MREmag & RMweb Wishlist Poll 2012 - Results

[53A Models]

I guess we've all become increasingly reliant on what the r-t-r manufacturers put in front of us. When I started modelling (as opposed to having a Hornby Dublo 3-rail train set) back in the early 70s, if you wanted something badly enough you scratch-built it. Wonder how many of us do that today?

 

My choices in the poll were purely and simply what I would buy, not what I'd like to see - if you follow what I mean!

 

John.

[AJ427]

I was surprised to see how (relatively) poorly 0-6-0 tank engines did in 00. Only 2 in the top 50 overall (one of which the USA tank now being produced), 1 in the LNER top ten, 1 in the SR and 4 in the GWR. I would have thought space starved modellers would have been crying out for these types of locos. Or maybe there are just too many to choose from and this dilutes the result?

[S.A.C Martin]

I was surprised to see how (relatively) poorly 0-6-0 tank engines did in 00. Only 2 in the top 50 overall (one of which the USA tank now being produced), 1 in the LNER top ten, 1 in the SR and 4 in the GWR. I would have thought space starved modellers would have been crying out for these types of locos. Or maybe there are just too many to choose from and this dilutes the result?

 

Trust me, if I could have managed to get the Gresley J50 1,000 votes by canvassing opinion, I would have done...! It got my singular vote, no idea if it placed at all.

[coachmann]

I was surprised to see how (relatively) poorly 0-6-0 tank engines did in 00.

I wasn't. Models were popular in the days of bodyline kits for obvious reasons but In the real world 0-6-0T's were quite rare in some areas, probably because of their limited coal and water capacity for long shifts.

 

The Stanier 2-6-2T hacked me off a bit as it was higher in the list than the Fowler 2-6-2T!!! Reason :- Both were often seen side by side but the Fowler 3P is a far more useful model because some were also push pull fitted or condenser fitted. Fortunately, manufacturers are more canny and I put my faith in them....

[Metr0Land]

A couple of oddities strike me in the OO section for BR.

 

Why is the CCT daig 816 so popular? Also why the Class 121? I can understand Class 122 and indeed the driving trailer.

 

Given the items which are currently NOT produced why are people wanting better CCT and Class 121 unit AHEAD of things which aren't available? (OK I can understand SOME of the criticism levelled at current offerings but surely they're not SO bad that you'd rather have a better one than see something else in production?)

[Ozexpatriate]

I found these poll results very interesting.

 

One thing that really struck me was the percentage of people who voted in each of the regional sections. This was amazingly consistent, region to region, and this trend continued through all categories: Locomotive, PCCS, NPCCS and Freight. The spread for locomotives was about 35.5% ± 3.5%

 

I have plotted the results below.

 

 

The items in the top 50 however were not consistent region to region in the same way voters were.

 

This made me wonder why and I have a couple of hypotheses.

1. Perhaps votes for items in some regions were diffused by having more choices. Perhaps all the people who voted for SR locomotives voted for the same things, whereas LMSR voters tended to vote for different things.
   
2. Perhaps voters in the some sections voted for more items, bumping up the totals.
   

Neither of these behaviours invalidate the results in any way. I believe the method used is a reasonable approach to measure 'popularity' for any item.

 

Nevertheless I found it interesting that the results would swing to a particular region when comparable number of voters voted for items in each region.

 

It's a curiousity - no more, but contrary to what the results might indicate each region continues to have a relatively comparable following.

[Ozexpatriate]

Were we not able to vote for private owner, light railway and industrial items in this poll, or have I missed something?

 

It may sound trivial, but a Manning Wardle tank or an RCH wagon might have been popular - or LT and predecessors?

No we weren't. Hopefully it's something that will be resolved in the voting choices in next year's poll.

It was clear from the scope of the poll ahead of time that this would be an issue.

 

This type of poll does reflect the appeal of the 'novelty' purchases and larger work-a-day locomotives. One area where this poll struggles to reflect the purchasing community is in the appeal of small industrial locomotives. I think we instinctively 'know' that *almost any* well executed small locomotive will have great appeal, as evidenced by the Model Rail Sentinel produced by Dapol.

 

But which one? The list of manufacturers is long. Avonside, Peckett, Manning-Wardle, Kitson, Hunslett, etc, etc. Even when we run informal 'what's your preference' threads here, little real consensus emerges other than, many of us would enjoy "something".

 

In the polls, there is rarely enough critical mass for these subjects to float to the top, without canvassing/campaining ahead of time. (I'm not endorsing that, but it is an approach.)

[Andy Y]

But which one? The list of manufacturers is long. Avonside, Peckett, Manning-Wardle, Kitson, Hunslett, etc, etc. Even when we run informal 'what's your preference' threads here, little real consensus emerges other than, many of us would enjoy "something".

 

In the polls, there is rarely enough critical mass for these subjects to float to the top, without canvassing/campaining ahead of time. (I'm not endorsing that, but it is an approach.)

 

That's it in a nutshell I'm afraid; if a full list of industrials were to be added it would dissipate the vote too much; if a selected list were posted there would be so many questions about why x,y and z hadn't been included.

 

The image in post 3 - http://www.rmweb.co.uk/wishlistpages/C2.jpg - shows that a comparatively small number showed industrial as a primary interest but similarly I would feel confident that a good industrial would sell (and do bang on about it to manufacturers).

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

Bang on. I wouldn't list 'Industrial' as a primary, secondary or tertiary interest, but an exquisite model of a genuinely small clearly non-main ine industrial/contractor's loco like a little Manning Wardle would make me find an excuse to operate it on the rail served premises of some line side industry.

 

Disappointingly, when we did have something of a discussion here 'no one' appeared to know what was the most numerous / widespread / longest service type in the UK as a 'universal' option most likely to win country wide sales.

[Jol Wilkinson]

Given the number of members of RMWeb, am I the only one surprised by the relatively small number of voters?

[davidw]

Andy, Has the full list of items been published? It may be interesting to see how diverse the selection was?

 

Many thanks for all your effort for the poll and last weekend.

[Ozexpatriate]

Curiously, both the MREmag & RMweb 00 Wishlist poll and the 6th MROL poll results are relatively consistent.

 

Lots of SR locomotives were in the top 20 of both polls

LSWR S15 (3

^rd

and 14

^th

/16

^th

Urie/Maunsell)

LSWR 700 Black Motor (6

^th

and 1

^st

)

LSWR Adams Radial Tank (8

^th

, 5

^th

)

USA 0-6-0T (13

^th

, 7

^th

)

SR U (17

^th

, 11

^th

)

SR Merchant Navy (18

^th

, 3

^rd

)

 

Which nicely confirms the trending this year away from lots of LNER locomotives at the top of the polls.

 

SECR Birdcage and Churchward toplight coaches scored very highly in both polls.

 

Everything in the MROL top 20 appeared in the MREmag & RMweb top 50, except the GWR Star 4-6-0 and the GER N7 0-6-2T.

 

My biggest surprise from the MREmag & RMweb poll is how much the GWR Star dropped in preference to yet another 8-coupled locomotive - the 47xx.

[The Black Hat]

Hello all,

 

Firstly, my thanks to Andy and the poll team for the comprehensive poll that has been conducted and allowed us to express our desires and tastes. The fact that the great many people taking part in the poll that found something they would want to vote for validates its usefulness and allows us to discuss the finding of the poll here. I’d also like to thank Ozexpartiate for the graphs and stats that he has compiled afterwards, which have been helpful and interesting to visualise some of the trends.

 

Going from this poll, there appears to be a significant and large shift from the previously held idea that LNER preference was dominant. I would suggest that this view is not as diminished as the poll suggests, despite the Southern areas selections being numerically larger in this poll. My reasoning for this is as follows, most of which has been said by many before.

I think that the desire of Southern modellers to have more engines to run for their area is completely understandable, as it gives them the chance to follow on from the success of previous models and announcements to create that locomotive pool which encompasses every locomotive type. We all share such a desire for our own area (cue Chard with the NER standard bearer references...). Southern fans have expressed a desire for the freight engines that would bolster the pool of engines they can use to model their chosen area, and Southern areas dominance in the poll would obviously say that many people model that area. Yet, I would think that it’s not as straightforward as the idea Southern engines dominate because everyone down south wants them ergo we should make more and sell them. My view is that Southern engines by Hornby were the first real batch of engines that started to be made in China with up-graded tooling and production methods. The Merchant Navy when it was released blew away the standards with previous offerings. Engines for other areas soon followed suit, like the A3 and A4, and Duchess. But Southern still benefitted with other engines being made, the West Country / Battle of Britain, T9, M7, all from Margate offered the chance to run everything from the Pullman and boat trains down to the humble passenger role. Bachmann have contributed with the N-15, BR standards 5MT, 4MT-T with the C class to follow and more importantly led the way with slam door Mk1 EMU stock, which was no coincidence as it caters directly for the transition period stock that many Southern era modellers craved for. Diesels for the area have also been covered such as the class 08, 33, 73, amongst others like the 37, 47, etc which were more generic in operation. The fact that other companies have even teamed up with shops and magazines shows clearly that the market here is strong, but also that Southern modellers have already many engines that they want. The very idea that a Radial tank, or USA dock tank could be put forward by a shop and magazine shows that these engines are guaranteed to bring the return they want for their investment, even if like a Radial tank, they are in essence a novelty engines to have on the layout and a mere indulgence that Southern fans have given the amount of engines already produced for them. All this points to the fact that Southern fans want more freight engines and the poll returns that view emphatically.

 

But hold on... it’s still not as easy as to explain as that. As others have noticed the very idea that the 0-6-0 vote seems to collapsed is not because they are not popular or requested – I reckon the exact opposite is true – but that they are spread over such a diverse range. Bachmann’s announcement with the J11 has been met with rapturous acclaim and demand is clearly there, especially when it shows pent up frustrations with other Eastern region modellers by the amount of engines that they want. I would think that the 0-6-0 engines, many of which are pre-grouping for the Eastern region sit below those top-10 shown for the Eastern region. Interestingly, a lot of the Eastern region choices are still LNER designed engines that encompass a wider sphere of operation (, showing that indeed the sub-companies of the LNER and its operation is what fragments the choices of the modeller and thus the engines that appear to be popular. Bachmann have chosen wisely with the J11, which operated from the Humberside ports through to Yorkshire, and the area around Peterbrough. It given them a engine that slightly overlaps to other areas like the GN, GE, and GC. By virtue of its geography the NER area was always more self contained, with its network almost separated by the Pennines and Yorkshire dales and as a result these engines are harder to get off their home turf. However, Q6s were known to move away from the area on coal workings, while J21s were renowned for Darlington to Tebay over Stainmore but also during LNER tenure also operated out of Norwich and New England. The G5 is the more widely travelled engine having been well suited to the branch line workings of everywhere from Northumberland to Epping. While that might be a brief repost of my defence of those selections, its no coincidence that the J15 trumps these being as those modelling the GE area already have either made, released or announced, the B1, B17, O1, Brit, N2, and L1 which means that with those and some BR standards for freight and some early diesels for good measure, the little plucky J15 is what’s needed for the branch line feed in run for those modelling the GE area, just like Southern fans want their freight engines to complete their locomotive pool. The same reason is behind the high polling of the D15/16 and N7, being that if you only have so view to vote for they will be more numerous, especially when you can vote for as much as you want. By contrast the GC, and NER vote will have been more split and thus I assume not total as much as the others. One fact that often gets overlooked when it comes to locomotive selection is when considering the prototype how many would people get. It gives me hope for North Eastern preferences as you wouldn’t just by one or two Q6’s, you’d need a lot more and for every modeller that means sales for the company that makes them.

 

The midland region have had a lot of engines made too, the Royal Scot and rebuilt patriots stand in the centre with the 8F, Black 5 and work horses to one side, the Princesses and Duchesses to the other, to come are the 3F, 4F and the tanks of various designers have been made. (42085 is one of my favourite models having become a Darlington machine.) Another Stanier design trumps the other selections as older designed engines are the flavour of the day. But Oz’ys graph shows that they are more interested in getting things to haul than engines. The Midland poll is the lowest demanding new engines (probably as a lot of freight ones are promised). Yet, its engines that largely bring the revenue as you can swap an engine to haul a train meaning you own more engines than trains. Here the Midland brigade wants stock, lots of it, which in turn is sales, but more hard work. Will this mean that other regions benefit in terms of engines produced in their absence of asking for others in force?

 

Western fans, of which I have a massive soft spot for their locomotives (especially having watched Earl Mount of Edgcumbe storm over the S+C without the Princess) seem to be happy building lines away from the traditional Western Branch line layout. It’s understandable, if you’ve been building them for 30 odd years you’d want something else. But the amount of Western designs to be able to haul trains is splitting the vote, when some want to model western region freight, and others the expresses. Its engines and coaches they want. (For the record, given I could vote for many more engines, I even voted for a King and a 94xx! Cue Chard with the hole in the standard that I’m the barer for comments...)

 

Demographics I think do play a part and it doesn’t. Plenty of people choose to model an area they are from which is how it is an active force in deciding what to model. However, many will model the Sothern region, and to an extent areas like the Midland or Western because of their range in locomotives they have that are able to be bought. Looking at the shelves and being able to choose what can be modelled given what is available. This is prevalent on another thread where younger modellers are also modelling BR transition because the range and choice of stock is there to allow them to aspire to run a model railway like they have seen others do. As a result models of some engines have been good sellers despite being purchased in areas away from their home territory.

 

This is more the case when you consider the diesel classes that have been done. Deltics, Westerns and class 37s have a cult following and diesel enthusiasts are renowned for their loyalty to a design and type. More diesel classes have been done to the point that the market is almost saturated with choice, and prototypes are the novelty choices that others want to collect and own, even if they are more expensive due to the smaller production runs. Heljan have made this area of the market their own and others have seen how the idea works and thus commissions for others like the radial tank, and dock tank have followed in the same vein. This are of the market then have the problems when in later era liveries start to become more colourful and vary, inducing the idea of ‘paint froth’ over which prototype the model is based on and when. The smallest detail for some can be the biggest problem and result in feedback that becomes slightly extreme.

 

Privatisation has taken this further with only so many classes being used on the network as some designs have been produced in such number meaning that modellers by a lot of the same class the difference being even more to do with paint and now numbers to signify company attachments. As a result an ex-DRS class 66 could be Colas, Freightliner, and GBRf machine when you choose the prototype and time period accurately enough, it also makes modellers choose to do the renumbering and weathering themselves as these detail discrepancies are never bound to be produced en masse. Yet, it means for the company that the class 66 model is bound to be a very good seller over a greater amount of time than considered normally. Others hope to do this with other models, the class 37, 47, 73, 60 and 67 are obvious examples of this.

 

But despite polls the glaringly obvious models to upgrade and retool have not been touched. While Bachmann might choose to do the 158 as a new model, the 156 would also be a fantastic choice over something like an EMU, but perhaps not open up new markets. Realtrack have stepped into the breach here, but small ventures can be overwhelmed when by chance the bigger company chooses the same model to make. Given the range and type and combined with livery variations a new upgrade of a model like this would surely bring in sales that surpass the limited regional scope of a pre-grouping designed steam engine.

This is where second guessing what the model companies choose to make is all the more part of the fun. Given the options open to companies and the factors that I believe need to be considered that I have tried to outline briefly in turn, the poll becomes a factor for their consideration, but also our tool for guessing what they might produce. It is by no means a garuntee of choice selection by popularity. If anything recent choices in the last years can show that the combination of factors like a models ability to be chosen for being in the most popular time period (transition), geography and whether it might be seen running today, can be enough to allow a choice to be selected despite being nowhere on a popularity poll, like the Southern C-class engine.

 

So the questions Id ask, given these general assumptions are, do we think that the shift is heading back to Southern engines away from the demand for 0-6-0 tank and tender engines, causing standard bearers to voice their opposition – has the poll been accurate in portraying that demand or are the figures misleading as I interpret they could be? Do we think that diesel saturation will see classes retooled, or the topic abandoned in favour of a more varied selection – by this I don’t just mean first gen DMUs, but will we see tampers, track machines and a wider selection of units? Just how much can the market absorb the ever increasing number of models being produced by small concerns, like shop and magazine commissions, do these take away strength from the main companies and sales they make – surely there must be a finite limit to the amount we spend and mean some models end up stuck on shelves?

 

But the most fun one: what’s going to be made next!

[Ravenser]

A couple of oddities strike me in the OO section for BR.

 

Why is the CCT daig 816 so popular? Also why the Class 121? I can understand Class 122 and indeed the driving trailer.

 

Given the items which are currently NOT produced why are people wanting better CCT and Class 121 unit AHEAD of things which aren't available? (OK I can understand SOME of the criticism levelled at current offerings but surely they're not SO bad that you'd rather have a better one than see something else in production?)

 

Having recently spent a fair amount of time hacking away at a OO CCT , I'm afraid I have to disagree. This is a very old model (late 70s Lima tooling) and although the body itself is a decent moulding , pretty well all the underframe is at best representational . The wheels are substantially too small and the holes for the pin points are set too low to "compensate"- so its a case of chop away the entire w-irons /axlebox/spring moulding and replace if you want to upgrade . The body isn't flush glazed . The roof vents are quite inadequete. Etc

 

This is a vehicle produced in large numbers running nationwide from 1957 to 1988 - therefore covering both BR steam and BR blue periods. It's not surprising if it emerges as a strong candidate for some new tooling.

 

When Hornby decided to issue a horsebox , they tooled up a new GW horsebox - they didn't reissue the Lima model of the late 70s. The Lima CCT was only a little better than the Lima horsebox....

[Ozexpatriate]

So the questions Id ask, given these general assumptions are ...

1. do we think that the shift is heading back to Southern engines away from the demand for 0-6-0 tank and tender engines,

2. has the poll been accurate in portraying that demand or are the figures misleading as I interpret they could be?

3. Do we think that diesel saturation will see classes retooled, or the topic abandoned in favour of a more varied selection

Thank you for your kind observations. I enjoy looking at trends.

 

To attempt answers to your questions:

1. No, not at all.

• Voters were evenly spread across each region.
  
• From which we can conclude that each region likely wants nice new things.
  
• Votes however, are naturally concentrated in the biggest holes
  
• In the last couple of years the biggest, most visible "hole" was in LNER locomotives. After the L1, O4, B17, D11/1, D11/2, J11, and O1; now, not as much. Perhaps the "hole" is not filled, but there's now a LOT of choice that wasn't there very long ago.
  
• A recent "hole" was 0-6-0 tender (more than tank) locomotives. Recently we've seen the SECR C, the 4F, the J11 etc.
  
• There's also been a lot of discussion about something other than flagship, corridor passsenger coaches. We've recently seen the Gresley and Thompson suburbans and the BR(SR) push-pull set.
  
• The biggest GWR locomotive "hole" comprised of the previously high-polling 8-coupled tanks and they are on their way.
  

Now it's the SR's turn.

 

2. Yes. I think the poll is as "accurate" as it can be. There is no doubt that the SR items that made the top 50 have been popular choices for a while now.

 

3. I could be glib and say "I don't do diesels, they're not my thing." but I'll suggest a discussion point. It is clear that the periods after say, 1969, are less popular periods to model than the steam/diesel transition period. Demand exists, but not like the demand for the earlier periods. The manufacturers address this according to the way they see this market.

[Ozexpatriate]

• Voters were evenly spread across each region.
  
• From which we can conclude that each region likely wants nice new things.
  
• Votes however, are naturally concentrated in the biggest holes
  

I do think there is some diffusion of votes in regions where more alternative prototypes exist.

 

If the same number of people vote in each of four topics, but there are more items to choose from in topic -a- versus topic -b-, the vote tally per item in topic -b- is probably larger even if people can vote for as many items as they want.

 

The ability to vote for an essentially unlimited number of items was an important aspect of this poll. It helps reduce this diffusion effect.

[Dorsetmike]

One thing puzzles me in the N gauge results, Union Mills already produce a T9 albeit the wide cab 6 wheel tender version; whilst the Narrow cab and 8 wheel tender were more numerous, it's not exactly rocket science to do a bit of hacking.

 

As for other N gauge SR items, Schools, Nelson, Arthur and Moguls are all on my list as are the Maunsell coaches.

[BMacdermott]

Hello Mike

 

The following may help. The first quote is from the Q&A session which preceded The Poll. The second is from The Guide (appertaining to N).

 

Brian (on behalf of The Poll Team)

 

 

Who do you see as the ‘major’ manufacturers and those who commission models?

We see the major ready-to-run manufacturers as: Bachmann, Dapol, Heljan, Hornby and Peco.

 

LSWR T9 4-4-0 (30113-30732 with gaps)

These locos were famously nicknamed Greyhounds. They can be made in wide and narrow cab versions, as well as with 6- or 8-wheel tenders. In their later years, they were mainly seen from Hampshire to Cornwall and the last survivors worked west of Exeter until May 1961. No.30120 remained in traffic until 1963 for working specials and has been preserved as part of the National Collection. Union Mills produces a model version in N gauge. A 00 model version was produced by Hornby in 2008.

[Guest dilbert]

Given the number of members of RMWeb, am I the only one surprised by the relatively small number of voters?

 

I don't think so.

 

Is it possible to have the raw data ? Like how many total votes were cast in proportion to the 1,812 voters ? It would be interesting to understand this because the RTR manufacturers will also analyse the partisan & novelty influences from a relatively small voter sample. Everyone could have voted for everything - I suspect that this wasn't the standard approach... dilbert

[Paul Cram]

Out of 25500 RM web members only 2100 odd voted. This is hardly representative from a manufactureres point of view and the small numbers of requests per model are more cottage industry rather than mainstream manufacturers whom would need much larger volumes to justify the investment in new tooling. Why was the number of votes so low? Do the current offerings already satisfy the vast majority? As has previously been pointed out most diesels have now been produced and the popular early BR period is well represented. I did not vote for reasons given elsewhere but what about all the others?

[Ian J.]

Firstly, it's not 25500, but 15500, a full 10,000 less!

 

Also, when doing searches for members with recent activity (that is, more than 1 post, and that within the last month or so) the actual number of active members drops very significantly. For instance, with a member list filter that looked for anyone who posted within the last two months, visited in the last month, and had at least one post, there were 105 pages of results, at 20 members per page. that gives an approximate figure of 2100 'active' members. So I'd say that 1800 or so is a fairly big proportion of that 'active' figure.

 

Now of course that leaves open the question of why so many members (approx 13000) don't post or have stopped posting or even visiting. It also doesn't take into account that the Wish List voting wasn't restricted to RMweb members so presumably some of that 1800 wouldn't have been members at all, meaning of the 2100 'active' members, more than 300 would have been uninterested in the poll. Now we can presume a fair few of those active members model in scales other than N or OO, so we're back to the case that 1800 doesn't actually look like a bad figure.

[hmrspaul]

Given the number of members of RMWeb, am I the only one surprised by the relatively small number of voters?

 

No 7mm!

 

Paul Bartlett

[Ravenser]

Out of 25500 RM web members only 2100 odd voted. This is hardly representative from a manufactureres point of view and the small numbers of requests per model are more cottage industry rather than mainstream manufacturers whom would need much larger volumes to justify the investment in new tooling. Why was the number of votes so low? Do the current offerings already satisfy the vast majority? As has previously been pointed out most diesels have now been produced and the popular early BR period is well represented. I did not vote for reasons given elsewhere but what about all the others?

 

Believe your figures are out - ie RMWeb membership is 15,384 as this is typed. So around 15% of the registered forum membership voted. However a quick look at the members list shows that a high proportion of registered members have never posted on RMweb . Many of the rest have just a handful of posts . Some are no longer active on the forum. There is nothing surprising in a participation rate of 15-20% : it's in line with the proprtion of forum members who are currently active on the forum ( people who have never posted or have posted twice in 3 years are clearly relatively unlikely to go to the trouble of completing a poll like this.)

 

The fact that the participation rate is around 15% does not mean that the results are unrepresentative of modellers wishes in general. It's a sample - there's no particular reason to think the sample is radically biased and therefore that the results can't be extrapolated. Most opinion polls published have a sample of 1000 - out of a population of 62 million , yet people take them very seriously . 2100 sample out of perhaps 100,000 modellers looks pretty good in comparison

 

There will also be those active members who are not interested in OO or N RTR - whether because they model in other scales (notably O and HO but also G1, S , 3mm , Z,) or have interests not covered (eg trams or narrow gauge) or are 4mm or 2mm finescale modellers modelling subjects where RTR has limited relevance (eg Edwardian light railways)

 

This doesn't mean that the poll results paint a false picture of what new models would most interest buyers of OO and N RTR - because these RMWeb members , like yourself , are not part of the RTR market - which is clearly still large enough to support RTR.

 

I also believe it is erroneous to suggest that people not voting don't want to see models of new subjects (as opposed to not being bothered to complete an online poll ) Good sales of "exotic " novelties like the Kernow Beattie Well tanks , Bachmann City of Truro , MR Sentinel, Falcon , Kestrel , Lion , Deltic, Brighton Belle etc etc , not to mention more bread and butter items like 3Fs, RODs , B1s Cravens , Gresley and Maunsell coaches , suggest very strongly that modellers in general are eager to buy new models . The "sales curve" is very steep - most sales come soon after release not 2-3 years later. This is why manufacturers release new numbers liveries and varients of existing tooling each year.

 

Finally - and critcally , I believe you're arguing in quite the wrong direction. The poll is not "very small" . The number of voters is substantially higher than in previous polls of the same sort - in fact the highest number of OO voters in previous such polls is 1154 voters - as opposed to 1812 this year. As has been pointed out there is a strong correlation between what has come near the top of previous polls and new RTR models introduced in the last few years. Those RTR models have sold, and seemingly sold well, and in many cases been widely and eagerly anticipated . With the number of voters up by over 50% on anything previously seen, there's every reason to believe the poll results are a very good indixation of what subjects for new tooling would be most popular with the market

 

Oxexpatriate

3. I could be glib and say "I don't do diesels, they're not my thing." but I'll suggest a discussion point. It is clear that the periods after say, 1969, are less popular periods to model than the steam/diesel transition period. Demand exists, but not like the demand for the earlier periods. The manufacturers address this according to the way they see this market.

 

Several comments.

 

While steam/diesel transition may remain a particularly popular period, that doesn't mean that it's popularity won't decline from present levels , or that popularity of post 1968 periods won't increase.

 

These aren't the only periods on offer. It's clear - for example - that the popularity of Grouping era steam has declined steeply since the 1970s. It's also clear from looking at old magazines that the popularity of the Grouping period rose steeply during the 1960s, and that in the mid 70s BR steam was a seriously unpopular option . Whereas in the 1950s and the early 1960s it was reasonably popular . In the 70s steam /diesel transition was very unpopular indeed and BR blue had pariah/ moral leper status . These things do move around - there's been a big shift in steam from Grouping to BR in the last 20 years , and interest in periods can go down as well as up. The merits of modelling the 1950s or early 60s mayt seem obvious now - but for long periods they weren't obvious to many

 

(For what it's worth I suspect the proportion of preGrouping layouts may actually have risen in the last 50 years)

 

 

A further complication is that they keep adding extra periods.... In the 1950s and 1960s, modelling post privatisation was simply not an option. In the late 70s "post steam" was a period of just 10 years. Now it's a matter of 45 years - or if you consider BR Blue alone, 20 years

 

To a large extent both steam/diesel transition and BR Blue periods can be addressed with the same diesel and electric models , just by offeri8ng livery options. Post Privatisation is a different ball game altogether . While virtually all mainline diesel locomotives have been produced to modern standards, the same cannot be said of electrics or multiple units (or for that matter electric multiple units...), and here we are still seeing quite variety of new types. The mutterings about Cl 185 Desiros and Cl 180 Adelantes illustrate

 

A final point on the N guage results . I wonder if the strong showing of N in the 30-45 age range - much stronger than OO - reflects a couple of things not yet mentioned:

 

- The large long vehicles of the modern railway are arguably better suited to N than steam, and pose space issues in OO . Hence the modern railway seems to feature much more prominently within N gauge modelling than it does in OO (I think of N gauge layouts like Stoney Lane Depot and Banbury here). These are likely to be subjects appealing to those in a younger age group , who are more likely to face space issues. Is what we are seeing that younger modellers with an interest in the contemporary scene are much more likely to choose N than their older contemporaries modelling steam?

 

- The quality and range of British outline N has improved dramatically in the last 10-15 years. Since once you are in a gauge you are likely to stay in it, are we seeing a shift reflecting N becoming a much more credible alternative to OO in the last 10 years, resulting in a higher proportion of new entrants chosing it? Allied to the attraction being strongest for the more recent period - which is likely to be disporoprtionately attractive to new entrants?

 

- The flip side of this is that British N was rather stagnant and limited in the "Poole Farish" era of the 80s and 90s. It then went through a near death experience as a commercial scale around 2000 when for about 2 years there was virtually no N RTR in the shops. This all must have tended to push modellers active in the 90s away from N and towards OO

[The Stationmaster]

Many pollsters and those who carry out surveys would be more than happy with a response rate of 10-15% for a non-incentivised poll (arguably there is an incentive with a wishlist - but it is not not likely to be instant, unless you're in for a USA 0-6-0 tank ). This sort of response rate sounds pretty high by many measures - especially when the numbers are analysed a bit more closely as Ravenser has done. I think, and hope, those who put in the hard work making such a great job of the poll are satisfied with the response and no doubt still regard it as a good starting point for the future.

[BMacdermott]

Thanks Mike (and all)

 

The Poll Team did its utmost to publicise The Poll to the broadest range of modellers/collectors of all ages, and we feel that paid off.

 

Watch this space - I hope to let you have some more detail later!

 

Brian (on behalf of The Poll Team)