Some thoughts on Model Engineering

[WolfieParticipant @wolfie]

I was thinking earlier. Most model engineers have skills that are equivalent to full scale engineers, indeed many of you are or were full time engineers.

 

So what denotes a model engineer? Me for instance. I was a truck driver for 22 years then made a career change and nowadays I’m an IT engineer. Not a mechanical rod in sight!

However I did have a granddad who was a keen engineer as was his father (who I never knew) and his son, my uncle, who I also don’t see much of for geographical reasons. But I have the bug.

 

Where did it start? Classical model engineers seem to make models of the machines that they or their contemporaries make. But being as machines as we know them haven’t been around that long do we assume that model engineers started around 1800?

 

I don’t know the answer to this, I am just theorising. Prior to the industrial revolution, there wasn’t much in the way of machines, about the only man made thing that was worth modelling was the ship. And of course ship models have been around for many years.Far longer than model engineering.

 

I suspect I’m trying to reconcile modelling as I knew it up until a couple of years back with other disciplines. I started, along with many others of my generation with Airfix kits. On looking back I know that was because they were cheap and available and I didn’t need anything more than a tube of glue, a handy kitchen table and a copy of the Yorkshire Post to keep mam off my back.

And so it went on. Today, 35 years later I command fees of up to £1000 to build models that are still based on plastic kits, and I can do this twice every 3 months, work it out. I am a member of the International Plastic Modellers Society (IPMS) and have been for years.

 

Last year at the worlds biggest IPMS model show, Scale Model World which fills three halls of the International Centre at Telford, the ship class was won by a wooden model. I had no problem with that, but quite a few did, note that the P in IPMS = Plastic!

 

And then I visited Sandown last December and expected to see nowt but steam engines. Now while I did see a lot, I was also impressed by the stand that had a whole load of coaches on. All wooden models, beautifully made.

 

So where does ‘modelling’ as I call what I do, and ‘model engineering’ meet or diverge.

 

I was at a model show on Sunday. In Huddersfield. A regional show but (and I hate to say this here) it made Sandown look like a garden party. The annual IPMS show is 20 times bigger than that. And we as plastic modellers are worried about the lack of youngsters in the hobby. You guys must be at your wits end.

 

I’m wondering whether we should drop the X in X modelling. Shouldn’t we just all be model makers that make small versions of the machines that take our fancy whether working models or static models.

 

What do you reckon, in Roman times was the guy that made a minature chariot carved from wood any better than the lad that made one from clay?

 

OK I’m rambling now, over to you lot. Discuss

Edited By Wolfie on 24/02/2011 01:34:34

[WolfieParticipant @wolfie]

[Nicholas FarrParticipant @nicholasfarr14254]

Hi Wolfie, you ask what denotes a model engineer, well I’ll guess there is a host of definitions, but one I think is anyone who makes anything that represents a prototype that already exists or may exist after a fesable study.

 

If you have ever read any of LBSC’s notes, he didn’t regard what he built as models, more over as live steam on a small scale.

 

A model can be something that just represents the outside appearance, like the Airfix kits, to something that has all the same working nature of what it represents that are possible to obtain.

 

While a lot of model engineers are some type of mechanical engineers in thier day job, the abilities do very often differ, as the smaller you go the higher the tolerances have to be. I for instance have been in medium to heavy maintenace of large processing plant, all my working life and while its not to hard to get a 0.000″ to 0.001″ tolerance on a four inch drive shaft for a bearing, scaling that down is a bigger challenge. Likewise an engineer who is involved in lab equipment for instance may find it hard not to be so fussy on something a bit larger or more tolerant.

 

Regards Nick.

Edited By Nicholas Farr on 24/02/2011 08:15:17

[John OlsenParticipant @johnolsen79199]

Hi Wolfie,

 

Well I guess the wooden ship model was held together by plastic in one form or another, polyvinyl acetate or epoxy or some such.

 

The definition of “Model Engineering” is going to differ depending who you talk to…I’ve had comments at my club about my launch engine to the effect that “it is not really model engineering” although in fact the design on which it is based appeared in the Model Engineer in the early 80’s. A lot of clubs used to, and some still do, have “Model and Experimental Engineering” in their titles, and to me this is closer to the way I see the hobby. The ME itself started out as the Model Engineer and Practical Electrician, with lots of stuff about wiring, including house lighting, and dangerous activities involving high voltages and X rays. It is possible that Percival Marshall had the “exemplar” meaning of model in mind as much as he had the “miniature replica” meaning.

 

However, leaving aside the Experimental aspects, a significant part of what makes it “model engineering” is the idea of making a working miniature of a full size prototype. Not that I would be dogmatic about that, but for instance at the museum where I volunteer there is a beautiful model of a Babcock and Wilcox boiler, originally made for sales purposes. A lovely piece of work, but actually made of wood, and naturally not operable. So …to me… not actually main stream model engineering, although certainly a fine piece of model making. On the other hand, if someone made something like it and brought it along to our club exhibition, if I were judging I would certainly not exclude it from consideration.

 

I think most of us as “model engineers” have an appreciation for fine workmanship that goes beyond our own particular specialties, so that the clock guys can happily talk to the loco guys, and also with the guys interested in woodwork. I have a good friend who is a potter, and have some of his work on display in my home…shaping and cooking mud is quite a long way from anything that I am interested in doing, but I can appreciate the skills involved.

 

regards

John

[Ian S CParticipant @iansc]

The original title of “our magazine” in 1898 “The Model Engineer and Amateur Electrician: A Journal of mechanics and Electricity for Amateurs and Stdents”. There are articals on radio, clocks, locomotives, lathe screw carriers(driving dog), making batteries. uilding a goods waggon 2 1/2″ gauge, and the construction of Model dynamos and motors. That was just in Vol 1 No 1 Jan 1898 ( price t wopence). It also says that answers to questions can reasonably be expected in 2 to 3 days.It also had some good competitions.

Percival Marshall didn’t just insist on scale engineering models, but every thing that an amateur mechanic could have a go at, boats, model aeroplanes(this is 1898), a small gas engine to power your lathe(beats foot power any day). I believe that at one time instructions were given on how to build your own refrigerator.

myself, the hot air engines I build are not models, they are small, but they are full size.

Perhaps the blokes on the left side of the Atlantic have it a bit nearer as, Homeshop Mechanics. Ian S C

[Nicholas FarrParticipant @nicholasfarr14254]

Hi Ian, you have the same view as LBSC then in some way. But of course a “model” can be full size or even twice or more the size of a prototype.

 

Others make adaptions to thier workshop machines and tools ect. and still class it as “model engineering”

 

As has been said many times, enjoy what you are doing, no one can dismiss it as not being model engineering.

 

Regards Nick.

[WolfieParticipant @wolfie]

Others make adaptions to thier workshop machines and tools ect. and still class it as “model engineering”

 

Perhaps then the more accurate term then is “minature engineering”. A small engine is as capable of doing work as a large engine.

 

Interesting. So is a model then a non- working static exhibit? Whereas model engineers are “making a working miniature of a full size prototype“.

 

Does that then become a machine in its own right and therefore no longer a model??? “LBSC’s notes, he didn’t regard what he built as models, more over as live steam on a small scale” (Who or what is LBSC?)

 

I reckon its about time that model making snobbery, which we also have within IPMS, aircraft builders are by far the majority (about 80% of all modellers), is knocked on the head. Perhaps a UK Modellers Society. Welcoming model makers of all disciplines?

Edited By Wolfie on 24/02/2011 10:26:27

[Nicholas FarrParticipant @nicholasfarr14254]

Hi Wolfie, LBSC wrote in ME for many years from about the mid 20’s I believe untill the late 50’s and designed and built a lot of live steam locomotives of various gauges and is considered in high regard for others to be inspired to emulating his achievements. A kind of forefarther to model engineering today.

 

Regards Nick.

 

P.S. I believe he also wrote in Practical Machanics sometimes as well.

Edited By Nicholas Farr on 24/02/2011 10:38:05

[Nicholas FarrParticipant @nicholasfarr14254]

Hi Wolfie, I’ll just add I don’t think LBSC’s work could be classed as any sort of a snobbery, in fact he challenged established ideas somewhat.

 

Regards Nick.

[Peter G. ShawParticipant @peterg-shaw75338]

I have long thought, as Ian SC suggests, that Homeshop Mechanics or Homeshop Engineering, or something similar would be a much better name for that part of the modelling hobby that uses tools to make items.

 

You see, as I have stated many times before, I am simply not interested in building models of any description, plastic, wood, metal, or whatever. All I want to do is to be able to learn how to use the tools, improve my skills, and in doing so make additional tooling. I still remember the joy of making my first cutting tool from silver steel. And if, as does sometimes happen, I find myself making, or repairing some other item that would otherwise either be unobtainable or scrapped, then that is an added bonus.

 

That does not mean that I do not, or can not admire those fully functional working models of Flying Scotsman, or that radio controlled skeleton rowing the boat, because I do, but that sort of work is not for me.

 

On another thread, there has been some discussion about beginners to the hobby, and the help, or lack of, given by established model engineers at societies around the country. It does seem to me that a lot of these people are actually people who wish to become “engineers” in the American sense of the person who drives a locomotive and that they are possibly using the creative side of the hobby in order to achieve that ambition. Possibly the same applies to traction engine builders. Steam propulsion, of course, is what Model Engineer is mainly about: the other facets of the hobby, such as clocks, toolmaking etc being minor elements which would otherwise have no place to discuss their operations.

 

I am not belittling these people, far from it, but as that particular thread mentions, what does a newcomer to Model Engineering do when on joining a club, it is found that most discussion is on the merits of Walshaerts (spelling?) gear versus Stephenson gears, when all the newcomer wants to do is to find out how to screwcut using the lathe?

 

This is why I would be in favour of changing the name of the hobby to Home, or Homeshop Mechanics or Engineering, or something similar. Unfortunately, this may not suit those who work in plastic, wood, or radio controlled cars, planes & helicopters. Perhaps, then, a generic name of Hobby Construction with different branches therein.

 

Regards,

 

Peter G. Shaw

 

[KWILParticipant @kwil]

Do we really have to import the US “Shop” into our language, it is a Workshop by any definition, or do you set out to sell us something?

[Nicholas FarrParticipant @nicholasfarr14254]

Hi Peter, I understand what you are saying, but I think the term “model engineering” has been established for many years and of course changing the name of the magazine associated here will probally not happen.

 

There used to be a rugular magazine called Practical Machanics which included alsorts, including model making using dirrerant materials ect., but must have lost interest along the way some time ago. Maybe it didn’t keep up with the trends or the desire to use lathes and machines that we aspire to today.

 

I think the term can be used for any type of engineering you like as a hobby or pastime, being departed from a commercial aspect, where you don’t have to obay strict standards. Not that it should be undermined though, you may set you standards and achievements to a level of your own if you wish.

 

Regards Nick.

[TerrydParticipant @terryd72465]

Hi Guys,

 

Interesting debate, an such a range of views. I wonder if that is why that ‘other’ magazine is called ‘Engineering in Miniature’?

 

Best regards

 

Terry

[Steve GarnettParticipant @stevegarnett62550]

Posted by Wolfie on 24/02/2011 10:24:35:

 

Does that then become a machine in its own right and therefore no longer a model??? “LBSC’s notes, he didn’t regard what he built as models, more over as live steam on a small scale” (Who or what is LBSC?)

 

I reckon its about time that model making snobbery, which we also have within IPMS, aircraft builders are by far the majority (about 80% of all modellers), is knocked on the head. Perhaps a UK Modellers Society. Welcoming model makers of all disciplines?

That’s one way of looking at it. Another is to say that to all intents and purposes, the word ‘model’ is redundant. If you look at the scope of the dictionary definition, then just about anything that any of us make or do at all in a workshop could be described as modelling, and that includes commercial engineering too – you can’t really distinguish. Certainly commercially we make models of some aspects of particular designs to test their manufacturability – and these models are definitely full size, even though they are effectively pretty small, because you can hold them in your hand.

 

I’ve seen what looks like a full-size lathe, and that means that any of the lathes that any of us own at home are scale models of it! Therefore if Peter enjoys making additional tooling for his machinery, he is doing ‘model’ engineering, in a very real sense. And so am I, even though I doubted this until I looked up the definition…

 

But since the whole purpose of a name in this instance is to distinguish it from another activity with which it might be confused, I’d say that here, the word ‘model’ fails abysmally. So like Peter I’d ideally want to call it something else. ‘Shop’ on its own doesn’t work, because in this country, we understand something else by that, which they don’t in the US – they call them stores over there. Whilst we think that ‘stores’ is the place at work we collect parts from. So too much confusion there, I think. Calling it ‘home’ something may well be more accurate, but somehow seems wrong, although I can’t absolutely say why. It may have something to do with the fact that it’s usually in an outbuilding rather than home itself! Whilst it is hobby engineering, I don’t like that either – pure prejudice on my part.

 

So if people ask me what goes on in the shed, then I simply say ‘mechanical engineering’. If they want to know more, then they can ask. Many of them don’t initially ask what I do or make in there, but they are interested in what machines there are. Only after that do they ask the purpose of my endeavours. And then they walk away muttering and shaking their heads…

Edited By Steve Garnett on 24/02/2011 12:31:42

[Ian S CParticipant @iansc]

I agree with you Steve, esspecially the last paragraph, the ones that don’t go off shaking their heads usually want me to either make something for them, or fix something.

Finding a term that covers all that we do in or shed/ workshop, or what ever you call the place you create swarf, and noise, and some smells, is more or less impossible, ME covers it well enough for me, the experts told Percival Marshall that his magazine would fail after the first few years, 113yrs ago. Most of my own work I would call experimental.

Ian S C

[WolfieParticipant @wolfie]

Posted by Nicholas Farr on 24/02/2011 10:45:17:

Hi Wolfie, I’ll just add I don’t think LBSC’s work could be classed as any sort of a snobbery, in fact he challenged established ideas somewhat.

 

Regards Nick.

 

Sorry the last paragraph wasn’t meant to apply to the LBSC one above it, rather to the ‘snobbery’ that many single types of modelling has for others. In the IPMS case, many aircraft modellers are utterly blind to anything else.

 

I am one of the rare ones. Because I build semi professionally I am open to hints and tips from any modelling discipline. For instance although I don’t have much of an interest in model railways, I do look occasionally at model railway mags. Why? Cos they are bloody good at groundwork and buildings those lads!

 

I am using my lathe to reproduce diesel tanks in aluminium and a few other odds and sods. I resin cast odd parts too.

And for those of you who may think plastic modelling is easy go and look what happened when I was asked to build this….

 

 

Heres the thread http://ipmsuk.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=conv&action=display&thread=3216

 

[TerrydParticipant @terryd72465]

Hi All,

 

For those who think that toolroom quality equipment and the ability to measure to a hundredth of a thou is the way forward, I was interested to come across this example of model engineering in the form of a working steam engine.

 

Enjoy

 

Regards

 

Terry

[Peter G. ShawParticipant @peterg-shaw75338]

Kwil,

 

If you re-read my post, you will see that every time I mentioned a possible alternative name for the hobby, I always followed up with !or something similar”, thereby showing that I did not necessarily want to follow the American names. I quite agree with workshop, although since the issue of the Jesse Moody affair I have always tried to avoid using the word “workshop”.*

 

To other readers.

 

I quite agree that “model” is the wrong word for our hobby. Having said that, my dictionary gives a number of definitions for the word “model”, the first of which does indeed state “in miniature” in the first definition, however the second definition states: “a pattern or standard to copy;”. All of which suggests to me that it depends on what is exactly meant by “model” as it may be either a miniature, a full size (however large or small that may be) article, or even as I think Tubal Cain said in one of his books, something larger than full size in order to more easily examine it.

 

Given that all forms of constructional activity take place, I doubt very much that an all-embracing name could be devised, unless it was on the lines of “Hobby Construction” which would cover all branches and indicate that it is a hobby. Within that we could have various branches – Air Models, Land Models, Water Models etc. Somehow I do not see this happening, so staying with our particular version hobby, I think possibly a better name could be “Amateur Engineering at Home” or more simply “Home or Hobby Engineering”. Unfortunately, I do think we are stuck with “Model Engineering”.

 

Right after that, it’s time to disappear into the wo, oops, er Garage, and think about the next stage in the present project.

Regards,

 

Peter G. Shaw

*

(Jesse Moody affair. In 1994, Moody was reported by a neighbour to his local council for carrying on an engineering business at his domestic house. From memory, it seems some rail had been delivered to his house for use at his local club, and he had also done some construction work for the same project. Under these circumstances, despite the local planners not wishing to become involved, they were legally obliged to investigate, and in the meantime Moody was banned from using his workshop. The case was eventually not proceeded with and Moody allowed to continue albeit with the local council reserving their rights or whatever it is. One thing that came out from this saga was a suggestion that whatever else you do, never mention the word “workshop” in any communication, verbal or otherwise, with the council as they will in all probability think “commercial”. Use the word “hobby” instead.)

[NJHParticipant @njh]

Hi Peter

 

Don’t the Americans call it a “Hobby Shop” ? On a mechanical theme maybe my wife’s description of it as my “Bolt – Hole” is most appropriate but hey – who cares – what’s in a name? We all know what is meant by Model Engineering – it’s what I do when I pootle about in my “Workshop” and you in yours and Cherry Hill in hers. The results of the pootlin may vary of course!

As far as Wolfie’s work goes that’s a different take – how do you have the patience? Great results and just as valid as any other form of model making – I guess if you are doing this semi-professionally though it’s more than just pootlin ! . There’s always someone ready to put down other folks efforts – says more about the one doing the criticising in my opinion.

 

Cheers

 

Norman

[TerrydParticipant @terryd72465]

Hi Peter,

 

Perhaps Mr Moody should have explained the nature of his hobby and the temporary presence of the rail at his premises before he took delivery. I always try to keep neighbours informed and they are quite understanding and tolerant, as I am of their foibles in return.

 

Mind you I have had a blue portaloo on my front lawn for over 7 months for the ‘welfare’ use of the builders of my garage. I have explained it away as a Tardis (it wasn’t there last night!) or that I wanted an ensuite bathroom but that was all I could get for my money.

 

Best regards

 

Terry

[Peter G. ShawParticipant @peterg-shaw75338]

Terry,

 

re Mr. Moody.

 

On the face of it, yes, but unfortunately, the complainant was an ex-council official who had his own strict ideas about what was suitable for domestic premises. There may have been more, but without looking it up, I cannot say for sure. Suffice to say that ever since I have been most careful about what I do and how equipment has been delivered, even going so far as to arrange for my milling machine to be delivered elsewhere and then transported to my house in the back of my car.

 

In addition, I always try to limit my noisy engineering activities to normal working hours, eg daytime, and avoid Sundays.

 

One thing that did come out was that as long as the council do not find out, you can do anything you wish in your domestic premises. However, once a complaint has been made, the council can then step in and prevent you from doing whatever it was, and require you to obtain planning permission, even though whatever you were doing dd not need planning permission in the first place.

 

Regards,

 

Peter G. Shaw

 

 

[Richard ParsonsParticipant @richardparsons61721]

I have always called my ‘hovel’ a ‘Gentleman’s Hobby Workroom’. I even did this when I designated use of one part of my new basement in Hungary for this purpose. (Hobbi munksoba ür).

Calling it a “Gentleman’s Hobby Workroom” infuriated my old local council who were trying to suppress people servicing their cars, the amateur car/motor bike builders, boat builders, ham-shack/C.B. operators aerials, potters etc. It annoyed them so much that they tried to tell me that this was forbidden under my deeds. It was not but running a ‘fish boiling business’ was. They were trying to get a court order to change the deeds, but by then I had sold the place and done a ‘runner’.  The problem is that as people who ‘manage the people’ they have the idea that if it is not permitted it is forbidden.  Try telling them that this is contrary to the European Charter of Human Rights they will say this is Bogtown NOT Europe!  

 

Peter you only have to get planning permission if you are a member of a club.  See the Model Engineer of the 1990s ‘The Winchester affair’.

Mind you this was the 4^th time I had ‘Bucked City Hall’ so I had to go!

 

Edited By Richard Parsons on 25/02/2011 17:02:33

Edited By Richard Parsons on 25/02/2011 17:09:46

[mgjParticipant @mgj]

I wonder the Americans don’t have it better than we – they call it machining or machinists.

 

Most of us love our machine tools and munch metal in various directions and to various standards – all good . I don’t differentiate between the clockmaker, toolmaker loco builder – possibly because its just too complicated to try (for me)

 

In any case, after 20 odd years in the shed, my wife wandered in and asked me when I was going to make something. I pointed to a Quorn, Dore Westbury, dividing heads, boring heads – all sorts of stuff. “Yes” she said airily “thats all very good, but it doesn’t do anything”. So I’ve stopped making things that “don’t do anything” and started on steam engines, which apparently do “do something”.

 

(Having been pushed into that side actually I wouldn’t go back – it has been so much fun with a traction engine pulling young kids round the garden, that for me, adds a completely new dimension to the result. However thats me and not a criticism of any other approach)

 

But it has to be said, a machinist is not an engineer. 5 years at university studying engieering, and various jobs in the field, and never once did I touch a machine tool, other than (usefully though) in my spare time. Perhaps we ought not to confuse the two.

 

 

Edited By mgj on 25/02/2011 17:56:05

[DustyParticipant @dusty]

I have to agree with Kwil about Americanisms creeping into our language, we have a perfectly good vocabulary why import from the other side of the pond words and phrases that have no part in the English language. But my pet hate is when Model Engineers refer to the milling machine as a miller. It is only ever a milling machine or mill, a miller is the person who operates the milling machine.

Thats it, I have done my grumpy old man bit for today.

[The Merry MillerParticipant @themerrymiller]

Hear, hear.

[Author]

Posts