Jump to content

Please use M,M&M only for topics that do not fit within other forum areas. All topics posted here await admin team approval to ensure they don't belong elsewhere.

BMacdermott

Results - The Wishlist Poll 2018

Recommended Posts

With due respect, the word there is probably more collectors, but I'm splitting hairs.  

 

Anyway, it's long overdue that we saw this:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/50/Duffield_(near)_Fell_diesel_geograph-2390450-by-Ben-Brooksbank.jpg/220px-Duffield_(near)_Fell_diesel_geograph-2390450-by-Ben-Brooksbank.jpg

Judith Edge has the Fell in kit form.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

With due respect, the word there is probably more collectors, but I'm splitting hairs.  

 

Anyway, it's long overdue that we saw this:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/50/Duffield_(near)_Fell_diesel_geograph-2390450-by-Ben-Brooksbank.jpg/220px-Duffield_(near)_Fell_diesel_geograph-2390450-by-Ben-Brooksbank.jpg

Ooh, ‘Chard! You’ve seen the light! Hallelujah!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Firstly, another thank you to the Poll Team for all of your efforts. An interesting set of results. Like Phil,and others, I am a bit surprised by some of the more esoteric choices. The Bullied Leader polling higher than the LBSC 'K' class 2-6-0!  This for an experimental class of which only one loco was actually completed and, as far as I know, never actually ran in revenue-earning service. As others have remarked, I guess some modellers just like to have as varied a collection as possible.

 

I am not sure how much of a model's development costs are taken up by the chassis compared to the body, but it has already been commented that the chassis for the N15X could be used for a LBSC 'L' class. Likewise a SECR 'D' chassis could be used for a D1 4-4-0 and the LNER 'Hush-Hush' for the W1. I am sure there are lots of other examples, especially going back to pre-group days when some classes were rebuilt quite drastically before they reached their final forms.

 

Hello prtrainman

 

Many thanks for the comments.

 

I have attached our Comparison Table for SR Locos (2013-2018). It shows that the K and Bulleid Leader have run almost neck-and-neck. The polling level of the latter is not much of a surprise for those of us from what was the old MREmag - it was often discussed there.

 

Brian (on behalf of The 00 Poll Team)

2. Comparison Table SR Locos (2013-2018).pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another very interesting poll as always and well organised guys.

 

I would just comment that I'd suggest there were a couple of anomalies - I'm surprised Flush Fronted Peaks and Class 86s were not available to vote for. I saw the earlier reply about having a cut-off date of 2000, but does that perhaps need to move forward one of these years. The flush fronted Bachmann Class 45 and the Heljan Class 86 have both been out since then but haven't been exactly been 'available' for a number of years. Yet the Class 91 is available to buy (admittedly in a limited number of liveries and to a lower standard of tooling but still far more available). I would think Flush fronted Peaks and Class 86s could do with adding to the options to vote for

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There was a pretty strong hint, a year or so back that GWR 813 was being considered for rtr.

 

Having looked at the last several polls (2014,2015, 2016 and 2018 is all I could find after doing a quick search), GWR 813 has done pretty well for herself at the polls. Having been in overhaul between 2010 and 2016, I find it no surprise that 813 would rank low as not many had heard of this unique 0-6-0 at this time. When she was Didcot last year, there were people there who didn't even realise that she was unique to her type. She also didn't have a massive multi media following which does help unique locos like 813 gain more attention further afield.

 

Since returning to traffic however in late 2016, she has managed to beat every other pre-grouping GWR loco. This even surprised me considering several of the other contenders outlasted 813 (withdrawn in 1933) and went on to serve in BR era and I'd of expected to be in higher demand. Her moving up in the polls is course down to her travelling far and wide once again, charming many railway enthusiasts and also visiting several new railways which she didn't visit in her previous boiler ticket.

 

Should GWR 813 be announced someday in RTR, I will very much welcome the GWR, NCB and various other industrial liveries 813 and her other sisters inherited.

 

Well done 813.

 

34941338554_fbe6c8428a_b.jpg

Edited by Garethp8873
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

.

 

Much as with the Southern's Leader, I'm afraid I just could not countenance buying a GWR 813  -  I do have some aesthetic values.

 

(NOT meant to be insulting to fans of either)

 

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

.

 

Much as with the Southern's Leader, I'm afraid I just could not countenance buying a GWR 813 - I do have some aesthetic values.

 

(NOT meant to be insulting to fans of either)

 

.

Not at all. Not everything appeals to everyone :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder if some of the desire for more esoteric locos might actually be prompted by the fact that so few people ever saw the real thing (or, at least, saw it in action). The nearest I'm ever going to get to a Leader is one in model form. And the fact that there was only one prototype doesn't mean it's of limited use on a layout. Experimental locos, in particular, can easily be justified with only a small application of modeller's licence. If you have a layout based on a fictitious location, it's no great stretch to imagine that a Leader (or an APT-E, or a Hush-Hush) might have been seen there. Plus, of course, It's My Layout [tm] and who cares if things are not always entirely appropriate?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello Covkid

 

Many thanks for the appreciation.

 

Am I reading your post correctly, in that you are under the impression that the Class 180 was higher than Class 120?

 

If so, it was the other way round. Class 120 was in The Top 50 (338 votes) and Class 180 was High Polling (198 votes).

 

Brian (on behalf of The 00 Poll Team)

Oops. My mistake Brian. Apologies.

 

That is good to know.

Thanks again

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder if some of the desire for more esoteric locos might actually be prompted by the fact that so few people ever saw the real thing (or, at least, saw it in action). The nearest I'm ever going to get to a Leader is one in model form. And the fact that there was only one prototype doesn't mean it's of limited use on a layout. Experimental locos, in particular, can easily be justified with only a small application of modeller's licence. If you have a layout based on a fictitious location, it's no great stretch to imagine that a Leader (or an APT-E, or a Hush-Hush) might have been seen there. Plus, of course, It's My Layout [tm] and who cares if things are not always entirely appropriate?

 

I think it's also what books you have read. Especially when growing up.

 

 

Because of HC Casserley's Observers Book Of British Steam Locomotives I have always had a bit of a fascination with the MR Paget 2-6-2 and the GER Decapod. Total oddballs, but vastly more interesting than most ordinary locomotives, many of which don't even get mentioned.

 

 

 

Jason

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's also what books you have read. Especially when growing up.

 

 

Because of HC Casserley's Observers Book Of British Steam Locomotives I have always had a bit of a fascination with the MR Paget 2-6-2 and the GER Decapod. Total oddballs, but vastly more interesting than most ordinary locomotives, many of which don't even get mentioned.

 

 

 

Thanks, you've just inspired me to order a copy from Amazon. So maybe another vote for the Decapod next year!

 

(https://amzn.to/2zaWM59 if anyone else wants one - they're cheap enough second hand)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another very interesting poll as always and well organised guys.

 

I would just comment that I'd suggest there were a couple of anomalies - I'm surprised Flush Fronted Peaks and Class 86s were not available to vote for. I saw the earlier reply about having a cut-off date of 2000, but does that perhaps need to move forward one of these years. The flush fronted Bachmann Class 45 and the Heljan Class 86 have both been out since then but haven't been exactly been 'available' for a number of years. Yet the Class 91 is available to buy (admittedly in a limited number of liveries and to a lower standard of tooling but still far more available). I would think Flush fronted Peaks and Class 86s could do with adding to the options to vote for

 

Hello Gordon

 

Many thanks for your appreciation which is welcomed.

 

We always review the cut-off date each year and it was always on the cards that it would move forward from 2020 - the difficulty then is that it brings in many more items that many simply won't need to vote for. We'll have complaints that we have listed what is available but not what isn't. There are about 25 items announced each year. We do our utmost to fill those gaps with new items.

 

The Heljan Class 86 was a 2010 release. If we moved forward 10 years, we'd have another c.250 items in The Poll - and then people would say they can't find what they wanted to vote for. (And that doesn't take into account that Andy York would have 25% more work to do and the Results would be massive).

 

An 'anomaly' to you - a logistical nightmare to us.

 

The Class 86 and Flush Fronts are already on the Agenda as I always react to suggestions. 

 

Brian (on behalf of The 00 Poll Team)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...I am not sure how much of a model's development costs are taken up by the chassis compared to the body

 About ten years back Bachmann indicated that the mechanism design aspect was a relatively small cost in new model development, so 'already having a chassis' wasn't a massive saving. (They didn't say so, but I am pretty sure they will have the mechanism layouts in CAD files and by input of a defined dimension set a first cut layout is produced, from which the detail design work commences.) The tooling is made new for each new model, rather than the old style of a standard chassis being wedged under numerous different models. The major cost is in research, design and tooling of all the unique visible parts applicable to a particular prototype.

 

This process is very clearly seen in each maker's range of centre motor both bogies driven diesels and electric models. The mechanism format is highly standardised within a range, with the component layout adjusted to fit the dimensions required for each particular subject,

 

 

...The Bulleid Leader ...

 ...which ironically could be comfortably the best performing UK steam model, if given a centre motor both bogies driven mechanism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 About ten years back Bachmann indicated that the mechanism design aspect was a relatively small cost in new model development, so 'already having a chassis' wasn't a massive saving. (They didn't say so, but I am pretty sure they will have the mechanism layouts in CAD files and by input of a defined dimension set a first cut layout is produced, from which the detail design work commences.) The tooling is made new for each new model, rather than the old style of a standard chassis being wedged under numerous different models. The major cost is in research, design and tooling of all the unique visible parts applicable to a particular prototype.

 

This process is very clearly seen in each maker's range of centre motor both bogies driven diesels and electric models. The mechanism format is highly standardised within a range, with the component layout adjusted to fit the dimensions required for each particular subject,

 

 

 ...which ironically could be comfortably the best performing UK steam model, if given a centre motor both bogies driven mechanism.

 

The DCC version would be interesting; a certain supplier and fitter of DCC Sound creating something that sounded like a bag of spanners in a ship's engine room + whistle and lots of groaning (but not sleeper groan)? The chip would also have no stay alive function. :nono:

A H. Nawty

Edited by Mallard60022

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello Gordon

 

Many thanks for your appreciation which is welcomed.

 

We always review the cut-off date each year and it was always on the cards that it would move forward from 2020 - the difficulty then is that it brings in many more items that many simply won't need to vote for. We'll have complaints that we have listed what is available but not what isn't. There are about 25 items announced each year. We do our utmost to fill those gaps with new items.

 

The Heljan Class 86 was a 2010 release. If we moved forward 10 years, we'd have another c.250 items in The Poll - and then people would say they can't find what they wanted to vote for. (And that doesn't take into account that Andy York would have 25% more work to do and the Results would be massive).

 

An 'anomaly' to you - a logistical nightmare to us.

 

The Class 86 and Flush Fronts are already on the Agenda as I always react to suggestions. 

 

Brian (on behalf of The 00 Poll Team)

Is it possible to review the prospect of the modified hall going back on the list? In my mind we still haven't had one, as Bachmann's attempt from 2012 was only half modified. I can imagine this is another nightmare, but is worth a consideration at least

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Having looked at the last several polls (2014,2015, 2016 and 2018 is all I could find after doing a quick search), GWR 813 has done pretty well for herself at the polls. Having been in overhaul between 2010 and 2016, I find it no surprise that 813 would rank low as not many had heard of this unique 0-6-0 at this time. When she was Didcot last year, there were people there who didn't even realise that she was unique to her type. She also didn't have a massive multi media following which does help unique locos like 813 gain more attention further afield.

 

Since returning to traffic however in late 2016, she has managed to beat every other pre-grouping GWR loco. This even surprised me considering several of the other contenders outlasted 813 (withdrawn in 1933) and went on to serve in BR era and I'd of expected to be in higher demand. Her moving up in the polls is course down to her travelling far and wide once again, charming many railway enthusiasts and also visiting several new railways which she didn't visit in her previous boiler ticket.

 

Should GWR 813 be announced someday in RTR, I will very much welcome the GWR, NCB and various other industrial liveries 813 and her other sisters inherited.

 

Well done 813.

 

 

 

No surprise really - it's there to be seen so people see it so they might well be inclined to think they'd like one too as it's ' a bit different' from other things in GWR livery.  No doubt we will see even more votes for a 'saint' once a complete one is there to see puffing around at Didcot and equally I suspect the steam railmotor might have benefitted from a real one being there to see and travel on.  NER railcar next on the list I wonder?

 

One thing the organisers of the poll can't do at all precisely is identify where we who vote are coming from in terms of our interests and our intentions in respect of the models we vote for.  I only vote for what I would buy. (assuming I will have the cash to do so if/when it appears) and hopefully all other voters are thinking in that way (as the poll indicates we should be).  But that leaves open a very large question about why we vote for a particular thing - for example although I suspect my railway/modelling interests are fairly well known to those who read my RMweb posts :O - I have voted consistently over the years for a B16, and will continue to do so until one, hopefully the right one, is finally announced.  

 

Just how does anybody account for a choice like that and more importantly what do manufacturers make of the basis on which choices are made when it. comes to putting 5 figure sums of money where the votes are?   Contrary to poll results I suspect some manufacturers might have done rather well, or at least profitably, by following other lines of research and ideas rather than just following poll results.  And sometimes although a model is polling well a manufacturer might decide on past form in the marketplace that 'yet another GWR 4-6-0 won't sell well because they all look the same' (although a straight running plate 'Saint' wouldn't look the same of course ;) ).

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No surprise really - it's there to be seen so people see it so they might well be inclined to think they'd like one too as it's ' a bit different' from other things in GWR livery.  No doubt we will see even more votes for a 'saint' once a complete one is there to see puffing around at Didcot and equally I suspect the steam railmotor might have benefitted from a real one being there to see and travel on.  NER railcar next on the list I wonder?

 

One thing the organisers of the poll can't do at all precisely is identify where we who vote are coming from in terms of our interests and our intentions in respect of the models we vote for.  I only vote for what I would buy. (assuming I will have the cash to do so if/when it appears) and hopefully all other voters are thinking in that way (as the poll indicates we should be).  But that leaves open a very large question about why we vote for a particular thing - for example although I suspect my railway/modelling interests are fairly well known to those who read my RMweb posts :O - I have voted consistently over the years for a B16, and will continue to do so until one, hopefully the right one, is finally announced.  

 

Just how does anybody account for a choice like that and more importantly what do manufacturers make of the basis on which choices are made when it. comes to putting 5 figure sums of money where the votes are?   Contrary to poll results I suspect some manufacturers might have done rather well, or at least profitably, by following other lines of research and ideas rather than just following poll results.  And sometimes although a model is polling well a manufacturer might decide on past form in the marketplace that 'yet another GWR 4-6-0 won't sell well because they all look the same' (although a straight running plate 'Saint' wouldn't look the same of course ;) ).

 

Thank you for voting for a B16 (hopefully in all forms). I returned the favour by voting for a 15xx.

 

Meanwhile, there's analysis back on the NER RTR Discussion thread (which someone started in the Hornby section) over votes seen this year and my interpretation of the data.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is it possible to review the prospect of the modified hall going back on the list? In my mind we still haven't had one, as Bachmann's attempt from 2012 was only half modified. I can imagine this is another nightmare, but is worth a consideration at least

 

Hello MatthewCarty

 

I will put it on the Agenda, but below is an (edited) clip from Pat Hammond's book, Ramsay's British Model Trains Catalogue.

 

GWR Modified Hall 4-6-0 (ex-Replica)(1996)

The model received a rebuilt chassis in 2013, with an 8-pin DCC decoder socket....The production models were incorrect...It was therefore not until 2015 that a newly tooled body was ready.

 

If an item isn't 'all new', then it will remain on our list (or go back in this case if we can establish the facts).

 

Brian (on behalf of The 00 Poll Team)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 About ten years back Bachmann indicated that the mechanism design aspect was a relatively small cost in new model development, so 'already having a chassis' wasn't a massive saving. (They didn't say so, but I am pretty sure they will have the mechanism layouts in CAD files and by input of a defined dimension set a first cut layout is produced, from which the detail design work commences.) The tooling is made new for each new model, rather than the old style of a standard chassis being wedged under numerous different models. The major cost is in research, design and tooling of all the unique visible parts applicable to a particular prototype.

 

This process is very clearly seen in each maker's range of centre motor both bogies driven diesels and electric models. The mechanism format is highly standardised within a range, with the component layout adjusted to fit the dimensions required for each particular subject,

 

 

 ...which ironically could be comfortably the best performing UK steam model, if given a centre motor both bogies driven mechanism.

 

For proper realism it'll overheat in the fireman's compartment...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Just how does anybody account for a choice like that and more importantly what do manufacturers make of the basis on which choices are made when it. comes to putting 5 figure sums of money where the votes are?   Contrary to poll results I suspect some manufacturers might have done rather well, or at least profitably, by following other lines of research and ideas rather than just following poll results.  And sometimes although a model is polling well a manufacturer might decide on past form in the marketplace that 'yet another GWR 4-6-0 won't sell well because they all look the same' (although a straight running plate 'Saint' wouldn't look the same of course ;) ).

 

Hello Mike

 

We have always done our best to make it clear to any maker that relying on our Poll alone would be foolhardy (or worse!). And we always ask voters to take into account that makers have many decisions to make when choosing production models. If they don't think they will make money, then even the most astronomically high-voted items will never see the light of day.

 

Another factor we can't take into account is that many may not vote for an item, but will buy it as soon as it hits the shops. 

 

And the makers all have their own ways of getting potential market data. Just look at a Hornby stand at any show and see how many people fill in the 'I'd like to see this made' form. How many of them were filled in at GETS alone a few weeks ago? I'd wager probably at least as many as took part in our Poll. And that was just one company at one show. Dennis Lovett would often be on the Bachmann stand at the Milton Keynes Show each year and that show alone - on one day - would have at least double the number of visitors as we had voters, many telling him what needed to be on the company to do list.

 

The Poll purpose is for modellers and collectors to indicate what they would like to see made and realistically wish to buy. Not 'demand'. If we felt that was happening, the Poll would be chopped.

 

Brian (on behalf of The 00 Poll Team)

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello MatthewCarty

 

I will put it on the Agenda, but below is an (edited) clip from Pat Hammond's book, Ramsay's British Model Trains Catalogue.

 

GWR Modified Hall 4-6-0 (ex-Replica)(1996)

The model received a rebuilt chassis in 2013, with an 8-pin DCC decoder socket....The production models were incorrect...It was therefore not until 2015 that a newly tooled body was ready.

 

If an item isn't 'all new', then it will remain on our list (or go back in this case if we can establish the facts).

 

Brian (on behalf of The 00 Poll Team)

Thanks for doing this. The issue to me and probably many others is that the 2015 newly tooled body still had a serious inaccuracy.

Edited by MatthewCarty

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello MatthewCarty

 

Thanks for this. That is (partly) why we laid the 2000 cut-off. There have been a number of models - locos and rolling stock - that have clearly 'not cut the mustard' with many, so below is what we say in the annual Q&A.

 

Brian (on behalf of The 00 Poll Team)

 

We chose the year 2000 and ‘all new tooling’ basis to give us an agreed cut-off date of items for listing and to preclude us making ‘quality judgments’. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm a bit baffled by this.

 

338 Class 91

 

212 BR Mk4 Stock (built 1989-91)

 

 

I thought that's all they pulled (or pushed).  :scratchhead:

 

 

I hasten to add, I know there are the Hornby Mk4s, but they're terrible.

 

 

 

Jason

Oh how wrong you are ;-)

https://www.flickr.com/photos/widnes_road/14092860331

 

Seriously, I'm pleased with the Class 91 showing, and would certainly buy a 91 (or several) and at least one Mk4 rake. They are the Deltics, A4s, A3s, Atlantics of their generation.

It will also be interesting to see where their lives take them after the ECML - new roles and liveries. Hopefully a few will be re-geared for freight.

For a full IC225 you are only talking the loco, DVT, buffet, TSO/FO (same basic body tooling) and TSO(E), the later which could probably be made from a component plug, so only 4 major toolings...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello everyone

 

A press release in BRM Express says GT3 will be launched at Warley, but we want to make certain that it is for a production model as opposed to 'expressions of interest' before deleting from the data of the 2019 Poll. 

 

Similarly, a couple of places have pics of what I guess is a 3D prototype of W17W - but nothing on Dapol website. We will await 'official confirmation'.

 

Accurascale will be announcing their first loco at Warley.

 

Brian 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.