The Society Heritage Collection

[rod335]

Cannot see the 'elitism' tag as having any relevance to a Heritage Collection in any way. I am not decrying for any reason the popularity of the  Minitrains range but their very popularity is a reason for not including them at present. This is not elitism. The collection is intended to show the roots of our branch of the hobby. By all means, if the Society still exists in, say, 20 years time, put the r-t-r items in then, there will still be plenty around for inclusion. But I don't think they are particularly relevant at present. In any event, where would you draw the line? If you include one, surely you would have to include the whole range.

[MickT]

Posting deleted intentionally in its entirety.

[rod335]

Oh dear Mick, be careful what you set in motion here! I had used the word 'significant' deliberately so as not to tie things down with too tight a definition. I think it will prove impossible to come up with a definition acceptable to everyone, Surely common sense and an element of trust should prevail? I am sure you are as well aware as anyone of the sort of items that had accumulated in the collection simply 'because they were nice models' before the cull.

As for the Committee members and Directors discussing this before the January Committee meeting, I am sure that MOST of those concerned have more pressing things to do with their time before then. As for the proposed time limit on the discussion, whether this is serious or not, I am sure you are aware of the adage that if all the committee members in the world were laid end-to-end, they would still never reach a conclusion. Every discussion of this subject that I have been party to has so far failed to reach any meaningful conclusion. I haven't even been able to get a decision on whether or not we should actively try to expand the collection or just sit back and let stuff fall into our collective laps. Although the subject is very dear to me, I cannot help but feel there are more pressing matters to be addressed at present.

[MickT]

Sorry Rod, I didn't set anything in motion here, I only made my first comment about it as the 10th posting of this thread; it just happens that I have a fair bit of knowledge about the provenance of the collection and had done a lot of work to try to bring things under control and set a policy for it when I was involved with it in 2008/early 2009 and have been concerned to learn that apparently nothing has been done in the succeeding 9 years since this was tabled and UNANIMOUSLY agreed by the Committee at that time as to what was going to happen.

I have no truck with the fact that you say there are more pressing matters to be addressed at present (presumably this is pressing matters in the Society rather than pressing matters in general), I just get a bit concerned when assumptions that are not always correct are aired by various people who may not know the history of the matter, and with the greatest of respect, this may also include yourself through no fault aimed at you but probably because those who are still on the committee from the time it was raised, simply haven't provided continuity.

In the interests of peace and harmony I acknowledge that I may have had a bit of an "offload" myself in my last post, so I will delete it in its entirety in case things get mis-interpreted or are seen as incendiary. I will butt out but will however continue to maintain a concerned interest in the continued hope that something constructive can be maintained, now that it has been raised by a member.

Mick

[Turin 60]

Oh dear, I do fear that the "definition" of the collection will cause much wailing and gnashing of teeth, It seems us modellers don't take kindly to things that restrict us for instance "standards"!
My own rather loose thoughts on the collection are that they should be based on their place and apparent significance in the history of small scale narrow gauge rather than age, method of construction or builder.

So again there is this need for information  on items in the collection be it one of David Manders models or a pioneering RTR model from say Egger Bahn as both have their place in the collection albeit with very different merits. This is what people need to know to understand and appreciate the collection.

John Bruce No7.

[Hobby]

Why on earth shouldn't RTR be included in the collection??? "Significant" was mentioned earlier - well the fact that the Egger stuff gave the impetus for many early OO9 layouts surely shows that they were "significant"!! The example doesn't have to be a pristine, first one to be sold in the UK, example, just an early example to show what they are like... And at the same time, as the Society says it covers 12mm gauge as well, so a Zeuke Saxon V1K should be there as well, whilst not many made it over here they are examples of early "Small Scale" (to quote the Society!) RTR NG Models...

Regards "showing" them I'm going to annoy some people with this comment as well. Why shouldn't they be displayed in a display case? OK they can run, fair enough if there's somewhere for them to run on then do that but that should not be a stipulation of the loan of them to a group. Many local groups who use display cases don't necessarily have space for a layout as well and surely the whole point is to show them to us all (and the public), whether they are running or not is irrelevant. I'd suggest that for many exhibitions such a display would be unique, I can't think of many other societies that could put on such a display. "You can't have them unless you can run them" seems a bit "off" to me... I know it wasn't said that way, but that's the way it came across, so if my interpretation was wrong please correct me and let's get them out there!

[rod335]

Sorry Mick if you felt I was attacking you in any way, that was not my intention and as far as I am concerned there is absolutely no need for you to delete any of your postings.

John, I agree with you completely and my use of the word 'significant' was very deliberate. I feel the subject in general is one which cannot have a hard definition and must be left very much to common sense and individual judgment. However, I would not be happy to see the collection to become just a group of current r-t-r stock. I feel that is not what the collection was ever intended to be although I readily appreciate that, because of its history, nothing was ever actually planned.

All I have really ever wanted were guidance on whether we actively pursued an acquisition policy or not and what, if anything, was to be done with models after acquisition.

Blair, at no time have stated, I think, that the models must be run when shown. I merely mentioned the most unreasonable actions by one person at the Convention. And, yes, we are in agreement that early, at least, r-t-r should be included, the criterion to my mind is that anything which was a fundamental game-changer merits inclusion. In this context, excellent though it all is, I do not regard the Minitrains range as fitting that criterion.

[Hobby]

However, I would not be happy to see the collection to become just a group of current r-t-r stock.

I don't see anyone suggesting that, but the early RTR had probably more influence on the start of OO9 modelling than the early layouts in my view. Many Society members would not have got into NG modelling if it wasn't for the availability of Egger and those early white metal kits so to just ignore them in favour of stock from early layouts is to ignore their influence, which (again in my view) was equal to, if not greater, than the influence of those early layouts.

Ha! Good old edit function, eh! Agreed Rod, let's be honest, this is a "heritage" collection therefore current Minitrains should not (yet) be included. I would agree with the "game-changer" view, hence why I suggested what I did and, subsequently, the early kits that were made for N chassis...

[George Surridge]

Cannot see the 'elitism' tag as having any relevance to a Heritage Collection in any way. I am not decrying for any reason the popularity of the  Minitrains range but their very popularity is a reason for not including them at present. This is not elitism. The collection is intended to show the roots of our branch of the hobby. By all means, if the Society still exists in, say, 20 years time, put the r-t-r items in then, there will still be plenty around for inclusion. But I don't think they are particularly relevant at present. In any event, where would you draw the line? If you include one, surely you would have to include the whole range.

With the criteria suggested as "significant" then clearly the whole Minitrains range is not included, in fact maybe none at all. One might argue the work of Fourdees for example  is more "significant"than that of Minitrains. (Usual disclaimer...)

Anyway let's get the present Heritage Collection better known and understood, starting with 009 News and the Society website.
Geo S

[Hobby]

With the criteria suggested as "significant" then clearly the whole Minitrains range is not included, in fact maybe none at all. One might argue the work of Fourdees for example  is more "significant"than that of Minitrains. (Usual disclaimer...)

I'm not even sure Fordees are either, I'd have thought, in theory, the Heljan L&B loco would be, as the first mass produced RTR OO9 loco...

Anyway let's get the present Heritage Collection better known and understood, starting with 009 News and the Society website.

And at local Society Group Shows... Perhaps there's a good argument for the stock to go out "on loan" to the various Groups who have display cases, perhaps rotating the stock round the various Groups?



BTW to start things off I'm prepared to give a Zeuke V1K and matching coaches on long term loan to the Society... Julien, I will bring them along to the Warley Show so keep some space for them in the display cases(!)... However that loan will be on the basis that they get out and about to shows and are not hidden away... If one of the Directors want to get in touch we can sort out the details...

[JulienW]

<snipped>
I wonder what criteria professional curators work to? (Any suggestions, Mrs W?)

David.

Maybe

I think MrsW - a preventative conservator - might be quite insulted being lumped in with the curators! :D

Right, I'm going to throw in a few thoughts (and probably end up running for cover as a result) as to the collection and what should (and shouldn't?) be in it but here goes:

Whilst it might be 'nice' to have examples of all the rtr and kits produced over the years that will be an awful lot of 'stuff' to look after, especially if we went for a built and unbuilt example of each kit (and duplicated for each version of the kit...).  Equally, if we had wanted to do that then we probably should have started back in 1973 when the Society started and these things were easy to get hold of... As to where we go now - a Heljan Manning Wardle (probably significant, but not for the right reasons), Bachmann Skarloey (with the face), Minitrains F&C Forney, or Schnider?...

Certainly 'significant' items from the past, but that would need definition - is an Iain Kirk or one of the first Dundas kits for a wagon more or less significant than an early Egger or Joueff rtr wagon - or is rolling stock insignificant compared to locos...?

What makes things 'significant' now?  Is it who built it? If / where it published? The layout it ran on? Some technically challenging scratch build from MRJ or a nice example of a kit built body on rtr chassis featured in BRM...? Some of those 'value' judgements I'm not to comfortable with, and I certainly will not want to be the one explaining to a fellow Society member (or their loved ones) why their prized models are not going into the heritage collection...

Assuming that there is an up to date list of what we have in the collection then at least we might avoid any duplication, but equally this should guide as to what we do and do not want for the future. Whilst some may want the Society to have all of the output of the greats - like David Mander and Derek Naylor - do we really want to squander Society resources doing so when there may be area's in the collection not represented?  As an example of this I do not think there are any Paul Windle locos currently in the collection, and perhaps Paul's work (using plastic) may be more relevant to a generation of Society members who cut their teeth on Airfix kits. But given Paul's output what would best represent it - one of his 'specials' or a 'standard cataloge loco... and is just one enough?

Finally, I must admit to being a little unsure about the need to have things in the collection 'restored' to running condition and for them to be used.  In my view the aim of the collection should be the conservation of the Society's heritage, i.e. maintaining it's condition as custodians of the past for future generations.  Whilst Dereck Naylor and the rest would have used their locos and needed to repair breakdowns or felt the need to upgrade motors, chassis, etc. over time how can subsequent custodians presume to the same level of originality, dare one say authenticity, if whole sections of models are being replaced just to make things (continue to) run especially if such work is being done with modern parts and no records are kept as to what has been done?(*) Surely what we want are examples and a display of the work of 'so-and-so' as a model maker way back in the 1960s, not necessarily the skills of subsequent Society officers - who maybe should be represented in the collection as significant in their own right - in the creation of a collection of 'grandfathers axes' or Trigger's brooms'...

To continue the 'use over preserve' argument if we want to see things more capable of running surely all of the working Derek Naylor 12 mm gauge locos (for example) should be converted to 9 mm gauge (and DCC fitted?), as this would allow the locos more opportunity to be run on more layouts at 009 Society events...

Equally, as any conservator will tell you, the process of decay will always continue, and some things just don't cope well with age.  Most of these are made from 'modern' materials - the plastics that make the modern age and form so many of our models, be that styrene mouldings or shees, resin castings or 3D prints - something so new that the professionals don't know how they might degrade over time.  Perhaps there isn't much point in collecting these as in 20 years time all that might be left is a pile of goo (there were a couple of unbuilt resin kits from the early days of the Society in the collection when I looked after it that were heading that way...) or dust in the box that once held that early Chris Ward 3d print...

The ultimate problem is that the collection has to 'please all of the (members) all of the time' - a fairly impossible task...

(* my apologies if this is not the case)

[Hobby]

Regarding RTR in the collection, I see no need for "all" of it to be included, just specific examples... Zeuke as the first small scale RTR and Egger as the first HOe/OO9 examples... After that the next is the Heljan loco as I mentioned in my previous post for the reason specified (the Egger, remember, was not OO9 but was mass produced)... Again with the kits, ones which were significant in bringing in people to model OO9 in "large"(!) numbers, so again not all of them, though perhaps one of the GEM and one of the PECO range? (As I'm not an OO9 modeller I'll leave that choice to someone better in the know!)



Perhaps we need to go back to the purpose of the collection is? For me it is a chance to get to see those early models that kick started the scale and nudged so many of us into small scale NG modelling in the flesh, as such the early RTR is just as valid as the hand built stuff by the early modellers... When presenting those models if may be handy to have with them laminated copies of articles in the magazines that we read back then and adverts for the RTR stock so we can show the newcomers what it was like back then?

[B.Meldon]

I do not think that Egger-bahn items should be in the Society collection.
Perhaps the only production loco in the Egger range of historical importance would be the short two wheel drive 1963 green diesel. However these sold in large numbers and as a result there are lots still about today many in as new condition.
They are in fact far more common than some of the other later Egger locos.
Perhaps the handmade brass Egger-bahn pre-production prototypes would be worthy for the society collection, but it is highly unlikely that the owners of these would ever wish to part with them. (Both of the 1963 brass diesel locos used on the Egger-bahn stand at the 1963 Nuremburg toy fair survive as do the brass prototypes for the No2 and No3 locos, but they are not all in the same ownership.)
However these were never marketed as 00 scale they were H0 scale.

The first 9mm gauge loco to be marketed as 00 scale was the Jouef Decauville loco included in the Playcraaft P1600 pre-formed layout in 1967. So it is apt that it is the silhouette of this model loco that is used by the society.
But as we all know these are very over scale for 00 and there are lots about, not only that the version in the P1600 layouts was not the first version of the model, these had red wheels, so what one would be suitable for the collection?

All the above just adds to the confusion, are models marketed as H0 scale models important to the history of the 009 society or only those that are marketed as 00? Should only proper 4mm scale production models be included or items built to any scale?
 
My personal feeling is that the collection should not include mass produced items, but others may think differently.

Brian Meldon

[rod335]

Thank you for your offer Blair but this is not going to work. Some time ago, before I was involved, the Society took a decision that no items could be accepted for the Collection  unless they became the property of the Society. There are cogent reasons for this decision, it is not pure greed! Therefore items cannot be accepted on loan.

Discussing this matter in general with a friend, we came to the conclusion that perhaps the Collection name is wrong and it would be more accurately described as the Historic Collection.

With regard to Julien's point about work I have done to the items, this has been done as I have always thought the attraction for members would be in seeing the items actually moving. No structural alterations have been carried out to the models with the exception of a replacement motor to one of the locos. With regard to Derek Naylor's Forney, I did straighten the chassis which previously should have had Ffyfes written on it and constructed a new trailing truck. If the loco were mine I would sort out the gears and axle bearings as both are severely worn. But it is not so I won't. Work on other locos was in the nature of repairing physical damage, putting valve gear back together and the like. It does seem to me as if the locos were fairly substantially mistreated after they initially left Derek's possession. Forgive me if I am wrong. I am not really sorry if anyone thinks this work should not have been done, I think it was reasonable in the circumstances. It is perhaps worth reflecting on the fact that, as far as I am aware, no one had done anything with the collection since acquisition other than photograph it and wrap the items in tissue paper.

I keep seeing the suggestion that the collection should be split round the area groups for display purposes. I am not at all sure that this is the right course of action. Any group that wants specific models for display purposes only has to ask for them on loan for the duration of their exhibition, it makes more sense that the collection should be kept in one place than scattered about the country.

[Hobby]

OK, fair enough, I'll have a think, I may be able to do something, but I'm not if, as it seems, people don't think that RTR should be included....


I'd also refer back to what i said earlier...

What is the purpose of the collection?

Just to "have" them? To show to people?

I feel that it is to show how our hobby has developed over the years? Including early RTR is a must in my view... I don't understand the logic of having a collection (historic or heritage) if it doesn't give the full story, and RTR is a key part in getting OO9 off the ground and running, rather than just a few modellers who had occasional articles in the Mags. The same argument can be used for the early kits...



Going back to the loaning out to Groups, the reason i suggested it was that at the moment they do seem to be stuck in one place, Rod, you mentioned earlier that getting some stuff down to Expong was a non starter (due to the very valid reasons mentioned), however if they were loaned out to the various Groups there wouldn't be the issue and they could be seen in the flesh...