The Society Heritage Collection

[B.Meldon]

.......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. 

[JulienW]

<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!).

[JulienW]

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...




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.

[Tom Haythornthwaite]

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

[The Sales Team]

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...

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

[JulienW]

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...

[danny]

<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.

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?

[Graeme Dunbar]

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/

[danny]

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/

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.

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.

[Stan Williams]

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.

[MickT]

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.

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

[Hobby]

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.

[danny]

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.

[danny]

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.

[MickT]

.................. 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