There was a layout exhibited over the weekend; let's call it Duckling Ghyle. Well known, but for some reason I'd never seen it in the flesh, despite it having been around for decades. Disappointed? Most definitely.
The modelling was superb; impossible to fault. The display and operation were frankly appalling; off the scale. Achingly slow and partial front operation meant that 3-link couplers were fiddled with in the view-line of the audience. I'm really not a fan of this. Either work at the front/end and go auto, or work from the back and lean over. I can accept the hand of God no problem, but I don't want someone's arse in my face with every single shunt move.
The problem as I see it, isn't this directly, it's the selling on; and this from a modeller who sells everything on. The original builder has a concept in mind and if he/she is thinking about this properly, it will include an early idea of how the thing will be operated and from what position, even if it is a home layout. Selling on removes this mentally carried part of the concept. I have no doubt that the current owners were competent in many ways, but the slight alteration in display removed this initial operating/layout whole concept approach. Result: total failure, despite the very high modelling quality.
I suppose that what I am taking away from this is that if you buy something, you have to be careful that you think carefully about the operating concept as a whole, and don't just purchase the visual modelling. Any reflected glory that you are hoping to obtain will soon be wiped out in seconds if the original operating style is not adopted.
What do you think?
*
ReplyDeleteIn broad principle I am in agreement. And I congratulate CF for bravely expressing such an opinion.
In general I do not think that exhibiting a layout that the exhibitor did not build is a good or decent idea. It seems like trying to exploit second hand glory – or to put it bluntly accepting credit for something you did not do.
That said, there could be exceptions to this.
[1] The individual or group who take on the unfinished layout of a deceased friend, complete it, and exhibit it in his memory.
[2] And the individual or group who acquire the completed layout of a deceased friend and continue to exhibit it both in respect for his memory AND because of the excellence of the original work.
Whilst one can envisage that in some circumstances a little maintenance or restoration work may be necessary by the new owner(s), it is perhaps appropriate to say that problems arise when changes to the original structure and concept are made.
But what, as CF has identified, of layouts that the builder (who remains alive and well) has chosen to sell on? This may have been done to create the finance and/or the space for a new project. If the purchaser presumes the right to modify, alter, amend, and change the model or its style of presentation as they see fit what can be done?
The answer by the original builder is simple – nothing. It will not have been possible to have sold the layout on with any sort of variant of a restrictive covenant or an end user certificate.
However, with courage and a certain amount of carefully chosen words, others – say viewers at an exhibition – might express their disappointment, and perhaps their disgust, at what has been done to a previously acclaimed layout and the work of a respected modeller.
If enough such opinions were expressed it might be hoped that the new owners of layouts, and especially exhibition managers, would come to understand the public view and exercise restraint. Without this I fear that what is already something of a growing trend will develop to an even greater extent.
CP
Obviously we are very thankful that some layouts continue to be shown, or are, in some sense preserved. And some have been transformed for the better. What I think is important is honesty, and integrity. and I agree some layouts have been done a disservice, I can think of one othe 7mm example.
ReplyDelete