BMacdermott

Hello Andy Your votes are perfectly valid against the stated criterion of 'realistically wish to buy'. Part of the agreed purpose of these Mini-Polls is to 'tease out' comments that might indicate a direction of thought of the voters. All the comments received are edited into one PDF and this is open to the makers to read. It is up to them to set their prices but - if they are too high or don't seem to offer value for money against the competition - they will fail to sell. Brian

Thanks Bloodnok That is exactly the parameter within which to work with these Mini-Polls. Brian

Thanks Phil and Jon It does seem to follow that the overall focus of modellers is on locos - they are 'right out front' and look impressive with the all the smoke and steam. Coaches are sometimes 'attractive', but wagons are down the pecking order and - as Jon rightly says - getting the right information gets progressively harder the farther you go back in time. The Locos>Coaches>Wagons 'hierarchy' is something we have seen in The 00 Wishlist Poll Results over the years. The following is totally unscientific and was (almost literally) done 'on the back of a fag packet', but a look at the 2019 Results in relation to just LNER items which might have been seen at Peterborough North bears this out... Locos - an average of 136 votes each item Coaches - an average of 113 votes each item Wagons - an average of 110 votes each item Brian

Final Call for Votes - 00 Rolling Stock Mini-Poll No.4 Hello everyone A reminder that your 'Polling Station' closes at 1700 today. Results are expected during tomorrow, Friday 11 June. Although we have had much discussion about these vehicles, the 'turnout' is not as high as one might expect. Are there any 'underlying reasons'? Do you have too many wagons already? Do wagons not appeal to you? Do you find the complexity perplexing? I'd be interested to hear. If you haven't already voted, here’s what to do… 1. You may vote for any or all of the items listed. 2. They must be items you would realistically wish to buy if made RTR. 3. Submit your entries on this thread simply as (for example): 2, 4, 7, 9, 12 – with comments and explanations following. 4. If you vote by PM, please only list your selection of numbers without explanations. 1. Banana Vans (there are too many to list individually) 2. Bulk Grain Hopper Wagon 22½-ton (Diag.73 of late 1930s) 3. Cattle Wagon, 10ft wheelbase (1920s) 4. Fish Van 10-ton, 12ft wheelbase, as built (Diag.134 of 1938) 5. Fish Van 10-ton, 12ft wheelbase, as rebuilt, Recessed Doors, Branded ‘XP’/‘Insul Fish’, Painted White (Originally Diag.134 of 1938) 6. Goods Van 12-ton, Sliding Doors, Vertical Plank Sides, Horizontal Plank Ends with Small Shutters (Diags.14-17 of 1926) 7. Goods Van 12-ton, Sliding Doors, Plywood (Diags.172, 176, 195 of 1943-1948) 8. Low Machinery Wagon, Lowmac 4-wheel, 21-ton (inc BR Diags.2/240 etc of 1949/51) 9. Low Machinery Wagon, Flatrol 4-wheel, 20-ton (inc BR Diag.2/512 of 1949) 10. RCH Coal Wagon 5-, 6-, 7- & 8-plank (1887-1907) 11. Single Bolster Wagon (inc BR Diags.1/400, 1/401, 1/402 & 1/405 of 1949 on) 12. Tube Wagon Unfitted, 30ft 6ins & 32ft 0in (BR Diags.1/447 & 1/448 of 1951 and 1954) Brian

Hello everyone In the light of Graham's comments and the notes just arrived from Chris, I will be slightly revamping Mini-Poll No.5 to include what I can without knocking off balance what is already listed. Brian

Hello everyone Chris has kindly sent the additional notes. Brian Additional Notes from Chris Knowles-Thomas SR Diag.1379. 8-plank. 9ft wb. Unfitted. Diag.1380. 5-plank. 9ft wb. Unfitted Diag.1400. 8-plank. 10ft wb. Unfitted. Diag.1377. 8-plank. 10ft wb. AVB. Diag.1375. 5-plank. 10ft wb. Unfitted. Wartime design; also supplied to LNER & LMS. BR Diag.1/039. 5-plank. 10ft wb. AVB (& unfitted?). Corrugated steel ends, sheet rail. Diag.1/044. 5-plank. 10ft wb. Unfitted. Corrugated steel ends. Diag.1/041. Steel. 10ft wb. AVB & unfitted. NB. I have concentrated on straight 'High Goods' wagons but there are shock absorbing variants which could be added. Also note that under the 1955 Modernisation Plan, BR equipped multitudes of previously unfitted wagons with AVB if their wheelbase was 10ft+.

Hello everyone Chris has asked me to post his initial comments on his behalf. More to follow, I believe. Brian Notes from Chris Knowles-Thomas Firstly (notwithstanding the pre-1923 spec POs and BR single bolsters), your Mini-Poll No.4 was largely orientated to LNER wagons. As the LNER is the only company (in my view) to have any decent 'high goods' opens on the RTR market I think you were justified in not including any. That said I agree with Graham's broad thrust – we are poorly served as regards General Merchandise Opens (and to a lesser extent vans). As Graham says the majority of wagons (apart from minerals) in 1948 were opens and ordinary vans. On top of that, of the vans and opens alone, only 31% were vans while 69% were general merchandise opens. As far as the RTR market is concerned there are only 2½ high goods (ie 5-/6-planks or so) which are worth considering in my view: * LNER 6-plank by Oxford, presumably Diag.3. Very nice, though it ought to have Morton brake gear rather than the 'Either Side' it has. * LNER Steel by Bachmann, Diags.186, 190, 194. Again, very nice. * LMS 5-plank currently (only?) by Hornby, Diag.1892. This is the venerable Airfix (?) moulding as far as the body is concerned. I give it half because: a) Hornby don't give it the obvious LMS or BR liveries, only spurious PO ones, and b) it could do with a decent underframe. Incidentally the LMS built these both unfitted and with AVB. The fitted ones had 8-shoe brakes which has never (?) been offered RTR. Ramsay describes this as a hybrid LMS/GWR Open but to me it looks more LMS. It does look a lot like some late LNER and SR 5-planks as well. There is a Dapol 4-plank which Ramsay describes as based on a GWR design. If so, how accurate it is I don't know and I doubt that they survived to 'modern' times. To be continued…

Hello everyone Subsequent to our recent wagon discussions, I asked The Poll Team if they had any comments. I believe Chris Knowles-Thomas will reply directly here shortly, but John Lewis has asked me to post his notes below on his behalf. Brian Notes from John Lewis I do not have figures for post-WW2, but c.1930 the number of PO wagons was approximately equal to the number of railway company owned ones, so you would be advised to buy/make a coal wagon every time you made/bought a company owned one, and I am sure this applied to a post-WW2 layout. I think it is important to realise that there was no such thing as an ‘average railway’. An average is made up of (lots of) individual figures, some of which will differ wildly from the average (the 'outliers’). You have to consider what traffic flows you want to have on your railway and decide what wagons and coaches would be needed for it. Having decided that, you ought to think about what would have been truly common user and what would belong to the pre-WW2 company that operated your railway. In BR days the coaches would be ones from the pre-Nationalisation company, except to which BR coaches had appeared (or if you want BR coaches). In certain cases, there might have been through coaches from other railways, which could complicate matters. In the case of railway company wagons, I think the figures were something like: 5 x LMS 4 x LNER 3 x GWR 1.5 x SR. But this would only really have applied pre-WW2 to common user wagons; vacuum fitted wagons in general were not common user and might have been expected to be most common on their owning company. The majority of (ex-) railway owned wagons would have been ordinary opens followed by ordinary covered goods, plus whatever you wanted to cater for the traffic flows on your line. On and after 1939 things changed and all, except specialist wagons like oil and chemical tanks, were taken over by the Government, later by BR, and became common user. This included PO coal wagons which, as the war went on, started appearing anywhere in the country, a process that continued after the war. If you are modelling this era. you also need to factor in the construction of 16-ton mineral wagons in place of PO coal wagons. I hope this is of some use. The generalisations are rather crude!

Thanks Tony No problem at all - just a little 'cross wiring' (to coin a bit of a pun in relation to the Retford situation!) Perhaps I can clarify a point whilst writing? There is a possible misconception that any of the Polls we have run in the past - as well as any of the current Mini-Polls - have simply been 'a list of stuff'. They have been carefully balanced along with much detail. They are - and were - for modellers and collectors. In the case of the Mini-Polls on Gilbert's thread, they are aimed at getting people to think constructively about what might have been seen at Peterborough North in steam days and what might be useful to him and others in RTR form. They are drawing much considered, well thought out and friendly debate. However, even with those, I have had to include the following rider in each introduction: If you vote on the thread, please feel free to explain why you have chosen your selection – hopefully, that will promote some interesting debates – but please do not take it as an excuse to start up the old chestnut of ‘kits vs RTR’! Experience has shown me that as soon as we start a RTR discussion, it won't be long before someone chimes in with accusations of us 'having it in' for the kit makers or telling us we are responsible for 'duplication'. We haven't 'got it in' for the kit makers - in fact, we used to refer readers of The Guide to any item that had a kit existing - and no-one has ever supplied a shred of evidence for duplication. There are many folk in our community who would like to 'make things' but now can't due to ill health or for one of a myriad of other valid reasons. The RTR market is seemingly booming and that can only be good for us all in the long run. Hope that helps. Brian

Many thanks John All votes duly logged and acknowledged with the 'Thx' tick. I didn't list the LNER 6-plank as it is already made RTR by Oxford. Having had some good chats earlier in the thread with Graham (LNER4479), I have made some alterations to the content of Mini-Poll No.5 (next Monday) to include more 'Opens''. Brian

Thanks Mark Any idea if they were 'regulars' at PN? Brian

Hello John I have just re-read your post on Tony Wright's thread. My apologies...I have mis-read it as you wanting to see RTR models made, whereas you were referring to Parkside Kits. I haven't logged your votes above on the basis that you are not interested in duplications and any votes here must be on the basis of what you would realistically buy if ever made. Apologies again. Brian

Hello everyone A picture on page 119 of Rail Centres: Peterborough shows three Stanton wagons in 1965 (according to the caption). Are these LMS Diag.1806 Cement Hoppers? Were they 'regulars' at PN? Brian

Hello John Banana Vans are available for your vote over on Gilbert's Peterborough North thread. Brian

Hello Tony, I have never turned the subject into a contest - others have always spoken first, to which I have had to reply. I speak with the experience of having run RTR Wishlist Polls and similar since about 2009 on the old MREmag. Brian

Hello Graham Totally agree here...and that has been part of my 'argument' when it comes the old chestnut of 'kits vs RTR'. If you don't have that key word of competence - aptitude - you are probably more likely to fail. Brian

Hello Graham I fully take and agree with all your points and comments, particularly that the makers will often go for ‘the glamour types’ in advance of the ‘workhorses’ that aficionados such as ourselves would prefer. Let me set out some of the difficulties… In my introduction, I said: “There are no doubt hundreds of different freight vehicles that would have been seen at Peterborough North over the years, but our Mini-Polls can only capture a small number. If you feel something is missing, please let me know – with reasons – and I will try to fit it in later.” On Saturday, I supplied a long list of what has come to market since 2000 – the ‘broadly open’ types amongst those were as below, hence they are not on my list: Bachmann Highfit Steel Open Bachmann 1-plank Lowfit Bachmann 3-plank Open Bachmann Shocbar Open Bachmann Pipe Wagon Bachmann Fitted Tube Dapol 4-plank Open Dapol 5-plank Open 9ft Wheelbase Dapol 7-plank Open 9ft Wheelbase Oxford 6-plank General Merchandise - LNER Oxford 7-plank Wagon Rapido SECR 5- & 7-Plank Wagons In The 00 Wishlist Poll 2019 we listed a total of 97 individual steam era wagons along with 17 ‘catch all’ titles such as SECR Wagons, Vans & Brake Vans – which include ‘opens’’ – as we simply had no room to list everything. The specifically-noted ‘opens’ among those were: GWR 9ft Wheelbase Opens GWR 10ft Wheelbase Opens GWR Open Shock Wagons SR 5-plank Open SR 8-plank Open 9ft & 10ft Wheelbase SR Container Wagon 9ft & 10ft Wheelbase (could be used for what were known as ‘invalid cars’) SR Container Wagon 18ft 7in Wheelbase (ditto) LMS General Merchandise Opens (Diag.1666 etc) LMS/LNER/BR Unfitted Tube Wagon LMS/LNER/BR Lowfit – 1-plank LMS/BR Medium Goods – 3-plank (BR) Continental Ferry Wagons – Open BR Medium Goods – Steel 13-ton BR High Goods – Open 13-ton BR High Goods – Shochood B BR High Goods – Shocroof A Note that we had no specific LNER types! Within the 2019 Poll, we listed 68 NPCCS items. As far as 6-wheelers were concerned, that was split as: 8 – Milk Tankers (and Trailer Carriers) 6 – BG or CCT types 3 – Fish Vans I am happy to run other Mini-Polls for you in the future, but that will be subject to Gilbert agreeing. Brian

Hello Graham Apologies... were at 'crossed purposes' but you replied quicker than I was able to delete my post! Brian

Post deleted. Back later!

Thanks Steve I'm not sure about wheelbase variations on these as I don't have any LNER wagon books that give Diagram Numbers. I have attached a PDF of what we wrote in The Guide to The 00 Wishlist Poll 2019. Brian Mini-Poll Goods Vans.pdf

Hello everyone My choices are: 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 11 and 12. The two 12ft Wheelbase Fish Vans would add much needed variety to the current Bachmann LNER 10ft wheelbase bauxite and Hornby 15ft wheelbase white versions. I have also gone for both types of Goods Vans which could be made in fitted and unfitted versions on wood or steel underframes, with some having planking variations. Whilst it has to be said that there are many Flatrol diagrams, some had just penny numbers built, but we have seen various other ‘heavy duty’ vehicles come to market. It can run empty or have your choice of a very wide range of interesting loads. We have Bogie Bolsters and Double Bolsters but – as yet – no Single Bolsters. These are needed for many purposes, either in their own right or capturing overhang etc. And finally, back in 2015, I got very excited when Bachmann introduced its Tube Wagon, only to be deflated to find they had picked a fully fitted diagram. Hence my vote for an unfitted one. Brian

00 Rolling Stock Mini-Poll No.4: Freight Stock – 4-wheel (Pre-1951) Hello everyone Welcome to the fourth in our series of seven Mini-Polls concerning rolling stock that has at least some connection with Peterborough North. I am running them on behalf of Gilbert. Mini-Poll No.5 Post-1951 4-wheel Freight Stock will follow next week, with No.6 Bogie Freight Stock the week after. We eventually finish with No.7 Departmental Stock. There are no doubt hundreds of different freight vehicles that would have been seen at Peterborough North over the years, but our Mini-Polls can only capture a small number. If you feel something is missing, please let me know – with reasons – and I will try to fit it in later. I have listed Banana Vans 'generically' - but were any seen at or passing through PN? You can submit your wishes here, on the thread, as usual, or PM me direct if you prefer the ‘secret ballot’ method. If you vote on the thread, please feel free to explain why you have chosen your selection – hopefully, that will promote some interesting debates – but please do not take it as an excuse to start up the old chestnut of ‘kits vs RTR’! Here’s what to do… 1. You may vote for any or all of the items listed. 2. They must be items you would realistically wish to buy if made RTR. 3. Submit your entries on this thread simply as (for example): 2, 4, 7, 9, 12 – with comments and explanations following. 4. If you vote by PM, please only list your selection of numbers without explanations. 1. Banana Vans (there are too many to list individually) 2. Bulk Grain Hopper Wagon 22½-ton (Diag.73 of late 1930s) 3. Cattle Wagon, 10ft wheelbase (1920s) 4. Fish Van 10-ton, 12ft wheelbase, as built (Diag.134 of 1938) 5. Fish Van 10-ton, 12ft wheelbase, as rebuilt, Recessed Doors, Branded ‘XP’/‘Insul Fish’, Painted White, (Originally Diag.134 of 1938) 6. Goods Van 12-ton, Sliding Doors, Vertical Plank Sides, Horizontal Plank Ends with Small Shutters (Diags.14-17 of 1926) 7. Goods Van 12-ton, Sliding Doors, Plywood (Diags.172, 176, 195 of 1943-1948) 8. Low Machinery Wagon, Lowmac 4-wheel, 21-ton (inc BR Diags.2/240 etc of 1949/51) 9. Low Machinery Wagon, Flatrol 4-wheel, 20-ton (inc BR Diag.2/512 of 1949) 10. RCH Coal Wagon 5-, 6-, 7- & 8-plank (1887-1907) 11. Single Bolster Wagon (inc BR Diags.1/400, 1/401, 1/402 & 1/405 of 1949 on) 12. Tube Wagon Unfitted, 30ft 6ins & 32ft 0in (BR Diags.1/447 & 1/448 of 1951 and 1954) Technically speaking, the Fish Vans are NPCCS, but – as previewed – I have moved them here as the earlier NPCCS Mini-Poll was running at ‘maximum load’ and they were longer vehicles anyway. There are sometimes queries about exactly which variant of any item is being looked at. The answer is that it is often impossible to be ‘deadly precise’ with a 1-line descriptor, so we take the view that ‘if it looks like a Cattle Wagon, it probably is a Cattle Wagon’ – although I have to admit that the Bulk Grain Hopper listed today does look rather like a long wheelbase van! Recent past experience is showing that makers are ‘tooling up’ to make as many variants as they can for any new model. Get your thinking caps on and get voting! I will acknowledge receipt of your vote via the ‘Thx’ tick box. You have until 17.00 on Thursday 10 June. However, I will stop earlier and advise if votes reach 50. I will present the results during the day on Friday 11 June. I look forward to your selections and comments! Brian (Note: These are ‘informal Polls for fun’ on Gilbert’s thread only and neither The 00 Wishlist Poll Team nor RMweb are specifically involved, apart from me in my ‘personal capacity’.)

Hello again Tony Some of these 'problems' can seem overwhelming and demoralising but - to quote yet more 'management speak' - Pareto Analysis works every time... 80% of the problems are caused by 20% of the possible. Sort those out and you are riding a winner with Retford! Brian

Hello again everyone I have just had a look at Roy's article, Retford in 4mm, which appeared in MRJ No.118, 2000. His purpose of building the layout was clear - to enjoy watching the trains he remembered. He went on to say (quote): "We haven't discussed electrics yet, and we won't! The last thing we want to do is ruin a good dream by complicating it! It is envisaged that full cab control would be employed with eight controllers, and although I expect the electrification to be taxing, I feel it is all too easy to be frightened due to the sheer scale of the work. After all, it's only a bit of wire and some electricity, isn't it". Brian

Hello t-b-g In the accompanying article to that of Steve Hall by MRJ Editor, Tim Shackleton, you are mentioned as working the GN Control Panel. Having looked back through a number of postings, it does seem to me - admittedly as an outside observer - that the wiring and interlocking is a root cause of at least some of the frustrations. I have to admit I made wiring mistakes on my own layout initially but - fortunately - they were easily corrected. I initially had cab control for two controllers so that, for example, I could run trains on my Down Slow and Down Fast at the same time 'for the sake of excitement'. That soon became tedious and of little value to the overall effect. Achieving 'simple but effective' is a hard task! Brian