Dungrange

Thanks - that would explain the '(exc company items already made)'. Since I have no interest in a MR Brake van, that would explain why I didn't pay any attention to its existence. I think I've voted in every poll since it was on originally run on MREmag and I fully appreciate why you can't list everything. I'd buy just about any GER freight stock that was announced, but for the other pre-grouping companies, I'd be a bit more selective. I'd happily buy almost any MR open wagon or covered goods wagon, but I'd be less interested in some of the more specialist MR wagons and I wouldn't buy a MR brake van. That therefore created the dilemma of whether or not I should vote for that 'category' and in 2022 I chose not to, only voting for GER stock. However, with more disaggregated categories, I can see me voting for quite a few LNWR, MR and GNR wagons in 2024 that I chose not to vote for in 2022 (since presumably the ones you list are most likely to be the ones I'd be interested in). Okay - I hadn't realised that the G&SWR had previously been listed. It just seemed strange that it was the only large Scottish company that wasn't listed.

Looking through the results in Section 15. Freight Stock: Pre-1923 (excluding Scottish Companies), I note that the generic catch-all entries are the ones that came top (and they're the companies I'm most interested in). For the Midland Railway, the entry is 'Freight Stock MR (exc company items already made)'. My question is, what Midland Railway wagons are already available ready-to-run? I didn't know there were any. Scottish pre-grouping freight stock all appears in Section 6. Locos & Rolling stock: Scottish Companies (inc some Scottish LNER & BR Classes). Whilst there were 107 votes for Caledonian Railway (CR) rolling stock, 73 votes for both Highland Railway (HR) and North British Railway (NBR) rolling stock and 47 votes for Great North of Scotland Railway (GNSR) rolling stock, there doesn't appear to be any entry for the Glasgow and South Western Railway. Was there any reason why the poor old G&SWR was overlooked? I wouldn't cast a vote for the G&SWR as it wouldn't be top of my wish list, but if anyone were to produce a G&SWR open wagon I'd probably buy one.

... but only the original BR Black, from the first batch. The olive green from the first batch and all of the new ASF variants are still in stock.

Well, Railway Mania posted on Facebook (and Twitter) on 19 November, so I'd either contact them through Facebook (https://www.facebook.com/railwaymanianet/) or via the Contact us page on their website (https://www.railwaymania.net/contact). If their store is going to reopen soon, they should be able to advise and if not, they can probably advise of an alternative supplier (if there is one).

My understanding is that as far as track is concerned 00-SF is simply the EM track standards minus 2mm. The problem is that wheelsets to RP25/110 do not comply with the EM wheel standards: they comply with the NMRA standards for HO. It's just a happy coincidence that what is technically an oversize wheel can still get through the EM standard checkrail gap provided the back-to-back dimensions are set accurately. Ideally, all 00 wheels should be replaced by finer ones that have a profile that aligns with the EM standards, but I understand that for most models that isn't strictly necessary (which I think is what you are saying you have found). 00-SF could therefore be described as hybrid between 00 and EM.

I'm just about to start building my first 00-SF turnouts, so I can't comment on the problems you have identified. However, it was my understanding that if the wheelsets are to RP25-110 standards then the correct back-to-back dimension is 14.4 mm (ie wheels with flanges 0.8 mm thick). 14.5 mm back to back would be correct for Romford /Markits wheels with a flange thickness of 0.7 mm. The problem you are describing sounds as though the back-to-back (or rather front-to-front) dimension is too big.

What differences are there between the preserved version and how this would have looked in the pre-grouping period. It looks as though this one has a wooden roof, whereas the two general release wagons (SKU: 945002 and SKU: 945003) have an iron roof. It therefore makes for something a little different.

That seems a logical enough suggestion, even if such a move isn't what I was expecting. The whole point of the enhanced summer service was to get the large quantities of harvested fruit and vegetables moved from Upwell to Wisbech. Running a light engine and brake van in the direction of peak demand seems counter-intuitive. I'm guessing that it must have been a timing issue. Presumably most of the fruit and vegetables that arrived at Upwell for dispatch did so after 9:30 am and was therefore conveyed in the two later trains and if there was no suitable connecting services through Wisbech in the morning, then there was little point in moving wagons in the first train. Presumably it was therefore necessitated by the extra inbound train probably conveying empty wagons, which would of course have needed a brake van. Yes, it's nothing to do with trains passing. The 'Instructions for the Working of the Tramway' set out that the only location at which trains crossed was at Boyce's Bridge Deport. That is, the line operated as 'one engine in steam' between Wisbech and Boyce's Bridge and 'one engine in steam' between Boyce's Bridge and Upwell. Boyce's Bridge acted as though it were a token exchange point, even although there were no physical tokens used on the Tramway. There is also a footnote that states "40 to cross 42 at Boyce's Depot". 40 is the 9 am down goods and 42 the 9:15 am up E&V service. 40 is marked as * at all depots and 42 as all --. In pre-grouping days when the passenger service was in operation the end to end journey time was 39 minutes, so presumably the 10:35 arrival time at Wisbech is a latest time (ie it may arrive as late as that if the down goods had to do lots of shunting at Elm Depot), but if the down goods had nothing to shunt at Elm Depot, then the 9:15 E&V could presumably have been in Wisbech by 10:00. I'm guessing that the varying journey times was a reflection of the likely amount of shunting undertaken at the intermediate depots. * was never used in the Working Timetables in GER days, which always gave a notional time at each Depot. From the timetables that I have, the * first appeared in the LNER timetable for 1928, which was the first year in which passenger services no longer operated and it became a freight only line.

The image below shows an extract from LNER Traffic Notice F2/700, 1947 which sets out instructions regarding the working of Fruit and Vegetable Traffic in the Cambridge District. This is the Saturday 'Up' timetable for the fruit season of 1947 on the Wisbech and Upwell Tramway. The various trains are described as "Epts" (which I presume is 'Empties'), "Gds" (which I presume is unfitted 'Goods') and "Pass Fr't" (which I assume is Fruit Vans and other Passenger Rated vehicles). However, 'E&V' has me stumped - the first Up train on a Saturday is the only train with this heading. Any suggestions what this means? Secondly, you'll note that the times at intermediate stations are shows as .. for the first train but * for the other two that day. Any ideas what the * means? It's not related to the type of train as some of the weekday services have .. against Outwell Village but * against Outwell Basin. My guess is that perhaps * means 'stops to shunt' or similar instruction, but that doesn't really make sense as the first train takes longer than the other two. Unfortunately, there isn't a key, so I'm assuming that means that these would have been widely understood symbols. The first weekday service in each direction is marked as Q, which I assume meant runs if required, since that's still in use in current Working Timetables.

That's the way you and I see it, but I understand that the legal teams at some companies don't see it the same way - they see someone trying to make a living off the use of their brand and they feel that they need to protect that brand.

Yes and no. A variety of liveries is great for manufacturers because in theory it allows them to sell more models. The problem is if it's different liveries on the same route then they are trying to sell the additional models to the same modellers and when selling an EMU at £300 - £500 per unit, a lot of modellers probably can't afford to buy two or three. Therefore producing three different variants of a livery would result in additional costs for the manufacturer, but there might not be the same uplift in sales. Some will just pick their favourite of the variants offered. However, I agree that there are plenty of Class 158 livery variants that haven't been done and it must surely be cheaper for Bachmann to rerun an existing tool in a new livery than it is to produce a new tooled model. That said, I suspect that this is where production slot constraints come in. Although a re-livery must be cheaper, is it as profitable as the initial sales of a newly tooled model? A shows do more people ask Bachmann to produce a model of XXX than they do for a re-livery or re-run of YYY? It's difficult to know, because we're not party to that information.

Totally agree, but as surveys go, it has a reasonable sample rate (though well below 10%) and the results are accessible to all. A newly tooled model needs to sell in the thousands, which means that a manufacturer will probably need to sell at least twenty models for every vote cast in that poll in order to be viable. Like all samples, it can only give an indication of the relative size of a market for any prototype, subject of course to sampling errors and biases (votes for DMUs and EMUs would obviously rank higher if you were to conduct a survey of attendees at the next DEMU Showcase). Alternatively, if you read one of the many wish list threads on RMweb, you'll see what others want, but they get a bit tedious after a few pages, so a collated version is always easier to digest. If you visit the Hornby stand at one of the bigger shows, they always seem to have a leaflet asking what models the public would like to see Hornby make and their website says "Email your suggestions and ideas for future Hornby products: marketing@Hornby.com" - https://support.Hornby.com/hc/en-gb/articles/4406546869138-Contact-Details-Hornby-UK-Marketing. Most of the manufacturers have a contact us page, and Rapido Trains UK have a specific Product Suggestion page - https://rapidotrains.co.uk/product-suggestion/. There may be others. Obviously, we've no way of knowing what suggestions people make directly to any particular manufacturer, but it will influence their thinking as do published surveys. Of course the other thing that influences what manufacturers make is what their designers are interested in. If you read the back of a Rapido box, it says "Rapido is owned and operated by railway modellers who just want all this neat stuff for their layouts". At meetings to discuss viable models, personal preferences will also come into play as well. All of which makes it difficult to guess which model will be announced next.

That make me chuckle, but I get the analogy. If only there were history books about the future - the manufacturers could consult them and be ready with a new model as soon as the prototype enters traffic. That's correct, which would imply that IF a manufacturer is looking to produce an EMU, then that family of units is likely to be near the top of their list of contenders. However, overall it was the 22nd most suggested item. The implication that I'd take from that would be that there are 21 more popular models that a manufacturer could produce and that is before considering costs, risk and margin. There are obviously many similarities between these five classes (which is the reason they were grouped together in the poll), but there must also be differences (otherwise they'd be the same class). The more differences there are between these classes, the more expensive the tooling becomes and therefore the higher the ultimate retail price. The higher the retail price, the greater the risk is that prospective buyers say, "I'd like one, but not at that price". Given where EMUs sit on the price spectrum, they are always going to be higher risk for a manufacturer and therefore the manufacturer that chooses it will need to be confident that the demand is really there. True, but all of the 645 items in the 2022 version of the poll garnered some interest with the average item receiving 90 votes. The highest polling item, an SR Maunsell U 2-6-0, received 254 votes, so you need to consider everything relative to that. The implication is that the most popular EMU, the 313/314/315/507/508 family, with 164 votes was only 64% as popular as an SR Maunsell U 2-6-0. If collectively UK model railway manufacturers produce 16 newly tooled models each year, then it will take just over 40 years to get through everything that was listed in the 2022 poll and there are some prototypes that I'd like to see that weren't even listed in 2022. However, to look on the bright side, with the number of newly tooled models being announced each year (including some of the models that ranked higher than the 313/314/315/507/508 family in the 2022 poll), I'd expect the 313/314/315/507/508 family to make it's way into the top 10 in a future poll and be available before I see either a Kirow Crane or a GER G15 (later Y6).

It's their YouTube Channel today: From facebook Want to WIN the enchanting 'Coca-Cola Christmas set'? Just head to our YouTube channel https://bit.ly/3EW3Tzx, subscribe, and share a cherished Christmas memory in the video comments for a chance to win! *Please note this competition is only open to those aged 18 or over. __ The competition closes at 11:59 pm on 4.12.23. The winner will be announced on our socials and website at 1pm on 5.12.23 This competition is not sponsored, endorsed, or associated with Instagram, Facebook, or Twitter T&Cs APPLY: https://bit.ly/3EW3Tzx #Hornby #ModelRailway #HornbyAdvent #Christmas #Giveaway

Manufacturers don't have any duty to get youngsters into the hobby. Their raison d'etre is simply to make money for their shareholders. There is presumably more money to be made selling detailed scale models to adults than there is selling pocket money priced toys to children, so the majority of manufacturers focus on what the adult market wants. The adults with the most money to spend are probably those who are still in work but approaching retirement - those born in the 1960s/70s. the number of new entrants to the hobby in their 60s probably outnumber those in their teens and the former have more money to spend than the later. From a child's perspective, Thomas is a steam engine, and the Hogwarts express in Harry Potter is also a steam train. Not everything has to be about the units at the local station. Possibly as much as they are looking over the lineside fence at their nearest station. I suspect that is the case. The problem is that to the uninitiated, multiple units and coaches appear similar. I've seen children pointing out a diesel multiple unit for sale at an exhibition to be told by their parent that it's very expensive for a couple of coaches. If you can purchase a coach for £50, why would a two car DMU cost more than £100. Adult enthusiasts are willing to pay more, but that doesn't mean that a child's parent is. Even within the adults that frequent RMweb, there are people who seem to want one of each class, rather than have multiple near identical locomotives and I've seen the same at exhibitions, where DMUs are clearly under-represented - not because they aren't made, but because a lot of people seem to subscribe to a one of each philosophy.

Fair enough - I know nothing about the units in that part of the world, but it perhaps demonstrates that modellers aren't asking manufacturers for units in advance of them becoming commonplace. That's the point at which manufacturers will start considering a model and with development timescales of a few years, from commissioning research and development to getting models in the shops, it's perhaps unrealistic to expect any recently introduced models to be available ready-to-run. That's just an inherent problem with trying to model the contemporary railway. I agree. My primary interest is the post-privatisation era, so like @eldomtom2 I'd buy a few of the 'missing' ScotRail units highlighted in the first post, as we'll need these for a planned club layout. I'll therefore be voting for some of these in a future poll. However, as has been highlighted, one of the problems with modern stock is it's size. I'm about to start building a small layout, which will be easy to transport in a car and have chosen the pre-grouping period for that simply because a whole train can be shorter than just a couple of modern wagons / coaches. I most certainly don't remember the aftermath of the Great War (I don't even remember steam trains on everyday service), but that doesn't mean that researching this period isn't interesting - it's just a different challenge from modelling the contemporary railway. My input the next poll will be rather unusual pre-1918 or post-2018!

It's also been made available in the current Scotrail livery by Bachmann. What does your list highlight? A Class 150 can be sold to modellers across much of England and Wales. A manufacturer will always prefer a class that has wide geographic coverage because it provides a larger group of modellers to sell to, so if a class is needed to represent several Train Operating Companies (TOCs), it's more likely to be made than a class that is used by just one. Why are they not produced in some liveries when the base model is produced? Possibly delays in agreeing licences. To make a model, the manufacturer needs to negotiate with both whoever designed and manufactured the unit (perhaps this is easier for the older DMUs produced in BR days such as the 150, 153, 155, 156, 158 and 159 which are all available) but also each TOC whose livery they want to represent. From what I understand, some TOCs are happy for a model to be produced in their corporate colour scheme (it's like free advertising of the brand), whilst others consider it their Intellectual Property and expect to be paid by the model railway manufacturer before they will agree to someone impersonating their brand. These different attitudes present challenges for the manufacturers and mean that the can produce some liveries and not others. Look at the last Wishlist poll - How many people claimed they would buy each of the 'missing units' that you highlight? I don't think any made the top 50 of modellers wants. There are DMUs and EMUs on that list, but the ones nearer the top tend to be older prototypes: not those currently in use. Manufacturers will be guided by what we collectively say we want. Looking at the results, 197 said they wanted a GER Class J67/69 Buckjumper (it was ninth highest polling model overall). Just 30 said they would like a Class 777 EMU (to represent Merseyrail operations). The first is presumably significantly cheaper to produce and with potential sales being around six times higher, it's perhaps not surprising that Accurascale chose to announce a pre-grouping era Buckjumper ahead of a relatively obscure modern EMU.

It's a problem of scope creep. To date all of the club layouts are analogue and the start point was the decision that our next layout should be DCC (as a few of our newer members are users). However, as we'll be scrapping our only continuous run DC layout to make space in the clubroom, it was felt that we should try to accommodate some form of DC running (to keep non DCC users happy). I originally assumed we'd just go with a couple of switchable loops, so we could accommodate DC test runs in the club room but nothing more. However, the design brief has since expanded to the idea that the layout should be fully operational using either DCC or DC (partly because there is an aspiration that the fiddle yard could be used for another DC layout in the future). Again, if there is no automation, I think it's still achievable. However, Haymarket has four through platforms, which means that we need to have quite an intensive service. We can't have one train per loop, we'll need several trains in each loop, which is where the need for automation arises and the problems start. I suspect that half our members don't yet fully appreciate how difficult this is going to be. At the moment, we have a blank canvas. There is no legacy DCC equipment in the club so we'll be buying from scratch. All that we need is a detector system, control software and a command station that we can get to work together. We'll need to do a lot of research to ensure that what we go with will deliver what we want, and we'll probably need to build a small test circuit, but we're certainly not experts in this field. I certainly don't want this to become an IT project.

Looks like it's worse that last year - they don't even tell us which social media platform they are using each day. Twitter says: Dec 1: Our #Hornby Festive countdown begins! Dive into the holiday spirit with our daily giveaways, like today's spotlight, which is a chance to win our Christmas bundle. Head to our Insta to enter! Looks like it's Instagram today, but I don't have an account and to be honest, I'm not really interested in the prize either. What I do note though is that they won't be contacting the winners directly, so not only do you have to hunt around their social media accounts to find where that day's 'competition' is, you then have to keep checking their website to see who won. If it was you and you don't check the website, you'll never know.

Assuming the do make a half-decent representation of a Midland Railway match truck for which drawings are available, would that present an opportunity to produce any other general merchandise wagons of Midland Railway origin? Do the match trucks share a common chassis with other Midland railway wagons?

Shame all of the photographs in this thread have been lost. I've seen photographs of the layout elsewhere and have to say it looks just the photographs of the real thing in the books on the Wisbech and Upwell Tramway. I gather that the traffic conveyed varied more month to month than it did year to year. When operating, have you tried to represent any particular month / season?

Shame all the pictures have been lost. Do you have any of the final layout?

You're not, but I haven't found the door to Aladdin's cave either. Colin Craig used to produce a range of flat bottom turnouts on copper clad sleepers, but I don't think these are available anymore. Hopefully British Finescale may produce some of their N gauge range in 4mm scale in time, but that's no use if you're looking to build now.

https://preservedbritishsteamlocomotives.com/60009-union-of-south-africa-lner-4488-lner-590-lner-9-br-60009/ This gives the status as of 60009 as housed in the John Cameron Museum, Fife but not on public display. The loco appears to have moved there in April 2023, but I haven't seen any announcement about it being on display. Looking at Google Street View, there is no signage at the farm to indicate that the museum is open, although you can see the recently constructed building. It's in this image https://www.google.com/maps/@56.2074861,-2.8033823,3a,75y,41.32h,100.05t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s39YHO66M_ff1NyEDH8MtnQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu which is dated May 2023, but that building isn't there when you look at the aerial photograph.