RMWeb 2010 Challenge

[Kenton]

but not quite so keen on the number of turnouts.

Would you/anyone care to expand on why the limit of 5 turnouts/points is a showstopper for them.

(especially if they are counted as RTR placements - ie a double slip = 3-way = regular point)

 

I can see that if the FY was also included in the count there would not be much left. But otherwise that makes quite a lot of trackwork in the 4mm and certainly 7mm scales.

 

I have to add that without some limits it just becomes a "build any old layout in 12 months" ... which would be a challenge for most of us but absolutely nothing to do with a 2010 theme.

[dave_long]

? 

 

 

dave_long, on 13 November 2009 - 14:16 , said:

For those that love logisitical nightmares, the top 20, 10' sq layouts could all be invited to the following members day!

 

 

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, maybe one or two others? The drop-out/failure to complete rate will always be high for these things.

 

 

 

It was just a little tongue in cheek. It would be nice to see 20+ layouts entered started and finished, but you're right there does tend to be a high drop out rate, which is understandable.

 

 

[ian]

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

 

4020 sq.cm = 623 sq in = 4.3 sq ft (say, 4' 3" x 1')

6030 sq.cm = 935 sq in = 6.5 sq ft

8040 sq.cm = 1246 sq in = 8.7 sq ft (say 4'3" x 2')

14140 sq.cm = 2192 sq in =15.2 sq ft

 

Sorry - but it doesn't scale up that way. You would have to multiply by 4, 9, 16 and 49 rather than 2, 3, 4 and 7.

[Guest 009matt]

4020 sq.cm = 623 sq in = 4.3 sq ft (say, 4' 3" x 1')

6030 sq.cm = 935 sq in = 6.5 sq ft

8040 sq.cm = 1246 sq in = 8.7 sq ft (say 4'3" x 2')

14140 sq.cm = 2192 sq in =15.2 sq ft

 

Sorry - but it doesn't scale up that way. You would have to multiply by 4, 9, 16 and 49 rather than 2, 3, 4 and 7.

 

 

Why can't we don 2010 square cm or mm. Decimalisation has been around for over 30 years now. (Coat is definately on)

 

Matt

[Kenton]

The drop-out/failure to complete rate will always be high for these things.

Don't remind me

IIRC the previous challenge had something like 60 "volunteering" about 20 started woodwork and as you indicated half a dozen "finishing".

 

It is very easy to forget the time that is required and we don't all have the modelling pace that Chris (Cement Quay Extension) has.

 

Partly why I was suggesting a category just for the armchair modeller - a planners section that would abide by the same rules and be able to show that it would work if built (clearances, etc)

 

In many cases it is nothing to do with finishing - it is all to do with the encouragement and enthusiasm to actually make a start. We may well never stand a chance of finishing in 12 months but to start and keep going and to take part is the main objective. (I probably put myself in that category - as I already have 4 and a half layouts in progress. Finding even 2010sqcm for another is going to be the challenge let alone the time/cost/permission to build it)

[shortliner]

I have a design for a complete RR (based on a prototype!) in 10 sq feet, but the 5 points rule is too restrictive - why not keep it all in the "10"s - max 2010 square ins. (or 10 square feet - whichever) and up to 10 points - this leaves a lot more choice to the consumer/entrant!

[Barry Ten]

Would you/anyone care to expand on why the limit of 5 turnouts/points is a showstopper for them.

(especially if they are counted as RTR placements - ie a double slip = 3-way = regular point)

 

 

I also don't think that 5 points is unduly restrictive. I'd have killed for a fifth point (ie the room to put one in) on Cogirep!

[shortliner]

Kenton, on 13 November 2009 - 15:20 , said:

 

Would you/anyone care to expand on why the limit of 5 turnouts/points is a showstopper for them.

(especially if they are counted as RTR placements - ie a double slip = 3-way = regular point)

 

Barry Ten replied

I also don't think that 5 points is unduly restrictive. I'd have killed for a fifth point (ie the room to put one in) on Cogirep!

 

Jack says

It all depends what you are trying to fit into the space - If you are looking at a 10' x 1' Ashburton then 5 points may well be ideal - on the other hand if you are looking at an industrial railway with multiple sidings in 10 sq feet that is restrictive

[Barry Ten]

It all depends what you are trying to fit into the space - If you are looking at a 10' x 1' Ashburton then 5 points may well be ideal - on the other hand if you are looking at an industrial railway with multiple sidings in 10 sq feet that is restrictive

 

Agreed, but it could be regarded as a gentle steer in the direction of not getting over-ambitious?

[The Fatadder]

In my mind this sort of 'competition' is an area where it should have as few restrictions as possible. The more restrictive its made, the fewer people are going to enter (and the more likely that someone will get halfway through building their layout and decide 'I'd rather add that 6th point' etc and drop out so that they can build the layout the way they want to.

 

The same goes with size restrictions, if you start making things too small then it gets very different to model something which resembles a modern prototype.

 

Something like the 2010 gives enough space to make a 'proper' layout (whilst those who would prefer to work to a smaller space, or are using a smaller scale that dosnt need a large space can work to their desired size.)

 

At the end of the day from the competition side of things, its not going to matter how big a layout is, it will the the quality that will govern whether or not it wins, and a very good quality smaller layout may appeal to the voters a lot more than a less detailed layout thats twice the size...

[LNERandBR]

I have to add that without some limits it just becomes a "build any old layout in 12 months" ... which would be a challenge for most of us but absolutely nothing to do with a 2010 theme.

 

From what I've read earlier in the thread one reason behind the 5 point restriction is because it will be the 5th birthday of RMweb next year.

[shortliner]

I can understand your point, but if one is building a layout to be used at home - but also to fit within the competition, surely the object is to end up with something that you can use afterwards, rather than just as a competition entry. If it was a paper exercise using XTrkCad the limit on the number of turnouts makes sense, but if it is actually being built it must fit within future plans - after all the builder has a sum invested in the result. In my case I would need to buy three turnouts as I have the rest on hand - but 5 turnouts wouldn't give me what I need to be useful later.

[LNERandBR]

There's nothing to say you can't make changes to the layout after the end of the competition.

[The Fatadder]

There's nothing to say you can't make changes to the layout after the end of the competition.

 

Other than its a bit late if your going to be having to start ripping up track to add in extra points etc.....

[Neal Ball]

I scanned teh 1st and last page - easier that way!

 

So a 2010 is on; 10 sq ft; 5 points.

 

When do we start? When does it need to be finished?

 

 

[Andy Y]

Understandably you missed bits Neal.

 

It looks as though there's a healthy amount of interest anyway; maybe in a couple days have a vote on whether it's 10 ft² or 2010 inches^2, 5 points or unrestricted. I'm probably favouring the 2010 max inc of FY etc with no other real restriction; keeps it simple. After all it's the modelling and creativity that will be important rather than restrictive rules.

 

 

[Easterner]

I'm probably favouring the 2010 max inc of FY etc with no other real restriction;

 

At the risk of chaff, me too. (If Andy Y and I agree, is that a consensus?)

 

Incidentally I think one category of prize should be for a paper entry, as a previous poster (can't recall who) said, "to give the armchair modeller a chance. Other categories for 1st layout? What else?

[(The) Youth]

Why not intead of 5 points have what Arnold are advertising on page 140 of the most recent model rail and have 5 "pints and crossings"

[28ten]

Understandably you missed bits Neal.

 

It looks as though there's a healthy amount of interest anyway; maybe in a couple days have a vote on whether it's 10 ft² or 2010 inches^2, 5 points or unrestricted. I'm probably favouring the 2010 max inc of FY etc with no other real restriction; keeps it simple. After all it's the modelling and creativity that will be important rather than restrictive rules.

 

 

 

this has been like a council meeting, inclusiveness, equal opps, has anybody done a risk assesment of the dangers involved? the less rules the better, but I would say that for those contemplating the larger scales 2010 inches is better.

[carl1967]

hi all

 

if a Harbour layout is done, i will gladly do a smorl ship to go in it.

 

carl

[James Hilton]

I liked the easy 10 square feet (not 10 feet squared!) and 5 points. All this debating is actually turning me off the idea. I liked the suggestion of re-running the 2006 challenge rules, just changing area to 10 square feet, and adding the 5 point rule.

If I just wanted to build a layout in a year I wouldn't enter a challenge - where's the challenge in just 2010 square inches? Especially if fiddle yards are extra!

[JohnDMJ]

So, it's 10 sq ft max. with max. 5 points? (or just over a yard square!) Just think of the possibilities in T Gauge!

[The Fatadder]

So, it's 10 sq ft max. with max. 5 points? (or just over a yard square!) Just think of the possibilities in T Gauge!

 

 

It looks as though there's a healthy amount of interest anyway; maybe in a couple days have a vote on whether it's 10 ft² or 2010 inches^2, 5 points or unrestricted. I'm probably favouring the 2010 max inc of FY etc with no other real restriction; keeps it simple. After all it's the modelling and creativity that will be important rather than restrictive rules.

 

 

 

2010 square inches seems to be the way Andy is heading (though a vote was mentioned), but that would include the fiddle yard!

[Adrian]

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).

 

 

I liked the easy 10 square feet (not 10 feet squared!) and 5 points. All this debating is actually turning me off the idea. I liked the suggestion of re-running the 2006 challenge rules, just changing area to 10 square feet, and adding the 5 point rule.

If I just wanted to build a layout in a year I wouldn't enter a challenge - where's the challenge in just 2010 square inches? Especially if fiddle yards are extra!

 

Unfortunately 10 sq ft is a whisker too small to do anything sensible in 7mm so this'll exclude a fair number of potential entrants. A single turnout in 7mm covers nearly 1 sq ft of real estate so it'd be tight. At least 2010 square inches gives just enough room to work something out in 7mm, also I believe it's a limit and not a target.

[The Stationmaster]

2010 square inches seems to be the way Andy is heading (though a vote was mentioned), but that would include the fiddle yard!

 

That's nigh on 14 sq ft which is fairish size if you go all the way. But then looked at another way it's a bit over half a sheet of 6'x4' of whatever (if I could cut it straight) so it is a useful size for something that could go into a permanent layout at a later date.

 

The restriction on the number of points does, I think, need to be clarified down to either point ends or front stretcher bars or some such thing as there's a lot of difference between a couple of ordinary turnouts and a couple of tandem points. Otherwise my braiin is bubbling over with ideas about actually making something that will fit into my planned final scenario.....