RMweb Gold The Stationmaster Posted November 12, 2009 RMweb Gold Share Posted November 12, 2009 Judging by a lot of 'small' layouts I have seen an interesting design requirement might be to say that the 'scenic part' has to be capable of receiving and, after shunting, despatching a correctly formed train (yes, I know that leaves a lot of latitude but exploiting that might be half the fun :icon_what: Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold 96701 Posted November 12, 2009 RMweb Gold Share Posted November 12, 2009 Indifferent. I'm having enough trouble trying to find time to do what I want to do without the added pressure of trying to create something to somebody else's specification. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Worsdell forever Posted November 12, 2009 RMweb Gold Share Posted November 12, 2009 Bu**er, Just started a layout, 12 sq feet and 6 points. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
28ten Posted November 12, 2009 Share Posted November 12, 2009 I could go for 10 sq ft, less fiddle yard ( I'm thinking 7mm) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy Y Posted November 12, 2009 Share Posted November 12, 2009 I've added a poll option to the first post to assess general interest levels. I've chucked my hat in the ring. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy Y Posted November 12, 2009 Share Posted November 12, 2009 ? Any fiddle-yard / traversers / etc. can be over and above? I'd say TBC Matt, last time the 6 square foot had to include any fiddle yard; and I've still not got round to increasing it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold ian Posted November 12, 2009 RMweb Gold Share Posted November 12, 2009 I've chucked my hat in the ring. I will if you will... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Russ (mines a pint) Posted November 12, 2009 RMweb Gold Share Posted November 12, 2009 Perhaps a Point:Scale factor of 20 (as in 2010) could be used : 7mm x 3 points is 21 (close enough) 4mm x 5 points is 20 2mm x 10 points is 20 3mm x 7 points is 21 (see above) Stu Interesting idea! these could be presumably be viewed as a maximum as could area? would probably be interested to have another go as found the deadline to be a very useful motivating factor- I've not completing anything since the 2007 challenge! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Russ (mines a pint) Posted November 12, 2009 RMweb Gold Share Posted November 12, 2009 I will if you will... Pointless 'me too' post!(just voted!!) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave47549 Posted November 12, 2009 Share Posted November 12, 2009 . Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold ian Posted November 12, 2009 RMweb Gold Share Posted November 12, 2009 Pointless 'me too' post!(just voted!!) :lol: So you're not having any points on your entry then? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Kris Posted November 13, 2009 RMweb Premium Share Posted November 13, 2009 As much as I would love to enter another one of these (and maybe even finish what I have started this time....) I don't feel that I would be able to devote enought time or energy to it so I've voted that I would not enter. As to the question of is five points to few for 2mm. Nope it's fine. Just means you have to be inventive. I would suggest that the maximum point count applies to the scenic section only, but that any maximum size includes the fiddle yard area. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wollastonblue Posted November 13, 2009 Share Posted November 13, 2009 Just read through this forum. What sort of rules are we looking at? I've grasped the 10ft square area, and maximum of 5 points. Does it have to be 10ft square or could it be smaller? Sorry if I'm being thick. Tempted to have a go in O gauge for something like this. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave777 Posted November 13, 2009 Share Posted November 13, 2009 Ah well, another one of my RMWeb suggestions bites the dust But I am pleased to see some agreement already. I'm in. It makes for a pretty big N gauge layout, mind, so I think I'll go smaller. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold NeilHB Posted November 13, 2009 RMweb Gold Share Posted November 13, 2009 I'll throw my hat into the ring as well, missed out on the earlier layout challenges so might as well give it a go this time around! Got a few ideas up my sleeve so will have to see what pans out in terms of rules etc Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenton Posted November 13, 2009 Author Share Posted November 13, 2009 I am all for keeping the rules simple - I don't think they were that bad last time But they do need to cover basic things like: include/exclude FY in 10sqft include/exclude FY in 5 point rule counting of multiple turnouts and - if FY included count for traverser/SP/cassette vs ladders any allowances for different scales inclusion of incomplete but existing layouts (as we did last time) - remembering they will be judged from current start Does it have to be complete (is any layout) by the end - judgment day .... that way even a plan might get a vote or even a separate category (giving chance for the armchair enthusiast to take part) oh and maybe taken for granted - operational or are we just assuming that? Can we at least agree on the time lines as that need not be controversial. I suggested above: - Definition of Challenge by end of November ? - Finalise the Rules by 00:00 25th December 2009 (though nothing stopping you starting it before - but your risk it is outside the rules) - Entry at any time - as per last time starting a blog (or a thread) on RMWeb - Finish date 00:00 25th December 2010 - Judging - some method TBD (all member vote seemed to work well last time) - Prizes .... well you never know ... it probably should depend on reaching a sufficient number of entrants/finishers - but it is the taking part that is the biggest reward ... even if it is only by helping out virtually through the RMWeb community. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold ian Posted November 13, 2009 RMweb Gold Share Posted November 13, 2009 I think the 2006 rules with the addition of 'Not more than 5 turnouts in the scenic section' and amendment of the layout area to 10 sq ft should do the job. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nortonian Posted November 13, 2009 Share Posted November 13, 2009 A few further thoughts... 5 points should maybe a maximum rather than a pre-requisite (unfair to 7mm modellers otherwise) But is 5 points too limiting for the 2mm modeller? Andy, Thankyou for considering us 7mm modellers, I would like to take part. Something in 10 square feet would be just right at the moment. I think you should clarify what describes a point, ie, 3way, slips etc ???? Kindest Ian Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nortonian Posted November 13, 2009 Share Posted November 13, 2009 Reading the comments/questions above, I think the ten square feet(not ten foot square) should be the scenic area alone, then the fiddle yard(s) are outside this parameter. The five points max, should be within the scenic area. If a double track exits the scenic area, then the sliding fiddle yard is just that, a fiddle yard. There is no way ten square feet can contain five points and a fiddle yard in 7mm. It would`nt be a layout, but a shoe box. Its only 5`x2` on a theme or variations thereof !. Kindest Ian Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Il Grifone Posted November 13, 2009 Share Posted November 13, 2009 I would suggest that each individual piece of pointwork counts as a 'point' - e.g. a slip or tandem point is one unit and counts as a 'point'. A crossover is two 'points' and a 'scissors is four. Catch points not to count. The ten square feet could assume 4mm/ 1:76.2 and be decreased/increased for other scales. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest stuartp Posted November 13, 2009 Share Posted November 13, 2009 I think the 2006 rules with the addition of 'Not more than 5 turnouts in the scenic section' and amendment of the layout area to 10 sq ft should do the job. That seems sensible, but having missed the challenge last time around there's one aspect of the 2006 rules that puzzles me - why the requirement that an RTR loco should ideally form the motive power ? I've no doubt there was a perfectly sensible reason but I'm struggling to think what it might have been. If I can finish the plans for Newton Stewart & Portwilliam this side of Christmas I'm in - either with the loco shed area from Newton Stewart, or part of the colliery/distillery/harbour from Portwilliam designed as drop-in modules for whenever I get started on the layout proper. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Ramblin Rich Posted November 13, 2009 RMweb Gold Share Posted November 13, 2009 Given that SWMBO is keen for me to do something with my stockpile I'm in the "probably" camp - if Sazzle keep me motivated I might actually do something this time (but please note my signature line.... ) I've grasped the 10ft square area, and maximum of 5 points. Does it have to be 10ft square or could it be smaller? Sorry if I'm being thick. Tempted to have a go in O gauge for something like this. I'd clarify this carefully - 10 sq feet is not the same as 10 ft square 10 sq ft = 10ft x 1ft or 2ft x 5ft or 3ft x 3ft 4in etc.... 10 ft square implies 10ft x 10ft = 100 sq feet! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nortonian Posted November 13, 2009 Share Posted November 13, 2009 I would suggest that each individual piece of pointwork counts as a 'point' - e.g. a slip or tandem point is one unit and counts as a 'point'. A crossover is two 'points' and a 'scissors is four. Catch points not to count. The ten square feet could assume 4mm/ 1:76.2 and be decreased/increased for other scales. David, I partly agree with you here except how about, if you can buy the item as a piece of set track, ie, Peco pointwork as an individual item, then that should be the rule. After all, this is probably how most will define their own trackwork, some of us will be using individual components, ie, build our own. Kindest Ian Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pinkmouse Posted November 13, 2009 Share Posted November 13, 2009 I would suggest that each individual piece of pointwork counts as a 'point' - e.g. a slip or tandem point is one unit and counts as a 'point'. A crossover is two 'points' and a 'scissors is four. Catch points not to count. Makes sense to me. That seems sensible, but having missed the challenge last time around there's one aspect of the 2006 rules that puzzles me - why the requirement that an RTR loco should ideally form the motive power ? I've no doubt there was a perfectly sensible reason but I'm struggling to think what it might have been. Does seem strange, and I see no reason at all for it. RTR isn't why I do this hobby. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wollastonblue Posted November 13, 2009 Share Posted November 13, 2009 Given that SWMBO is keen for me to do something with my stockpile I'm in the "probably" camp - if Sazzle keep me motivated I might actually do something this time (but please note my signature line.... ) I'd clarify this carefully - 10 sq feet is not the same as 10 ft square 10 sq ft = 10ft x 1ft or 2ft x 5ft or 3ft x 3ft 4in etc.... 10 ft square implies 10ft x 10ft = 100 sq feet! Thanks for clarfying that. Maths was never my strong point. Are we going to have theme for the layout, or just a free for all? All sorts of ideas are runing round my head now. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.