Is it possible to win this ending?

for Black, to move. Black is moving up the board.

I couldnt find a plan, eventually lost the d pawn and offered a draw.

Next time post an interactive diagram so we can analyze on the spot

Offhand I'd play 1...Qb1 so if 2.Qd4 Qb3 forcing a trade of Queens

Eons (or millenium, I forget which) I read the entire chapter on Q+P endings in BCE and all I really got out of it was that you're better off being a pawn down with an active Queen than a pawn up with a passive Queen tied down to defending however many pawns you have.

FUN FACT: It is known that GM Geza Maroczy's specialty was Queen endings, a field in which he was almost unbeatable. The results of the following collection are quite eloquent: from all the Queen endings played, he lost only one…but because of time in a theoretical drawn position! 

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chesscollection?cid=1002796

nimzo you could also argue that Maroczys opponents not always found very good moves http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1003416

i know its Marshall and yes he had awesome ideas, but i believe he really misplayed the ending

Yes, poor Marshall ended up with  very passive Queen - so tell me, how would you improve on his play? 

Nonetheless he is also considered to be a very good endgame player - I read his Best Games Collection eons ago and many of his famous "swindles" took place in the endgame. 

I've seen Maroczy (the "inventor" of the "Maroczy Bind" BTW) cited as a great Q+P endgame player in several sources, but of course they could all just be parroting someone else. Still, the Oxford Encyclopedia of Chess notes he was considered to be an outstanding endgame player in addition to being one of the strongest players in the world in the early 1900s - who knew? 

BTW you could always argue that the losers didn't always find the right moves no matter what you're talking about in chess - be it opening, middlegame or endgame  AND just because someone errs OTB doesn't guarantee  that their opponent is automatically good enough to make them "pay the price" for their mistake(s). 

Check out this endgame in which a World Champion (Botvinnik) doesn't find all the right endgame moves - unfortunately against another World Champion (Smyslov) - one of the greatest endgame players of all time (and Botvinnik was no slouch in endgames either):

http://www.chess.com/blog/NimzoRoy/a-famous-bishop-vs-knight-ending-or-smyslov-blows-botvinnik-off-the-board3

which side is black moving .. upwards or downwards .. in either case the win seems to be clear

@NimzoRoy: What do you mean with the sentences:

Believe it or not K+Q+QNP vs K+Q has been extensively analyzed. The player without the pawn must keep their King as far away from their pawn as possible (how counter-intuitive is that?) in order to not get in their Queens way when it's naturally attempting to force a perpetual check

A player without the pawn has no pawn. Should he keep his own king as far away from the other pawn or the king of his opponent? Or must the player with the pawn do that? That sounds most counter intuitive to me.

btw thanks for all the info Nimzo, maybe i should argue more with you and one day i might know all of chess history ;)

@LoekBergman        The following is more accurate than what I posted previously, the last sentence clarifies my half-baked recollection of this esoteric ending:

The queen and pawn versus queen endgame is a chess endgame in which both sides have a queen and one side has a pawn, which he is trying to promote. It is very complicated and difficult to play. Cross-checks are often used as a device to win the game by forcing the exchange of queens. It is almost always a draw if the defending king is in front of the pawn (Nunn 2007:148).

Karsten Müller and Frank Lamprecht say that this endgame occurs quite frequently butMark Dvoretsky says that it occurs quite seldom (Müller & Lamprecht 2001:316), (Dvoretsky 2006:250). This is the second most common "piece and pawn versus piece" endgame, next to the rook and pawn versus rook endgame (Nunn 2007:148).   

 A knight pawn should be on at least the fifth rank to have good winning chances. A knight pawn on the fifth rank has better winning chances than a rook pawn on the sixth rank. There are two reasons for this:

• the king has squares on the adjacent rook file to try to avoid perpetual check
• the exchange of queens is less likely to lead to a drawn king and pawn versus king endgame.

The best place for the defending king is in front of the pawn and the second place is in the corner opposite its promotion square (Nunn 2007:150–51).

For more info and several examples click on this link:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_and_pawn_versus_queen_endgame#Knight_pawn

Wow, that is good information, thank you!