Kernow MRC announce 4-TC

[cctransuk]

I've been in correspondence with an acquaintance on the subject of the merits and demerits of RTR models in general, with a particular reference to the 4-TC. I was taken to task for being an apologist for anything less than what could / should be attainable in an RTR model. The points that I made to him are very relevant to this debate, so I'll take the liberty of posting them below :-

 

With age comes pragmatism !

 

RTR will always come with a large dose of compromise - what most critics forget is that, above anything else, time is expensive and an overriding financial consideration.

 

I entirely accept that each new model project could be, as nigh on as makes no difference, perfect - given a project development timescale and budget that is open-ended. However, once you've engaged a production contractor you're tied to a strict programme of deadlines which will get you to the production slot allocated at the beginning of the project. No messing - fail to come up with the gen. at the appropriate time and you're back at the end of the queue !

 

It would be nice to be able to keep submitting each stage of project development to the scrutiny of the modelling public; wait whilst they argue amongst themselves as to the merits or demerits of your cad drawings / test shots / livery proofs, etc., etc.; come to a view as to who is right; (and upset the other 49%); and, eventually (hopefully); arrive at a model that will satisfy the majority, (but by no means the totality), of potential purchasers.

 

That scenario is the recipe for rapid bankruptcy !!

 

Let's face it - the market for, say, a 4TC is hardly mainstream. Try selling what looks like an EMU to the majority of proud Mummies and Daddies at Xmas, and explaining why it hasn't got a motor, but costs way more than a complete Railroad trainset.

 

These niche market RTRs are designed to be produced quickly - by merchandising standards, not railway modellers' 'need it now' expectations. The time that can be allocated to research is extremely limited. The project researcher could no doubt come up with something approaching the true picture, given all the time he needs - but he doesn't have that. There is a lot of 'that'll have to do' involved - but I don't see any alternative in a commercial world.

 

On the other hand, and as I don't make my living from transfers, I can take as long as I like to develop a new sheet of transfers - and if my best efforts fail to produce perfection, I can make corrections if they are brought to my attention.

 

Sorry, ******, but the perfectionists in this hobby need to wake up and smell the coffee - RTR is never going to satisfy them, and they'd be better getting on with scratchbuilding than constantly berating the RTR producers. That, though, does not allow them to make a noise in public about the perceived deficiencies of others, without having to actually produce anything better !

 

Regards,

John Isherwood,

Cambridge Custom Transfers.

[SRman]

Funny thing is, I am not too worried about the gangway floor height (a piece of plasticard could beef it up a little), but I'm still not convinced the windscreen size is right (others have commented on this some time ago). If they were too small it would be a relatively easy modelling job to open them out a little, but if they are too big/too tall, that's much more difficult to correct.

Don't get me wrong; I like what I'm seeing overall, and have two on order, and won't be cancelling those (unless I go bankrupt first). Regardless of the errors, I agree with John, above, that they are far better than anything I can kit-bash or scratchbuild myself.

[Southernman46]

Interesting 4-TC related combo dated from 1978

33 - 4-TC - loco buffet car - 4-TC - 33

http://www.derbysulzers.com/33105exminster78.jpg

[YesTor]

It is not possible to strive for 100% accuracy, it just would not work in 4mm. What we need is acceptable compromises, where necessary.

 

 

It is possible to strive for 100% accuracy. Striving means trying, not succeeding.

 

While I have no direct interest in the 4-TC, I do have a viewpoint on this debatable subject of perceived 'accuracy'.  While ultimately there will I suppose be some degree of compromise in any model I do also strongly agree with Ian J's point that it is indeed possible to strive for 100% accuracy.  Why?  Well, to illustrate my point, growing up back in the 70s and if you wanted a Class 37 then this was your only option in RTR...

 

 

Okay, it's a somewhat crude representation of a 37 and actually has Class 47 bogies underneath and is finished in a totally fictitious livery to boot, but if you squint a bit then it looks like a Class 37, right? 

 

In which case why strive for anything better?  After all, it's vaguely right, and RTR will never be perfect, people are buying the product, so again why offer anything/strive for any improvement? 

 

At the end of the day it's all about what degree of compromise each individual is willing to accept; and amongst all of that debate there will be those that disagree and those that are deemed pedantic/over-zealous for insisting on better.  What must be considered is that as annoying as those over-zealous/pedantic individuals may be perceived, I happen to believe that these people simply want as best a representation as possible and I'd hazzard a guess that most are quite passionate about whichever model might be under discussion.  It is in a way that approach alone that ultimately results in better models.  Keep settling for second best and well, we'd all still be buying/running those crude Triang/Hornby 37s...

 

In short, I believe it's called progress.

 

An extreme example perhaps, but you get my drift? 

Edited March 11, 2017 by YesTor

[Darius43]

While I have no direct interest in the 4-TC, I do have a viewpoint on this debatable subject of perceived 'accuracy'. While ultimately there will I suppose be some degree of compromise in any model I do also strongly agree with Ian J's point that it is indeed possible to strive for 100% accuracy. Why? Well, to illustrate my point, growing up back in the 70s and if you wanted a Class 37 then this was your only option in RTR...

 

Hornby Class 37.jpg

 

Okay, it's a somewhat crude representation of a 37 and actually has Class 47 bogies underneath and is finished in a totally fictitious livery to boot, but if you squint a bit then it looks like a Class 37, right?

 

In which case why strive for anything better? After all, it's vaguely right, and RTR will never be perfect, people are buying the product, so again why offer anything/strive for any improvement?

 

At the end of the day it's all about what degree of compromise each individual is willing to accept; and amongst all of that debate there will be those that disagree and those that are deemed pedantic/over-zealous for insisting on better. What must be considered is that as annoying as those over-zealous/pedantic individuals may be perceived, I happen to believe that these people simply want as best a representation as possible and I'd hazzard a guess that most are quite passionate about whichever model might be under discussion. It is in a way that approach alone that ultimately results in better models. Keep settling for second best and well, we'd all still be buying/running those crude Triang/Hornby 37s...

 

In short, I believe it's called progress.

 

An extreme example perhaps, but you get my drift?

Extreme examples never really convince me. I was keen on model railways as a kid in the 1970s but got into model aircraft (the Airfix variety) in later life only to return to model railways in recent years. I was on several model aircraft web forums and there were many vehement arguments played out about whether new kits had shape issues and incorrect details. The arguments were similar to those played out here on RMweb, ranging from the "It's only a model" camp to "this evil manufacturer has ruined the only kit produced of my super-adored subject and so no-one else will make a better kit and my life is ruined".

 

There was even a character called "Gaston" (amongst other monikers) who claimed most kits were wrong and proved his assertions with photos of real aircraft with MS Paint red and green lines added to show why. No amount of pointing out about perspective, viewing angle, image distortion etc. would convince him ("him" is assumed - it is the Internet after all) and he proceeded to cut up and butcher his kits in pursuit of perfection. He is totally entitled to do so of course but one wonders if this is the path to true happiness.

 

As for the 4-TC, some photos of prototypes show the front cab base level and some show it raised by a few inches (but not a whole foot). I dug out an old copy of Colin J. Marsden's "Motive Power Recognition:2 EMUs", which has a couple of photos of 4-TCs in it, both of which "appear to show" the base of the door to be higher than the bottom of the cab. Maybe it varied from prototype to prototype, who knows.

 

As for the Triang-Hornby Class 37, my friend with the railway shed has one from his childhood in the 1960s and we recently dug it out and tried it out. It still goes - albeit with that electrical burning smell. We have hatched a plan to clean it up, convert it to DCC with led lights and sound and detail/repaint the body and chassis. What larks Pip, what larks.

 

Cheers

 

Darius

Edited March 11, 2017 by Darius43

[locoholic]

I've been in correspondence with an acquaintance on the subject of the merits and demerits of RTR models in general, with a particular reference to the 4-TC. I was taken to task for being an apologist for anything less than what could / should be attainable in an RTR model. The points that I made to him are very relevant to this debate, so I'll take the liberty of posting them below :-

 

With age comes pragmatism !

 

RTR will always come with a large dose of compromise - what most critics forget is that, above anything else, time is expensive and an overriding financial consideration.

 

I entirely accept that each new model project could be, as nigh on as makes no difference, perfect - given a project development timescale and budget that is open-ended. However, once you've engaged a production contractor you're tied to a strict programme of deadlines which will get you to the production slot allocated at the beginning of the project. No messing - fail to come up with the gen. at the appropriate time and you're back at the end of the queue !

 

It would be nice to be able to keep submitting each stage of project development to the scrutiny of the modelling public; wait whilst they argue amongst themselves as to the merits or demerits of your cad drawings / test shots / livery proofs, etc., etc.; come to a view as to who is right; (and upset the other 49%); and, eventually (hopefully); arrive at a model that will satisfy the majority, (but by no means the totality), of potential purchasers.

 

That scenario is the recipe for rapid bankruptcy !!

 

Let's face it - the market for, say, a 4TC is hardly mainstream. Try selling what looks like an EMU to the majority of proud Mummies and Daddies at Xmas, and explaining why it hasn't got a motor, but costs way more than a complete Railroad trainset.

 

These niche market RTRs are designed to be produced quickly - by merchandising standards, not railway modellers' 'need it now' expectations. The time that can be allocated to research is extremely limited. The project researcher could no doubt come up with something approaching the true picture, given all the time he needs - but he doesn't have that. There is a lot of 'that'll have to do' involved - but I don't see any alternative in a commercial world.

 

On the other hand, and as I don't make my living from transfers, I can take as long as I like to develop a new sheet of transfers - and if my best efforts fail to produce perfection, I can make corrections if they are brought to my attention.

 

Sorry, ******, but the perfectionists in this hobby need to wake up and smell the coffee - RTR is never going to satisfy them, and they'd be better getting on with scratchbuilding than constantly berating the RTR producers. That, though, does not allow them to make a noise in public about the perceived deficiencies of others, without having to actually produce anything better !

 

Regards,

John Isherwood,

Cambridge Custom Transfers.

I'm sorry, but this is nonsense. The 4TC is being made by Bachmann. Their recent release Metro Cammell had the side windows at the wrong height. It would have cost no more to get them at the right height. All that had to happen was to measure a real one and translate that information onto the model. The recent Bachmann Modified Hall had totally the wrong shape running plate at the front beneath the smokebox door. Again, there are real ones to measure, but someone blundered.

 

The arguments you put forward would enable Hornby to produce an original Merchant Navy by simply taking an original West Country and sticking a Merchant Navy nameplate and number on it, just like Wrenn did 35 years ago - most punters would be hard pressed to tell the difference, and it would still be a nicer looking model than I could build and paint. And to argue that you shouldn't criticise anything unless you are personally capable of producing a better version is verging on snobbery.

Edited March 11, 2017 by locoholic

[Roy Langridge]

While I have no direct interest in the 4-TC, I do have a viewpoint on this debatable subject of perceived 'accuracy'. While ultimately there will I suppose be some degree of compromise in any model I do also strongly agree with Ian J's point that it is indeed possible to strive for 100% accuracy. Why? Well, to illustrate my point, growing up back in the 70s and if you wanted a Class 37 then this was your only option in RTR...

 

Hornby Class 37.jpg

 

Okay, it's a somewhat crude representation of a 37 and actually has Class 47 bogies underneath and is finished in a totally fictitious livery to boot, but if you squint a bit then it looks like a Class 37, right?

 

In which case why strive for anything better? After all, it's vaguely right, and RTR will never be perfect, people are buying the product, so again why offer anything/strive for any improvement?

 

At the end of the day it's all about what degree of compromise each individual is willing to accept; and amongst all of that debate there will be those that disagree and those that are deemed pedantic/over-zealous for insisting on better. What must be considered is that as annoying as those over-zealous/pedantic individuals may be perceived, I happen to believe that these people simply want as best a representation as possible and I'd hazzard a guess that most are quite passionate about whichever model might be under discussion. It is in a way that approach alone that ultimately results in better models. Keep settling for second best and well, we'd all still be buying/running those crude Triang/Hornby 37s...

 

In short, I believe it's called progress.

 

An extreme example perhaps, but you get my drift?

To be honest I think the class 37 example is a bit extreme, but does show how far we have come. The problem is that we are now talking about issues that are sometimes fractions of a millimetre wrong - yes we can strive for progress, but 100% accuracy is beyond what can be affordable produced, nor I consider desirable - such models would be too fragile to use. But perhaps that is explains some of the different standpoints. Perhaps some of those objecting want show-case models rather than something to use?

 

And no, I am not excusing the obvious gross errors that are made - they are inexcusable.

 

Roy

Edited March 11, 2017 by Roy Langridge

[phil gollin]

.

 

I only care that the companies still make a reasonable profit (without bankrupting us in the process !)

 

Now I don't have an interest in buying a 4-TC (look at my "signature" below) but the 4-TC's do seem to have a devoted following.  I hope Kernow have judged the market properly and make money.  What annoys me is that some modellers seem to be absolutely perfect models with no compromises.  Yes, glaring errors show a lack of research and care, but nothing is perfect and anyway perfection costs money.

 

My hope is that AT THE REASONABLE PRICE (under present circumstances) that is envisaged the 4-TCs will sale.  That is a selfish hope as if they are a success there is more of a hope that 4-CORs will be produced (which are much more of a commercial certainty).

 

.

[south]

Looking forward to this model very much. There seem to be some people on here not happy with it. I understand that they want perfection but in real terms that costs more money. I think the major manufacturers are trying to keep the cost down. Remember we want new blood to come into the hobby. I suspect, and having spoke to all the major manufacturers there has to be a point were they stop reaserch and go ahead and produce a model. Some will be fantastic and some will almost be there but i havent seen 1 single model 100% accurate. So to Kernow i say keep going your doing a fantastic job. Well done.

[Taz]

.....The recent Bachmann Modified Hall had totally the wrong shape running plate at the front beneath the smokebox door. Again, there are real ones to measure, but someone blundered....

To be fair to Bachmann this was not a blunder but a calculated design feature to allow them to reuse their existing Hall chassis.

Yes, it is wrong, but they obviously took a financial based decision to include this compromise.

Maybe the figures didn't stack up to do it properly and retool the chassis as well. So it was do it this way or not at all.

There is always the brass masters detailing kit for those it really bothers.

I'm not interested in one with its current deficiencies but I don't see what is to be gained by moaning about its shortcomings on a forum. Maybe one day I can pick one up cheaply second hand to convert. In the meantime I can live with just having original halls on my layout.

[Ian Hargrave]

To be fair to Bachmann this was not a blunder but a calculated design feature to allow them to reuse their existing Hall chassis.

Yes, it is wrong, but they obviously took a financial based decision to include this compromise.

Maybe the figures didn't stack up to do it properly and retool the chassis as well. So it was do it this way or not at all.

There is always the brass masters detailing kit for those it really bothers.

I'm not interested in one with its current deficiencies but I don't see what is to be gained by moaning about its shortcomings on a forum. Maybe one day I can pick one up cheaply second hand to convert. In the meantime I can live with just having original halls on my layout.

 

Which is exactly what is now in process with mine.Let's just say that it was a strictly calculated "blunder"

Edited March 11, 2017 by Ian Hargrave

[YesTor]

Extreme examples never really convince me...

 

Absolutely, although in a sense my example illustrates the point perfectly; as in using the Triang/Hornby 37 as a subject only appears 'extreme' now, in 2017, when standards have improved somewhat.  Roll-back to 1970, or whenever it was the Triang 37 was on the drawing board and I'm sure that the compromises made at the time were viewed as being perfectly acceptable (eg. Class 47 bogies, moulded paint lines etc etc), otherwise the product would never have reached the market.  

 

This level of compromise in a model would be laughed at now, and rightly so.  One obvious reason being that technology and manufacturing procedures have improved tenfold, and another that the market is far more discerning/savvy, and thus we are at a level where we can be debating whether a couple of millimetres here or there in either direction can potentially make or break a model.

 

Pedantic?  Idiosyncratic?  To some perhaps.  And while I'm sure manufacturers might at times (understandably) bang their heads on tables at some of our demands, ultimately it's exactly this zealous mindset that will force manufacturers to improve their products.  Otherwise with no incentive to raise the bar they might well perpetually churn out the same old model for four or five decades (and some still do!) without any effort injected to improve.

Edited March 11, 2017 by YesTor

[Southernman46]

MOD's

 

can you do something about the way this thread is going please ? ......................

[Oldddudders]

Meanwhile back on planet earth - oops, the topic - Kernow's latest pics of the TC ends, in their weekly newsletter, look jolly suitable to me. If your mileage varies I'm sorry. 

[brushman47544]

I'm sorry, but this is nonsense. The 4TC is being made by Bachmann. Their recent release Metro Cammell had the side windows at the wrong height. It would have cost no more to get them at the right height. All that had to happen was to measure a real one and translate that information onto the model.

The critical factor is the skill of the toolmaker in converting the CAD, which one can expect to have the details such as corridor door height and window positions correct, into the tooling used to make the model. Some are clearly better at it than others, and sometimes their errors may be too expensive to correct, perhaps if metal needs to be added.

 

When it happens it is annoying because, as others have said, it as easy to get it right as it is to get it wrong. In this respect though I do find it surprising that Bachmann only seems to prepare livery samples after the tooling has been signed off, rather than paint a first shot to see if that highlights any errors not otherwise readily Apparent.

 

But at the end of the day, the mOdell is still better than anything I could make from a kit, and I don't have to buy it.

Edited March 11, 2017 by brushman47544

[Ian Hargrave]

Meanwhile back on planet earth - oops, the topic - Kernow's latest pics of the TC ends, in their weekly newsletter, look jolly suitable to me. If your mileage varies I'm sorry.

 

Yes indeed......West Cornwall,U K to be precise,still in the remit of one C.Trerise who believe it or not retains its final signing off into production .Thank God.

[Geep7]

Just noticed Kernow have posted painted samples of the TC in Blue/Grey and the all Blue charter livery on their Facebook page.

[Roy Langridge]

I have just noticed there is no brake rodding on the TFKs. I assume that is not right?

 

The all-over blue one has yellow footsteps on the front now, but the blue/grey one still has black steps.

 

Roy

Edited March 17, 2017 by Roy Langridge

[RJennings]

I'm fearing that my initial order for 2 may well be increasing with the pics of the latest samples ...

 

Still, looking very nice Kernow!

[Geep7]

I have just noticed there is no brake rodding on the TFKs. I assume that is not right?

 

Roy

For those of us who have scratchbuilt or are scratch-building one of these units, trying to find definitive photos of the underframe equipment is nigh on impossible.

 

That said, I would imagine, that as they are on the other 3 and not on the TFK, then that it's just missing off the samples, or its prototypically correct.

 

Should also add, whilst I am building my own TC set in Blue (elsewhere on this forum), I am working on SWMBO so I can order a Blue & Grey one.

Edited March 17, 2017 by Geep7

[royaloak]

Interesting 4-TC related combo dated from 1978

 

33 - 4-TC - loco buffet car - 4-TC - 33

 

http://www.derbysulzers.com/33105exminster78.jpg

The buffet is probably either S1873 or S1874 as these were both fitted with EMU type high level pipes and jumpers.

 

Both preserved at the Bodmin and Wenford rly.

[keefer]

i thought  it might have been one of the RBs S1758/9, but these had gone by this time

 

some info here: http://www.bloodandcustard.com/bournemouth1966.html#PushPull

 

apologies if it has been linked to before, but here is the REP/TC page the above article is part of: http://www.bloodandcustard.com/bournemouth1966.html

Edited March 17, 2017 by keefer

[wombatofludham]

Does anyone know if 4TC sets were ever used on railtours, footexes or excursions into the Midlands?  I know that 33s and even 73s on diesel worked into Birmingham on cross country services deputising for failures but I can't recall if any 4TCs ever worked into the area. 

I quite fancy a Bagpipe 33 and TC combo but am reluctant to get too many Rule 1 penalty points on my modeller's licence.

[Budgie]

I quite fancy a Bagpipe 33 and TC combo but am reluctant to get too many Rule 1 penalty points on my modeller's licence.

I remember in the dim and distant past, when I was much younger than I am today, going on a Rail Ale Ramble through the Severn Tunnel on a train formed of a couple of 4TCs and a 33. I can't remember where it went, but I do know it turned right fairly soon after exiting the tunnel on the Welsh side, so it may well have gone to the west Midlands.

 

You won't get any penalty points from me; rather, I would give you bonus points.

[SRman]

Does anyone know if 4TC sets were ever used on railtours, footexes or excursions into the Midlands?  I know that 33s and even 73s on diesel worked into Birmingham on cross country services deputising for failures but I can't recall if any 4TCs ever worked into the area. 

 

I quite fancy a Bagpipe 33 and TC combo but am reluctant to get too many Rule 1 penalty points on my modeller's licence.

 

1. Yes, they were used on railtours;

2. Even if they weren't, see point #1.