Jump to content

KR Models announce the Fell in OO and N.


Recommended Posts

  • RMweb Gold
Posted (edited)

Reading wiki and other sites, it suggests the loco had 4 Paxman 12rph engines in, which were very similar to 12tp used in marine vessels and WW2 transports.

 

A quick look around doesnt find many videos of sound (and non of the Fell itself).


I did find this video of a 12rph, does anyone know if it sounded anything like this ? (Or x4 of them).

 

This video sounds a bit like an oversized class 14.

 

This must have been a bit of a beast in sound ?

 

Edited by adb968008
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I know of two places (Denmark and Norway) selling 12RPH Mk2s if somebody wants to splash out and buy them so to get a sound files or even be so stupid to build a replica.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, adb968008 said:

Reading wiki and other sites, it suggests the loco had 4 Paxman 12rph engines in, which were very similar to 12tp used in marine vessels and WW2 transports.

 

A quick look around doesnt find many videos of sound (and non of the Fell itself).


I did find this video of a 12rph, does anyone know if it sounded anything like this ? (Or x4 of them).

 

This video sounds a bit like an oversized class 14.

 

This must have been a bit of a beast in sound ?

 

That sounds like a turbocharged engine, the ones in the Fell were mechanically supercharged, superchargers driven by two 150hp railcar engines.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • RMweb Gold
3 hours ago, D9001 said:

 

 

Come on Chris, Colin was not pointing out your dyslexia to score any point, he didn’t know you are dyslexic and neither would anyone else. Unfair. 

He's called Dave.........

  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • RMweb Gold
2 hours ago, Joseph_Pestell said:

 

Not specific to this thread but I have noted a growing tetchiness on RMw as the internment goes on.

 

And this thread is related to vapourware which isn't even due for 18 months,  if it gets made at all.

  • Like 2
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • RMweb Gold
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, Michael Edge said:

That sounds like a turbocharged engine, the ones in the Fell were mechanically supercharged, superchargers driven by two 150hp railcar engines.

6 engines inside... now I’m starting to understand why it was a one off.

Derby having already built 10001/2 they must have known this was a lemon whilst building it.

Edited by adb968008
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, chris p bacon said:

 

And this thread is related to vapourware which isn't even due for 18 months,  if it gets made at all.

 

I'm sure it will be made even if you think it is so called vapourware

 

 

I trust this reworded post will be considered ok.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, adb968008 said:

6 engines inside... now I’m starting to understand why it was a one off.

Derby having already built 10001/2 they must have known this was a lemon whilst building it.

And yet, the concept is actually quite logical - you run your engines at high load, which is what diesels like, switching them on/in/out/off as required. What I don't totally grasp, though, is why the separate engines for the supercharging were considered desirable, given that turbocharging was now an accepted concept. Was it a lack of smaller turbocharged engines, I wonder?

 

As a trial locomotive, it was certainly a brave effort, albeit ultimately a failure. However, where would we be without people like Col. Fell, who were prepared to 'have a go'? At least this one operated with moderate success for a while, unlike, for example, (and whisper it quietly... :p ) 36001?

 

Mark

  • Like 1
  • Agree 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, MarkC said:

At least this one operated with moderate success for a while, unlike, for example, (and whisper it quietly... :p ) 36001?

 

Neither succeeded, despite being brave attempts. But Leander was a thing of (some) beauty. Fell fell out of the ugly tree and hit every branch on the way down. 

  • Funny 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • RMweb Gold
Posted (edited)
45 minutes ago, MarkC said:

And yet, the concept is actually quite logical - you run your engines at high load, which is what diesels like, switching them on/in/out/off as required. What I don't totally grasp, though, is why the separate engines for the supercharging were considered desirable, given that turbocharging was now an accepted concept. Was it a lack of smaller turbocharged engines, I wonder?

 

As a trial locomotive, it was certainly a brave effort, albeit ultimately a failure. However, where would we be without people like Col. Fell, who were prepared to 'have a go'? At least this one operated with moderate success for a while, unlike, for example, (and whisper it quietly... :p ) 36001?

 

Mark

Superchargers resolve specific issues that turbochargers introduce....namely turbo-lag and the need for an intercooler   to get full benefit of a turbocharger.....however superchargers are generally crankshaft driven, there may not have been enough room for them on the main engines....hence...the requirement to drive then from a DMU engine...

 

It should be borne in mind that the fell was a proof of concept loco....there was a proposed mk2 version...but this version was meant to show the viability of a mainline locomotive having a mechanical transmission.

Edited by pheaton
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, pheaton said:

Superchargers resolve specific issues that turbochargers introduce....namely turbo-lag and the need for an intercooler   to get full benefit of a turbocharger.....however superchargers are generally crankshaft driven, there may not have been enough room for them on the main engines....hence...the requirement to drive then from a DMU engine...

 

It should be borne in mind that the fell was a proof of concept loco....there was a proposed mk2 version...but this version was meant to show the viability of a mainline locomotive having a mechanical transmission.

I can see the point about lag - it did take a while to overcome that problem, certainly - and even today, not all installations get it right... However, to extract maximum power from an engine, be it turbocharger or supercharger supplied with air, an intercooler would surely always help? The cooler the air, the denser it is, as we know, and thus you can burn more fuel/stroke, thus extracting more power.

 

You may well be right regarding a lack of space for main engine mounted superchargers though - engines were a lot bigger then than modern ones which put the same amount of power out. Modern metallurgy and materials are light years ahead of what was available in the 1940s & 50s.

 

It's all fascinating stuff :)

 

Mark

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

There wasn't much room where the engines were, another mystery is why they didn't make it a bit longer. It wasn't possible to lift the main engines out without dismantling the cab but a few inches extra length would have allowed this - it's not as if it had to fit any sort of length restriction.

10100 wasn't exactly a failure, it was at the time the most powerful single unit diesel in Britain and YE later used a similar power take up principle in Taurus but with only two engines. The latter worked perfectly well, they just couldn't sell it to BR.

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

Dear all a simple question to KR models. Have you now got sufficient pre orders to commit to producing actual models to fulfill those pre orders...or as your e mail suggested you require more before you commit to making a production run. Yes the cad drawing is nice, and I'm sure if we are at Warley an example could be produced ....I can think of one source to enable a model to be on show. your e mail needs this explanation please

 

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, The Stationmaster said:

 

I do wonder about geared drive between the wheels?  This is a long established standard Chinese factory approach for locos fitted with coupling rods and it can reportedly work very well if a lot of effort is put into getting it right.  And I understand from those in the know that it really does need a lot of careful design and testing (during development) attention to get it right.  But equally, witness one of DJM's efforts, it is very easy to not get it right on something as simple as a 4-coupled engine and with the Fell there are two 4-coupled engines (or an 8-coupled engine) so there is even more opportunity for slop and backlash in the gearing, and other things, which lead to problems in running.  Whatever else they might do with it KR will need to pay an awful amount of very close attention to the spec, design, quality, and manufacture, of the gearing if they are going to deliver a good runner and while some Chinese factories are able to deliver the goods in that respect others have very clearly failed to do so in the past.

Very well put, if I may say so. From my point of view, the logic is simple. Where a prototype has coupling rods, the model needs to have them. Why not then use them? To add gearing to duplicate what the coupling rods do is to add needless complexity. My DJM O2 has coupling rods which flail around at odd angles. When I saw the DJM 14XX doing the same, I ruled it out. Had two-part coupling rods been used on the J94/Austerity, I suspect the problem would have been even more spectacularly out of kilter.

 

To design the Fell without the centre coupling rods, naturally the two sets of driving wheels have to be gear driven. Joining them with a coupling rod may well not work in practice. I don’t think it needs to. The extra coupling rods are being provided as a simple add-on and if they cause everything to jam, just regard them as an item for static display. I don’t think they’re intended as anything more than a simple add-on and, as such, I think it’s worth doing. A nice idea from KR.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, 46256 said:

Dear all a simple question to KR models. Have you now got sufficient pre orders to commit to producing actual models to fulfill those pre orders...or as your e mail suggested you require more before you commit to making a production run. Yes the cad drawing is nice, and I'm sure if we are at Warley an example could be produced ....I can think of one source to enable a model to be on show. your e mail needs this explanation please

 

The way I read it from the email I have just received is the number of people signed up for updates via email is over the amount needed to make the project viable but as yet not enough people physically putting money down to say they'll definitely have one. 

 

I have suspicion that a number of those are waiting for the next GT3 sample to be shown running properly or for the model to actually arrive before committing to The Fell. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks  pre grouping my thoughts exactly, I have signed up to an instalment plan, the first payment having been taken. If I read the e mail correctly not enough of the others have yet done so ....and unless they do KR won't commit to producing this model. The model if it does progress , as evidenced by the section in the email on the GT3 will be produced in a Chinese factory so it appears they are yet to place an order for said Chinese company to produce on their behalf. If I am incorrect in the assumptions trust me I for once would love to be proved wrong. I ask again if the project is halted will I get my initial instalment back ?

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Ironically just received an e mail from Keith making an urgent request for people who have expressed an interest to now make a commitment and order

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, adb968008 said:

Reading wiki and other sites, it suggests the loco had 4 Paxman 12rph engines in, which were very similar to 12tp used in marine vessels and WW2 transports.

 

A quick look around doesnt find many videos of sound (and non of the Fell itself).


I did find this video of a 12rph, does anyone know if it sounded anything like this ? (Or x4 of them).

 

This video sounds a bit like an oversized class 14.

 

This must have been a bit of a beast in sound ?

 

It sounded like it does in the video of it running way back in the thread.

 

Edited by Grovenor
Link to post
Share on other sites

As we have shown with the Flask Wagon, if the project does not go ahead, the money that you have put forward will be refunded to you.

 

So far, we are still receiving steady orders and we are fully aware a lot of people are struggling in the current climate, but we aren't as far off our target mark as people think. Once we hit our target mark, we give our factory the go ahead. 

2 hours ago, Pre Grouping fan said:

The way I read it from the email I have just received is the number of people signed up for updates via email is over the amount needed to make the project viable but as yet not enough people physically putting money down to say they'll definitely have one. 

Stated here from Pre Grouping Fan is what is happening. A lot of expressions, but not enough orders. Once we have hit our target mark of units ordered, we give our factory the green light to start the tooling.

  • Thanks 1
  • Friendly/supportive 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, KR Models said:

As we have shown with the Flask Wagon, if the project does not go ahead, the money that you have put forward will be refunded to you.

 

So far, we are still receiving steady orders and we are fully aware a lot of people are struggling in the current climate, but we aren't as far off our target mark as people think. Once we hit our target mark, we give our factory the go ahead. 

Stated here from Pre Grouping Fan is what is happening. A lot of expressions, but not enough orders. Once we have hit our target mark of units ordered, we give our factory the green light to start the tooling.

 

 

Can't wait, press on guys and stick to your plans. This will be an iconic model.

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/04/2020 at 11:33, chris p bacon said:

 

Really .. So the bloomin great big grills on the side of the nose isn't noticable.

 

10100

 

https://zenfolio.page.link/9eFTw

 

Just to dispute this, you are only posting one side of the locomotive. The Fell being notorious for its hideously ugly design was also not symmetrical in any way. It doesnt matter which way you split it, it doesn't perfectly match the opposite side. 

To find that picture, you MUST have found a picture with the other 2 grills on the opposite side and then proceeded to deliberately ignore them.

 

Here is the picture of the other side you have neglected to show:

image-007.jpg.8e25fdc957e06341ef9124d86d3f22fc.jpg

 

As stated in the email, these are still preliminary designs, not confirmed and set in stone. We have done our research.

  • Like 3
  • Informative/Useful 4
  • Funny 1
  • Friendly/supportive 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps you need to talk to Mike Edge KR Models. He waited many years tp gather enough information to get the Fell kit as correct as possible. Read his recent post on here.

 

The CAD drawing is missing roof detail for the photo you show in your latest post. Unfortunately the Fell managed to amass a fair few body modifications over its life.  Trying to produce one body means you almost have to say which month and year it represents.

Baz

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Barry O said:

Perhaps you need to talk to Mike Edge KR Models. He waited many years tp gather enough information to get the Fell kit as correct as possible. Read his recent post on here.

 

The CAD drawing is missing roof detail for the photo you show in your latest post. Unfortunately the Fell managed to amass a fair few body modifications over its life.  Trying to produce one body means you almost have to say which month and year it represents.

Baz

As stated in my previous post, these are still preliminary drawings. Nothing is set in stone, things are still yet to be added (like the handrails above the nose), and things are still subject to change.

 

But yes, you are correct, there isnt going to be a scenario that we can cover all the different changes that the Fell went through. This is why we are giving the option of the coupling rod, so that if people want the 4-8-4 version over the 4-4-4-4 version, they can have it. 

  • Like 1
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.