2 x 8 Contest Deconstruction

[chadw]

Spacemouse I like that idea for planning a club layout. I already have an idea for a good theme...

About coloring the plans, my plans' (Greenbank, Hockessin, Landenberg) track was drawn on XtrkCAD and everything else was added in Paintshop Pro 8. To color a plan I use the draw tool and set the stroke to appropriate color and thickness and the fill to the right color. After drawing the buildings I add roads with the color replacer so I don't erase the rails. The ties show but are easily removed with the fill tool. I add bridges with a square paintbrush with the thickness turned down, then use brown with the color replacer to draw the banks of the streams. I fill in between the banks with a light blue textured with the "tin foil" texture. Once all of that is done I fill the are with the appropriate ground cover color and texture. Finally I use a round paintbrush and a darker green to put some trees on the plan and the scenery is done. To finish the plan I increase the canvas size and add letter labels to the buildings with a key referencing scenic features in the expanded area.

That sounded alot moe complicated than it actually is. It usually only takes me about 10-15 min. to color a small plan like the last contest's plans. It takes a bit of time but I think it really makes the plan look better.

[wm3798]

I guess I'll get in on the front end of this one...

I'd say no to N trak modules, too, they're already too restrictive.  You might be able to vary the scenic treatment, but unless you can combine several together, you pretty much have three tracks running across the front edge of the 2x4, and maybe a siding or two.  I also don't see how you can have 4 people work together to coordinate a design without it bogging down.

I like the idea of a "32 Square Feet" challenge (and I'd call it a challenge, not a contest since we are creating a puzzle to be solved and there's really nothing at stake).

For the framework, I would say any scale, any style (continuous running, point to point, etc.) and set the only parameters being that it has to nest in a corner against two walls, and the scene should be urban.  I suggest the corner because I bet for every 1 modeler who has room for a 4x8, there are 10 who have a corner to work with.

32 sq. ft. is 32 sq. ft.  If you choose to do a 4x8, you just have to address the against the wall issue in terms of accessibility.  If you use a 2x2 pop up, that 2x2 can be moved to expand the layout elsewhere.  In other words, holes in the middle don't count against the 32 sq. ft. but the layout surface area cannot exceed 32 square feet.

How's that for a simple approach? 

Lee 

[SpaceMouse]

Lee,

I could live with that.

[tomikawaTT]

Instead of 32 square feet, how about eight Armstrong squares, assembled any which way.  Only surface area counts, but access holes and aisleways must be big enough to fit real people in the scale the entrant specifies.

My thinking is that this would provide a level playing field for any scale, from N/3 in a briefcase to live steam in a back yard.  No more grousing about favoring only one scale...

Incidentally, since Mark Newton models in 1:80, maybe he should have been allowed a space 26" by 104"...(ducking for cover!)

Chuck (modeling Central Japan in September, 1964 - also in 1:80 scale)

[Texas Zepher]

Then again it also suffered from the presentation aspect like I believe mine did.  The "colorful" representations got higher marks then the black & white ones.  I sort of noticed this in the prior constests as well.  Concept does not necessarily win over a good looking picture of a lesser concept.

Sorry, but I am not so sure about that. Look at the two layouts that got most points - Fergus and Port Butler.

You are taking the word colorful to literally.  That is why I put it in quotes.  I didn't mean color literally that was the only sort of generic term I could think of without going into a paragraph explaination.  There are contrast and washout issues going here as well.  Both the other BW layouts you mention had great contrast and one did not have to enlarge the image to be able to tell what they are. 

[wm3798]

Chuck,

I'm not sure what an Armstrong Square is, I suppose it is a scale-able square foot...  I don't think so.  I'm thinking in terms of a real corner in a real room with real limitations.  32 square feet of surface area... but yes, the "man holes" have to be able to accommodate a model railroader of standard girth... 

There is flexibility in the scale to allow for individual expression within the bounds of the space available.  I'm thinking there's a lot of guys out there who have a corner of the family room available, and this is an opportunity to for them to get up off the arm chair and design something that fits their specific space.  Allowing the space to flex with the scale is too arbitrary for my tastes, and doesn't address the one real world problem we all face....

Some will envision a 4x8 box, that's fine.  Some will see a shelf layout that runs 32'.  That's fine, too.  I just want to see what folks come up with that can go into a corner, but uses only 32 square feet.

The urban part is just my way of being arbitrary!  But even that offers a good potential for variety.  You could do a harbor scene, or a warehouse district, or a downtown passenger terminal... whatev.

So whaddya say everyone?

Lee 

 

[Packers#1]

Well at least from my end this was the easiest. There were not as many problems, however, there did seem to be some misunderstanding as to what was the goals. There were a lot of LDE type layouts although, when it time to establish the rules that requirement was axed. Still some good layouts got low votes.

What next guys--a rest or another one? How does a 2 x 4 N-trak sound?

4x8 n scale. Let's see who can fit the best layout in a decent space for n-scale.

[steinjr]

Then again it also suffered from the presentation aspect like I believe mine did.  The "colorful" representations got higher marks then the black & white ones.  I sort of noticed this in the prior constests as well.  Concept does not necessarily win over a good looking picture of a lesser concept.

Sorry, but I am not so sure about that. Look at the two layouts that got most points - Fergus and Port Barber

You are taking the word colorful to literally.  That is why I put it in quotes.  I didn't mean color literally that was the only sort of generic term I could think of without going into a paragraph explaination.  There are contrast and washout issues going here as well.  Both the other BW layouts you mention had great contrast and one did not have to enlarge the image to be able to tell what they are. 

 And yet your layout (which had a poorer quality image of an - IMO - about average quality design) ended up in 8th place while Butler (which had a perfectly fine quality image of a not so good track plan) ending up in 9th place, ahead of 4 layouts that all had images that were easy to read (Random, Hockesin, Industry and Greenbank).

 I don't feel that your design was unfairly penalized for having a poor quality image. It ended up about roughly in the middle of a cluster consisting of Thawville, Corydon, Unknown, Arkansas Valley and Random.

 All perfectly fine layouts captured the small agricultural town feeling. But also all layouts that failed to impress the voters as much as Fergus, Port Barber, Landenberg and Komatsu.

 I don't think Port Barber or Butler was penalized for poor image quality either. Butler came in ninth, ahead of four of the other layouts. Not at all bad for this design, which has quite a few weaknesses.

  And Port Barber did pretty well to came in second, quite a bit ahead of Landenberg, despite being a poorer representation (from my point of view) of a small agricultural town.

 I realize that the structures described would signal small rural fishing town instead of busy industrial harbor, but to me, the Port Barber track plan would be more appropriate for that cramped big city harbor feel - with tracks crisscrossing each other at double slips and the use of switchbacks to get around tight corners. 

 But that's just me. The voters have spoken to decide on the ranking of the layouts. And "Vox populi, vox dei" - the voice of the people is the voice of God.

 Smile,
 Stein

 

[Texas Zepher]

Well as near as I can tell here is a summary of the ideas so far:

• SpaceMouse - 2 x 4 N-trak sound
      clarification: simulated N-trak club. groups of 4, each group coming up with a theme for a portable 12 x 12 layout.
• exPalaceDog - 1 x 8 N-scale book shelf switching module
• loathar, L Cowan, vsmith - logging  (loathar specifically said narrow gauge)
• stilson4283 - I like the idea of an n-scale contest.
• chadw - likes Spacemouse "club" 12x12 idea
• wm3798 - 32 Square Feet" challenge
• tomikawaTT - eight Armstrong squares
• packers#1 - 4x8 n scale

I wouldn't mind and would participate in any of these if the rules were fairly clear.  Like on the logging - what size limit?  In the 32 sft Why would one need a person size cut out rather than a hand reach in or head pop up?  

Of course there is always the combination - logging in 32 square feet type thing. 

And I'll throw out my idea from another thread - the Hoboken Industrial on an "h", "F", double "L", straight "Z" or other pre-determine, pre-sized shelf, configuration in some other-than-standard-scale neutral size (like 1/100th).

[SpaceMouse]

Well as near as I can tell here is a summary of the ideas so far:

• SpaceMouse - 2 x 4 N-trak sound
      clarification: simulated N-trak club. groups of 4, each group coming up with a theme for a portable 12 x 12 layout.
• exPalaceDog - 1 x 8 N-scale book shelf switching module
• loathar, L Cowan, vsmith - logging  (loathar specifically said narrow gauge)
• stilson4283 - I like the idea of an n-scale contest.
• chadw - likes Spacemouse "club" 12x12 idea
• wm3798 - 32 Square Feet" challenge
• tomikawaTT - eight Armstrong squares
• packers#1 - 4x8 n scale

I wouldn't mind and would participate in any of these if the rules were fairly clear.  Like on the logging - what size limit?  In the 32 sft Why would one need a person size cut out rather than a hand reach in or head pop up?  

Of course there is always the combination - logging in 32 square feet type thing. 

And I'll throw out my idea from another thread - the Hoboken Industrial on an "h", "F", double "L", straight "Z" or other pre-determine, pre-sized shelf, configuration in some other-than-standard-scale neutral size (like 1/100th).

I dunno, compared to last time, I think we almost agree.

Of the bunch, I like Lee's 32 feet idea. It adds a new dimention to the contest. I think though that we have to have a room size limit, say 13' x 13'. Otherwise we might end up with a 6" x 64 ft Z-scale layout. I'd like our designs to be useful to someone.

While squares would give all scale users an equal footing, I figure there's enough people here that don't know what squares are, let alone how to figure them out broken up in XtrkCAD.   

 

 

[chadw]

After I thought about it some more, I figure that the club Idea may be too hard to coordinate.

I like the 32 square foot idea too, but I think a good way to make it a challenge would be to make it sort of a selective compression challenge.  Take a protoype and condense it to 32 square feet while retaining the overall feel and operations.

Basically it would mean taking something like this: Garrett Snuff Mill Complex (note: link is to a fairly large file and may take a while to load, those with a slow connection are lucky I didn't link to the high res version at 19390KB!), and fitting it into a small space preserving operations and scenic elements while taking into consideration access requirements and space constraints.

[exPalaceDog]

The "colorful" representations got higher marks then the black & white ones.  I sort of noticed this in the prior constests as well.  Concept does not necessarily win over a good looking picture of a lesser concept.

I noticed this as well and I attempted to compensate. Unfortunately I failed miserably because I could not figure out my paint program. What I ended up with was not very good and I wasted a lot of time that could have gone toward improving my layout--which by the time of the end of the contest, I had figured could use some tweaking.

Presentation goes for the non-discerning vote.

 

That is the reason the Old Flea Bag suggested a system where the layouts would be RATED on a set of criteria. That would make presentation less of a factor and encourage morr discerning voting.

Have fun

PS The Old Hound is also trying to suggest something to reduce the workload on the contest manager.

[exPalaceDog]

Well as near as I can tell here is a summary of the ideas so far:

• exPalaceDog - 1 x 8 N-scale book shelf switching module

As for the next project, the Old Dog would suggest something on the lines of the book shelf N-The straight modules were 7.5" by 48", the corner modules were 32" by 32". Loop modules, 24" by 48" were described.

And I'll throw out my idea from another thread - the Hoboken Industrial on an "h", "F", double "L", straight "Z" or other pre-determine, pre-sized shelf, configuration in some other-than-standard-scale neutral size (like 1/100th).

Sounds Interesting!

Have fun

 

[wm3798]

I don't think it should be limited to a prototype scene.  If you want to apply one to the challenge, that's fine, just define what you're doing.  Freelance should be available too.  I think the looser the limitations (aside from available space and an urban theme) the more participation you'll see.

The pop up issue isn't a requirement.  To clarify, if you design something that requires a pop up, the "hole" won't be charged against your allotment of 32 sq. ft.  If you don't need one, no problem.  I believe this parameter will allow for shelf style layouts, an L with the operator pit behind it, a U shape with a peninsula, the options are limited only by the square footage.

As for configuration, if someone has a 65' long basement (my sister does, and I'd sell my soul for that basement!) and thinks a 6" wide z scale shelf would make an interesting design, I've got no beef with that, other than it needs work into the corner issue for at least part of it.

My thought is to use this exercise as an opportunity for armchair guys to recognize the space they might have but haven't thought about, and get them moving toward building a layout. 

Lee 

 

[ChrisNH]

My thought had been more about making use of 32 square feet of plywood surface.. a way to show how to take the beginner board and make it more.. so I am not sure I would want to see a penalty on pop-ups.. I think that the voters will exact a penalty on a plan that doesnt look appealing to maintain and operate..

 

Chris

[wm3798]

Exactly, Chris.

Lee 

[Texas Zepher]

PS The Old Hound is also trying to suggest something to reduce the workload on the contest manager.

I want something to reduce the workload on the judges.  I know some people are very flippant about it, but some take it seriously.  The more constrained and defined something is the easier to judge.

[SpaceMouse]

TZ,

I agree, however, the more defined I get the more people want less constraints and I end up compromising and relaxing the contest.  

[wm3798]

That's why I suggested shelving the "contest" notion.  As a "challenge," there's really no need to judge.  I'd like to see how people will respond to the simple criteria to get off the dime and design something that will fit in their own house, i.e, something they might actually commence to build (and support our hosts by spending large gobs of cash with their many advertisers!!) 

Lee 

[Occams Razor]

Just my two cents, but while I like the idea of setting a maximum area like the 32 sqft idea, didn't you do that before and then it becomes a contest of scales?  I second the idea of using Armstrong squares (maybe you could even post a guide on how to convert them to your scale) as the contest limitation so that we are dealing with an arbitrary measurement.  If you give a O scale railroad 32 sqft there's just not much that can be done, especially if you give a Z scale person that same 32 sqft.  (I purposefully avoided using HO and N scales in my example, but you get the drift.)

[wm3798]

Stop saying "contest". 

In my opinion, scaling the space using Armstrong Squares does not provide an equal footing for a real layout situation.  The 32 square feet is based on the good ole sheet of plywood (however reconfigured).  A G scaler doesn't get a larger sheet of plywood when he goes to Lowe's, and Home Depot doesn't provide a smaller sheet to the N scaler.  Under my scenario, we all start with the same playing field, literally. 

I think there were some dynamite ideas that came out of the 9x12 room design project, and I thought of the corner idea based on the fact that not all of us have a whole room to work in. 

The point of the exercise as I defined it is to promote individual achievement, not pit one scale or one design against another.  I prefer "challenge" or even "exercise".  The goal is not to prove one design as being intrinsically better than another, but to help each other develop our own design that is workable in our own defined spaces, the only caveats being the available square footage, orientation to a corner of a room, and my suggested theme of an urban setting.

Configuration, Givens and Druthers, scale, and operating style would be entirely up to the individual designer.  The outcome will hopefully be giving some guys an opportunity to really think through a track plan that they can ultimately build in the space they have.

Rather than a complicated judging process, why not just make the designs available for comment and critique, asking the designer first state what he likes about it, why he did what he did, and talk a little about the operations he plans.  We can then comment on the designs we feel like commenting about, offer praise, suggestions for improvement, and question things we find questionable.

Think of this more as a lab project than a final exam... 

Why do we have to make figuring out the parameters the most challenging part of the project?   

Lee 

[SpaceMouse]

Why do we have to make figuring out the parameters the most challenging part of the project?   

Lee 

Because, unlike you, most people have strong opinions about how it should be done.

One of the perk contest idea, is that people get to run their idea up the flagpole and see how it does. Just like any scientific experiment can found to be flawed by a person who knows what to look for, any layout can be criticized. When you see what a group of people think about it by ranking it against others, you may see that although it was criticized, it wasn't half bad.

And I imagine that some of the designers won't want to design something just for the heck of it. Without the competition and striving to succeed, it isn't worth their time.

On the other hand, a person who just wants to do it as an exercise can still do it and be happy just to get it done and not worry about the voting aspect. Those people can ignore the results. Frankly there were so many good layout is the last contest that I was embarrassed that some of them didn't win. But those people also expressed to me that they would try again and do better next time.

I don't see the downside to a contest. If you don't like the contest concept but want to play anyway there is no harm in it. All the entries get critiqued pretty well when all is said and done.  

[tomikawaTT]

Chip,

Somewhat - or maybe it isn't.

More than a few golf tournaments have amateurs playing with the pros.  Some of the amateurs play the whole tournament for a score.  Others play on Pro-Am Day, and get to tell their buddies, "I played with the Big Boys."  Some will add, "I watched (fillintheblank) all day, and now I know how to (putt, chip out of the rough,...)"

I rather suspect there's a vast difference in the experience levels of the entrants in your contests.  There certainly is a vast difference in their approaches to the concepts laid down.  I'm something of a curmudgeon, so I probably won't enter a contest unless the "givens and druthers" exactly parallel something I'm going to do - or have done.  That doesn't stop me from participating as a voting spectator.  (It isn't my fault that Mark Newton's entries are so obviously his, even with no name given.)

Thanks for a lot of unexpected enjoyment.

Chuck (modeling Central Japan in September, 1964)

[wm3798]

...Because, unlike you, most people have strong opinions about how it should be done.

Define "most people"...  The handful of usual suspects who submit entries?  I think that as a sampling of the thousands of registered members to this site, this hardly qualifies as "most people." 

...And I imagine that some of the designers won't want to design something just for the heck of it. Without the competition and striving to succeed, it isn't worth their time...

I think people don't participate because the rules create a design situation that doesn't apply to their situation.  The competition aspect doesn't really enter into it. 

And that's why I think it would be a valuable exercise to provide a forum where individuals can accept a design challenge that actually allows them to design something that meets their needs.  Placing an arbitrary platform size or shape, or changing the available space to limit the designer's ability to work in his prefered scale make the process something that "isn't worth their time."

It's pretty obvious that you're going to do what you want to do.  I thought I presented a pretty simple proposal that offered a lot of flexibility for the participants.  But there are those who would rather get wrapped around the axle with rules and judging criteria than promote something that might get someone to start building a layout. 

Heaven forbid we should push ourselves away from the keyboard for a few moments and actually build something.  (Which is what I'll be doing now...)

Lee 

[markpierce]

It is only fair if a "contest" is based on a single modeling scale.  Do we compete drag race cars with eighteen-wheeler heavy haulers in competition?  No!  One is designed for speed and the other for pulling power.  HO can have 4 times more stuff than O, N can have 4 times more than HO, and Z can have 4 times more stuff than N in the same space.  Obviously then, the Z scale layout will have more operational and scenic opportunities than the larger scales, but that is not a valid comparison.  There are trade-offs between more "stuff" in the smaller scales and the advantages of larger scale which cannot be weighed by just comparing track plans.  It is obvious that some of those modeling in the smaller scales don't want scale limitations because their layout plans can include more "stuff" and are thus more "competitive" as in race cars are faster than dump trucks.

Nevertheless, if for example there is a competition for an HO-scale layout in a 15x30-foot room, an N-scaler can submit an HO plan and chuckle to himself that he can do the same thing in 8X17 (if the plan accommodates the truth that human operators don't shrink with scale.)

Mark

 

[tomikawaTT]

It is only fair if a "contest" is based on a single modeling scale.  Do we compete drag race cars with eighteen-wheeler heavy haulers in competition?  No!  One is designed for speed and the other for pulling power.

Ah.  But in Sumo, where the only criterion is one's overall ranking, a physically small rishiki can find himself across the ring from somebody half a meter taller and twice as heavy - and once the bout starts, excuses aren't accepted.

  HO can have 4 times more stuff than O, N can have 4 times more than HO, and Z can have 4 times more stuff than N in the same space.  (snip)

That is EXACTLY why I proposed that the area should be defined in Armstrong squares (which were explained in an insert to a recent Model Railroader, and many times elsewhere.)  Perhaps they can be defined in size for each scale (e.g., 24" radius and a square 28.25" on a side for HO) so somebody who might want to define a super-broad curve as, "Standard," would be kept in check.

Nevertheless, if for example there is a competition for an HO-scale layout in a 15x30-foot room, an N-scaler can submit an HO plan and chuckle to himself that he can do the same thing in 8X17 (if the plan accommodates the truth that human operators don't shrink with scale.)

Mark

And now to drop another rock in the well!  Whether 32 square feet or 8 Armstrong squares, do we charge a second deck as part of the basic area, or do we charge the footprint on the floor?  Put another way, can we get "free" staging on a lower level?  How about a traverser?

I'm beginning to suspect that the real problem is one of cramming people into a box when they prefer to think outside of the box.

Chuck (modeling Central Japan in September, 1964)

[SpaceMouse]

Define "most people"...  The handful of usual suspects who submit entries?  I think that as a sampling of the thousands of registered members to this site, this hardly qualifies as "most people." 

People in this case are those that bother to communicate to me about it. I don't care if people don't to play the game, each contest seems to have 15-20 entrants. And I have found that I can't please everyone. Just on the matter of scale, in the last three posts, we have one that says we should have one scale, one that says all scales, and another that says squares. All three have valid points. In three contests, we've done all three (sort of), and in each case someone bitched about it.

With the exception of the first one where I just said "let's do it," What I've done is listened to everyone voice an opinion and tried to find a middle path. No doubt I've ticked a few people off--some to the point they don't feel like playing anymore. But each time we get a few new people.

In your case, I said I liked your suggestion about 32 sq ft. I even went along with open scale. No one has weighed in on the room size limitation but you so I backed off on that.  But since you were the only one who said it shouldn't be a contest, I didn't go along with that. But you only got 3 out of your four points and you're angry you didn't get four out of four.  

Like I said, you can't please everyone.  

[markpierce]

It is only fair if a "contest" is based on a single modeling scale.  Do we compete drag race cars with eighteen-wheeler heavy haulers in competition?  No!  One is designed for speed and the other for pulling power.

Ah.  But in Sumo, where the only criterion is one's overall ranking, a physically small rishiki can find himself across the ring from somebody half a meter taller and twice as heavy - and once the bout starts, excuses aren't accepted.

  HO can have 4 times more stuff than O, N can have 4 times more than HO, and Z can have 4 times more stuff than N in the same space.  (snip)

That is EXACTLY why I proposed that the area should be defined in Armstrong squares (which were explained in an insert to a recent Model Railroader, and many times elsewhere.)  Perhaps they can be defined in size for each scale (e.g., 24" radius and a square 28.25" on a side for HO) so somebody who might want to define a super-broad curve as, "Standard," would be kept in check.

Nevertheless, if for example there is a competition for an HO-scale layout in a 15x30-foot room, an N-scaler can submit an HO plan and chuckle to himself that he can do the same thing in 8X17 (if the plan accommodates the truth that human operators don't shrink with scale.)

Mark

And now to drop another rock in the well!  Whether 32 square feet or 8 Armstrong squares, do we charge a second deck as part of the basic area, or do we charge the footprint on the floor?  Put another way, can we get "free" staging on a lower level?  How about a traverser?

I'm beginning to suspect that the real problem is one of cramming people into a box when they prefer to think outside of the box.

Chuck (modeling Central Japan in September, 1964)

Ahh soo.... But can a Sumo wrestler beat an average sprinter in a 100-yard dash?

Mark

[steinjr]

Ahh soo.... But can a Sumo wrestler beat an average sprinter in a 100-yard dash?

 Sure.

1. Have support crew with hoist standing by.
2. Grab the sprinter before start.
3. Sit on him.
4. When starter fires gun, use hoist to get up your legs
5. Then calmly walk to the finish line while sprinter is carted away to the hospital.

 

 Grin,
 Stein

[steinjr]

Like I said, you can't please everyone.  

 True. How about just giving the contest format a rest for a while ? We have had three contests in fairly short order (4x8 H0 scale layout, 10x12' room layout any scale and 2x8 H0 shelf module).

 In every one we have seen the same things:

 1) Some people seem to feel a need to push the "prototypical is superior to freelance" fight at every chance. Some people seems to feel a need to push the "N scale is superior to H0 scale" fight at every chance. Some people seem to feel a need to complain about feeling excluded if the theme or scale does not fit what they are interested in.

 In the end, in the attempt to be inclusive to everyone, you tend to end up with rules that at the same time are both too elaborate and too vague.

 2) Each contest generates maybe 200-250 posts to the forums. Most of these posts are meta-discussions on what the contest rules should be like or how the contest rules should be interpreted. Maybe 50 or so of the posts are votes.

 Maybe 20-25 of the posts (10% of the total number of posts related to each contest) actually discusses the submissions and/or the layout design challenges/options.

 Analysis and critique of the submissions with discussions of what could be improved, done different etc, is not really the main focus when this stuff is organized as a contest. The main focus is on agreeing on rules, collecting votes and declaring a winner.

 

 I submit that the contest format, even though it has generated quite a few interesting submitted designs, may not be the optimal way of generating sharing of ideas and discussion of various ways design challenges could be met.

 If sharing ideas and creating discussion is the main purpose of the exercise. 
 But is that the purpose of having these contests ? 
 Maybe the most important question is not "how" ? Maybe it is "why" ?

 If I assume that the purpose is to share ideas and learn from each other. Why not just do regular forum threads with a fixed format ? 

 Use a fixed prefix (e.g "Design Theme: <something>") to signal that your thread conforms to certain minimum standard (and thus are worth taking part in).

 What standards ? Off the top of my head:

 To prevent the forum from being flooded with "Design my layout for me, thanks and bye" posts under the guise of being general "Design Theme:" posts, require that whoever wants to use the "Design Theme:" prefix on their post title will have to write their post in a specific format, that forces the poster to do some very basic homework for himself (or herself) before posting that initial thread that kicks off a Theme or Challenge.

 It should also be a requirement that a person who starts a "Design Theme:" subject must summarize the lessons learned from the discussion on some web page which Chip (SpaceMouse) will link to. If Chip is willing, of course.

 One requirement for the format of an initial post in a new Design Theme:/Design Challenge: thread should be that the initial must contains a link to a web page that contais links to the summaries of all previous such threads.

 If someone starts a Design Theme thread without having done their homework (or have had a theme before without following up on the summary part), then whoever feels like it should feel free to point out the right way of doing things in the new thread, and then not follow up the new thread with answers.

 Anyone who starts a Design Theme thread (or takes part in a Design Theme thread) should be prepared to have their statements or layouts discussed and possibly questioned. But not their motives or their persons.

 If someone starts a Design Theme thread and have bumped it more than 3 times without having gotten any fruitful discussion going, it is time to ask the moderators to lock the thread.

 A handful of common sense (?) rules like that. But "common sense is an uncommon virtue", as some wag put it. What constitutes common sense always can be debated

 Some possible subjects:

• "Coal mining layouts in a 10x12 foot room",
• "H0 scale small rural towns in 2x8 feet",
• "N scale 4x8 foot layouts",
• "Use of special trackwork for switching in confined areas"  
• "Unusual prototypical industry: snuff farm"
• "Minimal Engine Service Areas for Steam Engines"
• "N scale vs H0 scale for a 6x6 foot corner layout"
• "LDE based on Corydon Junction, Indiana"

 Or whatever catches someone's fancy. 

 Does this suggestion makes any sense at all ? Or is it just hot air ?

 Smile,
 Stein