Results - Wishlist Poll 2013

[Dunsignalling]

 This LNER afficianado will buy the P2 chassis in the cheapest way possible. For use as the basis of his Bugatti front P2 as 60506 in late crest BR livery and 9MT on the cab side sheet. The five axle tender for the power stoker is already building. A sight I should have seen but was denied...

That's one they are going to sell, then.

[Dunsignalling]

Surely the problem with the unrebuilt Merchant Navy is 'which variation do you make' ?.  The early series had loads of different style front ends, and then there were those that had the big rib along the length of the casing on the centre line.  Then there were 'god knows' how many tender body styles as well as short ones and long ones, and of course they were swopped around. (Hornby still don't produce some rebuilt MNs and WCs, because although they make a lot, they don't do all the tenders).  Then of course they were all gone before the end of 1959.  I suppose the most 'standard' ones were the 3rd series, no's 35021-35030, but some of these only lasted for 8 years.  

 

No doubt someone will correct some of my generalisations here, but they're a bit of a 'minefield'.  

As with all generalisations, this is generally true (!) and may well be the reason for no model having yet appeared. However, it would be relatively easy to avoid most of the pitfalls and the tender situation is little worse than with the rebuilt locos.

 

Unlike many classes, which accumulated detail differences over time, the Merchant Navies evolved a more uniform appearance. The early style cowlings and smoke deflectors gradually gave way to 'standard' fittings similar to those on the final batch, with all locos receiving the cab modifications to improve visibility. This process was more-or-less complete by 1951, after which the most obvious remaining difference was the stiffening rib on the asbestos 'Limpet board' casings of 35003-10 (as they had become by then). However, they looked much the same as the steel panelled locos apart from the rib and a lack of dents.

 

The last two to retain the 'air-smoothed' casing; 35006 (from phase two of the first batch) and 35028 (of the final sub-type) looked remarkably similar by the time they went for rebuilding in 1959, albeit with different tenders. These would be the obvious choices to start with as they will fit in with all the rebuilt locos so many of us have already purchased.   

 

Another good 'pick' would be a mid-50s look, based on Batch 2 / 3 locos, and again after the appearance of the class had 'settled down' - this would give the manufacturer maximum scope for different names/numbers with little additional tooling (just watch those tender bodies!).

 

Whether it would also be worthwhile to go for 21C1 and 21C2 in truly 'as-built' style might be open to debate. They were certainly distinctive but modifications were applied on an almost monthly basis in the early years and they differed considerably from their original form by the end of the war. No doubt the collectors would love them, but how many modellers 'do' 1941?

 

John

[Dunsignalling]

But surely you don't vote for something you don't want?  So therefore everything you vote for is something you want and you can hardly expect manufacturers to produce stuff in the order in which you want it.  So if you really, truly, want something more than anything else you only vote for one thing - as I did with LMS group locos where there is one I really would like to see and which suits my scenario.

There is, however, a big difference between something you really want (possibly more than one of) and an item that would probably take ones fancy if it happened to become available when there was nothing more desirable on offer.

 

If every voter were as disciplined as yourself, your position would hold good, but your single vote carries no more weight than each of the eight or nine that someone else might have cast far more casually. 

 

John  

[The Stationmaster]

There is, however, a big difference between something you really want (possibly more than one of) and an item that would probably take ones fancy if it happened to become available when there was nothing more desirable on offer.

 

If every voter were as disciplined as yourself, your position would hold good, but your single vote carries no more weight than each of the eight or nine that someone else might have cast far more casually. 

 

John  

Me disciplined    As far as GW items are concerned, where I lost count of the number of locos I voted for, I did actually vote for a 'it would definitely take my fancy' item although it is totally irrelevant to the period of my modelling interest.  But the umpteen(?) others, almost entirely tank engines as it happens, could all fit in the scenario or be explained away and I don't mind in what order they appear.

 

But yes I agree absolutely about the difference between 'really want' (i.e. fits the scenario, or possibly sentiment) and 'one that takes my fancy' but then one simply votes accordingly.  I seriously do not think that adding an order of preference would make a big difference because manufacturers are most likely interested in total weight of opinion.  Thus the Adams radial would be judged more on the 250 votes it received rather than, say, 150 of those voters saying they want it first.  And I suspect potential manufacturers are already well aware of its popularity but need to not only work out how to get a suitable 4-4-2T arrangement workable but also to find out exactly what those who voted for the engines actually want in few of the level of differences between the 3 long term survivors.  

 

Whatever preferences we might express, in whatever numbers, in the end manufacturing locos, as we all realise, involves a lot more than a popularity poll - so easy enough to accurately model the survivor of a class (such as an Adams radial) but not necessarily so easy to sell something which is suitable for only a single engine at a single point in its life.  Kernow managed to incorporate a wide range of variation into the Beattie Well Tanks by clever specification and design consideration - but at least they all had the same size boiler underneath the detail variations.

 

Something similar goes for the Trans-Pennine dmus - again a high polling model - where the vehicle types and combinations involved just to form the two original sub-set formations are pretty daunting with 4 original types of vehicle two of which were later altered thus giving 6 basic types in all some of which never ran in green or never ran in later livery.  Simple question do the 182 folk who voted for them realise that what they voted for is only suitable for green livery?  (maybe they do, but equally some might be upset if an accurate version couldn't be issued in blue/grey, and we are back to the Blue Pullman story of 'which version do you produce?').

[BMacdermott]

Hello Stationmaster and John

 

The same is/was so for the S&D 7F 2-8-0.

 

We do have: small-boiler locos Nos.53806, 53809 and 53810 plus No.53808 with unique tender (and preserved No.88 in blue).

We don't have: No.53807 with unique smokebox saddle, nor the large-boiler versions, nor the ones with tender cabs.

 

If you look at the votes, I think Bachmann got their choices right.

 

Brian (speaking personally here)

[Dunsignalling]

Hello Stationmaster and John

 

The same is/was so for the S&D 7F 2-8-0.

 

We do have: small-boiler locos Nos.53806, 53809 and 53810 plus No.53808 with unique tender (and preserved No.88 in blue).

We don't have: No.53807 with unique smokebox saddle, nor the large-boiler versions, nor the ones with tender cabs.

 

If you look at the votes, I think Bachmann got their choices right.

 

Brian (speaking personally here)

I think they did, too, but they would inevitably have been influenced by the number of their eras (4,5 and preservation) covered by choosing the versions they did. Eras 4 and 5 are the modelling periods consistently voted most popular and thus offering the highest potential sales. The preserved versions are a bonus as well as assisting their prototype research.

 

I have 53808 and 53810 already and would be open to more if they do one of the RHD ones or 53807 later. I imagine the tooling is designed with further variations in mind.

 

Incidentally, I understand that 53808 acquired the hybrid tender from 53800 as it was in better condition than her own when that loco was withdrawn.

 

John

[Ozexpatriate]

As-built Merchant Navy

 

The last two to retain the 'air-smoothed' casing; 35006 (from phase two of the first batch) and 35028 (of the final sub-type) looked remarkably similar by the time they went for rebuilding in 1959, albeit with different tenders. These would be the obvious choices to start with.   

 

Another good 'pick' would be a mid-50s look, based on Batch 2 / 3 locos, - this would give the manufacturer maximum scope for different names/numbers with little additional tooling.

 

Whether it would also be worthwhile to go for 21C1 and 21C2 in truly 'as-built' style might be open to debate. No doubt the collectors would love them, but how many modellers 'do' 1941?

It's an all too familiar problem and you've summarized it very well. Part of the answer lies in who will purchase these and why. I suspect the greatest number of 'modellers' who want an as-built Merchant Navy are probably focused on the 1950s with largish layouts.

 

The other people who will be attracted to this model are people who want it for it's unique and interesting characteristics. Perhaps it would be used mostly for display and occasional outing on the line. With their distinctive widows' peak front-end and piston casing that extends to the frame end, (something that is clearly different from a West Country) 21C1 and 21C2 in Malachite might have the greatest appeal for this group. They do for me.

 

Which of these is the larger group?

 

Ideally tooling could be developed to accomodate both and manufacturers have experience with doing this.

[Graham_Muz]

For those interested in all things Original Air Smoothed Merchant Navy's my models showing the differences between the batches can be found here

[BMacdermott]

Dear All

 

It is interesting to note that twice as many readers have downloaded the 'N - Results by Category' (posting #8 than 00. We had 25% more N voters this year than last.

 

Brian (on behalf of The Poll Team)

[phil gollin]

There is, however, a big difference between something you really want (possibly more than one of) and an item that would probably take ones fancy if it happened to become available when there was nothing more desirable on offer.

 

If every voter were as disciplined as yourself, your position would hold good, but your single vote carries no more weight than each of the eight or nine that someone else might have cast far more casually. 

 

John  

 

 

.

 

This, I THINK, is why some people want some sort of prefernce system.

 

I only voted for engines/stock that I would genuinely buy (basically 12 or so Southern plus a few oddities from elsewhere) and have an unfounded suspicion that others just block voted for everything on their favoured one or two regions.

 

No evidence for that, of course, but it seems to be a clash of tactical voting styles.  I think a deep analysis by the polling team would give THEM an idea as to whether the results will give the best possible indications to manufacturers, or whether a slight tweak might help.

 

( Totally personal opinion - something like give voters a cache of, say, 200 points to distribute amongst the items [with a maximum of 20 against any one item] would "work"  -  BUT be complicated and prone to misunderstanding by voters. )

 

. 

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

That style would be my preference too. The ability to concentrate a budget of votes on a relatively few really useful items, while leaving others free to go at it shotgun fashion and spray the scenery with single votes, or whatever compromise is chosen between these two approaches.

 

...It is interesting to note that twice as many readers have downloaded the 'N - Results by Category' ...

 

Which considering that the N voting was from a group about 25% the size of the OO-ists, means the download rate per voter is effectively eight times greater. Pretty near exactly the volume ratio of the two scales and thus to be expected, they simply need more to get the same effect. ;-)

[Peter Bedding]

.............................. but how many modellers 'do' 1941?

 

John

 

Well, there's me for a start. And I am not entirely alone.

 

The current r-t-r catalogues show utility black liveries for LNER, LMS and Southern. Oxford Diecast are increasing their range for 1940s r-t-p prototypes, so I guess that this part of Era 3 is capable of generating a sufficient return on investment.

 

A Merchant Navy in utility black could legitimately head a rake of loaded Walrus, Warflats, Warwells, or mixed vans and open wagons, or up to 12 coaches in a mix of Malachite and lined Olive green (and with a restaurant car),and thrash in either direction between Waterloo and Exeter Central. With a King Arthur or S15, one might even simulate the breakdowns.

 

PB

[The Stationmaster]

.

 

This, I THINK, is why some people want some sort of prefernce system.

 

I only voted for engines/stock that I would genuinely buy (basically 12 or so Southern plus a few oddities from elsewhere) and have an unfounded suspicion that others just block voted for everything on their favoured one or two regions.

 

No evidence for that, of course, but it seems to be a clash of tactical voting styles.  I think a deep analysis by the polling team would give THEM an idea as to whether the results will give the best possible indications to manufacturers, or whether a slight tweak might help.

 

( Totally personal opinion - something like give voters a cache of, say, 200 points to distribute amongst the items [with a maximum of 20 against any one item] would "work"  -  BUT be complicated and prone to misunderstanding by voters. )

 

. 

Like you I only voted for things I would buy (so maybe I was disciplined in my approach?) - that I think is what a wishlist is about, not a popularity poll (where my votes would have been different and far more diverse as it happens).  I think that the 'vote for what I would buy' approach is undoubtedly the best way to come to a poll like this and it's nice to have enough votes to do that as at least, in my case,  the NPCCS and wagons can get a decent coverage.

 

Most methods of tactical voting (for an individual) basically use withholding of votes rather than using a lot of them and they can produce misleading results as a consequence - particularly if you follow on from the previous year's results to 'add emphasis' to particular items while withholding it from others.  Where you can vote away to your heart's and ambition's content you neither need nor want to get tactical - you just go with your full list and as others do the same so an overall balance emerges.

 

In any sort of poll such as this I really think that simple number of votes cast is as good a way as any of indicating where folk's needs lie.  If, for example, I had x number of 'points' to use my distribution would have been little different and I would simply have divided most of them equally between things I am prepared to buy.  But someone else could just as easily pile the lot onto one item although they would be, in some cases, very unlikely to buy more than one of that item, i.e. they might desperately want a BR Standard 78XXX Class 2 but they might only ever buy one whereas the present method suggests that at least 304 people would actually buy one.   

 

Incidentally on a very different tack it would be interesting to know the relationship between the number of votes cast for items in past polls and the numbers actually sold in their first year in the marketplace (my guess is somewhere between 20 & 30:1 in terms of number produced in the first run: number of votes).

[BMacdermott]

Dear All

 

I thought you might like to see what we said in the Q&A - below. The key factors are 'what you would like to see made' and 'realistically buy' - not simply 'buy' (as one might do if a model was in a shop and it 'took your fancy').

 

Brian (on behalf of The Poll Team)

 

 

What is the purpose of The Poll?

To provide an easy and enjoyable way for modellers and collectors to tell the major manufacturers and commissioners of ready-to-run railway models what they would like to see made from new tooling (excluding models tooled, made or announced since 2000). It aims to seek what you would realistically wish to buy in the future, bearing in mind that new models take around two to three years to develop.

[Ozexpatriate]

... The key factors are 'what you would like to see made' and 'realistically buy'.

To Brian's point, I would extrapolate this to "what you would like to see made, and will realistically buy, over your lifetime."

 

Manufacturers won't make everything all at once. Unless you have very universal tastes, the probablility that more than a handful of new items you wishlisted for will be announced in any given year is almost zero. (Delivery of course is like waiting for buses. They all seem to hit the credit card at the same time.)

 

... some people want some sort of prefernce system.

 

I ... have an unfounded suspicion that others just block voted for everything on their favoured one or two regions.

 

No evidence for that, of course, but it seems to be a clash of tactical voting styles.

Were there a significant amount of 'block donkey voting' the number of votes cast per person would be very high. Last year Andy shared a histogram showing the distribution of votes per person. In practice, some people vote for many items and some people vote for a few. (From memory, the mode of this distribution was about 12.)

 

Perhaps if we were to ask Brian or Andy very nicely, they would be able to provide a similar distribution for the 2013 poll.

 

I can reassure you that while I did vote for many items, I did not 'block vote' for everything - and I voted for fewer items than last year. The things I voted for, I would certainly buy.

 

In any sort of poll such as this I really think that simple number of votes cast is as good a way as any of indicating where folk's needs lie.

Yes, simpler is better.

 

In my opinion, this poll approach is driving much 'better' results in terms of surfacing non-locomotive and non-rolling stock.

[Ozexpatriate]

I think a deep analysis by the polling team would give THEM an idea as to whether the results will give the best possible indications to manufacturers, or whether a slight tweak might help.

Phil,

 

There's a very easy 'sniff test' for the data. Look at the magnitudes. The top vote was 353 (Level crossing). The 50th vote was 179 SR Banana Van (Diag.1478).

 

That's a spread of very close to 2X. If everyone voted en-bloc, we'd see very little variation across the results. But we do see tremendous variation:

• we see non-rolling stock items.
• we see non-locomotive rolling stock.
• we see a wide distribution of locomotives across many eras within each region.

With other polls where some form of preference is applied the top-end is dominated by locomotives. I think the mechanics of the current poll work better than any model railway poll I've seen.

[Andy Y]

Last year Andy shared a histogram[/url] showing the distribution of votes per person. In practice, some people vote for many items and some people vote for a few. (From memory, the mode of this distribution was about 12.)

I could but it'll mean a bit of work as I'd saved the files after calculation in an excel form which truncated some of the columns from the csv files which would mean I'd have to follow the same initial steps in examining the data. Will get to it if I get chance but I've got no reason to doubt the distribution is significantly different from last year.

[Ozexpatriate]

Last year Andy shared a histogram showing the distribution of votes per person. In practice, some people vote for many items and some people vote for a few. (From memory, the mode of this distribution was about 12.)

I could but it'll mean a bit of work as I'd saved the files after calculation in an excel form which truncated some of the columns from the csv files which would mean I'd have to follow the same initial steps in examining the data. Will get to it if I get chance but I've got no reason to doubt the distribution is significantly different from last year.

No need to on my account Andy. I'm entirely satisfied.

 

I find it interesting (and understandable) how important the idea of a preferential system is to so many people. The need for this is not borne out by the maths.

[Ian J.]

I could but it'll mean a bit of work as I'd saved the files after calculation in an excel form which truncated some of the columns from the csv files which would mean I'd have to follow the same initial steps in examining the data. Will get to it if I get chance but I've got no reason to doubt the distribution is significantly different from last year.

 

If you want, I could do that. My 'old' day job included wrangling data from CSVs in Excel and Access.

[Karhedron]

I liked the poll better this year. I seem to remember in past years there have been a certain number of votes available to each person (unless my memory os playing tricks on me  ). I have voted for things that only vaguely interested me just to use up the votes. This year I just voted for the things I wanted without worrying about rationing myself or using up "spare" votes.

[Btourer]

Thanks to the team for arranging the poll again. I can only imagine the benefit the manufacturers must get from this.

 

It is nice to see items other than rolling stock featuring in the top 50, and I am delighted to see the standard 2MT 2-6-0 in particular gaining so much support. To be honest, after the result it got last year I was a little surprised that it did not feature in Bachmann's new range for this year considering they already have useful parts in their Ivatt 2MT.

 

I am disappointed that yet again the Gresley V2 has not featured highly, although Bachmann now has an excellent chassis the body falls far behind the other excellent LNER designs available. It is a significant locomotive for all of us who model NER and ScR. I would be interested to see how many votes it received, if that is not too much trouble.

 

With regards to how the poll could be improved, from speaking to other customers at my local model shop it is clear that in the hobby we fall into two main camps - modellers who model a specific location at a specific time with accurate stock to suit, and those who enjoy running whatever suits their fancy, locomotives and stock they are interested in, regardless of region, era, etc. For example, my interest and enjoyment lies in the first. I model Hawick in June/July 1959 in EM, and all my stock purchases fit that interest. On the other side, I know someone who ordered from the Hornby Catalogue the P2, 8P 'Duke of Gloucester' and the GWR Star. Both of us enjoy the hobby in different ways. So I think it might be interesting to have maybe two colums in which one could vote in one or the other, but not both. The first column would be titled something like 'I would buy one of these' and the second 'I would buy multiple examples of this item'. I mention this as I need more than one A3, B1, K3 etc, and my friend mentioned above buys only one of each locomotive type he likes (With the exception of Named locos, which have obvious added appeal). I offer this suggestion as I fear that the P2 and BR 8P fall firmly into the buy once only camp. Maybe something for the manufacurers to consider in future perhaps?

 

Thanks again for providing the poll and letting us have a say in the hobby we love so much!

[DLPG]

Good to see there is still demand for the Q6 and K1. Always been high on the wish list polls over the years. I hope we see them on someones agenda in the future. The Standard 3 also a popular choice and another I would love to see. I just hope we start to see some new stuff coming through, all very slow at the moment.

[DLPG]

The one thing I would expect more of in the current climate is small to meduim sized locomotives, items potentially more affordable. I can't see many 8P's and P2's flying off the shelf. Not compared to the likes of say a J27 or A8 if they were ever considered.

[BMacdermott]

I liked the poll better this year. I seem to remember in past years there have been a certain number of votes available to each person (unless my memory os playing tricks on me  ). I have voted for things that only vaguely interested me just to use up the votes. This year I just voted for the things I wanted without worrying about rationing myself or using up "spare" votes.

 

Hello Matt

 

We had 'unlimited voting' last year, too.

 

Brian (on behalf of The Poll Team)

[BMacdermott]

 

With other polls where some form of preference is applied the top-end is dominated by locomotives. I think the mechanics of the current poll work better than any model railway poll I've seen.

 

 

Hello Oz

 

I recently posted a breakdown of the Top 25 steam locos, and that showed a good spread. I have done the same with the other categories below:

 

PCCS

9 - Mk1

5 - SR

4 - LMS

2 - LNER

2 - Mk2

2 - Mk3

1 - GWR

 

NPCCS

9 - LNER

5 - GWR

5 - SR

4 - LMS

2 - BR

 

Freight

8 - SR

6 - LNER

5 - BR

4 - TOPS-coded

1 - GWR

1 - LMS

 

Brian (on behalf of The Poll Team)