GWR Toplights Poll

[Neal Ball]

Apologies Mike - that sounds a very specific year / era - do you post details on here?

 

Clearly I would hope any manufacturer will be looking at the comments as well as the poll numbers. So far it looks as if 1920 to 1939 is leading the poll, closely followed by post nationalisation.

 

Regards, Neal.

[firebirduk]

Apologies Mike - that sounds a very specific year / era - do you post details on here?

 

Regards, Neal.

 

 

Hi Neal,

 

Not at all.

 

The era is 1907-1914 from the first built to the last one in 1914.

 

Mike Spence

[Mikkel]

As a pre-WW1 modeller I'm glad to see the E82 and E83/85 leading the poll so far. Much as I'd love to see more of the various diagrams listed by Mike (thanks Mike!), I can see the need to focus things on a limited number of models with broad interest.

 

I also think Miss P's important point deserves being highlighted:

I think Howard is quite right in saying "It is the paint that RTR customers buy", but the first thing that struck me about the poll was that anyone answering the 'era' question will (or perhaps should) be conscious that most of the coaches running in that 'era', for a typical depiction, will be (say) ten or so years old.

Edited for clarity.

Edited January 11, 2017 by Mikkel

[Siberian Snooper]

I have a query, when did the GWR start producing Left and Right hand brakes? as this would increase my pruchase of brakes.

[Clearwater]

Whilst I'm finding the discussion about particular diagrams and liveries extremely interesting, I'm wondering whether it is running a risk of diverting from Neal's original intention of providing evidence for a manufacturer/ commissioner to take on any rtr toplight- and becoming a wishlistig exercise. (Neal - if you disagree, please let me know and I'll edit).

 

By being incredibly precise about saying "I will only buy if the model is in the form it was on 31/6/1943 (deliberate date) etc", manufacturers may take the view that the market is too small for it to be commercial. Any toplight is an improvement on none at all. As an engineer I worked with once put it, the enemy of good enough is perfection. Yes, we'd all love to go to a shop/website, specify exactly what we want and it them to arrive by return of post, but absent developments in 3D printing, that's not going to happen.

 

As of today, if you want something precise, your choice is to take a kit/sides and either build or commission it yourself. Of course, you could find a designer, commission your own tools, produce 2000 carriages and sell what you don't want but I doubt most people have the resource or risk appetite to do that. Ironically if you do have that resource, you can probably afford to commission a kit builder and painter to make exactly what you want anyway.

 

I'd suggest any manufacturer/commissioner is only likely to be persuaded to perhaps produce 3-4 diagrams. Probably where they share some common features (e.g. Underframes, trussing, bogies etc) to bring some economy of scale to the production. Probably of the most numerous and long lasting of the stock to maximise market appeal.

 

I agree with Mikel/Miss P that the most complex / ornate livery is the place to start as will add appeal to collectors and still creates a base for those who would use the carriage as a base for what else they might want to do.

 

David

[The Stationmaster]

Whilst I'm finding the discussion about particular diagrams and liveries extremely interesting, I'm wondering whether it is running a risk of diverting from Neal's original intention of providing evidence for a manufacturer/ commissioner to take on any rtr toplight- and becoming a wishlistig exercise. (Neal - if you disagree, please let me know and I'll edit).

 

By being incredibly precise about saying "I will only buy if the model is in the form it was on 31/6/1943 (deliberate date) etc", manufacturers may take the view that the market is too small for it to be commercial. Any toplight is an improvement on none at all. As an engineer I worked with once put it, the enemy of good enough is perfection. Yes, we'd all love to go to a shop/website, specify exactly what we want and it them to arrive by return of post, but absent developments in 3D printing, that's not going to happen.

 

As of today, if you want something precise, your choice is to take a kit/sides and either build or commission it yourself. Of course, you could find a designer, commission your own tools, produce 2000 carriages and sell what you don't want but I doubt most people have the resource or risk appetite to do that. Ironically if you do have that resource, you can probably afford to commission a kit builder and painter to make exactly what you want anyway.

 

I'd suggest any manufacturer/commissioner is only likely to be persuaded to perhaps produce 3-4 diagrams. Probably where they share some common features (e.g. Underframes, trussing, bogies etc) to bring some economy of scale to the production. Probably of the most numerous and long lasting of the stock to maximise market appeal.

 

I agree with Mikel/Miss P that the most complex / ornate livery is the place to start as will add appeal to collectors and still creates a base for those who would use the carriage as a base for what else they might want to do.

 

David

 

This is the perpetual problem with GWR Toplight vehicles  - identifying what people mean when they say they want some.  Neal's poll will at last hopefully put some meat on those bones and that has to be the sort of thing which any manufacturer needs because I seriously doubt that any of them happen to have on their books somebody who is not only expert on GWR coaching stock but is also a marketing wizard who has been able to divine from the term 'Toplights' which ones will sell.

 

Manufacturers, I think, will always be interested in what they consider will offer the best return for their not insubstantial investment - that means the longest time span in service with the least alterations to the vehicle (other than livery) in order to minimise tooling costs and get the biggest potential market.  My interest in these coaches (yet to be entered in the poll) is strictly post nationalisation and very much towards the end of their lives and probably/inevitably after they had undergone some physical changes although I might not get too pernickety about some of those.

 

So think about it this way - a manufacturer decides to go for, say, 4 different types how many of each would any one of us would buy.  If you are going to narrow it down to a specific example on a very specific date or short period the sales would never meet the investment unless everyone buys in multiples of, say, 10 of each type (and it would need lots of 'everyones' who model that specific period, plus collectors).  So somebody's narrow choice would be ideal fodder for the kit manufacturer , but not for mass production.

 

The final thing we should perhaps not underestimate (and someone has already mentioned) is the impact of collectors on sales - just how many vehicles would be sold to folk who don't model the Western in any time period and who don't care what a coach is as long as it's 'pretty' or looks good. There might be more sales on that basis than any other - daft though it might sound - although it might not necessarily be enough to make a commercial case for r-t-r manufacture.  But still the manufacturer needs to start from a position where there is some sales certainty and the poll will, or won't give some indication of that.

[BMacdermott]

Hello Neal

 

Below is an extract from The Guide to The Wishlist Poll 2016. I notice none of those are in your list.

 

Brian

 

The Toplight vehicles were altered considerably over the years, which would make the choice for a manufacturer very difficult. The Poll Team has discussed the matter at length and feels that the following 57ft steel-panelled coaches with rigid angle trusses (and the Diag.K22 PBV in the category Non-passenger-carrying Coaching Stock) would suit most modellers:

Diag.C35 Third

Diag.D56 Brake Third

Diags.E98 or E103 Composites.

[Clearwater]

I agree with Mike. The interesting points from Neal's poll are the concentration on certain types and the aggregate number people *say* they will buy. Given rmweb is only a portion of the buyer universe, I think more demand can be inferred.

 

Whilst bottom up demand analysis is important and helpful, a manufacturer/commissioner would have to take a view and help define the market by what they sell. I've no doubt that if three years ago, before Hornby' bow Enders, if we had had a debate about which ones to build, we'd have seen a similar fragmentation of choices. But Hornby created a market by seeing where there was broad demand and meeting it. No reason why the same couldn't happen here albeit to make the numbers work, it's probably a commission via a retailer than a pure traditional manufacturing and broad distribution.

 

I think the debate does also show why a crowd funding would be difficult principally around getting a consensus on what is to be produced

 

David

[Miss Prism]

(and the Diag.K22 PBV in the category Non-passenger-carrying Coaching Stock)

 

Brian - the K22 (or any other full brake for that matter) is not NPCS.

[81C]

Hello Neal

 

Below is an extract from The Guide to The Wishlist Poll 2016. I notice none of those are in your list.

 

Brian

 

The Toplight vehicles were altered considerably over the years, which would make the choice for a manufacturer very difficult. The Poll Team has discussed the matter at length and feels that the following 57ft steel-panelled coaches with rigid angle trusses (and the Diag.K22 PBV in the category Non-passenger-carrying Coaching Stock) would suit most modellers:

Diag.C35 Third

Diag.D56 Brake Third

Diags.E98 or E103 Composites.

Hi Brian what dates do you have on this stock being plated over ? 

[sp1]

Hello Neal

 

Below is an extract from The Guide to The Wishlist Poll 2016. I notice none of those are in your list.

 

Brian

 

The Toplight vehicles were altered considerably over the years, which would make the choice for a manufacturer very difficult. The Poll Team has discussed the matter at length and feels that the following 57ft steel-panelled coaches with rigid angle trusses (and the Diag.K22 PBV in the category Non-passenger-carrying Coaching Stock) would suit most modellers:

Diag.C35 Third

Diag.D56 Brake Third

Diags.E98 or E103 Composites.

Here is an opinion from a less than 'Average Modeller' to paraphrase a certain magazine!

 

My knowledge is VERY limited- all I know is that I would like SOME! Given that the options are many, all I want is a few to enable me to produce a few mixed rakes. The above seem sensible options (although I would like to see a full brake). But.....I would like to see some different lengths purely for that variety!

 

I would also like some in BR livery, as I plan to model two periods. The same coaches in different liveries would be ok - I understand that would be difficult due to the alterations to them. So to sum up, I don't know what I want except I would like some. There doesn't seem to be an option to vote for 'I will basically buy anything produced as my modelling is fairly fluid due to my ignorance' so I haven't yet voted (and I would buy multiples if they are differently decorated, or a couple of each if I have to renumber for variety)......

[Coach bogie]

This is something that a few of us looked into last year and found images of D56 and C32 toplights with partial or all plated toplight windows in the late 1930's

 

Mike Wiltshire

Edited January 11, 2017 by Coach bogie

[Coach bogie]

I agree with Mikel/Miss P that the most complex / ornate livery is the place to start as will add appeal to collectors and still creates a base for those who would use the carriage as a base for what else they might want to do.

 

David

 

Marketing wise this is the one you leave to last. You start off with a core product, mid range popularity model in the knowledge that many customers will purchase even if it is not quite what you want. You create a culture of 'buy now while you can', to ensure all product is sold, in the knowledge that the same customers will usually return and replace/additional purchase with the actual wanted later when it becomes available.

 

Remember "Hawksworth coaches will not be produced in Chocolate and cream"?

 

In my advertising days that how it was done.

 

Mike Wiltshire

[The Stationmaster]

Brian - the K22 (or any other full brake for that matter) is not NPCS.

 

Since when Miss P?  If a vehicle equipped operationally to passenger rolling stock standards cannot convey passengers then surely it is a 'Non-Passenger Carrying' vehicle?   A thing to be avoided with the GWR (which used the term in the 1930s if not earlier) is to avoid confusing NPCCS with brown painted vehicles (which were simply a part of the Company's NPCCS fleet) while those of similar outline standards and livery to passenger vehicles but which could not convey passengers were also NPCCS in just the same way as BR built Mk1 BGs were NPCCS.

[Clearwater]

Marketing wise this is the one you leave to last. You start off with a core product, mid range popularity model in the knowledge that many customers will purchase even if it is not quite what you want. You create a culture of 'buy now while you can', to ensure all product is sold, in the knowledge that the same customers will usually return and replace/additional purchase with the actual wanted later when it becomes available.

 

Remember "Hawksworth coaches will not be produced in Chocolate and cream"?

 

In my advertising days that how it was done.

 

Mike Wiltshire

I agree. I'd start with corridor third, corridor composite and brake third. Probably in 22-27 livery as can justify that out to late thirties and is the "prettiest." If it's a commission, there would be no certainty of more. If you ever want an rtr toplight, here you go. Take it or leave it. The commissioner might need to be prepared to hold stock over 3-5 years to get them sold depending on how big batches need to be

 

David

[BMacdermott]

Hi Brian what dates do you have on this stock being plated over ? 

Hello 81C

 

I'll have a word with The Poll Team's 'GWR man', John Lewis. Bear with me - it might take a day or two to get a reply here.

 

Brian

[Miss Prism]

Since when Miss P?  If a vehicle equipped operationally to passenger rolling stock standards cannot convey passengers then surely it is a 'Non-Passenger Carrying' vehicle?   A thing to be avoided with the GWR (which used the term in the 1930s if not earlier) is to avoid confusing NPCCS with brown painted vehicles (which were simply a part of the Company's NPCCS fleet) while those of similar outline standards and livery to passenger vehicles but which could not convey passengers were also NPCCS in just the same way as BR built Mk1 BGs were NPCCS.

 

Mike, I guess that is all correct from a particular modern point of view - I was merely distinguishing, simplistically, what the GWR differentiated, by virtue of its diagram types, between 'normal' passenger-carrying stock and stock designed to run with normal passenger stock but not designed to carry passengers (like Siphons). Horse boxes complicate the issue, because they were NPCCS but of course could carry human beings. TPOs are another interesting case, they carried humans but not passengers. A differentiation on the basis of gangway fitting is also somewhat fraught, because many full brakes (like a K22) were accessible to passengers passing through a train, whereas a gangwayed Siphon would be blocked to passengers as far as I know. The K diagrams were classed as 'Passenger Brake Vans'.

 

This is a interesting can of worms! (And possibly not for this thread.)

[Miss Prism]

I would agree with Mike about plating over from c late 1930s. For RTR purposes, I think this style is a non-starter, because of the similarity in appearance to Collett stock.

[HowardGWR]

Hello 81C

 

I'll have a word with The Poll Team's 'GWR man', John Lewis. Bear with me - it might take a day or two to get a reply here.

 

Brian

I would appreciate some introductions here.  I don't know who's who and what is The Poll Team.  I do know who John Lewis is (the respected GWR author and GWSG member).  Please remember some of us are new to this or are returning after many years' absence.  Thanks very much.

 

Update:  I think I do have a clue (I googled Hornby The Poll Team) I guessed it might need 'Hornby' after I failed with the rest of it.  I still think a short introduction or a link to it would be helpful, thanks.   

Edited January 11, 2017 by HowardGWR

[BMacdermott]

Hello Miss Prism

 

It's a matter of 'context'. My extract in #57 referred to The Guide; in that, we said as below (extracted only). (Sorry if the typesizes have altered during copying across!)

 

Hope that helps. As you say in your posting above, NPCCS is not for this thread, but I thought it worthwhile clarifying the earlier posting.

 

Brian (on behalf of The Poll Team for this posting).

 

The items listed in this category are what many modellers refer to as ‘parcels train stock’.

 

However, in railway terminology of the steam and early diesel era, it is non-passenger-carrying coaching stock (NPCCS). Although there are some subtleties outside the scope and purpose of this Guide (and some items have been included here for ‘completeness’) they are vehicles designed and used primarily for the conveyance of passenger-rated consignments. These include parcels, fish or milk, as opposed to human passengers or freight-rated consignments, such as coal or steel. Such vehicles were built to coaching stock standards and were cleared for running in passenger trains (subject to certain conditions).

[BMacdermott]

I would appreciate some introductions here.  I don't know who's who and what is The Poll Team.  I do know who John Lewis is (the respected GWR author and GWSG member).  Please remember some of us are new to this or are returning after many years' absence.  Thanks very much.

Hello HowardGWR

 

I will PM you shortly to avoid taking this thread off topic.

 

Brian

[Miss Prism]

... Probably in 22-27 livery...

 

That's two livery states - the '1922' and the '1924'. (Actually three, if one includes up to July 1922 - the K22s were I think the last coaches to appear in crimson, and a few of them might have been recalled and given a new brown and cream job to accompany that summer's 'Cornish Riviera'.)

 

Some Toplights might never have received either of the 1922 or 1924 liveries.

Edited January 11, 2017 by Miss Prism

[Clearwater]

That's two livery states - the '1922' and the '1924'. (Actually three, if one includes up to July 1922 - the K22s were I think the last coaches to appear in crimson, and a few of them might have been recalled back a year later and given a new brown and cream job to accompany the new Colletts on the 1923 'Cornish Riviera'.)

 

Some Toplights might never have received either of the 1922 or 1924 liveries.

Hence the difficulties...

 

I was merely going by this excellent link !

 

http://www.gwr.org.uk/liveriescoach1922.html

[Miss Prism]

I was merely going by this excellent link !

http://www.gwr.org.uk/liveriescoach1922.html

 

Ahem...

 

That's another page needing a slight revamp!

Edited January 11, 2017 by Miss Prism

[Mikkel]

Hence the difficulties...

 

I was merely going by this excellent link !

 

http://www.gwr.org.uk/liveriescoach1922.html

 

That would be from my time, before proper capacity took over.