RMWeb 2010 Challenge

[Kenton]

It looks as though there's a healthy amount of interest anyway; maybe in a couple days have a vote

Give it at least the weekend to allow those who only visit when they are not working to at least feel they have had a chance to voice an opinion.

 

And, will you be limiting such a vote to only those who have at least said that they are possibles?

[Kenton]

All this debating is actually turning me off the idea.

 

You should have been around when the debate was on for the 2006 challenge ... every bit of every rule got a poll and there were even polls on having polls

 

The trouble with the hobby is that some have more time than others and some are simply quicker than others. We all know of certain members who could probably knock up a first class layout of 2010 cm in a year but there are plenty of us who will struggle and it might have nothing to do with the levels of skill involved just the ability to work fast and have plenty of time to do it.

 

I only started this thread just over 24hrs ago. Lets give a few other members at least the chance to read it before we all make a final decision and close off the discussion to everyone else. I for one coming to this thread after being away from RMWeb for a few days would feel excluded from the discussion and feel that the same old regular daily visitors have deliberately excluded me.

 

I know you now are all worked up and want to make a start but that just isn't in the spirit of a community.

[Etched Pixels]

If it's supposed to be simple then instead of getting fixated on 2010 and physical limits just set an abstract goal

 

"Most unusual but prototypically based working layout"

 

or

 

"Most interesting interpretation of a rarely modelled scene"

 

etc

[Ruston]

Why not a challenge to design and build an operating, by mechanical or electrical means, item for inclusion within a model railway (any scale) that is not currently available as RTR or kit item?

 

Oh, sorry, some of us did that in 2008 and it got completely ignored and forgotten.? 

 

 

[28ten]

Echoing Adrians comments, for those that are saying 10sq ft, here is a photo I have just taken of a 7mm Hymek on a piece of 4x2 mdf (8sq ft)

 

 

i wouldnt even bother in 10sq ft unless it was a diorama, even 2010 is rather limited in 7mm, and it would certainly be a challenge

[Russ (mines a pint)]

i wouldnt even bother in 10sq ft unless it was a diorama, even 2010 is rather limited in 7mm, and it would certainly be a challenge

Small layouts in 7mm are possible though,

Wythyn Reach

Alexandria Yard

to kick off?

[Barry Ten]

Small layouts in 7mm are possible though,

Wythyn Reach

Alexandria Yard

to kick off?

 

...and there was a Gauge 1 layout designed for the first challenge.

 

I think the key word there is challenge - it's not just about building a layout in N months, it's about using your brain cells to exercise a bit of creativity.

[cornelius]

ScaleOne32 actually!

 

But I agree - there has to be some kind of challenge in the rules otherwise it just becomes "build a layout" which, er, we do anyway. 10 sq ft is far bigger than I would attempt, I am considering 2010 sq cm just to keep in the spirit of it

[Adrian]

Small layouts in 7mm are possible though,

Wythyn Reach

Alexandria Yard

Agreed small layouts are possible. I can't remember the exact details of the two you quote but I seem to remember they are rather contrived examples, as it is 10 sq ft. is too tight for anything sensible in 7mm, 2010 sq. in is still a significant challenge in 7mm but there are feasible plans.

[Mikkel]

I'm thinking whether there is a way we could allow unfinished layouts to be part of the final voting?

 

It would probably mean that we had more final entrants, since less people would fall by the wayside as time wore on. And it would also be more inclusive of those who are either slow modellers or simply have no time.

 

The downside is that it could reduce the incentive to get things finished, but perhaps we could get over this by making a simple scoring system that rewarded those who had actually finsihed the layout. So eg a layout that was unfinished would have its voting score reduced by 25%.

 

Whether or not a layout was "finished" would be defined by the entrant her/himself. I'm sure voters would be able to look through any attempts at manipulating that, and we could require an overall layout shot from entrants.

[Il Grifone]

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

Thanks Ian,

 

This seems reasonable to me. It would stop stop trackwork experts building multiple tandem points! A threeway point would be a reasonable rule stretch, but a fiveway would be exaggerating! or would that just be a concession to those prepared to not just slap down some Streamline?

 

The operation of an R-T-R loco brings in the question of EM/P4 etc. having no R-T-R available. Once regauged she's no longer R-T-R.

 

10 square feet plus FY or 2010 square inches to include FY and no using the FY as an off stage point! (I was considering that one but decided it was cheating.)

 

I would certainly allow unfinished layouts in the final voting. It would then be up to the other members to decide on the validity of the entry.

 

2010 square centimetres (these are supposed to be obsolete!) is just over 2 square feet and we're back to the box files.

[Nortonian]

After a nights sleep and coming back to re-read some of the posts, it is obvious a lot of people are not digesting the point of this competition or understanding the difference between 10 foot square and ten square feet,......... still !.

 

If either 2010 inches is chosen or 10 square ft, this is to be the maximum, not the requirement. You don`t have to fill all the space. If it helps to make this clear, why not make it to include the fiddle yards for 2 & 4mm modellers, but to have the fiddle yards as extra for the larger 7mm modellers on account of size ?.

 

Also, there appears to be a lot excuses as regards finishing the layout to a reasonable standard within the timescale, which looks to be about a year, surely that`s enough !. I am sure there are many on here who have sons and daughters who attend collage or university, who have assignments that need to be finished on time. Why can`t we ?. Just get on with it and do it. Don`t make it too big, that`s the point, and you will stand a chance of finishing it, or near as possible. I am all in favour of allowing some `not quite finished`.

 

As regards armchair modellers, well that just beggars belief !. `Oh I`ll get round to it one day`, come on gentlemen, wake up !. Putting a few sketches down on paper while everyone else commits themselves to the spirit ?.

 

Kindest

 

Ian

[PGN]

I am persuaded that a defined layout size is going to be problematical because of the variety of scales.

 

I had been wondering about other ways to theme it on "2010" (e.g. 20 foot of track, 10 items of rolling stock)

 

And then it came to me.

 

Why not make the search for an appropriate interpretation of "2010" PART OF the challenge? So that the entrants themselves determine HOW the layout they build defines the theme "2010". That way, nobody who has suggested an interpretation of 2010 that can be used for the purpose of the competition need be disappointed by the membership voting in favour of a different interpretation. Just as every modeller builds the models that satisfy his or her personal interpretation of "railway modelling", so every competition entrant can build the layout that satisfies his or her interpretation of the theme "2010". And, indeed, it could then become one of the judging criteria: how well does this layout interpret the theme 2010?

 

(As for locomotive numbers, I have just been very disappointed on looking up the NER R class numbering list to discover that the block of numbers in the "2000" series allocated to this class begins at 2011. Blastpipe!)

[ajdown]

Why not make the search for an appropriate interpretation of "2010" PART OF the challenge? So that the entrants themselves determine HOW the layout they build defines the theme "2010".

 

I must admit I find myself liking this the most out of the "suggestions" so far.

 

I'm thinking of a non-operating layout, with a broken down train blocking a busy station in the evening rushhour with 2010 passengers stuck unable to get home ... but I think I'd go slightly insane painting all those little people especially in N gauge.

[Coombe Barton]

I'm a definitely not because I know that I do not have the time, no other reason. I think it's a cracking idea.

 

[Edit] My time is limited because of my work - 13-14 hours a day out of the house. I know it's unhealthy, but that's how it is at the moment.

 

[Edit again] And now I've said 'sod it' and want to take part.

[Coombe Barton]

Cyril Freezer once wrote that six inches along a corridor would make an admirable model railway - he was talking 4mm at the time. So that's 20ft long for this.

 

And if you wanted continuous, that's a 6ft 10in diameter circle. Probably precludes P4 but EM should be OK, as will OO with a running length of 20ft.

 

So having thoughts, what could you fit into 6 in?

[Il Grifone]

In 4mm scale, 6" is just wide enough for two tracks and a platform, but that would be part of the challenge. IIRC, C.J.F.'s width was 7", which gives a little more breathing space.

[Barry Ten]

As regards armchair modellers, well that just beggars belief !. `Oh I`ll get round to it one day`, come on gentlemen, wake up !. Putting a few sketches down on paper while everyone else commits themselves to the spirit ?.

 

Kindest

 

Ian

 

Yep - while we're at it, we might as well have a third category for modellers who were too busy to do a plan, but had this really great idea in their heads...

 

 

I'm honestly taken aback at the amount of debate around the very generous 2010 square inch challenge. The 2006 challenge dictated that layouts be built in a lot less area than this, including fiddleyard, and people just got on with it - in all scales. There was even an attempt at a continuous run, if I remember rightly. It didn't get completed but I don't think there was anything unworkable about the concept.

 

I can accept that it will be more challenging as the scale goes up, but isn't that the point? To meet that challenge? I know Marc Smith has been hatching a great scheme for a minimum space 7mm layout that would easily fall within the current criteria, with room to spare. It can be done, it just means accepting that you're not going to be able to model an entire terminus or something. But you could do, say, a goods shed and some sidings, or a small engine shed. Take a leaf from Mikkel's approach of biting a big layout down into workable elements. Or work in a new scale: my challenge layout was HO, a scale I'd never worked in before.

[Steadfast]

I'd definitely be interested in trying to build a layout for this - and the 2010 sq in would suit me much better as it'd mean I could use the boards in the garage that are awaiting a layout. The boards come to 12 ft square, or 1728 sq in, which plus fiddle yard of some description would fit in nicely. Only five points though...now that's the challenge!

 

cheers

 

jo

 

 

[Andy Y]

Such challenges are a catalyst that increase the likelihood of someone doing something and possibly even completing it or even showing it. I'd say the 2010" is likely to give a broader range of possibilities than the 10' whilst challenging thinking too as there was some real imagination and formula breaking stuff in the last one. Being that bit larger than the last challenge should broaden the possible appeal and be more likely to make an impact. Of course it doesn't have to be that big if you don't want (I'll try not to repeat that again).

 

It's a challenge, if you want to go for it - do so. If you don't want to - don't. No set of constraints will suit everyone and it would be daft to try to do so. All we should do is come up with something that's reasonable and quantifiable and then participate or not.

 

If you want something bigger there's no harm in using the challenge to complete something that may go on to form a part of a larger work as Al's said above.

 

 

[dave_long]

Well if anyone really has any issues with fitting a 7mm layout in to this kind of space then have a look at some of the layouts Mike Bragg has built in 7mm. Lenches bridge, Ashwood basin. Ashwood basin is 108x22 ok so just outside 2010" but only just you can easily make that 108x18.6 and that includes a fiddleyard! His latest project can be seen on his blog homepage : Pattingham ok so adding the fiddleyard to this takes you over but I'm sure people could come up with something to fit!? 

[Kenton]

and no using the FY as an off stage point! (I was considering that one but decided it was cheating.)

 

So sector plates, traversers, cassettes are to be excluded ? I don't think that is particularly fair

 

 

as far as metric vs imperial measurements how about an area

20 x100 by 10 x100

 

ie 2m x 1m that would be approximately 18 sqft - if you can't build a layout in that area you all have too much space, time and money at your disposal.

[Kenton]

As regards armchair modellers, well that just beggars belief !. `Oh I`ll get round to it one day`, come on gentlemen, wake up !. Putting a few sketches down on paper while everyone else commits themselves to the spirit ?.

 

You also seem to fail to understand the point of that suggestion as a separate category.

I was not suggesting it should be judged alongside the completed layouts. It should be in a category all of its own.

I think it would have merit in trying to improve the quality of some of the so called plans that we often see on RMWeb that are just scribbles and have no realistic chance of ever being built simply because they do not fit.

 

Now I know nothing of your circumstances but I am pretty sure that there are many members who do not have access to the space for a layout or the funds to be able to build one let alone the time. They may have other projects ongoing or their present circumstances preclude them from actually building a layout. I would like those "armchair modellers" to have the opportunity to join in the spirit of a challenge and not to feel excluded by those who are fortunate enough to be highly skilled, have the funds, time and space to be able to spend on such a project.

 

For those who are able to build fast to an extremely high level I don't think there is much incentive in a challenge - they would build what they want in a year and probably exhibit it with invites even before it is started and get asked to write articles about it for magazines. For the majority of us modellers out there getting the drive and incentive to move that little bit further is not readily there. The challenge provides the opportunity to go that one step further.

 

I suppose you would have also banned "half started layouts" from being entered into the 2006 challenge and would also have them banned them from this one too?

 

I am sorry but as with the 2006 challenge I am passionate about the chance of getting members involved and the taking part in the experience hopefully increasing the layouts posted on RMWeb and the subsequent interaction that develops out of it.

I don't really care that much if everyone finishes or who in the end gets voted the best or for what reason. It is the taking part that I believe is important and entering into the spirit of the challenge.

[pirouets]

I've been thinking about this and will probably take part as there is a small layout for my kids sitting on bare boards that we could put the scenary around. We won't win anything but it will hopefully get the process of turning it into a "proper" layout started.

 

One question, if a rule such as the 5 points does come in to play, would it include points used in the fiddle yard, or just in the scenic sections? Just a thought and have to confess I only restarted from the middle of page 5 just now rather than re-read the whole thread.

[Guest 009matt]

what about a series of modular boards, in a variety of scales, that can be coordinated by as many members that want to commit. Meet up at a members day and join up and run stuff? All built to a particular standard.

 

Matt