Wishlist poll - industrial locomotive additional

[BMacdermott]

Hello Ruston

 

It does sort of take us back to the starting point where we listed each maker with each of its wheel arrangements (and as mentioned by Regularity above).

 

The problem then is: how many makers are there? And how many wheel arrangements in each?

 

I suspect a lot.

 

(Incidentally, I clipped a clip with a quote within it and it disappeared - just as you noted earlier. I live and learn.)

 

Brian (on behalf of The Poll Team)

[Regularity]

For Manning, Wardle, you’d probably go for a K or an L. An L is a bit bigger, so slightly easier to shoe in the mechanism, but I believe the K class was their most numerous design.

For Hudswell, Clarke, a saddle tank (e.g. Easingwold and several preserved examples) or side tank (as also used on the Mid Suffolk Light), then there is “Sweden” class used on the MSC - not knowledgeable enough to comment on details, but there seem to be some variations in side tanks. If there are any commonalities in wheelbase and wheelsize here, then it becomes a more interesting option.

Then there’s the Avonside B3, Barclay’s had 0-6-0s, don’t know enough to comment on Hunslet, etc...

 

The point is, there are already 0-4-0STs from Peckett and Barclay on the market, so a six-coupled inside cylinder tank loco makes a good addition: I mention MW and HC as providing what may be the most frequently found designs. Certainly the HC 0-6-0ST has been popular enough in 0 gauge.

[BMacdermott]

Hello Simon

 

We listed the (generic) Industrial 0-6-0ST - Inside Cylinders new in 2015. It came in High Polling.

 

In 2016 (latest results) it went up to the Top 50 (and was actually within the top 30 of that).

 

Brian (on behalf of The Poll Team)

[Regularity]

Therein lies your problem.

If you say ”industrial 0-6-0” then everyone will interpret whatever way suits them, including not wanting a generic 0-6-0 tank.

If you ask around, people will suggest their own favourites to a large degree.

 

You are trying to gauge market interest across 3 different segments, asking only a single question. The segments are:

 

1) I’ll buy any industrial 0-6-0 tank engine;

2) I have a preference for a specific prototype, But might buy regardless as a stand-in until I can build/acquire what I want;

3a) Only my chosen prototype will do;

3b) as 3a, with the details and livery specific to a single engine, will do.

 

I’ve split the third option between the specific and the picky - the latter are a subgroup of the former, and only satisfied when someone else does it all for them (but at cheap prices!)

 

Realistically, you will get all of (1) and some of (2). Don’t worry about 3!

 

That brings us back to maker’s “standard designs”.

 

DJM has promised an HC 0-6-0ST: no idea when, but it might put other manufacturers off.

If the chassis for the above is suitable, maybe someone would produce an SLA/3D printed body for the side tank variants?

 

That suggests that the option to include would be a Manning, Wardle 0-6-0ST, which brings you back to the K or the L. Superficially very similar, but not when you get into the details!

 

You could put both in, but as long as you provide the options for:

(a) Would definitely buy;

(b) Would buy if the other model were not available.

 

You may do that, but I haven’t ever looked at the wish list as it doesn’t apply to anything I would be interested in! Also, it’s a bit like self-service checkouts: you are reducing the labour cost for the business you are buying from. (In this case, I would hope that they do some proper market research.)

[lanchester]

Stop me if this is a silly idea (reference books in storage etc) but would a model of Lambton no 29 (Kitson 0-6-2T), with an alternative cab, widen its appeal by also helping  Hull & Barnsley, and LDECR/GCR modellers? LNER N6 and N11 - originally the same as LDECR sold to H&BR the ones it couldn't pay for. They look superficially quite close to No 29, or am I missing some insuperable problem?

[Regularity]

No idea. But as we are overrun with modellers of the Lambton, H&BR and LDEC, there should be a good market for it...

[BMacdermott]

Therein lies your problem.

If you say ”industrial 0-6-0” then everyone will interpret whatever way suits them, including not wanting a generic 0-6-0 tank.

 

You could put both in, but as long as you provide the options for:

(a) Would definitely buy;

(b) Would buy if the other model were not available.

 

You may do that, but I haven’t ever looked at the wish list as it doesn’t apply to anything I would be interested in! Also, it’s a bit like self-service checkouts: you are reducing the labour cost for the business you are buying from. (In this case, I would hope that they do some proper market research.)

 

Hello Simon

 

If you haven't looked at The Poll (details in the banner headline) then you won't have read the reasons and background to the way some things are listed.

 

And I did specifically say 0-6-0ST (not just 0-6-0).

 

We have said many times before that we can't expand The Poll with 'what ifs' (such as would buy etc).

 

Hope that helps.

 

Brian

[Ruston]

Hello Ruston

 

It does sort of take us back to the starting point where we listed each maker with each of its wheel arrangements (and as mentioned by Regularity above).

 

The problem then is: how many makers are there? And how many wheel arrangements in each?

 

I suspect a lot.

 

(Incidentally, I clipped a clip with a quote within it and it disappeared - just as you noted earlier. I live and learn.)

 

Brian (on behalf of The Poll Team)

I don't agree, Brian. Several contributors have come up with suggestions of actual types, so how are we still at the starting point?

 

And what is this thing is is with wheel arrangements?  I just do not see what relevance that has. Please explain it.

 

Why does it matter how many makers there are? I don't think anyone is wanting you to list every type from every builder.that has ever existed.

[BMacdermott]

Hello Ruston

 

We are probably talking at cross-purposes. Just carry on and see what you come up with.

 

Brian (on behalf of The Poll Team)

[Regularity]

And I did specifically say 0-6-0ST (not just 0-6-0).

 

We have said many times before that we can't expand The Poll with 'what ifs' (such as would buy etc).

 

Hope that helps.

Yes, it helps.

It helps me realise that you have a problem here, for some sales will be predicated on “only this option” and some others on “well I would, if there was no other option”. This isn’t the same arena as the “mainline” companies, where designs were restricted to specific railways. This is a more open and fluid scenario in modelling as well as the prototype, where availability and price of product could and often would be the deciding factor in making a purchase, but some industrial concerns would have a preferred supplier.

Besides, would you simply ask GWR modellers if they wanted a 4-6-0, or would you be more specific, e.g. Star, Saint, Castle, Hall, King, Grange, Manor, Improved Hall, County...? I’ve left out the Kruger and other prototypes, but you wouldn’t really expect to get much interest from “GWR 4-6-0”, would you?

 

As Dave has said, there are been plenty of prototypes suggested, so why not use them?

Edited October 26, 2018 by Regularity

[Ruston]

Hello Ruston

 

We are probably talking at cross-purposes. Just carry on and see what you come up with.

 

Brian (on behalf of The Poll Team)

 

I just don't know or understand what you want. Your poll lists only vague notions of wheel arrangement and style of water tank as something to vote for but you then say that something is generic because it doesn't specify a style of cab, or an individual loco.

 

How will you know which of those variations voters will prefer if you don’t list them specifically? Are you not still listing generically but under a different name?

 

I only mention it as your original comment about our current list was that it was generic rather than specific.

 

 

How is it generic to suggest a Manning Wardle class L? They were built with detail differences in the 40+ years that they were in production but if you start listing every small variation the whole thing will just get bogged down. The same applies to any type of loco with a long production run and by any manufacturer. Detail variations can be taken care of later, after people get their hands on the models. 3D-printing  or etched kit guys will come up with alternative cabs, or chimneys and the like. If the model manufacturers have got any idea what they're about at all they'll do this stuff themselves anyway and release versions with these alternatives. I don't think we need to spoon-feed them. You put down on the poll Manning Wardle Class L 0-6-0ST (or whatever other suggestion that has been put forward) and that's it. People will either vote for it or they won't but at least they know that what they are voting for is a Manning Wardle Class L and not anything else that just happens to have the same wheel arrangement and a saddletank and was built at any time between 1850 and 1950, which they very well could do by voting " industrial 0-6-0ST"

 

This is all just going round in circles. As they say on Dragons' Den - I'm out.

Edited October 26, 2018 by Ruston

[Corbs]

Could always run a sub-poll where we vote for locos to see in the poll? Sounds like it's not a serious suggestion but it is. Could have a poll thread in the industrial section with all the suggestions from the suggestions thread.

 

Say if we limited us to 10 specific locos in the main poll, and then 'other 0-6-0ST' as an option for example, could that work?

Edited October 26, 2018 by Corbs

[brack]

Bad choice of phrase there regularity - it wouldn't matter which GWR 4-6-0 you pick as they all look the same (except the Kruger) whereas industrial 060st can look significantly different.

 

[Regularity]

Bad choice of phrase there regularity - it wouldn't matter which GWR 4-6-0 you pick as they all look the same (except the Kruger) whereas industrial 060st can look significantly different.

Agreed, but you’ve got to give me credit for coming up with that list, not being a GWR fan.

(My understanding is, Star = 4 cylinders, Saint = 2 cylinders, everything else, variations on a theme by Churchward - on the reasonable basis that if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.)

[Regularity]

If you haven't looked at The Poll (details in the banner headline) then you won't have read the reasons and background to the way some things are listed.

 

I went and read it.

Apart from idly wondering why “Mr. ELO” was involved, it confirmed what I said: you are helping all of the manufacturers with unpaid market research.

I have no problem with this, and as the level of fidelity to prototype gets finer and finer as the hobby gets more adult-oriented, this is maybe a very good thing especially as it is independent: but as Dave has said, we are going round in circles, and not of the set track on the dining room floor variety, and you need to be more specific as you will simply miss out on accuractely identifying the potential market.

 

Over twenty years ago I occasionally ran training courses on customer survey design, and the basic crux of it was that people will answer the question they think you asked, so make sure it’s a watertight question with no room for ambiguity. I have no idea what you mean by “inside cylinder industrial 0-6-0ST”, beyond the 6 driving wheels, lack of outside motion, and presence of a saddle tank. Even if I modelled in 00, I couldn’t accurately answer that question: you could take any prototype engine 0-6-0ST with inside cylinders from a “mainline” company, and repaint it as sold out of service, and it would fit your description, but I very much doubt that is what you meant. For that matter, the “J94” already fills the niche.

 

Almost a hobby in itself, this survey lark...

[martyn11post]

Dear Santa... please can I have a GEC Stephenson or any other steelworks based shunter

 

[Mark Saunders]

 

Dear Santa... please can I have a GEC Stephenson or any other steelworks based shunter

 

GEC Stephenson Drawing.png

 

 

The 65 ton version for ICI as opposed to the 75 ton for BSC.

 

[Michael Edge]

The ICI one was a one off though, the rest are pretty similar and quite widely used.

[Regularity]

The ICI one was a one off though, the rest are pretty similar and quite widely used.

Was it having a circular centre wheel which led to them being quite widely used?

[mdvle]

I just don't know or understand what you want. Your poll lists only vague notions of wheel arrangement and style of water tank as something to vote for but you then say that something is generic because it doesn't specify a style of cab, or an individual loco.

 

...

 

This is all just going round in circles. As they say on Dragons' Den - I'm out.

 

My outside, and perhaps incorrect, reading is that the two of you are talking different things.  I don't think the issue was the Manning Wardle class L.

 

I think part of the issue is that when you listed your choices you gave lengthy descriptions and reasoning for your steam choices, but your diesel choices were short and had a "it doesn't matter" attitude to it - though I would like to make clear I don't think that was your intention and perhaps just more a reflection that perhaps (to one who isn't familiar at all with industrials) by the time the diesel era arrived the design was more of a standard than the steam era.

[mdvle]

So, likely with many mistakes given my ignorance of the issue, here is a summary of the suggestions so far (and perhaps some missed, if so sorry).

 

I didn't list Petrol given that there was only 1 suggestion, no comments(?), perhaps indicating a lack of interest in that category.

 

Steam 0-4-0

 

Lewin 0-4-0ST

E. Burrows 0-4-0WT

Hunslet 16" 0-4-0T

Avonside 0-4-0ST

HL/RSH "Munition" 0-4-0

Bagnall 0-4-0ST "Alice"

 

Steam 0-6-0

 

Manning Wardle class L 0-6-0ST

RS&H Uglies 0-6-0ST

Hudswell Clarke 0-6-0ST

Andrew Barclay 14" 0-6-0ST

RSH 0-6-0T (Hams Hall)

Avonside 0-6-0ST

 

Diesel 0-4-0

 

Ruston 48DS

Hudswell Clarke 0-4-0DM

FC HIbberd 4wDM

Armstrong Whitworth 0-4-0DE

 

 

Diesel 0-6-0

 

Bagnall 0-6-0DM DL2

Hunslet 0-6-0DH

Hudswell Clarke 0-6-0DM

GEC Stephenson

 

Others

 

RS&H 0-6-2T (LY&JC vs ex Taff Vale)

 

Beyer Peacock 0-4-0+0-4-0ST Garratt

[mdvle]

Some general comments for anyone who want to take this further.

 

The poll team has requested any suggestions be done in a specific format and submitted to them (they won't look through this thread to find it).  The details can be found in this posting - http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/138339-qa-the-wishlist-poll-2018/&do=findComment&comment=3332496

 

The initial grouping by era was interesting, but most of the suggestions ignored it perhaps indicating in general people are more interested in the steam / diesel and wheel arrangement than year.  Going forward it may be better then to stick with the wheel arrangements.

 

A consideration in choices may also want to reflect any that are on a preserved railway, ideally in use (at least in say the last decade), which could increase the potential market.

 

The list above doesn't seem too bad, though my personal opinion would be that the categories should probably be narrowed down to 4 choices per category.  There may be valid arguments to allow up to 6.

 

Are there any "obvious" choices that haven't been mentioned yet?

 

Any good reasons why any of those listed above should be removed?

[Covkid]

So, likely with many mistakes given my ignorance of the issue, here is a summary of the suggestions so far (and perhaps some missed, if so sorry).

 

I didn't list Petrol given that there was only 1 suggestion, no comments(?), perhaps indicating a lack of interest in that category.

 

Steam 0-4-0

 

Lewin 0-4-0ST

E. Burrows 0-4-0WT

Hunslet 16" 0-4-0T

Avonside 0-4-0ST

HL/RSH "Munition" 0-4-0

Bagnall 0-4-0ST "Alice"

 

Steam 0-6-0

 

Manning Wardle class L 0-6-0ST

RS&H Uglies 0-6-0ST

Hudswell Clarke 0-6-0ST

Andrew Barclay 14" 0-6-0ST

RSH 0-6-0T (Hams Hall)

Avonside 0-6-0ST

 

Diesel 0-4-0

 

Ruston 48DS

Hudswell Clarke 0-4-0DM

FC HIbberd 4wDM

Armstrong Whitworth 0-4-0DE

 

 

Diesel 0-6-0

 

Bagnall 0-6-0DM DL2

Hunslet 0-6-0DH

Hudswell Clarke 0-6-0DM

GEC Stephenson

 

Others

 

RS&H 0-6-2T (LY&JC vs ex Taff Vale)

 

Beyer Peacock 0-4-0+0-4-0ST Garratt

 

Very much liking this list and half a dozen at least would be of interest to me.

 

As has already been said, detail design differences are a constant thorn in the side of the modeller / collector in terms of what is available.  

This is of course not a real problem to those who enjoy scratch / kitbuilding, and can accommodate design differences.  For those who don't have the ability or the time, and just want to pick up an RTR model for their layout or collection things are more tricky, and this is perhaps where the trade might develop a kind of hybrid approach.

 

Example. I am not very well up on the Lambton system but I believe that some "J94"s were fitted with the rounded "Lambton" cab, as well as the 0-6-2s etc. I wonder if Dave Jones ever considered this in the design of his Austerity 0-6-0. Obviously (I am guessing here) there probably wouldn't be sufficient demand for a "Lambton" cabbed "J94" to sell off the shelves, but I wonder whether any model developers in the future might consider a kind of hybrid production.

 

AIUI a large retailer chooses to have a model produced, probably in China. Either the retailer, or the Chinese factory, or a combination, draw the CADs, go through the production process, ship the models to the UK and retail them. What if the large retailer bought in a specialist and modified a batch of the product with different fittings, and obviously new paint and decoration, then retailed them as a premium product at an appropriate price. In a non industrial example this could be something as simple as a privatisation era class 37 modified for sandite laying.

A batch of these locos had a hopper fitted inside the loco for dispensing sandite gel  http://www.archive.kirkbystepheneast.co.uk/resources/_wsb_935x494_37674.JPG     The recess below and to the left of where the nameplate was on the bodyside is where the gel was pumped into the hopper. Clearly the 4mm scale 37 has been reproduced several times and this wouldn't be a viable option, but what if a batch of class 37s were made at the factory and shipped to the third party "contractor" where etched parts were fitted to the models, then refinishing. Would the large retailer be able to sell enough of these at a premium price for the concept to work ?

 

Returning to the DJM "J94", the third party "contractor" would be removing the existing cab and fitting a 3D or etched "Lambton" replacement, then a refinish. The scope is actually infinite and lies with the manufacturers and commissioners finances, but this leads me back to the industrial loco thread. One of the industrial diesel locos I fancy is a Brush Bagnall 0-4-0 like this one at the Chasewater  Railway. https://www.flickr.com/photos/45726467@N02/14954785668/  with modified cab windows.

This is how they were built https://www.flickr.com/photos/camperdown/8432691923 but some were also modified as "calves" with the cab removed.  Paul Bartlett captured one here  https://paulbartlett.zenfolio.com/industriallocomotive/h8E86658#h8e86658

 

So what if the large retailer commissioned a factory in China to produce the base model then brought in a "contractor" to produce modified cab and cabless versions ?

[Covkid]

 

Dear Santa... please can I have a GEC Stephenson or any other steelworks based shunter

 

GEC Stephenson Drawing.png

 

 

 

Cannot disagree with that !!!

NCB employed several in the West Midlands, Staffordshire and Warwickshire, and there are now around half a dozen on the Chasewater premises being rebuilt. Plenty of photographic opportunites and you can even have you picnic next to one 

http://www.happysnapper.com/westmidlands/Chasewater%20Railway/2017/Colliery%20Line%2005-08-2017%20Brownhills%20West%20Corus%20255%20GEC%20Traction%20Newton-Le-Willows%201977%2001.jpg

[5050]

The problem then is: how many makers are there? And how many wheel arrangements in each?

 

For 'makers' substitite 'mainline railway companies'.  You managed to make many distinct alternative options with these but seemed to dismiss the equally variable and distinctive industrial ones.

Edited October 27, 2018 by 5050