Restriction on Layout Length

[Simon]

I had been following the banal thread on RMWeb with people expecting every single term and condition extrapolated. I naively assumed I was in sync with Iain and Simon, in that there didn't need to be strict rules; you just felt what a Cameo was. In the same way that I find it impossible to describe what "Northern Soul" record is, you just hear a song and know it's "Northern" and you can't explain how you know that.

There's no doubt that a key component of a Cameo is that it's modest in size, but I always imaged that it was what was considered modest relative to the scale being modelled in..…….

…….Cameo layouts should have been judged on their merit and feel, rather than the judges getting a tape measure out. The wind has been taken out of my sail. I'm trying to console myself with the knowledge that I probably wouldn't have finished in time, but I was looking forward to the deadline (hopefully) pushing me along...

Ah Mr Seal
you are a poet,
a dreamer,
of beautiful dreams

I have but one word to say in response - Ashburton

Seriously, as we discussed yesterday at Railwells, I think this is a very interesting idea which is very much in the "cameo spirit" and please do develop it as we discussed.

Simon

 

[Simon]

I don't think there is a hard and fast rule, though a 3 metre scenic section would, I believe, be rejected. How much extra is your fiddle yard? My layout is 2.1m scenic plus 1.8m fiddle yard and it's been accepted. That appears to be longer than your overall layout length, if I've understood your previous posts.

Hi Geoff

I have negotiated an exception to the 2 metre rule from Herr Rice for your entry as it is

a.) only a teeny bit bigger
b.) Gauge 3, which is a humungous scale (twice O gauge and a bit more).

Simon

 

[Simon]

Seen from a distance, I think it is unfortunate that something that was inclusive and inspiring people to get modelling has become more restricted and has excluded people who's entries have previously been accepted.

Can we have a Claytons Cameo competition for the larger scale entries that don't quite follow all the rules? It could be on WT and voted for by WT members, or organise a hall somewhere to show them. I for one want to see Stumpytrain build his layout and cbrailways model is looking interesting.

[check Wikipedia for the Australian vernacular meaning of claytons]

Sounds like an excellent plan, and organised from the Antipodes too - roll on my beauty!

Simon

 

[daifly]

b.) Gauge 3, which is a humungous scale (twice O gauge and a bit more).

Humungous, yes. Twice O-gauge - almost but a bit less!

 

[geoff_nicholls]

thanks, Simon, I only hope my efforts are worthy of the inclusion.
Daifly is correct 1.93 times the size of O gauge. But you do get used to it. I couldn't work with 4mm now, never mind 2mm.

 

[Stumpytrain]

Ah Mr Seal
you are a poet,
a dreamer,
of beautiful dreams

I have but one word to say in response - Ashburton

Phew, when you said you had a word beginning with 'A' for me, but you'd save it for Western Thunder I did wonder what it was going to be!

Yes, ahem, Ashburton. In my defence it's still the main 7mm project I'm working on. Since starting it (in my mind) I've relocated to a house with garage long enough for the entire scenic section with no compromises, but the fiddle yard would have to dap out onto the drive for fairweather operating sessions. Most of my efforts have been asserted on building 1470 (in my mind) and despite SimonT's encouragement to build it as god /David Parkin intended, I can't help but aspire to an honest ScaleSeven build. So, with the 'when is a Cameo not a Cameo' project in mind, I dusted off my MRJs and I've now got all the bits and pieces to hone my piercing saw skills before attacking the MOK kit by scratch building Wantage Tramway No.5 'Jane' and modifying the Slaters Manning Wardle F as No.7 'Mary'. Perhaps Western Thunder will indulge my current enthusiasm with another thread?!

Alex

 

[adrian]

Perhaps Western Thunder will indulge my current enthusiasm with another thread?!

If you are having a go and making something then please pile in with as many threads as necessary.

 

[Easterner]

Having had a few days away, I am very disappointed to come back and read what has been said here/in the most recent MRJ as this means Easton Mills will be outside of the new sizing rules.

Easton Mills was started as a competition entry, and was not a foresight before. After reading the book a couple of times over, Iain refers to other cameo layouts, some of which are much longer than 8ft so I am left some what frustrated after the time and costs I have already outlaid on Easton Mills.

Now I have started, I still plan to continue, but I probably would have focused on a larger local group layout and not built Easton Mills to the tight constraints I have to make it what I thought was a plausible entrant for the competition.

As said, I am very disappointed with these restrictions and have shared these thoughts in a separate email to Simon/Iain, and can only hope there is a bit of a rethink for those that have already took the time and expense to build a layout specifically to enter into the competition.

 

[Alan]

Whilst my effort will be in the new length restrictions I do feel it is unfair on those who entered under the original "rules" and have already spent money that as Josh suggests could have been spent on other projects. It's rather like entering a 100 metres race and after the start the organisers moving the finish to the 80 metre mark.

 

[Alan]

Interestingly having looked at Josh's (Eastener) layout I notice that its total length is the same as the total length my effort i.e. 8ft. My scenic bit is 5ft + 3ft fiddleyard and Josh's is 8 ft including fiddleyard. I'm puzzled???!!??.

 

[Simon]

Having had a few days away, I am very disappointed to come back and read what has been said here/in the most recent MRJ as this means Easton Mills will be outside of the new sizing rules.

Easton Mills was started as a competition entry, and was not a foresight before. After reading the book a couple of times over, Iain refers to other cameo layouts, some of which are much longer than 8ft so I am left some what frustrated after the time and costs I have already outlaid on Easton Mills.

Now I have started, I still plan to continue, but I probably would have focused on a larger local group layout and not built Easton Mills to the tight constraints I have to make it what I thought was a plausible entrant for the competition.

As said, I am very disappointed with these restrictions and have shared these thoughts in a separate email to Simon/Iain, and can only hope there is a bit of a rethink for those that have already took the time and expense to build a layout specifically to enter into the competition.

Hi Josh

Given that Iain quotes "Longwood Edge" at 2.1 metres long and that "Easton Mills" contains its fiddleyard within it's length, I think upon further reflection that it is only fair to make an exception to the 2 metre rule for your entry and so Easton Mills is definitely "in".

Apologies for the apparent confusion, but both Iain and I are concerned to keep entries physically manageable and within the spirit of the book and original concept.

In this context and for the record, when Iain talks about "Frecclesham" within the book, he says of it:

This just might be the largest cameo I've met so far but then goes on to say Whether you could ever describe Frecclesham as such is a moot point

Best Wishes

Simon