Results - The Wishlist Poll 2015

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

... Has anyone a sensible reason for why the three "outstanding" Standard Class locos ...are being consistently ignored by manufacturers?...

 

I would advance three thoughts.

 

Any manufacturer is going to look for the subjects with the likely best return on investment. They alone know for sure how it stacks up between investing the money on different groups of subjects, let's just postulate that these might be: pre-grouped steam, grouped steam, BR standards, diesel and electric traction, Units. I can see one big factor which the others have in common over the smaller Riddles types, and that is typically a much greater livery choice. That might be enough in terms of sales prospects to disadvantage them. Not that they wouldn't sell and make a profit, but that other investments offer the prospect of a better profit.

 

Secondly, internal competition, it cannot be denied that the house style of the Riddles classes is very uniform, and also similar to that of the Ivatt LMS designs There is a manufacturer already tooled up for three Standard fours and a three, and both the Ivatt class 2s. That might give pause to think that for every sale of a new standard 3 or 2 model, there's one fewer sale elsewhere in the range.

 

Regionality: if any of these mostly operated in locations where sales of other suitable models have previously proved sparse, that's possibly an inhibitor.

[Lochinvar]

Hello Lochinvar (# 47)

 

We wouldn't run such a poll, but if you search RMweb for 'Scottish Loco Poll' you will find something similar that was run in 2010. You may like to take up the matter there.

 

We originally had the D30 and D34 separately, but felt they could be combined. I will definitely raise the point on the agenda for you.

 

Brian (on behalf of The Poll Team).

 

Brian (and team)

 

Thanks. I'd forgotten that this was all gone over - and gone over so comprehensively - 5 yrs ago. And these latest poll results are much in line with the conclusions reached then.

 

Bearing in mind the large degree of cross-over in the operation and shed allocation of pre-grouping classes during the BR period,(eg,J36s at Polmadie) I would happily settle for any one of the top 4 that I have mentioned. This won't apply to everyone,of course,but all 4 would find a warm welcome here.

 

DR

[BMacdermott]

Hello again Lochinvar

 

In the meantime, I have looked up the results for 2014:

 

132 votes: D34

94 votes: D30

 

We combined them for 2015 on the basis of the similarities (as we have done with various other types, such as EMUs, even though they may have worked in different areas):

139 votes: D30 & D34

 

Brian (on behalf of The Poll Team)

[BMacdermott]

Hello 34C (# 51)

 

I took a look at the three Standards in question in relation to 1957 (by way of an example year).....

 

78xxx

65 locos at 23 sheds north of a line approximately from the Severn to The Wash up to Inverness (excepting one at Swindon). They were primarily in the Chester, Manchester, Wigan and Widnes area, with a handful in Scotland. Six were at Machynlleth (as were 17 22xx, 15 90xx, seven 4575, four 43xx, three Manors, three 45xx, three 58xx, two 74xx and one 16xx).

 

77xxx

20 locos at eight sheds: Hurlford 5; Hamilton 3; West Auckland 3; Blaydon 2; Hull 2; Polmadie 2; Whitby 2; Bridlington 1.

 

84xxx

20 locos at 10 sheds: Fleetwood 4; Burton 3; Lees Oldham 3; Birkenhead 2; Bletchley 2; Rose Grove 2; Bank Hall 1; Bedford 1; Chester 1; Royston 1.

10 more locos were built later and went to Ashford.

 

If you look at that spread, one can speculate on the 78xxx as having a stronger case - particularly if taken in context with the Cambrian connection.

 

Brian (personally)

[Phatbob]

The second loco, 36002 was able to be towed away for scrap, others where cut up on sight.

Sort of like "shot on sight" John?

Or were they cut up at Brighton works (i.e. on site). 

[Phatbob]

.  Has anyone a sensible reason for why the three "outstanding" Standard Class locos (Standard Class 2 2-6-0 (355 votes), Standard Class 3 2-6-0 (354 votes) and Standard Class 2 2-6-2T (315 votes)) are being consistently ignored by manufacturers ?

 

The only "theory" I have heard is that Hornby thinks these are obviously going to be done by Bachmann and that Bachmann have other choices to do first ????????

 

( P.S. who was that one brave person that voted for the Class 2 2-6-0, but not the Class 3 2-6-0 ? )

 

----------------

 

Also, The SR U-class 2-6-0 polled 347 votes (making it the third highest polling steam loco after two of the Standards) but the LBSC K-Class 2-6-0 (a much nicer looking loco to my eyes) only managed 216 votes, being behind such things as the Bullied Leader and a re-vamp of a Lord Nelson (which is necessary) and of all classes a Z-Class 0-8-0T which had very little geographical spread ?

 

Strangely enough it is these odd (to my mind !) results which makes the poll both interesting and of use - showing me (partially) how skewed my views are and how particular classes catch various peoples' attention.

 

.

Firstly, another vote of thanks to the poll team.  Fascinating stuff.

Secondly, that would have been me Phil that voted for the Standard 2 and not the Standard 3.  I can use a few Standard 2s on one of my layouts, but no Standard 3s.

 

Thirdly, I must agree with Phil.  It beggars belief that there is still a cohort of high polling BR Standard locos for which Bachmann produces the Ivatt equivalent, but have no announced intention to produce the BR standard version when they already have suitable mechanisms FFS!

Are you listening Bachmann?

[Littlethorpe]

I'm still surprised that the 75XXX class has never been offered in N Gauge. Wouldn't the 78XXX class also use the same chassis as 464XX class locos?

[The Black Hat]

Thanks Brian for the extra info. I suppose the last that Id be after really is Units, as I think given the way the diesel fleet is covered most of the new development there will be with units being made as diesels are already covered well. 

 

When it turns to steam the poll throws up a few interesting developments. Especially when you consider the year on year effect of the poll and the way in which certain engines feature. 

 

I dont know much on Southern traction - to be honest its hardly surprising, its not my region not my interest (no kidding!). However the year on year effect almost makes it look like a tick checklist that the companies are slowly working their way through. When you consider which engines have been done, those remaining pretty much follow in order by type for the last three years. The only region where this largely takes effect. I guess it means the market here knows what it wants so will be waiting for what they expect to be delivered. I dont think this is surprising though. The Southern region is the area best served of all. Main companies are joined by shop and magazine commissions supplying the whole steam fleet as well as slam door stock that is only of use for the Southern region. ED's are the same. When you have so much choice it means you know what you want next. But the main choices all come from grouping types where as the other regions are now looking to get pregrouping engines into the fleet. 

 

At least if the U-class tops the poll, it means everyone can go and get a DJM/Hornby class Q6 to push it up a hill every time it comes to one. 

(See 1:50 to 3:30)

 

The LNER area is my main interest. While the GE area has been well served the GC area seems to continue not to poll as well. The main story is the continued rise of the NER. The J26/27 takes up the mantle of the place left by the Q6 - equally so the J21, also matches the rise in terms of popularity and continues to grow significantly in interest. The interesting development here is if a company were to take advantage of NER standardisation. Here the wheelspace and boiler of the J21, J25 and J26/27 all is 16ft 6in. That should make a common chassis something that a company can recoup costs from. Add that the J21 and J25 are very similar in scope of appearance and you can combine the scores there to give an model that totals 270 votes, suddenly kicking its popularity way higher in terms of the actual polling displayed. The B16 also shares a similar profile although the differences in the fleet make the subsequent changes perhaps harder for a model company, but the combined total B16 score become 302.

 

Where the Eastern region still suffers is the hang over of the sudden ability to do novel fleets, such as P2 and the Duke of Gloucesters success to mean a prototype is possible. I doubt whether a W1 would merit such work, although the rebuild like the P2 might make it a possibility I can't help but think that the other engines such as J21 and J25, J26/27 or B16 would be better continued sellers over time. While attention might be focusing on the rise of the NER as a region in its own right, keep an eye on the GE, as the J69 and N7 are bound to follow.

 

As for the Midland, the rise of the Scottish grouping seems to finally be making its mark. There are more Scottish region engines getting to the fore, almost as if the area has amassed interest behind one or two types, much like those of the NER lobbied for Q6. Big Berthas appearance is also for the 0-8-0, but whether its an engine of "limited geographical coverage and livery choices" remains to be seen. 

 

Finally, I have cause for optimism, so will be patient and hopeful about the future... 

[Mike Storey]

Brian - many thanks for an astonishing piece of work again, by you and the entire team. It really does show how this poll can have an effect.

 

I am pleased to see the 2 HAP finally rise to the top of requested 2 car EMU's, although still not in the top stream. This is amazing given its much wider geographical use than the EPB already available. More people still want 3 and 4 car EMU's of which the main manufacturers seem particularly reticent given the (relatively) poor sales of the 4 VEP (because it was sub-standard) and the 4 CEP (which was excellent but perhaps over-produced?). I do need a 4 SUB (BR design) but only for use in making up a De-icing unit, and I can get this from the smaller manf's!

 

I think I have asked before (but maybe not in the right place) for the POA/JXA 102t bogie scrap wagon, originally Sheerness Steel/Procor, to be added to the list. Would this be possible next year please? (The Appleby kit model is no longer available, and these wagons survived for nearly 35 years all across the network, so should have as much a place in most people's layouts post 1980 as any other). The shorter, X banded version is now available as a 3D kit, but without the Schlieren bogies, so this is for the longer, ribbed version.

 

Thanks

Mike

[BMacdermott]

Hello Mike

 

Many thanks for the comments. I will ensure the scrap wagon goes on the agenda for you.

 

It's not my area of knowledge, but presumably it's not the same as the one we list in Freight Stock 1964-current: Scrap Wagon - Allied Steel & Wire 'Blackadder' POA?

 

Brian (on behalf of The Poll Team)

[BMacdermott]

Hello again David (# 58)

 

Please find the DMU and EMU comparisons attached.

 

Brian (on behalf of The Poll Team)

8. DMUs.pdf

9. EMUs.pdf

[Legend]

I see there's a diatribe over on MREmag on the lack of Scottish Models with England being described as the "Elephant in the room" on the basis that there's 8 million Scots ( I actually though it was 6 but maybe wrong) and presumably 50 million odd English, Welsh and Northern Irish, therefore with a built in majority nothing Scottish was ever going to get produced. So what? That's the reality, people produce for the UK market . The Scottish market itself cannot support a model railway co.

 

However the presumption is that everyone in Scotland models Scottish Railways and England , English railways . Clearly that is not true. Otherwise why have Heljans 26 s and 27s proved so popular. Instead of antagonising people we should be promoting Scottish Railways. And not voting in the poll has the result of ...........well we lost 1 vote for anything Scottish! Not really advancing the cause.

 

What I would say is that I think the poll is too binary and needs some careful interpretation. I'm still struggling with the fact that more people want Big Bertha and Bullieds Leader than a Scottish 0-6-0. And I think one of the things not taken into account is the prettyness of a model which can stimulate it's own market. I bet not many of us model the SE&CR but went out and bought the lovely green C just because it was a thing of beauty. Similarly I bet there are a lot of J15s purchased just because it looks nice. A Caley 812 in rich Caley blue I'm sure would be the same, and of course you get to produce it in LMS and BR liveries too. So maybe the poll is not capturing the prettyness or Wow factor.

 

No criticism of the poll team , of course, who have worked wonders again and stimulated conversation. I just think we need to be a little careful in the interpretation of results.

[BMacdermott]

Hello Legend (# 62)

 

The person on MREmag is, of course, entitled to an opinion - but the Team has replied (for Friday) with facts to rebut his suppositions. We have had to do so at least twice before.

 

I know you intended no criticism (and none was assumed) but it may help if I explain a couple of things.

 

Over the years, we have looked at all sorts of ways of listing the items. One method was to have a separate category for  'specials' such as Turbomotive, Hush Hush, etc - but then what is the definition of 'special'? And it may have drawn more attention to those locos, whereas - currently - everything is listed by wheel arrangement (and often numerically and/or alphabetically) so everything has a natural place without 'positional bias'.

 

As you will have seen earlier above, we guard against 'over analysis'. We often move items from category to category; we sometimes change descriptions to account for announcements; and sometimes the manufacturers produce different models to the ones they announce, causing us to amend the year-on-year results and The Guide.

 

Hope that helps.

 

Brian (on behalf of The Poll Team)

[The Stationmaster]

I see there's a diatribe over on MREmag on the lack of Scottish Models with England being described as the "Elephant in the room" on the basis that there's 8 million Scots ( I actually though it was 6 but maybe wrong) and presumably 50 million odd English, Welsh and Northern Irish, therefore with a built in majority nothing Scottish was ever going to get produced. So what? That's the reality, people produce for the UK market . The Scottish market itself cannot support a model railway co.

 

However the presumption is that everyone in Scotland models Scottish Railways and England , English railways . Clearly that is not true. Otherwise why have Heljans 26 s and 27s proved so popular. Instead of antagonising people we should be promoting Scottish Railways. And not voting in the poll has the result of ...........well we lost 1 vote for anything Scottish! Not really advancing the cause.

 

What I would say is that I think the poll is too binary and needs some careful interpretation. I'm still struggling with the fact that more people want Big Bertha and Bullieds Leader than a Scottish 0-6-0. And I think one of the things not taken into account is the prettyness of a model which can stimulate it's own market. I bet not many of us model the SE&CR but went out and bought the lovely green C just because it was a thing of beauty. Similarly I bet there are a lot of J15s purchased just because it looks nice. A Caley 812 in rich Caley blue I'm sure would be the same, and of course you get to produce it in LMS and BR liveries too. So maybe the poll is not capturing the prettyness or Wow factor.

 

No criticism of the poll team , of course, who have worked wonders again and stimulated conversation. I just think we need to be a little careful in the interpretation of results.

I don't think the poll itself is too binary - not much alternative to be honest although it could possibly be set against a background of 'which area & era do you model?'   The key as you say is what is in your closing sentence - care is needed in interpreting the results, both on our part in pursuing hobby horses and personal wishlists but even more so on the part of the manufacturers and commissioners who will put their money where their mouths are and actually make the stuff.

 

There is I think some danger in what I call 'wishlist skimming' on the part of manufacturers - yes polls like this give a guide to what people want, but then so does direct contact with modellers and retailers, and the various avenues might not give the same answers .  That difference in answers then needs some careful work by the manufacturer to get to what they think will offer the quickest return and the greatest profit, and if they don't get that right they could go down in flames.  So in the end it still depends on that manufacturer decision as much as anything else and, as with the SECR Class C from Bachmann, that decision could 'buck the market' and produce a curve ball which - to mix metaphors - will sell like hot cakes.  Oh, and it might also result in duplication if there is too much wishlist skimming.

[BMacdermott]

Hello Mike (# 64)

 

We're always keen to explore ways of listing - could you expand on the suggestion above 'Which area and era do you model'?

 

Many thanks

 

Brian

[The Black Hat]

Id be careful with the idea of a which area and era do you model. Most of us will probably have an interest in two. My main interest is privitisation and preservation - with a second admittedly very large interest in transition period North East England, ideally County Durham. 

 

If you ask the question, your stats are always skewed towards the which one would you model first. You then have the issue of where are you living too if your wanting to get away from the fact that people buy engines that are not from the area they are living in. The rise of the NER would show that people outside of the area would be interesting in buying some and modelling it - that alongside the already large support base it has at present. 

 

I see there's a diatribe over on MREmag on the lack of Scottish Models with England being described as the "Elephant in the room" on the basis that there's 8 million Scots ( I actually though it was 6 but maybe wrong) and presumably 50 million odd English, Welsh and Northern Irish, therefore with a built in majority nothing Scottish was ever going to get produced. So what? That's the reality, people produce for the UK market . The Scottish market itself cannot support a model railway co.

However the presumption is that everyone in Scotland models Scottish Railways and England , English railways . Clearly that is not true. Otherwise why have Heljans 26 s and 27s proved so popular. Instead of antagonising people we should be promoting Scottish Railways. And not voting in the poll has the result of ...........well we lost 1 vote for anything Scottish! Not really advancing the cause.

What I would say is that I think the poll is too binary and needs some careful interpretation. I'm still struggling with the fact that more people want Big Bertha and Bullieds Leader than a Scottish 0-6-0. And I think one of the things not taken into account is the prettyness of a model which can stimulate it's own market. I bet not many of us model the SE&CR but went out and bought the lovely green C just because it was a thing of beauty. Similarly I bet there are a lot of J15s purchased just because it looks nice. A Caley 812 in rich Caley blue I'm sure would be the same, and of course you get to produce it in LMS and BR liveries too. So maybe the poll is not capturing the prettyness or Wow factor.

No criticism of the poll team , of course, who have worked wonders again and stimulated conversation. I just think we need to be a little careful in the interpretation of results.

 

The issue with Scotland and the Poll is that really it falls into two broader categories, being the Eastern and the Midland region. Scotland as a whole is not seen as an independent category given that a lot of grouping engines then later operated in Scotland. That means that like areas of the Eastern and Midland region, the pre-grouping elements of the Scottish scene are often masked and have to come to the fore alongside other regions that are equally looking for involvement. The eastern region is often split between the various elements of pre-grouping engines. The NER and the GE seem to be the dominant two, although Bachmann have offered GC engines in the past the area polls lower and has done for sometime. Hornby have moved well into GE territory, while they are enjoying the benefits of North Eastern style standardisation that continued into LNER tenure by using the same cab designs and tenders etc on engines such as K1, B1, O1. With the arrival of Q6 it looks like Hornby are now turning attention to the North East. 

 

Eastern region choices have been supplemented by the drive to complete the line up of big express Gresley machines too. W1 is only there now because Duke of Gloucester was completed - but again I wonder if many would want the W1. The Dukes ability to sell was due to it could run as both the mainline engine today, and the engine modeled in its 1960s guise. The W1 would need two tooling sets rather than one to accomplish a similar ability. That it turn creates its own cost issue which would hamper its ability to be commissioned significantly. 

 

The detractors of Scotland will point to the Eastern region lists. That the K4, even being a preserved and mainline engine does not poll as well as it might seem logical. Given this could be the limited nature of its grouping deployment or the fact that its preserved existence has made it pretty much an engine that although excellent in performance often gets overlooked by other engines that are more well known and established. It could seem that the Scottish engine here might be an indicator of engines not selling. The GC/NBR D11 also can be seen as an engine that might have not met expectations. Despite being able to cover two companies, it was essentially made for one release, to tap into the GC area. 

 

Scottish modellers should not despair though. While it might be a year or two for a range to be almost exhausted by announcements, the issue of what comes next really drives options. Companies look for engines that would add to existing sales and then encourage further sales of engines that already exist. As a result, Scottish modellers should take stock of the fact that the D11 has been done and that when you look at the Midland year on year poll, the Caledonian engines are slowly rising in terms of popularity and in strength. Here there are at least three or four engines that are creeping to the top. In ways it mirrors the effects of the NER some years ago. Modellers might be really frustrated by the perceived lack of attention especially when they identify models that seem to meet the requirements of what companies are looking for when you examine press statements and engine choices.

 

Opening up with a verbal broadside can get the issue front and centre, but your case needs to be all but unstoppable from the outset. Furthermore it will take time and effort to continue with a stance that will face inspection and oppostion from the groups traditionally established and seeking to get yet more - which from my own experience tends to be Southern region modellers who somehow don't understand that slam door ', ED's and the like are as good as an extra steam release model for them as they are of squat all use to anyone else and they would run alongside the steam release model just announced for them too. The growth of Scotland as an area that is ripe for development is indeed growing. The diesel fleet that people enjoy for the mixed BR blue period can be offered for transition to go alongside all the BR standard and grouping designs that exist. 

 

My advice would be to hold firm, to point to the rise of the CR at the top of the Midland region lists and expect that this will be there the breach into Scotland is made first. Support will come when these engines are seen to be more attractive and lucrative than the remaining Midland examples of which Bachmann have made loads and will be starting to think of other areas that augment their fleet. 

 

The signs are that such a time will come. From someone who's been there - hold on. Your time will come! 

[Mike Storey]

Hello Mike

 

Many thanks for the comments. I will ensure the scrap wagon goes on the agenda for you.

 

It's not my area of knowledge, but presumably it's not the same as the one we list in Freight Stock 1964-current: Scrap Wagon - Allied Steel & Wire 'Blackadder' POA?

 

Brian (on behalf of The Poll Team)

 

Thanks for that.

 

The Blackadder is a two-axle scrap wagon, built from 1989 onwards, whereas the Sheerness Steel 102t scrap wagons were bogie vehicles built from 1981 onwards.

 

Mike

[Mike Storey]

Hello Mike (# 64)

 

We're always keen to explore ways of listing - could you expand on the suggestion above 'Which area and era do you model'?

 

Many thanks

 

Brian

 

I think such a poll was planned (by Andy Y?) some months ago, maybe last year, but I do not recall ever seeing it. (or is my memory lacking again?). It was not about models wish lists, but about trying to find out more about RMWeb members's interests, layouts, gauges/scales modelled etc etc. Such a wealth of information from the members, who represent an arguably (and some will argue!), statistically valid, percentage of the total of UK railway modellers, could be very useful commercially.

[BMacdermott]

Thanks David & Mike (Storey)

 

I can see probs with 'era' etc - hence I have asked Mike (Stationmaster) for his idea in more detail in case I'm missing something. In relation to Scottish locos etc, below is the current content from the 2015 Poll. Some, of course, would have worked into Scotland (or out) as well as some that were predominantly north of the border. It could be argued that we are slightly short on LNWR types and we have some on the agenda.

 

LMS & Constituents

16 LMS

8 CR

7 MR

5 LYR

3 LNWR

3 SDJR

1 HR

1 LTSR

1 NLR

 

LNER & Constituents

17 LNER

11 GER

11 NER

7 GNR

7 NBR

5 GCR

1 GNSR

1 M&GN

1 MSLR

 

Brian (on behalf of The Poll Team)

[The Stationmaster]

Hello Mike (# 64)

 

We're always keen to explore ways of listing - could you expand on the suggestion above 'Which area and era do you model'?

 

Many thanks

 

Brian

The other Mike (Storey) has in part answered it Brian but I think what might help is to show where modellers railway modelling interests lie and thus add weight to what has been voted for.  For example x per cent of those voting might vote for say a B16 but only X - Z% happen to actually model a part of the country in which it worked and, collectors apart, that might give a more realistic indication of those who are really likely to buy one.  

 

I don't really know how well that would work but simplistically you would need to ask the area modelled (reduced to probably the various BR Regions - duly identifying their geographical extent in The Guide perhaps - or maybe using identifiable geographical areas from the railway network, e.g South Wales, the South East etc).  But whichever it is it would need to be simple and to allow multi-choice (someone is modelling Oxford).

 

Era I think is probably a bit easier but it depends how many subsections you can (or wish) to use - Pre-Group is easy and for practical purposes could probably be presented that simply, Pre-Nationalisation would have to split into separate Pre & Post War eras (and even 'Pre-War' is something of a broad church I accept).  The BR period would also have to be sub-divided, Early Livery, Second livery/steam transition, Blue period, Sector liveries would arguably just about cover it.  Then the post 1994 period would also have to be split into art least a couple of sub-divisions.

 

So, as a personal example, I would tick Western Region and LM Region and BR Early Livery and BR Second livery/steam to diesel transition - my interest in what I am then likely to actually buy would be a bit clearer as part of a percentage of the total number of voters.   (There is still a lot of wriggle room in there because my Region mix would be very much based on the North & West Line and South Wales but I'm sure you can't go down to that much detail).  Thus if I click (as I did) on LNWR Coal tank I would be one of an identifiable percentage who would be likely to buy one because I would be among the number of people whose area and era interest equate to one of their loco selections.  Equally assuming my same area/era result if I voted for say a GWR 'King' it would clearly be one in a different condition from its pre-1948 state (although that also still leaves some wriggle room of course).

 

However if I click on B16 when the total of area/era votes are looked at against the total of B16 votes there would be a discrepancy.  

 

Very importantly there's no need in my view for the survey to try to be clever and attempt to resolve what goes with what - simply for it to present two additional sets of data which could be used alongside the existing sets of data to indicate the most popular areas and eras for modelling. Thus you'd have percentages of those who voted expressing a preference for each geographical area and another set of percentages expressing a preference for each era.  the only sophistication - which I think might be a step too far at first - is to reconcile areas with eras.

[Mike Storey]

It then becomes a quagmire over what scales you represent in such a poll - at least your poll restricts it to two - but I recall long debates over whether 00 should include EM, P4 etc, and the fact quite a few people model in more than one scale, and the difference between home and exhibition, and personal and club layouts, ad infinitum. It might be as well to keep it very restrictive and be dictatorial at first attempt, wait for the brickbats and then adjust it on a gradual basis, much as the history of your existing poll has worked, and worked extremely well.

[Ozexpatriate]

I think such a poll was planned (by Andy Y?) some months ago, maybe last year, but I do not recall ever seeing it. (or is my memory lacking again?). It was not about models wish lists, but about trying to find out more about RMWeb members's interests, layouts, gauges/scales modelled etc etc. Such a wealth of information from the members, who represent an arguably (and some will argue!), statistically valid, percentage of the total of UK railway modellers, could be very useful commercially.

Your memory is not lacking, and I think Andy still plans to do his survey at some point when more pressing things do not intrude.

 

Previous incarnations of the MREmag poll did include some demographic data - of particular interest are the 'era modeled' and 'region modeled' and age questions. Each of these (not age) were offered in two parts as 'primary era modeled' and secondary era modeled' etc.

 

The data set by itself is interesting and offers insights on the skew (if any) represented by the people who do vote in the MREmag/RMweb poll. It does nothing to address hypothetical 'silent' constituents be they a majority or a minority who do not participate in online polls.

 

I think it is good to have such information about the voting population. I don't know that it really addresses the 'Scottish problem' though having real numbers about how many people model a Scottish prototype might really help. It is probably a much smaller number than die hard fans think.

 

(I make the last point because I remain convinced that people might really like GWR slip coaches - but they don't poll well. That doesn't trouble me -the data is still good.  As Mike indicates earlier, there is more to choosing a subject that people will want once it is announced than poll-skimming.)

 

There is a problem in defining regions, Scotland is well identified if using the BR regions, but "Western Region" encompasses LMSR, GWR and LSWR fans in the grouping period and does not distinguish between Wales, the southern Midlands or the West Country.

 

Similarly using grouping era companies like LMSR and LNER as 'regions' does not uniquely address Scotland and based on what I have seen on RMweb, many LNER fans (in particular) seem to want an association with LNER pre-grouping constituents (GNR, GER, NER, etc).

 

Regional distinction is a simple idea but a bit fiendish to make simple and not something so complex that people don't want to fill it out.  Some regional definition (bigger than county but smaller than country, Saxon Heptarchy perhaps ) but perhaps counter intuitively not directly related to a BR region or company might actually be best.

 

Personally I think it should be geographical - not defined by railway boundaries. As an example, people might choose Oxford because all grouping companies could be seen there.

 

Related to era, people will complain that even the Bachmann era system is insufficient. The grouping period encompasses at least three major GWR livery changes for example.

 

At the end of the day, for the sake of simplicity the demographic questions can't capture every nuance, and the fact is that people will purchase outside their preferences anyway.

 

I have no reason to have any SR electric multiple units but like climbing mountains, I bought some "because they were there".

[Ozexpatriate]

Very importantly there's no need in my view for the survey to try to be clever and attempt to resolve what goes with what - simply for it to present two additional sets of data which could be used alongside the existing sets of data to indicate the most popular areas and eras for modelling. Thus you'd have percentages of those who voted expressing a preference for each geographical area and another set of percentages expressing a preference for each era.  the only sophistication - which I think might be a step too far at first - is to reconcile areas with eras.

Agreed. Trying to correlate votes with eras/regions is way too complicated. Simpler is better - even though people will object that there is not enough precision in the instrument. But you don't need a micrometer to measure a field a surveyor's chain is more suitable.

[Ozexpatriate]

We are delighted to present this year's results for 00 and N in the now usual three formats (links below).

...

It looks like Hornby has made some announcements today, but it might take us a day or two to see how they relate to items in The Poll - and, I gather, there is more to come at Warley. Interesting times!

I'm a bit late to this party, (due in part to the long weekend in the US and in part to the Hornby announcements above - Hornby really did steal the spotlight from many over the weekend - including the results of the poll.)

 

As others have done, I'll add my thanks to Brian and the poll team for their efforts this year. The collateral in The Guide is better and better than ever. It is evident that a lot of work goes into this - largely thankless I expect, but I really think it is worthwhile.

 

Thank you for all the work invested there. If people take advantage of it, it can help people make more educated choices. It certainly helps me.

 

What strikes me (and pleasantly so) in the 'top 50' results is the diminishing role played every year by locomotives. No doubt this is a result of the poll's success in highlighting the most desired locomotives and the highly correlated choice by manufacturers to choose high polling locomotives for their product lines, but, I think it's exciting (from the perspective that we model railways, not just stuff display cases) and to do that there are a lot more components in our miniature worlds (imagined, or in material progress) than motive power.

 

I counted 23 non-locomotives out of the top 50.  I haven't done a comparison, but that feels like there are gradually more and more as the years progress.

 

I was not surprised to see the GWR Toplight coaches near the top. Despite their complexity, it will be exciting if one day a manufacturer steps up to the challenge. More surprising was to see the GWR Siphon G in the number 4 coaching spot and well in the top 50. I like this sort of convergence.

[Andy Hayter]

Thanks also from me to those who have again organised the poll.

 

 

The "Scottish Question" is indeed a difficult one and I do feel for those who model, or who would like to model the Scottish scene.

 

It is however a problem that I think will eventually resolve itself.  Let me try and explain and in explaining I must say that my comments are restricted essentially to models of the steam eras, since my knowledge and interest in more modern times is limited.

 

Having returned to UK modelling after nearly 25 years on the dark side (modelling French railways!) I was surprised to see that the Southern had apparently become the new GWR.  By this I mean when I stopped UK modelling, the GWR seemed to be the region/company of choice.  Hardly a month would go by without a GWR inspired layout in one or other of the model magazines.  Looking now at the results, there are more votes for the top SR locomotive than the GWR.   However, I think to draw that conclusion could be wrong.  Just because more people want the top SR locomotive than the top GWR does not necessarily mean there are more SR modellers than GWR, it could just mean that GWR modellers are more content with the range of locomotives they already have and are less bothered about getting more.  In contrast SR modellers are playing catch up.  Perhaps this also explains the (to me) surprisingly low showing of both LMS and LNER.  So in that case as modellers in these regions become more and more satisfied (or saturated), inevitably the Scottish prototypes will rise up the region lists and then perhaps make the top 50. 

 

I think that Ozexpatriate's observation in the growth of non locomotive items in the top 50 list further supports that some areas may have become saturated with locomotives and are seeking other things to spend their modelling budget on.

 

In all of this I wonder to what extent manufacturers rely on this poll for ideas about what to put on the range.  That they do so cannot be doubted, but there are other groups who probably do not vote here or visit here - namely the collectors and the trainset modellers (no disrespect).  Both groups are likely to bolster sales of "named locomotives" and of pretty locomotives.  On the latter, there are certainly quite a number of Scottish prototypes - and particularly in their earlier liveries.  Do manufacturers have market views on these groups which they overlay on our collective judgements?