KR Models announce the Fell in OO and N.

[Oldddudders]

3 hours ago, PMP said:

Indeed there is. Not a method I’d choose at the moment once they start throwing stones across the Ukrainian border at each other.

Being held up by that possibility would make the Ever Given's wayward passage though Suez seem like a 5-minute wonder! 

[woodenhead]

3 hours ago, Oldddudders said:

Being held up by that possibility would make the Ever Given's wayward passage though Suez seem like a 5-minute wonder! 

Putin "I have your trains"

UK Media posts another picture of a party

Boris "Let them have the Ukraine"

[GWR-fan]

On 30/07/2021 at 00:58, Darius43 said:

Now we need photos of each side of the model taken at the same time - with the same coach or wagon connected to one end for reference.

 

Cheers

 

Darius

 

If you were to look at a posting on Page 21,  just one page prior your posting then what you have asked for is given with two large images showing the loco from both sides.  The same wagons and locomotive are positioned at each end so it is highly unlikely the loco was switched ends between the images.  The member suggests that the loco was being hauled to an exhibition circa-1954.   What the EP,  cads and livery examples supplied by the manufacturer show is that the model was perhaps "inspired" by the prototype.   Being "uneducated" in the details of the prototype I was prepared to accept the model as it has been produced and assumed that the manufacturer had exhausted all avenues of research prior developing the artwork and tooling,  but if I had of gone through and read this thread before placing a pre-order then I would not have laid out any money.  It would seem that the model as presented represents the changes carried out through its lifetime portrayed on the one body moulding.  It is not a mystery to me now as to why there have been so few images released of the model.

 

Edit:  The manufacturer on page 8 of this thread at the bottom has supplied an image to support his view as to the different characteristics of each side of the loco with large grilles each end side of the nose on one side only but ignores the lack of the centre coupling rods on his supplied image and also the absence of a date to indicate the actual state of modification to justify his claim.  The two images shown on page 21 of this thread with the same wagons coupled at each end of the loco would indicate that by circa-1954 the body sides may well have been similar (possibly symmetrical) to each other.  I keep reading that the Fell is a minefield and most likely the reason no RTR manufacturer has gone within a barge pole of it,  but that does not excuse a manufacturer to release what appears to be a generic shape incorporating a seeming lifetime of modifications on the one model.   

Edited February 18, 2022 by GWR-fan
Additional information as depicted in the Edit

[Les1952]

1 hour ago, GWR-fan said:

 

If you were to look at a posting on Page 21,  just one page prior your posting then what you have asked for is given with two large images showing the loco from both sides.  The same wagons and locomotive are positioned at each end so it is highly unlikely the loco was switched ends between the images.  The member suggests that the loco was being hauled to an exhibition circa-1954.   What the EP,  cads and livery examples supplied by the manufacturer show is that the model was perhaps "inspired" by the prototype.   Being "uneducated" in the details of the prototype I was prepared to accept the model as it has been produced and assumed that the manufacturer had exhausted all avenues of research prior developing the artwork and tooling,  but if I had of gone through and read this thread before placing a pre-order then I would not have laid out any money.  It would seem that the model as presented represents the changes carried out through its lifetime portrayed on the one body moulding.  It is not a mystery to me now as to why there have been so few images released of the model.

 

Edit:  The manufacturer on page 8 of this thread at the bottom has supplied an image to support his view as to the different characteristics of each side of the loco with large grilles each end side of the nose on one side only but ignores the lack of the centre coupling rods on his supplied image and also the absence of a date to indicate the actual state of modification to justify his claim.  The two images shown on page 21 of this thread with the same wagons coupled at each end of the loco would indicate that by circa-1954 the body sides may well have been similar (possibly symmetrical) to each other.  I keep reading that the Fell is a minefield and most likely the reason no RTR manufacturer has gone within a barge pole of it,  but that does not excuse a manufacturer to release what appears to be a generic shape incorporating a seeming lifetime of modifications on the one model.   

 

Here we go again.

 

To get all the variations throughout the life of the loco would require several changes of tooling, or at the very least a number of slides.  That would up the tooling costs by a significant percentage.  

 

I suspect that a significant number would not be willing to pay the extra, making the project unviable.

 

To get an exact replica I would need to buy a brass kit, with add-on bits not much less than the loco itself.  Then add about £300 or so and a very long wait to get someone to build it for me- I have kits waiting to arrive from a professional builder that have been there well over ten years.......  I am mildly dyspraxic and have repetitive strain injury and arthritis.  Building it myself isn't an option.  I would still end up with a loco that is 12.5% out in one major dimension.

 

There is then the issue that NOT ONE of my brass locos runs as well as my r-t-r fleet.  Even with the biggest amounts of weight that can be shoehorned in they don't make reliable enough wheel to rail contact for DCC and certainly not for sound.

 

I am buying a layout loco- it will be used fairly extensively.  Given the choice between THIS Fell and NO Fell (or a brass kit) I know which I prefer.  Like a lot of those who have voted with our wallets I do find the nit-picking on RMWeb to be getting close to objectionable.

 

Les

 

Edited February 18, 2022 by Les1952
typos as usual

[GWR-fan]

Les,

       rather than a model for all seasons the manufacturer could have released a model that covered a narrower timeframe and have been reasonably accurate.  The manufacturer though chose to offer two liveries with the one body shell,  whether accurate or not.  I would have been more than happy with a model depicting the circa-1954 images showing the loco being dragged enroute to an exhibition (page 21).  It would have narrowed my timeframe but the model could have been more accurate.

 

To condone the release of a "generic" model because it was less expensive than a more accurate model takes us back to the early days when the likes of Lima and Hornby simply applied liveries to depict different models regardless of accuracy or not.  Of cause if say Accurascale, Hornby or Bachmann had released the model in the guise that the current manufacturer has would the same fanboys have been as congratulatory.  Look to the flak that Hornby received about twelve months ago when a logo on the side of a class 60 from memory was about 1 - 2 mm too high into the cantrail.  I believe that Hornby released a supply of replacement bodies to correct the issue.   Full kudos to the manufacturer for attempting to model the prototype,  but before commencing the design work did he stop to think why no other RTR manufacturer had touched the loco?

[Darius43]

2 hours ago, GWR-fan said:

 

If you were to look at a posting on Page 21,  just one page prior your posting then what you have asked for is given with two large images showing the loco from both sides.  The same wagons and locomotive are positioned at each end so it is highly unlikely the loco was switched ends between the images.  The member suggests that the loco was being hauled to an exhibition circa-1954.   What the EP,  cads and livery examples supplied by the manufacturer show is that the model was perhaps "inspired" by the prototype.   Being "uneducated" in the details of the prototype I was prepared to accept the model as it has been produced and assumed that the manufacturer had exhausted all avenues of research prior developing the artwork and tooling,  but if I had of gone through and read this thread before placing a pre-order then I would not have laid out any money.  It would seem that the model as presented represents the changes carried out through its lifetime portrayed on the one body moulding.  It is not a mystery to me now as to why there have been so few images released of the model.

 

Edit:  The manufacturer on page 8 of this thread at the bottom has supplied an image to support his view as to the different characteristics of each side of the loco with large grilles each end side of the nose on one side only but ignores the lack of the centre coupling rods on his supplied image and also the absence of a date to indicate the actual state of modification to justify his claim.  The two images shown on page 21 of this thread with the same wagons coupled at each end of the loco would indicate that by circa-1954 the body sides may well have been similar (possibly symmetrical) to each other.  I keep reading that the Fell is a minefield and most likely the reason no RTR manufacturer has gone within a barge pole of it,  but that does not excuse a manufacturer to release what appears to be a generic shape incorporating a seeming lifetime of modifications on the one model.   

So stop moaning and don’t buy it.

 

[GWR-fan]

15 minutes ago, Darius43 said:

So stop moaning and don’t buy it.

 

 

You asked for an image of both sides.

 

Edit:   I have bought it

Edited February 19, 2022 by GWR-fan

[chris p bacon]

10 hours ago, Les1952 said:

There is then the issue that NOT ONE of my brass locos runs as well as my r-t-r fleet.

 

Without getting into the issues of the 'FrankenFell'  if you have issues with kit built brass locos I'd change builders. I've built varied locos in brass, plastic & white metal and all run as good if not better than any RTR I've purchased (excepting the Stirling Single), I understand that no all want or can build kits but if you've paid for a professional to build them then they should work.

 

[The Stationmaster]

10 hours ago, Les1952 said:

 

Here we go again.

 

To get all the variations throughout the life of the loco would require several changes of tooling, or at the very least a number of slides.  That would up the tooling costs by a significant percentage.  

 

I suspect that a significant number would not be willing to pay the extra, making the project unviable.

 

To get an exact replica I would need to buy a brass kit, with add-on bits not much less than the loco itself.  Then add about £300 or so and a very long wait to get someone to build it for me- I have kits waiting to arrive from a professional builder that have been there well over ten years.......  I am mildly dyspraxic and have repetitive strain injury and arthritis.  Building it myself isn't an option.  I would still end up with a loco that is 12.5% out in one major dimension.

 

There is then the issue that NOT ONE of my brass locos runs as well as my r-t-r fleet.  Even with the biggest amounts of weight that can be shoehorned in they don't make reliable enough wheel to rail contact for DCC and certainly not for sound.

 

I am buying a layout loco- it will be used fairly extensively.  Given the choice between THIS Fell and NO Fell (or a brass kit) I know which I prefer.  Like a lot of those who have voted with our wallets I do find the nit-picking on RMWeb to be getting close to objectionable.

 

Les

 

So according to you other people are not allowed to express their point of view or opinions but are accused of 'nit picking' when a model turns out to be a pastiche of the real thing.  You ought to have a look at threads where there are comments from other 'manufacturers' and commissioners - the simple fact is that on any of them inadequate or poor research gets mentioned.   So what is so special about KR which should make them immune from constructive criticism or drawing attention to errors in the hope that a model can be put right before it is released?  Surely if you are going to bother to actually research something before you spend a six figure sum on tooling and manufacture you should at least try to do it do it properly and, ideally, consult people who have already done a lot of research into the subject if you know who they are?  If you are going to cut corners then simply admit it and say that is what you are doing. i.e. in the case of the Fell say that what is being offered is a pastiche and not an accurate model  (oh, and price accordingly).

 

Purchase is of course an entirely discretionary thing and completely up to the individual and some are happy with something basic, and some are happy to accept inaccuracies.  But equally many are not prepared to go down that road and look for continuing improvement in the visual accuracy  and other aspects, of commercially offered models.  But all points of view have a voice or should have - and simply slagging-off those who disagree with your point of view is hardly conducive to proper debate.  And saying so could well be construed as a personal attack on the member(s) concerned - which I believe is against the rules on RMweb

 

PS Don't bother to report this post because I'll do it myself. 

[Ian J.]

(FYI, I'm dropping in without having read the whole thread)

 

Hmm. I had thought about getting one of these for my 'Prototypes' collection, not so sure now. I'd prefer designers stick to designing something that at least is accurate at one point in time, rather than amalgamating elements such that the subsequent model is not right for any point in time. We had that problem with the original Dapol Terrier from the 1980s, where it wasn't right for any period, and a long wait before anyone (Rails/Dapol and Hornby) tried again. With a one-off prototype, I can't see any other attempt being made by anyone else. I will wait and see how the final release model turns out.

[NoDominion]

Oh come on gents, not this tired old argument again!

At the end of the day if you like it buy it, If you don’t there are other options like kit builds. 
 

As I’ve said before the way the Fell is being modelled is likely due to viability and economical reasons. Having a box full of changeable parts would probably push the price up and put people off buying it for that reason alone. 
Additionally has anyone considered that the research materials might also contain minor errors? Nothing is perfect after all.
most importantly, not everyone was going to be satisfied with this model and everyone is entitled to their opinion. 

 

[billy_anorak59]

I certainly don’t agree that these are ‘minor errors’ or ‘nit-picking’ IF the model is different on one side to the other – I’m surprised (very surprised) that given the notoriously ‘rivet-counting’ world of the model railway fraternity to even consider the potential errors to be acceptable! (Would we accept a model of say, a Crosti 9F to have a funnel on the side, but the pre-heater blanked off as per rebuild for example? It would be that sort of howler).

 

But do we actually KNOW that it will be?

Has anyone seen an actual production version? (KR seem to be poor in the dissemination of information for this model particularly, and could certainly learn much from Accurascale in the PR stakes, in this respect)

Is what we have seen so far merely been pre-production EPs that attempt to show all variations possible? But there is nothing on their website…

 

However, as stated previously in this thread, it would have the best outcome to model a known ‘correct’ version of the loco rather than guessing (they will have missed the truth if they have produced a loco with mis-matched sides). This locomotive was always symmetrical – why the designers would specify 2 nose vents on one side and 4 the other beggars belief, as there is an engine on both sides behind those vents which would need the same cooling rates surely?

 

Although it’s first 3 years (1951-1953) are a bit ‘fuzzy’ regarding it’s appearance, the final 6 years (if you take into account that it was complete until broken up in 1960) of the locomotive were without change (apart from paint). It’s this last version that would be the best bet, as we KNOW that was what it looked like (re: Photo on page 21 of this thread: https://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/149392-kr-models-announce-the-fell-in-oo-and-n/&do=findComment&comment=4524215)

 

Just for completeness and information to those that may not be aware, I’ve attempted to show the 5 known variations of the locomotive with rough dates below – any one of these variations would be good – as long as it is the same on BOTH sides:

 

I guess we will only know when KR actually show us a production version or communicate what they have created, and I have a nagging fear that they were too far down the road before confirming evidence came to light. Given its relative obscurity, perhaps it was thought that general punters wouldn’t know better?

 

Hope not – we just need KR to speak, and all this waffle will be moot.

Edited April 8, 2022 by billy_anorak59
Photos reinstated

[NoDominion]

billy_anorak59 you make some very good points. I’ve been wondering if anyone took photos of the EP samples at the Great Electric Train Show. I was there myself but never thought to take any. If I had, some photos from different angles would have given us a better idea of how each of the models looks from each side. KR only took one photo of each EP sample from the same angle which doesn’t tell us much. Some more photos and video would have been nice, if only to show development progress if nothing else.

[adb968008]

On 23/11/2019 at 18:51, Bernard Lamb said:

 

The person who can find the most mistakes wins a free model.

After the fiasco of the flask comes the farce of the fell.

"Put out of service in 1952". Then why does the photo show it with a late crest?

Bernard 

I can’t help but think the prophets walk amongst us….

 

The silence is deafening on the subject of images of this model, which on balance you would think was an easy thing to confirm or deny.

 

I do recall someone else going radio silent when the bum was getting a bit squeaky, that didn't end well either.

 

On balance, if it turns up as an itsy-bitsy iffy jiffy lemon squeezy  50/50 Fell, I suppose I could just return it to KR and say no thank you, as its not an accurate model of the prototype, request a refund as my consumer rights allow… I have faith, the GT3 was good.

 

For now i’m happy to sit wait and see what turns up, when it turns up, but I may consider waiting longer before pre-ordering anything else in the future.

Edited February 23, 2022 by adb968008

[amwells]

On 23/02/2022 at 13:21, adb968008 said:

The silence is deafening on the subject of images of this model, which on balance you would think was an easy thing to confirm or deny.

 

I do recall someone else going radio silent when the bum was getting a bit squeaky, that didn't end well either.

 

On balance, if it turns up as an itsy-bitsy iffy jiffy lemon squeezy  50/50 Fell, I suppose I could just return it to KR and say no thank you, as its not an accurate model of the prototype, request a refund as my consumer rights allow… I have faith, the GT3 was good.

 

For now i’m happy to sit wait and see what turns up, when it turns up, but I may consider waiting longer before pre-ordering anything else in the future.

I spoke to Michael at Model Rail Scotland - first time I’ve spoken to anyone at KR Models, and only my third ‘interaction’ that I can recall, having bought a second run GT3 from Rails of Sheffield and pre-ordered the Fell. 
 

it was a really good chat and you can see his enthusiasm for their range. 
 

There were a couple of Fells on display - one green bodyshell and a complete black version. I asked what condition the Fell would be in and refreshingly he started with, ‘well you might not like the answer!’ - it is different on both sides so is the 50/50 version. He acknowledged that since they tooled up and started production, the photos in this thread had emerged to definitely prove the loco’s chronology.

 

now I like authentic models (and Michael shared my amazement that the BR blue GT3 had sold!), but I will still see this one through, despite knowing that it is only right on the side I will be looking at 

 

we also touched on the ‘someone else’ noted above - I wouldn’t take the radio silence on here as radio silence generally, especially demonstrated by openness at a show. My chat was a refreshing one that actually firmed up my order even with the inaccuracies. 

[45568]

41 minutes ago, amwells said:

 

There were a couple of Fells on display - one green bodyshell and a complete black version. I asked what condition the Fell would be in and refreshingly he started with, ‘well you might not like the answer!’ - it is different on both sides so is the 50/50 version. He acknowledged that since they tooled up and started production, the photos in this thread had emerged to definitely prove the loco’s chronology.

If that is the case then to enable the 'early' side to be bought up to 'late' spec. all that is needed is a pair of etched /3D printed grilles for each end and one for the centre window?

Someone, anyone?

Cheers from Oz,

Peter C.

[ColinK]

I saw the Fell at Glasgow, looks like a Fell to me and I have one on order.  Had a long and enjoyable chat to Michael.

 

I’ve got a blue GT3 which looks stunning. Wonder what a blue Fell would look like? Don’t think it would suit large logo livery with those big bonnets. Plenty of Cumbrian Fells to name it after, maybe Cross Fell.

[jsp3970]

5 hours ago, ColinK said:

I saw the Fell at Glasgow, looks like a Fell to me and I have one on order.  Had a long and enjoyable chat to Michael.

 

I’ve got a blue GT3 which looks stunning. Wonder what a blue Fell would look like? Don’t think it would suit large logo livery with those big bonnets. Plenty of Cumbrian Fells to name it after, maybe Cross Fell.

I posted a drawing of a Fell in blue two pages back, if you want to get an idea of what it would look like.

[Mike Harvey]

I quite like the idea of different sides on the Fell....two versions for the price of one. I used to run a set of N SNCF Corail coaches which I had made as day coaches on one side and couchettes coaches on the other. I was using my own etched sides to get two trains for the price of one, because the couchettes had half drop windows and the day coaches had windows with top vents. Saved a track in the fiddle yard too. No help to anyone with a different mindset.

Edited February 26, 2022 by Mike Harvey

[Michael Hodgson]

2 hours ago, Mike Harvey said:

I quite like the idea of different sides on the Fell....two versions for the price of one.

 

Absolutely!

One with the early BR crest, the other late. 

One side 4-4-4-4 the other 4-8-4.

[Les1952]

11 hours ago, amwells said:

I spoke to Michael at Model Rail Scotland
 

He acknowledged that since they tooled up and started production, the photos in this thread had emerged to definitely prove the loco’s chronology.

 

 

This is a poser for any manufacturer.   Tooling is expensive.  Re-tooling also expensive.

 

Continuously re-tooling because more information has come to light prohibitive.  

 

We are getting a Fell.  This year- perhaps as imminently as Michael suggested at Doncaster.  The last lot of photos posted here were THIS WEEK.  Adopting the info and retooling for it would delay the beast probably for another year and perhaps double the tooling costs.

 

Therefore- not a viable alternative.  A small business needs cashflow- we have recent examples where cashflow hasn't covered outlay and the business has failed (DJM anyone?)  We have a Fell, delivered in a reasonable time frame.  Not a perfect Fell but we have one.  And as a result we have a small manufacturer who will stay in business and produce other models of types we can only dream of.

 

Les

 

As an afterthought- try counting the number of models from the major manufacturers with details "wrong"..........

Edited February 26, 2022 by Les1952
typos...

[GWR-fan]

So I take it then that when other manufacturers produce an alternate reality model then they will not be criticised but praised as in reality one is getting more than they bargained for.  Hornby were "crucified" were locating a logo barely 1 - 2 mm too high into the cantrail on a class 60 and yet KR Models are praised for giving you two locomotives for the price of one.

 

An established manufacturer would not have commenced tooling until all research had been carried out and after the error had been detected would have retooled the model to be accurate.  As a purchaser we are not responsible for costs incurred by less than diligent research, so why should we accept an inferior model?  We have a Fell "inspired" by the prototype.  Even the "evidence" image released by KR Models showing the four vents/grilles in each nose section on the "alternate" side actually showed the loco later in its life with the centre coupling rod removed and yet they were using that image to justify each side being different.

 

I find the three brass monkey attitude to this model not in character with the typical responses posted on RM Web where even the slightest detail discrepancy would be criticised.  The KR cult has its fanboys who in the future will excuse the manufacturer for incomplete research in other projects.  No doubt there will be those who will see my criticism as "highly objectionable".  Well I find it objectionable that a manufacturer will incorrectly tool a model then go radio silent for months knowing full well that the model is wrong.  In my opinion they have lost all credibility as a manufacturer.  Of cause the fanboys will pay up front having little to no idea what a future model will eventually look like or how accurate it maybe.

 

The early cads showed both sides of the loco but the manufacturer did not state that one side was the early version and the alternate side post modification,  so a potential purchaser could be excused thinking that he was actually looking at the cad for as released and later inservice models and not the one alternate reality model.  For the same money as the Fell one can purchase a well researched quality model from other manufacturers.  As regards the chassis of the Fell well there is an underside image showing the drive to be a fixed four coupled design but no images of the motor/flywheel/gear train configuration.  Given the radio silence on the body tooling inaccuracies what can we expect as regards receiving a thoroughly researched and designed quality drive?

 

The fanboys will say, "Well don't buy it".  Well,  I will say that  I have purchased it not knowing that the model is highly inaccurate.  

[GWR-fan]

5 minutes ago, Les1952 said:

.................................................................

 

A small business needs cashflow- we have recent examples.  We have a Fell, delivered in a reasonable time frame.  Not a perfect Fell but we have one.  And as a result we have a small manufacturer who will stay in business and produce other models of types we can only dream of.

 

Les

 

As an afterthought- try counting the number of models from the major manufacturers with details "wrong"..........

 

Les,

      name me a model locomotive that has been released so completely wrong as the Fell has been?  We are not talking about a few small details,  we are talking about the entire side of a model.  To remain in business a manufacturer and a small one at that,  needs to retain credibility.  Maybe this stuff up will make the manufacturer be perhaps less cocky when it comes to accepting research material in the future.  How many fanboys will be so eager in the future to pay up front for future projects.  You talk about "other models of types that we can only dream of" about,  well no doubt not many were dreaming of a Fell back in mid-2020 that would be released with different body sides.  There is no excuse for this failure.  A kit manufacturer spent years researching the model before finally bringing the kit to the market.  A new start up company does its own rapid research and after reading this entire thread,  apparently ignored the input of others and then uses the excuse that full information only came to light after they had tooled the model.   Is that their fault or the purchaser's fault?  I am totally confident that Michael Edge knew what modification status the loco was at during its lifetime so where did he get his research material for his accurate kit?

 

You talk about it being "highly objectionable" that some one would have the audacity to "nickpick" the model.  Well,  I find it totally disgusting that knowing full well that the model was completely wrong,  the manufacturer went into damage control,  being basically radio silent for six months or more and then only releasing two images mid last year both showing the same side of the model in BR black and green liveries.

[96701]

18 minutes ago, GWR-fan said:

So I take it then that when other manufacturers produce an alternate reality model then they will not be criticised but praised as in reality one is getting more than they bargained for.  Hornby were "crucified" were locating a logo barely 1 - 2 mm too high into the cantrail on a class 60 and yet KR Models are praised for giving you two locomotives for the price of one.

 

An established manufacturer would not have commenced tooling until all research had been carried out and after the error had been detected would have retooled the model to be accurate.  As a purchaser we are not responsible for costs incurred by less than diligent research, so why should we accept an inferior model?  We have a Fell "inspired" by the prototype.  Even the "evidence" image released by KR Models showing the four vents/grilles in each nose section on the "alternate" side actually showed the loco later in its life with the centre coupling rod removed and yet they were using that image to justify each side being different.

 

I find the three brass monkey attitude to this model not in character with the typical responses posted on RM Web where even the slightest detail discrepancy would be criticised.  The KR cult has its fanboys who in the future will excuse the manufacturer for incomplete research in other projects.  No doubt there will be those who will see my criticism as "highly objectionable".  Well I find it objectionable that a manufacturer will incorrectly tool a model then go radio silent for months knowing full well that the model is wrong.  In my opinion they have lost all credibility as a manufacturer.  Of cause the fanboys will pay up front having little to no idea what a future model will eventually look like or how accurate it maybe.

 

The early cads showed both sides of the loco but the manufacturer did not state that one side was the early version and the alternate side post modification,  so a potential purchaser could be excused thinking that he was actually looking at the cad for as released and later inservice models and not the one alternate reality model.  For the same money as the Fell one can purchase a well researched quality model from other manufacturers.  As regards the chassis of the Fell well there is an underside image showing the drive to be a fixed four coupled design but no images of the motor/flywheel/gear train configuration.  Given the radio silence on the body tooling inaccuracies what can we expect as regards receiving a thoroughly researched and designed quality drive?

 

The fanboys will say, "Well don't buy it".  Well,  I will say that  I have purchased it not knowing that the model is highly inaccurate.  

So when it arrives at your house, simply sell it on straight away advertised as never opened. Who knows, you might get more than you paid for it.

 

[GWR-fan]

2 minutes ago, 96701 said:

So when it arrives at your house, simply sell it on straight away advertised as never opened. Who knows, you might get more than you paid for it.

 

 

No, I will take a hit and cancel my purchase and lose my GBP30.00 deposit for a BR black model with Rails.  As the loco is sold out at Rails in black then they will have no trouble onselling it.  With postage the loco would cost me close to $300.00, making it the second most expensive loco that I have purchased after the Rails 18000 class gas turbine model.  No doubt you will be happy when you receive your "Frankerfell" and every time you watch it run you will congratulate with adoration the manufacturer for his diligent research and full openness and transparency throughout the model's development and release.