It was always hard to achieve these aims, and I thought that was the end of the story. I did not have a lathe or workshop or any special tools, apart from the usual home appliances. I guess that only a very small number of Meccanomen know how to use a lathe, drill, shaper or have any knowledge of complex workshop techniques. They did not need to because they had all the parts ready for use. They had the means in front of them before they started building, to do the whole thing in their home, quietly and carefully. And when it was all over, they could pull it to pieces ("you aren't going to pull that down are you?") and build something else. This building method led to great ingenuity in devising ways and means to use a purely Meccano solution to a complex problem, and in that there was great joy and a strong sense of achievement. One's fellow Meccanomen could appreciate the processes one had gone through, and likewise in turn one could derive great benefit and inspiration from their achievements.
I would go further in this purist context. One could build a model that anyone else could copy if it was photographed and described well enough, because one used only standard parts, and everyone had them. There were no strange gear ratios, no need to mutilate a part. We were guided by the principle that if one could not restore a bent part to its previous condition, then its use was not acceptable. We did not believe in shortening socket couplings and gears, drilling holes were they were not meant to be, cutting plates or filing nicks. We were purists to the end and we loved it. We had no need for more parts for we revelled in what we had. The system served us well and long.
Now I am sure you know what is coming, because we have been forced to modify these views in the light of progress and advances in technology. I for one do not believe that the Meccano system should stop advancing because Meccano Liverpool liquidated. Why should it? We all believe in innovation and technological advances. If there are those in a position to sense a need in the market to develop a new part, and then go ahead in a commercial way to exploit that need, then I do not see why I should not have a 58 tooth gear or an extra long coupling in my set. The design of the part should fit properly into the system by appearance and measurement. It should look like a Meccano part. But it creates a problem, because not everyone may have access to those parts, and if you build a model which is for publication, you must not use parts which are not generally available. If you do, then it must specifically refer to the availability of the special parts which are required.
When I say that the development of the system should not stop, I believe that Meccano should be in the forefront of what is achievable in miniature or table top engineering. We do not know how extensive the use of Meccano in industry has been in the modelling of engineering structures. But it is clear to me that the Meccano system would be enormously enhanced if there was a dedicated Computer Interface for using motors and sensors with appropriate feedback, together with the system software. We would also benefit from a well engineered hydraulic and pneumatic systems. I cannot see the use for more plates, strips and girders, but by all means let us have more gear ratios if that is what is needed for complex mechanisms. Let us have those roller bearings, extra thick axles and the like. The main problem is cost, but the system is already expensive and way above the budget of modern youth. Let us push forward the frontiers of the system, encourage experimentation and innovation, and judge competitions to encourage excellence in model building.
I do not like to see parts mutilated. When one is finished with them, they stand as a reminder of their dedicated function in the box of parts. But I would not stand in the way of someone who wanted to file or turn something down, or drill an extra hole. What we need to do is to decide what is acceptable to the majority. I love to see a painted model if it adds enhanced realism. Or the division of a pulley for a train wheel. But it is stretching ones use of the parts to the limit. Most often those who do that are producing the most exciting models of all, and who would want to stop them!
There comes a time in one's modelling where the use of none Meccano parts is essential. I especially mean ashtray tyres for road wheels, or a taper for a funnel, or even pipe fittings if you will.
Perhaps there is a need for the establishment of a Meccano technical committee under the auspices of the International Society of Meccanomen or established Meccano Clubs which would be able to research and suggest the fabrication of new parts for the system. This committee could then extend its work to draw up a list of rules to govern competitions.
I am certain that Meccano models should not be judged by the general popular vote. Judges should be appointed because of their recognised expertise in Meccano modelling. They are not immune to the great appeal of a model which is built in an unorthodox way. But I am equally sure that their expert eye will be able to distinguish the skillful use of parts, and be able to determine that their judgement will in the last analysis add to the worthiness and true tradition of the wonderful system that we know as Meccano.
© Copyright Michael Adler 1996
| return to previous page |