KR Models announce the Fell in OO and N.

[Tony_S]

On 26/10/2022 at 17:12, Tony_S said:

I have received a reply and my Fell is ready for carrier collection and I should have it this weekend. 

It didn’t arrive this weekend. I have just sent an email asking which delivery service they sent it by and is there a tracking number. I have had over the years a few eBay purchases I have had to chase up like this but never a manufacturer  or retailer. 
I am of course still being polite in my communication, but beginning to feel somewhat niggled. In case anyone thinks I am being unreasonable making such enquiries with a smaller retailer and should be more patient , my initial ‘other people have received their models, is there a problem with mine’ enquiry was in the first week in October. 
Tony

Edited November 1, 2022 by Tony_S

[zoomer1979]

I have had an email from Keith, apologising again for the delay and he has tested a model and dispatched it to me by Canada Mail. Estimated delivery is 16th November. Let's see what happens next.

 

Neil.

[Tony_S]

2 hours ago, zoomer1979 said:

 Let's see what happens next.

Mine (black sound fitted) was supposed to be sent last week by someone called Michael in the UK. I would like to see what happens next too!

 

[Tony_S]

19 hours ago, Tony_S said:

Mine (black sound fitted) was supposed to be sent last week by someone called Michael in the UK. I would like to see what happens next too!

 

I had a very nice phone call from Michael of KR Models today assuring me my Fell is in the post and I have been given a Royal Mail tracking number. 

[Tony_S]

It is out for delivery!

[Tony_S]

5 hours ago, Tony_S said:

It is out for delivery!

And it has arrived. Just as it had been unpacked I had a phone call from Michael  of KR Models who was very pleased to know the parcel had arrived. There was a bit of a IT outage for Click and Drop despatched parcels earlier this week which would have seemed to account for the model being in Royal Mail limbo. 
I had read about the pickups needing a tweak so did that first. Then up to the Sprog programmer to set a number. No problem, decoder recognised. I then set the loco off on the rolling road. It was a bit hesitant at first but after a few minutes of forward and reverse, it was fine. Then I played with the sounds. I had read earlier about Needing to press both engine start functions before it would move too. So the sounds work. And so do the lights. It can have a run in the layout tomorrow. 

Edited November 4, 2022 by Tony_S

[ColinB]

I don't know if this is of any use to anyone, but I received my sound based one and the running was terrible. It kept stopping and starting on any piece of uneven track. I sent it back to Rails and they adjusted the pickups but it was a little better but not brilliant. As I wanted to keep the model I looked into making mine a bit more reliable. I ordered some Hornby Thompson bogies that came with pickups, just to rob the pickups. Surprisingly the wheelbase of the bogies is the same as that of the fell, so I changed the wheels and substituted them for the Fell ones. I wired them in and amazingly my Fell runs perfectly. 

I don't want to be too critical but the whole model mechanically is a bit of a let down. Sam in his review complained about it not being easy to remove the base keeper plate, but it would be quite easy if they hadn't clipped the wire to a clip where if you try to pull it out strips the wire. Then you have the bottom half of the axle boxes that just "push in" which fall off if you handle the model.

[JSpencer]

On 28/10/2022 at 21:41, NoDominion said:

I have a question…

how does one go about removing the central con rods on the Fell?

 

 

I wanted to add spacer washers to avoid the cranks fouling the counter weights. I have arrived at a conclusion that these nuts cannot be undone without shearing something. Plan B.... 

[ColinB]

15 minutes ago, JSpencer said:

 

I wanted to add spacer washers to avoid the cranks fouling the counter weights. I have arrived at a conclusion that these nuts cannot be undone without shearing something. Plan B.... 

If it is like the rest of the loco they are probably glued on. The drivers compartment was glued to the chassis on mine, so when I wanted to remove it  to do something I had to lever it off, breaking the posts that sat in the chassis. That was one thing that could have been pushed on  just using the locating clips. Once the body is on it is going to be held in place by the body. I complain about Hornby a lot but this loco is probably the best example of how not to do it. It is like the connectors on the circuit board, why do it, it is not as if you are going to remove it. They might just have saved money by hardwiring them as Bachman and Hornby do. 

[JSpencer]

14 minutes ago, ColinB said:

If it is like the rest of the loco they are probably glued on. The drivers compartment was glued to the chassis on mine, so when I wanted to remove it  to do something I had to lever it off, breaking the posts that sat in the chassis. That was one thing that could have been pushed on  just using the locating clips. Once the body is on it is going to be held in place by the body. I complain about Hornby a lot but this loco is probably the best example of how not to do it. It is like the connectors on the circuit board, why do it, it is not as if you are going to remove it. They might just have saved money by hardwiring them as Bachman and Hornby do. 

I suspect (put it mildly) they just leave the engineering to the factory, except for not having an all gear train drive (which I feel would have worked better here seeing how loose the connecting rods are). I am sure it is the factory behind DJM and while they work well in N, they need more guidance in OO I feel. The well tank and J94 were also cows to stripe down and get inside. 

[ColinB]

5 minutes ago, JSpencer said:

I suspect (put it mildly) they just leave the engineering to the factory, except for not having an all gear train drive (which I feel would have worked better here seeing how loose the connecting rods are). I am sure it is the factory behind DJM and while they work well in N, they need more guidance in OO I feel. The well tank and J94 were also cows to stripe down and get inside. 

It is quite easy to get it apart, trouble is everything is held on by self tapping screws, even Hornby realised in the end that proper parallel thread screws are needed when screwing into metal. Fortunately the drivers cabs although glued on do not need to be removed, I only did it to make it easier for routing wires. No my issue is that the design looks rushed, they have used a plastic clip to hold the wire for the pickups in place but it is not really needed and means if you take the "base keeper plate" off , there is a more than even chance of snapping the thin wire. If they hadn't bothered you could remove the connector on the PCB for the pickups and that would give you enough room to pull the base keeper plate away from the bottom of the loco. I have even had the con rods get out of sync when the loco derailed. I think the issue is that the wheels are not held on that tightly by the splines on the axles so there is a tendency for them to move out of sync.

[Colin_McLeod]

This all sounds very alarming for a 21st Century model.

 

[cctransuk]

4 minutes ago, Colin_McLeod said:

This all sounds very alarming for a 21st Century model.

 

 

Which all feeds into the scenario of inadequate specification by an inexperienced producer.

 

CJI.

[ColinB]

1 hour ago, cctransuk said:

 

Which all feeds into the scenario of inadequate specification by an inexperienced producer.

 

CJI.

Trouble is it puts you off buying any more locos from said firm.

[GWR-fan]

In no way a defense of the manufacturer as even the "big established" boys get it wrong,  occasionally.   The Fell was rushed into tooling with seemingly inadequate diligence as regards research and even when alerted to the faults the company made the decision to progress the project with little to no alteration.  Covid slowdowns then took over the project timeline,  however by then tooling was well underway with a tooled example on display mid-2020.   

 

Future consumer funded projects may not be so eagerly filled and perhaps the manufacturer will need to cough up some of his own capital and make sure the project is as promised and in future perhaps more attention will need to be paid as to the production process and not leaving it all up to the manufacturng facility.  Perhaps finding an alternate manufacturer may be a good idea as it seems the GT3 and the Fell have links to a "well known" crowdfunder" manufacturer whose products were not as reliable as that company's motto would have suggested.

 

Certainly more consumer scrutiny will be given to current and future projects,  particularly if the consumer is being required to pay upfront for promises made (and hopefully delivered).

[Michael Hodgson]

1 hour ago, GWR-fan said:

 

Future consumer funded projects may not be so eagerly filled and perhaps the manufacturer will need to cough up some of his own capital and make sure the project is as promised and in future perhaps more attention will need to be paid as to the production process and not leaving it all up to the manufacturng facility. 

That type of funding is sometimes the only method open to a new manufacturer if he lacks capital himself.  It is difficult for those who start a new business.  One would expect however that some capital would become available for second and subsequent products.  One would also hope that experience would result in not mistakes being recognised abd avoided rather than repeated.

[boxbrownie]

8 hours ago, Michael Hodgson said:

That type of funding is sometimes the only method open to a new manufacturer if he lacks capital himself.  It is difficult for those who start a new business.  One would expect however that some capital would become available for second and subsequent products.  One would also hope that experience would result in not mistakes being recognised abd avoided rather than repeated.

Personally I will never again “fund” a manufacturer, I have done a few times in the past and it’s worked but the last time with LLC I lost the full payment for their second Loco, I funded the first without issue and received the Loco it being a lovely thing so payed fully up front for the sound fitted Cl22……..and lost the lot.

 

I like to believe I am a glass half full type and usually have faith in people, since then I want to see it before I buy and if that means I miss out so be it.

[The Stationmaster]

23 hours ago, JSpencer said:

I suspect (put it mildly) they just leave the engineering to the factory, except for not having an all gear train drive (which I feel would have worked better here seeing how loose the connecting rods are). I am sure it is the factory behind DJM and while they work well in N, they need more guidance in OO I feel. The well tank and J94 were also cows to stripe down and get inside. 

The factory will make what it is contracted to make to the standard it is being paid for and in accordance with the specification and information produced by the customer.  If it happens to be the factory used by DJM said factory has, I understand, also been used by a well known North American company which has a reputation for high levels of accurately reproduced detail.   Simple - get the spec right, get the design information and drawings right, and check that the contract reflects the spec and drawings etc.   And then very carefully check at every stage to ensure that what emerges on CADs as the model is designed, then in the tooling as shown by EPs, and in livery samples, and finally in pre-production samples,  that what will be delivered is what had been specified.  And make sure that the factory corrects any shortcomings if they fail to match the spec etc.

 

If you want it made down to a price then no doubt the factory will be happy to oblige but will do so in a way that reduces manufacturing and assembly costs.

[zoomer1979]

On 01/11/2022 at 19:16, zoomer1979 said:

I have had an email from Keith, apologising again for the delay and he has tested a model and dispatched it to me by Canada Mail. Estimated delivery is 16th November. Let's see what happens next.

 

Neil.

Hi folks, my Fell arrived today from Canada. The tracking was saying 17th November so I wasn't expecting it. I had a quick look at it to check its condition. Everything seems to be there and straight. I have noticed the connecting rods are quite loose and more alarmingly the counterweights are quite free to lose sync with each other. Maybe needing secured on the axles a bit better. I will be running it this weekend so any issues I will detail on here. I want to upgrade to two speakers, so that it is a more even sound across the whole loco. I also hope to correct the body details using the parts produced by the members here.

Neil.

[Watto1990]

And it was all going so well. 

 

Edited November 11, 2022 by Watto1990

[boxbrownie]

Holy Poop!  What happened there?

 

Did the rod get bent when it all went downhill or did you notice anything before testing/running?

[Grasslands]

On 21/10/2022 at 22:10, zoomer1979 said:

Well friends, despite ordering in good faith in February 2020 and filling in the form as presented and selecting the later version (different to my Dad's), I was told today that due to the selection not being picked up, my order was not processed. After Keith gave me a tracking number that was my Dad's model, he confirmed there are no models left and I was offered a refund or to wait for the next batch.

 

I do want the model still, but who knows when it will come.

 

Neil.

Greetings RMwebbers!

 

It's seems I have fallen victim to the same issue as @zoomer1979with my early BR Black order with sound. My order seems to have disappeared off the system in the web switch due to some livery related tick box issue. Double frustrating that I queried delivery in early September (when stock would have still been available) but go no response, and my follow up in November has led to this news. I am still awaiting a response about what this means for delivery of my model, but I started with 'yes, I still want it' and the more I have thought about it, and considering that I had an email about the webswitch back in August regarding Fell orders which said 'don't worry, everything is fine', but annoyingly, it clearly wasn't. 

 

Rather than make this too much of a miserable 'this isn't good enough' post (which it isn't, in fairness, for a model I paid £250 for, about a year ago), I'm interested in how, as modellers, our perceptions change when we are given new information about a prototype.

 

I reckon I would have been quite happy with the Fell when it arrived, thinking it looked just like it did in photos I've seen of the prototype, but having read in reviews about the decision to have two different styles of body side to cover the life span of the Fell and then show those respective sides (in their appropriate livery) in marketing images for the model, I must admit I frowned while reading it and felt like it was cheating, to be honest. I understand why such a decision would be made, but I don't remember that being mentioned in the original specification. Admiting that may have been a wiser move, but would obviously hurt sales.

 

It also made me start to yearn for a model that represents accurately what I now know the prototype (and therein this model) 'should' look like. Which is funny, as I wouldn't have even cared or known if it weren't for those reviews that mentioned the body side variation. 

 

Now looking at the Judith Edge Model kit kindly posted by @Michael Edge, I am thinking 'yes... that's what I want', so I must admit I am tempted to abandon this affair and add that lovely Judith Edge model to my inventory of brass locos (aka my pile of shame). I guess there is a chance I might be able to build it before I get my RTR one too.

Edited November 12, 2022 by Grasslands
spelling

[GWR-fan]

35 minutes ago, Grasslands said:

Greetings RMwebbers!

 

..........................................our perceptions change when we are given new information about a prototype.

 

I reckon I would have been quite happy with the Fell when it arrived, thinking it looked just like it did in photos I've seen of the prototype, but having read in reviews about the decision to have two different styles of body side to cover the life span of the Fell and then show those respective sides (in their appropriate livery) in marketing images for the model, I must admit I frowned while reading it and felt like it was cheating, to be honest. I understand why such a decision would be made, but I don't remember that being mentioned in the original specification. Admiting that may have been a wiser move, but would obviously hurt sales.

 

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

 

If one was able to digest this entire thread it was obvious a very long time ago that what was promised was not what was received.  Back in mid-2020 the company realised that all was not right and the tooling was incorrect as the body contained modifications the loco received over its lifetime and thus did not reflect the prototype at any point in its service life.   The decision was made none the less to proceed with the project with little to no alteration to the tooling.   The "storyline" was that since it was a one off prototype then the model represented the loco over its entire service life incorporating most modifications that it received.  Has any other manufacturer followed this principle?  It seems though that not enough information was researched and the person responsible for the task apparently did not review enough images initially and seeing images that showed the loco at various stages in its development apparently believed that the prototype was as viewed and the decision was made to commence tooling.  Not long after tooling further images came to the fore showing that the model was very inaccurate,  but was your money spent wisely to correct the manufacturer's mistake.  Remember that the manufacturer promised an accurate model.

 

Since mid-2020 no images have showed both sides of the model in the same livery.   Engineering sample images showing both sides of an undecorated body were shown,  but unfortunately I made the assumption that the undecorated images represented two separate models and not the same model.  It appeared that the manufacturer had tooled the model perhaps using slides to be able to represent an example of both early and later service life modifications.   How wrong I was.  If the model was BR black early crest then only the side relevant to that livery was shown,  usually with full length rods.  If BR green late crest then only that relevant side was shown with the centre rod removed.  Always only a single image of each livery.  About twelve months ago an undecorated model with the centre rod removed appeared in a You-Tube video demonstrating the sound functions.  Curiously the video showed only the side of the loco that represented the entering service model.

 

It seems that right up until delivery (two years after realising that the tooling was inaccurate) the manufacturer did not "officially" reveal the true state of the model.  This was your money funding this project.  Last year,  as soon as I realised what a concoction this model was,  I cancelled my pre-order with Rails citing that the model was totally inaccurate,  losing my GBP30.00 deposit in the process.  I reasoned that the loss of GBP30.00 was small fry to the angst I would have endured if I was required to pay the full amount and receive the model as released.  Add to that the  tales of woe from unhappy consumers who have received lemons.   I made comment several weeks ago of what appeared to be bent axles on a model that the purchaser had reported pickup issues.  Add to that the disaster shown a couple of posts above and I really think that I dodged a bullet.  If not simply a toy model then in the real world a complete recall should have been initiated,  as Rapido has done with the dynamometer car due a third party component substitution.  It was not Rapido's fault but they took it on the chin and issued a recall notice.  Next time you are asked to fund the development and manufacture of a new project perhaps think back to what consumers received with the Fell. 

 

No doubt I will be criticised as a nitpicker or rivet counter because the model did not represent the prototype (at any point in its service life).  Harken back a couple of years ago when a manufacturer with somewhat of a past history,  left the employ of a major manufacturer and embarked on a new crowd funded venture to manucture high quality models.  Well the crowd funded models did not quite live up to expectations nor the company motto.

[zoomer1979]

On 11/11/2022 at 00:04, zoomer1979 said:

Hi folks, my Fell arrived today from Canada. The tracking was saying 17th November so I wasn't expecting it. I had a quick look at it to check its condition. Everything seems to be there and straight. I have noticed the connecting rods are quite loose and more alarmingly the counterweights are quite free to lose sync with each other. Maybe needing secured on the axles a bit better. I will be running it this weekend so any issues I will detail on here. I want to upgrade to two speakers, so that it is a more even sound across the whole loco. I also hope to correct the body details using the parts produced by the members here.

Neil.

Well it is running day today. I started at 1245 and have been working on the Fell to get it running correctly since. After being told by Keith than it ran well and sounded great, I put it on my programming track to try it and change address. Straight away it would barely run without cutting out. On to the rolling road and it was obvious that one pair of axles were badly aligned and causing the cranks to partially lock each revolution. So off it came for adjustment. Whilst doing this I noticed I'm missing one of the lower axle box pieces, which is a separate detail that clips on to the cast chassis. Luckily it is cosmetic. Next I noticed that one of the axles I could see the splines, a check of the back to backs showed that one at 14.83mm, next two 14.34 and the other outer 14.54. This was corrected. I then removed the cranks from the bad pair and re-aligned and re-quartered the fly cranks. The connecting rod on this side was also bent like a banana so was straightened back. Running is now okay only I now noticed one of the bogie axles was wobbly, this was not clicked onto its axle. So now I'm going to size up a pair of speakers as quite frankly the supplied speaker is amateur hour compared with what should be done, (no enclosure whatsoever). Onwards and upwards.

Neil.

[ColinB]

5 hours ago, GWR-fan said:

 

If one was able to digest this entire thread it was obvious a very long time ago that what was promised was not what was received.  Back in mid-2020 the company realised that all was not right and the tooling was incorrect as the body contained modifications the loco received over its lifetime and thus did not reflect the prototype at any point in its service life.   The decision was made none the less to proceed with the project with little to no alteration to the tooling.   The "storyline" was that since it was a one off prototype then the model represented the loco over its entire service life incorporating most modifications that it received.  Has any other manufacturer followed this principle?  It seems though that not enough information was researched and the person responsible for the task apparently did not review enough images initially and seeing images that showed the loco at various stages in its development apparently believed that the prototype was as viewed and the decision was made to commence tooling.  Not long after tooling further images came to the fore showing that the model was very inaccurate,  but was your money spent wisely to correct the manufacturer's mistake.  Remember that the manufacturer promised an accurate model.

 

Since mid-2020 no images have showed both sides of the model in the same livery.   Engineering sample images showing both sides of an undecorated body were shown,  but unfortunately I made the assumption that the undecorated images represented two separate models and not the same model.  It appeared that the manufacturer had tooled the model perhaps using slides to be able to represent an example of both early and later service life modifications.   How wrong I was.  If the model was BR black early crest then only the side relevant to that livery was shown,  usually with full length rods.  If BR green late crest then only that relevant side was shown with the centre rod removed.  Always only a single image of each livery.  About twelve months ago an undecorated model with the centre rod removed appeared in a You-Tube video demonstrating the sound functions.  Curiously the video showed only the side of the loco that represented the entering service model.

 

It seems that right up until delivery (two years after realising that the tooling was inaccurate) the manufacturer did not "officially" reveal the true state of the model.  This was your money funding this project.  Last year,  as soon as I realised what a concoction this model was,  I cancelled my pre-order with Rails citing that the model was totally inaccurate,  losing my GBP30.00 deposit in the process.  I reasoned that the loss of GBP30.00 was small fry to the angst I would have endured if I was required to pay the full amount and receive the model as released.  Add to that the  tales of woe from unhappy consumers who have received lemons.   I made comment several weeks ago of what appeared to be bent axles on a model that the purchaser had reported pickup issues.  Add to that the disaster shown a couple of posts above and I really think that I dodged a bullet.  If not simply a toy model then in the real world a complete recall should have been initiated,  as Rapido has done with the dynamometer car due a third party component substitution.  It was not Rapido's fault but they took it on the chin and issued a recall notice.  Next time you are asked to fund the development and manufacture of a new project perhaps think back to what consumers received with the Fell. 

 

No doubt I will be criticised as a nitpicker or rivet counter because the model did not represent the prototype (at any point in its service life).  Harken back a couple of years ago when a manufacturer with somewhat of a past history,  left the employ of a major manufacturer and embarked on a new crowd funded venture to manucture high quality models.  Well the crowd funded models did not quite live up to expectations nor the company motto.

I wasn't that bothered about it being a true representation of the prototype, what did bother me was the failings in basic engineering design which caused the model to run badly. The post earlier showing all the wheels buckled is what I mean. I noticed with mine it is so easy to bend the conrods and get the wheels out of sync with a simple derail. They seem to have over complicated the electrical side with connectors where they were not needed (you really only need them for lights on the body if it lifts off) but not done the basic mechanics.