KR Models announce the Fell in OO and N.

[rorz101uk]

I’ve had a quick look at this model in detail. I’m still happy with it but did realise what detail that is missing.

 

the shape and the face of the loco looks spot on. 

 

I can’t find a side on picture of the other side to see the loco.

 

[GWR-fan]

38 minutes ago, leezer3 said:

On the subject of symmetry, I feel that many members are conveniently forgetting that it took 30 odd pages of argument in this thread to produce 2 definitive pictures from the same day of different sides.

 

Just to show you that the images were actually posted sometime back,  not just today,  I suggest you take a look at the posting of July 28th, 2021,  on page 21 of this thread and you will actually see what the loco looked like on a specific date.  These images have been discussed at length multiple times since.  The model bears minimal resemblance to the prototype and not simply a few minor changes to the model that KR Models reported on back on September 22nd, 2020,  when he reported that the first EP was available and that he was pleased with the result.

[cctransuk]

11 minutes ago, rorz101uk said:

I can’t find a side on picture of the other side to see the loco.

 

Posted two hours ago were two photos of the locomotive; both sides, on the same day. The livery is black, but I don't believe that much, if any, detail changed by the time it gained lined green livery.

 

Don't get me wrong - I was very much looking forward to this model; to the point where I ordered and paid for it despite having the Judith Edge kit.

 

However, when there has been a rush to tooling without regard for available research material; and then the attitude that 'It's too expensive to correct the errors, and they've paid for it anyway!', I feel under no obligation to accept the flawed product.

 

John Isherwood.

[WisTramwayMan]

21 hours ago, Colin_McLeod said:

 

 

If a new model is produced with an error then that is unfortunate and could happen to any manufacturer.

 

However in KR Models' case there are multiple errors which were pointed out in good time to have them rectified yet still KR Models stuck to their guns and stubbornly refused to modify anything despite the constructive criticism given.

 

It's like getting a 1980s model at 2020s prices. OK it's a modern mechanism, but body accuracy is unnecessarily lacking in fidelity to the prototype.

 

 

I'm pretty sure that the likes of Hornby, Bachmann, Dapol etc wouldn't even entertain manufacturing a Fell.

 

A one-off - subject to more than average modifications throughout its life - scrapped long ago - hardly the easiest subject to model.

 

The larger, and more recent, a class of loco is, the more chance you have of getting pretty much all the minute details correct. Helped immensely if examples of that class are still extant, plus the quantity of digital images you have available at the push of a few buttons on your keyboard. 

 

My comments are this:

 

Does it look like most buyers' perceptions of what the Fell should look like ?

Is it well made and does it perform well ?

Is it good value ?

 

Re the price, they cost £150. A small shunter such as a Heljan 07 will cost you a discounted £170 new. New Bachmann class 47's over £200, discounted. So, given you only have the one loco to cover the tooling costs, I think that's pretty good.

 

It may not be perfect. But given that having a kit built up and decorated would cost you multiples of £150 then for many people this will be perfectly good enough.

 

And me ? I've got a black one and a green one....

Edited October 3, 2022 by WisTramwayMan
duplication

[leezer3]

28 minutes ago, GWR-fan said:

 

Just to show you that the images were actually posted sometime back,  not just today,  I suggest you take a look at the posting of July 28th, 2021,  on page 21 of this thread and you will actually see what the loco looked like on a specific date.  These images have been discussed at length multiple times since.  The model bears minimal resemblance to the prototype and not simply a few minor changes to the model that KR Models reported on back on September 22nd, 2020,  when he reported that the first EP was available and that he was pleased with the result.

 

21 pages (plus the debate afterwards as to whether the consist had been reformed, for the return journey, hence reversed loco), and my point precisely stands 🤣

 

It looks perfectly like a reasonable enough Fell to me. Not perfect, but you forget that nothing is- Even the 00 track gauge isn't correct if you really want to be pedantic about it.

However, as I know comparatively very little about the prototype, my opinion is invalid, obviously.

 

Please go away and come back with an 'accurate' Fell, with no pre-payment, and at the same price point.

I might take you more seriously then......

[cctransuk]

11 minutes ago, leezer3 said:

 

21 pages (plus the debate afterwards as to whether the consist had been reformed, for the return journey, hence reversed loco), and my point precisely stands 🤣

 

It looks perfectly like a reasonable enough Fell to me. Not perfect, but you forget that nothing is- Even the 00 track gauge isn't correct if you really want to be pedantic about it.

However, as I know comparatively very little about the prototype, my opinion is invalid, obviously.

 

Please go away and come back with an 'accurate' Fell, with no pre-payment, and at the same price point.

I might take you more seriously then......

 

Each to their own; when I paid my £150 it was - and still is - a significant sum of money, for which I expect to receive a model that looks like the real thing; (on both sides).

 

John Isherwood.

[zr2498]

My lined green sound version arrived this morning, and initial tests carried out.

'Glossy', but easily toned down with some weathering.

 

It's worth pointing out that when sound is initiated with the usual F1, this has to be followed by F3 (the Paxman engines), before there will be motion.

This might be obvious, but with poor and somewhat lacking instructions it might cause some consternation as for most, if not all other sound files it is usual to use F1 only.

 

At least Sam has given us some extra instructions / insights during his review re removal of body and checks for poor contacts.

It appears that the sound decoder is an ESU V5 as the ECoS recognised it an allocated a long address. Perhaps this might be confirmed.

 

There is a toggle facility on the light F0 to enable or disable the bottom row of white lights. Sadly, even after the comments re the GT3 there is again no function to turned the red tail light off when coupled up.

 

 

 

[big jim]

Looking at @rorz101uk pic at the top of the page, what I’m seeing is basically that side of of the loco is pretty much alright (in my eyes) but comparing the opposite side pics of the model and prototype pic on the previous page the other side is wrong with 2 grilles each nose end, filler hatch recess at the wrong end as the biggest problems 

[leezer3]

29 minutes ago, zr2498 said:

There is a toggle facility on the light F0 to enable or disable the bottom row of white lights. Sadly, even after the comments re the GT3 there is again no function to turned the red tail light off when coupled up.

 

FWIW, on analog, there is no tail light.

That suggests something in the decoder setup to me, but I'm not going anywhere near that DCC stuff 😃

[peteskitchen]

1 hour ago, WisTramwayMan said:

I'm pretty sure that the likes of Hornby, Bachmann, Dapol etc wouldn't even entertain manufacturing a Fell.

 

A one-off - subject to more than average modifications throughout its life - scrapped long ago - hardly the easiest subject to model.

 

The larger, and more recent, a class of loco is, the more chance you have of getting pretty much all the minute details correct. Helped immensely if examples of that class are still extant, plus the quantity of digital images you have available at the push of a few buttons on your keyboard. 

 

My comments are this:

 

Does it look like most buyers' perceptions of what the Fell should look like ?

Is it well made and does it perform well ?

Is it good value ?

 

Re the price, they cost £150. A small shunter such as a Heljan 07 will cost you a discounted £170 new. New Bachmann class 47's over £200, discounted. So, given you only have the one loco to cover the tooling costs, I think that's pretty good.

 

It may not be perfect. But given that having a kit built up and decorated would cost you multiples of £150 then for many people this will be perfectly good enough.

 

And me ? I've got a black one and a green one....

I absolutely agree with you. The problem is this very vocal condemnation of anything that isn't 125% accurate is something that a manufacture would want to avoid, but the downside to that is it's driving up the costs of models to the point where sale quantities are becoming questionable. I think there's a fine line to be followed between keeping costs down and striving for accuracy. In the case of this model there are various boo boos which could have been avoided without any significant costs which is a shame, but unlike a certain big manufacture  keeps doing, at least the shape is right. 

Edited October 3, 2022 by peteskitchen

[billy_anorak59]

2 hours ago, cctransuk said:

3 hours ago, rorz101uk said:

I can’t find a side on picture of the other side to see the loco.

 

Posted two hours ago were two photos of the locomotive; both sides, on the same day. The livery is black, but I don't believe that much, if any, detail changed by the time it gained lined green livery.

I think @rorz101uk was looking for a picture of the other side of the model.

 

This picture shows the 'bad' side for the model - it's only 'bad' for post1954 black and green though - it would be OK for a 1951-53 black model (but then the other side would be wrong, and you'd have to lose all or just keep two of the cab vents, and put on the centre connecting rod).

1. No recess for the auxilliary blower exhaust

2. Filler at wrong end of the loco

3. Window instead of grille

4. Two nose end grilles instead of 4 (per nose side)

5. Number in wrong place (should be on the bodyside behind the doors)

 

Edited October 3, 2022 by billy_anorak59
Tidy up

[E100]

My black DCC ready Fell has arrived. Love the finish and the con-rods rotating are a fantastic and somewhat unique addition to the collection. I'll not speak into the inaccuracies much. For me it represents the prototype pretty well and looks the part in my eyes (considering it was a Rule 1 purchase anyway) but understand the disappointment felt by some. 

 

Considering the price paid, for me I'm satisfied in 2022. On the one hand I go a new Accurascale Deltic was £160 and that's on a completely different level but then I think the production quantities are going to be hugely different so would be closer to the Badger at £230 minus a bit for the pantograph so feels pretty reasonable considering it's a low volume model.

[jjb1970]

9 minutes ago, peteskitchen said:

I absolutely agree with you. The problem is this very vocal condemnation of anything that isn't 125% accurate is something that a manufacture would want to avoid, but the downside to that is it's driving up the costs of models to the point where sale quantities are becoming questionable. I think there's a fine line to be followed between keeping costs down and striving for accuracy. In the case of this model there are various boo boos which could have been avoided without any significant costs which is a shame, but unlike a certain big manufacture  keeps doing, at least the shape is right. 

 

In the 1980's Lima did some very good tooling. It was basic and lacked details, was all moulded etc but models like the Class 47 captured the overall look of the prototype very well and within the limits of the day for British OO were accurate models. Even today, if you want an interesting super detail project for a bit of fun the Lima/Hornby Railroad 47 is still an excellent starting point. Bachmann were making fundamentally accurate OO models decades ago. Hornby has produced some new generation Railroad tooling which while basic, lacking details and with obvious compromises to keep costs down are still pretty accurate. In all three cases the models didn't replicate all the individual locomotive specific details but you could point to an example and say that the model was a pretty accurate representation. Inferring people are being unreasonable about a model as egregiously inaccurate as this one is rationalizing poor research and shoddy attention to getting it right. I don't think this is a cost issue at all. The real costs are in producing the tooling and manufacture, and the Chinese factory appears to have done that very well. The failings are all down to just not paying attention to basic research and details. Given they could easily have engaged with the enthusiast community for pointers for zero cost there is no excuse for it. I'm guessing they could have came to an agreement with one of the kit builders to access some of the research done by them for a reasonable consideration.

To those claiming others don't do difficult prototypes, Heljan have done a whole series of one off prototype locomotives with no surviving examples to scan or measure. Kernow did a fantastic job of the D6xx which was a very difficult subject to research. Bachmann and others did the LMS 10000/10001 twins vey well. So other manufacturers (including a small outfit like Kernow) have demonstrated they can do oddball prototypes which are difficult to research extremely well.

[big jim]

18 minutes ago, billy_anorak59 said:

I think @rorz101uk was looking for a picture of the other side of the model.

 

This picture shows the 'bad' side for the model - it only applies to post1954 black and green - it would be OK for a 1951-53 black model (but then the other side would be wrong, and you'd have to lose all or just keep two of the cab vents).

1. No recess for the auxilliary blower exhaust

2. Filler at wrong end of the loco

3. Window instead of grille

4. Two nose end grilles instead of 4 (per nose side)

5. Number in wrong place (should be on the bodyside behind the doors)

 

That’s a very useful post, I am tempted by the green one for my display cabinet purely for the curiosity value, I just have to make sure I display it with the good side facing outward if I get one! 

[DLIBOD17]

[corsair]

be great if some one out there can do a putting right kit for it would sell like hot cakes ok you probaly would have to respray the loco but then again there are some who dont like the gloss finnish anyway   go on someone be brave enough you have two kits sold already thank you 

[Ian J.]

Silly thought: could two models be 'split' down the middle, and the resultant four halves mixed correctly to produce two 'accurate' Fells for different time periods?

[LaGrange]

4 hours ago, WisTramwayMan said:

I'm pretty sure that the likes of Hornby, Bachmann, Dapol etc wouldn't even entertain manufacturing a Fell.

 

 

If you opened a significantly filled briefcase in front of them they would. Look at the retailer commissioned stuff made by all of the big manufacturers 

[jsp3970]

14 minutes ago, Ian J. said:

Silly thought: could two models be 'split' down the middle, and the resultant four halves mixed correctly to produce two 'accurate' Fells for different time periods?

Funny as I wondered the same thing, but personally I would not want to risk messing up one model, let alone two!

[billy_anorak59]

20 minutes ago, Ian J. said:

Silly thought: could two models be 'split' down the middle, and the resultant four halves mixed correctly to produce two 'accurate' Fells for different time periods?

One side would never be right for any period - the two rooflne errors don't match any timeline.

[peteskitchen]

3 hours ago, jjb1970 said:

 

In the 1980's Lima did some very good tooling. It was basic and lacked details, was all moulded etc but models like the Class 47 captured the overall look of the prototype very well and within the limits of the day for British OO were accurate models. Even today, if you want an interesting super detail project for a bit of fun the Lima/Hornby Railroad 47 is still an excellent starting point. Bachmann were making fundamentally accurate OO models decades ago. Hornby has produced some new generation Railroad tooling which while basic, lacking details and with obvious compromises to keep costs down are still pretty accurate. In all three cases the models didn't replicate all the individual locomotive specific details but you could point to an example and say that the model was a pretty accurate representation. Inferring people are being unreasonable about a model as egregiously inaccurate as this one is rationalizing poor research and shoddy attention to getting it right. I don't think this is a cost issue at all. The real costs are in producing the tooling and manufacture, and the Chinese factory appears to have done that very well. The failings are all down to just not paying attention to basic research and details. Given they could easily have engaged with the enthusiast community for pointers for zero cost there is no excuse for it. I'm guessing they could have came to an agreement with one of the kit builders to access some of the research done by them for a reasonable consideration.

To those claiming others don't do difficult prototypes, Heljan have done a whole series of one off prototype locomotives with no surviving examples to scan or measure. Kernow did a fantastic job of the D6xx which was a very difficult subject to research. Bachmann and others did the LMS 10000/10001 twins vey well. So other manufacturers (including a small outfit like Kernow) have demonstrated they can do oddball prototypes which are difficult to research extremely well.

 Sorry I didn't mean people were being unreasonable, I was trying to point out that manufacturers would not want to receive criticism of a model, but at the same time not make them too expensive to build, ie finding a compromise that would satisfy both of those criteria. I did go on to point out that this model has errors that wouldn't have made the model any more costly to produce by doing them correctly. 

[flockandroll]

Despite it saying "DCC Ready" on the box, can this actually be the DCC Sound Fitted version I ordered?

 

Can those who have received a DCC Sound Fitted version please tell me what it says on their box? Thanks 

 

[Darius43]

 

Looks like you may have the wrong loco or the right one in the wrong box.

 

Cheers

 

Darius

[flockandroll]

3 minutes ago, Darius43 said:

 

Looks like you may have the wrong loco or the right one in the wrong box.

 

Cheers

 

Darius

Thank you for quick reply

.Well, if it was just me I think I might just give up on it and ask for my money back. 

But I bought it for my son, so I will try to get it changed ( I was the one who decided to try DCC)

[adb968008]

Anyone tried reaching these guys ?

whats in my box isnt what I ordered… 

 

i’m finding they've gone dark.

ive noticed over summer what little UK presence there was has gone to Canada including the .co.uk domain name.

The model doesnt come with a “UKCA” mark either, just “CE”.

The VAT number comes up with a random address in Telford.

There is no mention of support in the box, and only the Canadian PO equivalent address for contact.

I think ive found a personal address for the younger one.

 

kind of wondering if youve a problem, your stuck on your own at this point, can I section 75 a claim ?

 

 

 

Edited October 3, 2022 by adb968008