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

 

As I've been realizing while updating my stock database, there were some carriages (notably the Thompson Suburban Composite) that had a corridor but no gangway. Would it even make sense to be the other way round - no corridor, but with a gangway?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I've been realizing while updating my stock database, there were some carriages (notably the Thompson Suburban Composite) that had a corridor but no gangway. Would it even make sense to be the other way round - no corridor, but with a gangway?

 

The NER and possibly others had non gangway corridor stock, for access to the toilets. Gangways but no corridors, how would that work?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gangways + no corridors = open stock.

 

Or have I missed the point of the question?

 

I was thinking in terms of compartment stock, I forgot that there would be opens with gangways, of course.

 

My comment above was a result of Brian mentioning the conflicting terms for how gangway and corridor were used, I was thinking how confusing that is.

Edited by Ian J.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello Ian

 

I can't go into any detail here as it would take us too far off topic, but The Poll Team has a draft magazine article in hand which explains some of the confusing terminology surrounding rolling stock. We have had too much to do with running The Poll recently, but it should be ready to send off by Christmas.

 

Brian (on behalf of The 00 Poll Team)

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello everyone, but more specifically Phil and Forester (#188 and #197)

 

As promised, I have discussed the D, E, L, L1, D1 & E1 with the relevant Team members. We feel that the the 'split' is reasonably correct as per 2018 so we will leave it like that at least for 2019. We will, however, make our reasons slightly more clear in the relevant Poll Team Notes attached to those locos that are in The Guide.

 

Brian (on behalf of The 00 Poll Team)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gangways + no corridors = open stock.

 

Or have I missed the point of the question?

 

Possibly missed the point I think.  There are two distinct areas and for years it appears to have been the norm to refer to gangwayed stock as being exactly that - i.e.passenger vehicles equipped with gangways - in order to distinguish it from corridor stock (or open stock) which was not fitted with gangways but usually had access to a toilet, or two, for all passengers travelling in that vehicle hence a corridor was provided in compartment stock.  

 

I suppose the ultimate, in terms of date of construction, in this sort of configuration were various Modernisation plan DMUs but particularly the Driving Trailer Composites in the Hampshire sets which were part corridor with compartments (the 1st Class end) and part open (the 2nd Class end) with toilets between the two, and they were not gangwayed (and were described in the Ian Allan ABC as 'non-gangwayed')

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello Mike

 

I don't want to go too far off the Results topic nor to 'breach the copyright' of the article that we have in hand, but just to re-iterate...

 

BR Southern Region used 'corridor' and 'non-corridor' in its carriage working books. (You worked for a sensible railway! Tin hat now applied!)

 

The Bulleid Semi-open BSK was referred to as BSK* (with the asterisk leading to a footnote which stated 'Semi-open type' - in other words, there was no special code!).

 

The SECR/SR 'Continental' Stock Brake vehicles didn't have a gangway connector at the brake end, but did have at the passenger end.

 

In BR documents, I have only ever seen reference to 'British Standard Gangways' - never 'British Standard Corridors'. Corridors are inside vehicles; gangway connectors are on the outside.

 

This may give readers some idea of the complexities and why we felt it necessary to write the article.

 

Brian (on behalf of The 00 Poll Team)

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are two distinct areas and for years it appears to have been the norm to refer to gangwayed stock as being exactly that - i.e.passenger vehicles equipped with gangways - in order to distinguish it from corridor stock (or open stock) which was not fitted with gangways but usually had access to a toilet, or two, for all passengers travelling in that vehicle hence a corridor was provided in compartment stock.  

 

A succinct summation, but I find myself wriggling in trying to adopt and use, for older times, a term for the absence of gangways. The use of 'non-corridor' is and was a recognised term, and 'non-gangwayed' seems both ambiguous and over-fussy. (I suppose 'compartment' is possibly a better and more widely understood notion.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello Mike

 

No need for apologies, I assure you - but I feel it's right to 'stick to the topic'.

 

The subject matter of railway terminology fascinates me - but for me to go into any detailed answer here will put me in breach of the copyright of the article (until published). I answered Jane's reasonable query a few posts back, but we are now heading away from Result matters.

 

Many thanks for understanding.

 

Brian (on behalf of The 00 Poll Team)

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hornby Announcements

 

Hello everyone

 

Hornby has set the year off to a flying start with some welcome announcements - we wish them all the best for 2019.

 

Below is how the 'new toolings' fared in the results of The Wishlist Poll 2018. (As noted in an earlier post, we will be presenting a chart showing all that has been announced since 2013 after we have Bachmann's news next week.)

 

We have not reported on the Terrier or the GWR Prairie as these had already been deleted having been announced by others. We didn't specifically list the GWR Non-gangwayed coaches although we were very close with the 1930 Non-gangwayed stock! We can see that it makes sense for Hornby to use the Collett underframes.

 

Princess: High Polling. This loco has been steadily climbing the ranks since 2013 and was the second most wanted LMS loco this year (behind 'Big Bertha'). 

 

Industrial 0-6-0ST Outside Cylinders: In the Top 50.

 

Industrial 0-4-0DS: High Polling.

 

Bulleid 59ft Multi-door Stock: High Polling since 2013. This is very good news and make a good balance with the forthcoming Bachmann stock.

 

LSWR Brake Van: We listed this item individually for the first time in 2015 and it came in at Middle Polling. In 2016 and 2018, we combined all LSWR freight stock under one generic heading but specifically mentioned this diagram within the Guide text. In 2018, the stock was in the Top 50.

 

LMS Brake VanWe specifically listed the Diag.2068 vehicle but referenced the unfitted version within The Guide. The former was Middle Polling but came in just above the overall halfway point of all the results.

 

The current running totals of the 2018 Results are:

 

2 - The Top 50

3 - High Polling

1 - Middle Polling

0 - Low Polling

 

Brian (on behalf of The 00 Poll Team)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bachmann Announcements

 

Hello everyone

 

Just one item from Bachmann in relation to The Poll this year...

 

Hopper Wagon - Coal - National Power/EWS/DB Schenker HKA: We had this listed as the earlier JMA but referenced the HKA version within The Guide text. It was Middle Polling.

 

We are - once again - slightly delaying publication of our table of items announced/made since 2013 as it seems that Oxford may well announce at the Toy Fair shortly.

 

Brian (on behalf of The Poll Team)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Reading back on some of this and loving the irony...

 

.

 

One query.   For the Southern the D / D1, E / E1 and L / L1 4-4-0's are BASICALLY different bodies on three different chassis (roughly equivalent to the present H1 / H2  Atlantics.

 

So could space/numbers be saved by instead of having 6 locomotive choices there were only the three ?

 

.

 

.

 

I was laughing at your feeble attempt to "big up" the support by ADDING the votes for two different locos together to claim that double the number of people supported the (L)NER, ignoring the fact that almost all of the votes were from the same people.

 

.

 

Isn't that what your suggesting above to try and add Southern designs together to remove the choice, by banding them together so people see two of one class and vote it up?

Funny how I said you could leave J21 and J25 separate yet combine the two to show tooling options - yet my idea is laughable, but yours is perfectly valid, despite both would have a similar effect.
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello David (and Phil)

 

The Poll Team does its utmost to remain impartial and provide a comprehensive list that the majority can vote upon. We always take voter comments into account and review them but - at present - there are no plans to 'combine' or 'uncombine' any SR or LNER loco listings.

 

Brian (on behalf of The Poll Team)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello David (and Phil)

 

The Poll Team does its utmost to remain impartial and provide a comprehensive list that the majority can vote upon. We always take voter comments into account and review them but - at present - there are no plans to 'combine' or 'uncombine' any SR or LNER loco listings.

 

Brian (on behalf of The Poll Team)

 

I understand that Brian, and the poll is well worked out to reflect the classes of engines that could be included for production, including the fact that some companies will get more onto the list than others. However, this shows that the poll reflects the size of the companies or the locomotive fleet that some had. Some have smaller representation in the lists, but from the figures I have compiled this is justifiable as the votes they receive mirrors the demand for the area. The poll needs to remain exactly as is at the moment, as the content and the way that its compiled leads to results that can be analysed that give a view of the popularity of subjects but also compliment trends seen elsewhere in the hobby or sector.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello everyone

 

Oxford Rail Announcement

 

Congratulations to Oxford Rail on the long-awaited announcement of the J27 -  which should go a long way to 'balancing' motive power across the regions, and please David (above)!

 

The loco has been High Polling since 2013; was in The Top 50 in 2016; and missed being in The Top 50 in 2018 by just five votes.

 

I hope to let you have the delayed 5-year Report Chart within the next few days.

 

Brian (on behalf of The 00 Poll Team)

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Brian

 

I get the feeling that the whishlist and the models produced will be very similar as the manufacturers are running out of "new" types to produce and we are running out "I want it now" locos.

 

 

Oddly there are still two LMS classes of loco with over 100 examples which haven't been made as RTR models. LMS classes not pre-grouping.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Brian

 

I get the feeling that the whishlist and the models produced will be very similar as the manufacturers are running out of "new" types to produce and we are running out "I want it now" locos.

 

 

Oddly there are still two LMS classes of loco with over 100 examples which haven't been made as RTR models. LMS classes not pre-grouping.

 

That is something of a worrying feature Clive as originality could well be lost.  But on the other hand the wish list does give an idea of relative popularity of various things so it is a safety zone for a less enterprising manufacturer to seek shelter in - trouble is that more than one of them might seek the same shelter!

 

Without even looking at the size of the classes involved (which I suspect isn't always necessarily relevant) there is plenty of untouched but attractive steam fodder out there from all four of the Groups and there are even some goodies (which might once have been considered baddies) from diesel times still lurking in the outfield while DMUs. let alone EMUs, still haven't been fully exploited although rising costs could well mean that they never will be. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is some evidence that these sort of polls do have an influence on what is manufactured, borne out by today's J27 announcement from Ox.  But I would be wary of assuming that a high wishlist rating was an effective commissioning order for a model; the manufacturers no doubt see wishlists as important market research, but they have to consider other issues before committing to producing a model.  There may be design or production problems we are not party to; a volume production has to have all the components designed to maximise it's efficiency and minimise it's costs, while not passing problems and costs further down the line to the assembly plant where the components are put together and packed.  It is probably a lot harder than building a single dead scale model from scratch, which the majority of us can't do to a better standard than the RTR people.

 

But, overall and so long as the above is taken into consideration, I think wishlisting is a very good way of telling them what we want, and to be fair they generally try to accommodate us.  This is a very different world from the late 50s, when (just to pluck an example from thin air) Triang gave us a BR standard 3MT tank, not because we'd asked for one, but to complete a balance loco stud on your model railway; here was the loco for your suburban coaches and local freight work, you had a Princess for the express, Jinty for shunting, and 3F for other freight or secondary passenger.  Hornby Dublo's 4MT was analogous; a Duchess, N1, 4MT, and R1 was hardly representative of anything more than some sort of general UK practice and if you wanted to model a particular railway, area, or period you had to learn how to build kits.  Even then you were hard pressed if you wanted to model the L&Y, or the North East of England, or South Wales, or the GC.

 

We gratefully accepted what was provided for us and tried our best to bash it into something else.  The modern world is much better, whatever my generation tries to tell ya!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Brian

 

......we are running out "I want it now" locos.

 

 

Oddly there are still two LMS classes of loco with over 100 examples which haven't been made as RTR models. LMS classes not pre-grouping.

 

Hello Clive

 

In answer to (abridged) point one above...I'm not running out of 'want it now' locos, nor are many of my 00 Poll Team colleagues.

 

The 00 Poll lists two 100+ LMS loco classes that haven't yet made RTR. They are:

Stanier 3P 2-6-2T (40071-40209) - consistently High Polling since 2012.

Fowler 'Austin Seven' 7F 0-8-0 (49500-49674) - hovers around the lower echelons of Middle Polling.

 

As you will see when we publish the 5-year report of what has been announced and/or made from Poll listings (and others), just five LMS & Constituents locos are either delivered or on their way:

CR 812

MR Johnson 1P

LNWR Webb Coal Tank

LMS Ivatt Duchess

LMS Princess

LMS Ivatt Duchess

 

Plenty of scope left within this category!

 

Brian (on behalf of The 00 Poll Team)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Brian

 

I was thinking the Stanier class 3 tank.

 

The other class on my mind is the 350 hp shunter. Which is also the only diesel class of over 100 so far not manufactured. Please don't say they look too much like a BR class 08, different cabs, different buffer beams, different engine room doors, different size wheels, different boxes on the running plate, different arrangement of the lights, different hand rails, I think more visual differences than a Saint and Grange. If someone to say to a GWR modeller that both looked like a Hall and there are models of halls the GWR modeller would not be happy. Back to the class 11 they also had quite a wide variety liveries. Oh, one more thing after upsetting the GWR modellers, the six EE engined shunters built for the WR, delivered in GWR green with British Railways in GWR type face and cast number plates, are identical to the LMS and Dutch ones.

 

Didn't think about the Austin Sevens mainly because they have never fitted into any of my plans, strange really as I do like the outline of most Deeley/Fowler locos.

Edited by Clive Mortimore
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Brian.

A factor which I think is bound to influence the manufacturers is the availability of a prototype. Easier to measure and scan than work from drawings and photos.

Besides that there are lots of people who have ridden behind a J27 in preservation but how many of us remember as everyday sights a Stanier 2-6-2T on the Rugby Parcels or an aged Johnson 2F pushing half a dozen coal wagons and a brake van up the bank from Harborne Junction to Hagley Road? Persons under 60 need not apply.

 

Eric Steele

  • 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.