Exhibiting and scrutiny

[Butler Henderson]

Operating can cover a number of different issues, some of which are the basics wrong others are one off mistakes.

 

Many years ago I was asked to help operate an O gauge layout a club had recently purchased. Turned out no knew how it worked and their really was no way it should have been on display.

 

Another club had a OO dockyard layout that had the up mainline out of vertical alignment at one baseboard joint but those who knew about these things were convinced was alright. Cue one disaster after another at exhibition.

 

More recently without an available assistant until midday and conequently by 1145 was losing concentration to the point that I sent a push pull, carriages first through, through 2 sets of point set wrong :-(

[Andy Reichert]

Engineering that is overlooked or skipped in the model . . . but easily noticed if you are aware of the prototype.

 

At least here in the USA, a very high percentage of model "exhibitors" (mostly home layouts open to invited viewers/operators and proudly published as magazine articles.) are blind to "throw sleepers", shiny top wing and check rails, cut away stock rails to accommodate blunt point ends, proper turnout geometry, clumsy rail joiners, uncoupling skewers, un-timbered crossovers and lately, "fine-scale" wheels that are too narrow for their frog flange ways. If the track is hand-laid, rails are typically mounted directly on ties, often with solder blobs or huge over-scale spikes..

 

The magazine solutions to nearly all the above is "paint your track to blend in with the background" and it will look absolutely "realistic". Which presumably it does, provided you never look at the real thing, which seems to satisfy most. (by not looking that is). Working suspension is seen as a actually retrograde step if it gets in the way of the too narrow wheel problem.

 

All the above are regarded as "necessary compromises", even if they cost much more but could be done, in  order to save any effort.

 

For the UK I would add Peco double track spacing with reverse curve crossovers, Peco sleeper spacing, those huge RTR couplers and tight curves that would lock buffers, but for the couplers.

 

Of course, for many in the UK, the small size of their home modelling space, their limited available funds and time, do make a lot of the UK modifications necessary. But in the US, it's mostly due to "saving time in order to get up and "operating".  And if you notice, it's "The Art of model railroading license".

 

Andy

[johnarcher]

Engineering that is overlooked or skipped in the model . . . but easily noticed if you are aware of the prototype.

 

At least here in the USA, a very high percentage of model "exhibitors" (mostly home layouts open to invited viewers/operators and proudly published as magazine articles.) are blind to "throw sleepers", shiny top wing and check rails, cut away stock rails to accommodate blunt point ends, proper turnout geometry, clumsy rail joiners, uncoupling skewers, un-timbered crossovers and lately, "fine-scale" wheels that are too narrow for their frog flange ways. If the track is hand-laid, rails are typically mounted directly on ties, often with solder blobs or huge over-scale spikes..

 

The magazine solutions to nearly all the above is "paint your track to blend in with the background" and it will look absolutely "realistic". Which presumably it does, provided you never look at the real thing, which seems to satisfy most. (by not looking that is). Working suspension is seen as a actually retrograde step if it gets in the way of the too narrow wheel problem.

 

All the above are regarded as "necessary compromises", even if they cost much more but could be done, in  order to save any effort.

 

For the UK I would add Peco double track spacing with reverse curve crossovers, Peco sleeper spacing, those huge RTR couplers and tight curves that would lock buffers, but for the couplers.

 

Of course, for many in the UK, the small size of their home modelling space, their limited available funds and time, do make a lot of the UK modifications necessary. But in the US, it's mostly due to "saving time in order to get up and "operating".  And if you notice, it's "The Art of model railroading license".

 

Andy

In that case I pretty much agree with all you say - it's just that I'd consider those to be 'artistic' as much as engineering compromises, they affect appearance at least as much as function. Shiny tops to check rails work OK, it's how they look is the problem (same for some auto-couplers, Peco sleepers and other things you mention).

Actually I don't think smaller space makes the UK compromises necessary, one can always choose to model what will fit into the space without those compromises, it depends on each person's priorities.

Mickey - I don't think the implication is that 'operation' is wrong, the problem is with cutting all those corners in order to get to it quicker.

[Andy Reichert]

Real railways need all the engineering above working to operate. Models can operate (US Style at least ) without any modelling realism or accuracy. You just need spurs with industries, locos, box cars, skewers and paperwork.

Andy

[Reorte]

Depends what your definition of "mundane or repetitive" is, surely??

For me in the 1980s DMU & EMU movements through Birmingham New St were so mundane & repetitive we didn't even look at them, so by thatcriteria Jim S-W's P4 New St is a waste of space... except it is of a very "high standard & inspirational" by your other comment, so should it be exhibited or not (eventually!) - which is it to be??

That's a weird one - quite often what I find uninteresting, or outright dislike, in the real world can still make a model that I can spend a lot of time watching at an exhibition (even if everything else being equal I'll gravitate to one more closely aligned with my interests). I guess that I just like a good model, no matter what it's of.

[chaz]

When I go to an exhibition as a spectator the layouts I scrutinise are those that interest me. I think that visitors taking a close look at a layout is what the owner/operator is hoping for - I certainly have felt that way when I have taken Dock Green to a show. I would be very disappointed if everybody moved quickly on without a second glance. Sustained interest, maybe a return later for another look or even an intelligent question or two - that is what makes it worth the effort. Of course aspects of the layout might be "wrong" or you may feel that you wouldn't have done it that way. There may be legitimate comments to be made but these are best presented "wrapped up" positively. "I really like your layout, that bridge/farm-house/signal cabin is excellent and that Royal Scot/A4/Warship is lovely but I was just wondering about....". Takes the sting out and may provoke an interesting exchange - but be ready to withdraw gracefully.....

 

There are layouts that I would not spend long looking at, indeed I have seen some at shows that I hope never to see again. No need for me to go into details - everybody can make up their own little list of turn-offs! But telling the operators that you think their layout poor would be plain bad-manners. As I may have said before, better to walk quietly on.

 

Chaz

[jamie92208]

I had a nice occurence exhibiting Green Ayre Warley this year.   We've been there the two previous years with various boards as demonstrators and each year a young man, who is onbiously on the autism spectrum has come up and talked to us.   This year he came to see the layout and it was great to see how he has matured and his social skills have improved tremendously.   It's good that the hobby provides a safe environment for people with this disorder.

 

Jamie