The Society Heritage Collection

[cp.409067]

.....

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

[JulienW]

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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:

4. 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...

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.

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).

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?

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.

[JulienW]

*

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).

[danny]

*

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).

[cp.409067]

*

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

[danny]

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.

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?

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:

4. 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.

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.

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.

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).

[B.Meldon]

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.

[danny]

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.

[cp.409067]

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

[cp.409067]

*

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

[B.Meldon]

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:



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








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.

[clayliner]

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.