Democracy for Proto:87?

Ironically I am writing yet another Proto:87 editorial on the 08:18 Thames Trains Express to Paddington.  As we bounce over points and frogs, as I struggle to keep my laptop atop my lap and as I generally get a pretty good shaking, I am continually amazed that the wheels somehow keep following the rails.  It's not the same kind of exhilarating disbelief that grabs my stomach every time my seat tilts up and the aeroplane leaves the ground, but it's close.

To tell the truth, some days I would prefer that the morning train to London would leave the rails, though not disastrously as would most likely be the case.  I have this day dream of the train stopped after somehow finding itself bounced into the middle of an English pasture, the inhabitants placidly chewing the grass and gazing at us in bovine disbelief.  This would give a nice break from the daily grind, and then perhaps I could get some modelling done.

It seems that there is very little time to do any modelling these days.  I'm working too hard, too much and the commute is awful.  Reflecting this, not only is the new workbench covered in dust, but the last issue of the Journal was released a year ago.  That's more than six months too long, I think you'll agree.

Perhaps it is this extended period between issues that has discouraged other authors who contributed to previous issues.  Perhaps their manuscripts are still in the mail, vainly circling the world in latent forwards to catch up with my trans-global wanderings.  Perhaps the authors are simply as pressed for free time as I feel I am; does the whole world want to be bumped off the tracks and into a slower more leisurely space, so we can all get some modelling done?

It is in part this question that has prompted me to include a survey of the membership with this issue.  I would like to say that the answers to the questions regarding modelling interests will drive the subjects covered by the Journal.  However, that is, of course, nonsense.  I will continue to write about turn of the century track, eight-coupled locomotives, and matters that interest me, even though I know there are some subjects that require consideration in our pages.  The long overdue critical examination of Bettendorf trucks, the instructions for modelling concrete ties and the tricks for modifying Kato diesels will all have to wait for someone else's pen.

What I can truthfully say is that a survey will help to strengthen our voice.  I know of several groups within the SIG who are each lobbying one manufacturer or another to produce a product that they consider critical to the commercial success of Proto:87.  However, none of these groups has more than a strong twist of their gut to indicate that the product behind door number three is needed, much less that there is a commercial case to be made for it.

To make matters worse, I personally am no different from the rest of you.  I may receive more Proto:87-oriented correspondence than most, but I really don't have any stronger basis on which to ask manufacturers to make a particular variety of wheel or jig.  While I have certainly been representing Proto:87 interests as much as I can, I can't say that I have been representing Proto:87 modellers.

For this reason, one of the most important questions in the survey regards the formalisation of the group.  So far, the group is really just a newsletter and a bunch of subscribers and sometimes authors.  There are no officers, except myself; no rules, except ones I make up; no meetings, except times when a couple of us happen to bump into one another.  While this may have been appropriate to get the group off the ground, I think there are enough people involved now that we can act more efficiently and lobby more powerfully if there is some form of democratic governing council.  If the group agrees, then I will seek to set this up by the end of 1999.  This implies democratically elected executives will more accurately reflect the wishes of the group than a benign dictator.

I should hasten to add that this proposal does not mean that I intend to step down.  Far from it -- despite my natural aversion to matters politic, if you decide there should be elected officers then I intend to seek election.  With a democratically decided mandate, I think the Proto:87 SIG will have a much stronger voice, and perhaps it will be a new more vibrant voice as well.

One important area where the officers of this group need a stronger voice is in the NMRA recommended practice.  As many of you know, this proposal has been published in the NMRA Bulletin, and the NMRA technical committee on Proto:scale standards had hoped to have it ratified by mid 1999.  Once a specification has been accepted by the NMRA, it will be increasingly difficult to change it, and so, it is crucial to get it right.  Do you think we are ready for this commitment?  Do you think the question I raise on page 3 is sufficient to stall the process?  These are questions for which I need support from you.

In order to support the proposal to the NMRA Board of Directors --  if you decide that it should go ahead -- I need to know what to do by the end of January.  Please respond quickly to this survey, and I will promise to publish the results and your opinions before acting on them.