KR Models announce the Consett Iron Ore Wagon

[Legend]

I’m certainly not as demanding as some of you . Frankly I think modelling underframes just adds to cost if it’s detail that can’t be seen while running or on the track .  So it looks the part to Me . Could well be the first KR model I’m interested in . Decent pricing too . 

[The Stationmaster]

6 hours ago, MGR Hooper! said:

Ummm....no! Technically a manufacturer can even make changes and re-visit drawings even after a product is released if they feel it can be approved or have information to improve it and have the cash to spend. Bigger manufacturers are constantly updating tooling for various models, most of those changes are internal.  This project of KRM's has only just gone into the tooling. Changes are still easy to make. If you're going to flood KRM threads with your negativity, at least make sure you have some fact to back up your claims. I'd expect someone like you to know at least that much? Or is it a classic case of common sense goes out the window when you just want to be a troll. A classic feature in almost all KRM threads is the three trolls that won't stop.
 

Even when a manufacturer puts their hands up, accepts their mistakes and asks for help, people like you have an issue with it. I think you just want to flood KRM topics with your posts. You never really have an constructive criticism.

Another one with a KRM bashing fetish!! Best ignored henceforth...  

However changes to tooling at this stage where the initial spec or agreed CAD are wrong (assuming that was the agreed CAD) and tooling has started are what costs extra money - lots of extra money in some cases.  That is standard practice with Chinese factories and it has caught out people's budgets before now depending on the variations.   The key to getting it right is to start with a very clear detailed, properly researched, spec and drawings and then if the factory get it wrong the only problem you have to deal with is the one of the factory losing face (yes really) if their errors are picked up and corrections are sought, and that is at their expense not the client's. 

 

Another area where things can readily go wrong is leaving the factory in charge of drawing up the CADs - which is a very common situation and not of itself a problem.  But if someone else is doing your CADs for you it means you must pay even greater attention to checking CADs.  And not just for detail but also for errors in dimensions, even major dimensions.  and when doing that sort of checking two independent heads are better than one although speaking from experience things can still slip through especially if the factory are not very good at CAD version control and revisions - and some of them aren't.  So none of it is as simple as you seem to think.  And if somebody raises critical queries where evidence exists of things being incorrect since when has that made them a troll?  They might well be considered pedantic or over picky or even being somebody who cares to see things being done properly but suggesting they might be figures of Norwegian mythology is going down a very different road in my view.

 

So the key is always to get it right, and give the factory a comprehensive properly researched spec before asking for a price and to clearly establish what the arrangements will be for price variations.  And remember that once tooling has started the cost of changes can rapidly escalate because what you might think is on a completely different tool from one where everything is ok might not be the case because of the way space is used on the tools.  What on the face of it is a simple change can very easily be something very different and redoing large tools..

[RBAGE]

How annoying.

I have two rakes already. The Bradwell kits took an age.

I think there were only three rakes of 9 altogether. Could I justify a third rake?

Bob

['CHARD]

21 minutes ago, Legend said:

Frankly I think modelling underframes just adds to cost if it’s detail that can’t be seen while running or on the track .  So it looks the part to Me . 

 

Another version of Rule One!  

 

But this raises the interesting point, if you're going to the trouble of detailing the underframe at all, and information is available to do so correctly, why on earth would you wilfully get it wrong?

 

The days of this fraternity tolerating generic blob undergubbins are long gone.

 

 

...and if you tolerate this, your generic loco will be next....

[Michael Edge]

7 hours ago, Barry O said:

 

Well if you read up on the Fell I did point them towars Mike Edge who had done a lot of research on the Fell before setting up the Judith Edge kits model.. they didn't seem to know that one is available.

 

In the casevof the Consett Ore Hoppers they don't seem to be aware of the Dave Bradwell kit .. which does have the bits they are missing...

 

So information is available but they don't seem to know much about...

 

What is available in anything but the rtr supply list

How to get the information together to get a model correct early 8n the process.

 

It should not be up to us to provide a list of things which need to be corrected..they should slow down the number of models they are trying to do and get the information correct. 

 

I know how much it costs to design and produce a model especially from a Chinese factory and also the amount of research neede to get it as correct as it can be. Every change to an EP costs money...research gets the EPs into a good shape.

 

Baz

 

They did contact me after Baz pointed this out to them. As a professional model maker and kit designer I not unreasonably asked politely "what's in it for me?" - I received no reply to this.

I notice the speed with which faults in the illustration of this wagon have appeared - with regard to the Fell I wouldn't know where to start, the illustration appears to be a random compilation of almost every modification which was made to 10100.

[Legend]

1 hour ago, 'CHARD said:

 

Another version of Rule One!  

 

But this raises the interesting point, if you're going to the trouble of detailing the underframe at all, and information is available to do so correctly, why on earth would you wilfully get it wrong?

 

The days of this fraternity tolerating generic blob undergubbins are long gone.

 

 

...and if you tolerate this, your generic loco will be next....

But we are not talking generic blob under gubbings  like a Lima/Hornby 156 for instance , but really something that’s hard to discern while the model is on track . 

[Steamport Southport]

12 minutes ago, Legend said:

But we are not talking generic blob under gubbings  like a Lima/Hornby 156 for instance , but really something that’s hard to discern while the model is on track . 

 

Seriously?

 

The air tanks were very visible on the real things and are essential as they are the whole point of the wagons. They were to open the discharge doors with the air being provided by locomotives which were adapted for that very reason.

 

Maybe the customers need to do the basic research as well as the manufacturers as if you can't see the "undergubbins" on these you must be blind.

 

https://www.derbysulzers.com/24102.html

 

 

 

Jason

[Legend]

43 minutes ago, Steamport Southport said:

 

Seriously?

 

The air tanks were very visible on the real things and are essential as they are the whole point of the wagons. They were to open the discharge doors with the air being provided by locomotives which were adapted for that very reason.

 

Maybe the customers need to do the basic research as well as the manufacturers as if you can't see the "undergubbins" on these you must be blind.

 

https://www.derbysulzers.com/24102.html

 

 

 

Jason

Yes seriously . The tanks are there as you can see in CAD  but there are only two of them . As Mozzer pointed out there should be 4 , but can you really see the two internal ones when it’s on the track ?   Folk are right , if you can get it right why wouldn’t you but it’s hardly a deal breaker  as I really doubt most people will see . 

[johndon]

1 hour ago, Legend said:

can you really see the two internal ones when it’s on the track ?

 

Probably more than you'd imagine as the two inner tanks, on the real thing, are lower than the outer two.

 

I'm actually modelling the Tyne Dock to Consett line and I already have 18 of these wagons from Dave Bradwell and Dave Alexander kits and I would be interested in a rake of these but, if fundamental details like the tanks were missing then I'd be out...

 

John

Edited October 8, 2020 by johndon

[Paddy]

Hi Folks,

 

Not taking sides here but it does amaze me how polorised the price/detail/accuracy debate has become.  There are a number of older models with compromises that I am personally happy with but it would likely be commercial suicide to re-release them now (talking about British N Gauge here).  We have all seen how reviews of new models highlight the smallest of errors/compromises even if the author labels them as "nit picking".

 

Surely, if you are creating a new model from scratch then it is as easy to get it right as not?  If you are making compromises in the design then be up front about it and explain to your potential customers why e.g. price, ease of manufacture, robustness etc.  (no offence to KRM intended).

 

Personally, I still have my fingers crossed for KRM to release the N Gauge Shark brake van.

 

Kind regards

 

Paddy

 

[Paddy]

3 minutes ago, johndon said:

 

Probably more than you'd imagine as the two inner tanks, on the real thing, are actually larger than the outer two.

 

I'm actually modelling the Tyne Dock to Consett line and I already have 18 of these wagons from Dave Bradwell and Dave Alexander kits and I would be interested in a rake of these but, if fundamental details like the tanks are missing then I'm out...

 

John

 

To be fair, I don't believe KRM have said they intend to leave any particular detail in or out.  They simply announced their desire to create these wagons and invited feedback.  If there are issues then no doubt KRM will be keen to correct these within the commercial parameters they have set for this model.

 

Kind regards

 

Paddy

 

[johndon]

2 minutes ago, Paddy said:

 

To be fair, I don't believe KRM have said they intend to leave any particular detail in or out.  They simply announced their desire to create these wagons and invited feedback.  If there are issues then no doubt KRM will be keen to correct these within the commercial parameters they have set for this model.

 

Kind regards

 

Paddy

 

 

I agree which is why I edited my post while you were quoting to say that if the tanks 'were missing' rather than 'are missing'.   It is still a rather big detail to have missed though...

 

John

 

Edited October 8, 2020 by johndon

[spamcan61]

27 minutes ago, Paddy said:

Hi Folks,

Surely, if you are creating a new model from scratch then it is as easy to get it right as not? 

 

Kind regards

 

Paddy

 

Not really; even if there is a universally accepted definition of 'right' for a particular item ( big if in some cases) then the research will take more time = money and then there's the risk of more complex tooling / more expensive tooling re-iteration to get it exactly right.

[RBAGE]

A far more visible omission in the CAD are the manual release handles. Let's hope they don't get overlooked.

[johndon]

Another thought although this may have already been taken care of as the CADs appears to only show one side of the wagon is that the vertical slots, that the door operating arms come through, were shorter on one side of the wagon.

 

John

[RBAGE]

And don't forget the ribs on the inside. Not currently on the CAD images.

[RBAGE]

Both Bradwell and Alexander went for a simple, flat chassis to mount everything on. I'm not familiar with the construction of the underside but would assume the assembly of steel members, as shown on the CAD images, is closer to the real thing than either kit represents. So. the two Dave's also practised "only model what you can see". It would be inappropriate to criticise KR Models for producing their model with the same objective whilst holding the kits as paragons.  

 

Is anyone familiar with the underside of these hoppers?

[RBAGE]

5 hours ago, johndon said:

I may well be in for a rake of these although I have enough unbuilt kit versions to make a up a full rake.

 

A couple of points.  With regards to the underframe there is an operating rod that runs between the two brake cross members that goes above one and under the other as per this photo of one of my wagons:

 

 

From the drawings, you also have one of the air pipes coming out of the end of the wagon, that's not how they were, there was a pipe ran from under the buffer beam.

 

John

 

Oh! Dear. That is a bit of a chumbo.

[mozzer models]

1 hour ago, Legend said:

Yes seriously . The tanks are there as you can see in CAD  but there are only two of them . As Mozzer pointed out there should be 4 , but can you really see the two internal ones when it’s on the track ?   Folk are right , if you can get it right why wouldn’t you but it’s hardly a deal breaker  as I really doubt most people will see . 

yes as the outer ones are higher up the the 2 in the middle

[RBAGE]

If there are no drawings available, I suggest KR Models start by buying one of Bradwells kits, build it and make sure their model looks like it.

[johndon]

17 minutes ago, RBAGE said:

Both Bradwell and Alexander went for a simple, flat chassis to mount everything on. I'm not familiar with the construction of the underside but would assume the assembly of steel members, as shown on the CAD images, is closer to the real thing than either kit represents. So. the two Dave's also practised "only model what you can see". It would be inappropriate to criticise KR Models for producing their model with the same objective whilst holding the kits as paragons.  

 

Is anyone familiar with the underside of these hoppers?

 

I've got a couple of phots of them without the bodies but, unfortunately, they are side on so you can't see the underframe itself.

 

John

[johndon]

9 minutes ago, RBAGE said:

Oh! Dear. That is a bit of a chumbo.

 

Sorry Bob, you've lost me there...

[Bernard Lamb]

Is it ethically acceptable to announce a model in a half baked state and expect the experts on a forum to provide the research needed to bring it to market?

I made the comment long ago that I considered KR to be very lacking in professionalism so you know my feelings. Even with new blood coming on board I see no improvement in the situation. Not the sort of people that I would choose to deal with however much I might like a particular product. 

Bernard

[johndon]

17 minutes ago, RBAGE said:

If there are no drawings available, I suggest KR Models start by buying one of Bradwells kits, build it and make sure their model looks like it.

 

As I recall, there is a drawing in the NERA book 'A History of British Railways' North Eastern Region' which may have been done by Dave Bradwell but it just shows a side view and an end profile.  I don't recall ever seeing any official drawings although I assume they must exist somewhere.

 

Where's Porcy when you need him...

Edited October 8, 2020 by johndon

[jonhall]

27 minutes ago, RBAGE said:

Both Bradwell and Alexander went for a simple, flat chassis to mount everything on. I'm not familiar with the construction of the underside but would assume the assembly of steel members, as shown on the CAD images, is closer to the real thing than either kit represents. So. the two Dave's also practised "only model what you can see". It would be inappropriate to criticise KR Models for producing their model with the same objective whilst holding the kits as paragons.  

 

Is anyone familiar with the underside of these hoppers?

 

I'm pretty confident that the real thing looks neither like the Dave Bradwell flat OR The KRM ladder chassis, but since both have to be derailed to see.... Is missing detail better or worse than made up because nobody knows?

 

There is however a suspicion that there hasn't been all that much research.

 

Jon