The 00 Wishlist Poll 2022

[BMacdermott]

Hello Crantock

 

We are gradually listing individual Pre-group company vehicles as space becomes available but, at the moment, have to focus on companies already represented in model form (SECR etc).

 

If you want to vote for an LNWR Brake Van, the best place to express that is in Category 15 under Freight Stock LNWR.

 

It would be entirely possible to have a complete category dedicated to all the various Brake Vans, so we have to draw a line somewhere.

 

Brian (on behalf of The 00 Poll Team)

 

 

[Railway_Central]

I’m happy with the polling and the categories.
 

Further to the poll I would wish to have seen are the 8B (C4) GCR 442 and the I/H (C10/11) NBR 442 Atlantics. 

 

Also overlooked is the L&YR Hughes Dreadnought 460, 1908 and the rebuilt version. 
 

Pleased to see the Saint, Spinner and Gladstone classes in the poll. 

[BMacdermott]

Hello Railway Central

 

As noted in the Q&A, we took a decision to delete many items that were 'languishing' in order to both shorten the content and make it easier for voters to navigate. All but one of the locos you mention came into that category.

 

If you wish to suggest an NBR Atlantic, we will need you to follow the guidance in the Q&A, please.

 

I will put the others on the Agenda for 2024.

 

Brian (on behalf of The 00 Poll Team)

[drt7uk]

Many thanks for running the poll. Sorry to be annoying but wondered if you'd consider adding Metropolitan/ Underground trains as a category next time, including Metropolitan No. 1. Perhaps this was one of the locos that got so few votes it was eliminated but would be great to see it included here. Thank you!

[BMacdermott]

Hello drt7uk

 

We did run Industrial and Underground categories for some years, but stopped as we found the categories were taking up an inordinate amount of time compared to our 'core content'.

 

We offered all our data - free, gratis and for nothing - to a number of Industrial and Underground organisations and even offered to help get their own polls running. But there were no takers.

 

The same happened with N.

 

And there were no takers when we were requested to run an 0 Poll.

 

Brian (on behalf of The 00 Poll Team)

 

 

[BR Blue]

Thanks again to the pool team. My votes are in.

 

In due course I will be making a case for the BR mk2E to be added for the next poll. We have, or shortly will have the 2, 2A, 2B, 2C and 2F to a high standard. The 2D is on the poll but not the 2E which only has the uninspiring Hornby version currently on the market. 

[drt7uk]

2 hours ago, BMacdermott said:

Hello drt7uk

 

We did run Industrial and Underground categories for some years, but stopped as we found the categories were taking up an inordinate amount of time compared to our 'core content'.

 

We offered all our data - free, gratis and for nothing - to a number of Industrial and Underground organisations and even offered to help get their own polls running. But there were no takers.

 

The same happened with N.

 

And there were no takers when we were requested to run an 0 Poll.

 

Brian (on behalf of The 00 Poll Team)

 

 

 

Fair enough Brian. Keeping my fingers crossed that Bachmann will make No.1 at some point off the back of the rest of their LT range. But the 150 anniversary was probably the optimum time to have brought it out and unlike their Pannier, Prairie and Class 20 would require new tooling

 

Thanks again, David

[BMacdermott]

11 minutes ago, BR Blue said:

Thanks again to the pool team. My votes are in.

 

In due course I will be making a case for the BR mk2E to be added for the next poll. We have, or shortly will have the 2, 2A, 2B, 2C and 2F to a high standard. The 2D is on the poll but not the 2E which only has the uninspiring Hornby version currently on the market. 

Many thanks BR Blue

 

Hold fire for a moment on putting a case together. I will check with The Team as to why Mk2E isn't there and I suspect (hope!) there is a good reason. (Mk2 etc is outside my sphere.)

 

Back soon.

 

Brian (on behalf of The 00 Poll Team)

[BMacdermott]

Hello BR Blue

 

Someone might like to correct us here, but we think Hornby released their Mk2e in 2014 or thereabouts. Our cut-off date is 2005.

 

There is no need to present a case as they won't go in for the foreseeable future.

 

We know that some people feel that some models made over the last 15 years or so 'don't cut the mustard'. We work to a cut-off date to preclude us making 'quality judgements' - which would immediately lay us open to criticism.

 

Brian (on behalf of The 00 Poll Team)

[Ian J.]

The issue with the Hornby Mk2e I think relates to errors in the model, making it unacceptable to many potential buyers. I think there might be a need, on a case-by-case basis, to review whether to include some items regardless of when they were last released, if the items concerned could reasonably be considered not of sufficient fidelity to prototype.

Edited December 18, 2022 by Ian J.

[BMacdermott]

Hello Ian J.

 

Whilst we would 'never say never', the idea of including items of 'not sufficient fidelity to prototype' is on the remote to zero end of our possibility spectrum.

 

For a start, what is the definition of 'not sufficient fidelity to prototype'? We know from experience that terms such as that can mean many different things depending on experience and knowledge.

 

Hence, we stick with the cut-off date (which might well move back a few years for when we run again. We were going to come back to 2007 this year, but the number of new entries would have overloaded us.)

 

Brian (on behalf of The 00 Poll Team)

[SD85]

I voted for an LSWR Ironclad coach because there are currently no kits available for one at present AFAIK.

[Bloodnok]

22 hours ago, BMacdermott said:

Someone might like to correct us here, but we think Hornby released their Mk2e in 2014 or thereabouts. Our cut-off date is 2005.

 

Yes, that arrived in shops at the end of 2014.

 

22 hours ago, BMacdermott said:

We know that some people feel that some models made over the last 15 years or so 'don't cut the mustard'.

 

Yes, that's exactly it. You've picked the initial release date of the tooling as your metric to go on. On the plus side, that's an objective data point which has a "right answer", and I totally understand why you've done it that way.

 

On the other hand, no-one in the real world cares how old the tooling is -- they care how good it is and how available it is. Sometimes models are just bad at initial release, and other times manufacturers just don't re-order any and you can't buy them any more.

The Hornby Mk2E is one of those cases. It shipped with several obvious and hard to correct defects in both specification and execution. Things like the incorrect visible chassis, the lack of a close-coupling mechanism, and bad livery applications all need correcting. With the amount of work they need to fix this, honestly they are best seen as kits that need taking apart first.

Comparing it to the Airfix Mk2D from four decades before and Bachmann's Mk2F from four years later, Hornby's Mk2E is closer to the Airfix model than the Bachmann model.

I did try to 'fix' one - I have a 2E BSO on my workbench with a close coupling cam fitted to one end, but a source of spare bogies to fit the chassis was not found. Given a Bachmann Blue/Grey 2F BSO exists as a substitute, this project it is likely stuck in workbench-purgatory at this point.

 

Edited December 19, 2022 by Bloodnok

[Ian J.]

4 hours ago, BMacdermott said:

Hello Ian J.

 

Whilst we would 'never say never', the idea of including items of 'not sufficient fidelity to prototype' is on the remote to zero end of our possibility spectrum.

 

For a start, what is the definition of 'not sufficient fidelity to prototype'? We know from experience that terms such as that can mean many different things depending on experience and knowledge.

 

Hence, we stick with the cut-off date (which might well move back a few years for when we run again. We were going to come back to 2007 this year, but the number of new entries would have overloaded us.)

 

Brian (on behalf of The 00 Poll Team)

 

IIRC, I think we may have had this conversation sometime previously.

 

I personally feel that the usage of a cut-off date is a bit too much of a blunt instrument. However, I'm not going to complain, you and the team have chosen what you need to do, and it's you and they that have to manage it.

 

I would do the poll quite differently, but as I don't have the time, resources or energy to actually put something into play then I'll leave this particular part of the subject alone.

[wombatofludham]

I think to be fair to Brian and the team, this poll has to have a consistent if restricted set of criteria simply because trying to get any degree of consensus between model railway enthusiasts is like herding cats.  Many criticised the Heljan Class 86/2 v1.0 and although I could see where the criticisms lay, I decided it was good enough in overall impression to buy north of a dozen.  In that instance Heljan decided to re-tool the model to address the shortcomings, but was the first model that bad?  I didn't think so (pantograph aside) but clearly Heljan's own market research deemed it worth the expense to refresh the model. 

It does beg the question if some separate poll on "whether models which have acknowledged flaws should be revisited" might be useful, but (a) who would organise it? (b) Who would determine the threshold of inaccuracy to merit entry into the poll?  One informed person's criticism, or a baying mob of "me too" forum critics? and (c) How likely is it the manufacturing sector would listen to the poll results and commit to a revision?

I can see why the current poll avoids these questions to focus on a cut-off date, and I suspect the team wouldn't suggest it is a perfect tool, it has to have compromise to make it workable.  However, if someone else out there is chomping at the bit to do a "flawed model re-tool" wishlist, who knows?

[BMacdermott]

54 minutes ago, Bloodnok said:

On the other hand, no-one in the real world cares how old the tooling is -- they care how good it is and how available it is. Sometimes models are just bad at initial release, and other times manufacturers just don't re-order any and you can't buy them any more.

 

Hello Bloodnok

 

But how would we know if something was 'not being stocked' etc without spending hours contacting the makers? And would they tell us? And how would we know how 'available' it is without speaking to shops etc.

 

We are dealing with over 800 items which get whittled down to 640+. 

 

A lot of 'ideas' sound wonderful - and we as The Team have had many that the voters will never know about - but when you 'work through' the problems, you find the work outweighs the advantages. That's why we are 'core content' - nothing more, nothing less.

 

There's nothing to stop you running your own poll for the categories you suggest, though.

 

Brian (on behalf of The 00 Poll Team)

 

 

Edited December 19, 2022 by BMacdermott
Missing word

[Bloodnok]

28 minutes ago, BMacdermott said:

But how would we know if something was 'not being stocked' etc without spending hours contacting the makers? And would they tell us? And how would we know how 'available' it is without speaking to shops etc.

Yes, it's a hard problem.

Hattons are having a go with their model database. This lists when tooling became available, what revisions were made to it over time, and which products were made from each tooling. I assume they are doing this for commercial reasons (it must be an important asset for their second-hand business), but it's also made available on the web for everyone else too, and it's quite a handy tool. Even so, it's easy to find omissions, mistakes, and whole categories of stuff they just haven't got round to cataloguing yet.

However, a bit of my post you've cropped out did say:
 

1 hour ago, Bloodnok said:

You've picked the initial release date of the tooling as your metric to go on. On the plus side, that's an objective data point which has a "right answer", and I totally understand why you've done it that way.

 

The poll is using a simple, objective measurement that can't be disputed. You've made the right decision in doing so.

But that's not going to stop people wanting a bad model retooled faster than a 17 year lag, nor wanting a model which hasn't had a recent production run re-run either :)

Edited December 19, 2022 by Bloodnok

[BMacdermott]

8 minutes ago, Bloodnok said:

However, a bit of my post you've cropped out did say:

The poll is using a simple, objective measurement that can't be disputed. You've made the right decision in doing so.

Hello Bloodnok

 

I ticked the 'Thank You' box to save repetition.

 

Brian

[Bucoops]

10 minutes ago, David jennings said:

Am I being dim ? ( probably) but the categories don’t seem easily to include industrial locomotives ? I’d love a Hudswell Clarke / Hunslet 0-6-0 Philadelphia Tank / Manchester Ship Canal loco ?

 

which category would this fall under please ?

 

 

 

It's mentioned further up this page why they aren't on there.

[BMacdermott]

Hello everyone

 

Many congratulations to Rapido who have just announced some much-wanted wagons and vans. Many have queried why haven't these ever been done before! Well, here they are.

 

We wish Rapido every success with them!

 

We listed the O11 wagons in The 00 Wishlist Poll 2019 where they were High Polling. We deleted them for 2022 on the basis that Rapido announced some (nominally) similar types earlier in the year and listed the Diag.031 etc instead.

 

The V14 and V16 vans have been High Polling for many years and were still high in 2019 (the last Poll to run). We have them listed for 2022 - and we hope voters will still vote for them so that we don't slightly distort the results.

 

A very nice early Christmas present!

 

Brian (on behalf of The 00 Poll Team)

[BMacdermott]

Hello everyone

 

Just a reminder that if you have downloaded The Contents of The 00 Wishlist Poll 2022, don't forget to actually vote!

 

The holiday season should be a good time to relax, enjoy browsing the lists to see what fits with your modelling wishes and cast your votes.

 

All the best

 

Brian (on behalf of The 00 Poll Team)

Edited December 24, 2022 by BMacdermott

[Clem]

10 hours ago, BMacdermott said:

Hello everyone

 

Just a reminder that if you have downloaded The Contents of The 00 Wishlist Poll 2022, don't forget to actually vote!

 

The holiday season should be a good time to relax, enjoy browsing the lists to see what fits with your modelling wishes and cast your votes.

 

All the best

 

Brian (on behalf of The 00 Poll Team)

Hi Brian, I can't seem to get the link to actually vote. When I click on the banner it just returns me to where i started. What am I doing wrong?

 

Clem

 

[AY Mod]

5 minutes ago, Clem said:

Hi Brian, I can't seem to get the link to actually vote. When I click on the banner it just returns me to where i started. What am I doing wrong?

 

Clem

 

 

Follow the link (large, bold and blue)  in the first post of the topic Clem.

[BMacdermott]

14 hours ago, Clem said:

Hi Brian, I can't seem to get the link to actually vote. When I click on the banner it just returns me to where i started. What am I doing wrong?

Clem

Hello Clem

 

Sorry, I was off line when you wrote - hope you have been able to vote now.

 

If you are 'the Clem' who contributes to the Tony Wright thread, may I say that your modelling is superb and gives much pleasure?

 

All the best for Christmas to everyone.

 

Brian (on behalf of The 00 Poll Team)

[Clem]

Hi Brian,

 

Thanks for the kind words (although for one reason or another I've been doing very little recently) - I hope to be much more active in the spring. 

 

Err.. and no,  I'm still not seeing the link. I click on the banner  arrow and it just opens a new window on to the same page - ie the wish list poll thread.

 

Can you help? I particularly would like to vote for the LMS design iron ore hopper wagons. I could do with about 10 of them!! (they're a bit long winded to scratch build! :-)   ). There are a few other items on the list that would appeal also.

 

Many Thanks

 

Clem