KR Models announce the Fell in OO and N.

[ColinB]

6 minutes ago, zoomer1979 said:

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.

Yes I replaced the speaker to a Road and Rails one, improved the sound amazingly.

[Michael Hodgson]

43 minutes ago, zoomer1979 said:

 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.

 

Well people keep saying they want it in OO EM and P4, so why not cater to everybody by fitting one axle of each?  🙃

Edited November 12, 2022 by Michael Hodgson

[boxbrownie]

2 hours ago, Michael Hodgson said:

Well people keep saying they want it in OO EM and P4, so why not cater to everybody by fitting one axle of each?  🙃

It sounds as if they have 😆

[Colin_McLeod]

9 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.

 

As we are unable to react to posts by GWR-fan  I am stating my agreement to this post here. 

[Les1952]

Following over twenty days of trying to get sense out of Keith by email and Michael in person, and not getting any promised tracking data I could use to say my replacement Fell was on its way, I cancelled it, and also cancelled my DHP1.

 

I've had documentation from KR to say my payments are being refunded, but as of 5 minutes ago they have not yet arrived back at my credit card.

 

Les

 

[woodenhead]

1 minute ago, Les1952 said:

Following over twenty days of trying to get sense out of Keith by email and Michael in person, and not getting any promised tracking data I could use to say my replacement Fell was on its way, I cancelled it, and also cancelled my DHP1.

 

I've had documentation from KR to say my payments are being refunded, but as of 5 minutes ago they have not yet arrived back at my credit card.

 

Les

 

It can take a couple of days for a refund to show.  Credit cards quick to debit slow to credit 

[Les1952]

26 minutes ago, woodenhead said:

It can take a couple of days for a refund to show.  Credit cards quick to debit slow to credit 

 

KR did say up to five days- I've had confirmation that the refund for the Fell has been marked out for sending, and that was three days ago.  I'm checking the credit card every other day at the moment, and don't intend to get back to them for a fortnight if nothing shows.   Once the money returns I'll use it to add to my Hornby TT:120 preorder.

 

I'm making no comment about the loco itself.  My incorrect one wasn't opened long enough for me to get a decent look at it.

 

Les

 

[GWR-fan]

In hindsight one is left wondering why the Fell fell short of the mark.  After the relative success of the GT3 one would assume that the Fell would have been up to the quality of the GT3.  Did the manufacturer choose another manufacturing facility or was the Fell specified to a lower level of standard?   The Fell was developed and approved for production prior to the GT3 being released so why the lack of quality both in the development of the model and the quality of the received item?  With both models being developed concurrently what went wrong?  Was the Fell promised to a price point to which little to no profit could be realised and so the quality suffered at the expense of financial return?

 

Lack of reliable power pickup is alas a feature of many manufacturer's products these days so I will not criticise the Fell in this regard.  What is inexcusable though is rod mount bolts basically superglued to the cranks and yet the cranks are able to rotate on the drive wheels resulting in bent rods and subsequent damage to the drive mechanism,  hence the inexcusable bent drive axles.  Also below par is the toylike rendition of detail on the chassis sideframes.  When Sam reviewed his model on You-Tube what was obvious was the wobble when the drive wheels rotated.  In this day and age how is it that a manufacturer cannot even mount a drive wheel squarely on an axle?   Aside from the body design aesthetics,  the Fell will prove to be mechanically an unreliable runner and like the prototype more than likely find itself  undergoing regular manintenance or modification.   Ironically though,  the model seems to have found favour with both the modelling press and consumers.    Would the results have been different if the model had been fully capitalised by the manufacturer and not basically (although the manufacturer did not like the term)  a crowd-funded venture.  As the purchasers,  who,  in the main,  pre-paid for the model,  do they feel a sense of allegiance or loyalty perhaps and are unwilling to raise criticism.

[Colin_McLeod]

11 hours ago, GWR-fan said:

In hindsight one is left wondering why the Fell fell short of the mark.  After the relative success of the GT3 one would assume that the Fell would have been up to the quality of the GT3.  Did the manufacturer choose another manufacturing facility or was the Fell specified to a lower level of standard?   The Fell was developed and approved for production prior to the GT3 being released so why the lack of quality both in the development of the model and the quality of the received item?  With both models being developed concurrently what went wrong?  Was the Fell promised to a price point to which little to no profit could be realised and so the quality suffered at the expense of financial return?

 

Lack of reliable power pickup is alas a feature of many manufacturer's products these days so I will not criticise the Fell in this regard.  What is inexcusable though is rod mount bolts basically superglued to the cranks and yet the cranks are able to rotate on the drive wheels resulting in bent rods and subsequent damage to the drive mechanism,  hence the inexcusable bent drive axles.  Also below par is the toylike rendition of detail on the chassis sideframes.  When Sam reviewed his model on You-Tube what was obvious was the wobble when the drive wheels rotated.  In this day and age how is it that a manufacturer cannot even mount a drive wheel squarely on an axle?   Aside from the body design aesthetics,  the Fell will prove to be mechanically an unreliable runner and like the prototype more than likely find itself  undergoing regular manintenance or modification.   Ironically though,  the model seems to have found favour with both the modelling press and consumers.    Would the results have been different if the model had been fully capitalised by the manufacturer and not basically (although the manufacturer did not like the term)  a crowd-funded venture.  As the purchasers,  who,  in the main,  pre-paid for the model,  do they feel a sense of allegiance or loyalty perhaps and are unwilling to raise criticism.

 

[No Decorum]

11 hours ago, GWR-fan said:

As the purchasers,  who,  in the main,  pre-paid for the model,  do they feel a sense of allegiance or loyalty perhaps and are unwilling to raise criticism.

I purchased a sound version. I have no allegiance or loyalty to any manufacturer, although I do recognise that some produce much more reliable and accurate models than others. KR has not got a very long track record and has certainly not established itself as a producer of reliable or accurate models. Both the GT3 and the Fell have demonstrated an abysmal lack of understanding of how the lights were supposed to work. GT3 was at least a nicely finished model which ran well and was reasonably accurate. KR demonstrated a willingness to listen and respond by providing the axlebox covers which were present on the original but not initially intended to be provided with the model.

 

I’m keeping my Fell, mostly for the reason that another RTR model is unlikely to be produced. I think I’m luckier than most because mine, after fettling the pickups, runs. How long it will continue to do so is open to question. Many criticisms made of its accuracy are fully justified. What mostly concerns me is the head-in-the-sand attitude of KR. With a model of this quality and a seeming lack of willingness to accept its many shortcomings, I have little confidence in future KR models. 

[ColinB]

28 minutes ago, No Decorum said:

I purchased a sound version. I have no allegiance or loyalty to any manufacturer, although I do recognise that some produce much more reliable and accurate models than others. KR has not got a very long track record and has certainly not established itself as a producer of reliable or accurate models. Both the GT3 and the Fell have demonstrated an abysmal lack of understanding of how the lights were supposed to work. GT3 was at least a nicely finished model which ran well and was reasonably accurate. KR demonstrated a willingness to listen and respond by providing the axlebox covers which were present on the original but not initially intended to be provided with the model.

 

I’m keeping my Fell, mostly for the reason that another RTR model is unlikely to be produced. I think I’m luckier than most because mine, after fettling the pickups, runs. How long it will continue to do so is open to question. Many criticisms made of its accuracy are fully justified. What mostly concerns me is the head-in-the-sand attitude of KR. With a model of this quality and a seeming lack of willingness to accept its many shortcomings, I have little confidence in future KR models. 

I too purchased a sound version. Now that I have replaced the front and back bogies with Hornby ones with pickups it runs reasonably reliably but there is always that feeling that it will break at anytime. Eventually I took the model off my layout and replaced it with my new Hornby Evening star. I am generally criticising Hornby but I have to admit they really did a good job on this one so perhaps it did justify the exorbitant price tag.  

[xm607]

20 hours ago, Michael Hodgson said:

Well people keep saying they want it in OO EM and P4, so why not cater to everybody by fitting one axle of each?  🙃

After this screw up, when the Big Bertha 0-10-0 arrives it most likely have a early and late side to its tender!!

[zoomer1979]

13 hours ago, GWR-fan said:

In hindsight one is left wondering why the Fell fell short of the mark.  After the relative success of the GT3 one would assume that the Fell would have been up to the quality of the GT3.  Did the manufacturer choose another manufacturing facility or was the Fell specified to a lower level of standard?   The Fell was developed and approved for production prior to the GT3 being released so why the lack of quality both in the development of the model and the quality of the received item?  With both models being developed concurrently what went wrong?  Was the Fell promised to a price point to which little to no profit could be realised and so the quality suffered at the expense of financial return?

 

Lack of reliable power pickup is alas a feature of many manufacturer's products these days so I will not criticise the Fell in this regard.  What is inexcusable though is rod mount bolts basically superglued to the cranks and yet the cranks are able to rotate on the drive wheels resulting in bent rods and subsequent damage to the drive mechanism,  hence the inexcusable bent drive axles.  Also below par is the toylike rendition of detail on the chassis sideframes.  When Sam reviewed his model on You-Tube what was obvious was the wobble when the drive wheels rotated.  In this day and age how is it that a manufacturer cannot even mount a drive wheel squarely on an axle?   Aside from the body design aesthetics,  the Fell will prove to be mechanically an unreliable runner and like the prototype more than likely find itself  undergoing regular manintenance or modification.   Ironically though,  the model seems to have found favour with both the modelling press and consumers.    Would the results have been different if the model had been fully capitalised by the manufacturer and not basically (although the manufacturer did not like the term)  a crowd-funded venture.  As the purchasers,  who,  in the main,  pre-paid for the model,  do they feel a sense of allegiance or loyalty perhaps and are unwilling to raise criticism.

Well I wasn't sure I was even going to get a model I paid for. As for loyalty, this company is a complete joke. There were problems with the GT3 too, which were supposed to get fixed, (the buffer beam was miss drilled and squint and the front bogie frame was the wrong way round) and what got supplied was a new bogie frame in a bag that said "boofer beam" and we were told to drill holes ourselves to fix the buffer beam! Plus the pickups in the tender were awful. As for the Fell, I'm going to write a very frank and honest letter to KR and detail all that is wrong with it and how much time it has taken me to get a model that runs, never mind one that is accurate! My Dad is returning his for a refund. Will never recommend a KR Models product to anyone.

Neil.

[Michael Hodgson]

3 hours ago, xm607 said:

After this screw up, when the Big Bertha 0-10-0 arrives it most likely have a early and late side to its tender!!

That's OK.  One side in MR livery, the other BR - two for the price of one!

[zoomer1979]

4 hours ago, zoomer1979 said:

Well I wasn't sure I was even going to get a model I paid for. As for loyalty, this company is a complete joke. There were problems with the GT3 too, which were supposed to get fixed, (the buffer beam was miss drilled and squint and the front bogie frame was the wrong way round) and what got supplied was a new bogie frame in a bag that said "boofer beam" and we were told to drill holes ourselves to fix the buffer beam! Plus the pickups in the tender were awful. As for the Fell, I'm going to write a very frank and honest letter to KR and detail all that is wrong with it and how much time it has taken me to get a model that runs, never mind one that is accurate! My Dad is returning his for a refund. Will never recommend a KR Models product to anyone.

Neil.

A reply from Keith after I explained what happened to my model. "I know it's probably not much consolation for your model. But with all the models that we have delivered, we have only had back less than 2% of the batch.  Bigger companies than us expect to get back between 5-10%.  I know a guy who worked for Blackberry back in the day, and he said that if they only got 15% of any batch of models back it was a success.  So we're not doing too bad.  The Fell was a very complex model which has taken some criticism some of which was why it's not prototypical.  It changed so much during its short life.  Little subtle changes that last only a few weeks.  It was a learning curve for them.". So why not just two versions like they are doing for the Big Bertha? And early 4-8-4, then a later 4-4-4-4 and have two liveries for the later one.

Oh well, I'm done now until the correcting parts become available.

Neil.

[Barry O]

1 minute ago, zoomer1979 said:

A reply from Keith after I explained what happened to my model. "I know it's probably not much consolation for your model. But with all the models that we have delivered, we have only had back less than 2% of the batch.  Bigger companies than us expect to get back between 5-10%.  I know a guy who worked for Blackberry back in the day, and he said that if they only got 15% of any batch of models back it was a success.  So we're not doing too bad.  The Fell was a very complex model which has taken some criticism some of which was why it's not prototypical.  It changed so much during its short life.  Little subtle changes that last only a few weeks.  It was a learning curve for them.". So why not just two versions like they are doing for the Big Bertha? And early 4-8-4, then a later 4-4-4-4 and have two liveries for the later one.

Oh well, I'm done now until the correcting parts become available.

Neil.

Lots of people seem to have taken it in their own hands to mend or modify these.. instead of sending them back.

[Colin_McLeod]

1 hour ago, Barry O said:

Quoting KR Models:-

 

 

"know it's probably not much consolation for your model. But with all the models that we have delivered, we have only had back less than 2% of the batch.  Bigger companies than us expect to get back between 5-10%.  I know a guy who worked for Blackberry back in the day, and he said that if they only got 15% of any batch of models back it was a success.  So we're not doing too bad."

 

Which customer care course was he on?

[GWR-fan]

2 minutes ago, Colin_McLeod said:

 

Which customer care course was he on?

 

Keith's character was well demonstrated in the Jenny Kirk You-tube interview where the Fell was being discussed.

[chris p bacon]

2 hours ago, zoomer1979 said:

A reply from Keith after I explained what happened to my model. "I know it's probably not much consolation for your model. But with all the models that we have delivered, we have only had back less than 2% of the batch.  Bigger companies than us expect to get back between 5-10%.  I know a guy who worked for Blackberry back in the day, and he said that if they only got 15% of any batch of models back it was a success.  So we're not doing too bad.  The Fell was a very complex model which has taken some criticism some of which was why it's not prototypical.  It changed so much during its short life.  Little subtle changes that last only a few weeks.  It was a learning curve for them.". So why not just two versions like they are doing for the Big Bertha? And early 4-8-4, then a later 4-4-4-4 and have two liveries for the later one.

Oh well, I'm done now until the correcting parts become available.

Neil.

I'd be amazed at that returns claim. Even if they managed to drum up sales of 5000 units that would only be a return rate of 100 max, if that was the case why have they found it so hard to fulfil  those whose order they c0cked up, as well as those returned.  The usual percentage of overorders would easily cover a 2% return rate. Unless of course that was cut to the bone like the design/cad to maximise profit.

 

As for the changes during its life, why not tell those that paid for it at the time. Rather than on a Youtube channel with a sympathetic interviewer. 

 

 

Edited November 13, 2022 by AY Mod
Derogatory comment removed

[Bucoops]

I'm no expert but 2% sounds very high?

[miles73128]

11 hours ago, Bucoops said:

I'm no expert but 2% sounds very high?

High? I’d say 5-10% would be doing well. 

[Edna Clouds]

Well, after paying my £250 in December 2019 and never seeing a Fell loco model to enjoy or complain about, I received my refund last week. The money was in my bank within 24 hours of the emails between Keith and me which shows their efficiency and customer care certainly in that department!

[Wagonmaster]

Although my Fell had arrived a while ago, I didn't take an in depth look at it until the DCC decoder had arrived. Well, a bit disappointing and not the definitive model I was hoping for. Might end up building the Judith Edge one anyway.

 

However, the short comings have been covered here already, but just a few observations with my black liveried version. Nearly all he pick ups needed adjusting. Having done this, the loco was still a bit hesitant. So that done, the lights and direction were wrong. Red tail lights on moving forward, whites on moving in reverse. Investigation revealed that the motor feed wires had been swspped around, hence wrong lights for the direction of travel. Also, the black wire was half hanging out out the plug, hence the hesitant running. With this corrected, the loco ran much better and the correct lights showing.

 

I had fitted a 6 function decoder, so now had lights on f0, one cab light on f1 and the other cab light on f2. Pressing f3 put an additional pair white lights on at solebar level at one end, f4 doing the same at the other. These were not directionally controlled, but easily fixed by reprogramming the decoder. But what are these light supposed to be? They don't really conform to any head code indication.

 

So, just a few observations. A pity you have to 'fix' a brand new loco before you can use it!

Edited November 16, 2022 by Wagonmaster

[Michael Edge]

Photos of 10100 in service show little evidence of the marker lights being used at all, a few might show one white light lit. Ordinary loco lamps or whit discs were used to indicate the type of train, the loco didn't run anywhere route indication was used. The tail light was irrelevant as an oil lamp was mandatory at this time - and for many years afterwards.

Lit up marker lights on models are very pretty but mostly not realistic in this period.

[Wagonmaster]

1 hour ago, Michael Edge said:

Photos of 10100 in service show little evidence of the marker lights being used at all, a few might show one white light lit. Ordinary loco lamps or whit discs were used to indicate the type of train, the loco didn't run anywhere route indication was used. The tail light was irrelevant as an oil lamp was mandatory at this time - and for many years afterwards.

Lit up marker lights on models are very pretty but mostly not realistic in this period.

I totally accept and agree with your comments Michael. It was really just an exercise in getting what is supplied on the model to work correctly, and to try and make sense of what is supplied!.