Jump to content
AY Mod

KR Models announce the Fell in OO and N.

Recommended Posts

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours 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

Mark this page explains a lot from the Davey Paxman viewpoint and is well worth a read particularly as it highlights not only the technical achievements but also the inherent bad points in the design - very interesting

 

https://www.paxmanhistory.org.uk/paxfell.htm

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, The Stationmaster said:

Mark this page explains a lot from the Davey Paxman viewpoint and is well worth a read particularly as it highlights not only the technical achievements but also the inherent bad points in the design - very interesting

 

https://www.paxmanhistory.org.uk/paxfell.htm

Fascinating stuff, Mike. Thank you.

 

<<My personal opinion has always been that the prototype locomotive tested was somewhat before its time and a Mark 2 locomotive could have been greatly simplified and improved.>>. Indeed so. That's some epitaph.

 

Mark

Share this post


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

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

image-007.jpg.8e25fdc957e06341ef9124d86d3f22fc.jpg

 

 

 

.... though it is, unfortunately, back-to-front - ie. mirrored !!

 

John Isherwood.

  • Agree 1
  • Funny 1

Share this post


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

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.

 

Are you absolutely sure the picture you have posted is taken at the same time and from the other side as the one I posted ?  There are quite a few differences between the 2 apart from the grills on the nose side.

 

But like others you have completely missed the point I was making. That was to use a single connecting rod from it's early days rendered the model too innacurate for many if you were choosing to model it with seperate rods and from a later time period. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, chris p bacon said:

 

Are you absolutely sure the picture you have posted is taken at the same time and from the other side as the one I posted ?  There are quite a few differences between the 2 apart from the grills on the nose side.

 

But like others you have completely missed the point I was making. That was to use a single connecting rod from it's early days rendered the model too innacurate for many if you were choosing to model it with seperate rods and from a later time period. 

 

Might I suggest that you do MORE research.  As we HAVE stated before, we are supplying the additional connection rod as an accessory, and the photos supplied is of the other side.  The loco does NOT have matching sides.  Therefore making your argument/criticism null and void.  Also, as stated before these CAD drawings are NOT the final renderings.

 

Some customers wanted the 4-8-4 wheel configuration as well as the 4-4-4-4 version.  But seeing as you don't want one why do you care?

  • Agree 4
  • Funny 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can I just say I don't find it ugly at all! Powerful, different but not ugly 

 

image.png.aaa81bc3d39980587599ba64c44dfe98.png

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
48 minutes ago, KR Models said:

But seeing as you don't want one why do you care?

If you did your research you'd have found that I did want one. 

 

Quote

The loco does NOT have matching sides.  Therefore making your argument/criticism null and void

 

How so ? I never stated it had identical sides..... If you had researched better and taken notice I pointed out " The single rods weren't accurate for the later body" 

 

 

Edited by chris p bacon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, mikesndbs said:

Can I just say I don't find it ugly at all! Powerful, different but not ugly 

 

image.png.aaa81bc3d39980587599ba64c44dfe98.png


To be provided free with all RMWeb Gold subscriptions? Certainly feel there is a need in this thread. 

 

Roy

  • Agree 1
  • Funny 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just as well RMweb was not round in the 1960s when all a manufacturer needed was a passing resemblance to the prototype. :)

  • Agree 1
  • Funny 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Michael Edge said:

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.

Fell built 1950 @Derby, 10000 built at Derby with EE...

 

So once the Fell, fell out of favour, maybe the lessons learned about maintenance were passed via Osmosis from Derby to EE and learnt on Deltic introduced in 1955..where engines were exchangeable in rapid time ? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Why not just make one version of Fell now...

 

Would enough people who want one, buy one, regardless of a set of rods ?
 

then once its sold, retool a different body to re-use on the existing chassis / mechanism w/rods as a second bite of the cherry if demand allows it...? 


(hint, if your anywhere close to a slightly used class 71 tooling, that could make the same chassis mechanism useful for a class 74 body too ;-)

 

Edited by adb968008

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, chris p bacon said:

How so ? I never stated it had identical sides..... If you had researched better and taken notice I pointed out " The single rods weren't accurate for the later body" 

Which is why we are including the rod separate on both the early BR Black livery AND the Brunswick Green livery. If people want the 4-8-4 config in either livery, it is entirely their prerogative. 

We were asked to look into it, and as it turns out we can absolutely do it. If you don't want to use the connecting rod, then don't. Its not gonna cost you any extra for the rod.

  • Like 3
  • Agree 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
19 hours 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

The multiple engine concept would be more "doable" today with modern electronic controls.

This page on Wikipedia ( Yes I know!) seems to explain what the idea was regarding the separate engines for the supercharging.  (See the Transmission section para 5 et seq)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Rail_10100

It seems to be a variation on this concept.

https://www.paxmanhistory.org.uk/hi-dyne.htm

Edited by JeremyC
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, KR Models said:

 

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

image-007.jpg.8e25fdc957e06341ef9124d86d3f22fc.jpg

 

 

 

The picture is shown reversed - look at the numbers!

Edited by Retro_man
Correction
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It might be the same side - or it might be the other side, to repeat, there is no way of knowing which side is which in black livery.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Michael Edge said:

It might be the same side - or it might be the other side, to repeat, there is no way of knowing which side is which in black livery.

 

I'm fairly confident it's not the inside.

  • Informative/Useful 1
  • Funny 12

Share this post


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

Are you absolutely sure the picture you have posted is taken at the same time and from the other side as the one I posted ? 

 

Unless it was a 4-4-4-4 on one side, and a 4-8-4 on the other, I suspect that they were not taken on the same day.

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, truffy said:

 

Unless it was a 4-4-4-4 on one side, and a 4-8-4 on the other, I suspect that they were not taken on the same day.

That would explain some of its problems.

  • Funny 3

Share this post


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

 

The picture is shown reversed - look at the numbers!

 

2020s_The_fell_0001.jpg

main-qimg-ab715bf045076061211f3a514153820d.jpg

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, KR Models said:

 

2020s_The_fell_0001.jpg

main-qimg-ab715bf045076061211f3a514153820d.jpg

In the top picture (which is the later one) the engine room window is replaced by grills as well as the extra grills on the nose and the additional vents(?) on the cab roof. But the odd thing for me is the outward opening cab door, did any other loco have this ?

 

In theory this could be the same side of the loco on 2 different dates but who knows  with this thing.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Evening all

 

Well just to add to the fun here is our loco with large side grills both in 8 and 4 coupled guises.

Make of that what you will :)

 

 

Fell2.jpg

Fell1.jpg

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
  • Informative/Useful 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, mikesndbs said:

Evening all

 

Well just to add to the fun here is our loco with large side grills both in 8 and 4 coupled guises.

Make of that what you will :)

 

 

Fell2.jpg

Fell1.jpg

 

True - but in the 4-8-4 format it has two vents over the cabs; in 4-4-4-4 format there are four vents per cab.

 

John Isherwood.

Share this post


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

 

Are you absolutely sure the picture you have posted is taken at the same time and from the other side as the one I posted ?  There are quite a few differences between the 2 apart from the grills on the nose side.

 

But like others you have completely missed the point I was making. That was to use a single connecting rod from it's early days rendered the model too innacurate for many if you were choosing to model it with seperate rods and from a later time period. 

Dave, I don't care. If you don't want to buy it, then don't. There are lots of models produced by all sorts of manufacturers that I am not interested in, so I do not contribute to any discussions on those subjects.

 

  • Agree 4

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.