KRModels announce a GT3 Model

[Bernard Lamb]

3 hours ago, truffy said:

Since the GT3 was a 4-6-0 configuration, is there good reason why the mechanism design shouldn't follow what must be a plethora of kettles out there? Rather than a (possibly overcomplicated) design more befitting a locomotive without connecting rods.

 

Sorry for such a stupid question, and if it made you snort your coffee. But, when crafting your reply, if you could pretend that you're talking to a five year old, that would be quite spiffy.

Not a lot to say. Other than no.

Hornby Dublo got it right with the castle. (If you are old enough you will remember the praise heaped upon this model)

Why try to reinvent the wheel so to speak.

It would appear in this case that the tail is wagging the dog and that  KR models are depending on outside designers to do the work, who it would seem have little if any experience of UK kettles.

If you remove some of the gearing, as has been suggested, the whole relationship of the tolerances between the gearing and the coupling rods has to be redesigned.

Drive on one axle means tight tolerances on the rods for optimum performance. Drive on all axles means a need to have more slack in the rods. As per the J94 from another source.

You simply cannot alter the design without changing the basis of the design principles.

I am just glad that I do not have to check either the drawings or the first off production sample.

In a nutshell I would say that they have lost the plot.

Design clever it ain't.

Design for manufacturer as I prefer to call it, no way.

Is that simple enough for you?

 

Bernard

[PMP]

2 hours ago, Bernard Lamb said:

Drive on all axles means a need to have more slack in the rods. As per the J94 from another source.

Bernard

 

I agree overall with your previous comments, however the DJM J94 didn’t have the massively oversized crankpin holes that the 02/14xx/1361 did from presumably the same designer. The six or so j94’s I tested all had varying degrees of cogging descending a gradient under load. 

If the factory has previously made other models with this drive successfully, the easy answer for KR would be to identify one of them. If the model is known within its market as one that works well, the problem/discussion would potentially be easily resolved.

[Bernard Lamb]

9 hours ago, PMP said:

 

 

If the factory has previously made other models with this drive successfully, the easy answer for KR would be to identify one of them. If the model is known within its market as one that works well, the problem/discussion would potentially be easily resolved.

Point 1. W are not able to identify the successful model.

Point 2. If such an animal exists then we do not know what it costs.

I liked the initial idea of the J94, it is probably more suited to a shunting locomotive than a main line one.

However the tolerances and thus the cost involved proved to be an insurmountable obstacle.

Although I have one that runs well that seems to not always be the case.

The problem that you had in the inability of it to go up or down any gradient does not indicate a likely success for the design.

It will be interesting to see just what emerges and at what cost.

But of course that part of the project will never be made public.

Events so far do not indicate to me that it will be a profitable venture.

Bernard

[chris p bacon]

54 minutes ago, Bernard Lamb said:

It will be interesting to see just what emerges and at what cost.

But of course that part of the project will never be made public.

Events so far do not indicate to me that it will be a profitable venture.

Bernard

 

I have some doubts as well, but the answer from KR is below.

 

On 16/06/2019 at 14:05, KR Models said:

 

I can guarantee there will be no cost increase at this stage.  However, if we do decide to do a 2nd run, then I don't know.  As is stands today we have no delays, the project is moving along just on time.  Tooling is scheduled to begin in July and run till the end of the year with production set to start in the new year.

 

I noted the caveat 'at this stage' which does leave the door open to increase the price, should a redesign or 2nd EP be required which is more than the projected cost.

There is also the matter of appointing a UK distributor, but the cost of this might be covered with  '+ shipping ' which is quoted when ordering and may actually be a substantial amount.

[57xx]

57 minutes ago, chris p bacon said:

There is also the matter of appointing a UK distributor, but the cost of this might be covered with  '+ shipping ' which is quoted when ordering and may actually be a substantial amount.

 

Just a small matter, I'm surprised no one else picked up on that comment earlier. Seems people still have plenty of faith, even after the DJM debacle.

 

14 hours ago, Bernard Lamb said:

Drive on one axle means tight tolerances on the rods for optimum performance. Drive on all axles means a need to have more slack in the rods. As per the J94 from another source.

 

From the original CAD examples, you can see the rods were designed with lots of slop as per the 48xx/1361 etc. Definitely a family resemblance there. I hope they think to redesign them rather than just taking out a few gears from the drive train as has been shown. Nothing shown looks like it's actually been "redesigned", just the removal of a few parts to meet the request of a single driven axle.

[Bernard Lamb]

5 hours ago, chris p bacon said:

 

I have some doubts as well, but the answer from KR is below.

 

 

KR are saying in that statement that costs will not rise.

I am saying that although the selling price may well not rise the cost price will almost certainly increase.

There has been enough faffing about to make that seem inevitable.

What margin they have in the contingency plan is a factor that we are not privy to.

As you point out they do have a get out of gaol card in P&P costs.

Bernard

[adb968008]

On 22/06/2019 at 07:49, Bernard Lamb said:

Point 1. W are not able to identify the successful model.

 

It is worth pointing out all wheel drive steam locomotives have been successfully manufacturered in HO gauge...

 

Rocos BR35 is tender drive, with a cardan shaft under the cab driving gears on all wheels in a 2-6-2 wheel arrangement.

 

similarly Trix’s BR52 is a Loco drive motor in the firebox, driving gears on all wheels.

 

and also Piko’s BR82 has a very similar design chassis with all gear wheels (and traction tyres), plus plastic rods.

 

None have sloppy valve gear, all pull tremendously well, much of this is down to balanced weight as well as a smooth running motor, neither of the 35/52 have fly wheels, but the 82 does.

 

Not sure any of these are involved In this design, though the 82 is similar.

 

Edited June 24, 2019 by adb968008

[PMP]

Both those service sheets are for N gauge models, where all gear drive chassis’s have been successful. Can you show us the service sheets for the HO models?

[brianCAD]

On spur gear mechanisms, ideally there should be the same number of gears in the gear train leading to each axle, so that backlash is similar at each axle.  This doesn't matter for a Co-Co diesel where the wheels are not connected with side rods, but for a steam loco with all axles geared, the addition of side rods presents a double whammy.  Not only is accurate quartering required, but this also needs to be synchronised with the alignment of teeth in the gear wheels.  The European manufacturers construct very elaborate jigs and fixtures for the assembly of their models, but the Chinese seem to rely on nimble fingers from what I have seen.

 

The drive arrangement for the Rapido 'Royal Hudson' is better than that originally proposed for the GT3, as the Hudson's outer driving wheel axles are powered similarly, enough to keep rigid side rods on the level.  Whereas, for the GT3, the leading axle was freer to do its own thing, suffering excessive backlash compared to the second and third axles, and the side rods would detract from a smooth performance.

 

The revised GT3 drive with gears powering only one axle is a much better scheme, and there shouldn't be any loss of traction as the side rods will function in the same manner as the real thing.

[chris p bacon]

1 minute ago, brianCAD said:

The revised GT3 drive with gears powering only one axle is a much better scheme, and there shouldn't be any loss of traction as the side rods will function in the same manner as the real thing.

 

Only if the tolerances are tight though. If they use rods that were to work with the all gear drive they would have needed to be slack so as not to bind.

 

I think looking at it it's a bit 'half baked',  a simple drive to the middle axle with a decent motor with tight tolerances on the gears and rods, plenty of weight for traction and she'll be a runner.  Lets face it. It's a tried and tested. 

 

5 minutes ago, brianCAD said:

The European manufacturers construct very elaborate jigs and fixtures for the assembly of their models, but the Chinese seem to rely on nimble fingers from what I have seen.

 The Chinese will do whatever they are paid to do, and do it well. It will come down to the contract and quotation as to what standard it's being made to. 

[Enterprisingwestern]

4 hours ago, chris p bacon said:

 The Chinese will do their version of whatever they are paid to do, and do it well. It will come down to the contract and quotation as to what standard it's being made to. 

 

Regrettably, as numerous manufacturers can attest, what you think you've asked for and what the Chinese think you have asked for/deserve/require/need can be two very different things!

 

Mike.

[adb968008]

6 hours ago, PMP said:

Both those service sheets are for N gauge models, where all gear drive chassis’s have been successful. Can you show us the service sheets for the HO models?

Oops apologies here

 

the gear box is 52, the chassis with gears between wheels is 53, gear box gears in the drop down are 46/47.

you’ll notice 36 /37are the frames that reside either side of the motor bogie (they call it a run-rack)

36+53+52+37= the traditional chassis as we would know it.

 

 

Its this design that gets a lot of HO around tight corners, the loco itself is an 0-10-0 with flanges on all wheels.. so the chassis twists and it drives on 6 of those wheels.

 

 

Whilst people in the UK hate them.. traction tyres.. they make all the difference to European models.

Edited June 25, 2019 by adb968008

[brianCAD]

12 hours ago, chris p bacon said:

I think looking at it it's a bit 'half baked',  a simple drive to the middle axle with a decent motor with tight tolerances on the gears and rods, plenty of weight for traction and she'll be a runner.  Lets face it. It's a tried and tested.

 

Agree.  But isn't this where KR Models are now going?  I haven't looked at the Facebook page, but an image of a revised drive has appeared on this thread.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[chris p bacon]

1 hour ago, brianCAD said:

 

Agree.  But isn't this where KR Models are now going?  I haven't looked at the Facebook page, but an image of a revised drive has appeared on this thread.

It's sort of a 'revised' drive, but bearing in mind your comments below

14 hours ago, brianCAD said:

On spur gear mechanisms, ideally there should be the same number of gears in the gear train leading to each axle,

 

14 hours ago, brianCAD said:

The revised GT3 drive with gears powering only one axle is a much better scheme, and there shouldn't be any loss of traction as the side rods will function in the same manner as the real thing.

 

Is a 5 gear drive (no doubt with backlash*)  really what you'd expect with a near £200 locomotive, considering that 3 of the gears are superfluous.

 

On 19/06/2019 at 17:26, Pre Grouping fan said:

  

He said despite reservations of the factory and himself with reduced traction. But, he's going with the consensus and carrying it forward like this.

 

* I say no doubt,  as with experience I can't see a gear train such as this not having it.

 

[GWR-fan]

KR Models explanation of the UK distribution does make sense in that expending finances on a UK distribution address that will not be handling product until this time next year at the earliest is sensible,  although not endearing to many in the current climate.  Payment for such a distribution centre would have to come from crowdfunded money to the project and thus increase the overall cost.

 

Making an educated guess (?),  as Keith is an ex-pat having apparently migrated to Canada ten or so years ago,  perhaps and just perhaps,  he still has family residing in the UK and may intend using that address as his distribution centre.  Remember, just a guess but would make sense.

[chris p bacon]

16 minutes ago, GWR-fan said:

KR Models explanation of the UK distribution does make sense in that expending finances on a UK distribution address that will not be handling product until this time next year at the earliest is sensible,  although not endearing to many in the current climate.  Payment for such a distribution centre would have to come from crowdfunded money to the project and thus increase the overall cost.

 

Making an educated guess (?),  as Keith is an ex-pat having apparently migrated to Canada ten or so years ago,  perhaps and just perhaps,  he still has family residing in the UK and may intend using that address as his distribution centre.  Remember, just a guess but would make sense.

 

I'm not sure you can extrapolate that from the only answer given below.

 

On 16/06/2019 at 12:17, KR Models said:

The shipping container from China will be unloaded at a yet to be found location in the UK, and customers orders will be distributed from there, returns will also be returned there too.

 

A premises will have to be found that will enable the container to be unloaded in a short timescale or you start paying for downtime on the tractor unit and trailer, it will ideally have a forklift/mechanical handling and be quite a reasonable sized facility. The boxes from China will need to be unloaded and then the locos repackaged for onward post, it will need to be very secure as it will have the stock plus the customer details . This is something that should be organised at the start and it isn't really feasable to use a domestic address.

Just noting the part in Bold. All the funds for this are from 'Crowdfunding' (unsecured lending)  so whether it's put in place at the start of the project or the end makes no difference. You book a slot with a distribution centre based on the work and expected arrival date of the container. They are used to the timeframe moving as ships arrive early/late.  

As with other previous 'crowdfunded' models there is no idea as to the actual costs of this project, nor I doubt, are we likely to see any.

[GWR-fan]

Dave,

               as the distribution centre will be handling any returns (I presume warranty items) then a retail distribution centre is not really ideal as the handling of returns implies a timescale greater than simple unpacking/storage/distribution of the product which would take say one week to accomplish.  I doubt that the model company would contract out the handling of warranty issues as well to the centre as it is something the company would want to keep inhouse.  Customer detail security would be a database on a computer and say 400 locomotives would fit in a single car garage/lockup,  so a domestic address is not that far fetched.  I assume a twelve month warranty period and guess that the company will not be renting premises for that length of time in case of returns.

 

I believe that DJM's business address was his home address so it is feasible that KR Models would similarly register its business address in the UK as a domestic address.  Obviously for customs, duty payable, etc., a registered UK address will be needed to release the goods from the import storage facility. Given the refusal to reveal any personal information and the seeming secrecy regarding any business details other than a post office box in Canada,  a UK distribution address will most likely not be revealed until the goods are distributed and possibly only available on documentation in the product packaging for warranty returns.  I feel that the company possibly thinks that if you are not purchasing the product then why should you need to know.

[brianCAD]

Chrisp p bacon, sorry old chap but you seem a bit confused about the characteristics, merits or otherwise (mostly otherwise as it happens) of the mechanisms that were/are being considered for the GT3.  We can agree on a preference for worm and worm wheel drive direct to one axle, which arrangement served us pretty well for decades.

 

Meanwhile, there is a clear difference between the practicalities of the gear arrangement in Rapido's 'Royal Hudson' and that originally proposed for the GT3.  There is no need (and undesirable) for the Hudson's side rods to be loose fitting (assuming the gear teeth are properly aligned to the wheel quartering), whereas it is more problematical for the GT3 with gear backlash having different amounts at 1st and 3rd axles, thus making it harder for the side rods to function reliably.  Loose rods would not improve this scenario.

 

With regard to the simplified GT3 proposal, having only one geared axle, it doesn't matter a jot how many gears, or backlash are present - as it doesn't impact operational performance.  Whether or not any further inefficiency might creep in through the use of extra gears, would need to be judged against the inefficiency of any alternative worm gear drive.  Case in point: Bachmann's sometimes use of a large diameter worm leads to greater transmission losses than for a small diameter worm possessing a faster pitch.

 

This is all fairly basic stuff to an engineer, and it's a bit disappointing that a Chinese design office has wandered off down this garden path, while not treading very carefully.  

 

[chris p bacon]

5 hours ago, brianCAD said:

Chrisp p bacon, sorry old chap but you seem a bit confused about the characteristics, merits or otherwise (mostly otherwise as it happens) of the mechanisms that were/are being considered for the GT3.

 

Patronizing posters doesn't do you any favours, it's more likely to make you look a bit of a ###### (Boris).

 

I simply asked.

9 hours ago, chris p bacon said:

Is a 5 gear drive (no doubt with backlash*)  really what you'd expect with a near £200 locomotive, considering that 3 of the gears are superfluous.

 

and after a fashion you seem to agree.

 

5 hours ago, brianCAD said:

This is all fairly basic stuff to an engineer, and it's a bit disappointing that a Chinese design office has wandered off down this garden path, while not treading very carefully.  

 

I don't agree with this though.

 

5 hours ago, brianCAD said:

having only one geared axle, it doesn't matter a jot how many gears, or backlash are present - as it doesn't impact operational performance. 

 

Running a locomotive on a layout with a reasonable load and gradients, then Backlash in the gears is an issue.

 

Edited June 26, 2019 by chris p bacon

[chris p bacon]

6 hours ago, GWR-fan said:

as the distribution centre will be handling any returns (I presume warranty items) then a retail distribution centre is not really ideal as the handling of returns implies a timescale greater than simple unpacking/storage/distribution of the product which would take say one week to accomplish. 

 

Good point, I'd forgotten about possible returns, although it could just be a collection point for onward forwarding. (although whether they'd get the address is another thing )

 

6 hours ago, GWR-fan said:

400 locomotives would fit in a single car garage/lockup,  so a domestic address is not that far fetched.

 

I thought this project was nearer the 1000*? (I'm sure I read it in a previous post) ,   400 locomotives is about 20 boxes with 800 being 40 boxes or 2-3 pallet loads. As such it will come into the UK as a part container load and will have to initially go to a distibution centre for customs and unloading. it would be a large transit van load from there.

 

* From work on a previous project anything below 800-1000 just wasn't viable.

[Bernard Lamb]

8 hours ago, GWR-fan said:

KR Models explanation of the UK distribution does make sense in that expending finances on a UK distribution address that will not be handling product until this time next year at the earliest is sensible,  although not endearing to many in the current climate.  Payment for such a distribution centre would have to come from crowdfunded money to the project and thus increase the overall cost.

 

Making an educated guess (?),  as Keith is an ex-pat having apparently migrated to Canada ten or so years ago,  perhaps and just perhaps,  he still has family residing in the UK and may intend using that address as his distribution centre.  Remember, just a guess but would make sense.

I think that the people who made the comments about the lack of distribution facilities were trying to highlight the uncertainty of the availability of such facilities and their costs.

There is no need to pay for such arrangements, but there is a need at an early stage, to make provision for how you are going to handle the product in the UK.

I can remember the Dot Com boom and bust when companies far bigger than KR Models ignored such details and paid a very heavy price for doing so.

They rapidly found out that if you leave things to the last minute that there is not a vast number of people who will be willing to help you and those that are in such a position are going to extract their pound of flesh.

My former IT Director did rather well acting as a Consultant to rescue one of these companies from the mess that their lack of knowledge had got them into.

 

Your last point is so amateurish and out of touch with reality that it is hardly worth a comment.

I would not trust any member of my family to distribute anything. let alone deal with checking and discussing the running qualities and appearance of a scale model locomotive.

Not to mention the legal requirements to undertake such a task.

Bernard

[GWR-fan]

Bernard,

                of cause the company owner would travel to the UK at the time to oversee the distribution.   I did not "amateurishly" assume that possible family members in the UK would be handling the distribution side of the business and of cause a prolonged stay in the UK may be needed or else some one will need to be involved with handling the warranty returns should there be any if and when a return to Canada is required.  A UK family residence is an ideal base to operate from for some one not a resident of the country.  My point was the possible convenient location for distribution and the apparent need for secrecy to protect their privacy.  

[brianCAD]

On 25/06/2019 at 21:20, chris p bacon said:

The Chinese will do whatever they are paid to do, and do it well. It will come down to the contract and quotation as to what standard it's being made to. 

 

If only it was that simple.  The Chinese are very able and can turn out a first rate product (e.g. Brawa) when all goes well, but the operation of their business model is something else and isn't as strait-laced as in the UK.  Speak with anyone who manufactures in China.

After experiencing varying success with model manufacture in two western countries outside of UK (operator ran a machine too fast causing issues, elsewhere another employee fitted an incorrectly radiused carbide tool tip when turning thousands of wheels), my hand is poised nervously over the 'go' button for a first venture in China.

I do hope that Keith Revell is able to maintain some oversight as the manufacturing progresses, and is not relying merely on placing an order, and waiting for the models to turn up.  I'm mindful that Canadian, Christopher Howard operating as 'RailFlyer', lost his shirt by not employing the right attitude, unlike his successful countryman, Jason Schron.

 

3 hours ago, chris p bacon said:

Patronizing posters doesn't do you any favours,

 

 

Sorry, it certainly wasn't intended that way - and your subsequent retort was uncalled for. 

I am genuinely concerned with some of the views expressed on this forum regarding mechanisms, being partly my stock in trade.

 

[adb968008]

On the subject of distribution, there is an option no one has mentioned...

 

1. get the supplier in China to airmail them individually, VAT paid by sender*. Returns are sent back to the factory.

 

* If supplier did shipping it might even be below the tax threshold, as their cost price per unit, excludes all the tooling costs & margins of KR models as well as their own margin, would be very low, from a pure materials and labour perspective, worth it to make a few extras incase of losses. 

 

 

Another option could be to pay an established retailer to do the shipping on their behalf.

 

Emptying 1000-2000 models into someones garage and having family wrap and pack parties is also possible, its been done before.

 

 

 

Edited June 26, 2019 by adb968008

[Yorkshire Square]

1 hour ago, adb968008 said:

On the subject of distribution, there is an option no one has mentioned...

 

1. get the supplier in China to airmail them individually, VAT paid by sender*. Returns are sent back to the factory.

 

* If supplier did shipping it might even be below the tax threshold, as their cost price per unit, excludes all the tooling costs & margins of KR models as well as their own margin, would be very low, from a pure materials and labour perspective, worth it to make a few extras incase of losses. 

 

 

Another option could be to pay an established retailer to do the shipping on their behalf.

 

Emptying 1000-2000 models into someones garage and having family wrap and pack parties is also possible, its been done before.

 

 

 

 

The Chinese are not going to put cost price on the customs declaration. It’s not in their interest to reveal the phenomenal margins they’ll be making.

 

Additionally, if HMRC inspect one and feel the value is understated, they’ll impound that and then be on the lookout for similar packages. VAT and duty on a £285 model will be over £60. As a private importer, you’re unlikely to be able to get the VAT equivalent, levied in China, back. Oh and Royal Mail will levy a £8 fee for handling the VAT/duty collection.