MREmag & RMweb Wishlist Poll 2012 - Results

[Ian J.]

Hi Oz,

 

Is the jump from 230 to 250, missing out 240, intentional?

 

Edit: Scratch that. I see now that the numbers should really align with the tick marks (rather than the columns), such that the very first tick mark is 0 and the very last is 250, meaning the last but one tick is the 240.

[phil gollin]

.

 

I have been through the full "00" listings and , after thanking "the Team" again, I would give my considered view that I think most people in this hobby are wrong (except a select few of course) and I pity the manufacturers. ;-)

 

Serious, whilst I can understand most of the really popular items it doesn't take long for the second and third tier popularity groups to end up in a confusion of oddities or what MIGHT have been thought to be limited appeal items.

 

I can only make sense of it by thinking that there is a wide (extremely wide) selection of odd layouts being built or run around the country. Main line locos running with a couple of really odd coaches or relatively large branch line locos with a wide selection of trailing rolling stock.

 

I might suggest that next year there is a further section asking more questions on the type of layout(s) being run or contemplated, expanding on the main era(s) of interest asked this year.

 

Well, I think the model railways press has missed out on lots of interesting locos hidden awy in attics, sheds and garages - I hope they find them this year.

 

.

[Guest dilbert]

Seriously, whilst I can understand most of the really popular items it doesn't take long for the second and third tier popularity groups to end up in a confusion of oddities or what MIGHT have been thought to be limited appeal items.

 

I think the results give the manufacturers something to ponder over in the medium-long term, - not in the sense of a confusion of oddities, but in defining how their respective portfolios develop. In the case of the GWR, the message for an alternative PT is very evident. The 64xx/74xx makes the top 50 comfortably from a loco perspective and in the the top GWR 10 placings there are another three PT classes listed : 94xx, 16xx (though a GWR design was only built post 1948) and the 15xx. Closely following these are the 1366 & 54xx classes (the latter basically was a larger wheeled version of the 64xx and also with no autocoach fittings),

 

It the route is chosen for another type of GWR PT (regardless of the class(es) chosen), I think the GW partisan effect would ramp in. If so, then some consideration may be needed as to what coaching and/or freight stock (eg Toad Brake vans).

 

 

I can only make sense of it by thinking that there is a wide (extremely wide) selection of odd layouts being built or run around the country. Main line locos running with a couple of really odd coaches or relatively large branch line locos with a wide selection of trailing rolling stock.

 

There seems to be some dissatisfaction regarding electric locomotive power, but if any of the manufacturers came out with an NER EE1 and/or ES1 locos then I would seriously purchase them - nothing to do with GWR and yet within the period they were built was unusual in the UK and the EE1 has a very unique tale behind its existence... dilbert

[Ozexpatriate]

Is the jump from 230 to 250, missing out 240, intentional?

 

Edit: Scratch that. I see now that the numbers should really align with the tick marks (rather than the columns), such that the very first tick mark is 0 and the very last is 250, meaning the last but one tick is the 240.

Good catch.

 

No item scored between 240-249 votes, therefore this column is missing in the graph above. It's an artifact of how I prepared the data that columns with zero data were not plotted.

 

The first column in the histogram is for items scoring between 0-9 votes. The number under each column is the low end of a range of 0-9 votes.

 

EDIT:

 

Anyway, for clarity, here's an updated version of the graphic with some manual effort on the labels.

 

I thought it might be useful to include, because it really does show just how far ahead of the pack the top three votes really are:

 

253 ... BR Mk2d/e/f Air-conditioned stock (including DBSO)

251 ... BR 4-wheel CCT (Diag.816)

250 ... LSWR/SR S15 4-6-0 (30496-30515, 30823-30847)

[Jol Wilkinson]

There seems to be some dissatisfaction regarding electric locomotive power, but if any of the manufacturers came out with an NER EE1 and/or ES1 locos then I would seriously purchase them - nothing to do with GWR and yet within the period they were built was unusual in the UK and the EE1 has a very unique tale behind its existence... dilbert

 

As opposed to jokingly, humorously, playfully or merrily purchase them.

 

What that does show however, is that people buy "odd" models for a variety of reasons, which makes it difficult to analyse what will/does/won't/doesn't sell.

 

Jol

[Pennine MC]

Perhaps that indicates pre-grouping in particular is very much a closed book for the RTR model buyer, in that they don't know much about it. ... Does having the correct mix of locos and stock really matter to most people or is just the ownership of the latest models enough in itself?

 

I have sadly come to the conclusion that, for a lot of modellers, their vision of the real railway is defined by what appears in the RTR manufacturers' catalogues. ...

 

There's certainly something in that Jol, though I think it's more that folk don't know what they need rather than don't care. A few things suggest to me that people have voted for things based on their awareness of model railways rather than real ones, one being the 'token Palvan' of dia 1/211 which although numerous, was very short lived and moreover, is available as a high quality kit.

 

The other, which TBH I find almost incredible, is the high scoring of the Pressed Steel cl. 117 DMU over the BR-built 116. The 116 is something that was at some time seen over large parts of most Regions, the 117 by comparison was largely confined to the WR (and immediate environs) until the last years of its life. A 116 can be used just about everywhere that a 117 could, whereas if it hadnt been for the Lima model, I doubt that many would actually know what a 117 was. It's fortunate that manufacturers use their own judgment when interpreting this sort of data; long frame DMUs will surely come but IMHO, a 'new' 117 at the expense of a 116 would be a wasted opportunity.

[Zunnan]

The other, which TBH I find almost incredible, is the high scoring of the Pressed Steel cl. 117 DMU over the BR-built 116. The 116 is something that was at some time seen over large parts of most Regions, the 117 by comparison was largely confined to the WR (and immediate environs) until the last years of its life. A 116 can be used just about everywhere that a 117 could, whereas if it hadnt been for the Lima model, I doubt that many would actually know what a 117 was. It's fortunate that manufacturers use their own judgment when interpreting this sort of data; long frame DMUs will surely come but IMHO, a 'new' 117 at the expense of a 116 would be a wasted opportunity.

 

In the West Midlands at least, Tyseley can be put to blame for this on an equal footing with Lima and their 117, the latter I would say caused the result due to nostalgic memories...I mean really, who didn't have a Lima 117?! In the latter days many of the units found across the Midlands area were hybrids formed from whatever was servicable to the point that a 4 car unit could be seen formed from vehicles of 4 different classes, usually of 115, 116 and 117 but sometimes 101, 108 even 114, 118 and 119 on occasion. Looking at the age range at the lower end of the scale (from the Midlands perhaps, but if other depots were doing the same thing I doubt it was localised) most if not all of those in the age group of 30-45 or so would only really rememeber these hybrids. Given the similarity of the 115/116/117/118 units, all are worth considering, although some of the differences may make it difficult to use a common tooling so settling on one would probably be the order of the day. The problem I see with the 116 is the lack of a TCL/TSL, which would make producing other HD units difficult for the modeller. The 115 would be a better starting point IMHO as it would allow the less discerning modeller to omit the TS for a 117 or omit the TCL (and TS) with roof mods to the cabs for a 3 car (2 car) 116...and yet the 115 featured rather poorly in the poll.

 

The LMS voting can probably be explained by the recent and forthcoming Hornby LNER subs. Push pull has featured highly in wish lists for a while now, but following the Hornby releases there seems to have been a sudden surge in the desire for non corridor stock in general. The D.1925/1969 CK making it up there in the poll is no surprise, it is a desperately needed ommission in an existing range that has quite possibly had some bearing on the sales of the existing range. The Stanier mogul has otherwise topped or been near top for some time, and given the number of widespread classes already produced. What remains are generally more localised and so spread the votes, except for the 3P tanks. I think you could probably look on these and say if a Fowler 3P was produced the Stanier crowd would buy one, and vice versa; and what better to pull those subs?

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

I was expecting the LMS/LMR vote for non-gangwayed / push-pull stock in particular to go through the roof in response to the 'provocation' of both SR and LNER having announcements of such stock. With the long-term existing generous provision of such vehicles for GWR, that left the the largest group of all with no such vehicles RTR, yet with all the locos in the world to pull them. (Near full set of the two cylinder 2-6-4T's just for a start...)

 

Same with wagon stock, where is the demand for the ubiquitous LMS design vans and opens? Good as it is now to finally have some LNER design vans and opens RTR, you cannot model the UK steam railway without the commonest of the lot. I vote for these every time, simply in the hope of easing the kit building requirement.

[Pennine MC]

...I mean really, who didn't have a Lima 117?!

 

Oh aye But that's just it - we knew at the time it was compromised, most folk didnt care and being far and away a better model than the old Triang MetCam, it became the 'token' DMU on many layouts regardless of its suitability.

 

In the latter days many of the units found across the Midlands area were hybrids formed from whatever was servicable to the point that a 4 car unit could be seen formed from vehicles of 4 different classes, usually of 115, 116 and 117 but sometimes 101, 108 even 114, 118 and 119 on occasion. Looking at the age range at the lower end of the scale (from the Midlands perhaps, but if other depots were doing the same thing I doubt it was localised) most if not all of those in the age group of 30-45 or so would only really rememeber these hybrids.

 

I think that sort of thing was more prevalent at Tyseley because of the need for anything on wheels before the Cross-City service was electrified (though if you're local, you'd know better than me). But again because of the need to keep things running, (and although hybrid units had always been around), the more bizarre examples were much more common in the Sprinter era as the older stuff got moved around.

 

Given the similarity of the 115/116/117/118 units, all are worth considering, although some of the differences may make it difficult to use a common tooling so settling on one would probably be the order of the day. The problem I see with the 116 is the lack of a TCL/TSL, which would make producing other HD units difficult for the modeller. The 115 would be a better starting point IMHO as it would allow the less discerning modeller to omit the TS for a 117 or omit the TCL (and TS) with roof mods to the cabs for a 3 car (2 car) 116...and yet the 115 featured rather poorly in the poll.

 

Again, how many actually know what a 115 is? - in traditional days, limited to Marylebone services and the handful of sets at Allerton. AFAIK the 127 is very similar bodywise, but again not everybody is modelling within 30 miles of St Pancras. But again (AFAIK as it's a long time since I've looked into it) both 115 and 127 have a shorter van compared to the other HD sets.

 

As for conversion potential, that's nice to think about but I do think that in today's world, a 116 would/should be seen as standing on its own, an 'out of the box' solution for the gap in the market that is HD DMU sets. Lima had their reasons for choosing it at the time, it was a different world then, but with hindsight I believe it to be a bad choice which we shouldnt be stuck with the legacy of. A 116 would cover many more bases than any of the other HD types and as such, it would still satisfy the 'less discerning'.

[Zunnan]

I had almost forgotten about the van size, certainly it was locked away at the back of my mind. A three car 116 would force the production of a centre trailer, however, the most common in the class was the TC and is next to useless in other units. To me the 117 would make more sense as a three car unit as it uses the TCL also used in other HD classes, so would give the likelyhood of other classes a bit of a head start. In this case I think the answer really is how Bachmann approached the class 108, with two cab roof variants and then have two and three car variants produced based upon that. (with a separate TS produced to extend both units, as well as to slake the coaching tastes of the preservation fans given the use of DMU trailers as conventional coaching there )

[ThaneofFife]

Couple of things strike me about the electric locos in/not in the list.

 

Given the apparent raft of errors some of the members raised on Heljans Class 86 model I am surprised that this class doesnt feature in this category even at the bottom end. Can anybody explain its absence? Is the Heljan model not that bad afterall or were voters thinking the chances of another all new Class 86 from another manufacturer is very unlikely because Heljan had done it and so used their vote for something that does stand a better chance of reaching the toolrooms?

 

The Class 90 pipped the Class 87 - this is interesting. I voted for these models myself because without them its not really possible to run a WCML based layout without these classes and we all know the Hornby/Limby items have been l;acking for years now......

 

One idea that I cant take credit for but was put to me by another fellow modeller and one that makes a great deal of sense is that a common chassis platform could (or perhaps should) be developed for not only the 87s and 90s but also the Class 86. Without getting into the nitty gritty of this idea (yes there are some differences) and keeping on topic I guess the key thing here is whether there is enough of a demand for new 86s, 87s or 90s.

 

No doubt the success of the Bachmann Class 85 will play a part here but you can imagine the cost savings going with a shared platform.

 

Finally - thank god the Mk2 e/f's made it to the top of the BR Coaching stock list - like the omnipresent BR Mk1 coach, the air conditioned Mk2 would sit well with many of the finely detailed RTR locos we now have but alas we remain stuck with old Lima/Dapol/Airfox/Hornby items lacking in so many areas. Whichever manufacturers decide to bite the bullit to produce new Mk2e/f's would be sitting on a wee gold mine because these coaches were just such a big feature of the BR d&e era.

 

Its good to see that people voted for a Mk1 SLC (sleeper) but I do wonder how many of these Mk1s Bachmann will actually shift. Most layouts I have seen or read up on are based on day services (perhaps the odd sleeper being shunted as ECS) so will this increase sleeper train appearances on layouts?

[The Black Hat]

GER

 

191 - J15, 178 - D15/16, A5 - 96, N7 - 138, J67/69 - 111, F4/5/6 - 95, J70 - 85, J17 - 83, B12 and B12/4 - 80, J19 - 62, J20 - 57

 

 

GCR

 

111 - D11, A5 - 96, 56 - O4/8

 

GNR

 

C1 Atlantic - 121, J50 - 127, K2 - 110, J6 - 98, B12/3 - 97, C2 Atlantic - 96, O2 - 86, C12 - 68, J52 - 52

 

NER

 

Q6 - 169, G5 - 123, B16/2 and B16/3 - 105, B16/1 - 102, J21 - 83, Q7 - 80, A8 - 78, D20 - 72, J25 - 63, Y7 - 51

 

Total Votes: (in models of 50 votes+)

 

GCR - 263

GER - 1080

GNR - 855

NER - 1062

 

Engines already produced for regions:

 

GCR - B1, B17, O1, O4, J11

GER - B1, B17, L1, Brit, 04

GNR - O1, O4, J11, B1

NER - B1, L1, O1, L1

 

 

Following on from Ozys work with the graphs I have gone and done my own homework showing the various element from the poll with regards to a view I had expected and expressed over the split of the Eastern region vote in the poll when you get away from the general models that cover the wider LNER group rather than region specific models. The GER is a very popular area, bouyed already by the engines that it has had made for it, the B17 being one example here. While I have included other engines made by the manufacturers underneath as a rough and general observation of some classes that largely worked on the regions looked at - its by no means a general rule, some obviously ran to other areas, hence quotes of B17s at Darlington for a works visit etc, but by large they were very rarely there. Ive also ignored the idea of A classes, A1, A2, A3 and A4, as they ran from Scotland to the south so they covered everywhere. Although, to be fair they didnt run onto the GE area, and thus getting a B17 is some compensation for that, but then the Brit model is out too and they is something many forget when thinking what engines are needed to model that area. The Brits were renowned for the Norwich turn, and thus are very useful models for anyone wanting to protray that area.

 

Yet, getting away from whats already done, a few models immediately leap out due to the different combinations that could be done and whats more help other areas as a result. A retooled B12, is one that together (80+97) would mean a vote somewhere near 177 and suddenly be up amongst the most popular for the region. Another is the B16, and all varients together would make it past the 200 mark, becoming the most popular model requested. Yet these combination of votes ammassed for a class can not be garunteed as the poll specifies that they are requested as seperate sub classes as you assume they want that particular kind of engine.

 

Its interesting to note the obliteration of the Great Central vote, whether that be because of the release of the NRM edition or the announced J11. Many engines for the area have been done, but many of these also fed onto the neighbouring GN and GE networks. Rather if any the GER and NER produce a list of possible engines because they have a broad series of engines that survived into the popular transition period modelled by many and also a broader ammount of motive power for different purposes, thus creating the diversity that modellers want as that means FUN!! There you have two fleets of engines that can run things from the expresses to freight and shunting. The GNR doesnt get there, albeit in my opinion and despite the hardcore fans of Altantics, they were being withdrawn in the 30s and were gone by Nationalisation as a class to be reckoned with. Thats just reduced two engines from the GER list that wouldnt be too much interest to the transition period modeller, who might buy it for that rare visit off region.

 

The GER by contrast has a more diverse list, however, this has a slight lean towards the smaller engines that the region hasnt got. Things like tank engines the N7, F4/5 and 6 were synominous for suburban duties and the recent Hornby suburban stock designed by Gresley and Thompson will be fantastic for these modellers, who were the main intended reciepents. The other engines that the region wants are a tank engine, J67/69 for work shunting the stock and marshalling yards that the other engines bring in, but also J70, which I would think is more novelty vote for the icconic, but lovely, Tram styled engine (Cue Toby remarks from some quarters). The clear winner is the J15, perfect for bringing in the local branch service on a GER layout just on the fringes of suburbia, for those N7 and F5s to work to before turning back for the capital, yet busy enough to have expresses to Norwich, Cambridge or wherever passing through. The GER fan would be happy with such a theme and to be honest, its a nice idea for a layout. The pool of engines here is already beyond the small amount needed to test the market, with a Brit, B1, B17 and others to follow like the O1. Should anyone annouce the J15, it would signal that the area was given the preference they would want over others, but its a case of a fragmented vote for other areas.

 

The only other viable alternative (I would say that!!) is the NER area. Here, top link expresses thunder towards the border with Scotland or up to the Capital down south.... but the main role here is freight. The NER is the only sub-region of the LNER never to have posted a loss when operating, its pool of engines was fairly consistent throughout and it was only until well into Nationalisation that cascading engines from regions like the Fairburn and Ivatt 2MTs caused some fleets to change. The NER vote reflects this, not in that it hasn't got the variety of the GER, but rather its got more. There isnt really any novelty item, although the Y7 creeps in above 50 - the cut off for chance that I thought would mean models being made were considered even slender. The first thing that NER voters want is the Q6s. Ravens very own masterpiece for it combines elegance, power with brute strength and sheer simplicity over complications for design. Away from the expresses the NER modellers need something to haul freight, and lots of it. NER had tons of freight flows and needed many engines for it. As a result the Q6, wanted by many means many modellers want it, but also they want lots. You wouldnt just get one Q6... you'd have a few. Its a stark contrast to engines wanted in other regions where the history of the locomotive really starts to run home the idea that this model is more than viable. Secondly is the J26/27. This is wait for it.... another freight engine! It worked similar roles to the Q6, and like its larger NER breathern youd again need a few. Only the G5 runs the chance of stoping this theme in its tracks. The G5, while quaint and delightful, is the perfect engine to trundle in with a branch working, like the must requested J15. But while the J15 is in preservation already, the G5 will be new. A Tornado effect for any manufacterer is there for the taking, although the effect of the G5 at this I would think would be smaller as enthusiasts warm to the idea, and Tornado stole the limelight by being both new, but also an express mainline engine. The B16 again is much requested and a freight engine that could do both freight and passenger roles, given the votes for both kinds as mentioned earlier, the demand for this model is likely to be huge. Following this is the J21, which shows just how another mixed traffic engine is wanted, but that the 0-6-0 vote is fundementally split.

 

The fact that the J15 comes home the winner in this group is largely due to its postion on wants list due to other models for the area already having been made. The J21 is wanted, but the Q6 before it comes first. The NER needs its freight machines, like GER needs suburban and the B17. Its got its B17 and Brit, the NER area just want freight machines, then the quaint but wanted G5 and J21. Perhaps telling most of all was the most popular Eastern region machine. The Peppercorn K1. Its a freight machine that wored across the Eastern region, but mainly up north! The O1, B17, are of limited use. Here the K1 signals clearly that the demand is there for the engine that begins the traversing of bounderies but mainly links them to the idea of modelling the northern reaches of the LNER, or Eastern Region. The North Eastern Region of British Railways as it then became, has been ignored over others by manufactuers, but the underlying signal is there that the market both sees the idea of modelling as viable and interesting. Should some models be made then it would have the effect of causing others to want engines that ran in that area. Its no conincidence therefore, that also near the top of the list is the BR Standard 2MT 78000 series, which for the North East region would act exactly the same way as the Brit has done for the great eastern. Add that Q6 and J21 and the North East suddenly looks a whole lot more interesting, both to modellers and the companies that want to give them the engines to make that layout happen.

[BMacdermott]

Thanks David (Black Hat)

 

Here's another way of looking at it, although I realise that the J15 and J67/68/69 etc could be seen on passenger and it's debatable as to the definition of 'small', 'medium', 'large'.

 

 

0-6-0 Tank

J50 – 121

J67/68/69 – 111

J70 Tram – 85

J52 – 52

J72 – 38

J71 – 32

J83 – 20

 

0-6-0 Tender

J15 – 191

J26/27 – 136

J6 – 98

J36 – 85

J17 – 83

J21 – 83

J37 – 64

J25 – 63

J19 – 62

J20 – 57

J39 – 50

J38 – 47

J35 – 45

 

Large Freight

Q6 – 169

O2 – 86

Q7 – 80

Garrett – 66

O4/8 – 56

 

Small Passenger

N7 – 138

G5 – 123

E4 – 105

Sent.Railcar – 104

A5 – 96

F4/5/6 – 95

A8 – 78

C12 – 68

N2 – 54

N1 – 48

C16 – 46

V1/V3 – 45

C13/14 – 42

N4/5 – 35

N14/15 – 31

N10 – 25

 

Medium Passenger

D15/16 – 178

C1 Atlantic – 121

D11/1 – 111(vote could have been affected by NRM/Bachmann announcement)

D49/1 – 104

C2 Atlantic – 96

Stir.Single – 88

D49/2 – 86

D20 – 77

D29/30 – 51

D40/41

D10 – 29

 

Large Passenger

K1 – 220

P2 – 165

A2/3 – 114

K2 – 110

B16/2 & 3 – 105

V2 – 103

B16/1 – 102

Hush Hush – 100

B12/3 – 97

K4 87

B12 & /4 – 80

A2/2 – 74

A2/1 – 70

W1 – 63

A1/1 – 40

B2 – 34

 

Brian (personally, and not on behalf of The Poll Team)

[Pennine MC]

Does it really matter if an engine is small, medium or large...

 

I suppose that depends on whether your layout is small, medium or large

[BMacdermott]

Does it really matter if an engine is small, medium or large it's loco's in RTR form

 

Hello 81C

 

There was much talk on MREmag over recent years about the lack of differentiation in voting in the J classes. I thought it might be helpful to those who are interested in such matters to present the list as above, particularly as the LNER section is very big.

 

Brian (not on behalf of The Poll Team)

[JohnR]

GER

 

191 - J15, 178 - D15/16, A5 - 96, N7 - 138, J67/69 - 111, F4/5/6 - 95, J70 - 85, J17 - 83, B12 and B12/4 - 80, J19 - 62, J20 - 57

 

 

GCR

 

111 - D11, A5 - 96, 56 - O4/8

 

GNR

 

C1 Atlantic - 121, J50 - 127, K2 - 110, J6 - 98, B12/3 - 97, C2 Atlantic - 96, O2 - 86, C12 - 68, J52 - 52

 

NER

 

Q6 - 169, G5 - 123, B16/2 and B16/3 - 105, B16/1 - 102, J21 - 83, Q7 - 80, A8 - 78, D20 - 72, J25 - 63, Y7 - 51

 

Total Votes: (in models of 50 votes+)

 

GCR - 263

GER - 1080

GNR - 855

NER - 1062

 

Engines already produced for regions:

 

GCR - B1, B17, O1, O4, J11

GER - B1, B17, L1, Brit, 04

GNR - O1, O4, J11, B1

NER - B1, L1, O1, L1

 

 

 

I think you missed out the North British from your list of LNER constituents.

[Mod3]

Sorry Brian don't view the MREmag web site

 

Was all you really needed to say, so I've edited your post, we don't throw flack across the walls here.

[Ceptic]

Was all you really needed to say, so I've edited your post, we don't throw flack across the walls here.

 

I remrmber the word, commonly known as Flak , a Synonym for Fliegerabwehrkanone.... Viewed from this side, the term that comes to mind, was Ack-Ack (AA) , AKA, Anti-Aircraft fire .

Regards, Archie. .

[gc4946]

Now we've getting all these lovely pre-grouping freight and mixed-traffic locos, maybe appropriate pre-group design brake vans to go with them. The SECR, LBSCR and GER types all scored well in the poll.

Bachmann's announced their plan to release a late Midland Rly/early LMS version brake van and I hope they'll follow up with matching GCR and SECR types.

[The Black Hat]

I think you missed out the North British from your list of LNER constituents.

 

Yes I have as North British is a Scottish Company and as a result, I think fits into the 'we want to model Scotland' idea more than 'we want to model the Eastern Region.' The North Eastern Region itself became its own territory during the time of British Railways, as they realised just how vast its operations were, but largely that despite the LNER grouping, it remained broadly two different areas. The Scottish model scene is growing in strength, with releases from Bachmann meaning as much for Scotland as the J11 does for those modelling the Eastern Region. My point is that NER gets overlooked as being between the two, yet offers the interesting scope of being able to model everything from dales, to industry or from Expresses on the ECML to new wagon yards at Teesside or a pick up goods. It did have everything somewhere and the demand is there as much as the GER area which can be seen in the poll, but the engines havent been produced for the NER area. My other point is that the engines for the NER like the Q6 are wanted because they are needed, and modellers would buy more than one. As a result, thats a lot of sales for a model company, when they want models that will sell and generate income.

 

Hello 81C

 

There was much talk on MREmag over recent years about the lack of differentiation in voting in the J classes. I thought it might be helpful to those who are interested in such matters to present the list as above, particularly as the LNER section is very big.

 

Brian (not on behalf of The Poll Team)

 

The fragmentation of the J class vote is quite evident. As Brian has pointed out in his relisting of those voted for, the J class tender engines largely have their vote split by their role and geography that they ran on. But as I have eluded too before, some engines did not make it till end of steam, or have a wider sphere of operation, with work away from home territory. The engine I would push for would be the J21, it ran in Norwich during LNER times, served during WWII on trains and was around at the end of steam, with 65033s tour being one many think stand out for the end of steam up north. However, some engines are broadly similar in voting power, yet dont have the same credencials when you think of how they would fit into timescales for modellers who then run them. Broadly speaking a lot of this is for analogue layouts, though I like the idea of new models all being DCC ready and to accept sound as thats how mine would go. I reckon the J11 would sit around the same voting power as the J17, 21, 36. Only the J15 and J26/27 stand out as being more popular, but this is more due to roles and that need for them for the scene many want to portray. The J15 would be a good model to make and would sell well, but that is because those modelling Anglia already have the main big express engines made for them in the shape of the Brit, B1, B17. The J15 follows with that branch feeder service. Thats why looking at the range the companies make already is just as important to figure out which areas they could add to easily by the introduction of a new model. The Robinson 04 on its own opened up the possibility of modelling the GC and others have followed, especially when Hornby rush into an area Bachmann have been the vanguard into already. If your modelling NER freight you need Q6 and J27 - those two would just mean that the North East region starts to open up and then the J21 would be as popular and as desired as the J15 is now. Its that simple. J21s did work freight, and if you made the BR standard 2MT, as an engine for everyone then Stainmore is yours to build!

 

Imagine that.... 'Pendon' of the North layouts springing up everywhere..... Or would Scenecraft dare make a resin Bleah Viaduct?

[SRman]

Now we've getting all these lovely pre-grouping freight and mixed-traffic locos, maybe appropriate pre-group design brake vans to go with them. The SECR, LBSCR and GER types all scored well in the poll.

Bachmann's announced their plan to release a late Midland Rly/early LMS version brake van and I hope they'll follow up with matching GCR and SECR types.

 

That'd be right, gc4946, put the kybosh on my modelling efforts! I happen to be working on two Cambrian Kits SECR 'Dance Hall' vans at the moment so the minute I complete them, they are almost a certainty to be produced. The same thing happened with the two 'Pill Box' vans I have been building from Cambrian: I had barely put the last handrail in place and Bachmann announced RTR versions!

 

[JohnR]

 

Yes I have as North British is a Scottish Company and as a result, I think fits into the 'we want to model Scotland' idea more than 'we want to model the Eastern Region.' The North Eastern Region itself became its own territory during the time of British Railways, as they realised just how vast its operations were, but largely that despite the LNER grouping, it remained broadly two different areas. The Scottish model scene is growing in strength, with releases from Bachmann meaning as much for Scotland as the J11 does for those modelling the Eastern Region. My point is that NER gets overlooked as being between the two, yet offers the interesting scope of being able to model everything from dales, to industry or from Expresses on the ECML to new wagon yards at Teesside or a pick up goods. It did have everything somewhere and the demand is there as much as the GER area which can be seen in the poll, but the engines havent been produced for the NER area. My other point is that the engines for the NER like the Q6 are wanted because they are needed, and modellers would buy more than one. As a result, thats a lot of sales for a model company, when they want models that will sell and generate income.

 

 

I agree with your point about how the Scottish scene is probably best considered seperately as a whole, but you didnt mention that you were only looking at English LNER consituents.

[Ian J.]

Hi All

looking at the number of loco's in the LNER group and the large following would not be wise to collectively agree on what to vote for next time around, it might encourage a larger amount of votes for a particular engine,I know not every one would be happy doing this but it might make the manufactures to take note to market a fairer share of that group.

Regards 81C

 

In the way this poll was structured, that wouldn't make any difference, as each participant can have as many votes as they want. What would be needed would be to get more people actually voting at all, and ensuring they all at least include a specific prototype in their votes. However, it's arguable that that would be tantamount to vote 'rigging'. It must also be bourne in mind that if the sales of any locomotive so voted for turned out to be somewhat poor then the manufacturers would feel they'd been burned by the poll and would be less inclined to trust it in future.

[Jol Wilkinson]

 

Imagine that.... 'Pendon' of the North layouts springing up everywhere.....

 

It already exists. It's called Bramblewick.

[petethemole]

"Bleah Viaduct", so called because it induced altitude sickness?