What are the things that make you reluctant to move into more finescale modelling

[298]

Please, let's not get into the "what is finescale?" and "you don't have to model in finescale to make a good model!" debates.

 

As a recent magazine edition and subsequent debate showed, there is the perception that a lot of readers don't even know what "Finescale" is, let alone exactly where the crossover is....

 

I model in HO, so I'm already blessed with being able to use the correct track gauge, and not using P87 allows comparability with other modellers' layouts. If everyone I knew modelled in P87, I probably would too.

[Mark]

Thanks for all the replies so far.

 

Let's assume we all work to the same gauge and just consider the skills you use for modelling, because in the context of this thread gauge is not relevant.

 

My first steps into more adventurous modelling started with nothing more complex than changing the number of a locomotive and doing a repaint (badly). From there I moved from Hornby Set track into Peco. I used to use Balsa Wood with Superquick building papers to make structures like platforms and buildings as well as the kits that were available at the time.

 

I remember having a Hornby 08 which was fine new, but after a while the wheels lost their quartering, so I had, by trial and error to get it working again. I remember working out fairly early on that all the wheels had to be at the same angle, and I think I even tried 180 degrees! Well I didn't Know then!!!!!

 

I used to go and stay with grand parents during the school holidays and remember making a Mk1 Composite out of cardboard. It never got used, but I made several coaches this way before I discovered plasticard.  I had to teach myself a new set of skills and learn the limitations of the material, but attempted to make a model signal box with every brick glued on individually! It never got finished as I gave up after several courses of English Bond! However I learnt a lot from that failed project!

 

I did a lot in plasticard through my teens including a model of Penzance, where all the structures were made from plasticard and scaled from photo's or counting bricks. I even made the overall roof from plasticard strips glued to form the frame and found it to be surprisingly robust! I used to make lots of plastic coaches using the drawings available at the time, but used to struggle with the tumblehome in the early days, but I came up with my own solution to this problem after trying several different methods.

 

I had never liked the look of Peco track, but didn't know of any alternative until Scaleway came out,  but that was no good since it was code 75 and not suitable for the RTR stock I had. I bought some code 100 rail and made sleepers from a sheet of plasticard and super glued them to the rail. I made chairs by putting a fillet of glue in the joint between each rail and sleeper. It was flat bottom rail, so chairs were not appropriate, but even that looked so much better than the Peco Track and Foam Ballast I had been using.

 

The local model shop closed down in the early 80's and I can remember my dad coming back from the closing sale with a Mallard Kit for a GWR Monster in Brass and it looked superb. Later Craftsman brought out a set of conversion kits to fit the Lima DMU, but my dad was very wary about forming the sides to fit the Lima model because he was worried they would bend in the wrong place and he wouldn't be able to adjust them afterwards, so I had a try by holding them on the flat surface of a radiator with a steel rule and using the curve on the top to form the tumblehome by dragging a bit of bar along the length. Surprisingly it worked, although with a slight twist along the length, but this disappeared when the sides were glued to the donor vehicle.

 

Later Comet introduced their coach sides (Flat in those days), so I started using them as sides glued onto Scratch built plasticard chassis and ends. The first one was very difficult to form the tumblehome, but I kept trying and ended up with something acceptable I even made the roof and bogies from plasticard and the bogies still exist today and remain perfectly serviceable. In those days lack of funds meant I was more inclined to have a go at building something from scratch to save money.

 

Whilst I was at University, the Mitchell 45xx came out and I was blown away by it, so the first kit I bought when I started work was a 45xx with Gibson wheels. Needless to say my total lack of experience at soldering resulted in the tank overlays being fitted out of position and impossible to remove. I didn't give up, I went out and bought another one and had another go. Interestingly the difficult bits like taper boiler, firebox and smoke box formed relatively easily. After this I tried a DJH Hall and that went together OK and then I graduated onto a Finney 28xx. Around this time all the Wild Swan Modelling books were appearing so inspiration was all around me.

 

I hope the preceding paragraphs can help to draw out the things that others may have struggled with in their modelling experiences.

 

The purpose of this thread is to gain an insight into the things that make those people who want to follow a more finescale approach give up early on. Gauge or scale   has nothing to do with it!

 

Regards

 

Mark Humphrys

[nick_bastable]

Thanks for all the replies so far.

 

Let's assume we all work to the same gauge and just consider the skills you use for modelling, because in the context of this thread gauge is not relevant.

 

My first steps into more adventurous modelling started with nothing more complex than changing the number of a locomotive and doing a repaint (badly). From there I moved from Hornby Set track into Peco. I used to use Balsa Wood with Superquick building papers to make structures like platforms and buildings as well as the kits that were available at the time.

 

I remember having a Hornby 08 which was fine new, but after a while the wheels lost their quartering, so I had, by trial and error to get it working again. I remember working out fairly early on that all the wheels had to be at the same angle, and I think I even tried 180 degrees! Well I didn't Know then!!!!!

 

I used to go and stay with grand parents during the school holidays and remember making a Mk1 Composite out of cardboard. It never got used, but I made several coaches this way before I discovered plasticard.  I had to teach myself a new set of skills and learn the limitations of the material, but attempted to make a model signal box with every brick glued on individually! It never got finished as I gave up after several courses of English Bond! However I learnt a lot from that failed project!

 

I did a lot in plasticard through my teens including a model of Penzance, where all the structures were made from plasticard and scaled from photo's or counting bricks. I even made the overall roof from plasticard strips glued to form the frame and found it to be surprisingly robust! I used to make lots of plastic coaches using the drawings available at the time, but used to struggle with the tumblehome in the early days, but I came up with my own solution to this problem after trying several different methods.

 

I had never liked the look of Peco track, but didn't know of any alternative until Scaleway came out,  but that was no good since it was code 75 and not suitable for the RTR stock I had. I bought some code 100 rail and made sleepers from a sheet of plasticard and super glued them to the rail. I made chairs by putting a fillet of glue in the joint between each rail and sleeper. It was flat bottom rail, so chairs were not appropriate, but even that looked so much better than the Peco Track and Foam Ballast I had been using.

 

The local model shop closed down in the early 80's and I can remember my dad coming back from the closing sale with a Mallard Kit for a GWR Monster in Brass and it looked superb. Later Craftsman brought out a set of conversion kits to fit the Lima DMU, but my dad was very wary about forming the sides to fit the Lima model because he was worried they would bend in the wrong place and he wouldn't be able to adjust them afterwards, so I had a try by holding them on the flat surface of a radiator with a steel rule and using the curve on the top to form the tumblehome by dragging a bit of bar along the length. Surprisingly it worked, although with a slight twist along the length, but this disappeared when the sides were glued to the donor vehicle.

 

Later Comet introduced their coach sides (Flat in those days), so I started using them as sides glued onto Scratch built plasticard chassis and ends. The first one was very difficult to form the tumblehome, but I kept trying and ended up with something acceptable I even made the roof and bogies from plasticard and the bogies still exist today and remain perfectly serviceable. In those days lack of funds meant I was more inclined to have a go at building something from scratch to save money.

 

Whilst I was at University, the Mitchell 45xx came out and I was blown away by it, so the first kit I bought when I started work was a 45xx with Gibson wheels. Needless to say my total lack of experience at soldering resulted in the tank overlays being fitted out of position and impossible to remove. I didn't give up, I went out and bought another one and had another go. Interestingly the difficult bits like taper boiler, firebox and smoke box formed relatively easily. After this I tried a DJH Hall and that went together OK and then I graduated onto a Finney 28xx. Around this time all the Wild Swan Modelling books were appearing so inspiration was all around me.

 

I hope the preceding paragraphs can help to draw out the things that others may have struggled with in their modelling experiences.

 

The purpose of this thread is to gain an insight into the things that make those people who want to follow a more finescale approach give up early on. Gauge or scale   has nothing to do with it!

 

Regards

 

Mark Humphrys

a  excellent post by a modeller who moved to  finescale   

[James Makin]

I think it's seeing what others can do that inspires and greater knowledge of the prototype railways as years went by and you can learn more through reading and observation, for me at least. But mainly for me the hobby jumped between trainsets in Hornby catalogues and real model railway by magazines - my first Model Rail in Autumn 1998 - this is where it all started for me and I treasure the issue to this day

[47137]

I am put off finescale modelling by the way it seems to kill off the romance, the quirkiness and the individuality which can make a model special. It all seems a pretty cold approach, and not much fun. I was put off EM a great deal by a wheel manufacturer who (I was told) cut back supplies because his customers were buying too many - this happened barely weeks after I assembled my first point and converted my wagons, and I gave up then - not my idea of a hobby. It also seems how ever hard you try, if you suggest your model is 'scale' (let alone 'finescale'), someone will pour cold water on your efforts. I like making models which are crisp and pleasing to look at, and which have some character, and I want to achieve a consistent standard across my layout. This needs a succession of small layouts as my standards improve, but not 'finescale'.

 

- Richard.

[Jol Wilkinson]

I am put off finescale modelling by the way it seems to kill off the romance, the quirkiness and the individuality which can make a model special. It all seems a pretty cold approach, and not much fun. I was put off EM a great deal by a wheel manufacturer who (I was told) cut back supplies because his customers were buying too many - this happened barely weeks after I assembled my first point and converted my wagons, and I gave up then - not my idea of a hobby. It also seems how ever hard you try, if you suggest your model is 'scale' (let alone 'finescale'), someone will pour cold water on your efforts. I like making models which are crisp and pleasing to look at, and which have some character, and I want to achieve a consistent standard across my layout. This needs a succession of small layouts as my standards improve, but not 'finescale'.

 

- Richard.

Richard,

 

I don't see why "finescale" kills off the individuality of models. Surely that is what simply using RTR models, readily available kit buildings that don't match a location/period,or other "shortcuts",  etc. does achieve.

 

A layout or model that has been individually created/modified to make it look "better" is surely individual and perhaps what most people think of as finescale.

 

Yes, if you try to make you model an accurate representation of the prototype, then some clever s*d  will always know if you've got it wrong. But if they tell you in a friendly and constructive way, then there is no harm in that as it will help you improve what you are doing.

 

 

Jol

[pirouets]

Interesting thread and I kind of read it about askiing whether there is a point where we settle for something. For me the key is time.

 

Whilst I am an n gauge modeller and for now happy with the track and stock, I wanted with this layout to get better at the landscape I put the railway in. When i started I thought it would be a quick build as its basically passing loops in the countryside but its taken me longer than anything before (nearly 4 years so far). Why, because I wanted better that I had managed before so tried simple things such as

 

1. 1st open frame baseboard to create a more rolling landscape.

2. Made my own trees for the first time, some of which I am really happy with, some I am not. Have made around 60 so far and another 5 or 6 to go before the replacement work then starts on the ones I am not happy with.

3. used static grass rather than scatters to give the ground cover. Built test pieces before I did anything on the layout which took time.

4. 1st diode matrix for the fiddle yard control.

5. 1st time I have built a real place so starting on research in to the traffic that went up and down the line. I think better operation is a finescale thing.

6. 1st kit built wagons as I need around 40 clay wagons, though Kernow now have bought out some in n gauge. Still will try and finish my rake rather than just settle for the RTR.

 

What's next? I have used a scalescenes farm houee kit to help me work out how I need to build the farmhouse I really need as the layout is based on a real place. I could not figure out how the upper windows & roof would go together but have now seen how this was done on the scalescenes kit so have a template for the building I can adapt.

 

Also, there is one other key. Would I have enjoyed building the layout if it had come together in 12 months. I suspect not and it would have probably been ripped up by now.

 

Longer term I am wondering if next time I will have a crack at the Finetrax system as it does look rather good.

[Karhedron]

I model in N gauge so the equivelent for me would be 2mm FS.

 

For me, there are several reasons that I do not intend to consider going Finescale. Firstly, the scale/guage discrepancy in N gauge is not such a big problem as in 00 gauge (it still exists but only to half the size). Personally I feel I cannot see a 4% discrepancy on a model that is already at 1:148 scale.

 

The next is mechanical reliabilty of both the stock and track. I am reasonably good at the cosmetic side of modelling but I find I really struggle to get items to operate reliably if I do any work on them myself. I am not confident in my abilities to reliably make turnouts that would operate as well as Peco ones or to get my stock to run properly if I start changing wheelsets.

 

There is the issue of time (always in short supply as I have a full-time job and 3 children under 10). Getting any modelling done is sometimes a bit of a challenge, never mind the more time consuming stuff like finescale work. My current layout is about 90% finished but there is still a lot of work to do on the detailing and weathering front, all those little touches that bring a layout to life.

 

N gauge has compromises that are far more noticable to me than overscale wheels and rails. The large rapido couplers are a bit of an eyesore but there are alternative couplings available now that look and function much better.

 

To me, the realism of a layout is more about the overall atmosphere and appearance. I have a long way to go to improve my modelling skills before the quality of the track and wheelsets becomes the limiting factor on my own layouts. Even then, if I did make a change, it would probably be to finer N gauge track such as FiNetrax rather than 2mm.

 

For me, the question is not what stops me, but why would I go finescale?

[fozzy280472]

Its all about time for me , nothing else. As I have , like most other people , other time commitments of work , family , other hobbies , diy  etc, I would really like to get a layout running quickly and with a reasonable degree of accuracy and realism. I have been to the East London finescale exhibition a few times and am generally in awe of what some modellers can produce but and its a big but if I tried to achieve what my layout is at the moment using Peco in EM/P4  I would be in my box by the time I would be ready to wire it up !!

I truly love looking at the finescale layouts but I have a similar amount of enjoyment seeing my Bachmann 47 pulling eight MK1s on my Peco track.

Now if a finescale manufacturer can produce a magic 50 year life extension pill I may try and have crack at P4 but for now I am truly constrained by time .

Cheers Paul.

[CKPR]

I think it depends to some extent on where your interests in railway modelling lie. I'm pretty much a lone wolf modeller who came to railway modelling via military modelling in the 1970s and an interest in the heritage of my home county of West Cumberland. As I'm interested in modelling obscure pre-group lines such as the Maryport & Carlisle, the Furness and the Cleator & Workington and have never had the resources for 7mm, practically everything has to be scratchbuilt so adopting EM just made sense (how I wish I had discovered S scale back in the early 1980s). I therefore became a finescale modeller (ha!) by default rather than as a decision to try something new or consciously upgrade my skills.I had to learn to solder back in the day and now find that working in metal is my preferred medium and much prefer the dreaded etched brass over tinkering with plastic, but i wouldn't turn my nose up at say a Furness D5 if Bachmann or Hornby ever made one (even if it did come in BR guise with a LYR boiler !). I think it's just a question of how you view the hobby as I still like to build military models and the odd aircraft as I think of my self as modeller who mostly makes railway models rather than a railway modeller.    

[47137]

Richard,

 

I don't see why "finescale" kills off the individuality of models.

I'm trying to allude to qualities like mystery or beauty or charm which are added by the model maker, rather than those which the model maker reproduces from a prototype. This sort of thing is apparent (for example) in many dolls houses, but in only some railway models. For example, slightly exaggerated corbelling on a chimney stack, or oversize spectacle plate windows on a loco cab, which would fail finescale criteria.

 

(Edit: I did throw in the towel on EM, but for some other reasons too, which were not exclusively related to finescale standards ... it was a poor example for me to give and it would take this discussion off topic.)

 

- Richard.

[Jol Wilkinson]

I'm trying to allude to qualities like mystery or beauty or charm which are added by the model maker, rather than those which the model maker reproduces from a prototype. This sort of thing is apparent (for example) in many dolls houses, but in only some railway models. For example, slightly exaggerated corbelling on a chimney stack, or oversize spectacle plate windows on a loco cab, which would fail finescale criteria.

 

- Richard.

Richard,

 

I think those qualities are probably achieved through freelance modelling

 

Of course beauty is in the eye of the beholder so I would rather look at a well observed and accurately modelled LNWR layout and stock rather than a whimsical freelance layout. Both could be well made, but it's down to what you can or wish to appreciate. And I find that a model set in the Edwardian era, with it's elegant locos and carriages, well dressed ladies and gentlemen, etc. somehow rather more charming than a model of an scruffy industrial scrapyard with dirty diesel  locos. But it is each to his own.

 

Jol

[plarailfan]

Even I, recently, had a go at "finescale" using the C & L, 4PK101A 4mm point kit and a couple of straight lengths of Tomy plastic track !

Photo 3 shows it installed on the layout - It's just another angle of my alternative outlook on railway modelling, which suggests a touch of mild humour !  

 

[APOLLO]

Little bl***y parts that are difficult to fit. then fall off and get lost, hundreds of em on every model.

 

Brit15

[Poggy1165]

If I was starting again tomorrow I would work in S7. But I have what has become quite a large collection of locos and stock that would all need rewheeling (at least), and I feel I have better things (at my time of life) to spend my time and money on. So I will stick with ordinary 'Finescale' 0 Gauge. The amount of room I have (not much!) it's possibly the better choice anyway for the sort of layout I want.

 

The beauty of ordinary boring 7mm scale is that it's roughly the equivalent of EM, and it runs pretty well. It's a far cry from my 00 days when I almost tore my hair out trying to work with so-called 'Universal' standards. Track and wheel standards have improved a lot since then, but the narrow gauge look of 00 would still be a problem for me.

[Neil]

..... Here is my list (Not in any particular order):

 

Having enough time

Soldering

Baseboard and support construction

Compensation -Rigid, Sprung, Rocking axles

Forming metal

Track Construction

Turnout Construction

Painting

Scenery

Wiring

Chassis construction

Research

Kit construction

Structures

Turnout operating mechanisms

Signal operating mechanisms

Reliability

Patience

Wary of so called 'Experts' ......

 

It strikes me that none of the items on the list are exclusively the preserve of 'finescale' and a good number are pretty much universal necessities if you want to build a layout. Ok it's possible to sub contract out stuff like baseboard building or wiring out to a mate with competency in such areas, I know of a few groups where the individuals bring their specialisms to bear in joint projects, but for the average chap working largely solo most of these tasks will have to be attempted.

[Horsetan]

.... what are the things that make you reluctant to move into more adventurous modelling assuming of course you want to?

 

....Wary of so called 'Experts'

  

?..Finescale evangelists have put me off. I prefer not to take myself or my modelling as seriously as some seem to.

Hell is other people finescale modellers.

[Baby Deltic]

If you are defining finescale modelling as any layout with hand built / scale gauge / scale height track, then I don't think it qualifies on its own. I certainly have no inclination to use Peco code 75 or any other scale height rail. If you are defining finescale as the overall standard of modelling, then I will always aspire to meet those standards especially if the layout is being shown in public.

[Graham456]

What makes me reluctant to move more into finescale modelling is simple. Thanks to a eye problem my eyes are shot ! I can't even see to thread handrail wire through the knobs any more,

[BlackRat]

I lost my modelling room, (garage) which became a kitchen and had less than a quarter of the space.

 

Still carried on and went for Peco code 75, the points for the garage layout (Lostwithiel) were all built in situ and wouldn't have been much use, they were all too long.

 

Hopefully his will be sorted on the next project, but one main drawback now......

 

Shakey hand syndrome due to two prolapsed discs in my C spine, so three links are out!!!

 

So,if I don't use three links.........what will I be modelling??!?

[Andy Reichert]

I'm the opposite of reluctant. But I'm referring to the mechanical similarity and accurately scaled down precision of working models and Rwy infrastructure , rather than the artistic aspects such as the clothes lines with tiny pegs on them, in the backyards of the lineside cottages. To me the latter is more a form of "sculpture" and fundamentally without the need for any precision moving parts. I can and do very much appreciate it, particularly when done expertly, but not as a substitute for not having the railway aspects accurate too. E.g. Beautiful scenery surrounding obviously of the box flex track with train set points, which then spoil the illusion, for me at least.

 

What turns me on is making trains run beautifully, as scale speed and momentum/inertia, with all the working parts that are seen to move in the real thing, scaled down accurately and smoothly moving the same way and for the same reasons in the model.  So that to me means near "perfect" mechanisms, scale flange ways, scale wheel widths, apparently working suspension, and as far as possible, scale depth flanges. Then I'm not disappointed.

 

However, where I differ philosophically with groups such as the S4 Society, is that I believe even the most ham fisted, of modellers, such as myself, along with those of us who have poor eyesight, shaking elderly hands, etc, should still be able to have and enjoy those same mechanically beautiful results, regardless of their "hand craftsmanship" skills, abilities and experience. So if the end result is obtained by using fully pre-formed manufactured parts, that are merely assembled, rather than tediously hand measured, cut, and filed to complex shapes and fine tolerances, then I'm just as happy.  And of course that opens the door to having much larger and/or complex layouts being constructed by even a lone home modeller, regardless of them only have one lifetime to do it all in.
 

Andy
 

[Jol Wilkinson]

 

However, where I differ philosophically with groups such as the S4 Society, is that I believe even the most ham fisted, of modellers, such as myself, along with those of us who have poor eyesight, shaking elderly hands, etc, should still be able to have and enjoy those same mechanically beautiful results, regardless of their "hand craftsmanship" skills, abilities and experience. So if the end result is obtained by using fully pre-formed manufactured parts, that are merely assembled, rather than tediously hand measured, cut, and filed to complex shapes and fine tolerances, then I'm just as happy.  And of course that opens the door to having much larger and/or complex layouts being constructed by even a lone home modeller, regardless of them only have one lifetime to do it all in.

 

Andy

 

Andy,

 

as a member of the S4 Society I find that sort of disparaging comment annoying. If you are correct then why did the Society convert a number of RTR OO models to 18.83 gauge for sale at the last couple of S4ums (and which all sold out very quickly). 

 

While some prefer scratch building many members are willing to adopt and adapt RTR models. For some of us that option isn't available (no LNWR RTR exists) so we have no option but to kit or scratch build, but it doesn't mean we eschew what is available to make our modelling lives easier. I don't build my own electronics, point motors, etc. Where practical I use third party production processes, e.g. laser cutting, to create my models. I would also like to have more of my locos painted professionally painted but my painter of choice is invariably too busy.

 

So less of the "hair shirt" claims, please.

 

Jol

[Horsetan]

...why did the Society convert a number of RTR OO models to 18.83 gauge for sale at the last couple of S4ums (and which all sold out very quickly). ...

I wonder if any have been flogged on eBay so far...?

[fender]

I'm still not sure what the official definition of "finescale" is, if there is one, but if it means simply using finer track standards then I am one of the converted.

 

when embarking on a new, relatively small, layout, I chose to try and get the best looking track I could and see where that went. it is some way from being finished and I am finding getting perfect running difficult, but for me the question might be reversed: "what would it take to go back?"

 

I look with envy at those who can splash out on a new RTR or RTP model and build up a railway empire relatively quickly. knowing that I will never have the space, time or money to create a large layout in p4 is sometimes difficult (especially when I imagine what might be possible in N!) but I enjoy making track and the results too much to change now.

 

I have to say though that one of the biggest barriers to my own 'entry' into p4 was all the hoopla that appears to go along with it.

 

however, after some reflection, I determined that such psychological barriers are meaningless. rule one always applies.

[Andy Reichert]

Andy,

 

as a member of the S4 Society I find that sort of disparaging comment annoying. If you are correct then why did the Society convert a number of RTR OO models to 18.83 gauge for sale at the last couple of S4ums (and which all sold out very quickly). 

 

While some prefer scratch building many members are willing to adopt and adapt RTR models. For some of us that option isn't available (no LNWR RTR exists) so we have no option but to kit or scratch build, but it doesn't mean we eschew what is available to make our modelling lives easier. I don't build my own electronics, point motors, etc. Where practical I use third party production processes, e.g. laser cutting, to create my models. I would also like to have more of my locos painted professionally painted but my painter of choice is invariably too busy.

 

So less of the "hair shirt" claims, please.

 

Jol

 

I don't see how politely saying I differ philosophically can be considered disparaging at all. I certainly didn't expect such an aggressive response.

 

"We" all clearly admire and support  the same "Proto"  "track and wheels standards" goal that is the fundamental difference between a "Proto" modelling society/group and one that uses a compromise in those areas because of it's easier availability. I just attempt to support that goal in practice, fundamentally differently.

 

I'm not in the UK, nor a S4 Soc. member, so am not party to what sometimes happens in your P4 community.  But I don't see the validity of a comparison between offering an apparently too limited supply of completed, RTR vehicle conversions, twice in two years 

 

. . . . .. vs.  . . . . 

 

Offering simplified, inexpensive, instant, ASSEMBLY ONLY,  conversion parts for HO Scale RTR trackwork, and just about all HO RTR diesel locomotives and all HO RTR rolling stock, continuously 24/7/365 for the past decade at least. Many parts of which, incidentally, could also serve P4 modellers.

 

The Scalefour Society has effectively existed for almost 50 years, and has the benefit of receiving a considerable income from dues over than time to boot. So I don't see how their performance in that manner, can be either reasonably supposedly compared, or its choices considered accidental or unintentional. But presumably it reflects the wishes of the majority of its membership.

 

Andy