{"id":5687,"date":"2023-08-04T14:45:00","date_gmt":"2023-08-04T04:45:00","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.vibewire.com.au\/?guid=c0f1f9d9d799d723f72c0d5e0ea4bba8"},"modified":"2023-08-04T14:45:00","modified_gmt":"2023-08-04T04:45:00","slug":"nmra-achievement-program","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.vibewire.com.au\/?p=5687","title":{"rendered":"NMRA -Achievement program"},"content":{"rendered":"

 <\/p>\n

NMRA -Achievement program<\/o:p><\/span><\/b><\/p>\n

 <\/o:p><\/span><\/p>\n

One of my
\ncompanions on my Model Railway journey is the National Model Railroad Association
\n(NMRA).  <\/span>It might seem strange to credit
\nthe association, but without them, I doubt the hobby, and my own modelling
\nwould have progressed.<\/o:p><\/span><\/p>\n


<\/span><\/p>\n

\n\n\n\n\n
<\/a><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
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.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n


<\/span><\/p>\n


<\/span><\/p>\n

A quick history<\/o:p><\/span><\/u><\/b><\/p>\n

The NMRA
\nwas set up in the USA nearly 100 years ago, 
\n<\/span>with aims to provide a consistant standard to manufacturers’ of models,
\nto enable compatibility between brands. 
\n<\/span>It was also to allow the sharing of ideas, and to
\nadvance the hobby.  <\/span>To those many unsung
\npioneers, I thank you.<\/o:p><\/span><\/p>\n

The
\nassociation grew in North America organised into a number of geographic
\nregions.  <\/span>And the association also
\nwelcomed international members, with regions established in Britian, and Australasia.  <\/span>The Australasian region was known as the
\nSouthern Cross Region, but there was a break away in the 1970s, and SCMRA is
\nnow totally separate, with AMRM as the association magazine.  <\/span>However, some former NMRA members were not
\nhappy with this arrangement, and after a campaign, were able to re-establish an
\nAustralian Region of the NMRA in 1984. 
\n<\/span>As modellers in this country, we are blessed with 2 associations.<\/o:p><\/span><\/p>\n

I joined
\nthe NMRA in 1990, after attending an NMRA 
\n<\/span>meeting in Canberra, at Graham Hodges abode in Belconnen.  <\/span>I liked what I saw, and members in
\nattendance, primarily from Sydney, were friendly, and happy to share ideas. <\/o:p><\/span><\/p>\n

The 1991
\nNMRA convention in Denver was put on my calendar, and combined with a holiday,
\nmy horizons were broadened to what was possible.  <\/span>These week-long conventions can be addictive,
\nI also attended Portland in \u201894, Long Beach in \u201896, Seattle in 2004, and
\nPortland (again) in 2015.  <\/span>In addition,
\nthere were quite a number of shorter conventions here in Australia, the next
\none being at Rosehill in October.<\/o:p><\/span><\/p>\n

The NMRA Achievement program<\/o:p><\/span><\/u><\/b><\/p>\n

The
\nachievement program was started in 1961, and has 2 main aims \u2013 to recognise
\nthose individuals who are supporting the Association, and the wider Model
\nrailway community; and to challenge and improve the personal modelling
\nstandards of the member.    <\/span>It is not a
\ncontest.  <\/span><\/o:p><\/span><\/p>\n

The main
\ncategories are <\/o:p><\/span><\/p>\n

Service
\nto the hobby:- Association official; Association Volunteer; Author<\/o:p><\/span><\/i><\/p>\n

Model
\nRailroad Equipment:- Master builder motive power; Master builder cars<\/o:p><\/span><\/i><\/p>\n

Settings:-
\nMaster builder Structures; Master builder Scenery; Master builder Prototype
\nModels<\/o:p><\/span><\/i><\/p>\n

Engineering
\nand Operation:- Model Railroad Engineer (civil); Model Railroad Engineer
\n(electrical); Chief Dispatcher<\/o:p><\/span><\/i><\/p>\n

Full
\ndetails of the achievement program can be found on the NMRA websites.<\/o:p><\/span><\/p>\n

My own
\nexperience in the Achievement program.<\/o:p><\/span><\/u><\/p>\n

In 2006, I
\nhad accumulated sufficient points to apply for the Authorship Category
\naward.  <\/span>This is one of the categories \u201cService
\nto the hobby\u201d.  <\/span><\/o:p><\/span><\/p>\n

Around 2011,
\nI completed  <\/span>the Model Railroad
\nEngineer(electrical) category<\/o:p><\/span><\/p>\n

Most
\nmodellers who have a model train layout have an advantage in many of the
\ncategories, although lack of a layout is not a huge impediment.  <\/span>What is harder, is being geographically
\ndistant, or isolated from judges.  <\/span><\/o:p><\/span><\/p>\n

Master Builder Structures<\/o:p><\/span><\/u><\/b><\/p>\n

Anyone who
\nhas been following my blog, will know that building structures has been a major
\ncomponent.  <\/span>I could see that my modelling
\nstandards were steadily improving.  <\/span>My
\nintention was always to get the models assessed, but  <\/span>I rarely completed detailing the models,
\nbefore starting on the next project. 
\n<\/span>After all, I figured that without spending the time detailing, would
\ngive me more time to make other structures. 
\n<\/span>Detailing could always be performed later.<\/o:p><\/span><\/p>\n

That changed
\n2 months ago.  <\/span>I received notification
\nthat the Achievement Program judge for Div 2 of the AR region was planning to
\nmove to Queensland, and that would really delay any future assessment.  <\/span>So, I collected up a varied selection of
\nmodels that in my assessment, may achieve merit standards (87.5 marks out of a
\npossible 125), and then \u201ccompleted\u201d them, along with the task of filling out
\nthe paperwork   <\/span><\/o:p><\/span><\/p>\n

In short,
\nthe structure category needs 6 out of 12 
\n<\/span>models to achieve Merit, 6 models out of the 12 must be scratchbuilt,
\nand one model has to be a bridge <\/o:p><\/span><\/p>\n

And on
\nWednesday, I made the 2+ hour car trip towards Canberra, where Stephe, and Ross
\nassessed my models.  <\/span>Below are the
\nresults. <\/o:p><\/span><\/p>\n

The
\nmodels and judging results<\/o:p><\/span><\/b><\/p>\n

Ladysmith Station building<\/o:p><\/span><\/i><\/p>\n

This is a Walkers
\nNSW A4 laser cut wood kit, but modified and detailed to match the station
\nbuilding at Ladysmith.  <\/span><\/o:p><\/span><\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

<\/a><\/div>\n


<\/span><\/p>\n

–       
\n<\/span><\/span><\/span>Construction(workmanship):
\n28 points out of 40<\/o:p><\/span><\/p>\n

–       
\n<\/span><\/span><\/span>Detail
\n(Quality and amount): 13 out of 20<\/o:p><\/span><\/p>\n

–       
\n<\/span><\/span><\/span>Conformity
\n(to prototype practice): 24 out of 25<\/o:p><\/span><\/p>\n

–       
\n<\/span><\/span><\/span>Finish
\nand lettering (general appearance): 22 out of 25<\/o:p><\/span><\/p>\n

–       
\n<\/span><\/span><\/span>Scratchbuilt(parts
\nadded by the modeller): 4 out of 15<\/o:p><\/span><\/p>\n

TOTAL: 91
\npoints out of 125. This model MET Merit standards<\/o:p><\/span><\/p>\n

Kyeamba Creek bridges<\/o:p><\/span><\/i><\/p>\n

This model
\nwas recycled from an earlier layout.  <\/span>It
\nstarted as a Quality Scale Models NSW 4 span timber trestle kit, but enlarged
\nto 9 spans, crossing 2 creek openings. 
\n<\/span>It is scaled to be as close to the real bridges near Ladysmith, and
\npresented on a diorama (which is not judged) 
\n<\/span><\/o:p><\/span><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n
<\/a><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
One of the 2 bridges of the diorama.  Wombat models C30T placed for effect<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n


<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

–       
\n<\/span><\/span><\/span>Construction(workmanship):
\n35 points out of 40<\/o:p><\/span><\/p>\n

–       
\n<\/span><\/span><\/span>Detail
\n(Quality and amount): 18 out of 20<\/o:p><\/span><\/p>\n

–       
\n<\/span><\/span><\/span>Conformity
\n(to prototype practice): 23 out of 25<\/o:p><\/span><\/p>\n

–       
\n<\/span><\/span><\/span>Finish
\nand lettering (general appearance): 20 out of 25<\/o:p><\/span><\/p>\n

–       
\n<\/span><\/span><\/span>Scratchbuilt(parts
\nadded by the modeller): 10 out of 15<\/o:p><\/span><\/p>\n

TOTAL: 106
\npoints out of 125. This model MET Merit standards<\/o:p><\/span><\/p>\n

Paddlesteamer<\/o:p><\/span><\/i><\/p>\n

This model
\nwas scratchbuilt around 20 years ago, out of wood, and brass, using plans from
\nthe LJ Models P.S. Pevensey.  <\/span>I included
\nit to show my proficiency in using wood, as the model has quite a number of
\nsubtle curves, and not a simple box<\/o:p><\/span><\/p>\n

\n\n\n\n\n
<\/a><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
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<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n


<\/span><\/p>\n

–       
\n<\/span><\/span><\/span>Construction(workmanship):
\n16 points out of 40<\/o:p><\/span><\/p>\n

–       
\n<\/span><\/span><\/span>Detail
\n(Quality and amount): 13 out of 20<\/o:p><\/span><\/p>\n

–       
\n<\/span><\/span><\/span>Conformity
\n(to prototype practice): 11 out of 25<\/o:p><\/span><\/p>\n

–       
\n<\/span><\/span><\/span>Finish
\nand lettering (general appearance): 12 out of 25<\/o:p><\/span><\/p>\n

–       
\n<\/span><\/span><\/span>Scratchbuilt(parts
\nadded by the modeller): 15 out of 15<\/o:p><\/span><\/p>\n

TOTAL: 67
\npoints out of 125. This model DID NOT meet Merit standards.  <\/span>Judges considered the model was toylike in
\nappearance  <\/span><\/o:p><\/span><\/p>\n

NSW 60\u2019 turntable<\/o:p><\/span><\/i><\/p>\n

This model
\nwas scratchbuilt mainly from brass. 
\n<\/span>Since my earlier blog posts on constructing this model, I added some
\nside ribbing, as well as painted and weathered the model<\/o:p><\/span><\/p>\n

\n\n\n\n\n
<\/a><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
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<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n


<\/span><\/p>\n

–       
\n<\/span><\/span><\/span>Construction(workmanship):
\n28 points out of 40<\/o:p><\/span><\/p>\n

–       
\n<\/span><\/span><\/span>Detail
\n(Quality and amount): 12 out of 20<\/o:p><\/span><\/p>\n

–       
\n<\/span><\/span><\/span>Conformity
\n(to prototype practice): 15 out of 25<\/o:p><\/span><\/p>\n

–       
\n<\/span><\/span><\/span>Finish
\nand lettering (general appearance): 12 out of 25<\/o:p><\/span><\/p>\n

–       
\n<\/span><\/span><\/span>Scratchbuilt(parts
\nadded by the modeller): 15 out of 15<\/o:p><\/span><\/p>\n

TOTAL: 82
\npoints out of 125. This model DID NOT meet Merit standards.  <\/span>Judges considered the model was too small,
\nand not sufficiently detailed.  <\/span><\/o:p><\/span><\/p>\n

Murrumbidgee River Bridge <\/o:p><\/span><\/i><\/p>\n

This model
\nwas kit bashed from two Uneek 159\u2019 Whitten span brass kits, and 3 sets of cast
\npiers. Extensive rework to match the Murrumbidgee river bridge, and to
\nscratchbuild the bridge track (the kit assumes flex track which doesn\u2019t look
\nright).  <\/span>Presented in a \u201cready to be
\nassembled\u201d state, due to the space requirements for a built diorama, and future
\nplacement on the layout<\/o:p><\/span><\/p>\n

\n\n\n\n\n
<\/a><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Archive image of my model  bridge from 2019.  Since then, my model was broken into subassemblies for storage<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n


<\/span><\/p>\n

–       
\n<\/span><\/span><\/span>Construction(workmanship):
\n38 points out of 40<\/o:p><\/span><\/p>\n

–       
\n<\/span><\/span><\/span>Detail
\n(Quality and amount): 19 out of 20<\/o:p><\/span><\/p>\n

–       
\n<\/span><\/span><\/span>Conformity
\n(to prototype practice): 21 out of 25<\/o:p><\/span><\/p>\n

–       
\n<\/span><\/span><\/span>Finish
\nand lettering (general appearance): 23 out of 25<\/o:p><\/span><\/p>\n

–       
\n<\/span><\/span><\/span>Scratchbuilt(parts
\nadded by the modeller): 7 out of 15<\/o:p><\/span><\/p>\n

TOTAL: 108
\npoints out of 125. This model MET Merit standards<\/o:p><\/span><\/p>\n

Aerial Rope tower <\/o:p><\/span><\/i><\/p>\n

This
\nfreelanced O scale model was mostly scratchbuilt from brass, and was inspired
\nby the Hercules Haulage towers beside the highway at Rosebery on the west coast
\nof Tasmania.  <\/span>I drew my own plans, and
\nbuilt the model for the small diorama contest at the 2017 Narrow Gauge convention
\nin Geelong.<\/o:p><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

<\/a><\/div>\n


<\/span><\/p>\n

–       
\n<\/span><\/span><\/span>Construction(workmanship):
\n39 points out of 40<\/o:p><\/span><\/p>\n

–       
\n<\/span><\/span><\/span>Detail
\n(Quality and amount): 19 out of 20<\/o:p><\/span><\/p>\n

–       
\n<\/span><\/span><\/span>Conformity
\n(to prototype practice): 23 out of 25<\/o:p><\/span><\/p>\n

–       
\n<\/span><\/span><\/span>Finish
\nand lettering (general appearance): 23 out of 25<\/o:p><\/span><\/p>\n

–       
\n<\/span><\/span><\/span>Scratchbuilt(parts
\nadded by the modeller): 15 out of 15<\/o:p><\/span><\/p>\n

TOTAL: 118
\npoints out of 125. This model MET Merit standards<\/o:p><\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/o:p><\/span><\/p>\n

Wagga Wagga station<\/o:p><\/span><\/i><\/p>\n

This scratchbuilt
\nmodel took over 2 years to make, and is mostly of styrene construction, with
\nsome brass, including specially commissioned etched brass for the distinctive
\nironwork.  <\/span>I covered the construction of
\nthis model extensively in earlier posts on this blog.<\/o:p><\/span><\/p>\n

\n\n\n\n\n
<\/a><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
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<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n


<\/span><\/p>\n

–       
\n<\/span><\/span><\/span>Construction(workmanship):
\n39 points out of 40<\/o:p><\/span><\/p>\n

–       
\n<\/span><\/span><\/span>Detail
\n(Quality and amount): 19 out of 20<\/o:p><\/span><\/p>\n

–       
\n<\/span><\/span><\/span>Conformity
\n(to prototype practice): 23 out of 25<\/o:p><\/span><\/p>\n

–       
\n<\/span><\/span><\/span>Finish
\nand lettering (general appearance): 24 out of 25<\/o:p><\/span><\/p>\n

–       
\n<\/span><\/span><\/span>Scratchbuilt(parts
\nadded by the modeller): 14 out of 15<\/o:p><\/span><\/p>\n

TOTAL: 119
\npoints out of 125. This model MET Merit standards<\/o:p><\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/o:p><\/span><\/i><\/p>\n

Bomen station<\/o:p><\/span><\/i><\/p>\n

This
\nscratchbuilt model of styrene construction, with plans I made myself.  <\/span>I covered the construction of this model
\nextensively in earlier posts on this blog. <\/o:p><\/span><\/p>\n

\n\n\n\n\n
<\/a><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Railside view. Since my original blog posts on construction of Bomen station, I have added downpipes, and platform signs<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n


<\/span><\/p>\n

–       
\n<\/span><\/span><\/span>Construction(workmanship):
\n39 points out of 40<\/o:p><\/span><\/p>\n

–       
\n<\/span><\/span><\/span>Detail
\n(Quality and amount): 18 out of 20<\/o:p><\/span><\/p>\n

–       
\n<\/span><\/span><\/span>Conformity
\n(to prototype practice): 24 out of 25<\/o:p><\/span><\/p>\n

–       
\n<\/span><\/span><\/span>Finish
\nand lettering (general appearance): 22 out of 25<\/o:p><\/span><\/p>\n

–       
\n<\/span><\/span><\/span>Scratchbuilt(parts
\nadded by the modeller): 15 out of 15<\/o:p><\/span><\/p>\n

TOTAL: 118
\npoints out of 125. This model MET Merit standards<\/o:p><\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/o:p><\/span><\/p>\n

56 Lever Wagga signal box lever frame<\/span><\/i>.<\/o:p><\/span><\/p>\n

This is
\napprox.1:10 scale.  <\/span>This frame matches
\nthe real frame in the former Wagga signal box, and is an operational model,
\nbuilt to cope with the 1:1 scale operator hands,  <\/span>I built the model over 2 years, in
\n1997-8.  <\/span>This model was not a kit, but steel
\nmetal laser cut parts were obtained from \u201cMacKenzie in H.O.Lland\u201d, and then
\nhand machined, as Mackenzie had a number of deliberate faults to stop
\nintellectual theft.  <\/span>Each lever is
\nconnected to a cam, and future mechanical interlocking is possible.  <\/span>A description of the theory of interlocking
\ncan be found in an earlier post on my blog. 
\n<\/span>  <\/span>The lever plates are paper
\n\u201cdecals\u201d on brass strip to match Wagga \u2013 in the future these plates will be
\nreplaced with etched versions<\/o:p><\/span><\/p>\n

\n\n\n\n\n
<\/a><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
This model is on the same table the showed the Murrumbidgee Bridge model earlier, and is quite a large and weighty model<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n
<\/a><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Closeup of the levers.  The paper labels did not print out as well as I hoped, but are accurate to the original descriptions<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n


<\/span><\/p>\n

–       
\n<\/span><\/span><\/span>Construction(workmanship):
\n39 points out of 40<\/o:p><\/span><\/p>\n

–       
\n<\/span><\/span><\/span>Detail
\n(Quality and amount): 16 out of 20<\/o:p><\/span><\/p>\n

–       
\n<\/span><\/span><\/span>Conformity
\n(to prototype practice): 22 out of 25<\/o:p><\/span><\/p>\n

–       
\n<\/span><\/span><\/span>Finish
\nand lettering (general appearance): 24 out of 25<\/o:p><\/span><\/p>\n

–       
\n<\/span><\/span><\/span>Scratchbuilt(parts
\nadded by the modeller): 11 out of 15<\/o:p><\/span><\/p>\n

TOTAL: 112
\npoints out of 125. This model MET Merit standards<\/o:p><\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/o:p><\/span><\/p>\n

Docker Street Gatekeeper cottage<\/o:p><\/span><\/i><\/p>\n

This
\nscratchbuilt model of styrene construction, with plans I made myself.  <\/span>I covered the construction of this model
\nextensively in earlier posts on this blog. <\/o:p><\/span><\/p>\n

\n\n\n\n\n
<\/a><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
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.  <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n


<\/span><\/p>\n

–       
\n<\/span><\/span><\/span>Construction(workmanship):
\n36 points out of 40<\/o:p><\/span><\/p>\n

–       
\n<\/span><\/span><\/span>Detail
\n(Quality and amount): 18 out of 20<\/o:p><\/span><\/p>\n

–       
\n<\/span><\/span><\/span>Conformity
\n(to prototype practice): 24 out of 25<\/o:p><\/span><\/p>\n

–       
\n<\/span><\/span><\/span>Finish
\nand lettering (general appearance): 20 out of 25<\/o:p><\/span><\/p>\n

–       
\n<\/span><\/span><\/span>Scratchbuilt(parts
\nadded by the modeller): 15 out of 15<\/o:p><\/span><\/p>\n

TOTAL: 113
\npoints out of 125. This model MET Merit standards<\/o:p><\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/o:p><\/span><\/p>\n

Wagga Wagga Signal Box<\/o:p><\/span><\/i><\/p>\n

This
\nscratchbuilt model of styrene construction, with plans adapted from Greg
\nEdwards Data Sheets, and based on my own photos from pre 1983, and others.  <\/span>I covered the construction of this model
\nextensively in earlier posts on this blog. <\/o:p><\/span><\/p>\n

\n\n\n\n\n
<\/a><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
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<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n
<\/a><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Accurate angle – mimicks the view from the footbridge.  The signalbox was removed in 1983<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n


<\/span><\/p>\n

–       
\n<\/span><\/span><\/span>Construction(workmanship):
\n29 points out of 40<\/o:p><\/span><\/p>\n

–       
\n<\/span><\/span><\/span>Detail
\n(Quality and amount): 18 out of 20<\/o:p><\/span><\/p>\n

–       
\n<\/span><\/span><\/span>Conformity
\n(to prototype practice): 22 out of 25<\/o:p><\/span><\/p>\n

–       
\n<\/span><\/span><\/span>Finish
\nand lettering (general appearance): 23 out of 25<\/o:p><\/span><\/p>\n

–       
\n<\/span><\/span><\/span>Scratchbuilt(parts
\nadded by the modeller): 14 out of 15<\/o:p><\/span><\/p>\n

TOTAL: 106
\npoints out of 125. This model MET Merit standards<\/o:p><\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/o:p><\/span><\/p>\n

Ladysmith Toilet and lamp room<\/o:p><\/span><\/i><\/p>\n

This
\nscratchbuilt model of styrene construction, with metal foil cladding, using
\nplans from Greg Edwards Data Sheets, and my own photos.   <\/span>This was my first scratchbuilt prototype
\nmodel in styrene, and I treated it as a learning exercise.   <\/span>I covered the construction of this model in
\nan  <\/span>earlier post on this blog. <\/o:p><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

<\/a><\/div>\n


<\/span><\/p>\n

–       
\n<\/span><\/span><\/span>Construction(workmanship):
\n21 points out of 40<\/o:p><\/span><\/p>\n

–       
\n<\/span><\/span><\/span>Detail
\n(Quality and amount): 12 out of 20<\/o:p><\/span><\/p>\n

–       
\n<\/span><\/span><\/span>Conformity
\n(to prototype practice): 21 out of 25<\/o:p><\/span><\/p>\n

–       
\n<\/span><\/span><\/span>Finish
\nand lettering (general appearance): 13 out of 25<\/o:p><\/span><\/p>\n

–       
\n<\/span><\/span><\/span>Scratchbuilt(parts
\nadded by the modeller): 15 out of 15<\/o:p><\/span><\/p>\n

TOTAL: 82
\npoints out of 125. This model DID NOT meet Merit standards.  <\/span>Judges said it was just a bit too small to
\naccumulate enough points.<\/o:p><\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/o:p><\/span><\/p>\n

=====================<\/o:p><\/span><\/p>\n

To hedge my
\nbets, I had included some other models that were subsequently not registered on
\nthe Statement of Qualification Form.  <\/span> <\/span>Included here for completeness <\/o:p><\/span><\/p>\n

5 Tonne yard crane<\/o:p><\/span><\/i><\/p>\n

This is a
\nStephen Johnson brass kit, and has a reputation (well earned) to be difficult<\/o:p><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

<\/a><\/div>\n


<\/span><\/p>\n

–       
\n<\/span><\/span><\/span>Construction(workmanship):
\n35 points out of 40<\/o:p><\/span><\/p>\n

–       
\n<\/span><\/span><\/span>Detail
\n(Quality and amount): 5 out of 20<\/o:p><\/span><\/p>\n

–       
\n<\/span><\/span><\/span>Conformity
\n(to prototype practice): 20 out of 25<\/o:p><\/span><\/p>\n

–       
\n<\/span><\/span><\/span>Finish
\nand lettering (general appearance): 15 out of 25<\/o:p><\/span><\/p>\n

–       
\n<\/span><\/span><\/span>Scratchbuilt(parts
\nadded by the modeller): 0 out of 15<\/o:p><\/span><\/p>\n

TOTAL: 75
\npoints out of 125. This model DID NOT meet Merit standards.  <\/span>Being a detailed kit, adding extra details
\nwas not really an option. Thus , it would have failed the Structure Category
\nrules, even if it did reach merit, and as such, I could not include it in the
\nStatement of Qualification<\/o:p><\/span><\/p>\n

6 Lever Ground frame<\/span><\/i>.<\/o:p><\/span><\/p>\n

This is
\napprox.1:10 scale.  <\/span>I built the model in
\naround 1995, using kit parts supplied by \u201cMacKenzie in H.O.Lland\u201d.  <\/span>It is fully interlocked to my design, and
\nrepresents a ficticious branch coming off a main line.  <\/span>The lever plates are varnished paper \u201cdecals\u201d
\non brass strip<\/o:p><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

<\/a><\/div>\n


<\/span><\/p>\n

–       
\n<\/span><\/span><\/span>Construction(workmanship):
\n30 points out of 40<\/o:p><\/span><\/p>\n

–       
\n<\/span><\/span><\/span>Detail
\n(Quality and amount): 7 out of 20<\/o:p><\/span><\/p>\n

–       
\n<\/span><\/span><\/span>Conformity
\n(to prototype practice): 17 out of 25<\/o:p><\/span><\/p>\n

–       
\n<\/span><\/span><\/span>Finish
\nand lettering (general appearance): 22 out of 25<\/o:p><\/span><\/p>\n

–       
\n<\/span><\/span><\/span>Scratchbuilt(parts
\nadded by the modeller): 5 out of 15<\/o:p><\/span><\/p>\n

–       
\n<\/span><\/span><\/span>TOTAL:
\n82 points out of 125. This model DID NOT meet Merit standards<\/o:p><\/span><\/p>\n

Catenary for Yendys Exhibition layout <\/o:p><\/span><\/i><\/p>\n

After
\nasking the question at an NMRA x online convention during Covid, I asked a
\nquestion to the \u2018Ask the MMR\u2019 segment.  <\/span> <\/span>\u201cHow do members, who are remote from judging,
\nparticipate in the AP program?\u201d.  <\/span>After a
\nlong pause, Arthur Hayes MMR, suggested that one needs to take lots of photos,
\nand if possible write it up in the region magazine \u201cMainline\u201d .  <\/span>Well, this is what I did, and then sent the
\npaperwork through to the DIV 2 judge. 
\n<\/span>Yendys exhibition layout had been seen on the exhibition scene for over
\n10 years, so it was a well known subject for this test.  <\/span>Well, the judging took around 8 months.  <\/span>I consider this aspect of remote judging to
\nbe a serious question to be considered for the USA based NMRA BOD, as the
\nprocess needs to be formalised.<\/o:p><\/span><\/p>\n

\n\n\n\n\n
<\/a><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
The catenary almost disappears into the scene, which is just the lacy effect I wanted<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n


<\/span><\/p>\n

–       
\n<\/span><\/span><\/span>Construction(workmanship):
\n32 points out of 40<\/o:p><\/span><\/p>\n

–       
\n<\/span><\/span><\/span>Detail
\n(Quality and amount): 13 out of 20<\/o:p><\/span><\/p>\n

–       
\n<\/span><\/span><\/span>Conformity
\n(to prototype practice): 23 out of 25<\/o:p><\/span><\/p>\n

–       
\n<\/span><\/span><\/span>Finish
\nand lettering (general appearance): 5 out of 25<\/o:p><\/span><\/p>\n

–       
\n<\/span><\/span><\/span>Scratchbuilt(parts
\nadded by the modeller): 15 out of 15<\/o:p><\/span><\/p>\n

TOTAL: 88
\npoints out of 125. The Catenary model MET Merit standards<\/o:p><\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/o:p><\/span><\/p>\n

Paperwork<\/o:p><\/span><\/b><\/p>\n

Prior to
\njudging, paperwork needed to be filled out. 
\n<\/span>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
\nis possible to access a word template on the website, which helps the judges to
\nread, as well as making corrections easier. <\/o:p><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

<\/a><\/div>\n


<\/span><\/p>\n

<\/a><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n\n\n\n\n
<\/a><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
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<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

<\/o:p><\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/o:p><\/span><\/p>\n

Summary<\/o:p><\/span><\/u><\/b><\/p>\n

I thank
\nboth Ross and Stephe (and David earlier) for their patience, and time in
\nviewing, and judging my models.  <\/span>I would
\nhave been disappointed if this aspect had been glossed over, and rushed.  <\/span>Yes, they did find a few (quite a few) flaws
\nin my models, and that is an aspect that will help me in future modelling.  <\/span>Overall, I thought they were generous in
\ntheir mark awarding, but I am also my harshest critic.  <\/span>However, I trust that the analysis, and
\ndescription of the models judged can help guide others to challenge
\nthemselves.  <\/span><\/o:p><\/span><\/p>\n

I will
\nawait the necessary time for the paperwork to be received, and assessed, and
\nfinalised by the  <\/span>AR region AP
\nchair.  <\/span> <\/span>I am in no rush \u2013 I have more projects on the
\ngo to keep me fully occupied.<\/o:p><\/span><\/p>\n

More of
\nthat in my next blog post.<\/o:p><\/span><\/p>\n

Until next
\ntime, build a model or two<\/o:p><\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

 NMRA -Achievement program<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

One of my
\ncompanions on my Model Railway journey is the National Model Railroad Association
\n(NMRA).  It might seem strange to credit
\nthe association, but without them, I doubt the hobby, and my own modellin…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":13,"featured_media":13211,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"om_disable_all_campaigns":false,"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"_uf_show_specific_survey":0,"_uf_disable_surveys":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[2229,2230],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-5687","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-nmra","category-scratchbuilding"],"aioseo_notices":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.vibewire.com.au\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5687","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.vibewire.com.au\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.vibewire.com.au\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.vibewire.com.au\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/13"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.vibewire.com.au\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=5687"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.vibewire.com.au\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5687\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":5688,"href":"https:\/\/www.vibewire.com.au\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5687\/revisions\/5688"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.vibewire.com.au\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/13211"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.vibewire.com.au\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=5687"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.vibewire.com.au\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=5687"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.vibewire.com.au\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=5687"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}