Kernow MRC announce 4-TC

[griffgriff]

I am not so inclined to agree. The red line has not allowed for the angle that the photo has been taken at / perspective. Take a look at the step on the left of the corridor connection, it slops significantly downward in the photo (despite being flat on the model), the red line should similarly slope downwards when it reaches the side of the corridor connection and then back at its original angle across the face of the connector. That would make it look more correct.

 

What we really need is a front-on photo.

 

Roy

Having zoomed into one of the 3/4 views on the first page I'm inclined to agree with you and I concede my post. You are correct but them I noticed how thick the steps were but I'm sure they will look better painted.

 

Griff

[luke_stevens]

IanJ's image of the cab shows the headcode box to be correct but perhaps its the height of the gangway that is too tall. Is the floor and lower part of the gangway not raised up a bit from where it is at the moment. The internal floor of the gangway seems level with the bottom of the coach body.

 

Sorry to be so vague in what I think is wrong but its the large area of the of the door that makes it seems too tall to me. A reduced height gangway would sort it!

 

I think the problem of the distance between the window pillar and the gangway is because the back of the gangway is too narrow. I saw the 4TC on a daily basis and was always obvious that the gangway frame was part of the body and the gangway itself was narrower and moved within the frame. On the Kernow mounding there is almost no distance between these parts where as in prototype it was a noticeable gap. 

 

Ceptic's photo is of a 4CIG but it shows the sort of gap that is missing.

 

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/uploads/monthly_02_2012/post-7009-0-88450600-1328575304.jpg

 

The good thing it that this should be easy for Bachmann / Kernow to adjusting. One bit of mould requiring a minor change note major body tooling adjustments.

 

Luke

Edited July 10, 2016 by luke_stevens

[Colin parks]

I think the problem of the distance between the window pillar and the gangway is because the back of the gangway is too narrow. I saw the 4TC on a daily basis and was always obvious that the gangway frame was part of the body and the gangway itself was narrower and moved within the frame. On the Kernow mounding there is almost no distance between these parts where as in prototype it was a noticeable gap. 

 

Ceptic's photo is of a 4CIG but it shows the sort of gap that is missing.

 

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/uploads/monthly_02_2012/post-7009-0-88450600-1328575304.jpg

 

The good thing it that this should be easy for Bachmann / Kernow to adjusting. One bit of mould requiring a minor change note major body tooling adjustments.

 

Luke

 Hi Luke,

 

Re. possible adjustments:

 

I had an email reply from Kernow in which they noted my concerns and said that the guard iron angle might be adjusted. The beading either side of the doors would not be added as this was a later addition (fair enough), but with the gangway to window measurement, they are: "absolutely certain that we have this correct"

 

.  I have emailed them two head-on shots of a cab and directed them to several of their own publicity photos for further reference.

 

(Edited the quote from "spot-on" to "absolutely certain that we have this correct".  Apologies for the inaccuracy, but the meaning does not change.)

 

Colin

Edited July 10, 2016 by Colin parks

[Ian J.]

...but the gangway to window measurement was, in their words, "spot on".  I have emailed them two head-on shots of a cab and directed them to several of their own publicity photos for further reference...

 

Oh dear. If they think that's spot on that really does not fill me with confidence that things like the wrap-around handrail would ever get sorted. I'm glad I haven't been able to order one of these now.

[Colin parks]

Oh dear. If they think that's spot on that really does not fill me with confidence that things like the wrap-around handrail would ever get sorted. I'm glad I haven't been able to order one of these now.

HI Ian,

 

I am not trying to turn this into a 'bashing thread' and think that this model will be the very best 4mm scale 4TC that you will ever be able to purchase, so please do not be put off. These issues are minor observations which anyone who really cares can sort out.  

 

All the best,

 

Colin

[Ian J.]

HI Ian,

 

I am not trying to turn this into a 'bashing thread' and think that this model will be the very best 4mm scale 4TC that you will ever be able to purchase, so please do not be put off. These issues are minor observations which anyone who really cares can sort out.  

 

All the best,

 

Colin

 

Well, I have enough difficulties affording anything at the moment, so if I'd been struggling to put the money together I'd have been very disappointed at what is a clearly obvious error on the cab face (on a par with the Hornby 4VEP). Considering the price of these, and that they're from Kernow who have a reputation for trying to get things right, if this error isn't fixed it would be doubly disappointing, even if it is the only 4mm RTR 4TC available. This is supposed to be something of a 'pet' project for Kernow, and therefore I'm surprised how wrong that balance of features on the cab is. Also, errors like this just aren't necessary in today's era of relatively easily available information and every time they happen I become increasingly frustrated with both the manufacturers for not picking up on them and the buyers for accepting them far too easily. However, I think this is my record stuck in the groove.

 

I'm of a mind to set this thread to ignore and disregard this model as not sufficient now.

[PaulRhB]

The wrap around handrail is so tight to the body moulding it with an undercut would be impossible and it's been widely stated the cost implications of separate parts. Personally I reckon a light weathering wash will add a shadow that will look better than all but the finest formed flat etch handrail. It's possible to replace it but the real gap must only scale at 0.1 - 0.2mm looking at the close up photos.

Sort out the gap between corridor and window would be my preference but it's a lot better than the VEP face as it stands as it didn't shout to me.

[amwells]

I must admit that I'm not a big fan of the moulded handrails, but I can live with them.

 

The skinny corridor connection is much more noticeable and compromises the look. I hope it can be fixed.

[Martin_R]

B***er indeed - I've just finished rebuilding a 'Railstyle' 4-TC in NSE livery. It's taken about 6 months sourcing all the bits needed and information on the underframe and inner end details using some pics of the ex LU unit on the Swanage Railway.

 

I suspect the cost of the basic unit plus the cost of all the bits and bobs plus the time scratch building all the odds and ends needed now well exceeds the cost of the ready finished 4-TC from Kernow. I was going to build a second 4-TC but decided to save money and order a Kernow Blue/Grey one...........

'Finally' finished after a slight issue with the NEM pockets on the bogies.....

[Ceptic]

I think the problem of the distance between the window pillar and the gangway is because the back of the gangway is too narrow. I saw the 4TC on a daily basis and was always obvious that the gangway frame was part of the body and the gangway itself was narrower and moved within the frame. On the Kernow mounding there is almost no distance between these parts where as in prototype it was a noticeable gap. 

 

Ceptic's photo is of a 4CIG but it shows the sort of gap that is missing.

 

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/uploads/monthly_02_2012/post-7009-0-88450600-1328575304.jpg

 

The good thing it that this should be easy for Bachmann / Kernow to adjusting. One bit of mould requiring a minor change note major body tooling adjustments.

 

Luke

 

Hi Luke.

 

The photo in your link is of the cab end of of a 4-BEP. not a a 4-CIG, although, even here, the cab windows are significantly closer to the gangway.

 

Colin's just reminded me of this 3-CIG image, which is the one you were probably thinking of.

The dimensions were taken at Bournemouth Maintenance Depot in conjunction with an O Gauge pattern. sometime in the 80's,

 

Regards,

Frank. 

[robertcwp]

Something is clearly not right with the model. The bottom of the gangway looks wrong and I agree with earlier posts that either the gangway is too narrow or the cab windows are in the wrong place.

 

4TC_424_Ludgate_Thamesider_31-3-68 by Robert Carroll, on Flickr

[steve1023]

Seriously - There really isn't anything wrong with this model - not really - not in the grand scheme of things anyway. As Luke has pointed out in his post above (quite correctly) - the frame around the gangway is not present so this would cause the gap between window and gangway.

 

It really is over dramatizing things to say it's on a par with the VEP - it's not. On the moulded handrails - people are already complaining about price - Ian J - would you be prepared to pay up to £50 more just to have separately fitted handrails, bearing in mind you've already said in this thread about having spent too much already on things like APT. I'm conscious of one of the separate handrails on one of my VEPs broke within days of me receiving it. You know what - I'll bet the handrails will be just fine.

 

On the basis of 1 comment the thread has turned from one of positivity to this. The model can't really be that bad if it's taken around 3 weeks since announcement for somebody to spot these things.

 

Perspective

 

Kind Regards

Steve

 

Edit - In response to comments made above, I believe I'm correct when I say the gangways on these unit's do not extend and retract - compress when coupled yes, but not extend and retract - the buffers can do that.

Edited July 11, 2016 by steve1023

[Budgie]

My model is an impression of a railway. It is not, and cannot be, totally accurate, due to the many compromises involved in the modelling process. Therefore I am not too bothered about the "problems" that some people have been mentioning in this thread, and I shall not be cancelling my order.

[Gwiwer]

Hi Luke.

 

The photo in your link is of the cab end of of a 4-BEP. not a a 4-CIG, although, even here, the cab windows are significantly closer to the gangway.

 

Colin's just reminded me of this 3-CIG image, which is the one you were probably thinking of.

The dimensions were taken at Bournemouth Maintenance Depot in conjunction with an O Gauge pattern. sometime in the 80's,

 

Regards,

Frank. 

 

 

The Cig front end is virtually identical to the TC front end.  The 4Bep differs significantly.  The head-one view clearly shows up a few issues we have pretty much agreed on the model.  The model has a gangway which is too far from the cab windows and possibly appears wrong in other respects because one dimension might be adrift.  The taper of the cab windows on the model, bottom to top on the outer sides, appears to be excessive; the windows are almost but not quite rectangular.  The cab windows may be set too far in from the body sides or this may be an effect of the incorrect taper possibly combined with the gap between the inner window frames and gangway.  

 

Edit - as Budgie was typing as I posted - to confirm that I shall not be cancelling my order, far from it I offer my wholehearted support to KMRC in this venture, and remain hopeful of being able to take two units

Edited July 11, 2016 by Gwiwer

[Ian Hargrave]

My model is an impression of a railway. It is not, and cannot be, totally accurate, due to the many compromises involved in the modelling process. Therefore I am not too bothered about the "problems" that some people have been mentioning in this thread, and I shall not be cancelling my order.

Three rousing cheers! Well said.

[Ian Morgan]

I assume that the people who are worried about an odd inch discrepency with window positions, etc, will also worry about the 7 inch discrepency with the track gauge, and will demand Kernow produce it with P4 wheel standards

 

If they do adjust the angle of the guard irons, should they angle them to the correct track gauge, or to the OO narrow gauge?

[number6]

Impressionist modelling - be there, done that.

We are entering the third phase of every new model announcement!  

First phase: joy

Second phase: doubt

Third phase: denial

Fourth phase: acceptance and/or get the modelling tools out

[griffgriff]

Seriously - There really isn't anything wrong with this model - not really - not in the grand scheme of things anyway. As Luke has pointed out in his post above (quite correctly) - the frame around the gangway is not present so this would cause the gap between window and gangway.It really is over dramatizing things to say it's on a par with the VEP - it's not. On the moulded handrails - people are already complaining about price - Ian J - would you be prepared to pay up to £50 more just to have separately fitted handrails, bearing in mind you've already said in this thread about having spent too much already on things like APT. I'm conscious of one of the separate handrails on one of my VEPs broke within days of me receiving it. You know what - I'll bet the handrails will be just fine.On the basis of 1 comment the thread has turned from one of positivity to this.

 

The model can't really be that bad if it's taken around 3 weeks since announcement for somebody to spot these things.

 

PerspectiveKind RegardsSteveEdit - In response to comments made above, I believe I'm correct when I say the gangways on these unit's do not extend and retract - compress when coupled yes, but not extend and retract - the buffers can do that.

Just to be clear. These are the comments I made just after I saw one in the flesh.

 

 

So any other thoughts on the preproduction sample? Here's mine after seeing it today.

I loved the delicacy of the lifting lugs.

It could do with the curved handrails on the cab end - they are moulded at present?

Super water fillers etc. on the inner ends though.

Enormous couplings! For propelling???

Nice face... unlike Hornbys VEP.

Missing the strip along the bottom edge of the body side? I thought they all had this but couldn't see it on the model.

Gorgeous bogies!

Overall very nice but not yet quite perfect.

Griff

Still unsure about the Windows but these are the things I noticed immediately.

 

Griff

[Ceptic]

Impressionist modelling - be there, done that.

We are entering the third phase of every new model announcement!  

First phase: joy

Second phase: doubt

Third phase: denial

Fourth phase: acceptance and/or get the modelling tools out

 

Still my most powerful emu.

[steve1023]

Just to be clear. These are the comments I made just after I saw one in the flesh.

 

Still unsure about the Windows but these are the things I noticed immediately.

Griff

Griff - my comments are not aimed directly at you, more at the way the thread just seemed to turn following Colin's comments regarding some inaccuracies. Some of the posts have been way OTT for what is a pretty good looking model and I look forward to receiving my pair.

 

Steve

[robertcwp]

It may not be perfect but it is the best 4TC we are likely to see. I ordered a blue/grey one today.  The ends look much better than the Hornby 4 Vep, which also has various other problems.

Edited July 12, 2016 by robertcwp

[Ian Hargrave]

It may not be perfect but it is the best 4TC we are likely to see. I ordered a blue/grey one today.  The ends look nowhere near as bad as the Hornby 4 Vep, which also has various other problems.

"as bad" .? Is that what is meant as a backhanded compliment ? Really does fill one full of optimism. .......I suppose.Thus on a scale of ...."bad,worse,worst" one has to reflect on what Chris Trerise might view such a summation of Kernow's ongoing project.

 

A critical analysis and appraisal are healthy.That is appreciated by all of us.....to a point......and maybe that point has been reached.

[amwells]

I fear we are experiencing over reaction both ways here.

 

Is any RTR model perfect? No. If it was, I would expect it to cost a lot more than our RTR range does even today after the much discussed price rises.

 

However, when something doesn't look correct, and it should be relatively easy for the manufacturer to correct / less costly than later re tools like the Heljan 33, Bachmann 40, 47 etc (which is hopefully the situation with the corridor connection), then I think it is reasonable to call it out, and notify the producer, as has been done above. How many times have we heard the phrase 'why didn't people call the issues out when they could be fixed'?

 

I've only seen one poster actually say that they won't purchase as a result of this being spotted.

 

Even if this doesn't get fixed, it will still look a lot more accurate than my Lima coaches with MJT ends grafted on that my Dad and I made c20 years ago. In fact, when I buy the Kernow version (not yet ordered), I will be able to run my Lima 33116/109 and 4TC alongside my later Heljan/Kernow version - it will be an interesting insight into how much standards have changed in my lifetime!

[lyneux]

Here is a hi-res shot of a 4TC taken at the recent Bluebell Gala. Tomstaf and myself measured up a number of key cab measurements too (I still need to process the rest of my photos).

 

Judge for yourself whether the gap between cab window and gangway surround is correct!

 

Guy

 

[robertcwp]

"as bad" .? Is that what is meant as a backhanded compliment ? Really does fill one full of optimism. .......I suppose.Thus on a scale of ...."bad,worse,worst" one has to reflect on what Chris Trerise might view such a summation of Kernow's ongoing project.

 

A critical analysis and appraisal are healthy.That is appreciated by all of us.....to a point......and maybe that point has been reached.

I was trying to be positive. I have rephrased my previous post to say that the ends look much better than the Hornby 4 Vep. They still don't look quite right to me though.

Edited July 12, 2016 by robertcwp