RMWeb 2010 Challenge

[shortliner]

My thought as to why 5 turnouts in 10 square feet is restrictive (sorry not to have posted sooner but I have been elsewhere). It is perfectly possible to get an operating OO/HO layout with 5 turnouts into less than 5 square feet - for example the original Timesaver can be built in 4' 8??" x 12"( or about 4.7 square feet - so there is very little challenge in doing it in 10 square feet. I'm happy to go with ANY layout in a MAXIMUM of either 10 square feet or 2010 square inches - with no other restrictions

[modfather]

2010 square inches seems good, its bigger than the 18.83 challenge, and look wht came from that - a vriety of models with a variety of plans and ideas, which is what we are trying to encourage, as for other scales, I'm sure you'll manage, compromise is surely the art of 7mm and 2mm modellers!

[Il Grifone]

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

 

I didn't intend the use of traversers etc in the fiddle yard to be banned, just not used instead of one of the 'onstage' points (eg as a loop entry point). Onstage sector plates or traversers to count as a 'point'. I assume the five points do not include offstage FY trackwork. A single line and crane shunting is not too good an idea ( I know - been there. )

[shortliner]

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?

 

 

 

5 points is too limiting for the HO modeller!

I'm hoping to start building this actual railway yard- complete in itself, (although the carfloat would be done with a double length locolift) http://www.carendt.u...ge90/index.html 5th down

very shortly, and angling the rear to allowfor the sq ins for the locolift, it would fit the 10 sq ft exactly - but no way could it be done with 5 points!

Nae fuss - I'll just get on with building it without entering

[iL Dottore]

10ft² and 5 points?

What's that in metric? I make it roughly 1.52m x 0.6m (approx 0.9m²). I'd be tempted to have-a-go, even though experience has shown me to a bit of a laggard in such matters (my 2008 competition entry is only just now nearing completion)

 

If it wasn't for the 5 points qualification, I'd model the Ghan on the Nullarbor Plain in Oz I'll have a think (and maybe try to put something together)

 

F

 

As for the points all I can say is: Gran Bretagne: nul points (sorry couldn't resist that!)

[Redkiterail]

What's that in metric? I make it roughly 1.52m x 0.6m (approx 0.9m²). I'd be tempted to have-a-go, even though experience has shown me to a bit of a laggard in such matters (my 2008 competition entry is only just now nearing completion)

 

If it wasn't for the 5 points qualification, I'd model the Ghan on the Nullarbor Plain in Oz I'll have a think (and maybe try to put something together)

 

F

 

As for the points all I can say is: Gran Bretagne: nul points (sorry couldn't resist that!)

10 feet is 3.04800 meters with a foot is 0.3048 meters

[The Stationmaster]

What would a turntable count as (assuming it serves more than one road)? And presumably a fiddle yard is not compulsory?

[Mikkel]

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

 

 

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.

 

 

No excuses here, Ian. Meeting tough deadlines is what I do for a living, so the concept of deadlines is pretty mundane stuff to me .

 

I was trying to broaden the field a little. We obviously need a timeframe, and one year makes a lot of sense. But it inevitably favours those who model fast or are able to allocate a reasonable amount of time (and that's not always a matter of prioritizing - I haven't had time to watch TV for ages).

 

If I enter the competition I would make an honest effort to reach the deadline, but what with a heavy workload and suddenly arising emergencies I can't be sure if I could make it. And I certainly wouldn't want to make a shoddy or rushed layout just for the sake of a competition. Would you?

 

So I suggested there could be an allowance for those who entered the competition but didn't quite finish the layout, although as I stated it should obviously be judged on different conditions.

 

Of course, that's only if people actually want a broadly inclusive competition. I see Kenton's excellent arguments seems to have some support, so maybe they do?

[Dave47549]

.

[S.A.C Martin]

...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.

 

Pretty much sums it up for me! All inclusive of members who want to take part. I can't see why we can't have a design and a practical category for the competition, with perhaps some overlap for everyone to submit a design for the design comp and then whoever wants to enter the practical with that plan can do so too.

[Russ (mines a pint)]

Having read the whole thread and compared it with the 2006/7 challenge I think the points rule should be dropped, other than symbolism of the 5 years, it is very restricting to certain small scales, and too much for the larger ones.

 

If we have to have some symbolism of the 5 years of RmWeb (which would be nice) maybe we could leave it to the individuliasm of the builder who would explain the link , this in itself could lead to some individual interpretations, a stone circle with 5 stones, 5 sheep in a field, 5 buses in a garage, 5 people on a platform, 5 dustbins in a yard, you know the sort of thing ?

[S.A.C Martin]

... a stone circle with 5 stones, 5 sheep in a field, 5 buses in a garage, 5 people on a platform, 5 dustbins in a yard, you know the sort of thing ?

 

...5 Golden Riiiiiiiings!

 

I'll get my coat...

[Steadfast]

What i like about the challenge is it provides the impetus/excuse/kick up the **** fr those of us that don't have a layout to actually do something (also, i'm quite happy for someone to enter even if they've already got layouts coming out of their ears ).

 

That's the effect I'm hoping it'll have on me!

...5 Golden Riiiiiiiings!

 

I'll get my coat...

Raise you a Partridge?

 

cheers

 

jo

[Nortonian]

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.

 

 

Kenton,

I am afraid you are wrong in your assumption that `I fail to understand`. I do not understand why you are trying to move the goalposts before they`ve been set.

 

If Cadburys offered a holiday competition based on your reasons why their `Fingers` were the best in ten words, you would`nt write to them asking them to make a co-running competition on the merits of tubular or flat bottomed fingers ?, would you ?.

Andy has said that this is a competition to `build ` a layout in a `suggested` up to ,2010 inches with up to five points. `That`s the competition` !.

 

I see your point about the written entries, but you know as well as the rest of us that what is drawn, always works out differently on the ground, or the layout board. Therefor, it would be impossible to check the merits of the plans until built. Please don`t say we could use Templot, because that would be cheating.

This competition is about making something, not winning a prize !.

 

The rest of your retort is, I assume and correct me If I am wrong as this is how it looks to be worded, is aimed at me. Well you are right, you do not know my circumstances so I will help you out.

i have little room for this competition, but I am willing to give it the space for the build. I have never finished a layout before, I don`t want to win, I just want to be spurred on to finish something to the best of my abilities.

 

I have no problem with half finished layouts, mine might be one of them, but its the entering that counts.

 

I do not regard myself as building fast or to a high level, but this challenge would be just that. Challenging me !.

 

 

I am only getting a little irked by all the negative comments before we have even started. Problem these days Kenton is we have too much choice. 20-30 years ago we would of just got on with it and done it.

 

Best regards

 

Ian

[Burkitt]

What are people's thoughts regarding entering a layout that has been started prior to the competition beginning? I've only just started tracklaying on my Claverton Engineering layout, and it fits the under 2010 square inches and five points requirements. I'd be interested in taking part in the competition, but can't really start another layout when this one has only just got under way.

 

Paul

[Taigatrommel]

What are people's thoughts regarding entering a layout that has been started prior to the competition beginning? I've only just started tracklaying on my Claverton Engineering layout, and it fits the under 2010 square inches and five points requirements. I'd be interested in taking part in the competition, but can't really start another layout when this one has only just got under way.

 

Paul

 

I've been wondering this myself as I've been reading through this thread. I'm a serial layout starter, it's a few years since I've actually finished one! I have two in my playroom right now which could fit some of the criteria suggested so far, but need me to find motivation to finish. This could give me some impetus.

[Bob Reid]

My preference would be for the simplest option - one set size. I thought the 10 square feet was ideal, with the absolute minimum of 'other' rules - even the number of points used is perhaps questionable - if you use too many, in the end it'll look a bit odd within the space restrictions given. As to scale, perhaps the best solution would be to roughly scale up or down the maximum size using 4mm/ft & 10 square feet as the benchmark. There was (as far as I can remember) no restriction on whether a layout was finished in the last layout challenge however clearly the incentive to win is to bring it to as near finished as possible.

 

So I'd offer as a very basic challenge

 

2mm/ft or less = 5 square feet

4mm/ft = 10 square feet

7mm/ft or more = 20 square feet

 

- A Layout with at least one working locomotive or unit

- No restriction on the number of points/turnouts

- If, as in the past with other things, a competition attracts the RTR manufacturers & traders, there would be a clear incentive to utilise RTR stock or accessories, but it wouldn't be mandatory

- The fiddle yard (turntable/traverser or whatever) is additional to the 10 square feet however it should not exceed half of the scenic part of the layouts area i.e. no more than 5 square feet in the case of a 4mm to the foot layout.

 

[Edited to correct my late night error in ft² as opposed to square feet]

[Nortonian]

Andy,

 

I know you will of probably thought of this but just as a reminder to you and all, its Warley show coming up and this will be a good opportunity to buy items required for this challenge, so please can you set the rules soon so as we can plan it out then we will know what to buy.

 

Regards

 

Ian

[ajdown]

May I tentatively suggest a more appropriate date for the closure of entry submission be 20th October 2010? Ok so it's a Wednesday but I'm sure you can see where I'm coming from

[jmg123]

 

So I suggested there could be an allowance for those who entered the competition but didn't quite finish the layout, although as I stated it should obviously be judged on different conditions.

 

Why not have a separate winner for the best unfinished one. It wouldn't need a prize as it was unfinished , but would give a bit or recognition to someone who tried hard but didn't quite make it

[Guest 009matt]

5 items of rolling stock?

[The Stationmaster]

Having read the whole thread and compared it with the 2006/7 challenge I think the points rule should be dropped, other than symbolism of the 5 years, it is very restricting to certain small scales, and too much for the larger ones.

 

If we have to have some symbolism of the 5 years of RmWeb (which would be nice) maybe we could leave it to the individuliasm of the builder who would explain the link , this in itself could lead to some individual interpretations, a stone circle with 5 stones, 5 sheep in a field, 5 buses in a garage, 5 people on a platform, 5 dustbins in a yard, you know the sort of thing ?

 

I like that idea (in fact I like it so much that I have already decided on my five - so that'll be the end of that one knowing my luck ).

[Kenton]

Andy has said that this is a competition to `build ` a layout in a `suggested` up to ,2010 inches with up to five points. `That`s the competition` !.

 

I think that is not a given.

I believe Andy was just entering in the general discussion of my original post to start this topic. Which was just asking for a open discussion on if when and what.

 

Clearly Andy has a big say in what the format of any Challenge that is going to bear the title "RMWeb Challenge" but I think he would have locked off the discussion by now and published his idea as final.

 

However, with the same spirit of the 2006 Challenge, he appears to be backing the concept of a challenge with any "rules" arrived at with the consent of the RMWeb community.

 

I personally am not trying to influence anything - trying just to throw in ideas and possible suggestions - just like my position with the 2006 challenge. Even my suggested dates were open.

 

I just think it is time for another challenge.

 

One of the reasons favouring some form of rule voting (as with last time) is that discussions like this tend to involve only the perhaps more vocal members on RMWeb. The ever present silent majority may all have an interest but just are not yet driven to discuss.

 

May I tentatively suggest a more appropriate date for the closure of entry submission be 20th October 2010? Ok so it's a Wednesday but I'm sure you can see where I'm coming from

 

as an alternative I rather like that suggestion - even better 20:10hr on 20.10.2010 it does have a real ring about it even if it does shave a whole 2 months off the available time :D

[Easterner]

None of this needs any separate categorisation. The 2007 challenge was voted on in four categories: Scenics, Operations, Design and Prototype. Andy will tell us how the matrix worked, but I think votes in all categories were added together, plus we had an extra vote for best layout overall, and the total votes decided the winner.

 

Why not allow any of tea boy's list to enter? A finished or near-finished layout would get votes in all categories. A ScaleOne32 tymesaver in 2010 sq. in. would get marks for clever design and interesting operation, but probably score zero for scenics or prototypicality. A plan would probably only get marks in the Design category - and wouyld be marked low by those who doubted it was practicable. An unbuilt plan would be very unlikely to win overall, but it might win that category.

 

And I don't think it's about the prizes. There don't even have to be prizes - and as far as I know no-one has offered any yet. Like Kenton (I think) I would like to see as many people participate as possible, but I think the challenge's real point is as an extension of our Andy's mission statement: "modelling inspiration". A range of finished challenge layouts will inspire; so will a range of challenge plans.

 

So I say let every form of entry in: handbuilt, RTR, Virtual Model Railway or pipe dream; and let them be judged accordingly.

[JZ]

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

 

Matt

 

2010sq mm is less than 3.2 sq inches.