Results - The 00 Wishlist Poll 2019

[BMacdermott]

Hello everyone

 

Andy is dead right (above).

 

In our early days, we really only had Bachmann and Hornby announcements and they were generally 'new year period'.

 

Since then, numerous players have come onto the field and RMweb has become part of Warners/BRM putting more pressure (so to speak) on Andy's available time. 

 

Running in mid-October has worked well, but GETS has now come into the picture. We could never run at a time that suited absolutely everyone, but the current method is good for most of us.

 

Brian (on behalf of The 00 Poll Team)

[Frond]

Brian, Andy thank you for your replies.

 

Apologies for raising this subject again, I was initially interested in why John had not voted this year as I thought his answer might give an insight into getting more people to vote. Turns out he simply missed the window of opportunity as I had done the previous year. The longer the poll is open the more votes but it is clearly a case of diminishing returns and as you guys are the ones putting in the time and effort it is entirely up to you when the cut off is.

 

Thank you all once again for conducting the poll

 

Steve

[BMacdermott]

Hello Frond

 

Thanks for understanding.

 

Some Polls only give you from 0700 to 2200 on one specific date...such as that planned for 12 December ()

 

Brian

[AY Mod]

25 minutes ago, BMacdermott said:

Some Polls only give you from 0700 to 2200 on one specific date...such as that planned for 12 December ()

 

Do I write to you to moan that they haven't included my choice of candidate for this constituency?

[GordonC]

4 hours ago, BMacdermott said:

Hello Frond

 

Thanks for understanding.

 

Some Polls only give you from 0700 to 2200 on one specific date...such as that planned for 12 December ()

 

Brian

 

I suspect that poll could be open as long as anyone likes and we'd still have the same useless candidates to choose between

[BMacdermott]

Hello GordonC

 

We shouldn't get 'into politics' here...it was just a 'merry quip'.

 

Brian

[Mark Saunders]

5 hours ago, BMacdermott said:

Hello Frond

 

Thanks for understanding.

 

Some Polls only give you from 0700 to 2200 on one specific date...such as that planned for 12 December ()

 

Brian

 

Not quite true as that is only for personal participants, others can have a postal vote and do it at their leisure!

 

 

[Mike Storey]

11 minutes ago, Mark Saunders said:

 

Not quite true as that is only for personal participants, others can have a postal vote and do it at their leisure!

 

 

 

Not exactly at their leisure this time!!

 

Anyhow, back to The Poll......

[GWR8700]

Glad to see quite a few other people wanting a remake of the 14xx.

[Mark Hamlin]

Hi guys

 

Thanks for all your efforts in collating all our wishes.

 

Could I suggest adding the BR pig iron 4 wheel wagon for next year. It’s one of the very few Early BR wagons not easily available

[BMacdermott]

Hello Mark

 

Thanks for writing.

 

We first listed BR Pig Iron Wagon (Diag.1/005) in 2015. A voter who knows a thing or two about wagons suggested we change the title to BR Hot Pig Iron Wagon and that is how it was listed for 2019.

 

Both were listed under Freight Stock: 1948-1963 and have been consistently Low Polling.

 

Brian  (on behalf of The 00 Poll Team)

[The Johnster]

On 15/11/2019 at 19:17, GWR8700 said:

Glad to see quite a few other people wanting a remake of the 14xx.

There's been two of them in the last few years, both not considered successful.  The 14xx seems to be something of a poisoned chalice and it will be interesting to see if anyone else takes it on.   It should be a sure fire success, but...

Edited November 17, 2019 by The Johnster

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

On ‎15‎/‎11‎/‎2019 at 19:17, GWR8700 said:

Glad to see quite a few other people wanting a remake of the 14xx.

 

8 hours ago, The Johnster said:

There's been two of them in the last few years, both not considered successful.  The 14xx seems to be something of a poisoned chalice and it will be interesting to see if anyone else takes it on.   It should be a sure fire success, but...

It's the cost for a really reliable mechanism design that acts against it in RTR form. What it needs to be 'bulletproof' for any OO RTR customer is an all wheel drive, with the trailing wheelset linked to the rear driver by a matched ratio  gear train so that the tyre speeds are identical.

 

This was very neatly demonstrated by Rapido on the Stirling single, where the trailing wheel is matched ratio gear coupled to the driver; so it is a proven solution for RTR OO. That way an 0-4-2T model is functionally an 0-6-0T, no balance issue, all the model's mass available for traction. It will cost a little more than comparable size tank locos, cue whining...

[Dunsignalling]

58 minutes ago, 34theletterbetweenB&D said:

 

It's the cost for a really reliable mechanism design that acts against it in RTR form. What it needs to be 'bulletproof' for any OO RTR customer is an all wheel drive, with the trailing wheelset linked to the rear driver by a matched ratio  gear train so that the tyre speeds are identical.

 

This was very neatly demonstrated by Rapido on the Stirling single, where the trailing wheel is matched ratio gear coupled to the driver; so it is a proven solution for RTR OO. That way an 0-4-2T model is functionally an 0-6-0T, no balance issue, all the model's mass available for traction. It will cost a little more than comparable size tank locos, cue whining...

Whilst I can see the advantages of that, I'm not convinced that a model 14xx should need to be able to haul as much as (for instance) a Bachmann 8750, I don't ever recall seeing a real one being expected to deal with more than a couple of coaches or half a dozen wagons*.

 

My old Dapol loco, minus traction tyres but with a bunker full of lead to keep the excessively strong rear axle spring under control, manages double that, as can my Hatton's/DJM model. I cannot, so far, find fault with the latter, and have seen other examples that also "behave" so wonder if the widely reported issues with them were down to poor assembly/QC rather than defective design. 

 

* (Cue photos of one rescuing a failed Warship on the Cornish Riviera).

 

John

 

Edited November 17, 2019 by Dunsignalling

[MarkSG]

1 hour ago, 34theletterbetweenB&D said:

It's the cost for a really reliable mechanism design that acts against it in RTR form. What it needs to be 'bulletproof' for any OO RTR customer is an all wheel drive, with the trailing wheelset linked to the rear driver by a matched ratio  gear train so that the tyre speeds are identical.

 

This was very neatly demonstrated by Rapido on the Stirling single, where the trailing wheel is matched ratio gear coupled to the driver; so it is a proven solution for RTR OO. That way an 0-4-2T model is functionally an 0-6-0T, no balance issue, all the model's mass available for traction. It will cost a little more than comparable size tank locos, cue whining...

 

I'm not sure that's really necessary on an 0-4-2T. All-wheel pickup, certainly. But, given that it's only ever going to haul short trains, four wheel drive should be perfectly adequate. The main reason for doing it on the Stirling Single is that the extra pair of driving wheels are necessary on a model that, if used in a realistic manner, will haul lengthy trains.

 

I think the main problem with the 1400 is that it falls between many stools. It's a lovely little loco, and ideal for the ubiquitous GWR BLT as well as branch/secondary use on mainline GWR themed layouts. But it's not hugely distinctive. If you're going for the cliched GWR BLT look then a pannier tank is far more iconic, and just as appropriate. And it has been done by manufacturers in the not too distant past, so there's no real groundswell of demand for a new one right now. Given that it is a small loco, it would need to be built down to a price, and that may make it hard to come up with something that's sufficiently better than the existing models for it to justify the price premium over a second hand one. 

[BMacdermott]

4 minutes ago, MarkSG said:

 

I think the main problem with the 1400 is that it falls between many stools. It's a lovely little loco, and ideal for the ubiquitous GWR BLT as well as branch/secondary use on mainline GWR themed layouts. But it's not hugely distinctive. If you're going for the cliched GWR BLT look then a pannier tank is far more iconic, and just as appropriate. And it has been done by manufacturers in the not too distant past, so there's no real groundswell of demand for a new one right now. Given that it is a small loco, it would need to be built down to a price, and that may make it hard to come up with something that's sufficiently better than the existing models for it to justify the price premium over a second hand one. 

 

Hello Mark

 

I'm not sure if there is any 'groundswell of demand' for the 14xx, but the reason it is being talked about here is that it was one of only two locos in the Post-2005 Suggestions that polled more than the overall lowest-voted item (the other being the Class 37). A number of respondents noted concern that DJM was no longer in business (although we didn't report on those comments as they were OT as far as the Results were concerned).

 

I agree that the real 14xx were generally short train motive power, but many modellers have severe gradients...any additional tractive effort would no doubt be welcomed by them if not by many more. If there is more drawbar power, is there not less strain on the motor? But I'm not a motor engineer.

 

Brian (on behalf of The 00 Poll Team)

[D9020 Nimbus]

I wouldn't be surprised if Hornby did a 14xx sometime—it's as much "theirs" as the Terrier—particularly given the issues with the Hattons/DJM one. Or perhaps they'll wait until Dapol announce one (Dapol are doing it in O and have done it in N)…

[The Johnster]

And they have done twice in the recent past, Nimbus, the old Airfix body tooling at less than £40 with a chassis that rapidly gained a poisonous reputation, then again with a re-worked chassis and mech at less than £60; not bad for the money but u gets wot u pays fer; no cab detail and a body tooling the best part of half a century old, which stands up reasonably well under the '3 foot rule' but fails when you get in closer than that.

 

My grouse with RTR 14xx is that it seems very difficult to get a mechanism that will reliably drive the loco smoothly or steadily at low speeds, and the use of traction tyres worsens this situation.  I proved this to myself back in the 80s with an Airfix that I'd removed the tyre from; running was quantum improved and she was still good for 15 wagons/3 bogies.  She eventually succumbed to pickup plunger jamming and mazak rot years ago, though

 

My layout is a smallish BLT with limited train lengths, so haulage is of no consequence to me.  An 0-4-2T which cannot distribute traction weight by 'leaning' on the tender is a difficult thing to balance, and highly sensitive to anything less than perfectly laid track, so pickup is flaky even before Satan's Snot, the traction tyre, messes it up further.  I'm not a model engineer either (or any sort of real one), but I reckon the divided drive idea is the way to go with this loco, which could form the basis of Metro or 517 models.  I was finding the sub £40 Hornby Railroad version hard to resist at that price but was put off by reports of poor running; I don't really need one on my layout anyway and Rule 1 would have had to have been invoked.

 

Whatever the reality of actual auto working, that it was mostly performed by locos that were not 48xx/14xx, the 14xx + auto trailer is very firmly fixed in the market's collective consciousness, and has become iconic in the sense of 'and we can have an auto shuttling in and out of the bay'.  We largely couple them to slightly atypical trailers anyway; the most numerous single type was the A26, a 70 footer which both RTR and kit manufacturers have traditionally shied away from.  The reality of actual auto working was that it mostly took place in busy suburban environments and ran along main lines, a far cry from the 'typical' bucolic modellers GW BLT (not meant to imply that the modellers are bucolic, but if the cap fits...).

[tomparryharry]

4 hours ago, BMacdermott said:

 

Hello Mark

 

I'm not sure if there is any 'groundswell of demand' for the 14xx, but the reason it is being talked about here is that it was one of only two locos in the Post-2005 Suggestions that polled more than the overall lowest-voted item (the other being the Class 37). A number of respondents noted concern that DJM was no longer in business (although we didn't report on those comments as they were OT as far as the Results were concerned).

 

I agree that the real 14xx were generally short train motive power, but many modellers have severe gradients...any additional tractive effort would no doubt be welcomed by them if not by many more. If there is more drawbar power, is there not less strain on the motor? But I'm not a motor engineer.

 

Brian (on behalf of The 00 Poll Team)

 

Very definitely short train locomotive power, Brian. I can think of lots of places (especially in Wales) where inclement weather, or extra traffic, sees the yard pilot swapping places with the 48xx, and the pilot picking up the vacant spot. I've got 3 48xx; 2x Airfix, one DJM. The only thing i didn't do, was the Mainly Trains  upgrade pack, but that's my fault for being tardy.  I would like to have a 'large' Metro, and I'm pretty sure I've repeatedly voted as such. But, it's true to assume that steam locomotive wishes are on a downward drift, as the demographic changes.  If I want a Taff Vale 04, it's either scratch build, or, well really,  scratch build. 

 

Best wishes,

Ian.

[The Johnster]

16 minutes ago, tomparryharry said:

. I can think of lots of places (especially in Wales) where inclement weather

Or, as it's known in Wales, weather...

[Ian J.]

I really ought to get round to building the High Level Kits chassis for my 'old' Hornby ex Airfix 14xx...

[Budgie]

6 hours ago, The Johnster said:

Whatever the reality of actual auto working, that it was mostly performed by locos that were not 48xx/14xx, the 14xx + auto trailer is very firmly fixed in the market's collective consciousness, and has become iconic in the sense of 'and we can have an auto shuttling in and out of the bay'.  We largely couple them to slightly atypical trailers anyway; the most numerous single type was the A26, a 70 footer which both RTR and kit manufacturers have traditionally shied away from.  The reality of actual auto working was that it mostly took place in busy suburban environments and ran along main lines, a far cry from the 'typical' bucolic modellers GW BLT (not meant to imply that the modellers are bucolic, but if the cap fits...).

 

There's a lovely picture of a 64xx with 3 autocoaches arriving at Abercynon with lots of passengers visible in the first autocoach, on page 284 of John Lewis's second volume of autotrailers. It seems to me that we don't need more auto-fitted locos, but more autotrailers.

[BMacdermott]

7 hours ago, Budgie said:

 

There's a lovely picture of a 64xx with 3 autocoaches arriving at Abercynon with lots of passengers visible in the first autocoach, on page 284 of John Lewis's second volume of autotrailers. It seems to me that we don't need more auto-fitted locos, but more autotrailers.

 

Hello Budgie

 

We are fortunate to have that very same John Lewis as a valued member of The 00 Poll Team.

 

Brian (on behalf of The 00 Poll Team)

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

20 hours ago, Dunsignalling said:

Whilst I can see the advantages of that, I'm not convinced that a model 14xx should need to be able to haul as much as (for instance) a Bachmann 8750, I don't ever recall seeing a real one being expected to deal with more than a couple of coaches or half a dozen wagons*.

 

My old Dapol loco, minus traction tyres but with a bunker full of lead to keep the excessively strong rear axle spring under control, manages double that, as can my Hatton's/DJM model...

 

18 hours ago, MarkSG said:

I'm not sure that's really necessary on an 0-4-2T. All-wheel pickup, certainly. But, given that it's only ever going to haul short trains, four wheel drive should be perfectly adequate...

What I was suggesting was not for the extra haulage it incidentally confers, but for the 'bulletproof' running reliability in the hands of any customer.  Put it on the track, it will go, and pull any load. Altering models to make them perform, and understanding that they had very limited tractive capacity, moves toward knowledgeable modeller territory.

 

20 hours ago, Dunsignalling said:

... Hatton's/DJM model. I cannot, so far, find fault with the latter, and have seen other examples that also "behave" so wonder if the widely reported issues with them were down to poor assembly/QC rather than defective design...

Insofar as a mechanism should be designed for assembly to deliver a working result, design quality is inevitably in question when the end result is of varying quality. When the mechanism is assembled 'glued up' and thus not amenable to simple post-assembly adjustment, design quality is everything: it has to be designed go together right first time at assembly.

 

(I am waiting for the day that I get my hands on a dead DJM steam model, so that I can dismantle it and test my suspicion about where the fundamental weakness in the drive train arrangement lies. Mean as ever, not paying money to satisfy idle curiosity.)

 

[hmrspaul]

On 16/11/2019 at 08:53, BMacdermott said:

 

 

We first listed BR Pig Iron Wagon (Diag.1/005) in 2015. A voter who knows a thing or two about wagons suggested we change the title to BR Hot Pig Iron Wagon and that is how it was listed for 2019.

 

Both were listed under Freight Stock: 1948-1963 and have been consistently Low Polling.

 

Brian  (on behalf of The 00 Poll Team)

 

A very strange idea. Personally I think the Hot pig is an interesting wagon and I was pleased, with Trev Mann, to measure one. BUT photos of them in traffic are very rare and the Coil conversion was heavily chopped around so not easy to say a model could be used for both. https://paulbartlett.zenfolio.com/brhotpigiron

 

The standard Pig Iron - as modelled by Peco in 7mm - would be a much better prototype - with a long life with many used for coil traffic in South Wales. https://paulbartlett.zenfolio.com/brpigiron

https://paulbartlett.zenfolio.com/brcoilc

 

Paul Bartlett

Who made a very bad model of a Hot pig on an airfix Meat van chassis when he was 15 yrs or so!