Minority Report: The Wish-List Poll & the Pre-Grouper

[JohnR]

I think the poll team have a near impossible task and as Brian points out there are thousands of potential candidates for the list. There are therefore bound to be disappointed viewers.

 

 

 

Indeed. Hence my suggest that in future a question about modelling period could be asked. By analysing choice by then could reveal that while overall Model A was top, in fact more people requested Model C who modelled pre-1914 than people who requested Model A in post 1948 - or that Model B actually wins instead. I can only see this information as being helpful to manufacturers, as they wont want to produce Model A in post-1948 when its position in the wish list was inflated by people who wanted it in a different configuration? It may help to indicate which liveries would prove popular?

 

It also has the benefit of being relatively simple to implement (a single additional question) and analyse. 

 

Speaking personally, as a modeller of the late BR-steam era or BR Blue, I am well served by models - but I see that those who model earlier periods are not. 

[Edwardian]

Having said all that, if I were starting again, I just might modify my modelling period so that I could use some of the delightful stuff that comes off the shelf,

 

 

Had you done so, the modelling world would have been the poorer for it.

[jcm@gwr]

I do agree that the GWR area seems to be more specifically targeted than many other pre-grouping areas, but perhaps that represents their strength in lobbying rather than any bias on the part of the team.

 

 

It may also reflect a "bias" in past sales of models, which is the strongest persuader of all...

 

The other possible reason would be their longevity, after all, while the 'young upstarts'

of the 'Big Four' had only been around for 12 years, the GWR were celebrating their

centenary! By definition, they covered almost all the pre-grouping era's in their long 

existence, as well as the companies they absorbed also adding to the mix.

[Jol Wilkinson]

The other possible reason would be their longevity, after all, while the 'young upstarts'

of the 'Big Four' had only been around for 12 years, the GWR were celebrating their

centenary! By definition, they covered almost all the pre-grouping era's in their long 

existence, as well as the companies they absorbed also adding to the mix.

They were the only railway company that retained their name and in absorbing all the smaller constituent companies, kept their identity.

 

How they would have fared if they had been made to team up with the LSWR and LNWR, both of whom shared bits of territory with the GWR, would make interesting conjecture.

 

If ever there was a feed line for the GWR fanatics to get on their soapboxes, that must be it

[Caley Jim]

I thought it was more because they all look the same, and just need a few detail differences...

Did the GWR actually design locos, or just produce a 'recipe'?  (Take one No 4 boiler, 6 5'6" wheels, etc. etc.......) 

 

Jim

[BG John]

The GWR sameness was largely a product of the Churchward era and onwards, which is all the more reason for producing lots of nice pre Churchward stuff in original/early condition .

[jcm@gwr]

Centenary of the Act, but not of the completion of the line from London to Bristol.

 

I thought it was more because they all look the same, and just need a few detail differences...

 

 

Did the GWR actually design locos, or just produce a 'recipe'?  (Take one No 4 boiler, 6 5'6" wheels, etc. etc.......) 

 

Jim

 

As I've said before,

 

jealousy is a sad affliction!

 

[John_Miles]

For me one of the pleasures of modelling pre-grouping is doing the research and then building the model. I don't want out of the box models, especially because when your exhibit your work, the public would think it was Bachman's latest, rather than your carefully crafted kit or scratch build. Having built four Midland 1F tanks, I get a bit miffed when people ask if they are modifications of the ready to run model and don't get me started on my 3Fs. Surely pre-grouping is for masochists and long may it stay so. Those who want out of the box can stick to modern image with lots of ballast and buddleja and not a lot else and leave interesting railways to those of us who want to do real modelling rather than just opening boxes.

[Edwardian]

In a way, growing up on a visual diet of those tapered dome-less boilers, idiosyncratic safety valve covers and American western-style "GREAT WESTERN" lettering made it seem normal and 'right'.  It is only later in life, looking at Dean designs and those of most other companies, that I can begin to appreciate the jarring effect of Churchward's locomotives on his contemporaries. 

[Ozexpatriate]

Understanding a little about what proportion of models model which eras (and influence potential sales) would indicate that producing variations for the least number of modellers will produce the lowest return at maximum inconvenience.

Andy, 

 

is there any motion on the big BRM modellers' poll that you had proposed some time ago?

 

I know that you have run multiple mini-polls. (Sadly I often don't notice them since I don't visit the BRM topics very often.)

 

Perhaps it's time for a "What era do you model mini-poll"?

[Jol Wilkinson]

For me one of the pleasures of modelling pre-grouping is doing the research and then building the model. I don't want out of the box models, especially because when your exhibit your work, the public would think it was Bachman's latest, rather than your carefully crafted kit or scratch build. Having built four Midland 1F tanks, I get a bit miffed when people ask if they are modifications of the ready to run model and don't get me started on my 3Fs. Surely pre-grouping is for masochists and long may it stay so. Those who want out of the box can stick to modern image with lots of ballast and buddleja and not a lot else and leave interesting railways to those of us who want to do real modelling rather than just opening boxes.

John,

 

that's probably also a good indication of the "average" modeller/collector's ignorance (as in lack of awareness) of what exists outside the RTR manufacturers catalogues. 

 

A look at the mainstream magazine review and advertising pages, plus the content of a model shop, will give little idea as to what is available beyond RTR. Some local clubs also have a very restrained approach to what railway modelling is, so it is hardly surprising that the greater majority of modellers don't know what goes on outside their normal field of vision. 

 

I believe the loss is theirs, although they would probably see it differently, as we have to put a lot more time and effort in to creating just a relatively few models, compared to what they can buy with ease. The argument that we get much more enjoyment and satisfaction in making our models usually falls on deaf ears, too. If you say that they often look at you as though you are some sort of crank.

 

Jol

[Andy Hayter]

The problem with asking what era do you model alongside the wish list poll is that it can be difficult or even impossible to draw conclusions from the aggregated data.

 

So for example if I am asked what periods I model (and nothing else) then I would have to answer

 

1900 - 1915 (pre-grouping UK)

1930 - 1937 (French PLM and UK LMS/LNER)

1950 - 1960 (SNCF)

1990 - 1995 (SNCF) - but what the poll analyst will see is only the time periods and not the context

 

Now suppose I am also asked if I want the SECR D Class. Does this mean I want one as built, as running in SR livery, as running in BR time or as preserved? Remember here you have the benefit of linking one answer with a time period or with time periods. Now imagine what happens to the numbers if you have 2000 replies and you try and extract the nuggets.

 

I know I am a complex (some might say "special" in the knowing way that accompanies a wink to a security officer) case, but I think much of the message will be lost in the noise of the answers.

 

It also means there is a perpetuation of the status quo. People say what they do now, so models are made to meet that need and people continue to model what they do now. A more profound question might be, if the models were available, what period would you like to model?

[BG John]

1885-1890 GWR Broad Gauge (4mm, P4)

1905 GWR (4mm, EM)

1905 K&ESR (7mm, OF or OMF)

1925-1935(ish) Freelance NG (7mm, O-16.5)

1925-1935(ish) Industrial (7mm, O and O-16.5)

1930s(ish) GWR/freelance (4mm, EM)

1958-60 Western Region (4mm, OO)

 

Make sense of that lot pollsters

[Edwardian]

Currently I have several areas of interest (all 4mm/OO), in relation to which I would buy suitable or adaptable RTR stock:

 

GER c.1905

GWR c.1906

GWR c. 1912-14

LSWR c.1912-14

SE&CR c.1912-14

LB&SCR c.1912-14

GWR c.1935

 

The cluster of 1912-14 references is in part a reflection of the fact that this period seems a little more practicable than a dozen or half a dozen years earlier. This is due to both the scant RTR offerings, but also some of the kits within my abilities, e.g. Cambrian Kits whose wagons are often later company designs. I would seek to edge backwards from there!

 

An obvious omission for me, living where I do, is the NER, but that company seems more firmly the preserve of the etched brass maestro than most.

 

One thought that strikes me is that it is not necessary to impose the same temporal or other divisions for every company. Changes in CME, and the often accompanying change in livery and flurry of rebuilds, will happen at different times for each railway. 

 

I would have thought that providing an "as built" option and an option for each subsequent significant rebuild/livery change would be possible, with date ranges.  Why anyone should assume this entails an attempt to list every variant possible, I don't know.  A poll could happily be silent on such matters as the Bloggs-built version with the 3, as opposed to 4 rivets of later batches, or the 3 class members fitted with the Horton patent smoke re-distributor, or the minor variations in lettering applied to the locomotive tenders at this period.

[Jol Wilkinson]

Perhaps it is having an eclectric interest in different eras and areas that means that the manufacturers don't have to worry too much about what they produce. Whatever they make, someone, somewhere will buy it.

 

If the demand for the SECR Class C had been researched before it was planned as a OO gauge model, there might not have been sufficient sales evidence to make it viable. However, when introduced the "oooh lovely, I must have one" factor comes into play. How, do you base your product plans on that.

[Poggy1165]

Thing is that anyone modelling the grouping or early BR needs a lot of pre-group locos and stock. This may be less true of some areas than others, but it's certainly true of the former LNER.

 

I am always vaguely amused when someone asks about modelling the LNER circa 1933. There was scarcely such a thing. The ex NB part of the LNER would look very different from the ex GE bit.  Quite apart from locos and stock there were also very few LNER stations, signal boxes or goods sheds. They were, with a few rare exceptions, inherited from the previous company. So if, for example, you want to make a model of the LNER in East Anglia (or indeed BR (E) in East Anglia) you need a thorough grounding in the Great Eastern and/or the M&GN.

 

This is why, for me, the pre-group era is greatly undervalued; and it will remain so until everyone is modelling the 21st century railway, with its lack of - well, practically everything.

[CKPR]

Going back to the original topic and re-hashing a comment I made previously on a similar thread, surely it is easier to initially produce an r-t-r model of a long-lived prototype (i.e. pre-group engines still running in the late 1950s-early 1960s) in original condition and then issue updated versions. This would presumably satisfy all parties and provide for a longer income stream for the manufacturers. 

[BG John]

Going back to the original topic and re-hashing a comment I made previouslyon a similar thread, surely it is easier to initially produce an r-t-r model of a long-lived prototype (i.e. pre-group engines still running in the late 1950s-early 1960s) in original condition and then issue updated versions. This would presumably satisfy all parties and provide for a longer income stream for the manufacturers. 

I think Oxford have claimed that they've designed the Dean Goods so it can be produced for any period. With the latest evolution of my plans, I look forward to an as built version. I can't imagine they would sell that many, but maybe if it was the first version released they might sell more.

[Edwardian]

Going back to the original topic and re-hashing a comment I made previouslyon a similar thread, surely it is easier to initially produce an r-t-r model of a long-lived prototype (i.e. pre-group engines still running in the late 1950s-early 1960s) in original condition and then issue updated versions. This would presumably satisfy all parties and provide for a longer income stream for the manufacturers. 

 

I would have thought so, too.  

 

Unless it is believed that the Transition Era has an immense long-term draw that is not owed to the nostalgia phenomenon, tooling only for BR variants is a short-term approach.  I have seen posts that suggest that this is exactly how manufacturers view the situation; make hay from the so-called Baby Boomers while the sun shines, after which the sun will set upon the so-called Golden Age of RTR.

 

I don't know.  To the extent that there is a future for steam-outline RTR, and I expect that there will be, logically it would be more diverse, with Pre-Grouping, Grouping, Nationalised and Preserved all being part of the mix.  Perhaps shorter runs of more variants would be the inevitable pattern. 

 

Ahead of this, one would have thought that it would have been in the interests of manufacturers not to limit the periods of their models, in order to give them longevity and maximum long-term sales. 

 

One might also have thought that manufacturers might help to secure their futures by encouraging interest in other periods.  I and others have often said that the production/demand issue is rather chicken and egg. I often get told that I should kit-build everything or model the popular period if I want RTR; an acknowledgement that, to some extent, people will choose what is available because it is what is available.     

 

So, as John says, Oxford seems to have considered the possibility; they told me that their tooling suite could provide for all variants from "as built", which would mean a possible round-topped Dean Goods in future.

 

Someone pointed out that the way Bachmann's E4 body is designed would permit an earlier boiler, consistent with Stroudley liveries, to be substituted.  Someone posted a similar point about Bachmann's Earl, suggesting that the Duke bits could be replaced by Bulldog bits.

 

I do not know whether this is the case, or, if so, it results from a deliberate decision to keep these options open.  All I know is that, as yet, Bachmann has shown no sign of providing different tooling for early condition locos, and the decision not to issue a LBSC Atlantic seems to confirm that Blue Box is still tooling only for the BR modeller.

 

Hornby produce some models that, it has been said, would be hard to back-date.  I understand that the ex-LSWR rebuilds with higher pitched boilers may not favour alternative bodies to the original profiles. If so, Hornby would have to start from scratch if it wanted to produce a pre-WW1 T9 or Class 700.  The same issues seem to face anyone who wants a GE version of the brand new Claud Hamilton.  So, Hornby's BR-only tooling/short term approach does not appear to have changed.  For me, this seems like something close to built-in obsolescence.  

 

Perhaps the thought is that, by the time the generational demand for Transition Era models dries up, the manufacturers will have made their returns on current models, which models will be due for replacement anyway.  Whereas a company with as much History as Hornby has shown quite how long some items can stay in a catalogue, outside Thomas, Railroad and the tarted up tat of Collectors' Editions, how much of Hornby's  steam-age main catalogue is of any great vintage? 

 

On the other hand, with modellers and the press debating issues such as how much more detail do we need, models to current modern standards might have longer lives than, say, the relatively crude out-put of Hornby in the 1980s.  If that proves to be the case, we will continue to regret the fact that tooling decisions made now and within the last few years, neglected early-condition prototypes.

 

If that is to change, and I accept that it might not, surely it is necessary to register what interest there is in earlier periods, hence the OP about how the Wish List poll does or does not assist.

[BG John]

History is full of "essential" products we never knew we needed. Someone comes up with an idea for a new product, and convinces the world they "need" it, even though everyone survived quite adequately without it for millennia. Who would have thought the world was desperate for a wireless communication device that could also be used to type short messages? Everyone managed quite well with a red box at the end of the street before that. Take that device away from most of the population now, especially as they now have even more built in gadgets, that humans have evolved from not needing to unable to survive without within a few years, and the world would end.

 

Surely some clever marketing would have modellers who have never experienced steam operated railways, drooling over a period and company from long before they were born, if the products were available. Browsing through modelling pages on Facebook shows that there are a lot of non railway modellers out there who make military, ship, aircraft and other models from all sorts of periods in history.

[Edwardian]

Surely some clever marketing would have modellers who have never experienced steam operated railways, drooling over a period and company from long before they were born, if the products were available.

 

I have often thought so.  I have often been told I'm wrong!

[BG John]

I have often thought so.  I have often been told I'm wrong!

By marketing experts professionals?

 

Edited after I was reminded that everyone on the internet is an expert at everything

[BlueLightning]

By marketing experts?

 

Isn't everyone on the internet an expert at everything? That's certainly the impression I get from some people.

 

Gary

[BG John]

Isn't everyone on the internet an expert at everything? That's certainly the impression I get from some people.

 

Gary

Now suitably edited .

[Talltim]

Going back to the original topic and re-hashing a comment I made previouslyon a similar thread, surely it is easier to initially produce an r-t-r model of a long-lived prototype (i.e. pre-group engines still running in the late 1950s-early 1960s) in original condition and then issue updated versions. This would presumably satisfy all parties and provide for a longer income stream for the manufacturers. 

I'm not sure it is easier, it depends on the changes. If for example the loco was reboilered with a different type, then either type is as much work to design so making the earlier type first is no easier than making the second type first (and harder than never making the first type)