Friday 30 January 2015

Lady pleasers and compromises 1

Two subjects have been discussed over the last few days which seem removed in one way, but are actually interlinked. The first was my question to Lord Crawley, ' What's the perfect small exhibition layout?' The second was the re-emergence of the above beastie.

The answer to the first question is varied. The angle from where I'm coming from is linked slightly professionally: how do you keep people in front of the layout? Not by chatting to them - that's cheating, that's conversation, but how do you keep them watching the layout for more than say a minute? What's the draw got to be? There are some who will shout that it's my layout and I build for me, and that's all well and good, but if you wave it in public then there has to be more to it than that.

There are really two distinct types that visit model shows and sub sects: Type 1. The modellers visiting to see a particular layout that's been in a magazine or what have you either singly or in groups. Type 2. Non or semi modelling families (i.e. no real interest or something at pure trainset level usually with one or two children in tow). There is Type 1a 'the blinker', those who will only look at layouts that match their company and their scale, and Type 2a the 'matrons not looking'.

What I'm really thinking of are slightly more the Type 2s - the casual visitors. The answer is basically: keep something on scene and moving at all times and create enough visual interest outside of that. The moving is the most important - I noted an RM reader taking a swipe at Warley recently in the letters page and he has a point; the NEC show is supposed to be the best and the best only, not the club shirt/scratch your arse and talk brigade.

How does this link to the above plan? Well yesterday it was dissected... over a four hour plus period, in a full size plan form. The result is it works perfectly. I'm quick to argue Roy Link's original article point about two bogie coaches not fitting the loop as they will. However, allied to the point I make in the above paragraph: if you are happy with the home operation/one engine in steam way of working then it works. The minute that you take it to a show it fails... big time. There is only capacity for one train at a time as while the loop will hold the train, it won't hold the engine as well. The minute the train leaves the station under the bridge after running round etc, so do the audience. Mr. Punch has left the building. Something more needs to be done.


12 comments:

  1. If you make your scenery good enough and engaging enough they will stay. But does it really matter?. They've paid their money, they took the risk. Personally, on the few times I've visited shows, I enjoyed the chat and the scenery far more than the movements. In fact I'm not remotely interested in movements. The moment a loco moves, the effect is destroyed. I spent a good 10 minutes talking to Gordon Gravett at Spalding during which nothing moved. But because the layout (Ditchling Green) was so involving they stayed, looking at every detail. The problem with so many layouts at shows is that they really aren't very good in the first place!

    ReplyDelete
  2. But then you are Type 1. I would be quite happy looking at just the modelling as you are and I'm less interested (as a viewer) in the wizzy action. You and I are not the target here. I'm not talking Thomas, that's a different beast altogether, but an 'entertaining' well built model railway that works efficiently and represents the movement of the prototype to the viewer that is also within the grasp of one man/one car operation.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Having been working on a version of TaOC for rather longer than necessary http://apavalley.blogspot.co.uk/2015/01/taoc.html I agree it is entirely workable, even in EM. And Lcut Creative are now producing the buildings that are no longer available from Prototype Models. I must admit I've always seen passenger operation on it as a very minor element. A little gentle shunting might be more in order. In fact for exhibitions you could substitue the second half of the layout with an inglenook puzzle if you were so minded. Another idea I had was to run a sequence of stock that would take you from,say, early post war years through to closure.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Maybe show them something unfamiliar: i.e., not another British branch line/NG terminus.
    Like this maybe http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1247/5129893756_04ed445739.jpg
    Or maybe a NG railway serving an ancient Greek monument like the Acropolis http://thumbs.dreamstime.com/z/railway-track-acropolis-athens-22167399.jpg
    Basically, show them something they didn't know existed.

    One of my favourite 'layouts' is Dungeness Sidings http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/uploads/monthly_07_2010/post-57-127974349623.jpg Nothing moves there at all but it is unique.
    Colin

    ReplyDelete
  5. For some people, nothing more than trains thrashing around will do. I'd love to think that quality scenry and atmosphere will help but it won't. Oddly, it seems that this is true for many "modellers" and that "normal" people will stay and look at a static scene. I find that a detail "Spotting List" on the front helps and have had many "normal" people spending half an hour trying to find hedgeogs and squirels on my Hellingly Layout.

    ReplyDelete
  6. James: Yes I've been watching this with interest. For what it's worth I think the Prototype building kits were the weak point - the station shelter a little lacking, and the GS to large for the plan. Something a little larger and smaller respectively may balance better.
    PP: I haven't got the balls to do a spotting list.
    CF

    ReplyDelete
  7. My own longer term plan is to substitute Tanat Valley structures for the one's Roy originally had in mind. A larger station shelter is going to make the short platform more obvious. Park Hall Halt would be another option http://www.disused-stations.org.uk/p/park_hall_halt/index2.shtml The GS is, I think, going to be a problem.

    ReplyDelete
  8. JF: Lambourn. Narrow but with double canopies, one for the rail and one for the road. Same basic footprint, but much lighter feel due to the lack of curtain wall.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Lambourn could work, though for me I might as well go with the TVR version if I was to go down that route. Is it just me but although Roy suggests the Prototype Models Watlington shed in the text the drawing doesn't match? I'm guessing he had Fairford in mind. It is a small prototype but still tight. I'm going to knock up a quick mock up .

    ReplyDelete
  10. A lot of it doesn't match - that's part of its charm. It's an idea, not a set of instructions.
    CF

    ReplyDelete
  11. I've just started (boards built) something 'based' on this plan. It moves away from the norm by being 1/24th on 16.5, a tourist line ostensibly running along a local beauty spot. Shades of Emett and Barnfield. Progress is slow.

    ReplyDelete
  12. I've just started (boards built) something 'based' on this plan. It moves away from the norm by being 1/24th on 16.5, a tourist line ostensibly running along a local beauty spot. Shades of Emett and Barnfield. Progress is slow.

    ReplyDelete