NMRA -Achievement program

 

NMRA -Achievement program

 

One of my companions on my Model Railway journey is the National Model Railroad Association (NMRA).  It might seem strange to credit the association, but without them, I doubt the hobby, and my own modelling would have progressed.

Northbound Southern Aurora, running very late, doesn't stop at Wagga Wagga station.  This image, as well as others, are ones I have accumulated to show operation of trains through Wagga, something that I hope to simulate with my yet to be built layout.  Image from the internet, I do not know the photographer.

A quick history

The NMRA was set up in the USA nearly 100 years ago,  with aims to provide a consistant standard to manufacturers' of models, to enable compatibility between brands.  It was also to allow the sharing of ideas, and to advance the hobby.  To those many unsung pioneers, I thank you.

The association grew in North America organised into a number of geographic regions.  And the association also welcomed international members, with regions established in Britian, and Australasia.  The Australasian region was known as the Southern Cross Region, but there was a break away in the 1970s, and SCMRA is now totally separate, with AMRM as the association magazine.  However, some former NMRA members were not happy with this arrangement, and after a campaign, were able to re-establish an Australian Region of the NMRA in 1984.  As modellers in this country, we are blessed with 2 associations.

I joined the NMRA in 1990, after attending an NMRA  meeting in Canberra, at Graham Hodges abode in Belconnen.  I liked what I saw, and members in attendance, primarily from Sydney, were friendly, and happy to share ideas.

The 1991 NMRA convention in Denver was put on my calendar, and combined with a holiday, my horizons were broadened to what was possible.  These week-long conventions can be addictive, I also attended Portland in ‘94, Long Beach in ‘96, Seattle in 2004, and Portland (again) in 2015.  In addition, there were quite a number of shorter conventions here in Australia, the next one being at Rosehill in October.

The NMRA Achievement program

The achievement program was started in 1961, and has 2 main aims – to recognise those individuals who are supporting the Association, and the wider Model railway community; and to challenge and improve the personal modelling standards of the member.    It is not a contest. 

The main categories are

Service to the hobby:- Association official; Association Volunteer; Author

Model Railroad Equipment:- Master builder motive power; Master builder cars

Settings:- Master builder Structures; Master builder Scenery; Master builder Prototype Models

Engineering and Operation:- Model Railroad Engineer (civil); Model Railroad Engineer (electrical); Chief Dispatcher

Full details of the achievement program can be found on the NMRA websites.

My own experience in the Achievement program.

In 2006, I had accumulated sufficient points to apply for the Authorship Category award.  This is one of the categories “Service to the hobby”. 

Around 2011, I completed  the Model Railroad Engineer(electrical) category

Most modellers who have a model train layout have an advantage in many of the categories, although lack of a layout is not a huge impediment.  What is harder, is being geographically distant, or isolated from judges. 

Master Builder Structures

Anyone who has been following my blog, will know that building structures has been a major component.  I could see that my modelling standards were steadily improving.  My intention was always to get the models assessed, but  I rarely completed detailing the models, before starting on the next project.  After all, I figured that without spending the time detailing, would give me more time to make other structures.  Detailing could always be performed later.

That changed 2 months ago.  I received notification that the Achievement Program judge for Div 2 of the AR region was planning to move to Queensland, and that would really delay any future assessment.  So, I collected up a varied selection of models that in my assessment, may achieve merit standards (87.5 marks out of a possible 125), and then “completed” them, along with the task of filling out the paperwork  

In short, the structure category needs 6 out of 12  models to achieve Merit, 6 models out of the 12 must be scratchbuilt, and one model has to be a bridge

And on Wednesday, I made the 2+ hour car trip towards Canberra, where Stephe, and Ross assessed my models.  Below are the results.

The models and judging results

Ladysmith Station building

This is a Walkers NSW A4 laser cut wood kit, but modified and detailed to match the station building at Ladysmith. 

-        Construction(workmanship): 28 points out of 40

-        Detail (Quality and amount): 13 out of 20

-        Conformity (to prototype practice): 24 out of 25

-        Finish and lettering (general appearance): 22 out of 25

-        Scratchbuilt(parts added by the modeller): 4 out of 15

TOTAL: 91 points out of 125. This model MET Merit standards

Kyeamba Creek bridges

This model was recycled from an earlier layout.  It started as a Quality Scale Models NSW 4 span timber trestle kit, but enlarged to 9 spans, crossing 2 creek openings.  It is scaled to be as close to the real bridges near Ladysmith, and presented on a diorama (which is not judged) 

One of the 2 bridges of the diorama.  Wombat models C30T placed for effect

-        Construction(workmanship): 35 points out of 40

-        Detail (Quality and amount): 18 out of 20

-        Conformity (to prototype practice): 23 out of 25

-        Finish and lettering (general appearance): 20 out of 25

-        Scratchbuilt(parts added by the modeller): 10 out of 15

TOTAL: 106 points out of 125. This model MET Merit standards

Paddlesteamer

This model was scratchbuilt around 20 years ago, out of wood, and brass, using plans from the LJ Models P.S. Pevensey.  I included it to show my proficiency in using wood, as the model has quite a number of subtle curves, and not a simple box

The heavy varnish finish is fine for a mantlepiece display model, but lost me points for a scale model. Cargo is via ebay, and only secured with blu-tac

-        Construction(workmanship): 16 points out of 40

-        Detail (Quality and amount): 13 out of 20

-        Conformity (to prototype practice): 11 out of 25

-        Finish and lettering (general appearance): 12 out of 25

-        Scratchbuilt(parts added by the modeller): 15 out of 15

TOTAL: 67 points out of 125. This model DID NOT meet Merit standards.  Judges considered the model was toylike in appearance 

NSW 60’ turntable

This model was scratchbuilt mainly from brass.  Since my earlier blog posts on constructing this model, I added some side ribbing, as well as painted and weathered the model

The approach roads, and general scenery are awaiting for the turntable to be installed on the layout. The turntable is manual, just like the prototype, and will be placed close to the aisle for operators to easily turn the locos

-        Construction(workmanship): 28 points out of 40

-        Detail (Quality and amount): 12 out of 20

-        Conformity (to prototype practice): 15 out of 25

-        Finish and lettering (general appearance): 12 out of 25

-        Scratchbuilt(parts added by the modeller): 15 out of 15

TOTAL: 82 points out of 125. This model DID NOT meet Merit standards.  Judges considered the model was too small, and not sufficiently detailed. 

Murrumbidgee River Bridge

This model was kit bashed from two Uneek 159’ Whitten span brass kits, and 3 sets of cast piers. Extensive rework to match the Murrumbidgee river bridge, and to scratchbuild the bridge track (the kit assumes flex track which doesn’t look right).  Presented in a “ready to be assembled” state, due to the space requirements for a built diorama, and future placement on the layout

Archive image of my model  bridge from 2019.  Since then, my model was broken into subassemblies for storage

-        Construction(workmanship): 38 points out of 40

-        Detail (Quality and amount): 19 out of 20

-        Conformity (to prototype practice): 21 out of 25

-        Finish and lettering (general appearance): 23 out of 25

-        Scratchbuilt(parts added by the modeller): 7 out of 15

TOTAL: 108 points out of 125. This model MET Merit standards

Aerial Rope tower

This freelanced O scale model was mostly scratchbuilt from brass, and was inspired by the Hercules Haulage towers beside the highway at Rosebery on the west coast of Tasmania.  I drew my own plans, and built the model for the small diorama contest at the 2017 Narrow Gauge convention in Geelong.

-        Construction(workmanship): 39 points out of 40

-        Detail (Quality and amount): 19 out of 20

-        Conformity (to prototype practice): 23 out of 25

-        Finish and lettering (general appearance): 23 out of 25

-        Scratchbuilt(parts added by the modeller): 15 out of 15

TOTAL: 118 points out of 125. This model MET Merit standards

 

Wagga Wagga station

This scratchbuilt model took over 2 years to make, and is mostly of styrene construction, with some brass, including specially commissioned etched brass for the distinctive ironwork.  I covered the construction of this model extensively in earlier posts on this blog.

The railside view (the roadside view is on the header of this blogpost).  This side of the station won't be viewable from my layout aisles

-        Construction(workmanship): 39 points out of 40

-        Detail (Quality and amount): 19 out of 20

-        Conformity (to prototype practice): 23 out of 25

-        Finish and lettering (general appearance): 24 out of 25

-        Scratchbuilt(parts added by the modeller): 14 out of 15

TOTAL: 119 points out of 125. This model MET Merit standards

 

Bomen station

This scratchbuilt model of styrene construction, with plans I made myself.  I covered the construction of this model extensively in earlier posts on this blog.

Railside view. Since my original blog posts on construction of Bomen station, I have added downpipes, and platform signs

-        Construction(workmanship): 39 points out of 40

-        Detail (Quality and amount): 18 out of 20

-        Conformity (to prototype practice): 24 out of 25

-        Finish and lettering (general appearance): 22 out of 25

-        Scratchbuilt(parts added by the modeller): 15 out of 15

TOTAL: 118 points out of 125. This model MET Merit standards

 

56 Lever Wagga signal box lever frame.

This is approx.1:10 scale.  This frame matches the real frame in the former Wagga signal box, and is an operational model, built to cope with the 1:1 scale operator hands,  I built the model over 2 years, in 1997-8.  This model was not a kit, but steel metal laser cut parts were obtained from “MacKenzie in H.O.Lland”, and then hand machined, as Mackenzie had a number of deliberate faults to stop intellectual theft.  Each lever is connected to a cam, and future mechanical interlocking is possible.  A description of the theory of interlocking can be found in an earlier post on my blog.    The lever plates are paper “decals” on brass strip to match Wagga – in the future these plates will be replaced with etched versions

This model is on the same table the showed the Murrumbidgee Bridge model earlier, and is quite a large and weighty model

Closeup of the levers.  The paper labels did not print out as well as I hoped, but are accurate to the original descriptions

-        Construction(workmanship): 39 points out of 40

-        Detail (Quality and amount): 16 out of 20

-        Conformity (to prototype practice): 22 out of 25

-        Finish and lettering (general appearance): 24 out of 25

-        Scratchbuilt(parts added by the modeller): 11 out of 15

TOTAL: 112 points out of 125. This model MET Merit standards

 

Docker Street Gatekeeper cottage

This scratchbuilt model of styrene construction, with plans I made myself.  I covered the construction of this model extensively in earlier posts on this blog.

When I was showing this model at the July NMRA meeting, Ross asked me about why there was a lack of window sills. My prototype photos failed to show the bottom of the windows, but I checked an archive picture of the Ettamogah gatekeeper cottage, and it did have sills, so sills have been added.  

-        Construction(workmanship): 36 points out of 40

-        Detail (Quality and amount): 18 out of 20

-        Conformity (to prototype practice): 24 out of 25

-        Finish and lettering (general appearance): 20 out of 25

-        Scratchbuilt(parts added by the modeller): 15 out of 15

TOTAL: 113 points out of 125. This model MET Merit standards

 

Wagga Wagga Signal Box

This scratchbuilt model of styrene construction, with plans adapted from Greg Edwards Data Sheets, and based on my own photos from pre 1983, and others.  I covered the construction of this model extensively in earlier posts on this blog.

I added an interior to the signalbox. The levers and block instruments match a real photo supplied by Bob Taaffe, but the window side is a guess.  The desk, chair, coal bucket, block instruments, and minature staff instruments were all scratchbuilt from styrene. Seriously small details

Accurate angle - mimicks the view from the footbridge.  The signalbox was removed in 1983

-        Construction(workmanship): 29 points out of 40

-        Detail (Quality and amount): 18 out of 20

-        Conformity (to prototype practice): 22 out of 25

-        Finish and lettering (general appearance): 23 out of 25

-        Scratchbuilt(parts added by the modeller): 14 out of 15

TOTAL: 106 points out of 125. This model MET Merit standards

 

Ladysmith Toilet and lamp room

This scratchbuilt model of styrene construction, with metal foil cladding, using plans from Greg Edwards Data Sheets, and my own photos.   This was my first scratchbuilt prototype model in styrene, and I treated it as a learning exercise.   I covered the construction of this model in an  earlier post on this blog.

-        Construction(workmanship): 21 points out of 40

-        Detail (Quality and amount): 12 out of 20

-        Conformity (to prototype practice): 21 out of 25

-        Finish and lettering (general appearance): 13 out of 25

-        Scratchbuilt(parts added by the modeller): 15 out of 15

TOTAL: 82 points out of 125. This model DID NOT meet Merit standards.  Judges said it was just a bit too small to accumulate enough points.

 

=====================

To hedge my bets, I had included some other models that were subsequently not registered on the Statement of Qualification Form.   Included here for completeness

5 Tonne yard crane

This is a Stephen Johnson brass kit, and has a reputation (well earned) to be difficult

-        Construction(workmanship): 35 points out of 40

-        Detail (Quality and amount): 5 out of 20

-        Conformity (to prototype practice): 20 out of 25

-        Finish and lettering (general appearance): 15 out of 25

-        Scratchbuilt(parts added by the modeller): 0 out of 15

TOTAL: 75 points out of 125. This model DID NOT meet Merit standards.  Being a detailed kit, adding extra details was not really an option. Thus , it would have failed the Structure Category rules, even if it did reach merit, and as such, I could not include it in the Statement of Qualification

6 Lever Ground frame.

This is approx.1:10 scale.  I built the model in around 1995, using kit parts supplied by “MacKenzie in H.O.Lland”.  It is fully interlocked to my design, and represents a ficticious branch coming off a main line.  The lever plates are varnished paper “decals” on brass strip

-        Construction(workmanship): 30 points out of 40

-        Detail (Quality and amount): 7 out of 20

-        Conformity (to prototype practice): 17 out of 25

-        Finish and lettering (general appearance): 22 out of 25

-        Scratchbuilt(parts added by the modeller): 5 out of 15

-        TOTAL: 82 points out of 125. This model DID NOT meet Merit standards

Catenary for Yendys Exhibition layout

After asking the question at an NMRA x online convention during Covid, I asked a question to the ‘Ask the MMR’ segment.   “How do members, who are remote from judging, participate in the AP program?”.  After a long pause, Arthur Hayes MMR, suggested that one needs to take lots of photos, and if possible write it up in the region magazine “Mainline” .  Well, this is what I did, and then sent the paperwork through to the DIV 2 judge.  Yendys exhibition layout had been seen on the exhibition scene for over 10 years, so it was a well known subject for this test.  Well, the judging took around 8 months.  I consider this aspect of remote judging to be a serious question to be considered for the USA based NMRA BOD, as the process needs to be formalised.

The catenary almost disappears into the scene, which is just the lacy effect I wanted

-        Construction(workmanship): 32 points out of 40

-        Detail (Quality and amount): 13 out of 20

-        Conformity (to prototype practice): 23 out of 25

-        Finish and lettering (general appearance): 5 out of 25

-        Scratchbuilt(parts added by the modeller): 15 out of 15

TOTAL: 88 points out of 125. The Catenary model MET Merit standards

 

Paperwork

Prior to judging, paperwork needed to be filled out.  Here is a copy of my paperwork forms for the Yendys catenary, and the Statement of Qualifications. It can be time consuming to fill out, but it is possible to access a word template on the website, which helps the judges to read, as well as making corrections easier.

 

The Statement of Qualification sheet is to be sent to the Region AP chair, along with details of all the models listed.  Yes, paperwork is a necessary evil, and tends to put people off the Achievement Program. However, if you have spent 100s of hours on a model, the extra 30 minutes to fill out the paperwork is not that bad a tradeoff

 

Summary

I thank both Ross and Stephe (and David earlier) for their patience, and time in viewing, and judging my models.  I would have been disappointed if this aspect had been glossed over, and rushed.  Yes, they did find a few (quite a few) flaws in my models, and that is an aspect that will help me in future modelling.  Overall, I thought they were generous in their mark awarding, but I am also my harshest critic.  However, I trust that the analysis, and description of the models judged can help guide others to challenge themselves. 

I will await the necessary time for the paperwork to be received, and assessed, and finalised by the  AR region AP chair.   I am in no rush – I have more projects on the go to keep me fully occupied.

More of that in my next blog post.

Until next time, build a model or two