The Black Hat Posted May 4, 2012 Share Posted May 4, 2012 It already exists. It's called Bramblewick. Indeed and a fine example of the time and northern area it is. Done a little search and found some info. Would love to see it. "Bleah Viaduct", so called because it induced altitude sickness? Possiblly.... but probably not! 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. Thanks and point taken.... I didnt really mention that but thought it would come over in the way things were written. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Black Hat Posted May 4, 2012 Share Posted May 4, 2012 I think one thing that is also worth a mention, is the fact that coaching stock appears top of the list. Occupying both first and second places - which could be a first for a wish list. I think making Mk. 2 air con stock would be a immediate money earner for the company that took the decision to make them. I would expect it to be Bachmann having already looked at the Mk. 2a and that the range lends itself to following the same well recieved and varied Mk. 1s that they have done. Many modellers across different eras would want these. Right from Blue and Grey, to Intercity swallow and Virgin Cross country, which I would think would be brilliant starting releases. The range lends itself to replacing the warn but still just acceptable models that were former Airfix and now made by Hornby. With diesels of various classes now done to the high standard we all want, its high time the stock matched. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jol Wilkinson Posted May 5, 2012 Share Posted May 5, 2012 Indeed and a fine example of the time and northern area it is. Done a little search and found some info. Would love to see it. Sadly, the owner and inspiration behind it, Tom Harland, died recently (see http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/52387-tom-harland/) Bramblewick appeared at several shows, usually Scaleforum and the likes. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
OOgaugeJaf Posted May 6, 2012 Share Posted May 6, 2012 K1, excellent! Hopefully see 62005 announced next year. I'm still hoping for a Q6 personally though. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy Y Posted May 9, 2012 Author Share Posted May 9, 2012 While it's not relevant to the poll results and more a question of the internal workings of the poll, would it be possible for the poll team to share the distribution of how many items each individual voted for? It's taken a little time to come back to you on this one I'm afraid but we have charted how many people voted for a number of items. http://www.rmweb.co.uk/wishlist_result/2012_No_of_Votes_per_Voter_00_and_N.pdf Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mighty Posted May 9, 2012 Share Posted May 9, 2012 Let me get this right Andy (and forgive me if I've misread the graph). One individual voted for 300 separate items in the 00 poll?! Most people seem to have been sensible, but a small minority seem to either be taking the mickey a bit or are very wealthy indeed if they want all of the things they voted for... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy Y Posted May 9, 2012 Author Share Posted May 9, 2012 That's correct Mighty. I did have to do a manual entry for someone which ran into several hundred items. Legitimately the voter advised that he would buy those items as and when they're produced but there was no expectation that they'd come along all together! What it did show was that people would be prepared to buy a far wider range of items than they'd previously been restricted to vote for. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
34theletterbetweenB&D Posted May 9, 2012 Share Posted May 9, 2012 It's properly scaled too. N gaugers maximum purchase plan is half the size of OO... (With a big enough sample we'd find an O gauge type lining up the dosh for 500 odd items, so he can have a model railway just like the real thing...) My view is that you are more likely to get it if you ask for it; and there is no way that even a tenth of it can be produced in any given year, so it should be affordable when it arrives. One of the aspects of the survey that could be improved I feel if there is the will to develop it further, is the ability to indicate complementary items. On the lines of the available 'grasshopper' loco is very fine but needs the corresponding 'anthill' stock, and a targetted set of these locos/wagons/coaches would open up an entire territory. Whether that would be worthwhile in terms of influencing manufacturing decisions, who knows? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold The Stationmaster Posted May 9, 2012 RMweb Gold Share Posted May 9, 2012 It's properly scaled too. N gaugers maximum purchase plan is half the size of OO... (With a big enough sample we'd find an O gauge type lining up the dosh for 500 odd items, so he can have a model railway just like the real thing...) My view is that you are more likely to get it if you ask for it; and there is no way that even a tenth of it can be produced in any given year, so it should be affordable when it arrives. One of the aspects of the survey that could be improved I feel if there is the will to develop it further, is the ability to indicate complementary items. On the lines of the available 'grasshopper' loco is very fine but needs the corresponding 'anthill' stock, and a targetted set of these locos/wagons/coaches would open up an entire territory. Whether that would be worthwhile in terms of influencing manufacturing decisions, who knows? Very true - I understood that one purpose of the poll was to indicate what you would buy if it became available and I agree that you are more likely to get it if you ask for and probably stand far less chance of getting it if you don't. I voted for c.100 items and if present new introduction rates are any guide I might well have reached that age long before some of it even stands a chance of being thought about by manufacturers. For instance my list included 21 exGWR & constituent locos several of which recorded fewer than 30 votes in total and which are never likely to appear even as kits - but I've shown that I'll be in the market if they do. The point is that I would buy them if they do appear in future and have added my vote to that of others who voted for them (in very small numbers in several cases!). People might think it is easy to vote in this way but rationally only a percentage of what most of us vote for is likely to appear and even then it will definitely not all come at once but will dribble out over time. The other point is one of hitting a broad target - thus I voted for all the dmu classes which aren't on the market at present but which suit my modelling era and locale although I know full well that all of them are unlikely to ever appear - basically I indicated where my money would go in the modernisation era marketplace if the number of dmus available for that era continues to grow; the manufacturer can thus a get a feel for the likely market. And one final point - having voted in past wishlists and made my preferences known through conversations with retailers, reps, manufacturers and their wishlists I have always put my money where my mouth or tick has been. But it has hardly been an imposition because some of the stuff has taken so long to appear that I've had more than enough time to save for it several times over. I can't see the rate of new introductions changing in a way that is likely to affect the time needed to save for things. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Karhedron Posted May 9, 2012 Share Posted May 9, 2012 On the lines of the available 'grasshopper' loco is very fine but needs the corresponding 'anthill' stock, and a targetted set of these locos/wagons/coaches would open up an entire territory. Whether that would be worthwhile in terms of influencing manufacturing decisions, who knows? Interesting question. When Dapol first entered the N gauge market, they did something like this for the GWR. The 14xx was produced with a matching autocoach. The small prairie came out with matching B-set coaches and there were GWR collett coaches to go with the existing larger Farish locos. It seemed sensible to me. Since then this approach has wavered slightly. They produced a couple fo SR locos but never any coaches for them to haul. They got back on track by releasing the gresley stock to go with the B17 and B1 and I am sure that the A3 and A4 will drive further sales of this stock. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ozexpatriate Posted May 9, 2012 Share Posted May 9, 2012 Thank you Andy. I was curious to see if I had gone crazy and voted for 'too many items' compared to the majority, but I see that even my vote tally was numerically on the left hand side of the distribution. I voted for c.100 items and if present new introduction rates are any guide I might well have reached that age long before some of it even stands a chance of being thought about by manufacturers. It turns out that my tally was very similar to Mike. I voted for slightly less than 100 items, with the knowledge that not nearly that many are likely to be made any time soon, with a particular interest in some of smaller industrial locomotives that overlap with my GWR and secondary SR interests. As a few people have observed, none of these accumulate a lot of votes and I'm glad I had the opportunity to vote for them. It is interesting to see that the mode of the 00 distribution appears to be 12 selections and this is less than the average (which I computed to be 33 selections from the rank-ordered data). I do think this bears out an interpretation that the decision not to restrict votes was a worthy one. I believe that not restricting selections is an useful element of the polling process to not undercount topic areas with a lot of choices - like LNER locomotives. The range here is actually much larger than I anticipated. It takes a certain amount of patience to vote for a lot of items. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest dilbert Posted May 9, 2012 Share Posted May 9, 2012 I did have to do a manual entry for someone which ran into several hundred items. Legitimately the voter advised that he would buy those items as and when they're produced but there was no expectation that they'd come along all together! If the premise of the poll is to create a prioirty list for the manufacturers to consider, then the case for applying a quota of votes over a restricted period of time seems to be a justified approach e.g. forty votes for items to be released over a two year timeframe. I don't doubt the sincerity of the voter you refer to, but if more people had taken the same approach of no timing contraints, (a knock on effect of) illimited budget and the knowledge that only a handful of new models can only be issued on an annual basis then the results would be more difficult to interpret... dilbert Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold The Stationmaster Posted May 9, 2012 RMweb Gold Share Posted May 9, 2012 If the premise of the poll is to create a prioirty list for the manufacturers to consider, then the case for applying a quota of votes over a restricted period of time seems to be a justified approach e.g. forty votes for items to be released over a two year timeframe. I don't doubt the sincerity of the voter you refer to, but if more people had taken the same approach of no timing contraints, (a knock on effect of) illimited budget and the knowledge that only a handful of new models can only be issued on an annual basis then the results would be more difficult to interpret... dilbert I suspect not - because of the way one distributes votes (or certainly the way mine were distributed) which if you are voting in that sort of number meant votes were likely to be spread over a number of vehicle etc types. Very broadly mine were 21% for locos, 28% for wagons including service stock, 13% for passenger coaches, 18% NPCCS, 11% dmu (including ex GWR diesel railcars), and 9% things like signals etc. If I had been restricted on the number of votes what product area would have lost my input in respect of future sales? Certainly some of the locos could be dropped but I would be loath to lose any votes I placed for wagons and wouldn't like to lose many from NPCCS and passenger vehicles, let alone dmus. Yes if I had voted 100% for locos I can see some sense in restricting voting power; yes I could possibly see a point in restricting voting power in any particular category - particularly locos which are a high manufacturer investment area. But why shouldn't I get the chance of a good say on wagons or NPCCS where manufacturers are possibly more likely to respond to 'mass observation' suggestions/figures than from their many others sources - which could give a very distorted impression? Incidentally I don't think the poll of itself would be taken by manufacturers as setting a priority order - their priorities will always be set by a wide range of inputs and factors and I can't see that changing, they know their market can be fickle and that they can in some respects exert 'influence' over the way in which at least part of it works. And it certainly wouldn't work on a 2 year cycle because effectively that is shorter than their total development and marketing time. The poll, I think, provides potential, ideas, and possibly confirmation of data they assemble from all the other sources and it comes back to the key line 'I would buy it'. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ozexpatriate Posted May 9, 2012 Share Posted May 9, 2012 Very broadly mine were 21% for locos, 28% for wagons including service stock, 13% for passenger coaches, 18% NPCCS, 11% dmu (including ex GWR diesel railcars), and 9% things like signals etc. If I had been restricted on the number of votes what product area would have lost my input in respect of future sales? I quite agree. I don't have a record of how I voted, but I also placed a lot of votes on items like wagons, service stock and lineside. I think restricting the number of votes to a small number drives voting into locomotive-centric patterns. (This year the top two items were not locomotives. I liked that outcome.) I'm not sure what the benefit would be of restricting the number of votes to an upper limit of say 40 or 50. It feels like an added complication and I don't see how it adds more resolution to the outcome. When you vote for a lot of things, you do lose any numerical sense of which ones were more important to you. Preferential voting (like say a fixed number of "super votes") would address this, but I think this is an unnecessary complication. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold BMacdermott Posted May 10, 2012 RMweb Gold Share Posted May 10, 2012 Dear All Many thanks for all the comments so far. We (ie the nine members of The Poll Team) conducted a dummy run on the voting some months back, and our votes 'panned out' very similarly to the graph. We did consider having two tick boxes against each item along the lines of 'wanted in the next 5 years' and 'wanted in the next 5-10 years', but felt this added an extra layer of complication. We did think of applying an upper limit to voting, but - again - that adds another level of complication. Most people were well below what we had in mind anyway. There is a danger that a limit might be taken as a target. As noted by Stationmaster above, these results are only one part of the information mix taken on board by manufacturers. Brian (on behalf of The Poll Team) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
phil gollin Posted May 10, 2012 Share Posted May 10, 2012 . And I thought I was being generous in ticking about 40 to 50 ! . Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest dilbert Posted May 10, 2012 Share Posted May 10, 2012 Incidentally I don't think the poll of itself would be taken by manufacturers as setting a priority order - their priorities will always be set by a wide range of inputs and factors and I can't see that changing, they know their market can be fickle and that they can in some respects exert 'influence' over the way in which at least part of it works. And it certainly wouldn't work on a 2 year cycle because effectively that is shorter than their total development and marketing time. The poll, I think, provides potential, ideas, and possibly confirmation of data they assemble from all the other sources and it comes back to the key line 'I would buy it'. The 2013 new tooling programme should be effectively locked down and the 2014 programme at an advanced level of development. The results of the poll are one indicator towards 2015/2016 release programmes - a two year cycle in three years time (and also to a certain extent validating the choices made for 2013 & 2014). The manufacturing companies should have a battery of data that allows them to extrapolate new tooling choices and forecasts. Based on historical sales data, by era, locos:coaches/wagons ratios etc... Some sort of ringfencing is required - unless it is made clear that illimited voting has no timeline restrictions and that's fine, next year I'll vote for everything I would buy regardless of future release dates. It has no impact financially. However I suspect that a few people (myself included) voted using a different approach - essentially financial and also for the medium-term future. So voting for a specific coach range (e.g. essentially 1 vote = 5 variants) etc.. starts setting limitations. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Lurker Posted May 10, 2012 Share Posted May 10, 2012 I think that different people have different needs and approaches - on the one hand there are people who buy for a vague concept layout that they must get around to building sometime (that's me), some people model a specifric era or scenario, whilst others are collectors, and no doubt there are other ways of looking atthings. This means that there will be, quite legitimately, people who vote for large numbers of items, whilst others who see no need for many RTR items. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
phil gollin Posted May 10, 2012 Share Posted May 10, 2012 ................. there are people who buy for a vague concept layout that they must get around to building sometime (that's me), .................. Oh yes, you should "see" some of mine ! . Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Paul Plowman Posted January 9, 2013 Share Posted January 9, 2013 Are there any dates for the MREMag/RMWeb 2013 Wishlist Poll to go live? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Karhedron Posted January 9, 2013 Share Posted January 9, 2013 But with a top-notch Blue Pullman now available, what shall we all be wishlisting for this year? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ozexpatriate Posted January 9, 2013 Share Posted January 9, 2013 But with a top-notch Blue Pullman now available, what shall we all be wishlisting for this year? Indeed so - with a Star and a P2, the DoG and a 2-BIL to look forward to we might see some movement near the top of some lists. It will be interesting when the time comes. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Paul Plowman Posted January 10, 2013 Share Posted January 10, 2013 Yes, these will be published in due course through RMweb and MREmag when the Wishlist Poll Team confirm the dates. Final confirmation will be given once certain dates from manufacturers are know. Andy, Why are you waiting? Simon Kohlar has told us in answer to a question I put to him that the timescale between them deciding to put a model in their programme and it going on sale is about three years. The models which will go into their 2014 and 2015 programmes have already been decided. The team can take out models from the manufacturers' 2013 programmes but they can't take out models which are already in their 2014 and 2015 programmes. It is impossible to design a poll in which votes are not wasted. So what difference does it make holding back on the dates of the Wishlist? By holding back you are also missing out on the closing dates for publication of the paper magazines for making announcements. Why are you moderating me? I have not said, nor will I say anything that is intentionally offensive to anyone. You have my word on that. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold The Stationmaster Posted January 10, 2013 RMweb Gold Share Posted January 10, 2013 Surely it is logical to have a poll after Bachmann's announcements this spring (or thereabouts)? The fact that manufacturers have already made decisions for 2014 and possibly 2015 is only relevant to the extent that they might amend their programme in the light of this year's poll (or did in the light of last year's etc) but they don't just work on poll results anyway so the timing becomes even less relevant in that respect. What matters in the polling situation is that those who are voting are starting from a realistic place and that place is when they (we) are best informed about what is already in the pipeline - i.e. after the big manufacturers have announced their programmes. It seems to me rather pointless to express our wishes when we don't know what's coming already - looks like a good way to potentially waste votes. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Paul Plowman Posted January 10, 2013 Share Posted January 10, 2013 I haven't accused you of anything but considering the intent behind your questions and the track-record of Graham on here and elsewhere (towards me and RMweb) with his poorly founded accusations I am naturally suspicious of any agenda you may have. It simply isn't for you to push for an answer from me. Ah, but you did publically accuse me of breaking the Law. Perhaps you might justify your libellous claims towards me or you might rather explain yourself in a court of Law? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.