009 Society Members Forum

I see that the Collection has been out and about and is growing and becoming much more visible since Julien took over.

I do feel, though, that there is a major omission in it, early Ready To Run stock, from the likes of Minitrains, Zeuke, Liliput, Roco etc., and the early kits. Whilst the likes of the AVR, Craigshire et all may have been the incentive to try out 009/H0e it was the RTR and kits that were available that allowed most of us to actually make a layout as scratchbuilding locos or have enough money to pay someone else to do it was beyond most of us (and still is!!)... If you look at early 009 layouts in the magazines of the 60s and 70s they include a lot of stock from those early manufacturers, some painted/modified, some left original. I'd suggest that the Society should be "diverting" good examples of original RTR to the Collection when such items appear on the Sales stand so that people can see what the early 009/H0e modellers had to use.

Several years ago, before Julien became Heritage Officer, I offered several examples of the Zeuke H0m stock to the Society but the then officer wasn't interested and so they went on eBay, I see some similar stock has appeared since, in modified form (repaint/re-bogied) in the collection. Surely some unmolested examples should also be in there, not just ones that were owned by someone "famous"?! (Whatever your definition of "famous" is!)

Once a start is made down the path of early ready to run items that were seen on layouts in the 60's and 70's where would it end?
I have been collecting Egger-bahn, Jouef, and 1960's Minitrains for over 40 years.
I keep to just one example of each version produced, even so that is about 50 locos, and I still have a few versions yet to obtain even now.

Regarding Egger-bahn what version of each loco would be appropriate for the Society collection?
The first early version, the most common version seen on 60's and 70's layouts, the most unusual version or the last version made.

There were also two versions of the 1960's Minitrains Baldwin (one is very unusual) as well as three version of the 1960's and 70's Jouef Decauville loco plus another in the 1980's.

Then there is all the rolling stock.

So as I said where it would end!

Perhaps I should just leave my collection to the society one day, that would solve the probelm?
But I doubt that would be viable long term.

The issue is twofold, Hobby.

Firstly, until I wrote one and it was approved by the Committee there was no collection policy.  To be honest we ended up with some items that were accepted because it was felt (at the time) that a refusal would offend the donor, and equally offers for items that perhaps in hindsight should have been taken up were not, because they didn't fit in with someone's ideas and interpretation of what "009 Modelling" actually was - and it's a bit difficult to ask my predecessor in the job what his thoughts were.

Secondly, I'll refer to the current Heritage guidelines (I think the whole document is on the Society's website in the member area - apologies if it isn't*)...

Quote4.  That the model, if commercial, is representative of the progression of 009 modelling;

   4.1. It may be that the collection already adequately represents certain key stages or aspects of 009 modelling: In such cases acquisition should then be restricted to    securing examples in better condition and/or earlier in date (e.g. Eggerbahn to be    preferred over Jouef retreads of Eggerbahn). In addition such acquisitions should be    undertaken as replacements (i.e. poorer condition / later example is disposed of);

However:

QuoteBecause of the nature of the Society the Heritage Collection should not be a comprehensive collection of any modeller or manufacturer, but should be aim to be representative of the  history of small scale narrow gauge modelling, defined as "Models of railways with a prototype gauge less than 4' 8 1/2" in scales 1:76 and 1:87 (with some leeway either way)". For brevity, reference below to '009 modelling' or similar phrases, should be taken to mean this.

So, in essence, yes, perhaps the like of Minitrains, Zeuke, Liliput, Roco etc. should be represented in the collection in addition to the Eggerbahn and Jouef stuff we do have, but the collection needs to be representative rather than exhaustive as nobody has the space to have 'one of everything' - especially me!

We do have some examples of Zeuke stock in the collection, other than the Fawrcarnedd 0-10-0, that is fairly unmolested - some ex-David Mander's Stronachlacher stock that at most has only been repainted - and should the opportunity come up to obtain, for example, a mint in box G Thommen, I would recommend its acquisition, especially if it were donated free of charge.

BUT I can only make a recommendation to the Committee, and it would have to be in very good condition to be eligible, so to the membership in general please do not inundate me with offers of locos and stock that have been run into the ground and/or hacked about just for the 'kudos' of having something of yours in the collection as a refusal may offend - and I can get quite offensive after the 20th similar offer! ::)


*EDIT - I've checked and it is.

Quote from: B.Meldon on May 26, 2023, 09:13
Once a start is made down the path of early ready to run items that were seen on layouts in the 60's and 70's where would it end?

So as I said where it would end!

You are looking at it from a "collector's" point of view, Brian, the simple answer is that we'd do the same as people in museums do everywhere else, we'd save significant examples of stock, not every single version like you do! The collection is there to show people what things were like in early days, so you don't need an example of every colour variation (real or imagined), just one would do!

I'd go back to what I said, the early RTR is just as important in the history of small scale NG modelling as stock from "well known" layouts is as it can be used to show where we've come from, most modellers didn't scratchbuild or pay for someone else to build, they bought the likes of Jouef, Minitrains and Liliput, as can be seen from looking at articles on 009 layouts in the press in the 60s and 70s.

Quote from: JulienW on May 26, 2023, 09:17
......and should the opportunity come up to obtain, for example, a mint in box G Thommen, I would recommend its acquisition, especially if it were donated free of charge.

There were three versions of the Liliput 'G Thommen'. There were two different cab top fittings and a third later version with cast metal spoked wheel centres. (Not plastic wheel centres as most have.)
So again what one would be 'representative' the first version, the most common version of the later version?

You will not find a box with the foam in good condition as this has all deteriorated with time, many are now little more than dust!

Julien posted whilst I was posting, so I've slightly altered the last post.

You said "it would have to be in very good condition to be eligible" that is contradicted by your quote of the Society guidelines "In such cases acquisition should then be restricted to securing examples in better condition and/or earlier in date (e.g. Eggerbahn to be preferred over Jouef retreads of Eggerbahn). In addition such acquisitions should be undertaken as replacements (i.e. poorer condition / later example is disposed of)" which would indicate that you accept examples but if better ones come along then they are replaced and disposed of.

I note that the Society says it can accept donations to the collection and that if better ones arrive then earlier examples can be disposed of so I'd suggest that "mint" examples, whilst they should be the aim, should not be the be-all and end-all. I can donate a Jouef 0-4-0 which certainly isn't mint but would tide things over until a better one came along.

This section says it all for me:

"It may be that the collection already adequately represents certain key stages or aspects of 009 modelling"

I would suggest that versions of early RTR are a key aspect and stage of 009 modelling, and from what I've seen early unmolested RTR is poorly represented in the collection, with the concentration being stock from "significant" layouts which are nice but not representative of what most of us started out with.

The Heritage Collection is not a "Museum of Everything 009 & related scales".  If you go down that route, just where do you stop ? It would effectively mean obtaining an example of anything and everything 009 / HOe / HOn30, etc etc ad infinitum.  Logically it would also mean obtaining examples of today's current models at reasonable cost rather than waiting another 20 - 30 years for them to achieve "collector's" prices.  And what about the small cottage industry producers ? Why restrict to mainstream manufacturers ? We would have to include the likes of Paul Windle, Fourdees etc.

The acquisition policy is I agree somewhat nebulous,  usually based on recognising something as and when it turns up as being of historical interest.

The collection of mint examples of items from mainstream manufacturers is best left to individual obsessives, and that is meant kindly and is no way derogatory, more power to them I say, but it is just not what the heritage collection is for.

Garry

Quote from: Hobby on May 26, 2023, 09:27
You are looking at it from a "collector's" point of view, Brian, the simple answer is that we'd do the same as people in museums do everywhere else, we'd save significant examples of stock, not every single version like you do! The collection is there to show people what things were like in early days, so you don't need an example of every colour variation (real or imagined), just one would do!

I'd go back to what I said, the early RTR is just as important in the history of small scale NG modelling as stock from "well known" layouts is as it can be used to show where we've come from, most modellers didn't scratchbuild or pay for someone else to build, they bought the likes of Jouef, Minitrains and Liliput, as can be seen from looking at articles on 009 layouts in the press in the 60s and 70s.

If that was indeed the policy adopted for the society collection I would sudgest the following early ready to run locos:

1966 Jouef Decauville with flat side tanks and red wheels. (ie the first production run)

1960's Minitrains Baldwin with metal rods. (They also made them wih plastic rods)

1960's  Minitrains Plymouth

1974 Roco 0-6-0 black steam loco with the 'Atlas' chassis, and both connecting and coupling rods and fixed chimney. (ie the first production run)

1970's Roco 0-6-0 green diesel with the 'Atlas' chassis (ie the first production run)

1970's Liliput U class 0-6-2 with plastic wheel centres. (There were several versions but just one will do.)

1970's Liliput 'G Thommen' with plastic wheel centres. 

These would cover both the general apearance of what was available and be examples of the earlest versions.

There is already a 1963 Egger-bahn diesel in the collection.

For the rest of the Egger range I would go for the versions that were most common rather than the first ones made, so that would be the Jouef versions made between 1968 and 1972.

However, as you say I do collect these items, so I tend to look at them from a collectors point of view.

Quote from: garrywhiting on May 26, 2023, 09:40

The collection of mint examples of items from mainstream manufacturers is best left to individual obsessives, and that is meant kindly and is no way derogatory, more power to them I say, but it is just not what the heritage collection is for.

Garry

You are 100% right I am a bit obsessive when it comes to collecting Egger-bahn etc!!
To this day I am still on the look out for the versions I have not yet got, but at least all my collection locos do work and get occasional use when I have an 'Egger day' on my layout.
I also agree that it is not practical or desirable for the society heritage collection to have every item produced.

However, perhaps representative early items would indeed be a good idea, but as I mentioned I think the choice of what actual versions would be appropriate for the collection is critical.

Quote from: garrywhiting on May 26, 2023, 09:40
The Heritage Collection is not a "Museum of Everything 009 & related scales".  If you go down that route, just where do you stop ?

The acquisition policy is I agree somewhat nebulous,  usually based on recognising something as and when it turns up as being of historical interest.

The collection of mint examples of items from mainstream manufacturers is best left to individual obsessives, and that is meant kindly and is no way derogatory, more power to them I say, but it is just not what the heritage collection is for.

Garry

I wonder if you read my post, Garry? I did say that it shouldn't include every variation that was made, just significant examples of certain items. Brian has replied with a sensible list of stock that could (should?) be considered, though it is just locos, I'd also suggest that some representative rolling stock should also be included.

I'm not asking for masses of RTR stock, just a representation of stock that we all used to show current modellers what we were using back then (surely the whole point of such a collection?).

Quite frankly I don't understand the negativity I'm seeing, it is coming across as elitist, if it wasn't owned/built/paid for by someone "famous" it shouldn't be part of the collection. I didn't start with that sort of stock, I started with RTR, as I suspect most of us did, if RTR is not a key part of the development of 009 Modelling I don't know what is!

I'd hoped attitudes have changed, it seems not.

Quote from: Hobby on May 26, 2023, 10:01



I wonder if you read my post, Garry?


Blair , You are now being simultaneously rude and insulting, and retrospectively editing your original posting does not assist in any way.

Methinks an apology would not go amiss.


Garry

Garry, I covered what you said in a reply which came before yours pointing out that I wasn't suggesting collecting everything but significant items, in my reply to Brain. You answered my original post but ignored my later post which came before your first post and covered the point you made, please look at my post timed at 09:27, to yours at 09:40.

Quote from: Hobby on May 26, 2023, 10:58
I wasn't suggesting collecting everything but significant items, in my reply to Brain.

ok,  so who may I ask, decides what is "significant" and what is not ?  What are the criteria to be applied ?  What undiscernable quality distinguishes a significant item from the mundane ?

Garry

I've had my say, Brian has very kindly taken what I said at face value and come back with what, in my view, are reasonable suggestions. I feel that the early RTR stock was crucial to the start of 009 as a viable modelling scale and not just for those who had the money and/or the skills to get by without. As such it has earned it's inclusion in the Collection, whether it's mundane or not (though I'm not sure why being "mundane" should be a valid criteria!).

You clearly don't agree, perhaps best to agree to differ.

Quote from: B.Meldon on May 26, 2023, 09:48

If that was indeed the policy adopted for the society collection I would sudgest the following early ready to run locos:

1966 Jouef Decauville with flat side tanks and red wheels. (ie the first production run)

1960's Minitrains Baldwin with metal rods. (They also made them wih plastic rods)

1960's  Minitrains Plymouth

1974 Roco 0-6-0 black steam loco with the 'Atlas' chassis, and both connecting and coupling rods and fixed chimney. (ie the first production run)

1970's Roco 0-6-0 green diesel with the 'Atlas' chassis (ie the first production run)

1970's Liliput U class 0-6-2 with plastic wheel centres. (There were several versions but just one will do.)

1970's Liliput 'G Thommen' with plastic wheel centres. 

These would cover both the general apearance of what was available and be examples of the earlest versions.

There is already a 1963 Egger-bahn diesel in the collection.

For the rest of the Egger range I would go for the versions that were most common rather than the first ones made, so that would be the Jouef versions made between 1968 and 1972.

However, as you say I do collect these items, so I tend to look at them from a collectors point of view.

Brian, that seems like a reasonable starting point, I'd also look at the H0m stuff from Zeuke, though from what Julien has said there is already some of that, albeit modified and not original. I agree that if not careful we could end up with lots of stuff so it's worth having a list of "key" stock and, other than the lack of rolling stock, that covers most bases, certainly what we saw in the early 009 layouts seen in RM and such like in the 60s and 70s. In view of the way it's displayed I'd question whether an original box is needed, I'd suggest that the loco/rolling stock itself is sufficient?

I get the impression (perhaps wrongly) that the current attitude towards the collection is to try and preserve everything that came from one of the "founders" of small scale railway modelling, with searches for "missing" items seen as very important. As such we have quite large collections from several of those early modellers. I'd question whether we really need to take that approach (if that's what is happening?) or if we should stick to just keeping the more significant items? Of course we then run into the issue that Garry mentioned about what is "significant"!

Quote from: Hobby on May 26, 2023, 12:15
.......In view of the way it's displayed I'd question whether an original box is needed, I'd suggest that the loco/rolling stock itself is sufficient?.......

Yes I agree. I am not that bothered about collecting the original boxes myself, but with the Egger items the original boxes are a good way to store the rolling stock.

That said I do have boxes for most of my items, this is just because when I do get an item with a box in a job lot I tend to keep the boxes. If I sell a duplicate item I sell is without the box, over the years the results in having boxes for just about everything.

(I also have a method for restoring the Egger plastic boxes so they look like new even when quite badly scratched.)

I also have a few of the set boxes, simply because they are an important part of the Egger story, these include the original 1963 set and the  Minitrains Western set. 

Quote from: B.Meldon on May 26, 2023, 09:48

<snipped>... I would sudgest the following early ready to run locos:

1966 Jouef Decauville with flat side tanks and red wheels. (ie the first production run)

1960's Minitrains Baldwin with metal rods. (They also made them wih plastic rods)

1960's  Minitrains Plymouth

1974 Roco 0-6-0 black steam loco with the 'Atlas' chassis, and both connecting and coupling rods and fixed chimney. (ie the first production run)

1970's Roco 0-6-0 green diesel with the 'Atlas' chassis (ie the first production run)

1970's Liliput U class 0-6-2 with plastic wheel centres. (There were several versions but just one will do.)

1970's Liliput 'G Thommen' with plastic wheel centres. 

These would cover both the general apearance of what was available and be examples of the earlest versions.

There is already a 1963 Egger-bahn diesel in the collection.

For the rest of the Egger range I would go for the versions that were most common rather than the first ones made, so that would be the Jouef versions made between 1968 and 1972.

However, as you say I do collect these items, so I tend to look at them from a collectors point of view.

Thank you for your suggestions Brian.

The collection recently acquired a Jouef Decauville in the form of a Jouef HOe set V01 consisting of Decauville loco, 3 skip wagons, oval of track, re-railer and power lead that was purchased from the estate of Roy Link. I'm assuming it is genuine, but then I'm no expert!

As to the others, I may be inclined to go for one example from each of the 3 manufacturers mentioned rather than both steam and diesel loco (or both steam loco in the Liliput case) to be representative of what was available to the modeller back in the days when the 009 Society took its first faltering steps.

I'll certainly put this proposal to the Committee when we next meet.

But Garry is quite right in that the Heirtage Collection is not a "Museum of Everything 009 & related scales".  The trick is to try to strike a balance, and dare I say try to please most of the people most of the time (an almost impossible task, as anyone will tell you!).

Quote from: Hobby on May 26, 2023, 12:15

I get the impression (perhaps wrongly) that the current attitude towards the collection is to try and preserve everything that came from one of the "founders" of small scale railway modelling, with searches for "missing" items seen as very important. As such we have quite large collections from several of those early modellers. I'd question whether we really need to take that approach (if that's what is happening?) or if we should stick to just keeping the more significant items? Of course we then run into the issue that Garry mentioned about what is "significant"!

I think that may well have been the case in the past, particularly given the 'early influences' of my predecessor.

My own view is that whilst the efforts of P D Hancock - to take a random example - were impressive, he was only well know because he got himself published.

At the time for every Hancock there were probably another dozen or so other people working in similar circumstances and similar scales but who didn't come to the attention of the model railway press, and therefore were pretty much unknown.

Take these for example...
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52919547408_3cda3aacb7.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2oCjvKN)

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52919547423_32b4ee5c9e.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2oCjvL4)

These little gems are from a collection of 8 mm gauge stock built by John & Robert McMillan in the 1960s.  Donated by Keith Angus in 2022,  there are now in the collection and were both on display at the AGM.

To me their efforts are just as impressive as PDH's work, maybe more so in shoehorning that huge motor into a 4mm scale body (as opposed to 'cheating' and using 4.5mm scale) and on 8mm gauge to boot.  But as far as I know John & Robert never wrote about about what they were doing or had anything published, and if it hadn't been for Keith finding them at a church hall sale rasing money for charity (iirc) they would probably have gone in the bin.

Perhaps it's because I'm of a different generation (my early influences were looking at Dave Rowe's 009 layouts at the exhibitions put on at the Victoria Rooms, and later in the old dockside buildings at Cannon's Marsh in Bristol in the late 1970s) I'm afraid I don't go weak at the knees at the though of Moira, Angus, and Co.

Though whether my successor Heritage officers agree with me or not - perhaps they will feel I should have purchased all of the Bachmann USA 'Thomas" locos as they came out, or a Mk.1 Heljan L&B 2-6-2T - who knows.

Anyway, will the Heritage Collection be on display at the 50th Anniversary event?

QuoteThe collection recently acquired a Jouef Decauville in the form of a Jouef HOe set V01 consisting of Decauville loco, 3 skip wagons, oval of track, re-railer and power lead...

If you've got one of those then you'll need a VE set - with two open coaches instead of the skips - in mint condition as well, surely? If so, contact Sales asap before it goes on general sale...  :)

The Sales Team

Quote from: Tom Haythornthwaite on May 26, 2023, 18:19
Anyway, will the Heritage Collection be on display at the 50th Anniversary event?

Whilst it will not all be on display as there are 200+ items, there is a plan in place involving a pair of 6 foot tables, the 2 Perspex display cases the West Mids group has and the 2 cases that Bill Luty used to use that should allow us to display a fair amount.

Not that I'm all that sure there will be much interest, but we will see...

Quote from: JulienW on May 26, 2023, 15:22

Quote from: B.Meldon on May 26, 2023, 09:48

<snipped>... I would sudgest the following early ready to run locos:

1966 Jouef Decauville with flat side tanks and red wheels. (ie the first production run)

1960's Minitrains Baldwin with metal rods. (They also made them wih plastic rods)

1960's  Minitrains Plymouth

1974 Roco 0-6-0 black steam loco with the 'Atlas' chassis, and both connecting and coupling rods and fixed chimney. (ie the first production run)

1970's Roco 0-6-0 green diesel with the 'Atlas' chassis (ie the first production run)

1970's Liliput U class 0-6-2 with plastic wheel centres. (There were several versions but just one will do.)

1970's Liliput 'G Thommen' with plastic wheel centres. 

These would cover both the general apearance of what was available and be examples of the earlest versions.

There is already a 1963 Egger-bahn diesel in the collection.

For the rest of the Egger range I would go for the versions that were most common rather than the first ones made, so that would be the Jouef versions made between 1968 and 1972.

However, as you say I do collect these items, so I tend to look at them from a collectors point of view.

Thank you for your suggestions Brian.

The collection recently acquired a Jouef Decauville in the form of a Jouef HOe set V01 consisting of Decauville loco, 3 skip wagons, oval of track, re-railer and power lead that was purchased from the estate of Roy Link. I'm assuming it is genuine, but then I'm no expert!

As to the others, I may be inclined to go for one example from each of the 3 manufacturers mentioned rather than both steam and diesel loco (or both steam loco in the Liliput case) to be representative of what was available to the modeller back in the days when the 009 Society took its first faltering steps.

I'll certainly put this proposal to the Committee when we next meet.

But Garry is quite right in that the Heirtage Collection is not a "Museum of Everything 009 & related scales".  The trick is to try to strike a balance, and dare I say try to please most of the people most of the time (an almost impossible task, as anyone will tell you!).

As someone who actually works in a museum (and has worked and volunteered in others in the past, though not specifically in collections management) I find this a fascinating topic. In a museum context it often comes down to the story you want to tell, which objects are best and most important for this, and how best to present them. So if the 'story' is 'the development of 009 from the early years right up to today' then you definitely want to include items like the Craig & Mertonford locos. I also like the point raised above about other modellers at the time who were constructing layouts and rolling stock that were equally impressive but are less well-known because they didn't publish their work, but on the other hand you could argue that part of P. D. Hancock's importance to 009 is precisely that he did write about his modelling and get published, thus making 009 more visible in the general model railway press and inspiring more people to have a go themselves.

Equally though, RTR was important in enabling people to get into 009. I'd agree with others that if there is RTR it needs to be representative but doesn't need to include 'one of everything' - again, the 'story' is about 009 and not specifically the history of Eggerbahn. For instance, the Egger 'Western' loco helps to tell a very interesting story about the relationship between Eggerbahn and Constantin Films, and the financing and merchandising involved, but that's perhaps a bit specific for a more general history of 009 (especially when you consider Egger is really H0e anyway, which is within the range of scales the Society covers but has always had more RTR). So potentially (from a museum point of view) the currently-included Jouef Decauville set and 1963 Egger diesel that Julien mentions are enough to illustrate this chapter, perhaps with the addition of some suitable wagons and track, contemporary with the diesel, but I think also things like adverts and publicity produced by Eggerbahn at the time (similarly, P. D. Hancock's published articles are important, not just his locos). I suppose you could also include a very late Egger-Jouef loco of a popular design, by way of contrast. At the other end of the timespan, the modern 009 RTR developments are very significant. Am I right in thinking though that there is already a Heljan L&B prototype in the Collection?

Something that I don't think has been mentioned that much is early or significant kits (whether early 009 Society kits, white metal from GEM etc., or even relatively modern stuff from Dundas). Again for something much more recent, you might want to represent 3D printing as having had a significant impact on 009 modelling. Whether to preserve assembled or unassembled kits is one question, similar to whether locos should be restored to working order or preserved in as original condition as possible.

In terms of modified RTR stuff there's also N gauge, although we can't really get into collecting examples of that and it's slightly more tangential to 009. What might be more interesting is to have examples of stock that an ordinary 009 modeller (of fairly average skill and means) built at various points, as well. For example, I read a description once of an early Pugbash, a double Fairlie built on a Lone Star Treble-O-Lectric Bo-Bo chassis. Something like this might be interesting to include as it demonstrates how someone could have made use of the emerging 000 and later N gauge RTR along with easily available 4mm scale parts to create something in 009.

Quote from: garrywhiting on May 26, 2023, 11:13

Quote from: Hobby on May 26, 2023, 10:58
I wasn't suggesting collecting everything but significant items, in my reply to Brain.

ok,  so who may I ask, decides what is "significant" and what is not ?  What are the criteria to be applied ?  What undiscernable quality distinguishes a significant item from the mundane ?

Garry

In a museum context the answer would be something like 'choose items as objectively as possible, but with reference to the collections policy', which still leaves a difficult task. However, to be fair you would also need to ask the same question of items already in the collection, which is why in the heritage sector reviewing and sometimes de-accessioning items is also important, as well as acquisitions. This is the bit that, in the context of an 009 Heritage Collection, I (and I suspect many others) have difficulty with. The guidance for de-accessioning and disposal from the Museums Association and similar tends to suggest that items no longer wanted should be offered to other accredited museums (especially those where they might fit in well with the existing collections) in the first instance, and in preference to private individuals or museums that won't be able to make them accessible to the public. This doesn't really work in this case, because as far as I know there isn't really another similar collection of model railway items, so it's probably better that everything already in the Heritage Collection stays there.

The other question that might be asked in a museum is about audiences, i.e. who and what is this all aimed at? Older members of the Society might like the nostalgia element or the ability to show younger modellers ho things used to be done. I am younger, but I still like the Heritage Collection because I like modelling in 009, I like learning about the past and (related to working in museums) I quite like object-based history. But is it relevant when trying to attract new people to 009, or support those already working in the scale?

Regarding the impracticality of achieving a Museum of Everything 009, there is perhaps a compromise. A physical example of every relevant model need not be kept. There could be Virtual Museum of Everything that passes through the Society hands (or at least a subset of it of what people think is worth retaining).

A good number of years ago my wife and I attended a patchwork quilt 'Documentation Day' as we have some family quilts. They were photographed and whatever information we had about their history recorded. Individually many of the quilts though interesting were hardly worth keeping in some national archive, but the sum total of the record provides what may be of interest to future generations regarding crafts and social history.

Even if held by a 'museum' rather than in private hands there is a chance an object will be lost or destroyed whereas a record can be duplicated and has more chance of surviving. Knowing that something existed and what its relevance is is possibly as important, if not more than the object itself. Valuable jewels ploughed up in a field are newsworthy but if all context is destroyed in the process then they may really only retain market value. *

(* I know that is not really true - things such isotope analysis might determine where the stones and metal originated, give an indication of trade routes and so on, but still knowledge of the owner and circumstances in which they came to be buried are lost.)

A similar thing could be said about collecting samples of old locomotives. They might be interesting to look at and own but in isolation tell us very little about the context in which they were created and why they were kept in the first place. Their main merit is that they are convenient to store and display.

On the other hand layouts are ephemeral. Even if kept they are likely to deteriorate much more quickly than locomotives and there is the decision as to whether to let them moulder or to renovate them, probably using modern materials so that they become a pastiche of themselves. Again, keeping a record may ultimately be more valuable than the layout itself as well as being a lot easier to preserve and access.

Accepting that few if any layouts will survive in the long term it should be a concern that perhaps records or at least verifiable records will survive. Even it the maker recorded the layout say on a website that too may disappear with their passing. There is a certain irony in that there might be countless photographs and videos of models online at present but and some of it might even survive in archives that are accessible in the future but there is a fair chance that all provenance will be lost.

Collecting locomotives and rolling stock without reference to how and where they were used is really preserving only a part of the hobby. It might be of interest to a company to have a historical record of their products but is less interesting as a history of the hobby.

Perhaps it is worth thinking what should be preserved and why.

Edit: I see Danny appears to be presenting parallel ideas and from a professional point of view rather than my hand-waving amateur one. The closest I can claim is taking part in the recording of an aural history by the Aberdeen Maritime Museum where we recorded testimony by people involved in the development and use of the 'HUET' Helicopter escape trainer for ditching at sea. If anyone is that interested: https://relyonnutec.com/locations/ (https://relyonnutec.com/locations/)

Quote from: GraemeD on May 26, 2023, 20:41
Edit: I see Danny appears to be presenting parallel ideas and from a professional point of view rather than my hand-waving amateur one. The closest I can claim is taking part in the recording of an aural history by the Aberdeen Maritime Museum where we recorded testimony by people involved in the development and use of the 'HUET' Helicopter escape trainer for ditching at sea. If anyone is that interested: https://relyonnutec.com/locations/ (https://relyonnutec.com/locations/)

I think you give me a bit too much credit, as I am still quite early in my museum career, but thank you. Actually oral history is an interesting thing to mention because you could get people to talk about their early 009 experiences. There was a series of articles in 009 News a few years ago about how people started that seemed to do a similar thing.

Quote from: GraemeD on May 26, 2023, 20:41
Regarding the impracticality of achieving a Museum of Everything 009, there is perhaps a compromise. A physical example of every relevant model need not be kept. There could be Virtual Museum of Everything that passes through the Society hands (or at least a subset of it of what people think is worth retaining).

A good number of years ago my wife and I attended a patchwork quilt 'Documentation Day' as we have some family quilts. They were photographed and whatever information we had about their history recorded. Individually many of the quilts though interesting were hardly worth keeping in some national archive, but the sum total of the record provides what may be of interest to future generations regarding crafts and social history.

The other interesting thing about this is that it allows the records to be digitised and they can then be accessed from anywhere with an internet connection. They can also be published in print. In a way we already have this because the Heritage Collection has been photographed and some of the photos are on the 009 Society website, or have appeared in the News. Lots of museums have done something similar and the British Library seem to have done this with several of their manuscripts, which is incredibly useful to researchers. I can't think of an example from museums, off the top of my head, in which the museums have done something like this but deliberately not actually retained the original object, although that doesn't mean there isn't an example. Some archaeological digs on construction sites seem to work a bit like this, in that the archaeologists record everything but the site may no longer be accessible or visible once it's covered by the new buildings. Equally there are museums in historic buildings, where the building has had to be changed slightly to function as a museum but was documented before the changes were made.

One 009 heritage item I find interesting which springs to mind is the Craig & Mertonford loco (whose name escapes me at the moment) which is basically a modified Jouef Decauville. I find it interesting because it shows how even a very accomplished modeller like P. D. Hancock would use something like this, and that they fit in alongside kit and scratchbuilding.

Regarding Phil Hancock using a r-t-t  Joueff  loco, there was also a rebuilt  N gauge  Arnold loco.

If my memory is correct, at that point, they where the only reliable locos still working on the layout.

As regards layouts, which Graeme brought up.
It is possible to preserve layouts as the Merseyside & SWest Lancs Group do, we have several layouts that members of the Group
look after, they are Custodians of the layouts.
They look after them at home, most with the stock the layouts had are in their hands and they are allowed to exhibit these layouts at our meetings and other exhibitions.
It works very well.


Stan.

Quote from: danny on May 26, 2023, 21:19
One 009 heritage item I find interesting which springs to mind is the Craig & Mertonford loco (whose name escapes me at the moment) which is basically a modified Jouef Decauville.

Hi Danny, the Craig & Mertonford Jouef Decauville is (because it still exists!) named Joan (It is actually Joan number 2 as the original Joan is (because it still exists!) a 1950's American Kemtron Stubby diesel). Joan 2 started unaltered and is pictured in this condition in RM March 1975 on the cover and a clearer photo in the article. It was later "improved" with a metal plate over the width of the tanks and a brass dome to replace the original. This is how it exists now and if I have my details right (quite regularly wrong nowadays....) it is safely ensconsed in the PDH collection that is held by the Edinburgh & Lothians MRC.

Quote from: Stan Williams on May 26, 2023, 23:20
Regarding Phil Hancock using a r-t-t  Joueff  loco, there was also a rebuilt  N gauge  Arnold loco.

Nearly right Stan! There were 2 N gauge Arnold 0-6-0 "bashes". Both retained the original chassis and from reading up when they were built etc, I think they were very early to the UK versions, from the mid 1960's. The only one of the two that has appeared in published articles is Colin, which has a body bashed from a mixture of the Egger number 2 (ie what is now termed the "Koppel") "contractors loco" with the original Arnold boiler. The more elusive one is Calum, which Malcolm MacLeod brought to the memorable 40th anniversary weekend at Kegworth in 2013.

I've managed to keep quiet about getting myself involved in this interesting, but also rather concerning in a few areas, debate. I don't want to land myself into the politics of all this on here - a book could be written, and may be even yet!!

So, I think a couple of photos showing the above 3 locos may be appropriate, just for the interest of those who do have an interest in them, but I'll put them on a separate thread from this growing debate about the Heritage Collection - one reason being that none of the above locos are part of the Society Heritage Collection!

Mick

Thanks, folks, some interesting views, well expressed and addressing the issues well. I'm glad some others also feel that early 009 RTR does have a place in the collection, for the life of me I could not understand that a collection showing the development and history of 009 Modelling could ignore a whole sector. Danny, I was discussing the early kits with someone else and we believe that there are some "made up" ones in the collection already so it may be covered, though a single example of one in it's open box showing the whitemetal pieces with it's N scale chassis alongside it would show the early history of 009 even without any words alongside it, "This is how mainstream 009 started" would be sufficient!

That's another thought, when we put these items on display what is the purpose of the display? Is it to just show some old models made by early NG modellers for the benefit of those of us who are old enough to remember the people concerned and/or their articles and a few younger people who may be interested or should the display be used as a way of showing the history of small scale modelling leading up to what people do today? I'm not suggesting, btw, that the Collection should include new stuff but that perhaps we need to think about what we are trying to achieve with the Collection, I see the Collection not as a load of inanimate objects but as a way of telling a story, it may be an interesting way of displaying them?

I've a feeling that Julien is probably cursing me under his breath by now, but I would be willing to help him if required.

Quote from: MickT on May 27, 2023, 09:38

Quote from: danny on May 26, 2023, 21:19
One 009 heritage item I find interesting which springs to mind is the Craig & Mertonford loco (whose name escapes me at the moment) which is basically a modified Jouef Decauville.

Hi Danny, the Craig & Mertonford Jouef Decauville is (because it still exists!) named Joan (It is actually Joan number 2 as the original Joan is (because it still exists!) a 1950's American Kemtron Stubby diesel). Joan 2 started unaltered and is pictured in this condition in RM March 1975 on the cover and a clearer photo in the article. It was later "improved" with a metal plate over the width of the tanks and a brass dome to replace the original. This is how it exists now and if I have my details right (quite regularly wrong nowadays....) it is safely ensconsed in the PDH collection that is held by the Edinburgh & Lothians MRC.

Thanks for that. I thought it was Joan and vaguely remembered that it was the second one of its name, but couldn't quite remember. I didn't think it was in the 009 Society's own collection and I think I've seen some of the E&LMRC collection at the convention at Kegworth in 2013, and in photos in the News, although I can't remember how many of the C&M locos are in that collection vs how many are in the 009 Society's own one (as I think there are a few).

I will check out your other thread on the topic when I have time.

Quote from: Hobby on May 27, 2023, 10:39
Thanks, folks, some interesting views, well expressed and addressing the issues well. I'm glad some others also feel that early 009 RTR does have a place in the collection, for the life of me I could not understand that a collection showing the development and history of 009 Modelling could ignore a whole sector. Danny, I was discussing the early kits with someone else and we believe that there are some "made up" ones in the collection already so it may be covered, though a single example of one in it's open box showing the whitemetal pieces with it's N scale chassis alongside it would show the early history of 009 even without any words alongside it, "This is how mainstream 009 started" would be sufficient!

That's another thought, when we put these items on display what is the purpose of the display? Is it to just show some old models made by early NG modellers for the benefit of those of us who are old enough to remember the people concerned and/or their articles and a few younger people who may be interested or should the display be used as a way of showing the history of small scale modelling leading up to what people do today? I'm not suggesting, btw, that the Collection should include new stuff but that perhaps we need to think about what we are trying to achieve with the Collection, I see the Collection not as a load of inanimate objects but as a way of telling a story, it may be an interesting way of displaying them?

I've a feeling that Julien is probably cursing me under his breath by now, but I would be willing to help him if required.

Whether kits are more valuable unmade seems to be a point of discussion amongst collectors, and they often seem to think they are. This is slightly different from whether made or unmade kits are more useful for illustrating the history of 009, but I agree that you probably need both.

I would also be willing to help and my museum experience and interest would hopefully be useful. I wonder whether it is just about how everything is displayed, which is obviously a bit more difficult because it has to fit into how the stands are arranged at an exhibition. It does sound as though (with the Jouef Decauville set, Egger diesel and perhaps white metal kits) early RTR and kits might already be reasonably well represented, so in that case it's more to do with which items you display together and how you do it. The same thing happens in museums - some museums are small and the collection isn't particularly impressive but the way it's displayed is incredibly effective and informative,whereas  others might have a lot more objects but displayed in a rather random way with virtually no interpretation.

As I said before, I seem to remember reading a few years ago that Heljan or someone had donated an RTR prototype to the Society because of its obvious significance, but I can't remember the details of this.

Quote from: danny on May 27, 2023, 14:23
.................. I think I've seen some of the E&LMRC collection at the convention at Kegworth in 2013, and in photos in the News, although I can't remember how many of the C&M locos are in that collection vs how many are in the 009 Society's own one (as I think there are a few).

To answer your query Danny:

The Society has only 3 of PD Hancock's models - a Moko open diecast goods wagon which was originally 4 wheel but converted to bogie; The England 0-4-0ST loco Angus and the restored original 0-4-0 diesel loco Joan (there are several replicas of this in existence).

The rest of PDH's models from the Craig & Mertonford:

Some are owned by Lee Marsh, of the premier O gauge models firm under his name,

The majority plus the surviving and restored Dundreich section of the C&MR are owned by the Edinburgh & Lothians MRC, which Malcolm MacLeod is closely involved with and has done a great deal of work in recording the history and provenance of PD Hancock's modelling as well as his work in restoring Dundreich.

The late Rod Allcock was also, in his own words: "the guardian, on a 99 year lease" of the vertical boiler loco Duncan and the 0-4-0T Moira, both of which he restored, plus he had the orginal chassis of the restored diesel Joan. It is not currently known how Rod's estate has been disposed of by his family and executors

Mick

Quote from: JulienW on May 26, 2023, 15:49

.....

My own view is that whilst the efforts of P D Hancock - to take a random example - were impressive, he was only well know because he got himself published.

At the time for every Hancock there were probably another dozen or so other people working in similar circumstances and similar scales but who didn't come to the attention of the model railway press, and therefore were pretty much unknown.

.....

*

Whilst I appreciate the point Julien is making - that there were contemporaries of P.D.Hancock producing interesting and quality modelling - in terms of influence they were not significant simply because their work was not made known via the relevant medium of the time.

By merit of his writing and photography, and the fact that he established and maintained an ongoing relationship with a specific magazine, the work of P.D.Hancock was widely known and therefore influential.

Put simply it is to his credit that "he got himself published", and thus fitting that surviving examples of his models are to be respected and cherished both in their own right and for the influence they had.


CP

QuoteAs someone who actually works in a museum (and has worked and volunteered in others in the past, though not specifically in collections management) I find this a fascinating topic. In a museum context it often comes down to the story you want to tell, which objects are best and most important for this, and how best to present them. So if the 'story' is 'the development of 009 from the early years right up to today' then you definitely want to include items like the Craig & Mertonford locos. I also like the point raised above about other modellers at the time who were constructing layouts and rolling stock that were equally impressive but are less well-known because they didn't publish their work, but on the other hand you could argue that part of P. D. Hancock's importance to 009 is precisely that he did write about his modelling and get published, thus making 009 more visible in the general model railway press and inspiring more people to have a go themselves.

Thanks for your thoughts Danny.  There has been quite a bit of involvement from a Museums Professional in writing the Heritage Guidlines as MrsW is Collections Care Team Leader at Birmingham Museums Trust.

I hope that I haven't denigrated P D Hancock's effort, but as he wasn't the only one it is nice to have some other reprisentation - as in the McMillan stock acquired last year and John Nutting items donated  this year.

QuoteEqually though, RTR was important in enabling people to get into 009. I'd agree with others that if there is RTR it needs to be representative but doesn't need to include 'one of everything' - again, the 'story' is about 009 and not specifically the history of Eggerbahn. For instance, the Egger 'Western' loco helps to tell a very interesting story about the relationship between Eggerbahn and Constantin Films, and the financing and merchandising involved, but that's perhaps a bit specific for a more general history of 009 (especially when you consider Egger is really H0e anyway, which is within the range of scales the Society covers but has always had more RTR). So potentially (from a museum point of view) the currently-included Jouef Decauville set and 1963 Egger diesel that Julien mentions are enough to illustrate this chapter, perhaps with the addition of some suitable wagons and track, contemporary with the diesel, but I think also things like adverts and publicity produced by Eggerbahn at the time (similarly, P. D. Hancock's published articles are important, not just his locos). I suppose you could also include a very late Egger-Jouef loco of a popular design, by way of contrast. At the other end of the timespan, the modern 009 RTR developments are very significant. Am I right in thinking though that there is already a Heljan L&B prototype in the Collection?

There is a current list of the entire collection in the members area of the Society's website.

I quite agree about there being no need (or desire on the part of this Heritage Officer) to have 'one of each". There are (from memory) 2 or 3 Egger diesels in the collection, and a set with the diesel, log bolster wagons, track and controller (and some egger points and a few other bits).

Something that I added into the guidelines was to try to keep track of the continuing developments in 009 (etc.). There isn't a 1st generation Heljan L&B 2-6-2, but there is an example of the 1st rtr 009 loco with factory fitted DCC sound in the form of a WHR maroon liveried Bachmann Baldwin (though it's not the 1st off the production line, just one purchased from Dundas models).

The collection tends not to include paper material like publicity for Egger, and the like, mainly because these were not collected at the time and would be cost prohibitive to obtain now.  I'm also not sure what is held by the Archivist (not that I'm wanting to 'drop him in it') but that sort of paper material has been deposited there.

QuoteSomething that I don't think has been mentioned that much is early or significant kits (whether early 009 Society kits, white metal from GEM etc., or even relatively modern stuff from Dundas). Again for something much more recent, you might want to represent 3D printing as having had a significant impact on 009 modelling. Whether to preserve assembled or unassembled kits is one question, similar to whether locos should be restored to working order or preserved in as original condition as possible.

There are a selection of early kits in the collection including some of the Dundas kits before they were 'Dundas' and one (Eisteddford coach) of their more recent efforts, A Chivers white metal kit (Russell I think) and a Dundas SLGR 2-6-2. 3D printing is soemthing that isn't represented at the moment, but I'm working on obtaining an early Chris Ward printed loco (and a fairly eraly production too).

My own view is that where possible I'd like to have a built example to display along with an unbuilt kit to see how it was done (though the latter is probably more for academic interest perhaps). When it comes to 'restoration' we then hit issues of ethics and how much of the originality may be lost. Again, my own view it to take more of a 'conservation' position.  To quite from the Display Policy section of the Heritage Guidlines:

Quote4. Whilst displayed at such events items must be kept securely in locked cabinets alongside labels supplied with the items giving a brief history of the item concerned. Items should ideally be handled as little as possible, and not run (even if able to do so) to avoid mechanical wear to irreplaceable parts and damage from unnecessary handling or incorrect electrical requirements.

In any event any repairs I have carried out - essentially sticking loose bits back in place - has been done using reversible techniques and fully documented. More 'intensive' work would be done at the direction of the Committee, would be fully documented and  I hope it would be possible to see what is mine and what is 'original'.  Anything else merely results in a replica...

QuoteIn terms of modified RTR stuff there's also N gauge, although we can't really get into collecting examples of that and it's slightly more tangential to 009. What might be more interesting is to have examples of stock that an ordinary 009 modeller (of fairly average skill and means) built at various points, as well. For example, I read a description once of an early Pugbash, a double Fairlie built on a Lone Star Treble-O-Lectric Bo-Bo chassis. Something like this might be interesting to include as it demonstrates how someone could have made use of the emerging 000 and later N gauge RTR along with easily available 4mm scale parts to create something in 009.

Very much so. As the collection is specifically "Models of railways with a prototype gauge less than 4' 8 1/2" in scales 1:76 and 1:87 (with some leeway either way)" N-scale items (and likewise 000) are excluded, but the use of N-gauge mechanisms by the pionerrs is recognised, and example of this being David Mander's 4-6-0 Baldwin that uses an Arndold 0-6-0 under it's scratchbuilt body (unfortunately not the original chassis which was one of the 1st to be imported into the UK from what was then West Germany).

QuoteThe other question that might be asked in a museum is about audiences, i.e. who and what is this all aimed at? Older members of the Society might like the nostalgia element or the ability to show younger modellers ho things used to be done. I am younger, but I still like the Heritage Collection because I like modelling in 009, I like learning about the past and (related to working in museums) I quite like object-based history. But is it relevant when trying to attract new people to 009, or support those already working in the scale?

I coundn't agree more!  Personally my own 'nostalgia' is seeing Dave Rowe's "Under Milkwood" and the Leighton Buzzard dioramas and lusting after the gems produced by Saltford Models, with the likes of PDH, Dereck Naylor and David Mander being largely unknown until I first came across the Heritage Collection as 009 Society Secretary.

The relevance question is something I frequently ask myself. Perhaps it is less so when, as a membership we seem to be moving away from kit and / or scratch building and more towards ready to run (or a 3D printed body that has been clipped to a Kato chassis), but as a reference as to where we have come from it is invaluable, and if it inspires someone to have a go at building a simple wagon from plastic sheet (or even an old cereal packet!) after seeing what other people have achived in similar materials 40 - 50 years ago, even if it's just in order to save a bit of cash, then perhaps it has done its job.

Quote from: cp.409067 on May 27, 2023, 16:59


*

Whilst I appreciate the point Julien is making - that there were contemporaries of P.D.Hancock producing interesting and quality modelling - in terms of influence they were not significant simply because their work was not made known via the relevant medium of the time.<snipped>


CP

I wouldn't say "not significant".

I think "less significant' may be a fairer assumption, as whilst I can see members of a model railway club reading about PDH's narrow gauge exploits as a group they may not build anything themselves until someone - like the McMillan brothers for example* - have a go and show that it can be done by 'mere mortals', thereby encouraging - dare I say inspiring? -  the rest of the club.

And that sort of encouragement to others has to be significant, albeit on a smaller scale than the likes of PDH, to the promotion of and continuation of the hobby, surely...?

(*That's not to say the McMillan brothers were members of any MRC anywhere as I have no idea! I only use them as a contemporary example).

Quote from: JulienW on May 28, 2023, 11:00

Quote from: cp.409067 on May 27, 2023, 16:59


*

Whilst I appreciate the point Julien is making - that there were contemporaries of P.D.Hancock producing interesting and quality modelling - in terms of influence they were not significant simply because their work was not made known via the relevant medium of the time.<snipped>


CP

I wouldn't say "not significant".

I think "less significant' may be a fairer assumption, as whilst I can see members of a model railway club reading about PDH's narrow gauge exploits as a group they may not build anything themselves until someone - like the McMillan brothers for example* - have a go and show that it can be done by 'mere mortals', thereby encouraging - dare I say inspiring? -  the rest of the club.

And that sort of encouragement to others has to be significant, albeit on a smaller scale than the likes of PDH, to the promotion of and continuation of the hobby, surely...?

(*That's not to say the McMillan brothers were members of any MRC anywhere as I have no idea! I only use them as a contemporary example).

I agree - they're all significant, what perhaps makes PDH even more significant is his published articles, because they inspired others (who in turn, then inspired others themselves).

*

The significance of P.D.Hancock

I fear we are in danger of some of us being seduced by the idea that it is necessary to arrive at some sort of consensus as to the status of the great man.

I have in that opening sentence declared my own position - and I make no apology for it.

That said I do not expect everyone else to agree with my view. Put quite simply I think the age of each of us will be important, as too will the point in our lives at which we came to know of Hancock and his work.

I became aware of "Craig" and its creator during the summer of 1958. I was at the time eleven years of age and in the limboland of having left Primary education and awaiting my first day at the Grammar School in September.

Through the wit and wisdom Hancock - his modelling as recorded and offered to an audience though his writing and photography via the pages of Railway Modeller - I became not only aware of the possibility of narrow gauge modelling, but indeed of the very existence of narrow gauge railways themselves. It was an awakening of great personal significance the effect of which is still with me sixty-five years later.

As the years passed I came to understand that perhaps my hero did have feet of clay. The charm, the back story, the wonderful evocation of a past age was there - but we never got to see "Craig" operating (of course it was not an exhibition layout and not as far as I know filmed) and perhaps the truth is that I and others would have been disappointed had the opportunity arisen.

Had "Craig" in whichever of its forms been preserved, I imagine that seeing it stuffed and mounted in a glass case would generate feelings very much like those I have when I visit the Pendon Museum and see John Ahern's "Madder Valley"displayed.

As I say, I do not expect all and sundry (especially those of more tender years) to feel as I do, but I suspect there may be others who share my view that P.D.Hancock has a pre-eminent position in the history of small scale narrow gauge modelling in Great Britain.


CP

Quote from: JulienW on May 28, 2023, 10:45
Thanks for your thoughts Danny.  There has been quite a bit of involvement from a Museums Professional in writing the Heritage Guidlines as MrsW is Collections Care Team Leader at Birmingham Museums Trust.

A much more senior and more collections-specific role than I have ever been in, and I bow to her experience. I did wonder if the guidelines had had some professional museum input. I hope I didn't come across as too critical as that wasn't my intention, and I like what you've done so far. Indeed, the fact that we have a set of guidelines at all is significant, and a good step to take. I can't remember if any of the other scale/gauge societies has a similar 'heritage collection', to the extent that the 009 Society has, and if so how well-organised they are.

Representing less well-known modellers alongside PDH is exactly the sort of thing that a lot of museums would now wish to do. It helps to place everything in context and tell a story that hasn't previously been told, or tell an old story from a different perspective.

Quote from: JulienW on May 28, 2023, 10:45
I quite agree about there being no need (or desire on the part of this Heritage Officer) to have 'one of each". There are (from memory) 2 or 3 Egger diesels in the collection, and a set with the diesel, log bolster wagons, track and controller (and some egger points and a few other bits).

Something that I added into the guidelines was to try to keep track of the continuing developments in 009 (etc.). There isn't a 1st generation Heljan L&B 2-6-2, but there is an example of the 1st rtr 009 loco with factory fitted DCC sound in the form of a WHR maroon liveried Bachmann Baldwin (though it's not the 1st off the production line, just one purchased from Dundas models).

The collection tends not to include paper material like publicity for Egger, and the like, mainly because these were not collected at the time and would be cost prohibitive to obtain now.  I'm also not sure what is held by the Archivist (not that I'm wanting to 'drop him in it') but that sort of paper material has been deposited there.

Regarding having 'one of each', an example from a museum context (and it's a good example, because it relates to the museum I currently work in, so I hopefully know what I'm talking about, and it involves narrow gauge railways); at the Postal Museum we have on display one of each type of rolling stock from Mail Rail/the London Post Office Railway, which is quite appropriate as that side of the museum is very much focused on the specific history of the railway (and also why would you not include them, given that much of the equipment was still left on site from when the original line closed anyway). The NRM in York, on the other hand, only has one of the 1930s English Electric trains, which is equally appropriate because it's a much more general museum of railway history. In the context of the 009 collection, it's perhaps a good idea to have a bit more than just one loco because it shows that Eggerbahn produced a reasonably comprehensive and coherent range that you could actually use as the basis for a layout, rather than just a single set as a novelty item.

For some reason I thought a Heljan engineering prototype/pre-production sample had been 'preserved', although now I can't think where I picked up this idea from. Is it just something that someone suggested (possibly on this forum) should happen?

I seem not to have included this in my notes, but I seem to vaguely recall from a collections induction/intro that I did at work that not all paper-based collection items will necessarily be classed as 'archive' just because they are paper-based, although this probably depends on the nature of the collection in question. In any case, isn't the archive intended more for material related to the Society itself, rather than 009 more generally?

Quote from: JulienW on May 28, 2023, 10:45
My own view is that where possible I'd like to have a built example to display along with an unbuilt kit to see how it was done (though the latter is probably more for academic interest perhaps). When it comes to 'restoration' we then hit issues of ethics and how much of the originality may be lost. Again, my own view it to take more of a 'conservation' position.  To quite from the Display Policy section of the Heritage Guidlines:

Quote4. Whilst displayed at such events items must be kept securely in locked cabinets alongside labels supplied with the items giving a brief history of the item concerned. Items should ideally be handled as little as possible, and not run (even if able to do so) to avoid mechanical wear to irreplaceable parts and damage from unnecessary handling or incorrect electrical requirements.

In any event any repairs I have carried out - essentially sticking loose bits back in place - has been done using reversible techniques and fully documented. More 'intensive' work would be done at the direction of the Committee, would be fully documented and  I hope it would be possible to see what is mine and what is 'original'.  Anything else merely results in a replica...

Whether locos should run or not is pretty much the same question as on full-size heritage railways - on one hand they are historic and original material could be damaged so no, on the other hand there is perceived to be a benefit to allowing people to see them run (and ride behind them, in the case of full-size heritage railways). Indeed, I feel very privileged to have seen PDH's 'Angus' run and even (very very briefly) driven it, but perhaps that wasn't really such a good idea from a perspective of looking after the collection. Replicas would be an interesting way to allow both (i.e. preserve the original and run the replica), although I think this has been done already for some of the E&LMRC Craig & Mertonford locos.

Quote from: JulienW on May 28, 2023, 10:45
The relevance question is something I frequently ask myself. Perhaps it is less so when, as a membership we seem to be moving away from kit and / or scratch building and more towards ready to run (or a 3D printed body that has been clipped to a Kato chassis), but as a reference as to where we have come from it is invaluable, and if it inspires someone to have a go at building a simple wagon from plastic sheet (or even an old cereal packet!) after seeing what other people have achived in similar materials 40 - 50 years ago, even if it's just in order to save a bit of cash, then perhaps it has done its job.

I suppose what I was really thinking about when I asked that question is that items from the Heritage Collection are often displayed alongside an 009 Society publicity stand, the main purpose of which is to advertise the Society and attract new members (who will usually either be newcomers to narrow gauge modelling wanting to get into 009, or have already made a start in 009 but would benefit from the support the Society offers). I'm trying to put myself in the shoes of our hypothetical newcomer and wondering how they would perceive the heritage items, but I'm not really sure. And that's not to say that they wouldn't find them interesting or relevant, I just can't easily work out what their view would be. To me personally, for instance (and ignoring the fact that I find 009 heritage interesting anyway), it represents the scale and the Society in a very positive light because it suggests that 009 has almost always been a scale where creative modellers do their own thing, but perhaps with some level of commercial support, and that it's become more and more popular over the years.

Quote from: JulienW on May 28, 2023, 10:45

QuoteIn terms of modified RTR stuff there's also N gauge, although we can't really get into collecting examples of that and it's slightly more tangential to 009. What might be more interesting is to have examples of stock that an ordinary 009 modeller (of fairly average skill and means) built at various points, as well. For example, I read a description once of an early Pugbash, a double Fairlie built on a Lone Star Treble-O-Lectric Bo-Bo chassis. Something like this might be interesting to include as it demonstrates how someone could have made use of the emerging 000 and later N gauge RTR along with easily available 4mm scale parts to create something in 009.

Very much so. As the collection is specifically "Models of railways with a prototype gauge less than 4' 8 1/2" in scales 1:76 and 1:87 (with some leeway either way)" N-scale items (and likewise 000) are excluded, but the use of N-gauge mechanisms by the pionerrs is recognised, and example of this being David Mander's 4-6-0 Baldwin that uses an Arndold 0-6-0 under it's scratchbuilt body (unfortunately not the original chassis which was one of the 1st to be imported into the UK from what was then West Germany).

One specific case I was thinking of where discussion (but perhaps not actual collecting) of smaller-scale standard gauge RTR would become relevant is 00n3, and the idea/perception that there are more 009 and fewer 00n3 layouts today than there were in the early years, which often seems to be attributed to the rise of commercial N gauge and Eggerbahn and the decline of Triang TT (though I wonder whether the desire to model 2' and 2' 6" rather than 3' gauge prototypes also has something to do with it, though that's probably a debate for another time).

Quote from: danny on May 28, 2023, 21:11

One specific case I was thinking of where discussion (but perhaps not actual collecting) of smaller-scale standard gauge RTR would become relevant is 00n3, and the idea/perception that there are more 009 and fewer 00n3 layouts today than there were in the early years, which often seems to be attributed to the rise of commercial N gauge and Eggerbahn and the decline of Triang TT (though I wonder whether the desire to model 2' and 2' 6" rather than 3' gauge prototypes also has something to do with it, though that's probably a debate for another time).

One example that is perhaps not relivant to this thread is that there is a lot more TTn3 about than many think!!
This is because the Peco 'James' and 'Jenette' kits were actualy designed by George E Melior as 3mm scale TTn3 locos way back in the early 1960's. However, they were never sold as such, or sold at all by GEM. It was only later in the 1970's that Peco took them on from George and marketed them as 009/H0e, the only changes made were that they were provided with taller chimneys!! This is why the cabs are too small for 00 figures.

Quote from: B.Meldon on May 30, 2023, 11:31

Quote from: danny on May 28, 2023, 21:11

One specific case I was thinking of where discussion (but perhaps not actual collecting) of smaller-scale standard gauge RTR would become relevant is 00n3, and the idea/perception that there are more 009 and fewer 00n3 layouts today than there were in the early years, which often seems to be attributed to the rise of commercial N gauge and Eggerbahn and the decline of Triang TT (though I wonder whether the desire to model 2' and 2' 6" rather than 3' gauge prototypes also has something to do with it, though that's probably a debate for another time).

One example that is perhaps not relivant to this thread is that there is a lot more TTn3 about than many think!!
This is because the Peco 'James' and 'Jenette' kits were actualy designed by George E Melior as 3mm scale TTn3 locos way back in the early 1960's. However, they were never sold as such, or sold at all by GEM. It was only later in the 1970's that Peco took them on from George and marketed them as 009/H0e, the only changes made were that they were provided with taller chimneys!! This is why the cabs are too small for 00 figures.

I did know about that, but has anyone actually built one for TTn3 as originally intended? It seems a slightly odd choice in any case.

Quote from: B.Meldon on May 30, 2023, 11:31

One example that is perhaps not relivant to this thread is that there is a lot more TTn3 about than many think!!
This is because the Peco 'James' and 'Jenette' kits were actualy designed by George E Melior as 3mm scale TTn3 locos way back in the early 1960's. However, they were never sold as such, or sold at all by GEM. It was only later in the 1970's that Peco took them on from George and marketed them as 009/H0e, the only changes made were that they were provided with taller chimneys!! This is why the cabs are too small for 00 figures.

*

Whilst I do not question the above statement that George Mellor designed the "James" and "Jeanette" kits in the early 1960s, I do not think the modelling public were generally aware of the idea of "TTn3" until the end of the decade.

I cite the article by J Allan Patmore that appeared in RM, February 1969, pp. 40-43 under the heading -

"Smaller still        Narrow gauge in TT".

This was followed by a byline - presumably written by editor Cyril Freezer - as follows.

"It had to come: 3mm scale on 9mm gauge equals TTn3. J. Allan Patmore, hot on the trail of the ultimate minimum explores a new scale/gauge combination."

As to the marketing of these kits by Peco, I fear the assertion that this was during the 1970s is incorrect. In the above mentioned RM article J Allan Patmore describes the building of three locomotives. Of one of these, styled "AJAX", he says (p.42, col 3, para 2) -

"I ..... used a Peco Jeanette dome. (What happened to the rest of Jeanette is another story.)"

Given the publication date of February 1969 I would suggest that Jeanette was obviously available from Peco in the latter part of 1968 or earlier.

I think it very likely that as a Peco employee Cyril Freezer would have been aware of the previous history of the kits, but of course in the byline quoted above gives no indication of that to the RM readership.


CP

*

Following my previous post I have investigated further and find as follows.

JEANETTE

The earliest mention of "Jeanette" seems to be in RM, December 1966.

(i)   The cover photograph shows a snow scene on a narrow gauge layout (perhaps a constructed set piece). "Jeanette" with a train of Eggerbahn carriages features au centre.

(ii)   On p.viii is a Peco ad showing "Jeanette" as being "New from Peco".

(iii)  On p.378 in the "News Special" section there is a review of "Jeanette" which opens with these words.

"PECO have just released their first cast whitemetal kit for a OO9 narrow-gauge loco body."

JAMES

The first appearance of "James" I can find is on the cover of RM, December 1967 where a photograph derived illustration shows "James" in a snow scene with an Eggerbahn carriage and C19th figures.

In the same issue the Peco ad on p.viii promotes the availability of both "James" and "Jeanette".

*****

It would seem therefore that "Jeanette" was available from late 1966, and "James" a year later. In each case they were offered as being "OO9" products (although shown with Eggerbahn "HOe" stock).


CP

Thanks for the update regarding dates the James and Jenette kits were available.

I should have checked and not just relied on my memory!!

Here are some links to pages from the 1968 Peco catalogue.

Peco used the same photos in their catalogue for a great many years!

If anyone has an earlier Peco catalogue it would be good to see what 009 is in them.

There is a photo of Egger locos and Minitrains (not Egger) wagons with the Jouef/Pola H0 scale hopper loading building (as used in the Jouef pre-formed layout) on the header page:

(https://www.conradantiquario.de/img/katalog/peco_catalog_1968/lb02.jpg)

The 009 section is on page 27,28 and 29. Again thay are Minitrains (not Egger) V skips in the header photo.

(https://www.conradantiquario.de/img/katalog/peco_catalog_1968/lb27.jpg)

(https://www.conradantiquario.de/img/katalog/peco_catalog_1968/lb28.jpg)

(https://www.conradantiquario.de/img/katalog/peco_catalog_1968/lb29.jpg)


Yes, the locos are listed as 00-9.

However, the info. regarding George Mellor's involvement and that they were intended to be TTn3 kits did come direct from him many years ago now.
Sadly, George is not around anymore to confirm this, and if he was still around I would not have shared this info in public anyway!!
There is however a chance that someone that was at Peco at the time may be able to shed some light on this.

If the idea of the Heritage Collection is 'to tell the story of 009' then that implies some kind of narrative to join the dots.

If the items (dots!) are simply displayed in a case or on a website the viewer is left to compose their own narrative which they may or may not be in a position to do effectively.

Better for someone who knows and understands the story to write a more definitive narrative which shows the connections between different items and the progression from one stage to the next, n'est-ce pas? Which may mean articles in the 009 News (though not necessarily including every item, just significant stages on the journey).

David.