale Scene); a third story might be about how railways were operated historically in ‘close up’.

 

A single layout might tackle all of these in one big go, or two, or just one (signalling school layout).

 

if I may be so bold, I think where Mr Johnster is off-beam is in using the word “acceptable”, which invites ridicule as demonstrated by t-b-g, because it implies a standard below which things mustn’t be permitted to fall. That, IMO, is overstepping the mark, but, IMO again, it is fair to point out that there is sometimes a mismatch between the visual and operational standards applied by layout builder-operators ……. I admit to such mismatch myself, in that I deliberately build layouts to c1950 standards of construction, visual appearance, and conception, but try to operate them reasonably accurately, so the reverse case of what is being criticised here.

 

 

[woodenhead]

8 minutes ago, AndyID said:

With all this talk about loose shunting and fly shunting I'm a bit surprised no one has mentioned pole shunting. (It took a long time before I understood what those pockets were for.)

There is a Leicester based model of the GCR that does employ capstan working albeit through motorised wagons.  With DCC it should be possible to mimic capstan, fly, loose and hump shunting using a motorised wagon in the consist.

 

However, execution of the solution would be complicated to say the least especially hump shunting with multiple consists on the move and needing to slow at the right point, I guess electronics would solve that but quite how I don't know.

[Jeff Smith]

I would avoid demonstrating my P4 BLT as not only would it be very boring to both operate and watch, it is not signalled correctly, the loco lamps are missing altogether, there is no sound and more importantly than any other omission there is no smoke or steam......🤔

[SM42]

Shunting and coupling up  were something I looked at as an exhibition manager. 

 

It is one thing that could be done right in the scales we use with just the use of the controller. 

 

The same laws of physics that make loose shunting a challenge also allow us to ram a rake of stock without them haring off down the track as the buffers compress and decompress or indeed leaping off the track.

 

To me it does spoil the illusion  but then many operators are probably  having fun, getting bored or just haven't given it a thought. 

 

In railways terms, ramming things is called a collision. 

We really should be stopping about 6ft short then easing up. 

 

In the end, it doesn't really matter.

 

Some will notice  some won't and some won't know. 

 

Some will tut, others won't 

 

Andy

 

 

[Michael Hodgson]

4 minutes ago, SM42 said:

We really should be stopping about 6ft short then easing up. 

 

That really depends on the era you're modelling.

[The Johnster]

And in any case does not apply to goods shunting.  

[TEAMYAKIMA]

7 hours ago, Nearholmer said:

It might be that for some these things are the story.

 

It might be that different people want to tell, or be told, different stories. One story might be an evocation of time and place through impressionistic depiction of a slice of town or country, of which passing trains are only a part (Madder Valley); another story might be about “snapshot” visual realism of the railway, or the railway in a landscape (Vale Scene); a third story might be about how railways were operated historically in ‘close up’. 

Absolutely, we are totally on the same page on this. Again, I view things purely from an exhibition perspective and every layout will (generally speaking) tell a different story.

 

Edited October 4, 2022 by TEAMYAKIMA

[Andy Hayter]

Having picked up on this discussion part way through, I am a bit bemused by the demands/requirements of those who demand the highest levels of operational authenticity.

 

I assume that they are happy to watch a single-track BLT with nothing happening for several hours because that is what authentic operation means.  

 

I am amused by the idea of taking a wagon that has been built to the highest standards with detailed and all but working brake gear and then fitting a drive cog on the axle that for spoked wheeled wagons will be impossible to hide. 

 

I really think that some are not taking into account the physical limitation of some operations in smaller scales.  Perhaps they can swap head and taillights in 4mm:ft.  I cannot and limitations on dexterity and eyesight means I will always have to have a work around - either no lamps or somewhat closer to fidelity (but still wrong) head lamps fitted to both ends of the loco and tail lamps at both ends of the rake of stock/brake van.  If that offends; so be it.

[AndyID]

14 hours ago, TheQ said:

The branch train on the real line  I'm modelling, used pull into the bay platform, once the passengers were off, reverse back up the main line  1 in 200, disconnect the one or two carriages, then rapidly go down the main line while the carriages were diverted back into the bay. Then the loco would reattach to the carriages for the next trip up the branch.

 

Killin?

[SM42]

I think we can all accept rhe limitations that scale inpose and we can suspend reality to accommodate a branch line service at the level of Clapham Jn. We can even accept singe line sections that appear to be 30 seconds long. 

 

However this doesn't stop us getting right what we can. 

 

TV, film and theatre make an effort at getting things to look right and we generally overlook the slight inaccuracies but the big ones leap out. 

For instance would you accept a Ford Focus in a 1960s drama, but overlook a car that was maybe a couple of years before its time but in the right decade?

 

Ramming stock is a big one that, for me,  spoils an otherwise excellent piece of model theatre

Maybe not for others

 

Changing lamps, not very practical. 

 

Loose shunting technically difficult

 

Hand from the sky uncoupling, necessary evil in many cases. 

 

In the end it comes down to personal opinion and knowledge of viewer and operator. 

 

Don't like it, move along.

Don't mind, tarry a while.

 

Andy

[TheQ]

10 minutes ago, AndyID said:

 

Killin?

443 miles too far North, Ludgershall, Wiltshire. Lived in Ludgershall at one time, drove past road junction to Killin many times on the A85 to Oban. (or back)

Edited October 4, 2022 by TheQ