KR Models to make SR Class 4DD

[adb968008]

1 hour ago, cctransuk said:

 

 

I wonder if the wrong roof profile is deliberate - inserting correctly curved flush glazing into three-dimensional body / roof recesses could be, shall we say, tricky.

 

Come to that, ejecting the body mouldings from the tooling could be quite a challenge!

 

CJI.

 

Trix managed to put curved glazing into the cab of the Transpenine 50 years ago… thats the first to come to mind, i’m sure other examples are available.

 

HO scale sightseeer cars also come to mind.

Edited June 22, 2022 by adb968008

[Roy Langridge]

34 minutes ago, JSpencer said:

 

That I agree with, but the cab end should have daylight. It does not so there is clearly taper instead of a step in the body shell before the bogie.

 

Have you seen more photos than those above? None show that there is clearly a taper, just that the bottom of the cab is flush to the floor. That does not mean that in that photo it was not just kneeling forward.

 

Not saying that you are wrong with your taper theory, just that I have seen no evidence one way or the other.

Roy 

[JSpencer]

50 minutes ago, Roy Langridge said:

Have you seen more photos than those above? None show that there is clearly a taper, just that the bottom of the cab is flush to the floor. That does not mean that in that photo it was not just kneeling forward.

 

Not saying that you are wrong with your taper theory, just that I have seen no evidence one way or the other.

Roy 

 

But the top of the roof is lower than the inner end of the middle car next to it. Now it is possible they lifted up the inner of the cab car to make the cab end touch the table... but there is no hint of that and I'm not sure why they would do it.

[BR Blue]

Hopefully this is just a 3D print on a very early CAD which would be easy and cheap to fix. I am being optimistic but having followed progress on the Fell, I am concerned. I hope it is not another case of near enough is good enough. The excuses used for the Fell (that is was no longer around and changed frequently) do not apply so much here.

While it is another niche product, other manufacturers are raising the bar with their offerings but KR models seem content to limbo under it :)

Edited June 22, 2022 by BR Blue
Spelling

[Graham_Muz]

8 minutes ago, BR Blue said:

Hopefully this is just a 3D print on a very early CAD which would be easy and cheap to fix. I am being optimistic but having followed progress on the Fell, I am concerned. I hope it is not another case of near enough is good enough. The excuses used for the Fell (that is was no longer around and changed frequently) do not apply so much here.

While it is another niche product, other manufacturers are raising the bar with the offerings but KR models seem content to limbo under it :)

 

As stated above this was described by KR as the first pressing with EP to follow. 

It is not a 3D print...

[BR Blue]

28 minutes ago, Graham_Muz said:

 

As stated above this was described by KR as the first pressing with EP to follow. 

It is not a 3D print...

Sorry, I read that but it did not register. Not so easy to fix then.

[LaGrange]

CAD doesn't cost money to modify (unless you confirm it, then go back and start changing things) but even then CAD is cheap, its all still on the screen and tablet. Changing the tooling is very expensive once its been cut as several manufacturers have discovered be it the model is wrong or a fault with the tooling.

 

Making high quality 3D prints at a 3 figure sum to print is still cheaper than making (or changing) the tooling.

 

Amazing how I knew that and I'm not a manufacturer, surprised this one doesnt

[bigherb]

19 hours ago, RFS said:

Had another look at the front end and have cropped the two pictures below for reference. The roof is clearly too shallow. The curvature starts almost level with the top of the cab windows on the prototype, but much higher up on the model. No doubt that explains why the upper windows don't appear to be curved enough.  I hope this gets corrected.

 

 

 

The roof curve starts at the top of the drivers door, the top of the front windows are around 4" below that line, but something is amiss, probably the windows are too low because as been stated the front is too deep.

Edited June 22, 2022 by bigherb

[phil gollin]

.

 

It seems odd that the initial CADs showed the Driving carriage "fish belly" and where the window curves started  -  see Graham Muz's post on 13th May  ( ONLY 5 weeks ago !!! )   ;

 

 

 

It seems that the mould manufacturer ignored the CADs ( ????? ).

 

.

[Pre Grouping fan]

42 minutes ago, phil gollin said:

 

It seems that the mould manufacturer ignored the CADs ( ????? ).

 

 

Not unheard of with some of the Chinese made injection moulds I've had the 'pleasure' of working on. 

[franciswilliamwebb]

Oh well, another one to stick on the Accurascale to-do list? 😉

[cctransuk]

1 minute ago, franciswilliamwebb said:

Oh well, another one to stick on the Accurascale to-do list? 😉

 

 

We're doing it again, aren't we? Doing KRM's research for them after they've ploughed ahead far too quickly.

 

Surely they've learned by now to : - 

 

a) research your project thoroughly before engaging in expensive CAD design work;

 

b) publish your CAD renders for critical comment before cutting metal - let alone before having test shots done!

 

CJI.

[Wolf27]

1 hour ago, phil gollin said:

.

 

It seems odd that the initial CADs showed the Driving carriage "fish belly" and where the window curves started  -  see Graham Muz's post on 13th May  ( ONLY 5 weeks ago !!! )   ;

 

 

 

It seems that the mould manufacturer ignored the CADs ( ????? ).

 

.

I’d argue even that doesn’t look quite right. 

[Colin_McLeod]

8 hours ago, cctransuk said:

I wonder if the wrong roof profile is deliberate - inserting correctly curved flush glazing into three-dimensional body / roof recesses could be, shall we say, tricky.

 

Roco managed to do it with their Swiss IC2000 coaches.

 

[johndon]

22 hours ago, Colin_McLeod said:

Sadly KR Models 'previous' tends to ignore constructive criticism.  Let's hope they will listen this time.

That certainly wasn’t the case with the Consett iron ore wagons, they made numerous changes between the initial EP and the final release in response to feedback on this forum. 

[cctransuk]

12 minutes ago, johndon said:

That certainly wasn’t the case with the Consett iron ore wagons, they made numerous changes between the initial EP and the final release in response to feedback on this forum. 

 

The point is, why go to the expense of cutting metal in order to produce an EP, when publishing a CAD render will produce the feedback that they clearly need?

 

Alterations to tooling are expensive, and they add to the cost of the finished model - ie. the price we pay.

 

CJI.

[Roy Langridge]

22 minutes ago, cctransuk said:

 

The point is, why go to the expense of cutting metal in order to produce an EP, when publishing a CAD render will produce the feedback that they clearly need?

 

Alterations to tooling are expensive, and they add to the cost of the finished model - ie. the price we pay.

 

CJI.

 

But as above, the CAD looks better, but the tooling looks as though it may not match the CAD.

 

Roy

Edited June 22, 2022 by Roy Langridge

[AlfaZagato]

This smacks of that 'other' make's supposed issues.   I don't understand modern die-cutting.   I can't comprehend how you could make so many mistakes.

 

I do hope KR Models sorts this out.   Neat subject.    We'll all be building the same layout to justify it.

[Colin_McLeod]

1 hour ago, johndon said:

That certainly wasn’t the case with the Consett iron ore wagons, they made numerous changes between the initial EP and the final release in response to feedback on this forum. 

I stand corrected in that case.

[dasatcopthorne]

Just another observation amongst all the others.

 

The prototype's side windows clearly follow the corner radius used on the early 2Hals (Mr Bulleid's instruction seen on a GA drawing) and the Bulleid Subs. However, have they not been to measure it?

 

Dave.

[The Stationmaster]

13 hours ago, johndon said:

That certainly wasn’t the case with the Consett iron ore wagons, they made numerous changes between the initial EP and the final release in response to feedback on this forum. 

Yes - but they were fairly simple mods and no doubt not too expensive whereas getting a coach body wrong especially, as here,  in some critical areas is almost down to scrap it and start again level.  And then you are talking really big money.

 

It is far cheaper to get the CAD right and if necessary check it by means of 3-D prints if you're not sure that it is really correct.  Get the tooling wrong and it is very difficult, if not impossible, to put metal back where it has been taken of out of the tool let alone the cost of redoing the work.

[adb968008]

The communications are imo quite poor when it cones to technical aspects of the design.

 

However GT3 was good, the 2nd was even better, they clearly listened and adjusted it.

 

Consett’s they clearly listened but said very little, however remember that first EP had no interior, but when it emerged they had addressed it.

 

2 out of 2 and full marks… 100% so far.

 

Fell is still an enigma, and i’m living in hope that what weve seen was an EP sample that rendered both sides for assessment purposes and what we get is two different shells based on the two different liveries… but we dont know.

In my simple mind, If I want to sell more, I need to communicate and build trust, which involves accepting mistakes without emotion and communicating amendments based on feedback where it makes commercial sense… by saying nothing… I just don't see how it helps sales ? 
 

I did note in their last letter, that they stated :

 

Quote

We received some criticism from the last newsletter that we didn't mention The Leader. If there's no news on a project then we can't report it.

 

Fair enough, but since the painted Fell EPs there has been silence and suddenly this tidbit appears…

 

Quote

The Fell has been delayed by some of these issues. But it's now on the water.

But I still dont know if i’m getting a design by Colonel Fell, Franken-Fell or a model made on Fell-day the 13th.

 

With that in mind, all I have to go off is past track record, which means they are only as good as their last model, so I cant commit to Leader,  4DD as i’m unconvinced on the EP and although I like DHP1 and Hunselt bo-bo prototypes i’ll see what Fell looks like first….

 

to be fair, Hornby is headed the same way and i’ve cancelled my pre- orders there too as its becoming a bit of a lottery.

in-short, There are easier ways to persuade me to spend.

Edited June 23, 2022 by adb968008

[johndon]

45 minutes ago, The Stationmaster said:

Yes - but they were fairly simple mods and no doubt not too expensive whereas getting a coach body wrong especially, as here,  in some critical areas is almost down to scrap it and start again level.  And then you are talking really big money.

 

It is far cheaper to get the CAD right and if necessary check it by means of 3-D prints if you're not sure that it is really correct.  Get the tooling wrong and it is very difficult, if not impossible, to put metal back where it has been taken of out of the tool let alone the cost of redoing the work.

Whilst I’m not up on the process of what they had to do, they added a complete, fully detailed, interior that didn’t exist at all in the original EP, not sure I’d describe that as a simple mod… 

[Wickham Green too]

14 hours ago, Roy Langridge said:

But as above, the CAD looks better, but the tooling looks as though it may not match the CAD.

I have to disagree there - looking back at the CAD, I see exactly the same issues with 'cantrail' curvature, upper windows and driving windows/headcode box ......... though It's impossible to tell what exactly they've done with the body base step-down ( It's not as if there are no prototypes available for laser scanning - like wot everyonelse duz ! ).

[Roy Langridge]

2 hours ago, Wickham Green too said:

I have to disagree there - looking back at the CAD, I see exactly the same issues with 'cantrail' curvature, upper windows and driving windows/headcode box ......... though It's impossible to tell what exactly they've done with the body base step-down ( It's not as if there are no prototypes available for laser scanning - like wot everyonelse duz ! ).

I didn't say perfect - just better. The cantrail curve starts in the right place on the CAD (top of the cab door), but I think the roof is too shallow or the curve is just wrong.

 

As for laser-scanning - we keep being told be some others that that is not the way to do it. I don't know either way and have seen people mess up with and without it.

Roy 

Edited June 23, 2022 by Roy Langridge