The Wishlist Poll 2016

[Ozexpatriate]

I would perhaps suggest returning to collect data on the time periods that people model, with the pre-1923 period split into say four separate periods such as; early pioneer (pre-1840); late pioneer (1840-1875) (both Bachmann Era 1); late Victorian (1875-1900); late pre-grouping (1900- 1922) (both Bachmann Era 2). 

Yes, I agree.

 

The alternative would be to add a pre-grouping section to the poll, very much along the lines of the Industrial section with reasonably generic descriptions.  Given that modellers of this period don't have a lot of choice, they would probably be willing to purchase most stock that fits with their time period, so the list could perhaps be along the lines of:

No.

 

I'm not keen on the poll's compromise for industrial examples - though I understand why it was done, particularly keeping in mind the idea that one can make do with a representational example. A 009 category, similar to the way industrial types are expressed might make similar sense.

 

This would be much worse with pre-grouping, particularly for people who are frustrated not with there being no pre-grouping RTR items, but that the RTR items offered in pre-grouping liveries don't have period correct details. 

[Ian Abel]

I wonder in how many future polls I'm going to have to select that SR U class mogul*

 

* there are others there as well, like the LB&SC Terrier. I'm getting a bit bored with selecting the same items...

Probably about as many as I have to select 4-COR.

I'd like both, BUT, unless some manufacturer gets their finger out, I'll be on retirement income and unable to spring for something wth the sort of high-ticket a 4-COR will be <sigh>

[pH]

First - thanks to the Poll Team, and appreciation for the effort that must have gone in to compiling the poll.

 

A question (meant as a serious question, not as a dismissive comment) - why are distribution and even specific allocations included for locomotive classes? I can understand build dates and withdrawal dates being included, to give an idea of whether or not a particular class is appropriate for a particular era. However, would people wishing to model a specific area not know what classes are appropriate, or have access to existing sources to find that out? Not including that information in the poll would surely cut down the effort involved in compiling it.

 

There is another point, which, again, could be construed as a complaint but is only meant as a comment - some of the distribution information is incomplete and even wrong in some cases. Another possible reason to save effort by not including it?

 

But once again, thanks and appreciation for all the effort involved in putting the poll together.

[Ozexpatriate]

Brian,

 

from the SR Guide:

LSWR G6 0-6-0T (30160-30354 with gaps)

Adams designed these useful locos (essentially a six-coupled version of his O2) for shunting, pilot duties and short-distance goods work. Thirty-four were built from 1893, all surviving into BR days. Only the first ten came out during Adams’ tenure; the rest were built under Drummond and displayed detail variations, principally in the boiler dimensions, and the final ten had a longer wheelbase. They were gradually withdrawn until the final examples in capital stock went in 1961. DS682 (ex-30238) in service stock lasted until December 1962 at Meldon Quarry. N Brass produces an N gauge kit.

Link: http://www.semgonline.com/steam/g6class_01.html

Link: https://locoyard.files.wordpress.com/2015/08/kent-and-east-sussex-railway-tenterden-august-2015-16-br-sr-usa-dock-tank-30065.jpg

The second link is the USA dock tank - not a G6

[Ozexpatriate]

Did the "jargon buster" get abbreviated?
 
I thought we had the railway company names listed at one point.
 
Most of us aren't going to get confused by pre-grouping or grouping constituent companies, but one of the reasons the guide is so important is that people will come to the poll from sources - like print - where some relative newcomers may not be instantly able to recognize some abbreviations.

 

Two of the first examples to appear happen to be:

SHT/P&M (Swansea Harbour Trust / Powlesland and Mason
MSWJR: Midland & South Western Junction Railway

 

Yes, these items have been in the poll for several years (I'm looking forward to Hornby's Peckett even though the E class Peckett still gets my vote) but newcomers may not recognize company names like these immediately.

[Fenman]

Not quite:

 

http://www.kernowmodelrailcentre.com/p/42320/K2056-DJ-Models-2-4-0WT-Beattie-Well-Tank-Steam-Locomotive-30587

Yep, that's certainly showed up my ignorance of things south of East Anglia! Thanks for the correction.

 

The good news is that this clearly demonstrates a 2-4-0 is perfectly possible in 00. Roll on the GER E4.

 

Paul

[Edwardian]

Yep, that's certainly showed up my ignorance of things south of East Anglia! Thanks for the correction.

 

The good news is that this clearly demonstrates a 2-4-0 is perfectly possible in 00. Roll on the GER E4.

 

Paul

 

Paul, you were quite correct.  You posted 2-4-0, not "2-4-0T" or 2-4-0WT!

[BMacdermott]

Hello everyone

 

A lot of questions since last night, so I have combined the responses as below.

 

Jub45565 (#37):

I will certainly put your kit idea on the Agenda but the current purpose of The Poll is purely to enable voters to say what models they would like to see made. We ‘stripped out’ all extraneous matter and had many notes of thanks for keeping it simple and easy.

 

GWRrob (#38):

We state in The Guide that all Diagram Numbers are representative. If you have a look at The Guide text appertaining to the PBV, that should explain matters. However, I will note it for the Agenda for you.

 

TheSignalEngineer (#39):

I put the Palethorpes vehicles on the Agenda just a few days ago.

 

CromptonNut (#41):

I have put the Dace on the Agenda for you. If you suggest anything else, we would appreciate it by 29 October. That will then be dealt with very quickly. However, failing that, if we get suggestions by the end of June 2017, we can get them looked at. We review the whole Guide during July and August, then ‘close for press’ very early September so that we give Andy a fair chance to fit ‘the computerised bits’ into his schedule.

 

Clearwater (#44):

If you give me a clear list of what you want considered, then I’ll put them on the Agenda for you. (Not being awkward – but better if it comes from you clearly than me guessing – see note at end.)

 

Caradoc (#45):

As noted above, we have to ‘close for press’ early September. The fact that the 700s are now running will be reflected in the 2017 Guide.

 

SurfsUp (#46):

I will put the Network Rail 950 001 and Class 210 on the Agenda for you.

 

Dunsignalling (#47):

As noted in The Guide, we have combined certain items where it seems reasonable and it gives a spare space to work into. It’s a case of someone getting their requested entry or not. We will, of course, reflect on what you have said and do our best to amend suitably.

 

Dungrange (#48):

As noted earlier, the era subject is going on the Agenda.

 

Torn-on-the Platform (#50)

Chesham sets are going on the Agenda for you. We are fortunate to have the assistance of two senior officers of the London Underground Railway Society (LURS) who help with such decisions.

 

pH (#53):

The reason for such information being in is that…. we were requested to put it in. We were recently castigated on MREmag for not having enough! I’d be interested to hear what you think is wrong – but please also give your sources. (Speaking personally as a member of The Steam Railway Research Society and one who works closely with the What Really Happened to Steam Team, there are some shed books that cannot be relied upon.)

 

Ozexpatriate (#54):

Apologies for the duplicate link. At least 12 of us check it all, and I went through every one the day before The Guide went to Andy. A case of ‘not seeing wood for trees’, I’m afraid.

 

Ozexpatriate (#55):

The list of company names was separate last year, but have been combined this year so that you read one list in alphabetical order. What we are trying to do editorially in The Guide is spell out the company name in full the first time it is mentioned in any item, but then use the abbreviation. The Jargon Buster acts as a back-up for anyone not reading The Guide.

 

An appeal to anyone suggesting items for consideration:

Please take a look at The Guide and see how things are listed there: a title; 100 or so words of text; one or two links. If you can supply your suggestions in that format, we would appreciate it. It also helps ensure we are understanding exactly what you are meaning. (No merry quips about our ‘faux pas’ with the USA Tank link, please! We are red-faced enough!)

 

If any questions need answering subsequent to #55, I will catch up with them during the day.

 

Brian Macdermott (on behalf of The Poll Team)

[Phatbob]

Am I missing something or are class 116 and 118 DMUs not listed in the 00 poll?  I'm not aware of any forthcoming models of these having been announced and I wanted to vote for them.
 

[Dungrange]

The guide says that "Kernow announced a 00 Class 116 at Warley 2014" and "Kernow announced its 00 Class 117/118 at Warley 2014. However, an announcement in September 2015 indicated that the research had been

handed to Bachmann and Bachmann announced its Class 117 on 5 September".  That would seem to be why they are only in the N gauge poll.

[BMacdermott]

Hello Phatbob

 

Can I refer you to The Guide (DMUs)? We explain the reason there. The units are still in the N list.

 

Brian Macdermott (on behalf of The Poll Team)

[BMacdermott]

Hello everyone

 

As you can see, we have tried to be as helpful as we can with your suggestions. Can I ask your help now?

 

We have attached two types of Poll mini-poster - A4 (one to view) and A5 (two to view).

 

If you can get either or both of these displayed at your club or model shop, we'd be most grateful. Please ensure you have permission to put them up though! Probably not a problem at your club, but a shop might take a different view.

 

Many thanks

 

Brian Macdermott (on behalf of The Poll Team)

 

 

 

 

 

2016 A4 Poster.pdf

2016 Mini-poster.pdf

[cromptonnut]

CromptonNut (#41):

I have put the Dace on the Agenda for you. If you suggest anything else, we would appreciate it by 29 October. That will then be dealt with very quickly. However, failing that, if we get suggestions by the end of June 2017, we can get them looked at. We review the whole Guide during July and August, then ‘close for press’ very early September so that we give Andy a fair chance to fit ‘the computerised bits’ into his schedule.

 

I can't see the Dace in the poll yet.  Am I missing something obvious?

 

If you're still taking suggestions for obscure things then can I submit the TMV conical ended milk tanks...?

[Dungrange]

I think Brian means he has added it to the agenda for items to be discussed for inclusion in the 2017 poll.  It won't appear in this poll.

[MR PJ]

Good evening,

 

Regarding the N gauge diesel/electric agenda, I did flag up last year the lack of the later re-styled (25/3) bodywork Class25's, and was told they will be included for 2016, as the out-dated Farish model has been out of manufacture for years now.

As this is an item that a number of people have expressed interest in I do hope its not too late to add them in now.

 

Thank-you,

Paul

[Ozexpatriate]

Ozexpatriate (#55):

The list of company names was separate last year, but have been combined this year so that you read one list in alphabetical order. What we are trying to do editorially in The Guide is spell out the company name in full the first time it is mentioned in any item, but then use the abbreviation. The Jargon Buster acts as a back-up for anyone not reading The Guide.

That is done nicely in the SR section, but constituent company names are not listed in any of the other files of The Guide.

 

The use of acronyms is pervasive. It's not a problem for experienced enthusiasts, but it's alphabet soup to the uninitiated. Beyond constituent companies it extends to names like USATC and WD as well.

 

A pedant armed with editorial red ink would note that the first occurrence of even very familiar acronyms like GWR would be better to be spelled out.

[TheSignalEngineer]

......................

TheSignalEngineer (#39):

I put the Palethorpes vehicles on the Agenda just a few days ago.

 

 

 

Brian Macdermott (on behalf of The Poll Team)

Thanks. Despite there only being about a dozen vehicles of four different types they ran regular services from Dudley Port to Euston, Perth, Leeds, Manchester, Heysham and Cardiff from about 1937 through to the early 1960s.

The 50' vans were on a similar underframe to the Stanier BG. The corridor version also had an unbranded spare, and was similar to the LMS Cream Van.

When the Palethorpes traffic was lost the vans sometimes turned up in ordinary parcels use. There are reports of a six-wheeler in use at Wolverhampton LL including on one occasion as tail traffic for a DPU.

I don't know if the LMS six-wheelers had anything in common whith any other six-wheel vans built by the company but there may be options for other spin-offs.

[dana]

Polls like the one's on crowdfunding the 87 & 86 , Special livery's on the FWG HST sets and howl long should models take  from start to finish should be in THE POLL if not this year maybe next year . RM WEB has the data on these polls from RMWEB  but not not from those that don't go on this forum ,  Poll's like Blue tooth Railroad app VS DCC ready and  DCC equiped.  How do the Poll takers feel  on this question . DO they want more article's on the advantages or are they happy with current status on model availability .  these might be too late to add these in this year's poll  but a consideration for next year .  009 is getting produced and maybe  include these in next years poll's 

[BMacdermott]

I can't see the Dace in the poll yet.  Am I missing something obvious?

 

If you're still taking suggestions for obscure things then can I submit the TMV conical ended milk tanks...?

Hello cromptonnut

 

As noted, the Dace has gone on the 2017 Agenda and I have added the Conical Ended Milk Tanks as well. Once the Poll content is 'closed for press' in early September, we can't add anything to it (although we can delete items up to a day or so before 'go live' but that leaves a blank line).

 

Brian Macdermott (on behalf of The Poll Team)

[BMacdermott]

Good evening,

 

Regarding the N gauge diesel/electric agenda, I did flag up last year the lack of the later re-styled (25/3) bodywork Class25's, and was told they will be included for 2016, as the out-dated Farish model has been out of manufacture for years now.

As this is an item that a number of people have expressed interest in I do hope its not too late to add them in now.

 

Thank-you,

Paul

Hello Paul

 

I will refer that to the small sub-Team that looks after N checking for us. Please note, though, that I would never say that any item would go into The Poll per se - only onto the Agenda.

 

Brian Macdermott (on behalf of The Poll Team)

[BMacdermott]

That is done nicely in the SR section, but constituent company names are not listed in any of the other files of The Guide.

 

The use of acronyms is pervasive. It's not a problem for experienced enthusiasts, but it's alphabet soup to the uninitiated. Beyond constituent companies it extends to names like USATC and WD as well.

 

A pedant armed with editorial red ink would note that the first occurrence of even very familiar acronyms like GWR would be better to be spelled out.

 

Hello Oz

 

Point taken. Having looked again, I can see that USATC and WD aren't logged in the Jargon Buster nor is it explained in The Guide text. Consider the matter 'under review'.

 

Brian Macdermott (on behalf of The Poll Team)

[BMacdermott]

Polls like the one's on crowdfunding the 87 & 86 , Special livery's on the FWG HST sets and howl long should models take  from start to finish should be in THE POLL if not this year maybe next year . RM WEB has the data on these polls from RMWEB  but not not from those that don't go on this forum ,  Poll's like Blue tooth Railroad app VS DCC ready and  DCC equiped.  How do the Poll takers feel  on this question . DO they want more article's on the advantages or are they happy with current status on model availability .  these might be too late to add these in this year's poll  but a consideration for next year .  009 is getting produced and maybe  include these in next years poll's 

Hello dana

 

The purpose of The Poll is purely to enable modellers and collectors to state which models they would like to see made. It is too difficult for us to drill down into specifics such as livery etc and you will find that some companies - Oxford Rail and Kernow for example - announce a model and then seek opinions on which liveries to go with then. The one comment that gets back to us time and time again is that, despite the level of detailed content, it is very easy to take part.

 

We feel that collecting data on DCC, purely pre-Grouping types and so on is not a matter for The Poll Team (although I, personally do run some similar 'surveys' over on MREmag).

 

We always have 009 and 0 gauge on the Agenda, but have so far decided not to venture into those fields. The Industrial and Underground categories were on the Agenda from 2012 and we subsequently decided to go for those from 2014.

 

Brian Macdermott (on behalf of The Poll Team)

[Edwardian]

That is done nicely in the SR section, but constituent company names are not listed in any of the other files of The Guide.

 

The use of acronyms is pervasive. It's not a problem for experienced enthusiasts, but it's alphabet soup to the uninitiated. Beyond constituent companies it extends to names like USATC and WD as well.

 

A pedant armed with editorial red ink would note that the first occurrence of even very familiar acronyms like GWR would be better to be spelled out.

 

"SR"?

 

[BMacdermott]

Hello Oz

 

Point taken. Having looked again, I can see that USATC and WD aren't logged in the Jargon Buster nor is it explained in The Guide text. Consider the matter 'under review'.

 

Brian Macdermott (on behalf of The Poll Team)

 

Hello again Oz

 

I have made some progress with the review but - as is often the case with proposed ideas - what initially sounds good leads to certain complications when you start to drill down. Things aren't too bad in the individual Grouping & Constituents categories, but where we have Pre-1948, 1948-1963 and 1964-current types under one heading (such as NPCCS) matters can get complex! Anyway, it's being worked on and it will be better at the end.

 

Brian Macdermott (on behalf of The Poll Team)

[Ozexpatriate]

Things aren't too bad in the individual Grouping & Constituents categories, but where we have Pre-1948, 1948-1963 and 1964-current types under one heading (such as NPCCS) matters can get complex! 

Which is why I thought simply having them in the 'jargon buster' was a satisfactory solution.