Exhibition Layouts - and the winner is.....

[de Selby]

I've read with interest the recent "Exhibitions - a punter's view" and "Exhibitions - the exhibitors view" threads. Much of the comment in them is very relevant to a query (or problem?) which I am currently pondering. This is slightly more specific than either of these threads though, so hopefully by posting here, I can tap in to the expertise of the forum for some ideas and suggestions.

 

For my sins I have been volunteered to arrange judging for the "best layout" at our Club's forthcoming exhibition (details here). It's a fairly small and local exhibition compared to some, but on the other hand has a very friendly and laid back atmosphere (according to some of our customers).</end_shameless_plug>

 

In previous years a system operated whereby people were asked to look round the layouts and cast their votes. This was something of a logistical nightmare as most people were also busy with many other tasks. So this year it is proposed that the judging is carried out by a small (but varied) panel. It's intended to provide the judges with a few simple guidelines suggesting what sort of things they might look for when rating the exhibits.

 

So my basic question is: if you were at an exhibition is what would you look for to rate a "good layout"?

 

Which of course immediately generates lots of other questions, such as:

 

Is there a Wow! factor and if so what makes it?

 

How do you fairly take into account different periods, scales, countries etc.? For example, I may not personally be interested in -say- the Blue Diesel period in N Gauge if but the best layout happens to be this period and scale?

 

Should what might loosely be termed "showmanship" be taken into account? By which I mean how the exhibitor engages the interest of the audience either through features of the layout itself or by other means (maybe like someone at the front of the layout answering questions and talking to the punters?)

 

The above are fairly random thoughts, but I would be interested to hear your views.

 

Thanks,

Alan

[96701]

Gosh, I don't envy you, that could be a very difficult position to be in. Speaking as someone who couldn't build an exhibition standard layout, I'm impressed by consistency. If the locos are great, but the scenery isn't, I tend to move on. If nothing happens for long periods of time, I move on.

[Jenny Emily]

I do not envy you in having to judge layouts; an impossible task given the variety.

 

When I go around exhibitions (or look for which magazine to buy in Smiths, for that matter) what catches my eye tends to be something a little different. Whilst my own personal tastes are BR TOPS era blue, I can find interest in almost any layout, if it is there. If nothing moves for long periods of time, I'm likely to move on unless the scenery and track plan is something very special. I do find I'm biased towards small shunting layouts, though I do like larger mainline layouts too if they have that certain something.

 

A shunting layout can still fail to entertain if it has a boring track plan or nothing happening for great lengths of time. A simple track plan can still be entertaining if plenty is going on and there's a lot to the scenery. I like intricate little nooks and crannies that reward intense viewing from lots of different angles. To me, a large layout should not be able to all be taken in from one position alone; there should be things that reward careful scrutiny.

 

Detailed rolling stock attracts my interest too. At York, I spent ages watching a very clever man demonstrating how to line a pre-grouping coach. There was no layout, just a man, a coach and a lining tule and a steel ruler. Yet it was fascinating to watch. Large layouts can benefit from a good variety of rolling stock that may be weathered or painted to look something special.

 

Things that don't do anything for me, apart from long periods of no trains running, are large expanses of scenery that have nothing in them. They may take ages to build, but there is nothing there to draw me in. Of course, coupled with trains running and an excellent selection of stock, it isn't necessarily a reason to ignore a layout.

 

I get rid of a lot of magazines; I do not hoard them. The exceptions are magazines that feature a layout that I think has that something special. Those layouts have included Iron Mould Lane, Nant-y-glo mine, Federal street yard, Hammerstone Wharf(sp? Don't have magazine to hand to check) and Maria Illinois. I kept magazines for each of those layouts, and junked hundreds of other magazines.

[newbryford]

One man's meat is another man's poison.

 

Some layouts are technically brilliant, but nothing moves.

 

Others have a continuous stream of r-t-r trains on a roundy-roundy trainset.

 

One will often attract the public vote and the other the "serious" modeller's vote.

 

What makes a good layout to me? - "is it entertaining?" Is there enough for me to look at in the details whilst the trains aren't running.

 

Good luck!

 

Cheers,

Mick

[Guest jim s-w]

Hiya

 

I suspect every answer you will get will be different

 

For me, number 1 by far is consistancy! Theres nothing worse than a layout with beautifully detailed locos, less detailed coaches and by the time you get to the other side of the railway fence, what falls from the scalescenes and Oxford diecast boxes will do.

 

next - atmosphere - how you judge this god knows - some layouts have it some dont.

 

Then attention to the real world - I dont like to see a layout set during the day with all the street lights blazing! (for example)

 

Cheers

 

Jim

[Kenton]

The most important thing is to try to approach each layout from the point of view of a modeller who is both experienced and knowledgeable in that scale/gauge/era - in other words try very hard not to let your personal dislikes have any influence. The layout should be entertaining - especially at a local show, and the exhibitioner interacting with the onlookers.

 

Be discreet and listen to what the visitors are talking about.

 

Be sure you have a coin - because it might just come down to throwing it.

[pointstaken]

As has been said, "one man's meat.....". As a punter, I tend to look at the scenery and presentation. Is the overall impression credible, even if the layout is imaginary ? Super-detailed locos and stock may be present, but if the scenery detracts from the overall impression, then you are almost back to the "toy train" image.

 

Dennis

[Guest Phil]

Contrary to earlier posters I think the position of judge could be interesting. A small cribsheet of notes possibly in a matrix for each layout might help.

 

Consistency is very important, as well as activity and the lack of the big "hand in the sky".

There have to be enough movements to hold the interest, and at scale speeds. I can't abide a loco crashing into it's train at a scale 15mph, then coming to a dead stand.

 

It would be good to score the owners and operators for "showmanship" but I don't think it is fair or viable.

 

Good luck and perhaps you can share your experiences with us post-show ?

[KevinWalsh]

I don't envy you this task, in fact I'd rather operate a 4 person layout single-handed than take on your role .

 

Along the lines of "One man's meat ........." I recently had the chance to see a layout at an exhibition that had been raved about on here and as such my expectations were quite high yet when I saw it I found it was all scenery and very little operational activity so I came away from it dissappointed. I guess what I'm trying to say is you will need to approach each layout without any pre-formed opinions or expectations.

 

Good luck

 

Kev

[beast66606]

The hardest part of judging is being fair - you might know all about GWR pannier tanks in 1956 and therefore like (or dislike!) a layout for their skill at making them - but a layout with diesels may be more accurate overall. I could "mark" layouts pretty well on signalling but the coaching stock could all be wrong and I wouldn't know so I always go for the "look and feel" approach.

 

I've done lots of judging and you can only do your best so at the end of the day, you have to live with your decision - and sometimes you will feel guilty

 

Personally I dislike layouts which have lots of gimics - i.e how often do you see welders next to car crashes next to Blackpool illuminations. I don't judge on frequency of service, if the layout is good, its good and if its bad, its bad - unless one of your criteria is number of trains per hour, it isn't one of mine.

 

Prototype feel is important but necessarily an exact model, ambiance.

 

Best thing (imho) is to compile a list of questions ..

 

1. Is the layout presented well (eg layout lighting, empty cups lying around or ...)

2. Does it capture the feel of the intended area / period ?

3. Is the stock reasonable for the intended area / period ?

4. Does it run at least 15 trains per minute ?

5. Are the operators cleanly shaven and fragrant ?

6. etc. etc.

 

And then give a sheet to all the judges, allowing them to score each question, from say 1 (no way) to 10 (way) and total the marks.

[Stubby47]

If, as you say , the judges are varied, then you will each have a different set of criteria on which you judge. As has been mentioned, having a pre-defined set of points on which to base your opinion in the form of a grid, would at least allow you to score each layout objectively.

 

I wish you luck

 

Stu

[KevinWalsh]

5. Are the operators cleanly shaven

 

 

Beast, do you have something against those of us that prefer to display a modicum of facial fuzz??

[Pinkmouse]

To me, the answer's simple. Look at the punters and where they go. Which layout has them three deep, and which has just one or two hanging around? The best layout will have the most interest, simply because there will be something there that appeals to most people, whether enthusiast or Joe Public. Yes, it may not interest you or me personally, but that's not really the point, is it?

[beast66606]

To me, the answer's simple. Look at the punters and where they go. Which layout has them three deep, and which has just one or two hanging around? The best layout will have the most interest, simply because there will be something there that appeals to most people, whether enthusiast or Joe Public. Yes, it may not interest you or me personally, but that's not really the point, is it?

 

Having 3 deep doesn't necessarily make a layout the best - unless your criteria want it that way, I've seen more than that watching a Hornby tinplate set laid out on the floor of a show - is that a layout ? or track on the floor ?

Public are often attracted by gimics, again does that make the layout the best ?, maybe, probably not - the busiest maybe, but the best ?

 

(imho) Stick with a list of objective questions, marked by a few judges with different interests if possible and it will be about as fair as you can get.

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

The brief is to identify 'best layout' at the show. Best at what? Keeping visitors entertained, best demonstration of accurate operation, most consistently modelled, most closely adhering to a true scale, displaying the largest possible range of appropriate scratchbuilt stock, representing an actual location: there are a huge number of potential categories for a layout to be best at. You could end up with a large list to be ground through which risks boring your judges, and which many will ignore and simply go with what they find most appealing.

 

Personally, I think you would do best to have a group of judges with a wide range of railway modelling interests, and just ask them to rate what they consider to be the first, second and third best layouts at the show, 3 points for first, 2 for second, 1 for third. Aggregate the points, highest score wins, tie breaker on highest number of firsts, seconds, should avoid the need to toss a coin.

[John Mc]

For me it was what Jim said about consistency

 

"For me, number 1 by far is consistancy! Theres nothing worse than a layout with beautifully detailed locos, less detailed coaches and by the time you get to the other side of the railway fence, what falls from the scalescenes and Oxford diecast boxes will do."

 

That is the key for me - everything, locos, coaches, wagons, buildings, scenery, people, vehicles - finished to the same standard. I sometimes go round exhibitions with my wife and she will always pick out the jarring note of r-t-r coaches against scratchbuilt locos, or r-t-p buildings against handbuilt stock. The consistency is in the finish (for instance everything matted down, scratchbuilt or r-t-r), materials (not a mixture of cardboard, resin, and plasticard, but one material), and standard (i.e not state of the art r-t-r with wobbly lined coaches - much better wobbly lined locos and coaches that match up) - without that it just doesn't work as a suspension of disbelief, as the jarring elements make the modellish enviroment the more noticeable through the discrepancies.

 

Following this I would apply Beast's criteria

 

"1. Is the layout presented well (eg layout lighting, empty cups lying around or ...)

2. Does it capture the feel of the intended area / period ?

3. Is the stock reasonable for the intended area / period ?"

 

Hope that this helps

 

John Mc

 

 

 

 

Having 3 deep doesn't necessarily make a layout the best - unless your criteria want it that way, I've seen more than that watching a Hornby tinplate set laid out on the floor of a show - is that a layout ? or track on the floor ?

Public are often attracted by gimics, again does that make the layout the best ?, maybe, probably not - the busiest maybe, but the best ?

 

(imho) Stick with a list of objective questions, marked by a few judges with different interests if possible and it will be about as fair as you can get.

[Pinkmouse]

Having 3 deep doesn't necessarily make a layout the best - unless your criteria want it that way, I've seen more than that watching a Hornby tinplate set laid out on the floor of a show - is that a layout ? or track on the floor ?

Public are often attracted by gimics, again does that make the layout the best ?, maybe, probably not - the busiest maybe, but the best ?

 

Exactly my point, you're, ( or I'm ), projecting your preconceptions of what a good layout should be on others. If that tinplate has the best response from a broad cross section of visitors, then why shouldn't it win best in the show?

[Michael Delamar]

about 15 years ago, in 4mm itd be the ones with decent stock, back then we didnt even have a decent black 5.

 

and for me also the colours, of track, grass, roads etc.

 

 

[Long Line]

Alan.. here are some suggestions that your wife/partner/ friend/ relation can use in this instance..

 

Alan can't come out today as he's got his shoes wet playing in the garden.

 

Alan has had to work and won't be available to come to the show.

 

A family issue has arisen and Alan is unable to get to the exhibition today.

 

Etc etc... i think you get the gist of where i'm coming from?

 

You have my sympathies... judging a model railway show... i'd rather have my toe nails pulled out one by one.

 

But seriously, i would ask your ex-man for a more refined mandate than 'best in show'.. its far to encompassing a title to easily commit to one layout. Better phrased might be, most popular or best modelled or best operated, as these are less open to misinterpretation by all parties. Unless the cup (if one exists) has best in show inscribed?

 

Good luck, and post how it turns out regardless pls.

 

Mark

[Kenton]

Having 3 deep doesn't necessarily make a layout the best - unless your criteria want it that way, I've seen more than that watching a Hornby tinplate set laid out on the floor of a show - is that a layout ? or track on the floor ?

Public are often attracted by gimics, again does that make the layout the best ?, maybe, probably not - the busiest maybe, but the best ?

Doesn't it depend on the type of show?

The more local a show the less of the modelling nerds and the more of the family day trippers. Therefore Thomas on a track mat might be "best" in the show as it pleases more of the paying public. The opposite for the specialist show where the visitor is more critical of factors the place a model one step closer to perfection.

[RedgateModels]

The "Best in Show" award at this weekend's Mansfield Show (kindly donated by Trains4U) will be judged by public vote - it's the only way we could have impartiallity as we are a committee of six with no club membership behind us to act as independant judges.

 

So any RMwebbers who attend over the weekend don't forget to vote on your way out - I've printed out 200 voting forms and have a photocopier standing by in case we run out The count will be held Sunday lunchtime with prize awarded before close of play.

 

Will be interesting to see which layout prevails, will it be the showstopper 24 x 16 foot O gauge roundy roundy, tractions Me/Mini Me Wold's Ends, David's Dublo collection, the lights and sound of Stockwell Road or something else?

[beast66606]

Doesn't it depend on the type of show?

The more local a show the less of the modelling nerds and the more of the family day trippers. Therefore Thomas on a track mat might be "best" in the show as it pleases more of the paying public. The opposite for the specialist show where the visitor is more critical of factors the place a model one step closer to perfection.

 

I didn't say they weren't which is why I suggested a list of criteria to suit and then judges mark against each point

 

it could be

 

1. Did the operator use a key to wind the loco up ?

2. Was the track rusty ?

3. Did the locos do 5 circuits before needing a rewind ?

 

etc ...

[Stubby47]

The best layout at the recent West of England show was 'St Aldhelm's Quay'- O gauge small terminus, but (ihmo) had everything 'just right' - atmosphere, cameo scenes, worked perfectly, always something moving, etc.

 

Also at the show 'Osney Town' was given best detailed layout - this is a single line to a platform, so operationally very limited, stock was a pannier and autocoach or a bubblecar, but attention to scenic details fully justified its award.

 

Not sure what point that makes...

 

Stu

 

Edited for removal of spurious apostrophe...

[Claude_Dreyfus]

Any reason why you can't have input from both a judging panel and the public?

 

The judges have their more technical criteria; correct stock for period/location, operations etc. and come to their decision and then add those to the public votes...then you have that cross section of both views to make your final decision.

 

...sounds like I've been watching too many reality TV shows

[Jol Wilkinson]

The oft quoted and reasonable requirement for "always something moving" means that some layout designs will always have the advantage, irrespective of how well they are modelled.

 

A scenic section (but not neccessarily a station), with passing traffic fed by a large fiddle yard with lots of stock, will provide movement and therefore interest. If I wanted to build a layout to win prizes, it would be something like Stoke Summit, large, long trains, BR era (off the shelf stock) that many can still remember and give a large variety of prototypes, etc.

 

As it is, my small Edwardian LNWR terminus is unlikey to win prizes, but provides me with a great deal of model making pleasure.