Wright writes.....

[Headstock]

Hello Andrew

 

We can't expect everyone to be a 'fan of wishlists' - but we would refute any idea that our Poll was 'ill informed'. The accompanying Guide had 7000+ words and a couple of links or more to each of the 70 items in the LNER Locos category. In the Coaches category, there were 6000+ words accompanying the 43 items.

 

Over 400 press releases went out to clubs, web groups and printed magazines. 

 

We have done our utmost to present an informed yet unbiased set of comments for voters to choose from. It has been part of the overall Poll policy since day one to provide 'education' rather than just 'a list of stuff'.

 

As noted in one of my earlier posts on this thread, we have no idea why such as the J6 or the Gresley GE Section 52ft 6in stock never get much support - but that's the way it is. Of course, whether our results match the maker's market research is a different matter. 

 

If you ever see Simon Kohler at an exhibition, ask him who makes up the larger part of the model railway market. Expert/experienced/skilled modellers such as your goodself?

 

Brian (on behalf of The Poll Team)

 

Evening Brian,

 

 

I don't recall saying that your poll was ill informed. I have no way of telling if it is or not. I have never read the 'informed, unbiased and educational' material to which you refer, nor do I know how you would go about accessing it. However, once the votes are cast, your poll looks very much like a wishlist, in that it is a pure popularity contest.  It produces rather disappointing results, if like me, you wish to model what you would see if you sat by the lineside and made a note of what passed by in a given time period. Fortunately for myself, I am not reliant on RTR but many others are.

 

If I might use a simple example of were the polls informed and educational' remit fails, the 'Hush Hush locomotive polls very highly in the locomotive category, yet it is impossible to supply even a generic version of the type of train that this locomotive would pull. Why? The most essential stock is not available RTR. In addition, though it is in the 'wishlist', it has not polled well enough to even reach the top ten. It has been pushed out by more exotic and rare types. This lack of joined up thinking is only one example, but a very good example, of were wish lists come unstuck. How can the essential and the most typical stock not get in the top ten? Is that a lack of popularity or just a case of being ill informed?

 

Perhaps you should reappraise the unbiased approach, would it not be educational to say 'this is an essential piece of kit, a railway of such and such would be incomprehensible without A or B? Obviously a fine line to tread, but reaching the right balance would be much more informative.

 

Edited November 11, 2018 by Headstock

[Barry Ten]

I suppose there are a few reasons for kit-building locos.

 

1. There is no RTR equivalent, nor likely to be in the foreseeable future.

2, If there is an RTR, build the kit if it is superior re fidelity to the prototype/detailing.etc

3. It keeps alive an important sub-set of suppliers and modellers in an RTR dominated hobby.

4.No space for a layout but wanting to "engage" in the hobby.

5.Loco building develops a range of ancillary skills for use elsewhere.,

6. It's good fun, unless you take it all too seriously.

 

Doubtless there are other reasons.

 

Back to that wretched DJH A8 chassis...

 

John

 

These are all excellent points. I'd add one more, which is that, having built a chassis, you can generally

dismantle and rebuild it if you have to, which is far from obvious with some of the recent RTR designs, some

of which don't seem engineered to come apart in a very practical fashion. For that reason, I reckon my kitbuilt

stuff should outlast me, whereas I haven't got quite the same confidence in some of the recent RTR stuff.

 

 

Al

[AndyID]

Cracked it! (Maybe.)

 

I was wondering how Tony manages to create those excellent images. Thinking it might be due to diffuse light I took my double-mushroom example outside while it was overcast and voila! Here it is sitting (not sat) on a tie (not a sleeper).

 

 

 

[Clem]

Evening Brian,

 

 

I don't recall saying that your poll was ill informed. I have no way of telling if it is or not. I have never read the 'informed, unbiased and educational' material to which you refer, nor do I know how you would go about accessing it. However, once the votes are cast, your poll looks very much like a wishlist, in that it is a pure popularity contest.  It produces rather disappointing results, if like me, you wish to model what you would see if you sat by the lineside and made a note of what passed by in a given time period. Fortunately for myself, I am not reliant on RTR but many others are.

 

If I might use a simple example of were the polls informed and educational' remit fails, the 'Hush Hush locomotive polls very highly in the locomotive category, yet it is impossible to supply even a generic version of the type of train that this locomotive would pull. Why? The most essential stock is not available RTR. In addition, though it is in the 'wishlist', it has not polled well enough to even reach the top ten. It has been pushed out by more exotic and rare types. This lack of joined up thinking is only one example, but a very good example, of were wish lists come unstuck. How can the essential and the most typical stock not get in the top ten? Is that a lack of popularity or just a case of being ill informed?

 

Perhaps you should reappraise the unbiased approach, would it not be educational to say 'this is an essential piece of kit, a railway of such and such would be incomprehensible without A or B? Obviously a fine line to tread, but reaching the right balance would be much more informative.

 

 

Yes I thoroughly agree Andrew. I also looked at the results of the wish list with a mixture of baffled bewilderment and amusement. I'm picturing the flood of West Highland exhibition layouts featuring K4s and Hush-hushes pulling Gresley Quad-arts and that's only looking at the ex-LNER side. The truth of the matter for me is that I have the intention in the future of replacing the chassis of any RTR locos I have with my own as I simply can't get them, as converted to EM, to run as well as the chassis (plural - is that still chassis?) that I've made up myself - and if any of my kit or scratch-built chassis doesn't work well then it's up to me to redo it better. It's true that in the past, these lists have encouraged the likes of Hornby and Bachmann to produce some very good and useful models - the Gresley non-corridor coaches and the O4/1 come to mind - but the wish lists have what I call a 'Flying Scotsman' bias where the extra-ordinary and sensational is selected by the majority amongst the modelling populace who are generally less informed of the real railway . Blimey - I'm coming across like a bit of a snob here! Of course, to be fair, RTR has had a big impact on my layout. The RTR models on my layout save time for me to work on other more specific projects which (I hope) will themselves never be a target for RTR.

[Tony Wright]

Evening Brian,

 

 

I don't recall saying that your poll was ill informed. I have no way of telling if it is or not. I have never read the 'informed, unbiased and educational' material to which you refer, nor do I know how you would go about accessing it. However, once the votes are cast, your poll looks very much like a wishlist, in that it is a pure popularity contest.  It produces rather disappointing results, if like me, you wish to model what you would see if you sat by the lineside and made a note of what passed by in a given time period. Fortunately for myself, I am not reliant on RTR but many others are.

 

If I might use a simple example of were the polls informed and educational' remit fails, the 'Hush Hush locomotive polls very highly in the locomotive category, yet it is impossible to supply even a generic version of the type of train that this locomotive would pull. Why? The most essential stock is not available RTR. In addition, though it is in the 'wishlist', it has not polled well enough to even reach the top ten. It has been pushed out by more exotic and rare types. This lack of joined up thinking is only one example, but a very good example, of were wish lists come unstuck. How can the essential and the most typical stock not get in the top ten? Is that a lack of popularity or just a case of being ill informed?

 

Perhaps you should reappraise the unbiased approach, would it not be educational to say 'this is an essential piece of kit, a railway of such and such would be incomprehensible without A or B? Obviously a fine line to tread, but reaching the right balance would be much more informative.

 

I think you make some good points, Andrew,

 

However, very, very few 'modellers' (in comparison with the majority) take the time and trouble to actually create 'real' trains to run behind their RTR locos (the way you and I might do). Most don't even care (look at the popular press) and remain in blissful ignorance as they gleefully put together their trains; the most difficult part being the extricating of the things from their boxes! 

 

The W1 is an interesting proposition RTR. Which one, though? I know Dave Ellis of SE Finecast does both versions in 4mm, and the rebuilt one can be created by employing a Hornby donor and using Graeme King's resin conversion bits. Would a W1 be popular RTR? I can't speak for the original (though it looked an impressive beast), but, as in my own case, if the real rebuilt W1 were out of shops, it could be seen regularly on the ECML south of Doncaster. Every day, because it worked a regular out-and-back diagram between Donny and Kings Cross (the same was so of the A1/1, but that will never be available RTR, surely?) Certainly, for BR days, many of the Mk.1 cars produced by Bachmann and Hornby would be appropriate behind the W1. Hornby's Gresleys, either in teak or BR livery wouldn't look right, though. However, Bachmann's latest Thompsons could be used. 

 

Rather like you, I don't give a fig about what the latest polls (wish lists?) might reveal (though I heartily admire the diligence of the team which has put the latest one together). As long as I have my kits, my raw materials and electricity I'll follow my 'own' path, though it's not trodden by the majority of those in the hobby. 

 

Where the latest RTR does impact on me, is the demise of a kit when a straight-out-of-the-box example appears. 

 

Might a W1 be an RTR proposition?

 

 

Certainly, the SE Finecast one which runs on the Gresley Beat is a very fine example of a model of it in original condition. Of course, that railway has some wonderful (kit-built) rolling stock to go behind it.

 

 

 

 

I built my own (rebuilt) W1 from a SE Finecast kit, and Ian Rathbone painted it. In some ways, it's a bit lumpen, and a conversion can appear crisper. See below.

 

 

This is David West's Hornby/King conversion. I'm not sure if David did this himself.

 

 

And Tom Rance's W1 from the same means. This is all Tom's work. It includes a SE Finecast chassis, because the Hornby A4 chassis is rather weak with regard to the motion.

 

Since I have my W1 (and there is only one), I (selfishly?) couldn't give a toss whether one is on the RTR horizon. 

 

I wonder whether the poll will have an influence on the RTR boys (and girls)?

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Edited November 12, 2018 by Tony Wright

[Bucoops]

Yes I thoroughly agree Andrew. I also looked at the results of the wish list with a mixture of baffled bewilderment and amusement. I'm picturing the flood of West Highland exhibition layouts featuring K4s and Hush-hushes pulling Gresley Quad-arts and that's only looking at the ex-LNER side. The truth of the matter for me is that I have the intention in the future of replacing the chassis of any RTR locos I have with my own as I simply can't get them, as converted to EM, to run as well as the chassis (plural - is that still chassis?) that I've made up myself - and if any of my kit or scratch-built chassis doesn't work well then it's up to me to redo it better. It's true that in the past, these lists have encouraged the likes of Hornby and Bachmann to produce some very good and useful models - the Gresley non-corridor coaches and the O4/1 come to mind - but the wish lists have what I call a 'Flying Scotsman' bias where the extra-ordinary and sensational is selected by the majority amongst the modelling populace who are generally less informed of the real railway . Blimey - I'm coming across like a bit of a snob here! Of course, to be fair, RTR has had a big impact on my layout. The RTR models on my layout save time for me to work on other more specific projects which (I hope) will themselves never be a target for RTR.

 

I'm hoping someone does the Quint Arts - now there is a RTR N7 then surely that opens up the chances of suitable stock - e.g. Quad and Quints

 

Although I'd still like kit based ones to go with me (oh so slow) build of an N7

 

 

[Tony Wright]

Cracked it! (Maybe.)

 

I was wondering how Tony manages to create those excellent images. Thinking it might be due to diffuse light I took my double-mushroom example outside while it was overcast and voila! Here it is sitting (not sat) on a tie (not a sleeper).

 

DSCN4167.JPG

'Excellent images'? 

 

That's very kind of you. 

 

The shots of the Peco surface-mounted motors were taken using my D3, hand-held, with a big Metz flash gun, bounced off the ceiling. Exposure, at 400 ASA, was a 60th of a second at F22.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[MikeTrice]

I'm hoping someone does the Quint Arts - now there is a RTR N7 then surely that opens up the chances of suitable stock - e.g. Quad and Quints

 

Assuming only sold as a "set" they could be over £240/£300 which would restrict their sales somewhat.

[BMacdermott]

Evening Brian,

 

 

I don't recall saying that your poll was ill informed. I have no way of telling if it is or not. I have never read the 'informed, unbiased and educational' material to which you refer, nor do I know how you would go about accessing it. However, once the votes are cast, your poll looks very much like a wishlist, in that it is a pure popularity contest.  It produces rather disappointing results, if like me, you wish to model what you would see if you sat by the lineside and made a note of what passed by in a given time period. Fortunately for myself, I am not reliant on RTR but many others are.

 

If I might use a simple example of were the polls informed and educational' remit fails, the 'Hush Hush locomotive polls very highly in the locomotive category, yet it is impossible to supply even a generic version of the type of train that this locomotive would pull. Why? The most essential stock is not available RTR. In addition, though it is in the 'wishlist', it has not polled well enough to even reach the top ten. It has been pushed out by more exotic and rare types. This lack of joined up thinking is only one example, but a very good example, of were wish lists come unstuck. How can the essential and the most typical stock not get in the top ten? Is that a lack of popularity or just a case of being ill informed?

 

Perhaps you should reappraise the unbiased approach, would it not be educational to say 'this is an essential piece of kit, a railway of such and such would be incomprehensible without A or B? Obviously a fine line to tread, but reaching the right balance would be much more informative.

 

 

Hello Andrew

 

Thanks for writing.

 

Indeed, you didn't refer specifically to our Poll - and neither did we specifically refer to your comment, only that we would refute any comment about it being ill-informed. At present, we are only aware of a couple of wishlists running on RMweb (one on GWR Toplights and two on Industrials). We are not aware of any similar ones to ours anywhere.

 

We concede entirely that any LNER Locos & Carriages Poll conducted via this thread would have a different result to ours for fully understandable reasons.

 

As noted, our Poll is for modellers and collectors (and Tony has just added a post on that topic). I posted the 5-year reports to show the consistency of that voter audience.

 

Why did we start out with the (part) intention of 'education'? Because we appreciated from our own 500+ years of modelling experience that many weren't able to 'join the dots' of stock with locos. Clearly, we are failing to get the message across! So, why are people not voting for Steel Panel 5-sets or Thompson Sleepers?

 

Could it be that most of what we see in books and mags etc is three-quarter views of locos? And did voters vote for Hush Hush because they have seen it on the exhibition circuit? Doesn't it stand out in Tony's photos?

 

May I PM you with our Guide text from Hush Hush and a couple of your choices of PCCS? This will give you an idea of our 'outline' approach. We do have to be careful of showing any bias to any particular item, but - for example - within the A2/1, A2/2 and A2/3 texts, we note that they are: Essential to complete the ECML express loco line up.

 

Brian (on behalf of The 00 Poll Team)

[TrevorP1]

 

However, very, very few 'modellers' (in comparison with the majority) take the time and trouble to actually create 'real' trains to run behind their RTR locos (the way you and I might do). Most don't even care (look at the popular press) and remain in blissful ignorance as they gleefully put together their trains; the most difficult part being the extricating of the things from their boxes! 

 

 

My project is still very much in the early stages - I have just begun fitting out my new building. However, some time ago I began the very enjoyable task of researching the composition of the trains I will require. Probably my task is much easier than Little Bytham and on 'Grampound Road' and there will be much more RTR than Bytham but trains will be the correct consist, pulled by an appropriate engine, all appropriately weathered and detailed. Little touches like running in boards supported on broad gauge rail will be incorporated but I just do not have the years left to build all the locos and stock so building will have to be restricted to items that I cannot obtain commercially.

 

One important advantage of all this planning is than funds are not wasted on inappropriate items!

[Bucoops]

Oh absolutely - but Quads are available as kits, so it's not *too* much for me to hope someone literally one-ups that is it? Or even an RTR of both. Maybe...

[Chamby]

Hello Andrew

 

Thanks for writing.

 

Indeed, you didn't refer specifically to our Poll - and neither did we specifically refer to your comment, only that we would refute any comment about it being ill-informed. At present, we are only aware of a couple of wishlists running on RMweb (one on GWR Toplights and two on Industrials). We are not aware of any similar ones to ours anywhere.

 

We concede entirely that any LNER Locos & Carriages Poll conducted via this thread would have a different result to ours for fully understandable reasons.

 

As noted, our Poll is for modellers and collectors (and Tony has just added a post on that topic). I posted the 5-year reports to show the consistency of that voter audience.

 

Why did we start out with the (part) intention of 'education'? Because we appreciated from our own 500+ years of modelling experience that many weren't able to 'join the dots' of stock with locos. Clearly, we are failing to get the message across! So, why are people not voting for Steel Panel 5-sets or Thompson Sleepers?

 

Could it be that most of what we see in books and mags etc is three-quarter views of locos? And did voters vote for Hush Hush because they have seen it on the exhibition circuit? Doesn't it stand out in Tony's photos?

 

May I PM you with our Guide text from Hush Hush and a couple of your choices of PCCS? This will give you an idea of our 'outline' approach. We do have to be careful of showing any bias to any particular item, but - for example - within the A2/1, A2/2 and A2/3 texts, we note that they are: Essential to complete the ECML express loco line up.

 

Brian (on behalf of The 00 Poll Team)

To my mind, the fact that the wish-list poll has picked out the remarkable (such as hush-Hush) rather than the mundane is to be wholly expected. Our model railways, without exception, are fantasy worlds where we can run what we want, when and where we want. When watching the recent and most excellent BRM video of Little Bytham, I was struck by how many times Tony qualified the appearance of stock that wasn’t quite right for the time and place, but it was justifiable with a little more liberal interpretation. And quite right too.

 

The likes of hush-hush top the poll because they are the equivalent of a ‘top cop’ in trainspotting parlance... what a spotter would get most excited about. And when you consider that most railway modellers are not as fastidious as the participants of this particular thread, to me fully explains why the wish list turns out how it does.

 

Maybe the kit manufacturers might look further down the wishlist for future RTR-proof subjects?

 

Phil

[BMacdermott]

....these lists have encouraged the likes of Hornby and Bachmann to produce some very good and useful models - the Gresley non-corridor coaches and the O4/1 come to mind - but the wish lists have what I call a 'Flying Scotsman' bias where the extra-ordinary and sensational is selected by the majority amongst the modelling populace who are generally less informed of the real railway . Blimey - I'm coming across like a bit of a snob here! Of course, to be fair, RTR has had a big impact on my layout. The RTR models on my layout save time for me to work on other more specific projects which (I hope) will themselves never be a target for RTR.

 

Hello Clem

 

Please accept this post in the spirit in which it is intended in relation to our Poll...'educational'. I'm not 'digging' at you! It is simply 'a case in point'.

 

You mention non-corridor coaches. We are very clear in The Poll text and accompanying Jargon Buster to differentiate between non-gangwayed coaches and those that have a side-corridor but are nontheless non-gangwayed. We also differentiate that - whilst most regions used the term non-gangwayed - the Southern Region used non-corridor! The Southern Railway had a Gangwayed Bogie Luggage Van (GBL) but the region changed that to Corridor PMV (CorPMV)!

 

Many use the term suburban in respect of non-gangwayed stock as such was primarily used on suburban services.

 

We have also clarified gangway connection (instead of corridor connection) and that vestibule can mean different things on the LMS and LNER.

 

Added to that, LNER uses carriages instead of coaches. There are more, but I'll end it there!

 

Brian (on behalf of The 00 Poll Team)

[CUTLER2579]

Brian,

Then of course London Underground  (TFL) use the term  "CARS" 

Kind Regards,Derek.

[BMacdermott]

Brian,

Then of course London Underground  (TFL) use the term  "CARS" 

Kind Regards,Derek.

Hello Derek

 

Indeed you are right. Extract from our Jargon Buster below.

 

Brian (on behalf of The 00 Poll Team)

 

Passenger-carrying coaching stock comprises those vehicles designed and used primarily for the conveyance of passengers. The abbreviation is PCCS. Such a vehicle is commonly called a coach (the term we will use here for consistency) or carriage. However, Pullman, catering and underground vehicles are normally referred to as cars. (Additionally, DMUs and EMUs are noted as 2-car, 4-car etc.)

[Tony Wright]

To my mind, the fact that the wish-list poll has picked out the remarkable (such as hush-Hush) rather than the mundane is to be wholly expected. Our model railways, without exception, are fantasy worlds where we can run what we want, when and where we want. When watching the recent and most excellent BRM video of Little Bytham, I was struck by how many times Tony qualified the appearance of stock that wasn’t quite right for the time and place, but it was justifiable with a little more liberal interpretation. And quite right too.

 

The likes of hush-hush top the poll because they are the equivalent of a ‘top cop’ in trainspotting parlance... what a spotter would get most excited about. And when you consider that most railway modellers are not as fastidious as the participants of this particular thread, to me fully explains why the wish list turns out how it does.

 

Maybe the kit manufacturers might look further down the wishlist for future RTR-proof subjects?

 

Phil

Thanks for your comments about the LB DVD, Phil,

 

I think the term 'liberal interpretation' is very apposite. 

 

As for 'top cops', how true. Trainspotting (in my experience) was all about 'copping' the most exotic locos - the rarest, those from far away, and, most of all, the namers! 

 

As a daily 'spotter at Chester, most of the trains were hauled by Stanier's 'Mickeys'. With over 800 to choose from, then they were ubiquitous. We noted their numbers (those from Chester's own shed, Patricroft and Llandudno Junction were, obviously, the most common) but the longed-for Semis, Prinnies, Pats, Jubs and Scots were much more interesting. In model form, they'd be far more popular, too. If one were building a model of, say, Shotton Low Level, for a 'representative' day's running in the late-'50s, only one Semi would be needed, perhaps a Prinny, a Pat or two, maybe some Jubs and Scots (certainly those from Holyhead), and a couple of big-tender Brits. And, loads and loads of Mickeys. Yet, far more models of the exotic would grace most modellers' collections. 

 

I suppose I'm lucky with LB (hence my choice) in that the 'exotic' was far more common than the ordinary. A B1 might be called ordinary, but there'd be far fewer of those than the Pacifics belting through. The ECML big stuff was 'ordinary'. On the ex-GC, though, it would be a different story. 

 

As for RTR-proof subjects for the kit-manufacturers, the problem is they'll always be the least-popular. By far the most of DJH's sales of their OO kits were for the big, express passenger locos. As were SE Finecast's. Too many were beyond the abilities of those who bought them, but you see the appeal. More obscure, less popular types might be RTR-proof, but that's because they are just that. Less popular types will probably result in fewer kit sales as well, so they're less appealing.  

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[BMacdermott]

 

As for 'top cops', how true. Trainspotting (in my experience) was all about 'copping' the most exotic locos - the rarest, those from far away, and, most of all, the namers! 

 

 

 

Hello Tony

 

Exactly right. I am a member of the Steam Railway Research Society (SRRS) and have probably seen more than my fair share of 'lineside logs' from around the country over the years. What they show is that much that we saw was 'daily routine' with the occasional 'jump for joy' spotting. There are few - if any - coaching stock notes.

 

We also have to bear in mind that if we haven't got our own memories, then we rely on photo album type books. But many of those photos will be Summer Saturday, well after breakfast and closing before tea-time. If only we had had 24-hour CCTV coverage in the late 50s and early 60s!

 

Much the same applies with aviation. If you spend any time watching planes at Heathrow, not many camera lenses will point at a British Airways A320 - but if a Kalitta Jumbo or Qatari royal family jet come on the radar, the sound of shutters clicking is louder than the aircraft themselves.

 

Brian

Edited November 12, 2018 by BMacdermott

[Lecorbusier]

To my mind, the fact that the wish-list poll has picked out the remarkable (such as hush-Hush) rather than the mundane is to be wholly expected. Our model railways, without exception, are fantasy worlds where we can run what we want, when and where we want. When watching the recent and most excellent BRM video of Little Bytham, I was struck by how many times Tony qualified the appearance of stock that wasn’t quite right for the time and place, but it was justifiable with a little more liberal interpretation. And quite right too.

 

The likes of hush-hush top the poll because they are the equivalent of a ‘top cop’ in trainspotting parlance... what a spotter would get most excited about. And when you consider that most railway modellers are not as fastidious as the participants of this particular thread, to me fully explains why the wish list turns out how it does.

 

Maybe the kit manufacturers might look further down the wishlist for future RTR-proof subjects?

 

Phil

It is interesting though how at the finerscale end of things, alongside the 'stars' there does seem to be a love and appreciation of the more humble. .... the goods loco and shunter plus the humble wagon. Perhaps alongside pre grouping, this will tend to be the realm of the kit and scratch building?

Edited November 12, 2018 by Lecorbusier

[Tony Wright]

It is interesting though how at the finerscale end of things there, alongside the 'stars' there does seem to be a love and appreciation of the more humble. .... the goods loco and shunter plus the humble wagon. Perhaps alongside pre grouping, this will tend to be the realm of the kit and scratch building?

I think you're right, Tim,

 

Could it be that at the finer scale end of the market, the layouts which are created are generally smaller than those in the mainstream? This being so (assuming I'm right in my observation), then the less-exotic, more mundane will feature. Not just smaller locos and stock, but fewer examples of them as well. 

 

That's not to say that larger layouts are never built in the finer scales/gauges, but they are much, much rarer. 

 

I have to say, I much prefer watching a small finescale layout, where the quality of craftsmanship is outstanding, than watching a huge, 'club' layout in OO where there is real no sense of time or place, and most of what runs is just bought. There are many of them, still. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[jamie92208]

Just another snippet from Orleans that I forgot to post earlier.  For all you fans of green engines I did find one, out in the back yard in a tent.

Live steam, gauge 1.   There was also a 7 1/4" outdoor railway that was delighting a lot of kids in the rain as they rode it.

 

Jamie

 

[Lecorbusier]

I have to say, I much prefer watching a small finescale layout, where the quality of craftsmanship is outstanding, than watching a huge, 'club' layout in OO where there is real no sense of time or place, and most of what runs is just bought. There are many of them, still. 

 

But a large finescale layout ..... where the craftsmanship is outstanding ..... now there is a thing to behold 

[Tony Wright]

But a large finescale layout ..... where the craftsmanship is outstanding ..... now there is a thing to behold 

Retford?

 

 

 

 

Or Carlisle?

 

 

 

Or Pelaw South?

 

 

 

 

All of the above are in EM, and all of them have progressed considerably since I took these pictures. 

 

Finescale modelling on the grandest scale in my opinion. 

Edited November 12, 2018 by Tony Wright

[Clem]

Hello Clem

 

Please accept this post in the spirit in which it is intended in relation to our Poll...'educational'. I'm not 'digging' at you! It is simply 'a case in point'.

 

You mention non-corridor coaches. We are very clear in The Poll text and accompanying Jargon Buster to differentiate between non-gangwayed coaches and those that have a side-corridor but are nontheless non-gangwayed. We also differentiate that - whilst most regions used the term non-gangwayed - the Southern Region used non-corridor! The Southern Railway had a Gangwayed Bogie Luggage Van (GBL) but the region changed that to Corridor PMV (CorPMV)!

 

Many use the term suburban in respect of non-gangwayed stock as such was primarily used on suburban services.

 

We have also clarified gangway connection (instead of corridor connection) and that vestibule can mean different things on the LMS and LNER.

 

Added to that, LNER uses carriages instead of coaches. There are more, but I'll end it there!

 

Brian (on behalf of The 00 Poll Team)

 

Hi Brian. Guilty as charged.

 

I still lapse back into the incorrect use of 'corridor/non-corridor' and 'coaches' terms - picked up when I was young - in spite of knowing the correct terms.

 

I'm sorry if the posting irritated or angered you at all. It was not in any way aimed at you or the fine job you do creating and annotating the wish list each year. It was just a post where I was agreeing with someone else (Headstock - Andrew) on how the general modelling public as a whole often choose their desired models and on how sometimes the choice is not likely to be that useful for many who model a layout in a prototypical manner. But as you suggested in one of your earlier posts, the wish list is open to collectors and modellers who will happily run anything on their layout. That is their interest. Good luck them. 

[2750Papyrus]

Interesting to see the choice of point motor in the Retford storage loops......

[BMacdermott]

Hi Brian. Guilty as charged.

 

I still lapse back into the incorrect use of 'corridor/non-corridor' and 'coaches' terms - picked up when I was young - in spite of knowing the correct terms.

 

I'm sorry if the posting irritated or angered you at all. It was not in any way aimed at you or the fine job you do creating and annotating the wish list each year. It was just a post where I was agreeing with someone else (Headstock - Andrew) on how the general modelling public as a whole often choose their desired models and on how sometimes the choice is not likely to be that useful for many who model a layout in a prototypical manner. But as you suggested in one of your earlier posts, the wish list is open to collectors and modellers who will happily run anything on their layout. That is their interest. Good luck them. 

 

Hello Clem

 

No irritation or anger whatsoever,  I fully assure you. And I hope I made it clear that none was aimed at your goodself. It was simply an opportune moment to emphasise an element of our work.

 

Regards

 

Brian (on behalf of The 00 Poll Team)