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.

Wright writes.....


Recommended Posts

  • RMweb Gold
7 hours ago, Headstock said:

 

Good evening/morning 96701,

 

you would have to ask John new, he said kits but he didn't specify locomotives. I believe he was referring to the recent batch of locomotives shown by Tony, so locomotives is a reasonable assumption. However, he may have meant all kits.

 

I wouldn't segregate locomotives from any of the other 'making of things' that you mention. To repeat and expand, If you get intrinsic enjoyment from the making of track, trees, locomotives or paper aeroplanes, you are more likely to be successful in your endeavours.  if you see any of the above as an expensive and not very enjoyable over complicated chore, you are more likely to fail. If you don't enjoy it, don't do it.

 

 

The avoidance for me is locos and possibly some rolling stock kits in brass. I make stuff in other materials quite happily and have used brass in other instances including a scratch built traverser a few years back. The desire for fidelity has added complexity.

 

The sporting analogy is these kit designs need someone with International player equivalent levels of skill to build but are mostly bought by modellers of much lower ability. Buying a Man Utd top won’t make you more than a Sunday league player. What Tony’s posts about bad running showed to me was that many kits nowadays require an elite level skill set to build and most of us haven’t got it hence so many of the items going through his hands recently don’t run properly.

 

  • Like 1
  • Agree 3
  • Friendly/supportive 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
27 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

Please don't think I'm being disparaging with regards to your wishlists/polls by stating I have no interest in them, though I would have been had I still been in full-time employment as a model railway journalist/photographer. 

 

I believe they provide a useful barometer for what railway modellers want, particularly locomotives - is it safe to assume that the majority of railway modellers cannot build locos? This is an observation, not a criticism. Most, I would hope, could build a simple wagon and/or kits for buildings. Does trackwork feature in the polls? Or, signals? 

 

In the office one day, I was phoned up by someone 'complaining' that the latest Hornby Class 50 I'd just reviewed wasn't exactly the one he desired (out of 50 to choose from), because it had the wrong name/number and wasn't exactly in the NSE livery-style he wanted. I pointed out to him a list of paint/transfer/nameplate manufacturers, only to be told 'They're no good, I'll mess it up if I try that sort of thing!'. I then gave him a list of professionals who'd undertake such work, only to be dismissed with 'They're no good, I can't afford their prices!'. After telling him he couldn't have what he wanted, then, he accused me of being rude and would report me to my MD. I honestly couldn't have given a toss, and nothing more came of it. 

 

Hello Tony

 

I didn't think for one moment that you were in any way being 'disparaging'. The greater majority of modellers don't/didn't have any interest otherwise we'd have been getting 100,000 voters and not the rough average of 2,500.

 

When the current team started running the polls in 2012 at the request of former MREmag editor and model railway historian, Pat Hammond, we did have a category entitled Other Items. This covered such as level crossings, turntables, signals, trackworkers, overhead line equipment etc etc but soon became apparent that we couldn't cover 'the detail'.

 

Take OHLE...whilst driving up the M1 adjacent to the WCML near Watford Gap Services, I counted six different types of catenary in about three miles! We soon dropped the category.

 

The vast majority of voters who have contacted The 00 Poll Team over the years have been 'jolly good eggs' and have appreciated the work that went into each one.

 

However, I do recall one irate pollster complaining to us that we hadn't listed Wagon A, with buffers B and wheels C, running in livery D. Such is life!:rolleyes:

 

Brian (on behalf of The 00 Poll Team)

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Hello again Tony

 

At Gilbert Barnatt's request, and with the assistance of Chris Knowles-Thomas, I have been running some loco and rolling stock Mini-Polls on the Peterborough North thread. 

 

Below are the results from the one involving B16s (but I haven't appended the PDF here). They were locos with 'a PN connection' and mainly 'freight' (to differentiate between the two later polls of Passenger - Tank and Passenger - Tender).

 

Brian

 

Results

 

Many thanks to the 19 voters who took part.

 

The number of votes to each item is shown in the left hand column and Comments Received are appended on a PDF as usual.

 

Please note that the results reflect the views of those who voted here and may not necessarily reflect those of the wider modelling community.

 

High Polling

12        J6 (64170-64279)

12        J39 (64700-64988)

11        J67/J68/J69 (68491-68666)

 

Middle Polling

9          B16/1 (in range 61410-61478, but some are B16/2 or B16/3)    

8          J17 (65500-65589) 

8          J52 (68757-68889) 

8          B16/3 (in range 61420-61468, but some are B16/2 and most B16/1)

7          B16/2 (in range 61435-61457, but some are B16/3 and most B16/1)

 

Low Polling

6          O4/8 (in range 63573-63915 with gaps)

6          J20 (64675-64699)

4          J19 (64640-64674) 

2          P1 Nos.2393 & 2394

 

 

Edited by BMacdermott
Spelling correction
  • Informative/Useful 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, john new said:

The avoidance for me is locos and possibly some rolling stock kits in brass. I make stuff in other materials quite happily and have used brass in other instances including a scratch built traverser a few years back. The desire for fidelity has added complexity.

 

The sporting analogy is these kit designs need someone with International player equivalent levels of skill to build but are mostly bought by modellers of much lower ability. Buying a Man Utd top won’t make you more than a Sunday league player. What Tony’s posts about bad running showed to me was that many kits nowadays require an elite level skill set to build and most of us haven’t got it hence so many of the items going through his hands recently don’t run properly.

 

 

Good morning John new,

 

I love brass, it's beautiful stuff to work with. I wouldn't touch the white metal B16 you mentioned with a barge pole. IMO, It's not worth the money that you are quoting. My own build of a B16, was from a more modern, much easier to construct and more accurate brass kit. The project was realised for about £85 pounds less than the price you mention!

 

I come back to the same point, if you love what you are doing, you will find away. I don't like football but to use your analogy, I don't think that Tony, most builders, or myself included, would claim to be International player equivalent. However, Sunday league player status is not a failure, it's a success. Failure is sitting on the side line complaining about the cost of the shirt.
 

  • Like 9
  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, BMacdermott said:

Hello again Tony

 

At Gilbert Barnatt's request, and with the assistance of Chris Knowles-Thomas, I have been running some loco and rolling stock Mini-Polls on the Peterborough North thread. 

 

Below are the results from the one involving B16s (but I haven't appended the PDF here). They were locos with 'a PN connection' and mainly 'freight' (to differentiate between the two later polls of Passenger - Tank and Passenger - Tender).

 

Brian

 

Results

 

Many thanks to the 19 voters who took part.

 

The number of votes to each item is shown in the left hand column and Comments Received are appended on a PDF as usual.

 

Please note that the results reflect the views of those who voted here and may not necessarily reflect those of the wider modelling community.

 

High Polling

12        J6 (64170-64279)

12        J39 (64700-64988)

11        J67/J68/J69 (68491-68666)

 

Middle Polling

9          B16/1 (in range 61410-61478, but some are B16/2 or B16/3)    

8          J17 (65500-65589) 

8          J52 (68757-68889) 

8          B16/3 (in range 61420-61468, but some are B16/2 and most B16/1)

7          B16/2 (in range 61435-61457, but some are B16/3 and most B16/1)

 

Low Polling

6          O4/8 (in range 63573-63915 with gaps)

6          J20 (64675-64699)

4          J19 (64640-64674) 

2          P1 Nos.2393 & 2394

 

 

That does rather emphasis the point of people not being willing or able to actually do some modelling.

Taking two of the top three the J39 is provided by Bachmann with an easy chassis swap with a Bachmann J11 and the Buckjumper can be produced in several varieties by using a 3D printed body on a readily available Hornby chassis. 

If that is beyond the skill of the average modeler than what hope is there?

Bernard

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
4 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

How common is it out there? 'Railway modellers' who are incapable of doing any 'modelling' for themselves?

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 


In creating a part of Cornwall as accurately as I am able I’ve researched the prototype, built baseboards, laid and wired track (DCC ;)) , constructed wagons, created scenery, buildings and bridges. I’m taking the first steps of filling in the carriage fleet with built or modified items. As yet though I haven’t had the need to build locomotives - although none of my fleet are ‘straight out of the box’. I hope that qualities me as a modeller. :)

 

 

However, in relation to the quoted statement I fear that a growing portion of society is incapable of doing anything for itself - including think!

  • Like 3
  • Agree 4
  • Interesting/Thought-provoking 2
  • Friendly/supportive 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
2 hours ago, Bernard Lamb said:

That does rather emphasis the point of people not being willing or able to actually do some modelling.

Taking two of the top three the J39 is provided by Bachmann with an easy chassis swap with a Bachmann J11 and the Buckjumper can be produced in several varieties by using a 3D printed body on a readily available Hornby chassis. 

If that is beyond the skill of the average modeler than what hope is there?

Bernard

Except the Bachmann J39 hasn't been produced for a good few years.

 

There is clearly a healthy demand for its return, albeit with a more durable mechanism under it this time. Even non-runners disappear from the pre-owned sections of retailer' websites pretty rapidly. If folk are buying those up it suggests a willingness and the modelling ability to either repair or replace the underpinnings.

 

However, if we can easily fit the J11 chassis under J39s, isn't Bachmann missing out on a chunk of sales by not doing it themselves? Their tardiness in bringing other models in their range up to date has previously resulted in replacements emanating from other makers, (Lord Nelson, B1, BR4 4-6-0, GWR Manor and Mogul).

 

I'd suggest it's only a matter of time before the J39 joins that list and I can think of two or three others that might be in the firing line.

 

John

Edited by Dunsignalling
  • Like 3
  • Agree 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
4 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

I believe they provide a useful barometer for what railway modellers want, particularly locomotives - is it safe to assume that the majority of railway modellers cannot build locos?

 

Hi Tony,

It might be more accurate to assume that the majority of railway modellers haven't attempted to build a loco?

Regards,

Brian

  • Like 2
  • Agree 8
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
3 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

Thanks John,

 

But, I hope, not on this thread.....................

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

And for those of us who were in that category this thread provides the inspiration to move us on!

  • Like 3
  • Agree 5
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
23 minutes ago, polybear said:

It might be more accurate to assume that the majority of railway modellers haven't attempted to build a loco?

I think more have tried than you might imagine, but for various reasons haven't been satisfied with the results and don't persevere long enough to learn the necessary skills. 

 

I'd suggest a few areas of frustration, all of which have featured in this thread from time to time:

  • Getting the chassis running smoothly 
  • Choosing an appropriate motor & gearbox combination 
  • Making robust, reliable pick-ups 
  • Putting together valve gear properly (unless you want to wimp out and model the G*R), and having it stay together rather than one end flying off at high speed...

I bought and studied Iain Rice's books on chassis and whitemetal loco construction before making a start on my first kit, and even with the help of these it was a struggle.  

 

And finally, what I think is the single major problem: 

  • Painting & lining/numbering etc.  Unless you're expert at these, your kit-built models can really look second-best next to modern RTR.   Even getting the five digits of a BR locomotive number to sit in a straight horizontal line when applied to a cab side as single digits is beyond some of us!  

Another problem that many aspiring kit-builders bring upon themselves is that they don't "start simple" - they buy kits of the locomotives they want for their layout/collection, not simple ones that will teach them the skills - in my case DJH rebuilt West Country, DJH Standard Class 4 Tank then SEF King Arthur!  All run, but have been retired in favour of modern Hornby/Bachmann RTR examples, which weren't available when I embarked on the kits but are more reliable and better-finished.  

  • Like 4
  • Agree 3
  • Friendly/supportive 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Dunsignalling said:

Except the Bachmann J39 hasn't been produced for a good few years.

 

There is clearly a healthy demand for its return, albeit with a more durable mechanism under it this time. Even non-runners disappear from the pre-owned sections of retailer' websites pretty rapidly. If folk are buying those up it suggests a willingness and the modelling ability to either repair or replace the underpinnings.

 

However, if we can easily fit the J11 chassis under J39s, isn't Bachmann missing out on a chunk of sales by not doing it themselves? Their tardiness in bringing other models in their range up to date has previously resulted in replacements emanating from other makers, (Lord Nelson, B1, BR4 4-6-0, GWR Manor and Mogul).

 

I'd suggest it's only a matter of time before the J39 joins that list and I can think of two or three others that might be in the firing line.

 

John

There are at least 20 currently on ebay.

RTR does not work like that, so swapping chassis at source looks like a non starter.

Bachmann would only be interested if the chunk was sufficient to do a run of an updated version.

Seeing that it was earmarked to do just that and was then quietly dropped seems to me that they have a good idea of the potential market.

They decided to concentrate on the J72 and the soon to emerge V2.

Although with the current world situation that is rapidly heading north of 250 notes I wonder if they are a bit concerned.

Other sources might well be interested but their pricing and marketing policies are very different from those of Bachmann.

Bernard

  • Like 1
  • Informative/Useful 1
  • Interesting/Thought-provoking 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, TrevorP1 said:


In creating a part of Cornwall as accurately as I am able I’ve researched the prototype, built baseboards, laid and wired track (DCC ;)) , constructed wagons, created scenery, buildings and bridges. I’m taking the first steps of filling in the carriage fleet with built or modified items. As yet though I haven’t had the need to build locomotives - although none of my fleet are ‘straight out of the box’. I hope that qualities me as a modeller. :)

 

 

However, in relation to the quoted statement I fear that a growing portion of society is incapable of doing anything for itself - including think!

'I hope that qualities me as a modeller. :)'

 

It does indeed, Trevor,

 

It does indeed.

 

I suppose everyone who engages in this marvellous hobby can class themselves as a 'railway modeller'. Modeller is, of course, a noun, though modelling is a verb, which implies actually doing something. 

 

I don't have the slightest problem with folk enjoying their railway modelling in whatever way they like. In fact, without a mainstream RTR base, many so-called 'mainly-all-hand-built' systems (LB included) would still be way off completion - my having to build over 90 Mk.1s would have seen to that, so I'm thankful to be able to just modify the RTR ones. 

 

Where I'm slightly twitchy (as alluded to already) is with regard to more-recent 'influencers' who (in my view) don't seem to have sufficient experience to really make an objective contribution to the various debates. What they promulgate is often inaccurate, poor practice and misleading. Who defines what those three just-mentioned 'failures' are is a moot point, but laying track on the floor to test a new locomotive seems to me to be the way of the nursery. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Edited by Tony Wright
to add something
  • Like 4
  • Agree 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, polybear said:

 

Hi Tony,

It might be more accurate to assume that the majority of railway modellers haven't attempted to build a loco?

Regards,

Brian

Good afternoon Brian,

 

Because locos tend to be one of the most-important aspects of the hobby, I'm not sure that yours is a safe assumption. I think it's very safe to assume that of those who attempt to build a loco, very, very few actually succeed in building it to a 'satisfactory' standard, in all departments. And, that all-department standard has been raised higher and higher with each new piece of RTR wonderment. In appearance, performance, fidelity to prototype and (particularly) livery, most RTR equivalent-to-kit locomotives are streets ahead of anything kit-built. 

 

The paradox (if that's what it is) has raised its head in my trying to get decent prices for the locos I've been trying to sell of late. For instance, the L1 you've bought, which was built from an ABS kit, though rather nicely-painted, cannot hold a candle to Hornby's RTR one, because its wheels have slipped on their axles. What I effectively asked for it would just about cover the cost of the kit, with no provision for the price of the wheels (even though the drivers are no good now), the Portescap motor, the building of it and the painting of it. Were it mine, I'd chuck the hopeless friction-fit drivers away, replace them with Markits ones and end up with a rather nice-looking and very well-running L1. Were it mine that is. For me to have done it and then try to sell it, factoring in the time I'd taken (and the time of whoever built/painted it), who would pay over £600.00 for an L1 in OO Gauge? 

 

In almost every case in the collection, in order to get the locos running at least as well as any RTR equivalent, I've had to tweak them. How then can one ask for more than that RTR equivalent's price, unless, as in the case of the Bradwell J27, it's an absolutely superbly-built/finished/running model? Where there is no RTR equivalent (as with the superb K4), then it's a different story, though I've struggled in some cases to recover the cost of the components in some locos, even though there is no RTR equivalent. 

 

All the above said, to finish, I couldn't resist a moment of total smugness on Thursday when some friends came round to visit. One of them brought along a very nice Hornby MINORU, asking if I could be run it on LB. I duly obliged, and it just rolled round, quietly, smoothly and looking very pretty, light engine. 'May we try it on a train, please?'. 'Of course'. I took off my own kit-built MINORU, which just happened to be on one of the heaviest trains - 13 kit-built bogies. The RTR MINORU just polished the rails! I put mine back on, and she just sailed away................

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

  • Like 8
  • Funny 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Regarding “poles” to identify future projects it’s fraught with dangers, people might say they want a particular model, but when it appears, it does not sell. I remember Martin Finney doing some polling to discover what ex GWR model to do next and the 2-4-0 Barnum came top by a long way. After it was produced it was the worst seller in the range! 
The strange thing is that odd balls seem to sell, one of SEF best sellers is the ex GER Decopod and models of other odd balls such as GT3 are in the offing.

 

David

  • Like 2
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

I am currently converting a Hornby branded ex Airfix 2P to MR condition.

 

Why?

 

No idea, doesn't fit but anyway.

 

Body needs a lot of work.

 

Tender to be sold.

 

LRM tender under construction

Comet chassis under construction

 

4 coupled, no connecting rods, I hope it will run OK.

 

Will have a Highflyer gearbox most likely.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
9 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:
2 hours ago, polybear said:

It might be more accurate to assume that the majority of railway modellers haven't attempted to build a loco?

 

Because locos tend to be one of the most-important aspects of the hobby, I'm not sure that yours is a safe assumption. I think it's very safe to assume that of those who attempt to build a loco, very, very few actually succeed in building it to a 'satisfactory' standard, in all departments. And, that all-department standard has been raised higher and higher with each new piece of RTR wonderment. In appearance, performance, fidelity to prototype and (particularly) livery, most RTR equivalent-to-kit locomotives are streets ahead of anything kit-built. 

 

Tony, I suspect that because building locomotive kits - for a long period and to such a high standard - is a major part of your railway modelling, you vastly overestimate how common the activity is amongst railway modellers.  Consider the number of metal locomotive kits produced by K's, DJH, NuCast etc. over the decades and the batch sizes in which they were made.  It may not be far from the truth that the total sales of Hornby's Caledonian Pug (a train set loco in many, many versions over nearly 40 years) exceeds the sales of all the kit manufacturers combined.

 

I would estimate the stats to be something like this:

  • 95% of those who have a "model railway" never extend beyond putting it on a wooden board with a few RTP buildings or perhaps some simple ones made from cardboard boxes (which his still modelling, they've "made something");
  • Of the remainder, 50% will build a detailed layout with ground cover, some kit buildings and few small lineside kits but probably never build a rolling stock kit;
  • We now have the 2.5% which consists mostly of those who build some simple wagon kits (Dapol/Parkside etc.) but never extend to even metal rolling stock, let alone locomotives (this is the group I seem to have jumped to without ever really doing the first two above);
  • The number of people who build locomotives is probably 1/1000th of those with a model railway.
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Interesting/Thought-provoking 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Hello Tony

 

My layout  has an approximate gradient of 1 in 100 on one side (as it is a 'looped eight' and has to climb over itself).

 

I have just hooked 14 mixed Hornby and Bachmann Mk1s, Colletts and Hawksworths onto a Hornby A3 - and she pulled them away on the uphill from a standing start. I had to really 'drive the loco' to avoid excessive slip, though

 

I don't think Hornby can take the can for not being able to haul 13 metal kit-built coaches. You wouldn't buy a VW Up if you were wanting to tow a caravan.  Horses for courses!

 

Brian

  • Like 4
  • Agree 6
  • Interesting/Thought-provoking 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
2 hours ago, 3rd Rail Exile said:

 

Another problem that many aspiring kit-builders bring upon themselves is that they don't "start simple" - they buy kits of the locomotives they want for their layout/collection, not simple ones that will teach them the skills - in my case DJH rebuilt West Country, DJH Standard Class 4 Tank then SEF King Arthur!  All run, but have been retired in favour of modern Hornby/Bachmann RTR examples, which weren't available when I embarked on the kits but are more reliable and better-finished.  

This I think is probably an under appreciated and significant element. When I worked at MRM where a whole range of kits and components were available off the shelf, it was frequently difficult to get someone to buy a starter kit to build as an ‘apprenticeship’ before tackling more complex subjects. I’d often suggest that route, as the cost of the apprentice piece/s then, could easily be recovered by selling it on once completed. Quite frustrating to sell products where you knew the customer was likely to ‘fail’ and then possibly blame the kit/components for being the major part of that failure.

  • Like 3
  • Agree 3
  • Informative/Useful 1
  • Interesting/Thought-provoking 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

The L1 example raises a few interesting points. The Hornby model is a known quantity in a way no kit-built example can be unless by a builder of acknowledged competence, or it has been "gone over" by someone (like Tony) who knows his way around such models. This one is effectively a non-runner that needs at least half the price of a Hornby L1 invested in a new set of wheels by a purchaser who knows how to fit them and transfer the valve gear over from the (different) old ones. 

 

Tony has often mentioned that his kit-built locos are more relevant to him than a ready made example can ever be but one built by someone unknown to the purchaser can't have any more of a personal connection than a Hornby one.

 

Relatively few of us have access to the kind/quantity of stock or the size of layout that demands the performance that Tony requires. Hornby levels of power are sufficient for the majority; if they weren't, Hornby would have to increase them. Finally, how does the finish of the model compare with a Hornby one?

 

To summarise, a faulty kit-built model by an unknown builder that may (but probably doesn't) look as good as a Hornby one. When fixed, it may well pull more than the r-t-r equivalent, but that is unimportant if the Hornby one does "enough". 

 

John

Edited by Dunsignalling
  • Like 1
  • Agree 6
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
41 minutes ago, Norton961 said:

Regarding “poles” to identify future projects it’s fraught with dangers, people might say they want a particular model, but when it appears, it does not sell. I remember Martin Finney doing some polling to discover what ex GWR model to do next and the 2-4-0 Barnum came top by a long way. After it was produced it was the worst seller in the range! 
The strange thing is that odd balls seem to sell, one of SEF best sellers is the ex GER Decopod and models of other odd balls such as GT3 are in the offing.

 

David

 

Hello David

 

Major manufacturers will take more than just a wishlist poll into account when deciding which models to produce. They have social media, websites, forums, exhibitions (in normal times), feedback from reps and their own market and 'gut feeling' experience.

 

However, it is interesting to note the following items which have been announced from the lists of The 00 Wishlist Poll 2019...

 

From The Top 50 (6 items)

GWR 15xx

GWR Manor

SR Bulleid Leader

LNER W1 Hush Hush

BR Std Class 2 2-6-0

18000 Gas Turbine

 

High Polling (13 items)

SECR D Class

LNWR Hardwicke

LNER W1 4-6-4

LNER A2/3

Class 20

Class 104

Class 370 APT

BR Mk1 RB

SR Gangwayed Bogie Luggage Van

GER Van 

GER Banana Van

GWR 'Iron Mink'

Containers - 'Binliner'

 

Middle Polling (5 items)

LNER A2/2

LMS Coronation Scot Coaches

BR Mineral Wagon - Double Doors

(The 'halfway point' of the 800+ items was here)

Hopper Wagon - 'Merry-go-Round'

MoD Warflat

 

Low Polling (9 items)

D2850-D2869

Super BG

BR Borail

China Clay CDA

Aggregates Hopper Wagon HYA

Ecofret Container Twin Flats

Covered Steel Wagon JSA

Hopper Wagon HYA

Ballast Wagon 'Coalfish'

 

You will notice that - proportionally -  most come from the 'upper 50%' of the 800+ items listed. Most of the Low Pollers are 'very modern vehicles' and that bears out with previous Polls.

 

We are, however, certain that Accurascale, Heljan and Revolution know exactly what they are making for their fans!

 

Brian (on behalf of The 00 Poll Team)

 

 

 

Edited by BMacdermott
  • Like 5
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
43 minutes ago, Norton961 said:

Regarding “poles” to identify future projects it’s fraught with dangers, people might say they want a particular model, but when it appears, it does not sell. I remember Martin Finney doing some polling to discover what ex GWR model to do next and the 2-4-0 Barnum came top by a long way. After it was produced it was the worst seller in the range!

 

 

I seem to remember Alan Gibson (the "real" one) saying that he'd been asked by so many people for a Black Five kit that he decided to produce one.  Did it sell?  Nope.....

  • Like 1
  • Interesting/Thought-provoking 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, Dunsignalling said:

Finally, how does the finish of the model compare with a Hornby one?

 

Good evening John,

 

I wouldn't generally recommend the finish on Hornby locomotives or other rolling stock.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...