Jump to content

KR Models announce the Fell in OO and N.


AY Mod
 Share

Recommended Posts

@96701... Your question was not asked of me, so apologies for jumping in here - but, to my very untrained eye the roofline of the KR Models Fell looks a little too high. ie. the distance between the very top of the centre windscreen and the very top (apex) of the curved roof? What do you think?

 

If this is the case, I will still be happy with the KRM 10100 as I do not have the time nor skill to make a half decent model, however I can see how that could put some people off spending their cash.

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, 96701 said:

Having listened to Geoff Brewin explaining how he could quite easily tweak a CAD produced flat etch, I'm sure the super accurate Judith Edge kit that you promote ad nauseum is easier to amend than a 3 dimensional tooling for a plastic bodied loco. 

 

You say that the shape of the KR Models Fell is wrong, but you haven't said where, so do please elucidate.

If Kr paid for others to research their locos fine.. but why should anyone try to help them..and they take no notice.

 

 

  • Funny 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
Posted (edited)
12 minutes ago, Barry O said:

If Kr paid for others to research their locos fine.. but why should anyone try to help them..and they take no notice.

 

 

I wasn't asking you to help KR Models, but never mind.

Edited by 96701
  • Agree 2
  • Funny 1
  • Friendly/supportive 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, Wagonmaster said:

I bought one of those A1 Models kit years ago! If you wanted a Fell, that was all there was apart from scratchbuilding one. 

 

 

Fell-Loco.gif

 

I'm no ace at building models but I'd be pleased if I had done so well as you!

You've obviously had one for some time... now I can't wait for my 'easy-route to having one' one :) 

 

  • Like 1
  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Barry O said:

If Kr paid for others to research their locos fine.. but why should anyone try to help them..and they take no notice.

 

 

 

With the amount of negativity expressed on this forum at the products of the majority of manufacturers (count them....) I'd be rather surprised if any still take any notice of criticisms posted on RMWeb......

 

Les

 

  • Like 3
  • Agree 14
  • Friendly/supportive 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, 97403_Ixion said:

 

I'm no ace at building models but I'd be pleased if I had done so well as you!

You've obviously had one for some time... now I can't wait for my 'easy-route to having one' one :) 

 

Thanks 97403_Ixion. It's probably about 20 years old now and I think it's failings are obvious in the photo I posted. I put the photo up so people could see what the A1 kit look like made up, if they hadn't seen one already. But as I said, it was all that was around at the time.  Time for an update now and I'm hoping the KR Models version will meet expectations!

  • Like 2
  • Agree 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

I feel I must register my profound disappointment in the negative posts in these threads. It’s just as with the GT3, only so far,  not as virulent. I am also disappointed in those who keep crying out about accuracy of these models.

1) The level of accuracy you are asking for borders on the impossible on a to scale model.

2) KR Models is not a large company like Hornsby or Bachmann so there are limits to what they can do.

3) The models in question are based on prototype locomotives no longer in existence so some details will be lost to the mists of time. 
4) Even the existing details and facts should be treated with a pinch of salt unless they can be corroborated.

 

Another thing the constant nitpicking is sucking the joy out of the hobby for those of us who don’t mind as much as long as we have a model. 
And for those who bleat on about DIY kits, let me remind you not all of us have the time, skill or patience for such an undertaking. 
I myself have been waiting for RTR models of these locomotives for a long time and I’ll be damned if you naysayers are going to ruin it.

So with the greatest possible respect, zip your howling screamers and crawl back under the ghastly little rocks from whence you came, and let the rest of us enjoy the hobby we so love!

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Agree 12
  • Round of applause 2
  • Funny 1
  • Friendly/supportive 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
2 minutes ago, NoDominion said:

I myself have been waiting for RTR models of these locomotives for a long time and I’ll be damned if you naysayers are going to ruin it.

 

Same here.  I will be enjoying mine.  I hope you enjoy yours too.

 

 

  • Like 2
  • Agree 6
  • Round of applause 1
  • Friendly/supportive 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
1 hour ago, NoDominion said:

I feel I must register my profound disappointment in the negative posts in these threads. 

 

You start with this.

 

Quote

So with the greatest possible respect, zip your howling screamers and crawl back under the ghastly little rocks from whence you came,

 

And finish with negativity.

 

What some are unable to understand is that there are others within the hobby that would like a model of the Fell that is reasonably  accurate, they are still waiting as KR has chosen to set a low bar in its research and production.

1 hour ago, NoDominion said:

2) KR Models is not a large company like Hornsby or Bachmann so there are limits to what they can do.

 

The size of the company is immaterial, what ultimately holds a commissioner back is the profit they wish to make on a model. If they don't have enough research to progress a model they don't proceed. 

KR chose to produce The Fell which was known to be a niche model with little original information still available,  it is well known that undated photographs alone cannot be relied upon as the number of modifications carried out in its life are difficult to follow. The model that has been shown so far has many innaccuracies and shows what happens when minimal research and a file of photographs is sent to a factory to produce a CAD.

You as a potential purchaser may be happy to accept something that could have been better but others may not.   

 

  • Agree 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, chris p bacon said:

What some are unable to understand is that there are others within the hobby that would like a model of the Fell that is reasonably  accurate

 

But are there enough of them to warrant someone spending big money to produce an Accurascale/Rapido quality model? So far - no.

 

31 minutes ago, chris p bacon said:

You as a potential purchaser may be happy to accept something that could have been better but others may not. 

 

And that is his prerogative, even if it is badly expressed (words have been had). Being happy with a 1970's Hornby Class 25 doesn't make anyone A Bad Person, any more than only being satisfied with a SLW version makes someone a better one. This hobby should be able to accommodate both.

  • Like 4
  • Agree 10
  • Friendly/supportive 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
55 minutes ago, Phil Parker said:

But are there enough of them to warrant someone spending big money to produce an Accurascale/Rapido quality model? So far - no.

From experience the cost of producing a 'looks somewhat like it' model are near enough the same as producing a 'Near accurate' one. The difference is the time taken by the commissioner to fully research the model and pass that research to the factory so they are able to produce it.

 

As for are there enough of them, it would seem that KR promising to 'Dare to Build' with high quality models there are enough who have paid in advance to progress the Fell before much progress was seen, so yes they are there.

 

1 hour ago, Phil Parker said:

Being happy with a 1970's Hornby Class 25 doesn't make anyone A Bad Person, any more than only being satisfied with a SLW version makes someone a better one. This hobby should be able to accommodate both.

It should be able to accommodate them, but it seems that those that aspire to a better model have to take abuse from those that don't.

 

  • Friendly/supportive 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

This reminds me of an episode of MASH in which Frank Burns asks why everyone directs abuse at him and Hawkeye says “you invite abuse, It would be rude not to accept”.

 

Cheers

 

Darius

  • Funny 8
Link to post
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, chris p bacon said:

but it seems that those that aspire to a better model have to take abuse from those that don't.

 

because

 

17 hours ago, chris p bacon said:

You as a potential purchaser may be happy to accept something that could have been better but others may not.  

 

was meant to be endearing?

 

Look, I've already stuck one person on the naughty step from this thread and will carry on wielding the hammer of moderation if required, but I'd really rather not. Can everyone just simmer down and leave the Fell alone until there is some actual news. Thanks

  • Agree 2
  • Thanks 1
  • Round of applause 6
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
33 minutes ago, Phil Parker said:

was meant to be endearing?

 

Endearing ? why should it be, it was a simple statement of fact of 2 opposing viewpoints.  It's not like it was yet another snide comment from another regular poster on here. :rolleyes:

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Since the thread is no longer about the Fell model, and just a way of everyone winding each other up, I'm going to lock it for the time being. When there is news, it will be unlocked again.

  • Like 10
  • Agree 2
  • Round of applause 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Great photos, at last definite views of both sides before it was green. Looks like Derby works, probably on its last visit there when it was painted green. In green livery you can tell which side is which because it got the early version of the 2nd BR crest when they were left and right facing. The outward appearance does seem to have settled own a bit by this time but quite different from when it still had its middle rods on. Incidentally the wheel arrangement was always 4-8-4 (or 2-D-2) since the middle axles were coupled by the gearbox.

  • Like 1
  • Informative/Useful 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, billy_anorak59 said:

Whilst perusing this thread, it struck me how difficult it is to work out the configuration of this locomotive, and therefore how it should best be modelled. Mike Edge, (probably the main authority on the Fell given his research) has constantly stated how difficult it is to determine which side of the locomotive we are looking at, and, in the absence of views of the other side on known dates, how indeed do the sides actually differ to each other at a certain point in time? How can we know a fixed state of the locomotive at a fixed time in order to model it?

KR have had my sympathies trying to decide…

 

I then remembered that I had snaffled a few photos off FB some time ago that I hadn't seen before then, and so I took a look at them to see if they could shed any further light on the subject. There are 4 in total, taken in two pairs, but obviously a few years apart – and both pairs of photos show both sides of the locomotive at the same date! (Whatever that was - unfortunately there was no attribution with the pictures) From them we can glean what the condition the locomotive was in at least twice in its life, which may help to nail a ‘default’  or 'safe' codition in which to model the loco in?

 

I’d be interested in the response… see what you all think.

 

The first pair of photos show the locomotive in pristine black, probably in cavalcade to/from an exhibition - so we should be able to tie down a few possible dates, but obviously early 50’s. It does show however that Mike E is quite correct – the locomotive looks to be absolutely identical from one side to the next. It’s got ‘all the fours’ – configured as a 4-4-4-4,  4 large grills at each of the 4 corners of the nose,  4 inlets on the cab roofs. There is a central grill too, on both sides (no ‘window’ either side). Left-facing lions on both sides. Even the position of the worksplates don’t help.

Fell1-Exhibfb.jpg.1f298062acddbb1ea52e862e64e7aaac.jpg

 

Fell2-Exhibfb.jpg.6682ab55f3da6f10b48a0efbc381c750.jpg

 

The second pair of photos look although they were taken a few years later, as the exhibition finish has now gone, to be replaced by a far more weary one, but still looks to be black (no lining). No location again, but could be Derby? (- if the presence of the Bullied 1020x diesel behind it is anything to go by. Incidentally, the Bullied looks to be in (shiny) green, so that might give an indication of the date? Is the Fell in the works being prepared for a green coat too? – certainly seems ready for one - patch painted?). The interesting thing here is that, although some years later, the loco is still in the same condition as the earlier ‘exhibition train’, i.e. a 4-4-4-4, 4 large grills at each of the 4 corners of the nose,  4 inlets on the cab roofs, plus central grilles too - both sides. So it must have lasted like this for quite a while.

Fell3-qDerbyfb.jpg.af4064d1b8bfecb6e0ade9b445f045e6.jpg

Fell4-qDerbyfb.jpg.c461882cf5d849dd099fb134421036b7.jpg

So it would seem that this particular configuration lasted quite a few years – indeed, photographs taken of it in the scrap line at Derby match this configuration too…

What do we think? Any use?

Great set of photos, good find! Perhaps KR Models would consider producing their model in this form then at least it would be correct for at least one period in its life?

Link to post
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, billy_anorak59 said:

Whilst perusing this thread, it struck me how difficult it is to work out the configuration of this locomotive, and therefore how it should best be modelled. Mike Edge, (probably the main authority on the Fell given his research) has constantly stated how difficult it is to determine which side of the locomotive we are looking at, and, in the absence of views of the other side on known dates, how indeed do the sides actually differ to each other at a certain point in time? How can we know a fixed state of the locomotive at a fixed time in order to model it?

KR have had my sympathies trying to decide…

 

I then remembered that I had snaffled a few photos off FB some time ago that I hadn't seen before then, and so I took a look at them to see if they could shed any further light on the subject. There are 4 in total, taken in two pairs, but obviously a few years apart – and both pairs of photos show both sides of the locomotive at the same date! (Whatever that was - unfortunately there was no attribution with the pictures) From them we can glean what the condition the locomotive was in at least twice in its life, which may help to nail a ‘default’  or 'safe' codition in which to model the loco in?

 

I’d be interested in the response… see what you all think.

 

The first pair of photos show the locomotive in pristine black, probably in cavalcade to/from an exhibition - so we should be able to tie down a few possible dates, but obviously early 50’s. It does show however that Mike E is quite correct – the locomotive looks to be absolutely identical from one side to the next. It’s got ‘all the fours’ – configured as a 4-4-4-4,  4 large grills at each of the 4 corners of the nose,  4 inlets on the cab roofs. There is a central grill too, on both sides (no ‘window’ either side). Left-facing lions on both sides. Even the position of the worksplates don’t help.

Fell1-Exhibfb.jpg.1f298062acddbb1ea52e862e64e7aaac.jpg

 

Fell2-Exhibfb.jpg.6682ab55f3da6f10b48a0efbc381c750.jpg

 

The second pair of photos look although they were taken a few years later, as the exhibition finish has now gone, to be replaced by a far more weary one, but still looks to be black (no lining). No location again, but could be Derby? (- if the presence of the Bullied 1020x diesel behind it is anything to go by. Incidentally, the Bullied looks to be in (shiny) green, so that might give an indication of the date? Is the Fell in the works being prepared for a green coat too? – certainly seems ready for one - patch painted?). The interesting thing here is that, although some years later, the loco is still in the same condition as the earlier ‘exhibition train’, i.e. a 4-4-4-4, 4 large grills at each of the 4 corners of the nose,  4 inlets on the cab roofs, plus central grilles too - both sides. So it must have lasted like this for quite a while.

Fell3-qDerbyfb.jpg.af4064d1b8bfecb6e0ade9b445f045e6.jpg

Fell4-qDerbyfb.jpg.c461882cf5d849dd099fb134421036b7.jpg

So it would seem that this particular configuration lasted quite a few years – indeed, photographs taken of it in the scrap line at Derby match this configuration too…

What do we think? Any use?

Fantastic photos, thanks very much for posting these. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

On 22/07/2021 at 10:53, chris p bacon said:

 

Endearing ? why should it be, it was a simple statement of fact of 2 opposing viewpoints.  It's not like it was yet another snide comment from another regular poster on here. :rolleyes:

 

 

 

OH! The IRONY! 

 

  • Funny 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

For what it's worth - I'm about 95% sure that the 'Exhibition Train' shown in the first pair of photographs is en-route to the International Railway Congress Exhibition at Willesden, held May 26th-28th 1954.

(The position of the Standard Class 5 in the cavalcade fits too, along with the pristine van - I reckon that's 73050 (later to become 'City of Peterborough' - see http://73050.co.uk/page15.html) 

The upshot of all this rambling is that I'm now pretty sure that this gives us a known condition of the locomotive (on both sides), and at a known date - and hence an accurate basis for any model of 10100.

 

...Personal opinion of course! :yes:

 

  • Like 2
  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, billy_anorak59 said:

For what it's worth - I'm about 95% sure that the 'Exhibition Train' shown in the first pair of photographs is en-route to the International Railway Congress Exhibition at Willesden, held May 26th-28th 1954.

(The position of the Standard Class 5 in the cavalcade fits too, along with the pristine van - I reckon that's 73050 (later to become 'City of Peterborough' - see http://73050.co.uk/page15.html) 

The upshot of all this rambling is that I'm now pretty sure that this gives us a known condition of the locomotive (on both sides), and at a known date - and hence an accurate basis for any model of 10100.

 

...Personal opinion of course! :yes:

 

 

But with this information having surfaced AFTER tooling is done, how many of us would be prepared to swallow a price rise to cover retooling costs, given that there won't be a massive number of models to share those costs between?

 

Just a thought

Les

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, Les1952 said:

But with this information having surfaced AFTER tooling is done, how many of us would be prepared to swallow a price rise to cover retooling costs, given that there won't be a massive number of models to share those costs between?

 

Can't help there I'm afraid Les - I'm late to the party, as usual.

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
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...