Jump to content

Richard E

KR Models - N Gauge King

Recommended Posts

just seen this on the dreaded social media, someone has already asked if it is anything to do with the DJM version and that has been denied. I wonder what sort of interest there will be:

 

520811272_ScreenShot2019-11-08at23_24_08.png.c3f2e9a49ec55d17d55bf4b6810caa07.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

 

The colouring is just a coincidence I assume - the colour chosen e.g. for the boiler is a default design colour?

 

image.png.7734022099a29f5c861b16f858e0bbdd.png

Edited by DavidH
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There does appear to be differences, minor ones, however you would expect there to be lots of similarities given they are the same class of loco. 

  • Like 2
  • Agree 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The colouring could be a co-incidence and, as Kris points out, a King is a King so if both are accurate they should look about the same (obviously various mods happened over the years). The odd thing is that both have a non-prototypical rounded lump in the tender. A speaker perhaps? Again that could be a standard commercial part that's commonly used.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Further info is that they plan to produce this with DCC, DCC Sound and DCC smoke versions.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is possibly a few differences between the 2 such as the height of the chimney (not a GW fan so can't comment on which is correct) but I have a suspicion this might be one and the same.

 

Considering the DJM King didn't cross the line for production numbers until a retailer came on board, it seems an odd choice of locomotive to produce. especially as quite a few 'crowdfunders' got their fingers burnt.

  • Agree 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wouldn't chimney height differences be down to whether the model is a preserved example or an in service example.

 

DCC smoke, sounds like a new gimmick, I suppose it makes a change from new levels of detail and IP protected couplings.

 

After the nuclear wagon cancellation I hope he works on expressions of interest first to test the water not taking deposits.

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, BernardTPM said:

The colouring could be a co-incidence and, as Kris points out, a King is a King so if both are accurate they should look about the same (obviously various mods happened over the years). The odd thing is that both have a non-prototypical rounded lump in the tender. A speaker perhaps? Again that could be a standard commercial part that's commonly used.

 

The rounded lump will be a representation of the coal load I would think.

 

Roy

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, chris p bacon said:

There is possibly a few differences between the 2 such as the height of the chimney (not a GW fan so can't comment on which is correct) but I have a suspicion this might be one and the same.

Yes, though perhaps that's a later alteration - the DJM render is clearly in BR condition (front numberplate) the other GWR. both chimneys seem to have the same break position above the lower flare and not where the real chimney becomes copper coated which would otherwise be an obvious place to put a join. Of course, with two chimney heights the lower break, where there is a slight step in real life) would make sense for an 'as running now' option; I do believe they did have to lower the boiler fittings post Heathrow electrification.

 

1 hour ago, Roy L S said:

The rounded lump will be a representation of the coal load I would think.

Could be, in which case the two CAD interpretations are very close.

 

Does it matter if they are the DJM CADs?* That wouldn't necessarily be a bad starting point and if they have been sold on the proceeds might eventually feed back to those unfortunate enough to have got stung the first time round.

 

* I can see the render style is different, but I assume that could be done by toggling options between 'photo' render and 'outlined' render.

  • Like 5
  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, BernardTPM said:

Does it matter if they are the DJM CADs?* That wouldn't necessarily be a bad starting point and if they have been sold on the proceeds might eventually feed back to those unfortunate enough to have got stung the first time round.

 

* I can see the render style is different, but I assume that could be done by toggling options between 'photo' render and 'outlined' render.

 

As long as DJ didn't in some way profit or is in any way connected with KR Models now then it isn't an issue if the source of these CADs is DJM.

  • Agree 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The factory may have sought a new partner for the project. Nothing wrong with someone else working with the factory is that was the case, which is pure speculation on my part. 

  • Agree 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Will see how the gt3 comes out but at the moment having been burnt by djm models I'll be giving this a miss for now

 

Matt

  • Like 1
  • Friendly/supportive 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder if the cads were a djm asset owned by the receivers and bought by KR models or maybe as suggested sold by the factory to KR models. Alternatively could all be coincidence but I have my doubts.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice to see someone revive a King in N gauge but after so many where stung in the last King N gauge crowdfunding, I do wonder if there will be numbers coming back for a second try.

 

Of course - at this time - it might not be a crowdfunding project. 

 

Agree a lot of coincidences here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Facebook page also mentions he will be at Warley so anyone going can always attempt to talk to him and get any questions answered.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Back on March 2nd in the GT3 thread when many questions were being asked about the company,  mention was made if there was a middleman involved and given the similarities it was suggested that maybe DJM were involved.  This was quickly refuted by the company stating that they were dealing direct with the factory.

 

Odd now that many months later,  similarities in the CAD for the King have also raised the possibility that others may possibly have been involved.  I do find it an odd prototype to be announced given the previous model history with crowdfunding, requiring the input of a commercial concern in an attempt to lift it over the line.  Also, given the timeline on the creation of the GT3 CAD with only basic CAD after many months of work and development,  is it not a little strange that the King CAD is so advanced given it has just been announced.  Yes,  Keith may have learned something from the early criticism on the GT3 development,  but surely to get the King to this stage must have taken quite some time.

 

  • Like 3
  • Agree 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Something to keep in mind is that the technical expertise in most cases is with the factory, who develop the CAD, tooling etc. That is not always the case and some producers have in house design capabilities but I suspect that in most cases the involvement of the "manufacturer" named on the box is to sign off on the work of the factory. Something that became very obvious in the DJM story despite DJ's bombastic claims regarding his prowess as a designer. None of that is a criticism, the Chinese factories are extremely competent and capable but it explains why you can see certain similarities in design between different manufacturers if you look. 

Even if this is nothing to do with the DJM project it is clear that the factories did significant work on some projects and I am guessing that they would be happy for another client to pick up the projects. 

  • Agree 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, mdvle said:

Facebook page also mentions he will be at Warley so anyone going can always attempt to talk to him and get any questions answered.

 

I asked him a few questions about thr GT3 on Facebook and now appear to be blocked.  Careful you don't get blocked from Warley lol ;)

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Colin_McLeod said:

I asked him a few questions about thr GT3 on Facebook and now appear to be blocked

 

You and many others it seems :rolleyes:  

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Markwj said:

I wonder if the cads were a djm asset owned by the receivers and bought by KR models or maybe as suggested sold by the factory to KR models. Alternatively could all be coincidence but I have my doubts.

 

I certainly do hope that there is no connection.  So soon after the demise of DJM and that many were financially disadvantaged,  if by chance there was a connection then this would show a complete lack of empathy for those affected.   With items progressed under DJM and possibly onsold as potential projects to others,  crowdfunders money was used (or should have been) to progress the work carried out with no return on their "investment".    I feel that the manufacturer really needs to empathise that this is a new project and not a project previously commissioned to a Chinese factory and being offered to offset their investment on unpaid for work.

 

Personally,  given that even no connection to a previous manufacturer,  announcing a prototype which caused a lot of dismay to many,  does seem to indicate that the manufacturer maybe did not understand the impact that the closure of DJM had on those who had paid deposits.  I feel that there should have been a period of "mourning" before announcing such a product,  although I do understand that if a manufacturer sees a business opportunity then sometimes return on investment overcomes any "sensitivity" to the potential market for that item.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, GWR-fan said:

although I do understand that if a manufacturer sees a business opportunity then sometimes return on investment overcomes any "sensitivity" to the potential market for that item.

 

It may not just be a 'business opportunity' it could be they were never paid for the work carried out and want to pay their own bills.

 

I have no issue if this is DJM's CAD, what I would find irksome if I was a GT3 funder, is to find out that monies paid to fund that, are also funding other development work before it's produced.

If KR have their own money for his, why not the GT3?

  • Agree 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, chris p bacon said:

 

It may not just be a 'business opportunity' it could be they were never paid for the work carried out and want to pay their own bills.

 

I have no issue if this is DJM's CAD, what I would find irksome if I was a GT3 funder, is to find out that monies paid to fund that, are also funding other development work before it's produced.

If KR have their own money for his, why not the GT3?

 

I think the answer to that has been given. The GT3 did not attract the necessary level of interest in N to make it viable from a commercial standpoint and therefore quite reasonably little point in investing any more money in it.

 

I fully appreciate that a lot of people got burned by the DJM debacle including those who wanted an N Gauge King, but I don't personally consider it insensitive for another manufacturer to now propose a N Gauge King if they are not profiting from the previous venture. This manufacturer has confirmed on Facebook that this model is not connected to the DJM model. Likenesses to previous CADs will surely be inevitable if they are of the same prototype, and I am struggling here to understand what the issue is?

 

Surely the test will be whether a new manufacturer has any better take up and whether suspicions about DJM's ability to deliver had any part in that model struggling?

 

All the above said, personally I do tend to agree with those who have said there would be a better chance of success for a more workaday loco like the 43xx or 61xx, but then it's not my money on the line!

 

Roy

  • Agree 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, GWR-fan said:

Back on March 2nd in the GT3 thread when many questions were being asked about the company,  mention was made if there was a middleman involved and given the similarities it was suggested that maybe DJM were involved.  This was quickly refuted by the company stating that they were dealing direct with the factory.

 

Odd now that many months later,  similarities in the CAD for the King have also raised the possibility that others may possibly have been involved.

 

Not really.

 

Most likely explanation is that the Chinese factory have a set of CAD for an N scale King with no client and have thus offered it up to KR.  Worth considering that the Chinese factory is just as likely to have been out money in the failure of DJM as were the UK crowdfunders.

 

 

  • Agree 9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.