KRModels announce a GT3 Model

[slg]

Just signed up for potential second run.

[Wagonmaster]

It would be good if KR Models could at least contact the factory and see if there is a viable solution to the roller bearing issue. In my opinion, this is a detail that is not only quite obvious on the prototype, but it's omission on the model will open KR Models to all sorts of criticism, which I'm sure they could do without.

 

The Chinese are quite ingenious and I am sure they could come up with a solution. To paraphrase previous points, this is a case of 'have it right rather than have it early!'

 

The easiest solution would be to fit the bosses to the crankpins. It would look right, when stationary, but they would incorrectly rotate with the crankpins. A sort of halfway house solution really, but would avoid a lengthy and possibly costly redesign. What do people think?

[truffy]

Personally, I think it’s too late and the model is at too advanced a stage In development. Those that are bothered by it will fix aftermarket. I’ll probably get the ModelU fix. 

[MGR Hooper!]

On 02/06/2020 at 18:29, chris p bacon said:

 

Yes, I have had dealings with them over another matter. I am well aware of what they are capable of, and how they cost projects.

 

 

On 03/06/2020 at 11:20, chris p bacon said:

 

I did not at any time state that I had contacted the factory producing the GT3 and spoken to them about it,  (although I know which it is)

 

 

Doesn't "dealing" with someone mean you've had some contact with them? Not criticising or anything, your initial statement was worded in a way where it came across as such.

[truffy]

2 minutes ago, MGR Hooper! said:

Doesn't "dealing" with someone mean you've had some contact with them? 

What he’s stated is that he’s dealt with and contacted them in the past, enough to know their capabilities, but not over the KRM job. 

[chris p bacon]

53 minutes ago, MGR Hooper! said:

 

 

Doesn't "dealing" with someone mean you've had some contact with them? Not criticising or anything, your initial statement was worded in a way where it came across as such.

 

I don't get the confusion there is on this.

 

I posted.

 

On 02/06/2020 at 18:29, chris p bacon said:

 

Yes, I have had dealings with them over another matter. I am well aware of what they are capable of, and how they cost projects.

 

 

I will restate again that I have not contacted them about KR models (nor would I)  but due to other projects I know the factory concerned and know their capabilities, I am also aware of how the cost and quote. 

[JDW]

Don't really want to wade in on other people's fun, but come on, really? Seriously? Its a simple difference. I don't know any of the posters above other than from what they post on RMWeb, but it seems pretty clear that @chris p bacon is saying that he has dealt with the factory for other reasons, not that he has phoned to ask about someone else's model (which he'd be unlikely to get an answer to!). Factories produce all sorts of things for all sorts of people. All sorts of people commission things from factories with the neccessary capabilities. It's not inconceiveable that one person has dealt with the same factory as someone else, there's a finite number of them. 

Whether he actually has, or whether he thinks he has but is mistaken and its actually made elsewhere, and even whether someone believes him or not, it doesn't really matter. I would imagine that a factory which produces models is either capable of doing it or able to say they can't based on experience, and people who use that factory will know roughly what it is and isn't capable of. Whether a manufacturer choses to put X or Y on a model comes down to their decision and judgement of what is practical, what it will cost and what people will pay. Judgements are made, people don't have to like or agree. And whatever solution is found, people won't like it. Some will say they should be fixed to the crankpins, others will deride that and say they should be attached to the rods for accuracy. Someone else will come along and say that it makes it impossible to remove the rods to convert to P4. Look at the whole debate over Hatton's rotating axle boxes on their class 66s...

 

Aaaaaanyway, what I came here to say was that it looks great. The colours look good, and it's very odd to see and hear something that looks like it should be goinf chuff-chuff making space-age sounds, and coupling rods going around without valve gear...! I'd actually be tempted with one, but have to draw the line somewhere, and it's just too far out of my era to justify the outlay I'm afraid.

[Georgeconna]

Maybe Crispee Bacon has his own surprise GT3 project on the way  with Chinee factory - With Hubcaps!

 

TBH I probably would not of noticed anyhow - yeh low standards. How to suck the joy outa something eh.

 

[No Decorum]

How about getting the ModelU covers and waiting until the guarantee expires, then fit them? One by one and testing in between rather than putting them all on at once and wondering which one has the stray glue which is jamming the wheels.

[KR Models]

We have been in talks with our factory for a while now over this and we have 2 ideas that could possibly rectify this.

 

We can either make our own hub cap covers and supply them as stated previously, but not fit them as we don't want the glue to mess with the mechanism. Not to mention, we cannot guarantee that the ModelU hub caps will fit on our model. If you purchase them, that's your own risk you are taking.

 

The other option is that we paint the nuts green so that they don't look so brassy, and that they blend in better than they did before.

 

Either way, the hard facts are that we have had to make some compromises in terms of aesthetics so that the model will function. I know people don't like that we have had to, but we have. We don't like that the hub caps aren't on there just as much as you. But we want a working model, not a paper weight.

 

I hope you all understand that we are trying our hardest to make this model as great as it deserves.

 

- Michael Revell

[gary_lner]

6 minutes ago, KR Models said:

We have been in talks with our factory for a while now over this and we have 2 ideas that could possibly rectify this.

 

We can either make our own hub cap covers and supply them as stated previously, but not fit them as we don't want the glue to mess with the mechanism. Not to mention, we cannot guarantee that the ModelU hub caps will fit on our model. If you purchase them, that's your own risk you are taking.

 

The other option is that we paint the nuts green so that they don't look so brassy, and that they blend in better than they did before.

 

Either way, the hard facts are that we have had to make some compromises in terms of aesthetics so that the model will function. I know people don't like that we have had to, but we have. We don't like that the hub caps aren't on there just as much as you. But we want a working model, not a paper weight.

 

I hope you all understand that we are trying our hardest to make this model as great as it deserves.

 

- Michael Revell

Hi Michael. I'd be happy if both options could be done. 

 

Gary 

[KR Models]

18 minutes ago, gary_lner said:

Hi Michael. I'd be happy if both options could be done. 

 

Gary 

Unfortunately, that isnt an option.

 

If we paint them then you wont be able to glue the hub caps on because the paint would lift.

 

Painting the crank pins would be the easiest solution, but not the most aesthetically pleasing.

[truffy]

2 hours ago, KR Models said:

We can either make our own hub cap covers and supply them as stated previously, but not fit them as we don't want the glue to mess with the mechanism.

If possible, I’d prefer separate hubs sized to fit, for owner fitting. 

Edited June 7, 2020 by truffy

[Wagonmaster]

Another, maybe factory fitted, would be to produce the 'hub caps'  recessed to accommodate the crankpin nut and its rotation, but with two small 'pips' on the rear at 3 o'clock and 9 o'clock. These could either be a friction fit or glued into two corresponding holes drilled in the coupling rod. 

 

This way it is minimal modification and they won't incorrectly rotate. If the 'hub caps' were a friction fit, then they could be popped off for lubrication or removal of the coupling rod, if needed. 

[cctransuk]

1 hour ago, Wagpnmaster said:

Another, maybe factory fitted, would be to produce the 'hub caps'  recessed to accommodate the crankpin nut and its rotation, but with two small 'pips' on the rear at 3 o'clock and 9 o'clock. These could either be a friction fit or glued into two corresponding holes drilled in the coupling rod. 

 

This way it is minimal modification and they won't incorrectly rotate. If the 'hub caps' were a friction fit, then they could be popped off for lubrication or removal of the coupling rod, if needed. 

 

Presumably you missed this, (Posted Wednesday at 10:36) :-

 

 

John Isherwood.

[KR Models]

1 hour ago, Wagpnmaster said:

Another, maybe factory fitted, would be to produce the 'hub caps'  recessed to accommodate the crankpin nut and its rotation, but with two small 'pips' on the rear at 3 o'clock and 9 o'clock. These could either be a friction fit or glued into two corresponding holes drilled in the coupling rod. 

 

This way it is minimal modification and they won't incorrectly rotate. If the 'hub caps' were a friction fit, then they could be popped off for lubrication or removal of the coupling rod, if needed. 

We will do what we can regarding this suggestion, many thanks.

[adb968008]

This is a good case of an 80/20 rule...

 

separately fitted pieces clipped or glued to the coupling Rod is asking for trouble... read subject to lateral wheel movements, moving the rods, especially curves flicking the cap off, then removal for general maintenance, and you just know they are going to fall off in the mail.. Your pages will be filled with “my hub cap just did a Peter Crouch off the bar”.

 

Which brings us to “letting the user fit them”.. which most will never do.

 

Tbh painting the screw head will probably do, I can see this is a technical challenge.. and 80% wont care, the 20% will whinge regardless, if you fixed the cap they’d whinge about something else, at least this way you have 3rd party solution.
 

whatever you do, don’t make anything Caprotti, the audience here will expect it to be working.
 

 

p.s. glad to see your testing it on real modellers world track... Hard curves, set track, slips... that’s how 80% of us live, not the manicured microcosms that we see too all to  often but then dissapointed when it hits real world tracks!

Edited June 7, 2020 by adb968008

[57xx]

On 06/06/2020 at 15:31, MGR Hooper! said:

Quote

Yes, I have had dealings with them over another matter. I am well aware of what they are capable of, and how they cost projects.

 

Doesn't "dealing" with someone mean you've had some contact with them? Not criticising or anything, your initial statement was worded in a way where it came across as such.

 

Did you deliberately not highlight the 3 key words at the end of the sentence that clearly set the context as Dave's post ?

[MGR Hooper!]

2 hours ago, 57xx said:

 

Did you deliberately not highlight the 3 key words at the end of the sentence that clearly set the context as Dave's post ?
 

Did you deliberately not understand the context of my post?

[The Stationmaster]

All very simple really - the factory will endeavour to do exactly what you ask them to do in your original specification and will price the project accordingly.  Anything that you try to add or change subsequently and from what I know about them the Chinese factories making model railways are extremely good at banging in an additional price (which is normal manufacturing procedure for a variation order, that's how companies stay in business).  So if it is added or altered later in the project development, and unless it is a failure to meet spec down to the factory (which happens), then the commissioner has to pay for it.  If the commissioner/factory customer has set a business plan and budget for whatever it happens to be then extra work = extra costs = mismatch with teh budget and business plan unless it is recouped by increasing the price.  

 

If you are the end customer dealing with the factory you will either accept or reject the extra cost and adjust your budget to suit, an internal business decision.  But if youy are somebody having a product made for subsequent resale and have perhaps already advertised a price you will be in a quandary because you face either a reduced margin or possibly losing sales because you increase the price.  Simple as that - in the end it all comes down to getting thh spec right or deciding you are going for a particular level with your product and sticking with it.

[oleander]

Hello
Here an Idea. Instead of using a hex bolt use an allen bolt. The head is round like the bearing. A 3D printed cover could be made and pushed on with a pin on the back that squisses in to the allen bolt.

 

john

[Darius43]

1 hour ago, oleander said:

Hello
Here an Idea. Instead of using a hex bolt use an allen bolt. The head is round like the bearing. A 3D printed cover could be made and pushed on with a pin on the back that squisses in to the allen bolt.

 

john

 

Reminds me of those plastic caps that used to come with MFI furniture flat packs - the ones pushed in to cover the heads of Phillips screws.  Alas they frequently fell out - and they weren’t on moving parts (apart from when the furniture started coming apart).

 

Darius

[locoman462]

On 06/06/2020 at 15:31, truffy said:

Personally, I think it’s too late and the model is at too advanced a stage In development. Those that are bothered by it will fix aftermarket. I’ll probably get the ModelU fix. 

 

Just a word of caution re. Bearing Cap covers supplied by Modelu. I ordered a set as back up in the event that KRM do not supply same  ( fitted or for customer fitting ) with the loco.

The caps received are small, solid, not recessed and I cannot see a way they could be adapted to fit over the crank pin nuts. They are almost certainly designed to fit Romford style crankpins.

[cctransuk]

21 minutes ago, locoman462 said:

 

Just a word of caution re. Bearing Cap covers supplied by Modelu. I ordered a set as back up in the event that KRM do not supply same  ( fitted or for customer fitting ) with the loco.

The caps received are small, solid, not recessed and I cannot see a way they could be adapted to fit over the crank pin nuts. They are almost certainly designed to fit Romford style crankpins.

 

 

They are indeed - but can be adapted.

 

I fitted them to my own model by plugging the hole for the pin, and forming a hollow in the back to provide clearance for the crankpin nut.

 

It can be done - it just takes a little modelling; not everything that comes out of a packet is ready for immediate use.

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

[Barry O]

Something was bugging me about the video. I have left it for a while and now have gone back to it. I take it this is a fully geared together version? There is a bit of gearbox wind up when it sets off.  Sorry it is the engineer coming out in me!

 

Baz