James Hilton Posted November 13, 2009 Share Posted November 13, 2009 I think the time's right for another layout challenge. The 10ft2 for 2010 is sound; 2010 will also be our 5th birthday but 5ft2 will be twice as tough! 10ft2 and 5 points? Woop! Yeah!! Paxton Road has 6 points so I'll have to think about a 'parellel' project to start Perhaps I'll need to sell PR on?! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenton Posted November 13, 2009 Author Share Posted November 13, 2009 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. 1. To ensure that it was operational in the sense that a standard loco could traverse the layout 2. So that those who do not have kit building skills would not feel overwhelmed by the presentation The aim behind the rules was very much to include as many members as possible and to try to make it as fair as possible without excluding anyone. But it was decided that it had to be a layout - so dioramas were effectively excluded and by having a RTR I suppose the super micro was also excluded. Or at least think that was the idea ... it seems so long ago There is a problem with counting pieces of point work and that is multi-way points - I suggested earlier what about a 5 way (partly joking) but this would in theory be possible for a track builder and add cramming capability that is way beyond someone who does not have those skills. Many have to rely on what Peco (other RTR) supply so that lack of a skill in a particular area should not exclude them from participating. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold The Stationmaster Posted November 13, 2009 RMweb Gold 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. It seems logical to me to count each point end as 'a point' - thus a slip equals two ends and a tandem equals 3, but I agree with you that trap/catch points should not be counted. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nortonian Posted November 13, 2009 Share Posted November 13, 2009 I hope there will be some flexibility on the RTR rule for 7mm, otherwise its gonna be an expensive challenge. Mmmmmmm, Masterpiece Models King, RTR 7mm, that`s about three grand ! Ian Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LNERandBR Posted November 13, 2009 Share Posted November 13, 2009 Maybe the easiest way would be to count the number of point motors or tiebars. For example a slip or 3 way need's two motors/tiebars so therefore count's as two. I say count tiebars as not everyone will uses motors to operate points. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenton Posted November 13, 2009 Author Share Posted November 13, 2009 I hope there will be some flexibility on the RTR rule for 7mm, otherwise its gonna be an expensive challenge. Mmmmmmm, Masterpiece Models King, RTR 7mm, that`s about three grand ! Ian Yes, I think you are right. But some form of words to make sure it is not just a diorama with a hand off scene pulling a wagon back and forwards on a string ? Perhaps that is why last time there were so few 7mm entrants The scale issue should not be treated lightly though squeezing all that in for a 7mm will be a challenge where as in 2mm the challenge will be completing it (so much space to fill) But I suppose at the moment anyone could enter a box file (possibly a all encompassing) option - but where's the link of that to 2010? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave_long Posted November 13, 2009 Share Posted November 13, 2009 It seems logical to me to count each point end as 'a point' - thus a slip equals two ends and a tandem equals 3, but I agree with you that trap/catch points should not be counted. I think exits should be left alone, a tandem is 2 turnouts, and surely if a tandem is 3 then a slip is 4? Personally I think that were could argue the point (sorry couldn't resist) about what type of turnout set amounts to what. Effectively a double slip should be 4. But this is the kind of discussion that could go round and round and I think that it should be set soon for the T&Cs to be ironed out. One thing to remember though is regarding the size of the layout, you can have a lyout 20' long, obviously its only then going to be 6" deep, but if you go for something between 10-20' long then you caould get in a decent layout, a singled line terminus in 7mm would fit well etc. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ravenser Posted November 13, 2009 Share Posted November 13, 2009 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. That was because we'd recently had a controversial thread on the detailed accuracy of a new RTR loco , and I made the remark that rather than arguing bitterly about the exact number of slats in a radiator grill it would be more constructive to talk about what we could actually do with all this new RTR. Like a layout.... Based on last time round: - 10 squ feet should include the FY.Last time the limit was only 6 squ ft and included fiddle yards - with a 66% increase in footprint this time, there's no reason to allow FY on top of that . People might even start to find they hadn't got enough space at home to accomodate the layout - 5 points will tend to steer you towards the less complicated /less crowded layout anyway. Blacklade has 7 points + 1 slip in 6 square feet, and all are visible/partly visible. OK its covered in track , but it does suggest that a limit of 5 might be on the low side. (I've got 3 points and a sector plate into a pair of boxfiles in the past) Maybe counting slips tandems and 3 ways as one point might be acceptable. As I haven't completely finished my entry from last time , I'll have to sit this one out, I'm afraid. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold The Stationmaster Posted November 13, 2009 RMweb Gold Share Posted November 13, 2009 Yes, I think you are right. But some form of words to make sure it is not just a diorama with a hand off scene pulling a wagon back and forwards on a string ? Perhaps that is why last time there were so few 7mm entrants The scale issue should not be treated lightly though squeezing all that in for a 7mm will be a challenge where as in 2mm the challenge will be completing it (so much space to fill) But I suppose at the moment anyone could enter a box file (possibly a all encompassing) option - but where's the link of that to 2010? That was why I suggested some sort of 'operational requirement' - I realise that in itself is a design constraint so it would need to be thought through carefully but by saying the 'layout' has to be capable of 'doing something' you rule out a lot of the smaller and much simpler diorama approaches; after all 10sqft in 4mm scale, or adjusted equivalent in the other scales, could be quite a substantial piece of railway. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy Y Posted November 13, 2009 Share Posted November 13, 2009 I've been thinking some more on this one and I'm wondering if a 2010 square inch theme (rather than 10 square feet) would generate more interest and result in more usable layouts, 2010 being a max and not a pre-requisite. Rather than scaling that up or down dependent on scale it would be a size where something could be achieved in most scales from 1 down to 2mm. If that was the route taken the 5 points should go out of the window. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
60B Posted November 13, 2009 Share Posted November 13, 2009 I can do 2010 square inches no bother . As long as the pointwork detail is sorted out, I'm sorted. Would the venue be big enough for all the entrants? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nortonian Posted November 13, 2009 Share Posted November 13, 2009 I've been thinking some more on this one and I'm wondering if a 2010 square inch theme (rather than 10 square feet) would generate more interest and result in more usable layouts, 2010 being a max and not a pre-requisite. Rather than scaling that up or down dependent on scale it would be a size where something could be achieved in most scales from 1 down to 2mm. If that was the route taken the 5 points should go out of the window. Andy, you have read my mind. I think the 2010 quare inches is the best way forward like other societies have done in the past, ie, P4 in 1883". 2010" equates to 13.95 square feet, and if that includes a fiddle yard, then I think that would be enough. I still think the five point rule should apply, just defined a bit more. Kindest Ian Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajdown Posted November 13, 2009 Share Posted November 13, 2009 I assume that "Ready To Run loco" does not just mean locomotive but multiple units count too? I might just have a small idea. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Harris Posted November 13, 2009 Share Posted November 13, 2009 Andy, you have read my mind. I think the 2010 quare inches is the best way forward like other societies have done in the past, ie, P4 in 1883". 2010" equates to 13.95 square feet, and if that includes a fiddle yard, then I think that would be enough. I still think the five point rule should apply, just defined a bit more. Kindest Ian 2010 square inches including fiddle yard sounds good. I agree that the 5-point rule should still be incorporated, but restricted to the scenic section. As far as what constitutes a point, one pair of switch blades should constitute one point - i.e. a 3-way and a slip would count as two 'points' Best regards, Matt H Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold ian Posted November 13, 2009 RMweb Gold Share Posted November 13, 2009 Rule 1: Max size 2010 sq inches as a footprint (multiple levels acceptable, any shape) Rule 2: Max. 5 point tie-bars on the scenic section. Rule 3: Layout must be operable by a model locomotive, multiple unit or other motive device (e.g. horse) powered by a motor within the locomotive or permanently attached rolling stock. Rule 4: There is no rule 4.:icon_thumbsup2: Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest stuartp Posted November 13, 2009 Share Posted November 13, 2009 1. To ensure that it was operational in the sense that a standard loco could traverse the layout 2. So that those who do not have kit building skills would not feel overwhelmed by the presentation That was because we'd recently had a controversial thread on the detailed accuracy of a new RTR loco , and I made the remark that rather than arguing bitterly about the exact number of slats in a radiator grill it would be more constructive to talk about what we could actually do with all this new RTR. Like a layout.... Aha. Thanks for that. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium eldavo Posted November 13, 2009 RMweb Premium Share Posted November 13, 2009 I'm up for the challenge. I could actually get on a build some of the stuff I've been talking about and doing nothing about! Cheers Dave Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
43179 Posted November 13, 2009 Share Posted November 13, 2009 hows about specifying a maximum area that can be used - such as the 10 square foot mentioned before - but with no straight lines or right angles allowed on the footprint of the layout ? '179 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pinkmouse Posted November 13, 2009 Share Posted November 13, 2009 ...2. So that those who do not have kit building skills would not feel overwhelmed by the presentation... So no kit or scratch built buildings, track or scenery either then? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave777 Posted November 13, 2009 Share Posted November 13, 2009 hows about specifying a maximum area that can be used - such as the 10 square foot mentioned before - but with no straight lines or right angles allowed on the footprint of the layout ? So the baseboard has to be all curvy? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
28ten Posted November 13, 2009 Share Posted November 13, 2009 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 I have done some doodles and its a moving diorama and not a layout in 7mm! Im thinking 2 points maximum and to make it as module of a bigger overall project. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie Posted November 13, 2009 Share Posted November 13, 2009 Isn't rule three redundant? - as far as I can see all it does is rule out capstan shunting and static models. This comp ideally fits my plans for the reborn Portshalloch next year, could be a late starter though, so that gives StuartP first dibs at subject Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Taylor Posted November 13, 2009 Share Posted November 13, 2009 Well if the house thing gets sorted early in the year, I'd be prepared to give it a go. The 2010 square inch scenic area (scaled up or down from 4mm to other scales as appropriate to provide parity of available surface area)as a theme with a restricted number of points (exc catch and trap) sounds fine to me. Perhaps a selection of operational themes/scenarios too? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajdown Posted November 13, 2009 Share Posted November 13, 2009 So the baseboard has to be all curvy? With my woodwork skills, they usually are. Or did you just mean the board edges...? 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 .............Perhaps a selection of operational themes/scenarios too? I'd rather not be too prescriptive in scenarios as I've already got in mind what to do, and I'd be miffed if it didn't fit in..... I think the variety of schemes last time added to the value & interest, so as wide a scope as possible please Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.