KR Models King in N gauge

[steam-driven boy]

Hi,

Expressions of interest are now being sought:

https://www.krmodels.co.uk/collections/n-gauge/products/king-class-steam-locomotive

 

Regards, Gerry.

[Chris M]

I would love to see this get enough support to go ahead and wish KR Models all the best.  I'm tempted to show an interest but, having been bitten by DJ, I really don't think I would be prepared to  part with cash up front at the moment so in fairness I can't register an interest. There aren't many details such as what amount would be required up front (100%, 50%) or at what point this would be paid. I guess if I payed by credit card any funding would be protected by the credit card company so maybe there is no risk. I paid by debit card with DJM which, on reflection, was rather stupid of me. I suppose one problem with this project for me is that it reminds me of how gullible I was with DJ. I know KR Models has absolutely nothing to do with DJ (apart from buying the CAD from the administrator) and I I have heard that the business plan for KRM is more sensible than DJM in that this is is not the main source of income for the folk behind KRM. This makes a very big difference to the chances of long term success. It sounds as though the KRM set up is more like Revolution than DJM in that respect but I don't have first hand knowledge. Anyhow, if this project  appears to be getting plenty of support I could well become interested in having a king again, but not just yet. I bought a Britt when the king died so I have all the locos I need in my roster.

 

 

Has the 00 GT3 actually been produced yet? I know there are pre production samples so it should be close if not already there. I think seeing customers receive (and praise) this loco would be helpful in drumming up support for the king. Apologies for being a little negative but being taken in by DJ still hurts.

[The Stationmaster]

As I'm not into N gauge I definitely don't want one but it will be interesting to see if the various remaining errors on the DJM CADs are going to be corrected - not that there are many but it would be nice for those who will be buying one to see the details sorted.   I got the impression that in the end DJ simply gave up, or lost interest in, getting all the detail right for the various versions he was proposing.  Like many GWR engines the 'Kings' can be something of a minefield when it comes to detail changes over the years especially when the engines running on the mainline today have some all too obvious differences from the time when they were in normal traffic (one of which DJM completely missed).  So the CADs do need some very careful work if more than one period is being considered although there is plenty of excellent and fully dated information out there but it does mean making some early decisions about which versions will be modelled and not getting drawn into the trap of trying to do too many vsariants unless somebody is prepared to spend a lot more money for differences in the tooling and assembly.

 

But overall  I think an N gauge 'King' ought to do pretty well so I wish KRM all the best with it. 

[Roy L S]

Not one for me, but I know it is a loco on quite a few N modeller's wish-list and it ticks a fair few boxes.

 

 I wish KRM success with the venture and will watch progress with interest.

 

Roy

[scottystitch]

1 hour ago, The Stationmaster said:

As I'm not into N gauge I definitely don't want one but it will be interesting to see if the various remaining errors on the DJM CADs are going to be corrected - not that there are many but it would be nice for those who will be buying one to see the details sorted.   I got the impression that in the end DJ simply gave up, or lost interest in, getting all the detail right for the various versions he was proposing.  Like many GWR engines the 'Kings' can be something of a minefield when it comes to detail changes over the years especially when the engines running on the mainline today have some all too obvious differences from the time when they were in normal traffic (one of which DJM completely missed).  So the CADs do need some very careful work if more than one period is being considered although there is plenty of excellent and fully dated information out there but it does mean making some early decisions about which versions will be modelled and not getting drawn into the trap of trying to do too many vsariants unless somebody is prepared to spend a lot more money for differences in the tooling and assembly.

 

But overall  I think an N gauge 'King' ought to do pretty well so I wish KRM all the best with it. 

The following was posted by KRM on the N Gauge Forum:

 

"We have finally got the CAD drawings completed for the King class model.  Only with your support can we bring this long overdue model to you. We are looking at putting at least two sets of etched plates per model so that you can have different names and numbers.  It is the version 6002 - 6019."

 

So it appears the version being produced has been narrowed down, but presumably there were differences over time...

 

Best

Scott.

[The Stationmaster]

11 minutes ago, scottystitch said:

The following was posted by KRM on the N Gauge Forum:

 

"We have finally got the CAD drawings completed for the King class model.  Only with your support can we bring this long overdue model to you. We are looking at putting at least two sets of etched plates per model so that you can have different names and numbers.  It is the version 6002 - 6019."

 

So it appears the version being produced has been narrowed down, but presumably there were differences over time...

 

Best

Scott.

In very basic terms - and then detail differences within the main headings they went roughly -

Original

Single chimney with 4 row superheater, then added mechanical lubricator

First pattern of double chimney, final boiler with 4 row superheater and re-sited lubricator  (not all of them had the first pattern of double chimney)

Second pattern of double chimney otherwise detail basically as with the first double chimney

Modern day version as running on the main line with reduced height chimney and safety valve cover and cut down cab - looks a lot different from the engines in late BR condition.

The current as running version of the tender (which was what the DJM CADs portrayed when they were last seen) has a noticeable detail difference from the tenders when they were running in BR times

 

Then there are the changes to the bogie - one change early on then the major strengthening exercise in the 1950s.  Changes to the buffers over the years which don't align with any other changes by date.  So you could for example have a model of 6000, KGV as running in BR condition with a double chimney and carrying the early emblem and a model of the same engine as running in the preservation era wearing the same emblem but various details would be different from its condition when in service in that livery.  In other words very typical Western 'standardisation' with details changing over the years as well as the big items.  It does of course depend to what extent some details would be noticeable onan N gauge model - for example the bogie strengthening.

[MAURICE040947]

I have to disagree with the Stationamster.

 

detail is obviously  important but this is N scale and it will be impossible to satisfy every variation. The market is limited compared to OO. I wish them every success and to not be put off, or sidetracked, by endless variation. Optional Chimneys yes, but the rest left to best optimise the tooling before somebody else takes up the gauntlet.

Maurice

[KR Models]

5 hours ago, Chris M said:

I would love to see this get enough support to go ahead and wish KR Models all the best.  I'm tempted to show an interest but, having been bitten by DJ, I really don't think I would be prepared to  part with cash up front at the moment so in fairness I can't register an interest. There aren't many details such as what amount would be required up front (100%, 50%) or at what point this would be paid. I guess if I payed by credit card any funding would be protected by the credit card company so maybe there is no risk. I paid by debit card with DJM which, on reflection, was rather stupid of me. I suppose one problem with this project for me is that it reminds me of how gullible I was with DJ. I know KR Models has absolutely nothing to do with DJ (apart from buying the CAD from the administrator) and I I have heard that the business plan for KRM is more sensible than DJM in that this is is not the main source of income for the folk behind KRM. This makes a very big difference to the chances of long term success. It sounds as though the KRM set up is more like Revolution than DJM in that respect but I don't have first hand knowledge. Anyhow, if this project  appears to be getting plenty of support I could well become interested in having a king again, but not just yet. I bought a Britt when the king died so I have all the locos I need in my roster.

 

 

Has the 00 GT3 actually been produced yet? I know there are pre production samples so it should be close if not already there. I think seeing customers receive (and praise) this loco would be helpful in drumming up support for the king. Apologies for being a little negative but being taken in by DJ still hurts.

 

We are very aware of the bitterness left behind after the collapse of DJM.  Obviously we didn't see that coming when we launched.  Our goal is to produce models that people want.  The king is very popular and we hope that people will get onboard with it.  We have over the two years that we have been running that we are way more engaged with customers, we are more open with customers and we reply far better to comments than DJM ever did.  This  is to give confidence back into the industry.  The N Gauge market is a very small market in comparison to OO, but we feel that the N Gauge community need to have these products too.

[The Stationmaster]

37 minutes ago, MAURICE040947 said:

I have to disagree with the Stationamster.

 

detail is obviously  important but this is N scale and it will be impossible to satisfy every variation. The market is limited compared to OO. I wish them every success and to not be put off, or sidetracked, by endless variation. Optional Chimneys yes, but the rest left to best optimise the tooling before somebody else takes up the gauntlet.

Maurice

There's a very considerable and noticeable difference between 6024 as running now and 6024 in its final BR form and that will still be noticeable in 2mm scale because the engine will immediately be seen to be lower.  Not knowing anything about KRM's marketing plans I don't know if the intend to offer a 'modern' version - that's up to them and their customers.  And as I said some detail differences will very obviously not be readily visible in 2mm scale unless you look very closely indeed.  It really all depends what the basic tooling is - and that is down to KRM and where they think the biggest market lies.  

 

But I think they need to sort the tender detail - that one is a bit too obvious from normal viewing angles if they are using the DJM CAD unaltered and a 'modern' version  is just one of several.  And it's also an easy thing for a modeller to add if they want it but not so easy to remove if integrally moulded.  

[KR Models]

2 hours ago, The Stationmaster said:

There's a very considerable and noticeable difference between 6024 as running now and 6024 in its final BR form and that will still be noticeable in 2mm scale because the engine will immediately be seen to be lower.  Not knowing anything about KRM's marketing plans I don't know if the intend to offer a 'modern' version - that's up to them and their customers.  And as I said some detail differences will very obviously not be readily visible in 2mm scale unless you look very closely indeed.  It really all depends what the basic tooling is - and that is down to KRM and where they think the biggest market lies.  

 

But I think they need to sort the tender detail - that one is a bit too obvious from normal viewing angles if they are using the DJM CAD unaltered and a 'modern' version  is just one of several.  And it's also an easy thing for a modeller to add if they want it but not so easy to remove if integrally moulded.  

 

The issue with offering different variations, is that most require extra tools to produce the differences.  This adds to the cost of the project.  DJM offered 15 different variations, we will not be doing the same.  We have had it confirmed that these drawings cover 6002 - 6019.

[The Stationmaster]

56 minutes ago, KR Models said:

 

The issue with offering different variations, is that most require extra tools to produce the differences.  This adds to the cost of the project.  DJM offered 15 different variations, we will not be doing the same.  We have had it confirmed that these drawings cover 6002 - 6019.

 

 

 

Absolute essential to limit variations in my view.  

 

The CAD obviously doesn't represent 6014 for much of its life of course but depending on when various changes were made to individual engines it would cover the detail state of  6002 - 13, and 6015 -19 between1948 when the squared step on the inside valve spindle cover was first introduced and 1949 -51 when the engines were reboilered and were all given a 4 row superheater;  the original pattern of outside steam pipe was gradually replaced by the new pattern around that time but some of the old pattern lasted beyond boiler renewal.  Generally apart from the inside valve spindle cover - which probably won't be particularly noticeable (and is any case the late version with a raised centre) - it's good for 6002 -19 as originally built including 6014 prior to its 1935 'streamlining'  changes (two details of which lasted for the rest its life including the very obvious cab shape).  If the oil pipe covers and chimney were separate parts (= manufacturing cost increase) it could be a fairly good representation of the engines after reboilering apart from the steam pipes (for some) and the lack of a lubricator.

 

Overall if you're aiming to keep manufacturing costs down it's a pretty good compromise but could you get rid of that extraneous 'box; in the rear well of the tender which was an addition for modern day operation and I presume was left in the CAD after it had been recorded on the scanning.  Incidentally some people might mention the twin water fillers appeared on the early tenders.  it's far from clear how long they lasted but they were definitely altered at some point to the central pattern of filler and probably quite early in their lives although no records have thus far come to light.

[Hailstone]

As a transition era modeler I would hope that a double chimney option will be available as I would like two

 

Regards,

 

Alex

 

[grahame]

On 25/06/2020 at 00:12, Hailstone said:

As a transition era modeler I would hope that a double chimney option will be available as I would like two

 

 

The CAD looks like a single chimney version (although I could be wrong) and KR Models have made it clear they will be restricting choice to one variant to keep down costs, complexity and help towards achieving the required numbers.

 

However, would it not be an option for those wanting an alternative version, such as a double chimney, to bash the KRM version into the one they want? Items such as a double chimney could be simply produced by 3D printing or by commissioning a third party. And ordering the single chimney version would help ensure that it reaches the MOQ and gets produced.

 

 

 

 

[Chris M]

"simply produced by 3D printing" maybe if I had a 3D printer and any knowledge of designing shapes for 3D printing. 

Single chimney is no good for me. Providing the model with two separate chimneys so the owner can attach the one they want sounds like a cheap option.

 

KTM making all these announcements of new projects before any project has actually made it to the customers make them start to sound like someone whose name I won't say aloud.

[grahame]

6 minutes ago, Chris M said:

"simply produced by 3D printing" maybe if I had a 3D printer and any knowledge of designing shapes for 3D printing. 

 

 

There are a huge number of designers who make 3D printed items available commercially through Shapeways (so having a printer is not a requisite), a large number of individuals who are capable and do have home printers and it is quite possible to commission such items should KR Models not include them. 

 

 

[KR Models]

10 minutes ago, Chris M said:

KTM making all these announcements of new projects before any project has actually made it to the customers make them start to sound like someone whose name I won't say aloud.

Id like to state that we have only released the EOI's for these products. That doesn't mean that these models will be out in the next year, or even 2 or 3 years, it doesn't mean they will receive sufficient interest. Its essentially market research, just how much demand is there. We have no intentions on moving forward with a project unless we are comfortable we can fund, tool, and produce a product completely and efficiently. We will still stick to our guns of 2 active projects at a time. 

 

Bare in mind also, the GT3 was meant to be in peoples hands by now, but due to complications with the pandemic it hasn't been entirely smooth to say the least. So, we have been working on these to keep us busy, and in my opinion its better than staying idle and waiting around. - Michael

[KR Models]

2 minutes ago, grahame said:

 

There are a huge number of designers who make 3D printed items available commercially through Shapeways (so having a printer is not a requisite), a large number of individuals who are capable and do have home printers and it is quite possible to commission such items should KR Models not include them. 

 

 

These CADs are not set in stone, things are still subject to change. We just don't want to release 15 different variations of a model and overwhelm ourselves with the work that follows. If its viable for us to offer the chimney option, then we can try.

[grahame]

16 minutes ago, Chris M said:

 

KTM making all these announcements of new projects before any project has actually made it to the customers make them start to sound like someone whose name I won't say aloud.

 

Probably somewhat unreasonable to draw such a conclusion and make such comparison.

 

 

[dpgibbons]

One lesson I would have taken from DJM is not to have too many EOIs on the go at one time, especially when you are starting out.  Set a deadline to create a sense of urgency, and then withdraw them if they are clearly no-hopers.

 

I have signed up for a King but I would need more conviction about KR before putting up money.  Successful delivery of the OO GT3 project would be a good start.

Edited July 5, 2020 by dpgibbons

[Chris M]

7 hours ago, KR Models said:

Id like to state that we have only released the EOI's for these products. That doesn't mean that these models will be out in the next year, or even 2 or 3 years, it doesn't mean they will receive sufficient interest. Its essentially market research, just how much demand is there. We have no intentions on moving forward with a project unless we are comfortable we can fund, tool, and produce a product completely and efficiently. We will still stick to our guns of 2 active projects at a time. 

 

Bare in mind also, the GT3 was meant to be in peoples hands by now, but due to complications with the pandemic it hasn't been entirely smooth to say the least. So, we have been working on these to keep us busy, and in my opinion its better than staying idle and waiting around. - Michael

 

Two active projects at a time seems very sensible. Also I completely understand and accept that events outside of your control have affected delivery of GT3.  I guess I misunderstood the purpose of EOI, you aren't saying that you plan to make any of these models, you are saying you will start a project to make one if/when there is enough interest. Again that sounds sensible so my earlier comment was unfair - sorry. In fact it sounds like a very good plan to deliver models of unusual prototypes (in the case of 00) in the order of the interest shown in them while keeping risks down to a minimum. I wish you all the best and look forward to seeing a GT3 even though I do N rather than 00.

[The Stationmaster]

12 hours ago, KR Models said:

These CADs are not set in stone, things are still subject to change. We just don't want to release 15 different variations of a model and overwhelm ourselves with the work that follows. If its viable for us to offer the chimney option, then we can try.

Very sensible - it was, I think, one reason why the Hattons 'King' project was so long in gestation, there were simply too many variants.  Variants undoubtedly complicate production and increase costs which means higher prices and longer development times.  I think the 'King' falls into two basic categories - a model of a single chimney engine in effectively GWR condition for as many of the class as possible (already identified) and one of the double chimney versions to pick up the popular BR period.  

 

But even that means substantial detail differences and it then depends on what the market will tolerate in terms of detail levels related to cost and only customer feedback and EOIs can give a reasonable lead there.  As ever the problem with standardised GWR classes is the myriad of detail differences in some of them - never an easy shout doing a GWr loco with a few exceptions where visible variations were fewer.  Best of luck with it which ever way KR go.

[Chris M]

For me, and I think many others, the single or double chimney is kind of hard to ignore; it is something that you can't help but notice as the loco goes by.  On the other hand and for instance, whether the loco has the pre or post modification front bogie doesn't worry me at all; you have to look pretty closely in good light to spot that. Anyway, how many modellers could tell which was which?

[steam-driven boy]

Hi,

I was very disappointed to see that the EOI comment for this in the current September Railway Modeller, and for the GT3/Fell/Shark projects, was 'lost' near the end of a headline heavy Leader/Clayton 00 heading.

As I've commented previously on this issue with another suppliers EOIs, I do wonder how many N gauge modellers would have bothered on the off-chance to read all the way through the item to find something maybe relating to their own interest! I only did so because that was precisely what I expected to find!

 

Regards, Gerry.

[steam-driven boy]

Hi,

Very pleased indeed to see a separate item in the news section of the current Model Rail - 278 Sept '20 - which postie delivered today.

 

Regards, Gerry.

[stevegr]

I would suggest that the variations could be covered by someone else just like Crownline in the old days.