N Gauge Wishlist Poll

[Calnefoxile]

All,

It seems that on the other Forum, there is an OO Wishlist Poll being run, https://www.rmweb.co.uk/topic/175961-the-00-wishlist-poll-returns/#comment-5012502 and I happen to mention that there is no N Gauge equivalent, and it got this reply:

"Hello Neal

We ran N gauge for a number of years (with help from the NGS) - as well as Industrial and Underground categories - but had to stop due to time constraints.

We offered all our data and assistance to any responsible group wishing to run N themselves, but - so far - there have been no takers. And that is despite much effort on the part of a number of N modellers.

Brian (on behalf of The 00 Poll Team)"

So a question has arisen form this and I suppose it's aimed at both the NGS & @Tank :

Have either been approached to assist in an N Gauge Wishliost poll??

Regards

Neal.

P.S. I've asked the same question on RMWeb....

[acko22]

@Calnefoxile

Neil,

I started formulating one on Google polls and tried basing it off the last poll conducted via RMweb (2016!), And tried to use some of the results of it from that.

But it proved to be a massive hole as reading all the differing opinions of how it should/was conducted I just thought forget it I can't be bothered with people who can't be bothered.

To many people willing to criticize or offer opinions but not willing to do it themselves, I still have the format hidden away somewhere if people are willing to take up the task and I will happily do my bit.

However reading into it the 2016 poll did have one massive flaw, which simply was to many options...
You could select as many items as you wanted and in some sections there was dozens so it really skewed the numbers..
My thought is that it should be more limited and a single vote per section, but as ai say that meet resistance...

Gareth

[Calnefoxile]

@acko22

Gareth,

It seems that @TomE  has started a D&E one here https://www.ngaugenews.com/post/the-n-gauge-news-n-gauge-christmas-wish-list-2022-diesel-electric which already has a Thread here https://www.ngaugeforum.co.uk/SMFN/index.php?topic=58248.0

But my issue is with RMWeb really and trying to highlight the apathy on RMWeb towards N Gauge, we all know that N is a minority gauge to OO, but I would've though that RMWeb/BRM would at least try and cover all...

Ahh well, let's see how long I get on the naughty step for daring to question the mighty Andy Y 

Cheers

Neal.

[Steven B]

But my issue is with RMWeb really and trying to highlight the apathy on RMWeb towards N Gauge, we all know that N is a minority gauge to OO, but I would've though that RMWeb/BRM would at least try and cover all...

Ahh well, let's see how long I get on the naughty step for daring to question the mighty Andy Y 

I came close to the naughty step for daring to suggest that RMWeb/BRM might like to feedback to the manufacturers that there are many readers who would buy a few more coaches should they ever get around to making some in popular liveries.


Steven B.

[Chris Morris]

BRM don't seem very interested in N. Most months if you read BRM you would not know N gauge existed. In my experience the rest of the "big four" are keen to include N gauge layouts if and when good ones come along.

[Newportnobby]

Here are the results from the 2013 NGF Poll.
I don't reckon we've done too badly

[njee20]

I help curate the "modern wagons" section of the OO gauge poll, so have a bit of insight. They dropped the N gauge one simply because of a lack of engagement and the sheer amount of work involved in curating the two lists, when all the poll team model OO. I do think they complicate it a bit, and probably do try to be too expansive. They were previously creating a virtual encyclopaedia, with descriptions and history of every single item. I tend to think that if you're voting for a model you know what it is. I also think they complicate it by having an arbitrary threshold of "any model 10+ years old can be included", so you end up with the list being cluttered with good quality models still widely available because they are "old", although I accept you need an agreed definition.   

As Gareth said a team of us did look at this, using the last OO gauge one as the basis. @TomE 's D&E one looks great, it's easily shareable, and even does cool things auto ranking the suggestions. I'm happy to help with some of the other sections if it would be valuable. I'd be minded to use the OO gauge one as the basis and add in the missing N gauge bits!

[TomE]

I'm happy to help with some of the other sections if it would be valuable.

It absolutely would be valuable!! (I'll be in touch )

Tom.

[Bob G]

I still have the Excel version of the one we created back in 2018.

A big challenge, once we had got the lists about right, was the need to populate every example with some history and even a photo to show what we meant by that particular prototype.
I am inclined to think that the D&E version now online gets the balance right. And is independent of RMWeb. That's two things in its favour.

Bob

[Chris Morris]

BRM don't seem very interested in N. Most months if you read BRM you would not know N gauge existed. In my experience the rest of the "big four" are keen to include N gauge layouts if and when good ones come along.

My comment above was unfair on BRM. I'm sure the editorial staff are interested in N gauge. It is probably the case that BRM don't get offered many N gauge layouts so they can't feature as many as they would like.

[GrahamB]

My comment above was unfair on BRM. I'm sure the editorial staff are interested in N gauge. It is probably the case that BRM don't get offered many N gauge layouts so they can't feature as many as they would like.

Interesting. Following publication of my layout "Southwark Bridge" in the N Gauge Journal (6/20), I sent an article to the RM. They acknowledged it but since then, nothing. Perhaps I'll try BRM.

[Bealman]

It wasn't the same article, though?

RM won't publish something that's been published elsewhere.

[Southerngooner]

The comment about RM not publishing an article that has been in the Journal is not correct. Both Lynford Junction and James Street had what was essentially the same arictle in the Journal before these went into RM, and more recently the other articles we did on the carriage and wagon stock on JS also did both.

Dave

[Bealman]

Ok, but back in the nineties when I had mine published, I'm sure it was a stipulation.

Maybe not. Years take their toll. 

[GrahamB]

It wasn't the same article, though?

RM won't publish something that's been published elsewhere.

I did a rewrite although, of course, there's only so many ways you can tell the same story.