KR Models - New Class 40 EOI

[PieGuyRob]

6 hours ago, stovepipe said:

The latest Bachmann 2023 releases have some useful improvements, but the bogies are still rather lacking in detail and depth. On the KR renders I can't tell what I'm looking at on the bogies - there's something very odd going on with the springs...

I agree with you. There appears to be springs, I presume, protruding from the bogies making them out of gauge. Either that, or we both have dodgy eyesight.....

Edited August 23, 2023 by PieGuyRob
Needed a we

[GWR-fan]

One must question WHY they chose this locomotive.  Given their somewhat checkered past,  what persuaded them that they could make a superior model to what is already available,  or is this not their intention?  With previous production there was no other model in the market to compare to and yet they chose a subject with already multiple examples for comparison.  I believe it is time for the company to employ actual professionals if they see a future in the hobby.   Other smaller manufacturers have shown what is possible.

[Roy Langridge]

11 hours ago, stovepipe said:

The latest Bachmann 2023 releases have some useful improvements, but the bogies are still rather lacking in detail and depth. On the KR renders I can't tell what I'm looking at on the bogies - there's something very odd going on with the springs...

The bogies look to be too wide in general, leading to a buffer beam that extends further out than it should. Might only be the angle, but I am not sure. 
 

Everywhere you look there are small errors: split headcode boxe fronts are flush to the sides, split headcode box top handrails seem to be at the back, small hatch missing on bodyside, handrails either side of the nose doors aren’t handrails, looking more like clips…

 

It is only a CAD render, hopefully these are known and will be corrected. 
 

Roy

[97406]

1 hour ago, Roy Langridge said:

The bogies look to be too wide in general, leading to a buffer beam that extends further out than it should. Might only be the angle, but I am not sure. 
 

Everywhere you look there are small errors: split headcode boxe fronts are flush to the sides, split headcode box top handrails seem to be at the back, small hatch missing on bodyside, handrails either side of the nose doors aren’t handrails, looking more like clips…

 

It is only a CAD render, hopefully these are known and will be corrected. 
 

Roy

 

I’m certainly not ordering one with what I see there. There’s a lot more to fix than on the Bachmann model, or even arguably the Lima/Limby/Railroad version. If it was posted as an early draft to get feedback and make improvements, then I’d understand it better, but even then it falls a long way short as a first impression. Just think how good Bachmann’s latest models end up after being developed behind closed doors without any views of the process from the modelling public.

[E100]

7 hours ago, GWR-fan said:

One must question WHY they chose this locomotive.  Given their somewhat checkered past,  what persuaded them that they could make a superior model to what is already available,  or is this not their intention?  With previous production there was no other model in the market to compare to and yet they chose a subject with already multiple examples for comparison.  I believe it is time for the company to employ actual professionals if they see a future in the hobby.   Other smaller manufacturers have shown what is possible.

 

It's Keith's faviourite basically is the rationale (from chat at Warley last year). I mean fair enough, if you're going to start a model company you may as well do what you like otherwise why are you doing it.

[97406]

25 minutes ago, E100 said:

 

It's Keith's faviourite basically is the rationale (from chat at Warley last year). I mean fair enough, if you're going to start a model company you may as well do what you like otherwise why are you doing it.

 

It’s my absolute firm favourite loco too, hence the desire for perfection in this day and age. Hopefully Keith can see it too and will work on improving it an fettling it until it’s right. He’ll bankrupt me if he does, I tell thee! 😀

[AY Mod]

[97406]

1 minute ago, AY Mod said:

 

A Clayton boilered example there!

[black and decker boy]

The front of the nose doesn’t look right, it looks completely flat whereas EE noses had subtle curves.

 

the disc headcode version shows this the most imo

[AY Mod]

[GWR-fan]

2 hours ago, E100 said:

 

It's Keith's faviourite basically is the rationale (from chat at Warley last year). I mean fair enough, if you're going to start a model company you may as well do what you like otherwise why are you doing it.

 

That was his rationale for doing the GT3 model.  However,  when using other people's money to fund your "favourite" locomotive then there is a need to get it right.   I am still of the opinion that the manufacturers are enthusiasts with little actual detailed knowledge of the prototypes they intend to release.  They leave the interpretation of the research material to the Chinese manufacturer to produce the model,  not having the knowledge to know if the drawings and research material are being accurately interpreted.  Thus numerous detail issues become prevalent.  If they are happy with a Lima era model then that is fine for them but models have developed over the last forty odd years.

[HExpressD]

1 hour ago, GWR-fan said:

They leave the interpretation of the research material to the Chinese manufacturer to produce the model,  not having the knowledge to know if the drawings and research material are being accurately interpreted.  Thus numerous detail issues become prevalent.  If they are happy with a Lima era model then that is fine for them but models have developed over the last forty odd years.

Quite a lot of manufacturers do this to be fair, it isn't just KR, only a small handful design in the UK, and they tend to be the more established brands as far as I'm aware. Of course, you don't have to actually have ever seen a locomotive to design it well, but it'll all depend on how good the input of the people who have seen one is during design reviews!

[Ed-farms]

2 hours ago, black and decker boy said:

The front of the nose doesn’t look right, it looks completely flat whereas EE noses had subtle curves.

 

the disc headcode version shows this the most imo

 

Thanks, I saw the renders and couldn't put my finger on what the issue was but the nose was definitely wrong to me and I thought 40106 showed it the most - thought it was the discs somehow.

[JSpencer]

6 hours ago, E100 said:

 

It's Keith's faviourite basically is the rationale (from chat at Warley last year). I mean fair enough, if you're going to start a model company you may as well do what you like otherwise why are you doing it.

 

This is rather an expensive way of obtaining your favorite model when there are 2 competing RTR models out there already, still being  produced.

My hunch, he wants the great train robbery one that the others dare not touch.  Doubtless other people want it too, however renumbering a Bachmann model is dead easy compared to making a kit that you would need to do for a Fell, GT3 etc...

 

If he does not better Bachmann, this project could sink him.

 

 

 

[Roy Langridge]

1 hour ago, JSpencer said:

 

If he does not better Bachmann, this project could sink him.

 

 

 

Which would take a lot of other people’s money with it. Hopefully it will not come to that. 
 

Roy

[97406]

An example of some tasty renders. I ordered and paid for 37043 off the back of these. https://www.world-of-railways.co.uk/news/accurascale-show-new-images-of-their-forthcoming-oo-gauge-class-37-mod/

 

[The Stationmaster]

On 22/08/2023 at 17:25, stovepipe said:

I won't be ordering on the basis of those renders...... it looks like another half-A job is in the offing.

I could just about justify a really good, modern tooling, EE Type 4 - so that's this one ruled out.

[The Black Hat]

On 22/08/2023 at 15:37, LaGrange said:

 

There were 199 TOPS Class 40's, as D322 was written off in the mid 60's, hence the pioneer D200 becoming 40122

 

I dont know, KR were desperate to sell off GT3's in fictitious liveries and are developing more of them for some reason, even after the others didnt sell.

 

Perhaps leave the mainstream models to the more established, professional manufacturers and stick with more niche models - oh wait they struggle with those too

 

I think half the problem is the choice of prototype to turn into something fictitious. The GT3 is already a niche interest and the fictitious liveries of that might cater for an extra few sales of those interested in the possibility of it appearing earlier or later given the guise - or look better with the change. But you still need an interest in GT3 to generate the need for the sale. 

With the class 40 the change is somewhat different - the possibility of a history rewrite means that you can tweak a plausible backstory to create the scene for a class that was more numerous and did last longer. I have done this with class 31 (into BR Blue Large Logo), Regional Railways class 50 and some others that I have sold on (Transrail 25, Arriva class 37). For the versions of the class 40 that KR want to do, I would renumber them away from the numbers they are using - such as a 40/4 to follow the likes of 31 and 37 that had ETH. That way you can have them in that number sequence, done as others would have been and then sit them on shed/in station alongside others and they all then look the part. Numbers such as 40199 stand out way too much and remove the chance of them looking at home amongst other classes that might have lasted longer as there would have been fewer working examples. A Regional Railways 40/1 (eg 40132) and EWS (eg 40408) would look a lot better. 

 

 

[97406]

2 hours ago, The Black Hat said:

A Regional Railways 40/1 (eg 40132) and EWS (eg 40408) would look a lot better. 

 

 

 

The number sequence 40101-40199 was taken up by normal disc, split and central headcode 40s. Here’s 40132 for you. 

 

 

[The Black Hat]

19 minutes ago, 97406 said:

 

The number sequence 40101-40199 was taken up by normal disc, split and central headcode 40s. Here’s 40132 for you. 

 

 

 

Thanks... not an expert on Class 40s if Im honest, but suggest they renumber the Reggy version to a Centre Box number.  The 40/4 idea is because other classes were renumbered when fitted with ETH. 

[JSpencer]

Buffers! A KR class 40 can beat Bachmann on buffers.....

[MidlandRed]

On 24/08/2023 at 12:18, The Stationmaster said:

I could just about justify a really good, modern tooling, EE Type 4 - so that's this one ruled out.

Im of the same view regarding acquiring a good EE Type 4 model and had even thought about ordering one of the new Bachmann releases, but don’t like the way the body sits so far above the fronts of the bogies, and thus haven’t. 
 

These look ok to me, barring correction of some details - so I’m going to wait and see what they’re like at the next stage before deciding - a bit early in the process, @The Stationmaster to be writing this off in my view. 
 

 

[Roy Langridge]

3 hours ago, The Black Hat said:

 

Thanks... not an expert on Class 40s if Im honest, but suggest they renumber the Reggy version to a Centre Box number.  The 40/4 idea is because other classes were renumbered when fitted with ETH. 

Or they could do the sensible thing and not produce them 😉

 

Roy

[97406]

3 hours ago, The Black Hat said:

 

Thanks... not an expert on Class 40s if Im honest, but suggest they renumber the Reggy version to a Centre Box number.  The 40/4 idea is because other classes were renumbered when fitted with ETH. 

 

Here’s a good place to immerse yourself in for a while…. 

https://www.flickr.com/groups/cfas/

 

 

 

Edited August 25, 2023 by 97406

[97406]

3 hours ago, JSpencer said:

Buffers! A KR class 40 can beat Bachmann on buffers.....

 

The bogie jumpers look better than the Bachmann O gauge versions. Bit expensive to buy it just for the bogie fittings.