Kernow Model Rail Centre to produce GWR 1361 0-6-0 Saddle Tank

[cctransuk]

Well I can't see them - and strangely enough the original drawing was used, complete to Harry Holcroft's signature ............

 

Perhaps we could have a comment as to whether the splashers appeared under Harry Holcroft's signature?

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

[micklner]

Fascinating that even those who indulge in the 'error hunt' with every new model CAD image or EP have failed to notice the 'splashers' until now. So, are they really THAT significant? I'm guessing that the alternative would be slightly undersized wheels, which would be much more difficult to pick up on the CAD images. (CJL)

 

Signifcant ? I would imagine to many buyers it will be, once this is/becomes widely known fault/error on the Kernow version.

 

Looking at the CAD drawings the wheels appear to not even close to the size of the radius of the splashers . I would have thought at most small cutout in the underneath of the Footplate would have been required for clearance.  Undersize wheels I would imagine, would have been a much better choice if that is the reason for the splashers being added.No idea if the actual Loco at Didcot was in one piece at the time of the CAD drawings  being made , I presume no scan was made ?

 

The Heljan version doesn't have any splashers and I haven't read any complaints of undersize wheels on that version ?

[Les1952]

With all the negativity going on I'm going to state here and now that I am NOT cancelling my pre-order.

 

I ordered this one rather than the Heljan one for one basic reason.  I have a Heljan 05 diesel and I'm fed up with bits falling off it.   My DJM locos (6 WDs and a Beattie) don't suffer from that problem.

 

Les

Edited September 25, 2017 by Les1952

[Gilwell Park]

_{Hi.  My K's 1361 has correct size wheels, no splashers, but a very thin running plate over the wheels. The cab steps line up with the cab door and it does not have the lubricator on the dome cover. I have been unable to find a picture of one fitted to a loco in BR days. I do not think I will be replacing my K's model.  Roger}

[JSpencer]

I remember on the D6xx early cads that all the fan grills were placed along the centreline by the factory cad people. Fortunately everyone noticed.

 

I don,t think the splashers are needed here but maybe the factory simply added them to cads through habit. And they remained missed for years even when a white version was posted (indeed I see comments of how much better it was than Heljans) until one GWR green hit a layout.

 

It is curious how they crept in and how they survived. Bit like number 488 Adams radial, was due for scrap but saved by the WD, then put for sale as scrap and brought by Colonel Stephens for the EKR. Was brought back by the SR for use 2 surviving sisters on the most awkward of lines, and finally preserved by Bluebell, one chance in 3. While an Ivatt modified pacific named after Duchess designer himself, was scrapped!

 

We should note though, Kernow has tooled details of each member (a brave thing to do) while Heljans is one tool does all. They too are not beyond criticism. One comment that is starting to become common in duplicate races is that "the ideal loco would be a mixture of features of both models". It seems that the risk of lower return once duplication sets in, this sets limits on development meaning additional corrections which cause further delay and costs probably have to be skipped.

Edited September 25, 2017 by JSpencer

[bill_schmidt1]

There could be another reason.. Those that have normally given advice may be fed up of being called rivet counters etc and chosen not to speak up. The end result is this model with so much detail that there are some in the wrong place and some extras included!

 

I think I'll wait to see how it performs before I decide whether to buy one or not.

[cctransuk]

There could be another reason.. Those that have normally given advice may be fed up of being called rivet counters etc and chosen not to speak up.

 

Too true - I can think of a few who would fit that description.

 

The 'my favourite manufacturer can do no wrong' brigade should reflect on that point before crying "Rivet-counter" !!!

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

[Allegheny1600]

Fascinating that even those who indulge in the 'error hunt' with every new model CAD image or EP have failed to notice the 'splashers' until now. So, are they really THAT significant? I'm guessing that the alternative would be slightly undersized wheels, which would be much more difficult to pick up on the CAD images. (CJL)

These errors ARE significant. Why? Because they are spurious details not present on the real thing.

What's more, you, as a magazine editor of note, should be spotting that this model does not conform to photos of its prototype. I do hope that your magazines' review will show that.

 

I rather fear those with access to the large scale original CADs are to blame for this as if it were the factory adding things, then these models should have been returned as being not as agreed upon. Frankly, I don't see that happening. (JHE)

[phil-b259]

Too true - I can think of a few who would fit that description.

 

The 'my favourite manufacturer can do no wrong' brigade should reflect on that point before crying "Rivet-counter" !!!

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

 

Conversely there are some that seem unable to seperate personal opinions from pure factual content when commenting on omissions / extra detail.

 

If a model is missing detail or has extra things added then stating this is the case is a matter of facts and should be presented as such. On the other hand statements about what the designer should or should not have done, how they ignore online comments, how terrible the choice of components are or how they could have dealt with awkward detail issues in a better way are all the personal opnion of the poster and should be presented seperately.

 

In this particular case it is suprising that the splasher issue has not been picked up before by any of our resident GWR experts (Miss Prism, the Stationmaster etc) who are usually very good at spotting errors but who seem to have been fooled in this case despite the publication of he CAD designs on here.

 

Ultimately we are where we are as the saying goes and it is obviously far too late to change things now. Thus a purchaser has a choice between the Heljan example - which may be accurate in terms of detail (but does have build quality issues acording to some) and Kernow (which has spurious extra detail and a 'Marmite' drive mechanism)

[phil-b259]

 

I rather fear those with access to the large scale original CADs are to blame for this as if it were the factory adding things, then these models should have been returned as being not as agreed upon. Frankly, I don't see that happening. (JHE)

 

Indeed.

 

For the avoidance of doubt the 'mini splashers' are visible on every CAD image shown on this forum so its clear they have been part of the original design from the word go. Like many others though I did not question their presence, lacking any detailed knowledge about the real locomotives, and in the absence of any comment on here I assumed the CADs were correct.

 

As such the the factory cannot be at fault - they have manufactured what they were told to manufacture and as such they are under no obligation to correct anything. In short Kernow will have to live with the fact that their model comes with a rather significant flaw that may affect sales etc.

[Roy Langridge]

These errors ARE significant. Why? Because they are spurious details not present on the real thing.

What's more, you, as a magazine editor of note, should be spotting that this model does not conform to photos of its prototype. I do hope that your magazines' review will show that.

 

I rather fear those with access to the large scale original CADs are to blame for this as if it were the factory adding things, then these models should have been returned as being not as agreed upon. Frankly, I don't see that happening. (JHE)

 

I feel that is rather harsh on Dibber25 - you are basically saying as a magazine editor he should spot every error? Completely unrealistic.

 

As for the "blame" - since we all had access to the original CADs, I guess you are happy that we are all, yourself included, to blame?

 

Roy

[Allegheny1600]

I feel that is rather harsh on Dibber25 - you are basically saying as a magazine editor he should spot every error? Completely unrealistic.

 

As for the "blame" - since we all had access to the original CADs, I guess you are happy that we are all, yourself included, to blame?

 

Roy

If he (or anyone else) is going to do a review of the model, then Yes! Detail errors that are on the model and not the prototype should be spotted and mentioned.

Any magazine review of any product should give as in-depth a review as possible.

It is NOT necessary to state "this is a most inaccurate model, don't buy it" - it is only necessary to show what if any, errors there are. Then the reading public should be able to make up their own mind as to which version to buy.

 

I only quoted Mr Leigh, as by posting on here, it is evident that he has an interest in this model.

 

And, YES! I wish I had spotted this particular addition myself. I would dearly love to know how and why this addition occurred.

[cctransuk]

 

As for the "blame" - since we all had access to the original CADs, I guess you are happy that we are all, yourself included, to blame?

 

Limited access, surely? ..... and, in most cases, very limited knowledge of the prototype - I certainly did not spot the defect.

 

Indeed, if Lofty hadn't pointed out the spurious splashers I would probably not noticed them until I had taken delivery, and was studying prototype phots in order to personalise the model. That does not mean, however, that the model should satisfy me - when you know of an error it strikes you every time you look at it.

 

Within the design / commissioning team, it must have been at least one person's job to have an intimate knowledge of the prototype and full access to the CADs? That the non-prototypical splashers were added must have been a conscious decision by at least that person or, alternatively, they were added by the factory designers / toolmakers and this wasn't picked up by the person who should have done so.

 

I doubt that we will never know the whole truth about this situation, but it does seem to be part of a trend in some quarters to, shall we say, be a little cavalier with prototype detail when there is no apparent reason for the deviation.

 

As to coreless motors; market forces will resolve this debate - but I have to say that I remain to be convinced that they are either obligatory for small prototypes or superior to conventional motors at the present time.

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

Edited September 26, 2017 by cctransuk

[bill_schmidt1]

 

 

As for the "blame" - since we all had access to the original CADs, I guess you are happy that we are all, yourself included, to blame?

 

Roy

I'm not sure why it would be down to all of us? I'm not being paid to do the design work on it and as I said before, those that give their time and information freely seem to get shouted down so why would people speak up when they're going to get abuse? 

Edited September 26, 2017 by bill_schmidt1

[Miss Prism]

I missed those silly splashers, and I'm kicking myself for it. I guess it didn't occur to me that anyone would do something that crazy. In any case, it seems the development budget on the Kernow was canned when the Heljan appeared, so I felt further comment would merely have been a depressing waste of time.

[Roy Langridge]

Limited access, surely? ..... and, in most cases, very limited knowledge of the prototype - I certainly did not spot the defect.

 

Indeed, if Lofty hadn't pointed out the spurious splashers I would probably not noticed them until I had taken delivery, and was studying prototype phots in order to personalise the model. That does not mean, however, that the model should satisfy me - when you know of an error it strikes you every time you look at it.

 

<snip>

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

 

I don't disagree. When a poster makes the accusation that those that have access to the CADs are to blame, and we all saw CADs with the splashers present, there is only one conclusion to draw from his post...and you will note I was asking Allegheny1600, if he was happy we were all to blame, not that we were

 

Something got overlooked, to err is human and all that. Kernow and DJ will have had a small number of people comparing the CADs with images. We were provided the CADs and images (sufficient to spot the error) and we, as a much larger number of people, missed it as well.

 

I am not saying this to defend Kernow or DJ in particular - it is a shame and I would guess all involved wish it were different. But, as the saying goes, ..it happens.

 

Roy

Edited September 26, 2017 by Roy Langridge

[woodenhead]

I suspect there is one person who spotted the splashers very early on and through an intermediary alluded to them on this thread without actually spelling it out - I guess he will be loving this. such a pity he couldn't channel his abilities in a less confrontational manner.

[cctransuk]

I suspect there is one person who spotted the splashers very early on and through an intermediary alluded to them on this thread without actually spelling it out - I guess he will be loving this. such a pity he couldn't channel his abilities in a less confrontational manner.

 

I suspect I know to whom you refer - and can confirm your assessment of their current mood.

 

Regards,

John.

[dibber25]

These errors ARE significant. Why? Because they are spurious details not present on the real thing.

What's more, you, as a magazine editor of note, should be spotting that this model does not conform to photos of its prototype. I do hope that your magazines' review will show that.

 

I rather fear those with access to the large scale original CADs are to blame for this as if it were the factory adding things, then these models should have been returned as being not as agreed upon. Frankly, I don't see that happening. (JHE)

 

I don't think I like your tone. Please don't tell me what I should be doing - especially since magazine Editors do not 'review' CAD images, and no review sample of an actual model is yet available. It ceased to be 'my' magazine in 2008, by the way. I actually posed a question as to how significant they are, given that no one had apparently spotted them until now. I have since been told privately that they were spotted earlier, so I'm happy to withdraw my comment. (CJL).

Edited September 26, 2017 by dibber25

[Andy Y]

Yes; some may be gleefully relishing an unfortunate detail. It can happen to anyone; a retrospectively blindingly obvious issue was not identified whilst attention was paid to other detail. However if the footplate had been completely flush it would have fouled movement of the wheels so another compromise would have been necessary.

 

As has been said, the issue was hiding in full sight of everyone. It's unfortunate but there are so many other excellent attributes to the model but if those, particularly who have agendas, blow it out of proportion and attempt to make others' minds up for them impact sales to those who are acceptably happy with the product then it doesn't do anyone much good in the long term.

[Allegheny1600]

I don't think I like your tone. Please don't tell me what I should be doing - especially since magazine Editors do not 'review' CAD images, and no review sample of an actual model is yet available. It ceased to be 'my' magazine in 2008, by the way. I actually posed a question as to how significant they are, given that no one had apparently spotted them until now. I have since been told privately that they were spotted earlier, so I'm happy to withdraw my comment. (CJL).

I'm sorry if you don't like my 'tone'!

I put a separate paragraph between my discussion of what I think should be in a review and my discussion of the CAD, I didn't want to infer that you should be reviewing that!

I know it's not 'your' magazine but I believe you do still work there? Apologies if not, of course.

[cctransuk]

....... a retrospectively blindingly obvious issue was not identified whilst attention was paid to other detail. However if the footplate had been completely flush it would have fouled movement of the wheels so another compromise would have been necessary.

 

That seems to be a comment at conflict with itself.

 

I realise that you probably have more personal insight into this matter than most of us, but the first sentence implies an error that was not detected; the second indicates a conscious decision taken to avoid a physical issue.

 

Surely it can't have been both?

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

[bill_schmidt1]

 

As has been said, the issue was hiding in full sight of everyone. It's unfortunate but there are so many other excellent attributes to the model but if those, particularly who have agendas, blow it out of proportion and attempt to make others' minds up for them impact sales to those who are acceptably happy with the product then it doesn't do anyone much good in the long term.

I agree its unfortunate but I'm not sure anyone is blowing anything out of proportion.. If people aren't allowed to make comments on new models then what really is the point. It might as well be any shape with any amount of wheels and any colour? Ok maybe a little over the top but who would know?

 

I also agree it doesn't do anyone any good in the long term. If models are passed as ok and as a accurate model but are incorrect then who benefits? Not the modeller.

 

Ok sometimes there needs to be some compromise but I think the splashers could of been dealt with better and i'm not really sure on the excuse for the steps in the wrong place. 

 

As I said before though. I'll wait and see how it runs before deciding if I want to buy one.

[Andy Y]

Surely it can't have been both?

 

 

It can if it was designed in at an early stage by the factory (my supposition) to mitigate against a potential issue and if the anomaly wasn't identified or questioned in the review stages of CADs or EPs.

[Andy Y]

I'm not sure anyone is blowing anything out of proportion.

 

Elsewhere on the internet there definitely is. But that's what he does.