Strategy and expoEM

[John CutlerParticipant]

In the latest Newsletter, Graeme Vickery asks for thoughts regarding the costs of expoEM and whether we should combine the exhibition with Scaleforum.

I think the EMGS needs to review its strategy. We are not sure what we are about.

The appeal of EM is that it is a step into finescale modelling yet is not as demanding as P4. The reality is that P4 modelling requires a lot of skill, time and determination, all of which I tend to lack. “Getting everything right”, the Scalefour Society (unofficial?) motto, is difficult and demanding. I suggest success in P4 is restricted to an (admirable) elite. EM is for the average modeller with limited skill and time, and those like me who care not a jot if my loco has the wrong number/livery/lampirons. Others will say that P4 is easy. The contrary proof for me was the first 18.83 Challenge. All 27 layouts bar one (Cheddar) suffered noticeably from constant operating problems. Some of the P4 newbies such as the Woolworth Road team were visibly and audibly frustrated. Let me be clear; I have nothing against P4 and am a member of the Scalefour Society (one learns a lot and can aspire to/dream of greater things).

What has this got to do with exhibitions, you may ask? If the objective of the EMGS is to encourage modellers to use EMGS standards, why are so many of the expoEM layouts to P4 standards? If the aim is to showcase EM, encourage newcomers to try it out and for EMers to exchange ideas, surely all the exhibits should be to EM gauge? We should celebrate that ordinary (average) modellers can produce exhibition-standard EM layouts and models. By comparing ourselves and trying to compete with P4 models and modellers we do ourselves a disservice. I know I cannot produce models to exacting P4 standards. How many EM modellers are unhappy about exhibiting because they feel their output cannot compare against P4 models?

If we enter into a joint exhibition arrangement with the Scalefour Society, I suggest the bias will be towards P4 layouts and models at the expense of EM. This is nothing to do with board officers being members of both societies. Any exhibition manager wants to put on the best quality show. The best exhibitable 4mm finescale layouts and models tend to be P4.

If we do want to enter into a joint national exhibition affair, I suggest we have more in common with the OO-SF movement than the Scalefour Society.

Which brings me to another point. Why do we publish P4 standards? Why do the Stores stock P4-specific items? This sends the wrong message; we are not sure what we are about.

[Graeme VickeryParticipant]

John

Thanks for commenting on my letter in the newsletter, on which Steve has done another very good job. I hope others  will also comment whether they agree with me or not.

[Ben WeinerParticipant]

The best exhibitable 4mm finescale layouts and models tend to be P4.

If and when it is ready, Orchard Wharf (the current MRC EM project) will go straight on the exhibition circuit.

It will never be best in terms of singleminded dedication because it’s the result of inclusive teamwork by people with different skills and aptitudes. It could nonetheless be a very good 4mm scale exhibition layout. Why? The combination of theme, scenic content, and operational interest. We’re putting on a show, with a stage and actors following a script. That is one formula for a good exhibitable layout — when considering shows aimed at the public at large. It’s EM gauge, and that adds something for those who are genuinely interested in railways and modelling and have learned the awful secret of 00.

So much for the general show. Playing devil’s advocate: perhaps the selection criterion for a special interest show like Scaleforum or the EMGS events is simply that the track and wheels are fine, and it doesn’t matter whether anything moves. Those who wish to admire skillful craftsmanship to fine tolerances can do this better if the trains don’t move around too much. That’s OK if the show is essentially a meeting point and a market place for those who model to such standards, and if they can afford the cost of a show that makes no serious attempt to seek a wider audience. An inward-looking event in other words (and this is not intended as a criticism).

I wonder how many members of the general public do attend such events. I think a 00 modeller might see an EM layout at a general show (or even in a magazine) and follow up by researching EM on the internet. Then they may choose to attend a specialist show. If I was not specifically interested, I think I would find the lack of variety in scale and prototype a bit boring. Equally I would definitely find the trains falling off the track a real turn-off. But if it’s a chance to meet up with others with the same interests and find out whose trains are falling off the least (or more sensibly, how practical some of the more outre approaches actually are) then that’s fine. The layouts might as well be unfinished — often there is more to learn!

If these specialist events are essentially inward-looking then they need to be funded by the membership, because there won’t be families coming along to underwrite the costs. That suggests combining resources is a good idea. Almost everything needed by S4 and EM modellers is the same and many traders are catering to both. Why not assign the choice of layouts equally by floor area to the two societies?

Ben

 

[Graeme VickeryParticipant]

Ben

Some years ago when I was expoEM Manager we did a questionnaire to get a profile of those visiting the show.  the analysis will be well buried in the board minutes of many years ago but the reason I mention it was because something like 70% of the visitors to the show were non-members and well over half said they were 00 gauge modellers of which only a small fraction indicated that they might be interested in membership of EMGS.  so that does suggest the show does have broad appeal amongst 4mm modellers.  Im sure the attendence of those in other scales however was pretty low – unsurprising.

Of course times move on and the visitor profile today may well be very different.  But Id wager that the majority of visitors are still non members (mostly not attending cos they want to join EMGS).  Maybe a board member with access to attendance might care to advise if this is still the case.

If any of the above still holds true, it does suggest that if expoEMs are at some point deemed to no longer be financially viable (and I believe there is work to be done on costs/revenue before we arrive at that point) and we are looking for collaboration then looking beyond socieities that cater for 4mm scale might be more fruitful in getting more footfall (and perhaps more traders too).

Graeme

 

[Nigel BurbidgeParticipant]

I do tend to agree with some of John’s comments in that I think Expo should be a showcase for EM gauge layouts, rather than P4, as a significant part of its raison d’etre is to demonstrate that finescale modelling is within the reach of most modellers.  I do admire those who can model successfully to P4 standards (and have been privileged to see Semley in action – awe inspiring!) but am aware I am a mere bodger.

For me, EM standards provide a good compromise; sufficiently close to total scale to deceive my eyes, yet with sufficient tolerances to cope with my ham fistedness.  I think we should celebrate that pragmatism.  It would be a shame to lose Expo; maybe we should regard it partly as a marketing cost to showcase EM (but again, that would require EM layouts, not P4…).

Nigel

[Michael BoltonParticipant]

I agree that EM is the way forward, it has been for me since the days of helping Roy Jackson with Gainsborough Central, and with EMGS exhibitions I do agree that the majority of layouts should be EM. However, the EMGS does provide stores for P4 and additional resources so there should be some P4 layouts but certainly not the majority though that is not to diminish the excellent P4 layouts which have been on display but the showcase should be for EM layouts. Variety is also shown with the guest layouts which have been excellent.

The recent ExpoEM in Wakefield had only 2 S4 layout against 7 in EM which was fine by me, with the wonderful Blakey Rigg by Paul Greene in S as the guest layout so the mix was pretty much spot on. I understand that there were also more non members than members through the door but maybe the reasons for that, obviously the excellent layouts but also the wide variety of specialist traders which are not found at many of the exhibitions nowadays and the quality of the demonstrators could be a significant draws.

What might encourage more of the non member visitors to model in EM are relatively small/compact layouts that look achievable relatively easily, there were several at Wakefield and while I was there they had people viewing almost continuously.

Overall my experience has been great and congratulations to the organisers.

 

[Paul WillisParticipant]

On John Cutler said

 

Which brings me to another point. Why do we publish P4 standards? Why do the Stores stock P4-specific items? This sends the wrong message; we are not sure what we are about.

Errrr…

From “About the Society”, on the front page of the EMGS website?

“The letters EM reflect the original 18mm gauge standard although this was further refined to 18.2mm. In addition we also support modellers working to the more demanding Protofour (P4) standards, with a track gauge of 18.83mm.”

HTH,

Paul

[Bob AllisonParticipant]

Firstly – thank you John for raising this interesting topic.  I don’t agree with much of what you say, but it’s good to challenge the status quo from time to time and check the mood of the membership.

“I think the EMGS needs to review its strategy. We are not sure what we are about.”

I think the Society knows exactly what it is about: it exists to encourage and support 4mm scale modellers who want better looking models than are possible in OO Gauge.  I think the mix of P4 and EM layouts at society shows reflects that over-arching aim. In any case, as Paul W points out, excluding P4 layouts from our shows would effectively require a significant change to the Society’s constitution.

“By comparing ourselves and trying to compete with P4 models and modellers we do ourselves a disservice.”

I think we do ourselves a greater disservice when we talk of EM Gauge as being suitable for unskilled modellers, or a “step into finescale modelling”, as if it was just the starting point on the road to better things.   It would be better to sell EM as the natural home for modellers who cannot live with the massive compromise inherent in OO Gauge, but for whom the marginal improvement in wheels and track offered by P4 (compared with EM Gauge) does not justify the extra time and effort required.

“How many EM modellers are unhappy about exhibiting because they feel their output cannot compare against P4 models?”

Hopefully none.  A good EM Gauge layout will hold its own against a good P4 layout, and knock spots off a mediocre one.  Many EM Gauge models and some OO Gauge ones exhibit modelling talent of a very high order indeed. Their owners clearly do not lack the skill required to model in P4, they just set the balance between effort and appearance in a slightly different place.

Interesting fact: I spent Saturday operating an OO gauge layout which had not been exhibited before.  It rapidly became clear that it had not been tested either – there wasn’t a single train that ran without uncoupling or derailing (often several times) during the whole 6hr exhibition.  And it won “Best in Show”!  P4 modellers choose that gauge because they like ultra-fine wheels and track, and that is entirely right and proper, but I don’t think the viewing public really care, and most of them don’t even notice.

Bob

[Graeme VickeryParticipant]

Im enjoying reading folks views and insights sparked by my letter in the Oct Newsletter. I agree we shouldnt under-sell ourselves as EM rather than P4 modellers. One very prominent P4 modeller once expressed to me the view that the only difference between EM and P4 is not the skills that are necessary to model in P4 but the time it takes to successfully model to the more stringent standards of P4 – perhaps illustrated by the smaller proportion of large  P4 layouts at exhibitions compared to EM.  IT is far less forgiving and to be honest the only way I can spot the difference between P4 and EM is by looking at the crossing/check rails on points.  So for me its not worth the extra effort necessary to ensure reliable operation with the additonal attention required to track, rolling stock and locos.

The reason why EM covers 18.83 is way before my time on the Board going  back I believe to the early 1970s when the Protofour (and separately Scalefour) standards were developed by a small group on then EMGS members.  I think they subsequently broke away amid much acrymony (why the acrynomy I have no idea) and in a bid to continue to appeal to those EMGS members looking at P4 the EMGS decided to provide necessary trade support.  As I say that is my vague understanding, I am sure others would be able to correct me if I am wrong.  Of course both Protofour and Scalefour standards were developed with the Scalefour Society actually today supporting protofour (rather than scalefour) standards is my understanding…  all a bit odd

As for expoEM.  For me it should primarily be a showcase of EM modelling and an opportunity for MEMBERS to exhibit their layouts to members and non-members.  It follows that this make=up of the show should predominantly be EM layouts.  That was certainly the premise on which the show was established – originallly only traders who were members were allowed to attend but that seemed to be taking things too far so I ditched that requirement.

If I was still running expoEM at Bracknell I would be using the Newsletter to invite members with EM and P4 layouts to contact me if they would like to exhibit at expoEMs.  In other words – dont hold back and wait for an expoEM manager to see you at a show and  invite you,  if you have an exhibition layout then get in touch for an invite..

[John CutlerParticipant]

I am glad that this post has prompted responses and that some people disagree with me! I am pleased that Graeme Vickery raised this topic in the Newsletter and even more so that he is participating on this forum.

Now a confession. Paul Willis raised a significant point in his last post. I checked our constitution at Companies House (why is the constitution not on a an EMGS web-page?) and it seems I am wrong! The objectives of the EMGS are

“(b) to popularise the use of track gauges between 18 and 18.83 mm for railway models and to encourage more accurate modelling;

(c) to establish standards and to provide technical assistance for modellers;”

amongst many others, including the ability to hold balls and lotteries!

Interestingly the constitution allows us to own or lease and run our own premises. We do not have enough reserves on our balance sheet to do that but it would raise the possibility of running exhibitions all year under our control. Location would be a major issue of course.

Which brings me to expoEM again. Location is an issue. With an age profile biased towards the elderly, members like me are reluctant to travel far so it is not surprising that members at shows form a low percentage of attendees. It seems that we are beholden to the general public to make expoEM pay. If this is the case and the objective is to showcase/popularise 18-18.83mm layouts then to maximise attendance by the public requires expoEM to be held in major centres of population: London, Birmingham, Manchester, Leeds, Glasgow and Cardiff. The expenses will be at least treble our current spend but the ticket income will be greater (I suggest ticket prices could be much higher). Risks could be minimised by co-hosting such shows with local clubs; the MRC comes to mind. Note that this is not to my personal liking; I prefer the finescale shows at Wells and Warminster.

[73AParticipant]

If this is the case and the objective is to showcase/popularise 18-18.83mm layouts then to maximise attendance by the public requires expoEM to be held in major centres of population: London, Birmingham, Manchester, Leeds, Glasgow and Cardiff. The expenses will be at least treble our current spend but the ticket income will be greater (I suggest ticket prices could be much higher). Risks could be minimised by co-hosting such shows with local clubs; the MRC comes to mind. Note that this is not to my personal liking; I prefer the finescale shows at Wells and Warminster.

The Scalefour Society are already doing this with our “show within a show” concept and already works well with several exhibitions around the country, including Scalefour Southwest which is a major part of Railwells.

The latest Scalefour Society “show within a show” is Scalefour Southeast which is part of the excellent Uckfield MRC Exhibition this weekend (Saturday 21st & Sunday 22nd October).  See http://www.uckfieldmrc.co.uk/exhibition.html

Scalefour Cumberland will be part of the Workington Model Railway Exhibition on 19th & 20th November 2023 and a new venture, Scalefour Pontefract, in conjunction with the Normanton & Pontefract Railway Modellers Society, takes place on 27th & 28th January 2024.

The various Scalefour Society “shows within a show” around the country, along with the many displays/demonstrations put on by Area Groups at local events, certainly help to showcase 4mm finescale modelling to both modellers and the general public and we look forward to seeing many members of both the Scalefour Society and the EMGS at our events during the year as we grow the concept.

• This reply was modified 10 months, 3 weeks ago by 73A.

[John CutlerParticipant]

Er, sorry 73A,

What exactly is your point, please?

Are you suggesting we scrap expoEM in favour of supporting local shows?

Or is this post just advertising Scalefour to members? In which case it belongs elsewhere.

 

 

 

[73AParticipant]

On John Cutler said

Er, sorry 73A,

What exactly is your point, please?

Are you suggesting we scrap expoEM in favour of supporting local shows?

Or is this post just advertising Scalefour to members? In which case it belongs elsewhere.

 

 

 

It was an attempt to point out that your suggestion about co-hosting with local exhibitions to showcase 4mm finescale is not new.  It can be done and is already being done.

[asjharrisParticipant]

As a new member I was surprised to see the P4 standards and products in the shop. I can understand the historical and constitutional aspects, but it seems very outdated now. If you want to do P4, you join the Scalefour society, not the EMGS and vice-versa. I wouldn’t have known the EMGS supported P4.

There’s three possible options, 1, no change, 2, drop the P4 standards or 3, enter into negotiations with the Scalefour society to re-merge and thus share resources on what already is a small market share of the hobby. (obvs the tribal nature of the world means option 3 is unlikely)

Tony

[John CutlerParticipant]

Thanks 73A

Does the EMGS co-host local shows? I do not think so as it would show up in our accounts. I know the EMGS stand appears at local exhibitions. I do not think we run shows within shows as 73A suggests the Scalefour Society does. However, I can find no evidence of any income (or expenditure) arising from shows within shows from the Scalefour accounts so may be these only arise out of goodwill from the exhibition organisers?

In order to showcase the EMGS nationally I think the EMGS needs to take on a proportion of the costs, risk, and of course income as a co-host.

 

 

[Paul WillisParticipant]

On asjharris said

As a new member I was surprised to see the P4 standards and products in the shop. I can understand the historical and constitutional aspects, but it seems very outdated now. If you want to do P4, you join the Scalefour society, not the EMGS and vice-versa. I wouldn’t have known the EMGS supported P4.

There’s three possible options, 1, no change, 2, drop the P4 standards or 3, enter into negotiations with the Scalefour society to re-merge and thus share resources on what already is a small market share of the hobby. (obvs the tribal nature of the world means option 3 is unlikely)

Tony

Hi Tony,

Let’s not get carried away here.  I spent a few years in a moderately senior position at the UK financial services regulator.  Whenever considering any form of market intervention, the first question back then was “what is the harm?”.

Whilst your options (2) and (3) could be done, what would it actually achieve in the real world?

I’m a P4 modeller and I have happily also been a member of the EMGS since Chris Kedgely personally invited me to join.  I simply don’t see what the problem is that needs fixing.

If there is a question about strategy, like “where will the EMGS be in twenty years?”, then that is a different question.  I feel that many of us would pay more attention to modelling than how many angels can balance on the head of a pin.  Both the constitutional changes to the EMGS and the establishment of the Scalefour Society occurred well over forty years ago, and frankly, does anyone actually care what happened back then?

Best,

Paul

[Graeme VickeryParticipant]

On asjharris said

As a new member I was surprised to see the P4 standards and products in the shop. I can understand the historical and constitutional aspects, but it seems very outdated now. If you want to do P4, you join the Scalefour society, not the EMGS and vice-versa. I wouldn’t have known the EMGS supported P4.

There’s three possible options, 1, no change, 2, drop the P4 standards or 3, enter into negotiations with the Scalefour society to re-merge and thus share resources on what already is a small market share of the hobby. (obvs the tribal nature of the world means option 3 is unlikely)

Tony

On 73A said

On John Cutler said

Er, sorry 73A,

What exactly is your point, please?

Are you suggesting we scrap expoEM in favour of supporting local shows?

Or is this post just advertising Scalefour to members? In which case it belongs elsewhere.

 

 

 

It was an attempt to point out that your suggestion about co-hosting with local exhibitions to showcase 4mm finescale is not new.  It can be done and is already being done.

incorporating Scaleforum style events into club shows is good idea and maybe an approach the board might consider. I recall the EMGS did something similar with the SouthHants club when we stopped expoEM South and the SouthHants club effectively took over the date and location for their own show. 73A, do you have any insight in terms of how the costs/risks/surpluses etc are shared between the club organising these shows and the Scalefour Soc?  obviiously the detail of any commercial agreement are strictly between the parties but Id be interested to know if there is any kind of “sharing” agreement between the parties or is it simply a commitment on part of show organisers to invite some S4 layouts (maybe with some help from the S4S) and the society stand all being co-located at the show

[Graeme VickeryParticipant]

On Paul Willis said

On asjharris said

As a new member I was surprised to see the P4 standards and products in the shop. I can understand the historical and constitutional aspects, but it seems very outdated now. If you want to do P4, you join the Scalefour society, not the EMGS and vice-versa. I wouldn’t have known the EMGS supported P4.

There’s three possible options, 1, no change, 2, drop the P4 standards or 3, enter into negotiations with the Scalefour society to re-merge and thus share resources on what already is a small market share of the hobby. (obvs the tribal nature of the world means option 3 is unlikely)

Tony

Hi Tony,

Let’s not get carried away here.  I spent a few years in a moderately senior position at the UK financial services regulator.  Whenever considering any form of market intervention, the first question back then was “what is the harm?”.

Whilst your options (2) and (3) could be done, what would it actually achieve in the real world?

I’m a P4 modeller and I have happily also been a member of the EMGS since Chris Kedgely personally invited me to join.  I simply don’t see what the problem is that needs fixing.

If there is a question about strategy, like “where will the EMGS be in twenty years?”, then that is a different question.  I feel that many of us would pay more attention to modelling than how many angels can balance on the head of a pin.  Both the constitutional changes to the EMGS and the establishment of the Scalefour Society occurred well over forty years ago, and frankly, does anyone actually care what happened back then?

Best,

Paul

Paul

I dont see a problem that needs fixing as you say.  the only problem is that expoEM since covid seems to be loosing too much money.  expoEM and Scalefourum (so I unnderstand) are both struggling to make ends meet hence the rather simplistic suggestion of ditiching both in favour of a new joint show.  Both are very similar with excellent specialist trade support and excellent layouts.  So all things being equal, ditching them for a combined event just means the “subsidy” is spread across the 2 societies and Im not sure that really gets us very much further forward.  and of course as soon as folk talk of a joint show between EMGS and S4S, as has  been provided here, it is not long before a discussion starts about  merging the societies so we go full circle back to what actually is the problem we are trying to fix and does it really exist?

[William Wyatt-MillingtonParticipant]

As the current chairman of the EMGS I would like to thank the people who have added to this thread. There is quite a bit to take in and the Board are in the process of discussing the future of the expo shows. However we are approaching the time of the AGM and there will be a new Chairman elected at the meeting. I firmly believe that the review of expo’s and their arrangement should be a major topic of discussion in the New Year by the new Board.

In talking to the exhibition manager for expoEM Spring all the layouts are already booked. It should be noted that there is a long lead time for the booking of layouts may get a number of invitations and the earlier you get in an invite the more likely you are to get the layouts you want for a particular year.

On a completely different topic I did a SWOT analysis some year sago when I was first asked about becoming Chairman. A major threat I identified at the time was the quality of RTR stock. At the time EM and P4 came into being the quality of RTR was dire and the only way to get a reasonable representation of a railway scene was to kit build or scratch build. These days a reasonable representation of railway scene can be built using RTR stock from the various manufacturers, and the number of manufacturers seems to be increasing on a year-by-year basis. I know there will be readers of this post who will violently disagree with me, but I have had the privilege of operating two Finescale-OO layouts built by Shipley Model Railway Society.

 

[Stuart FirthParticipant]

I think the Chairman has a very valid point – demand for a kit is known to fall off a cliff when a decent RTR model is released. It seems that a lot of people just want a decent model of something. This seems very odd to me as I enjoy making things and RTR is therefore, to me, the definition of pointless, rather like an artist buying a painting because it’s quicker than doing his/her own (I’m very far from being an artist I hasten to add!). Nevertheless it is a threat, and probably more to us than to P4 because they, in a way, are more likely to be people like me than the other type. Going back to the discussion above, I don’t think we should sell ourselves short. I’m sure I could work to P4 standards but choose not to because the visual improvement seems, to me, quite small compared to the extra time and swearing that would be required to achieve it successfully.

Sadly therefore it is very important to appeal to the RTR-loving modeller, showing how easy conversions are, publicising the track, etc. We just need to do this without dumbing down the craft side of our hobby.

 

[Paul TomlinsonParticipant]

I’ve been chewing over whether to add my two penn’orth, but to pick up on Stuart’s last paragraph, the “Show within a Show” concept used by the Scalefour Society (and mentioned by Steve, above) seems to me to be a very good way of promoting (in a practical way) what we offer in terms of improved appearance/running qualities over 00, and the ease with which this can be done through conversion sets and most importantly, our RTR point and trackwork. With luck, we may be able to attract new blood to the society?

For me, though, the impetus to travel up to a hundred miles to attend a show requires a substantial Trade presence. This would only occur at an ExpoEM or Scaleforum type of event, where the cost is high and the risk of insufficient return is real. We may be driven through necessity to combine our resources with the Scalefour Society in staging such an event, in order to secure it’s survival?

[asjharrisParticipant]

As someone who has twelve shows under my belt with a OO exhibition layout, none of the shows I attended did the exhibition manager report a significant loss, majority were profitable. Therefore it must be that ExpoEM has no interest for the general public, indeed I can’t see why they’d want to attend a rivet counters ball. (Although there is a P4 Thomas on Western Thunder) In which case it will always lose money, so maybe it’s always going to be a loss leader and you’ll have to accept it.

As for RTR, why is this a threat? Converting RTR saves me time I do not have and anyway, I couldn’t build it that good. Please don’t knock RTR converts. As to the point about RTR not encouraging skills, converting RTR doesn’t build the baseboard, do the wiring, lay the track and make the scenery.
Cheers
Tony

[Michael BoltonParticipant]

And yet oddly more of the visitors to the EM Wakefield show were non members than members?

[Paul TomlinsonParticipant]

I suspect that many of the non-members were northern Scalefour Society members, attracted by the finescale elements which we both share. Whether an event is hosted by the EMGS or the Scalefour Society doesn’t matter to me(!) – it’s what the show offers that matters.
The attendance figures show that Wakefield must be an attractive venue, and the future of the event looks secure, which is great.

[Stuart FirthParticipant]

Do we advertise our Expos in the local area? For instance an advert in the Bracknell advertiser, or whatever it may be? I’m sure that local people who only have a very general interest would find it a good experience, and if they help to subsidise it for the rest of us, where is the harm in that?

[asjharrisParticipant]

Good point, is there any local advertising?
Tony

[Trade OfficerKeymaster]

Yes there is local advertising that we intend to increase through whatever type we can (local what’s on Facebook, library, supermarkets  etc).  That probably accounts with some of the ~2:1 ratio of non members at Wakefield. We also have invited local Model Railway societies to have a free stand at the expo advertising their club. The one thing we didn’t seem to get was many family visits which we are looking at ways to help improve that. Accompanied children do get in free (under 16).

We advertise it locally as a Model Railway show – no mention of finescale etc

john

• This reply was modified 10 months, 2 weeks ago by Trade Officer.
• This reply was modified 10 months, 2 weeks ago by Trade Officer.

[asjharrisParticipant]

I guess it’s never going to be a show that is very attractive to families, there doesn’t seem any point in encouraging a parent to go straight in and build an EM layout with or for their children.
Tony

• This reply was modified 10 months, 2 weeks ago by asjharris.
• This reply was modified 10 months, 2 weeks ago by asjharris.
• This reply was modified 10 months, 2 weeks ago by asjharris.

[Trade OfficerKeymaster]

In a lot of ways it is not about getting people into modelling in EM gauge, or railway modelling at all. I am guessing that local shows often attract people / families who just like to look at model railways. And who knows in a few years time the children just might get into the hobby as a result.

As Stuart says – it subsidises the shows for members and helps us continue and if we get a couple of new members as a result – that is a result

John

[Author]

Posts