RMweb Premium cornelius Posted November 13, 2009 RMweb Premium Share Posted November 13, 2009 How about 2010" of track with 5 turnouts (tiebars), in any size or shape you like? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
28ten Posted November 13, 2009 Share Posted November 13, 2009 How about 2010" of track with 5 turnouts (tiebars), in any size or shape you like? that sounds about right, the less rules the better imho Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenton Posted November 13, 2009 Author Share Posted November 13, 2009 So no kit or scratch built buildings, track or scenery either then? The idea was inclusive - so you could build the lt yourself - or buy it all and plonk it including T the T and settrack with sprinles. just had to run a RTR loco to show it was operational. I am leaning more towards the 2010 sq inches - it has a better ring about it. The problem is for me that is enormous in any scale. I know, I know "up to 2010" but then where does that connect with the 2010 theme ? OK who else is thinking of building the GWR loco no. 2010 on 9" of track? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nortonian Posted November 13, 2009 Share Posted November 13, 2009 I am beginning to wonder whether I have boobed in suggesting 2010" overall ?. If 2010" was the maximum scenic area allowed ,plus fiddles on top of that, then I can forsee a 7mm type version of Chris Pendleton`s North shields on the cards. Hence tomorrows trip to photograph the B1 Mayflower. Regards Ian Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
28ten Posted November 13, 2009 Share Posted November 13, 2009 I am beginning to wonder whether I have boobed in suggesting 2010" overall ?. If 2010" was the maximum scenic area allowed ,plus fiddles on top of that, then I can forsee a 7mm type version of Chris Pendleton`s North shields on the cards. Hence tomorrows trip to photograph the B1 Mayflower. Regards Ian That's the way I am thinking, I can even think of a prototype that would be ideal Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wollastonblue Posted November 13, 2009 Share Posted November 13, 2009 I appreciate the 2010 inch thing, but wouldn't the 10ft square thing mean more layouts would get finished? Plus theres always the space thing for a lot of people. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LNERandBR Posted November 13, 2009 Share Posted November 13, 2009 I agree 2010sq in will be too large. I liked the 10sq ft idea better. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Etched Pixels Posted November 13, 2009 Share Posted November 13, 2009 I appreciate the 2010 inch thing, but wouldn't the 10ft square thing mean more layouts would get finished? Plus theres always the space thing for a lot of people. With my N scale hat on 2010inches is huge, especially for an end to end layout where you probably want it about 6-9" wide I don't happen to have 18 and a half feet handy for a competition project ! I'd say the size thing for many scales simply isn't inclusive and many people don't have the space. Just what kind of beast would 2010" of T scale be ? A "five points" rule is much more flexible to whatever space people have. Another way to do that might be to have a limit of 2010 sleepers - that scales fairly although its perhaps a little high. Another idea for inclusivity would be to have a second "award" for the best layout built entirely using RTR stock, RTR trackwork and unkithbashed RTR/Kit buildings. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nortonian Posted November 13, 2009 Share Posted November 13, 2009 I appreciate the 2010 inch thing, but wouldn't the 10ft square thing mean more layouts would get finished? Plus theres always the space thing for a lot of people. I think Andy was trying to emphasise the point that 2010" was the max, not the norm. After all, its only just under 4foot square difference between the two, ie the size of a small table top, but I agree about unfinished layouts. Regards Ian Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy Y Posted November 13, 2009 Share Posted November 13, 2009 I agree 2010sq in will be too large. I liked the 10sq ft idea better. 2010 is a suggested max, it can be smaller. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruciethefish Posted November 13, 2009 Share Posted November 13, 2009 If 2010 square inches is a maximum, then there's no problem if anyone wants to make it smaller... We don't all have large spaces to devote to our hobby, after all... As regards to the points thing, I'd favour a point counting as any unit of pointwork you can buy, ready-made, from the main manufacturers, or the handbuilt equivalent;- this at least will give some flexibility, & may even lead to some creative thinking..... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LNERandBR Posted November 13, 2009 Share Posted November 13, 2009 Therefore how about a minimum of 5sq ft area (or 720sq in) but with a max of 2010sq in. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenton Posted November 13, 2009 Author Share Posted November 13, 2009 I appreciate the 2010 inch thing, but wouldn't the 10ft square thing mean more layouts would get finished? Plus there's always the space thing for a lot of people. Not to mention the cost - especially important in these times. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold ian Posted November 13, 2009 RMweb Gold 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. That is precisely what it is intended to do. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold ian Posted November 13, 2009 RMweb Gold Share Posted November 13, 2009 There seems to be some confusion about square inches and feet. 1 square foot is 144 square inches (a 1 foot square, area 1x1= 1 sq.ft or 12 inch square 12x12 = 144 square inches) 2010 square inches could be a rectangle 201 x 10 (16' 8" x 10"), square 44" x 44" (1936 actually) or anything in-between. 10 square feet (or a 10 foot square) is 120 x 120 = 14,400 square inches - over 7 times larger than the 2010 square inch limit proposed. Hope this helps. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pinkmouse Posted November 13, 2009 Share Posted November 13, 2009 2010 square inches does seem a tad excessive. Perhaps 20 items minimum of rolling stock, 10 sq feet maximum, and five turnouts, (of whatever definition). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave_long Posted November 13, 2009 Share Posted November 13, 2009 For those that love logisitical nightmares, the top 20, 10' sq layouts could all be invited to the following members day!? :icon_eek: Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold The Fatadder Posted November 13, 2009 RMweb Gold Share Posted November 13, 2009 Starting to get a little tempted to have a play, probably with a design for something quite simple and under the size limit so as not to deflect too much funds away from Bodmin. A small layout in 2mm scale appeals, or maybe something in 4mm southern region........... Will have a think after Christmas.... edit to remove duplicated part of post... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Penlan Posted November 13, 2009 Share Posted November 13, 2009 T.I.C. Why not 2010 cubic inches?, the whole lot has to be contained within that area. Stubby47's already shown us something of that ilk... Penlan Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shadow Posted November 13, 2009 Share Posted November 13, 2009 What about scaling the "2010" theme with the modelling scheme? 2mm 2010 x 2 = 4020 square cm = approx 4' 5" sq ft 3mm 2010 x 3 = 6030 square cm = approx 6' 8" sq ft 4mm 2010 x 4 = 8040 square cm = approx 8'11" sq ft 7mm 2010 x 7 = 14140 square cm = approx 15' 7" sq ft Scenic section only. Fiddle yard(s) extra. Number of points too 5 as before? This way, the same layout could be built exactly the same in any scale. Shadow Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Forward! Posted November 13, 2009 Share Posted November 13, 2009 Hi all, I'm a maybe on this as I really liked the idea of the earlier challenge layout which inspired me to make a stab at a manageable 'quick' layout myself. I'm sure it is probably a silly idea, and I admit it has no discerable relation to either 2010 or the anniversary of the website, but over the last year or so I have seen some superb smaller layouts based on real locations that have inspired me. How about an 'inspired by a prototype' challenge? the build-blogs could take into account how the modeller used their research material and modelling skills to portray a section of real railway- whether they went down the proper scale facsimilie or the 'essence of' route. Heck, even the 'might have been' layouts could be included? With this sort of theme I imagine the square-footage of the layouts would probably average at a 'Catcott Burtle' kind of size- just for the sake of actually completing something in the set time? Of course nothing in the rules as proposed would stop people using prototype as an inspiration though.... I was just thinking of a suggestion that might encourage people to model a theme they haven't tried before rather than focussing on the 'how much track can you can fit in AxB space'. When rules are agreed on, I'd be happy to go along with constraints on size, but not quite so keen on the number of turnouts. Will Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave777 Posted November 13, 2009 Share Posted November 13, 2009 I was just thinking of a suggestion that might encourage people to model a theme they haven't tried before rather than focussing on the 'how much track can you can fit in AxB space'. That kinda gets back to what I had suggested on the first page - challenge yourself to do something new. 2mm 2010 x 2 = 4020 square cm = approx 4' 5" sq ft 3mm 2010 x 3 = 6030 square cm = approx 6' 8" sq ft 4mm 2010 x 4 = 8040 square cm = approx 8'11" sq ft 7mm 2010 x 7 = 14140 square cm = approx 15' 7" sq ft I have to say that seems like an excellent solution. Personally I'd drop the points thing - just go with the above maximum sizes and within that space you can do whatever you want. Those seem very manageable sizes - big enough to do something interesting, small enough that it doesn't become a behemoth in terms of size, time and cost. I still quite like the 'stretch yourself/challenge yourself' idea as a subtext and overall theme (can it be both?! ) , but I'm bias, and it doesn't seem to gathered much support. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mozzer models Posted November 13, 2009 Share Posted November 13, 2009 i am up for building a layout on top of the 2 i have on the go Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Barry Ten Posted November 13, 2009 RMweb Gold Share Posted November 13, 2009 For those that love logisitical nightmares, the top 20, 10' sq layouts could all be invited to the following members day! :icon_eek: I don't recall all that many challenge layouts being shown at the 2008 member's day - there was mine, Martin's Chittle, Russ's Deadwater Burn, (edit: and Keyhaven of course!) maybe one or two others? The drop-out/failure to complete rate will always be high for these things. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Bayford Posted November 13, 2009 Share Posted November 13, 2009 That kinda gets back to what I had suggested on the first page - challenge yourself to do something new. I have to say that seems like an excellent solution. Personally I'd drop the points thing - just go with the above maximum sizes and within that space you can do whatever you want. Those seem very manageable sizes - big enough to do something interesting, small enough that it doesn't become a behemoth in terms of size, time and cost. I still quite like the 'stretch yourself/challenge yourself' idea as a subtext and overall theme (can it be both?! ) , but I'm bias, and it doesn't seem to gathered much support. I agree with dropping the points idea as some people could possibly come up with some intresting layouts within the 10sqft area Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.