Minority Report: The Wish-List Poll & the Pre-Grouper

[Edwardian]

A noticeable yellow streak has appeared across the top of the page, so it must be that time of year again.

 

In the context of our recent putting of heads together on the subject of RTR, I wonder how we should approach the Wish-List.

 

First, might I say that it would be a great service if Andy Hayter's list of RTR models with pre-Grouping potential were pinned, and that I second Bon Accord's suggestion that RTR chassis that might be suitable for conversion are included.

 

The reluctant conclusion that I have reached is that, with very few exceptions Hornby, Bachmann, Hattons, and Kernow have consistently shown themselves only interested in tooling for the BR modeller and/or for "as preserved" versions.  Any model that can be used OOB for the pre-Grouping period is a happy coincidence.  Most models would required surgery ranging from minor to drastic and a re-spray.

 

The problem is that the Wish-List does not differentiate between periods and versions too well.  So entrenched is the Transition Era that the Wish-List merely reflects the, possibly quite unconscious, assumption that, if I am talking of an X Class, I am talking of a late version or rebuilt X Class, suitable only for the Late '30s to mid '60s.  Thus, I cannot vote for a "LBSC" Atlantic because Bachmann has announced an ex-LBSC Atlantic. Generally votes for types introduced before the late 1930s will only result in models suitable for use prior to the late Thirties if there had been no prototype variants, modifications or rebuilds.  I say "generally", because there are exceptions.  The Hattons/DJM King, unlike their 4800, will honour the Class's original appearance, but the further back in history the prototype was produced, the more likely it is that a model of it will be restricted to BR, and, perhaps, the last decade of Grouping.  

 

So, I have learnt to be careful what I wish for.  In previous polls, for example, I wished for LSWR coaches, and we ended up with rebuilt ex-LSW coaches fit for the Late '30s and onward, and a LBSC Atlantic, and we are to have an ex-LBSC Atlantic, a GW 4800, and ended up with wartime and onward only.

 

There are many other examples, and I feel that anything I vote for is likely to have the same result.  For instance, I could run a LBSC C2X, but not the 2-domed monstrosity, which, if a C2X were ever produced RTR, would doubtless be the only version they will think to make.  I could go through the entire list and make similarly depressing conclusions regarding all proposed models of pre-Grouping origin.  What, for instance, would I get if I voted for a Terrier?  I would get an A1X, and, in fact, this year the Wish List refers not to an "A1/A1X", but just to an "A1X".  Often it might suffice to go back to 1911, but with the Terrier it would be a shame to neglect the Stroudley era.  

 

One major problem is that the current Wish-List simply hides any interest there might be in pre-Grouping, or early Grouping.  It might suit the manufacturers to do so, and the world is so much cosier if you pretend it started in 1950, but I suspect it is merely that no one gives early periods a thought.  The result is that the Wish List Poll is of no use whatsoever in gauging the levels of potential support for earlier periods.

 

What is to be done?

 

Well, I don't see the Wish-List being amended to allow voters to discriminate between period/variant/livery choices. It is too late, besides which the cry will go up that it is too difficult to cater for the various versions of a class. Well, yes, if you attempted to list all the variants, but that is not necessary.  What is wrong with simply "LBSCR A1 Class IEG, LBSCR A1 Class Umber, LBSCR A1X Class ...". or "GER T26 Prussian Blue, GER T26 Grey, LNER E4 Black ....

 

Do we produce our own Wish-List or a version of the poll that allows support for earlier version to be visible?

 

Do we give up and get what we're given?

[Andy Y]

 

Do we produce our own Wish-List or a version of the BRM that allows support for earlier version to be visible?

 

 

Firstly I must advise that I have amended your topic title and draw your attention to the quoted sentence. The Wishlist Poll is not run by BRM, I host the poll on RMweb to support the Wishlist Poll team which is made up of a group of independent individuals, I am sure you will have seen Brian MacDermott posting here, the poll will be publicised across several magazines and also on MREmag.com

 

I will however move to their defence to advise that such a massively wide poll in terms of scope could not hope to cover every version or variation of a class of locomotive, coach or wagon. The list would be ridiculous and only the most well-informed would know and understand all of the variations which may have taken place over the life of a class. It's no use asking for a pre-grouping Terrier by extension as there are so many variations.

 

Whilst any wishlist may be considered by a manufacturer it's only one way of analysing potential demand and then they have to consider commercial viability. The ideal would be a loco which existed from 1825 to the present day with no modifications in 101 different liveries; that's not going to happen so it's down to the manufacturer to consider what tooling options are viable to cater for any variations within a class.

 

Understanding a little about what proportion of models model which eras (and influence potential sales) would indicate that producing variations for the least number of modellers will produce the lowest return at maximum inconvenience.

[Edwardian]

I will however move to their defence to advise that such a massively wide poll in terms of scope could not hope to cover every version or variation of a class of locomotive, coach or wagon. The list would be ridiculous and only the most well-informed would know and understand all of the variations which may have taken place over the life of a class. It's no use asking for a pre-grouping Terrier by extension as there are so many variations.

 

 

Thanks, Andy, for your prompt response. 

 

The explanation above was, I felt, anticipated in my post.  It is surely not beyond the wit of man to allow interest in earlier periods to be registered in a poll, without listing every possible variation.  As it is, no matter what year your wished-for prototype dates from, a vote generally translates only to a late condition model, even though that is not specified in the poll.  It is only through experience that I realise that I have been voting for ex-LBSC, ex-LSWR etc, as opposed to the LBSC and LSWR etc items listed in the poll.  

 

I have removed the BRM reference that resulted from not hitherto realising that the poll existed in other places!

[cheesysmith]

I have to agree with you, for example where are the Q4 and the rebuilds the Q1? Both could be done by Bachmann from the exsisting O4. The same chassis could also give you the S1. All ex GC locos that even I would buy, and I am a commited D&E modeller.

[BMacdermott]

Hello Edwardian

 

Can I ask.... did you go straight into The Poll (ie the voting list) or did you take any time to look at the Introduction and Q&A?

 

We list many pre-Grouping items.

 

New this year are generic headings for such as 'LNWR Wagons & Vans (inc 4- & 6-wheel Brake Vans)'. We responded to voter suggestions and our draft text was written long before Oxford Rail announced their GWR 6-wheeler. You will find similar headings for: LBSCR, LSWR, SECR, CR, LYR, MR, SDJR, GCR, NBR and NER. Additionally, you will find RCH Post-1927 Tank Wagon and Rectank (WW1).

 

Additional to the freight stock, we list 11 pre-Grouping steam locos new this year.

 

The LSWR coaches recently introduced by Hornby weren't ever actually in The Poll - we had them in our draft for publication that year, but Hornby beat us to it by a short margin. There are, however, currently four other ex-LSWR types to vote for in 00. (If you look into the reasons why Hornby made the coaches, it is easy to understand why.)

 

I have appended below the text from The Guide appertaining to the Terrier.

 

As noted in my posting to the 'main' Wishlist Poll 2016 thread, I always take note of comments  and put them on the Agenda. However, I'm pretty confident if Edwardian makes a list of what he initially thinks will be viable, he will soon find that he gets bogged down - and Andy has rightly and accurately alluded to that prospect. We have been looking at the subject since 2011 - we haven't yet come up with a solution and neither has anyone else.

 

Brian Macdermott (on behalf of The Poll Team)

 

LBSCR A1X Terrier 0-6-0T (32635-32678)

These were designed by Stroudley (as A, later A1), and first appeared in 1872. Rebuilt to A1X from 1911. They could be seen in a multitude of livery variations (e.g. LBSCR, LSWR, SECR, IoW companies, K&ESR, GWR, SR, BR and PO), and were famous for their association with the Hayling Island branch, Kent & East Sussex and other locations needing a light loco. The class featured many detail variations – but the current model has a combination of front splashers and bunker not found in reality, although one, 32670, is close. Twelve were still extant in the late 1950s, and the final survivors lasted to 1963. Seven preserved (plus two A1s). A model was first made by Dapol in 1988 and the tools sold to Hornby in 1996.

[BG John]

Assuming that it was the "Minority Report" bit that was added by Andy, it's probably worth pointing out that in the film of that name, suppression of the Minority Report led to some miscarriages of justice .

 

A quick look through the GWR PDFs shows a number of items that were built in the pre-grouping era, but many would have had changes later in their life that would make it very difficult, or impossible, to backdate them. I suspect they would not be offered in a form that was suitable for a pre-grouping layout, despite building dates and some early history being mentioned in the notes.

 

Specifying the proposed date range the model would cover would be very helpful, and would probably show that nearly all items are actually being proposed as post grouping, and often late grouping models.

[Andy Y]

Assuming that it was the "Minority Report" bit that was added by Andy, it's probably worth pointing out that in the film of that name, suppression of the Minority Report led to some miscarriages of justice .

No, I just removed reference to it being a BRM Wishlist.

 

I often know what offences are likely to be committed by whom in the course of a day on here though and on occasions have acted in advance.

[BMacdermott]

Hello BG John

 

I have put your idea of 'specifying the date range' on the Agenda, but my feeling is - from past experience - that it will get bogged down in detail. We responded early in our tenure of The Wishlist Poll to the suggestion by 'Ozexpatriate' to enter 'circa from/to' dates on rolling stock, and 'BR running number ranges' to aid identification.

 

If you focus on, say, even a small class of locos such as the S&D 7F 2-8-0, it is staggering how many variants can be found over the years.

 

The manufacturers will only make items from which they can make a return on investment.

 

Brian Macdermott (on behalf of The Poll Team)

[J C Fenton]

Hello Edwardian

 

Can I ask.... did you go straight into The Poll (ie the voting list) or did you take any time to look at the Introduction and Q&A?

 

We list many pre-Grouping items.

 

New this year are generic headings for such as 'LNWR Wagons & Vans (inc 4- & 6-wheel Brake Vans)'. We responded to voter suggestions and our draft text was written long before Oxford Rail announced their GWR 6-wheeler. You will find similar headings for: LBSCR, LSWR, SECR, CR, LYR, MR, SDJR, GCR, NBR and NER. Additionally, you will find RCH Post-1927 Tank Wagon and Rectank (WW1).

 

Additional to the freight stock, we list 11 pre-Grouping steam locos new this year.

 

The LSWR coaches recently introduced by Hornby weren't ever actually in The Poll - we had them in our draft for publication that year, but Hornby beat us to it by a short margin. There are, however, currently four other ex-LSWR types to vote for in 00. (If you look into the reasons why Hornby made the coaches, it is easy to understand why.)

 

I have appended below the text from The Guide appertaining to the Terrier.

 

As noted in my posting to the 'main' Wishlist Poll 2016 thread, I always take note of comments  and put them on the Agenda. However, I'm pretty confident if Edwardian makes a list of what he initially thinks will be viable, he will soon find that he gets bogged down - and Andy has rightly and accurately alluded to that prospect. We have been looking at the subject since 2011 - we haven't yet come up with a solution and neither has anyone else.

 

Brian Macdermott (on behalf of The Poll Team)

 

LBSCR A1X Terrier 0-6-0T (32635-32678)

These were designed by Stroudley (as A, later A1), and first appeared in 1872. Rebuilt to A1X from 1911. They could be seen in a multitude of livery variations (e.g. LBSCR, LSWR, SECR, IoW companies, K&ESR, GWR, SR, BR and PO), and were famous for their association with the Hayling Island branch, Kent & East Sussex and other locations needing a light loco. The class featured many detail variations – but the current model has a combination of front splashers and bunker not found in reality, although one, 32670, is close. Twelve were still extant in the late 1950s, and the final survivors lasted to 1963. Seven preserved (plus two A1s). A model was first made by Dapol in 1988 and the tools sold to Hornby in 1996.

 

Probably missing something here, but you appear to be making Edwardian's point for him.

 

Yes, and as Edwardian pointed out, you do list items as "LNWR",  "LBSCR" etc, but there is no way of knowing whether a vote is for pregrouping or late condition, unless its assumed everyone is voting for late condition, which is what the manufacturers appear to assume.  So, if you mean ex-LNWR etc, putting that might be a good start?  Otherwise, you might at least give punters a choice between LNWR, LMS ex-LNWR and BR ex LNWR.  

 

Yes, and as BG John pointed out, you do set out the history of the class, but, again, that does not help anyone interested in that history to express interest in a model that represents it!

 

Clearly a lot of work goes into this poll, and I think we are all bright enough to have worked out that it is difficult to offer very many options, and that no one set of options will suit everyone.

 

BUT, the nub of this for me is that either (1) despite the absence of "ex-" and the useful class histories given in the poll description, we are to take this poll as a poll on late condition/BR only models, or, (2) we are intended to vote on a whole class without saying whether we want, e.g. the round-top firebox or the belpaire, the original or superheated version etc.  If it is (2), then the exercise becomes futile because the poll doesn't show which version people are voting for and manufacturers take from the result only what they want without knowing what levels of demand are for basic variants.  Either way anyone who might be interested in or tempted by earlier condition models is disappointed and never had a chance to express interest in them.

 

No one said "you must catalogue every variant".  I think the date range idea should be manageable, and/or most classes had some milestone rebuilds that could be referenced. 

 

I think that this would give the exercise far greater utility.

[Edwardian]

Hello Edwardian

 

Can I ask.... did you go straight into The Poll (ie the voting list) or did you take any time to look at the Introduction and Q&A?

 

We list many pre-Grouping items.

 

New this year are generic headings for such as 'LNWR Wagons & Vans (inc 4- & 6-wheel Brake Vans)'. We responded to voter suggestions and our draft text was written long before Oxford Rail announced their GWR 6-wheeler. You will find similar headings for: LBSCR, LSWR, SECR, CR, LYR, MR, SDJR, GCR, NBR and NER. Additionally, you will find RCH Post-1927 Tank Wagon and Rectank (WW1).

 

Additional to the freight stock, we list 11 pre-Grouping steam locos new this year.

 

The LSWR coaches recently introduced by Hornby weren't ever actually in The Poll - we had them in our draft for publication that year, but Hornby beat us to it by a short margin. There are, however, currently four other ex-LSWR types to vote for in 00. (If you look into the reasons why Hornby made the coaches, it is easy to understand why.)

 

I have appended below the text from The Guide appertaining to the Terrier.

 

As noted in my posting to the 'main' Wishlist Poll 2016 thread, I always take note of comments  and put them on the Agenda. However, I'm pretty confident if Edwardian makes a list of what he initially thinks will be viable, he will soon find that he gets bogged down - and Andy has rightly and accurately alluded to that prospect. We have been looking at the subject since 2011 - we haven't yet come up with a solution and neither has anyone else.

 

Brian Macdermott (on behalf of The Poll Team)

 

LBSCR A1X Terrier 0-6-0T (32635-32678)

These were designed by Stroudley (as A, later A1), and first appeared in 1872. Rebuilt to A1X from 1911. They could be seen in a multitude of livery variations (e.g. LBSCR, LSWR, SECR, IoW companies, K&ESR, GWR, SR, BR and PO), and were famous for their association with the Hayling Island branch, Kent & East Sussex and other locations needing a light loco. The class featured many detail variations – but the current model has a combination of front splashers and bunker not found in reality, although one, 32670, is close. Twelve were still extant in the late 1950s, and the final survivors lasted to 1963. Seven preserved (plus two A1s). A model was first made by Dapol in 1988 and the tools sold to Hornby in 1996.

 

I did read through the descriptions of quite a number of the items of potential interest, yes. It is not clear to me how doing so would assist me to express interest in a given variant or period mentioned, or, indeed, in anything other than a late-condition/BR era model. 

 

Simply, on the LSWR coaches, my point was that a vote for LSWR coaches will inevitably translate to a vote for ex-LSWR vehicles, unless, of course, we are given the option to specify that we would like coaches suitable for the LSWR, rather than SR rebuilds.

 

If I were posting the topic again, I would not neglect to thank those involved in the poll for their hard work.

 

Otherwise, I think the issue remains.  If I understand JC Fenton, we are either voting for late condition only models, or, by seeking to vote for all potential variants at once, we are effectively voting for none.  In either case, there is no effective means of showing support for models representing earlier periods. 

 

I tried to make it clear that I do not underestimate the difficulties that the poll team face, but, major variants/rebuilds and broad date ranges would useful in establishing options, without laying on the team the need to cater for every physical or livery variant.  No one is suggesting that. Surely the option to vote for broad category variations would yield a more meaningful result than the present system, where no variants are given? 

 

John, while it would be unwise to underestimate the sinister thrill of horror that Andy Y's sudden descent upon one of my topics can induce, no, "Minority Report" was a wry acknowledgement that I am alone, howling in the wind, and, sooner or later, likely to be silenced!

[Fenman]

... while it would be unwise to underestimate the sinister thrill of horror that Andy Y's sudden descent upon one of my topics can induce ...

You're a braver man than me; despite lurking on RMWeb for centuries, I've never dared start my own topic.

 

Or perhaps I'm just not a masochist?

 

Paul

[CarriageShed]

..."Minority Report" was a wry acknowledgement that I am alone, howling in the wind, and, sooner or later, likely to be silenced!

 

You're certainly not alone. I model 1930 (very specifically!), so much of my stock is pre-Grouping in Grouping colours. I can only welcome more pre-Grouping stock (especially carriages)... although having said that, in terms of locos it's often the refurbished versions of the 1920s that I need the most.

[Steamport Southport]

You're certainly not alone. I model 1030 (very specifically!), so much of my stock is pre-Grouping in Grouping colours. I can only welcome more pre-Grouping stock (especially carriages)... although having said that, in terms of locos it's often the refurbished versions of the 1920s that I need the most.

 

When people are mentioning Edwardian trains I didn't realise they mean Edward The Confessor.....

 

 

 

Jason

[Edwardian]

When people are mentioning Edwardian trains I didn't realise they mean Edward The Confessor.....

 

 

 

Jason

 

Silly me, and here was I thinking "I'm all for prototype fidelity, but choosing to model a line at just one specific hour of the morning does seem a little excessive".

 

Blame the Normans for the lack of support for earlier periods.

[Ian J.]

..."Minority Report" was a wry acknowledgement that I am alone, howling in the wind, and, sooner or later, likely to be silenced!

 

The Minority Report, as per P.K.D., was actually where the opinion of one was different to the other two. So, in that sense, you are still accurate in your title...

 

I often know what offences are likely to be committed by whom in the course of a day on here though and on occasions have acted in advance.

 

Ah-ha. But which pre-cog are you...?

[BG John]

No, I just removed reference to it being a BRM Wishlist.

 

I often know what offences are likely to be committed by whom in the course of a day on here though and on occasions have acted in advance.

 

John, while it would be unwise to underestimate the sinister thrill of horror that Andy Y's sudden descent upon one of my topics can induce, no, "Minority Report" was a wry acknowledgement that I am alone, howling in the wind, and, sooner or later, likely to be silenced!

Bearing in mind Edwardian's profession, I think it's either very brave, or foolhardy, of Andy to admit that he sees him as a serial offender who needs keeping an eye on .

[Edwardian]

Bearing in mind Edwardian's profession, I think it's either very brave, or foolhardy, of Andy to admit that he sees him as a serial offender who needs keeping an eye on .

 

As flies to wanton boys are we to the Mods,

They kill us for their sport

[BG John]

How about adding a "None of the above" option to the poll, or a way to spoil our ballot paper, so we can at least take part in the democratic process?

 

I think the conclusion is that us pre-grouping modellers should just ignore the poll, and get on with doing our own thing in the almost complete certainty that the RTR industry won't provide anything useful. On the very rare occasion they do, we just need to grab it quick before it sells out, in case it starts selling for silly money on eBay.

[drduncan]

Good points have been made by all, including the difficulties faced by the poll team. However the point that manufacturers may end up getting the wrong end of the stick is an important one. There are perhaps two broad approaches that the poll might consider in order to capture the all important period interest.

 

First, it could run a section asking eac voters for their main and subsidiary interests almost on a proportional representation basis. For example if asked for a main and 4 subsidiary interests i'd score 5 for main and then down to 1 in declining order of interest I'd vote 5 pregroup GWR; 4 BR diesel pre tops; 3 pre group LSWR; 2 pre-group LNWR; 1 none. When each voters scores were added together it would give an overall indication of likely interest and potential commercial viability for one loco/coach/wagon varient over another.

 

Second, that a series of board catagories are listed for each model effectively expanding the yes no choice we currently have. The issue here would be the number of catagories. I would suggest 4 plus 'no' for those items with sufficient longevity.

 

Both avenues would depend on the date ranges selected or the definitions used. It seems clear that grouping is too insensitive, so perhaps we should divide that in at least two. However a pre and post grouping is equally insensitive as it would not reflect the longevity of pre grouping liveries (I understand the LMS was particularly slow at repainting the acquired pre group stock). Therefore I would suggest that the date range are defined along the following lines.

Pre 1919

1920-the early 30s

Mid 30s to nationalisation

BR steam

Pre tops d&e

Post tops d&e

Sectorisation

Post privatisation

 

Of course everyone all have there own ideas on date ranges but the object is for big handfuls not masses of detail...

Drduncan

[Fat Lieutenant]

You make a good point, Edwardian.  I shall vote, but I shall bear in mind what you say.  There have been some sensible suggestions.  It should not be too difficult to include more choice of period.  If, that is, there is a willingness to do so.

[Edwardian]

Having been one, I'd like to say no, but personally speaking...

 

In truth, there are certain topics and certain users who will spark controversy. Sometimes independently, sometimes in conjunction...

 

I can't imagine to whom you refer?

 

Or, indeed, to what topics!!!!

 

Pre-Grouping; the love that dare not speak its name!

[CarriageShed]

Ehem... blame dodgy typing and proofing for the date mistake. Either that or 1030 was a very good year for interesting locomotion.

[Guy Rixon]

I welcome the inclusion of categories for wagons of pre-group companies. I note, however, that I can vote very specifically for GWR wagons, right down to particular diagrams of fruit vans (but not the early ones I need). Other companies' wagons are just lumped together in one category per company. Seems a bit partial.

 

I'd like to know how entries are selected for the list.  Can we vote for the things we get to vote for?

[BMacdermott]

Hello Guy

 

I have to close down for the night but will reply in the morning.

 

Brian Macdermott (on behalf of The Poll Team)

[Caley Jim]

As someone with an interest in pre-group modelling in S scale, I must say I feel particularly overlooked by this survey...

...again.

Likewise, modelling a minority company in a minority scale.  I do note, however that there are some CR locos in the N-gauge section, but exactly what scale ratio they would be produced in is anyone's guess as the N-gauge RTR manufacturers seem to have rather elastic measuring instruments!  Nevertheless,I've voted for those in which I would be interested.

 

Jim