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

[cctransuk]

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.

 

Accepted, if that was what happened  - it just amazes me that 'the factory' can depart from the prototype to this degree without having to draw the matter to the attention of the client.

 

Some close examination of contractural duties should, in that case, inform procedures for future projects / contacts.

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

[royaloak]

I will probably be splashing out on one of these (do you see what I did there) when the bank account recovers (it might be some time) and as a fully qualified rivet counter (I once counted how many rivets there were on one side and one end of a HAA hopper so I think that qualifies me, the answer is 'a lot') I have to say the tiny little splashers dont really bother me, the cab step being out of line is a bit more of an issue but if it gets to me I will attack it with a knife and some glue, a which point I will probably find out why they were put there in the first place.

 

Overall I am quite impressed with the amount of (correct) detail they have put into this tiny little model and if it runs as well as my other DJM models I will be happy with it.

 

Right, does anyone know the numbers for Saturdays lottery because my list of models I 'need' to buy is getting out of hand!

 

Edit-

With the number of limited editions/special products Kernow are doing at the moment maybe they are taking their eye off the ball slightly?

That is in no way meant as a criticism but could be a reason these 'errors' were not picked up at an early stage. 

Edited September 26, 2017 by royaloak

[Phil Parker]

Isn't the point that there are regular demands on here that we are shown the CADs of future models - and manufacturers are chastised if they decide not to do this? The (perfectly sensible) argument being that if lots of people look, then errors will be highlighted before tooling commences. 

 

CADs were shown here, as were pre-production models, but no-one spotted the splashers or mis-aligned footsteps, or at least if they did, no-one at the factory took any notice. 

 

We can't have it both ways. We can't demand to see CAD drawings arguing that this will ensure accuracy, and then say it's not our fault we didn't spot the errors.

 

Someone is going to shout "Kernow splashers" when the next firm wheels out an EP about to go into production and people wonder why we didn't see drawings earlier. Mind you, manufacturers can't pop CADs up here and expect free expert opinion either. 

 

There's no point in crying about it now though. Modellers get to vote with their wallets and decide if they like the Kernow, Heljan or K's kit versions.

[The Stationmaster]

_{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}

 

Strangely I can't find a picture of one without a lubricator on the dome in BR days but there are published photos of 1361/62/63/64/65 all in BR days with the lubricator on the dome.  And even taking the lazy route and looking on the 'net rapidly produced images of three of them.

 

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 ?

No but the Heljan version regrettably has a host of detail errors because they seem to have adopted the simplistic course of using a variety of running numbers and liveries on what appears to be exactly the same models whereas the Kernow version would appear to be correctly detailed for each running number.  You pays your money and you takes your choice - simple as that but if you like cutting parts off and replacing them with the correct detail (once you've done the research of course) then the Heljan one is the one for you but you'd need a suitable short chimney as well if modelling the engines in early condition.

Edited September 26, 2017 by The Stationmaster

[The Stationmaster]

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.

How can it not have been both - that's a nonsense.  

 

If 'someone' (such asa designer in China?) decided to add the splashers for whatever reason - possibly clearance or whatever then he/she made that decision.  If someone in the UK checking the CADs missed the fact that they had been added then you have an error of omission to go with the other person's error of commission.  So it could quite easily have been both and that surely might be a very logical conclusion to draw.

 

The alternative is of course that 'someone' said  'it must have splashers' and simply carried on because that was what had been asked for.  Which of the two alternatives strikes you as the most likely - or would strike you as the most likely if you happen to be familiar with the way models are designed in China for manufacture in China?

 

Anyway overall the answer, be it logical or otherwise, is merely conjectural and you are either prepared to accept an error, which very often wouldn't be noticeable in all but low angle photos, or you are not.  If you enjoy research - and don't forget that every one of these 'standard' Swindon engines had detail differences from all the others in the class at some point in their long lives - and a bit of hacking about to get the right details for a particular running number then buy the Heljan version.  It really is as simple as that.

[Gilwell Park]

Strangely I can't find a picture of one without a lubricator on the dome in BR days but there are published photos of 1361/62/63/64/65 all in BR days with the lubricator on the dome.  And even taking the lazy route and looking on the 'net rapidly produced images of three of them.

 

No but the Heljan version regrettably has a host of detail errors because they seem to have adopted the simplistic course of using a variety of running numbers and liveries on what appears to be exactly the same models whereas the Kernow version would appear to be correctly detailed for each running number.  You pays your money and you takes your choice - simple as that but if you like cutting parts off and replacing them with the correct detail (once you've done the research of course) then the Heljan one is the one for you but you'd need a suitable short chimney as well if modelling the engines in early condition.

Hi  Apologies, I see what you mean about the lubricator, even the Heljan model has one. I referred to Russell which shows a small lubricator, not the larger device fitted to the Kernow model.  Roger

[PMP]

 the Kernow version would appear to be correctly detailed for each running number.  You pays your money and you takes your choice - simple as that but if you like cutting parts off and replacing them with the correct detail (once you've done the research of course) then the Heljan one is the one for you

 

But the point being made is that all the Kernow variants are wrong if they have the same footplate with the splashers and the steps incorrectly placed.

 

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/107457-oxford-rail-announces-oo-gauge-gwr-dean-goods/?p=2864701

 

It's a more than fair point to remind us that over the years umpteen models have had their faults but Oxford has managed at least one thing never, I'm sure, achieved previously  in their Dean Goods and that is misreading the results of and data from a scan of the prototype and ending up with rivets where there were none.  OK so such rivets can, at the cost of paint damage, probably be removed should a purchaser so incline but to me it's a sign of a simple and rather amateurish mistake which could, and should, have been corrected in any review of CADs which implies a rather slapdash, or maybe 'quickie', approach to development.  

 

It would appear that Oxford weren't the first, this models incorrect CADS, 'with both the simple and rather amateurish mistakes which could, and should, have been corrected in any review of CADs' appeared in November 2014.

 

The comment regarding reluctance to comment is likely valid, earlier in this thread there were conversations which were somewhat dismissed and assurances given that this model would be pretty much correct, and quite a bit of talking down Heljans competitor. Subsequent to that we have had assurances that people have held and inspected the model and that its impressive etc etc.

 

This comment, on this thread from February, is a nail on the head moment.

 

 I don't think there's any guarantee that the Kernow 1361 will be any better than the Heljan one - it will probably just have different faults.

 

[UMinion]

whereas the Kernow version would appear to be correctly detailed for each running number

Except it's incorrectly detailed for every running number isn't it?

[Legend]

I think the presence of splashers on a loco , even as small as this, when there shouldn't be any is fundamental and not something that can be easily remedied.  I also don't think its negativity pointing this out , after all , unfortunately it is now a known flaw.  Given the intense scrutiny the Dean Goods attracted , many of whose issues I don't think are as significant as splashers where there should be none, I would expect this to be pointed out in a review, but then I'm still waiting in the press for any comment on the Heljan L&B 2-6-2. While folk on here are shouted down for negativity it seems to me there is an aversion to pointing out flaws or manufacturing issues, unless you're Oxford Rail

[dibber25]

If you have a full-size loco where the there is very little clearance between the wheel flange and the running plate, you have a problem with small scale models, where the running plate (often a metal casting, these days) is thicker than scale and the wheel flanges are over scale. Nothing you do will make those two parts fit in the correct relationship without a compromise. You have choices of compromise:

Under-size the wheels

Put splashers on the running plate

Jack up the height of the model to give clearance

I've just checked the Model Rail review of the Heljan '1361' (April 2017) and the height is shown as 1.5mm higher than scale. So, I think we know which compromise Heljan made. Presumably the K's kit is also over height - it wasn't unusual in white metal kits, where running plates were often very thick. (CJL)

[woodenhead]

Don't mention the flaw

 

[dibber25]

I think the presence of splashers on a loco , even as small as this, when there shouldn't be any is fundamental and not something that can be easily remedied.  I also don't think its negativity pointing this out , after all , unfortunately it is now a known flaw.  Given the intense scrutiny the Dean Goods attracted , many of whose issues I don't think are as significant as splashers where there should be none, I would expect this to be pointed out in a review, but then I'm still waiting in the press for any comment on the Heljan L&B 2-6-2. While folk on here are shouted down for negativity it seems to me there is an aversion to pointing out flaws or manufacturing issues, unless you're Oxford Rail

You really do take the biscuit!! Of course we can't comment on the Heljan MW - we don't have one to review! Two of us have them on order but we both ordered ones which turn out to be in the later batches. Because of my particular interest in the L&B - I decided to accept the offer of an 'Exe' from the Woody Bay shop in addition to the Taw I have on order. I'm going to collect it this coming weekend when I go down to see Lyn for the first time. I'll then review it, in due course (we have several models - including 1361s to cover first) and I'm not going to be bounced into commenting based on hearsay and other people's experiences. Magazine journalists have landed in court for less. (CJL)

[David Bigcheeseplant]

Although I don't need a 1361 I may have been temped although I can't unsee those splashers now so if I was temped I won't be now.

[sparaxis]

Although I don't need a 1361 I may have been temped although I can't unsee those splashers now so if I was temped I won't be now.

 I am very happy to unsee the splashers. I would rather have a good running loco that looks convincing EVEN WITH ERRORS than something that is nominally totally to scale but is somewhat crude and runs like a dog.

 

I have never seen the locomotive in real life, nor am I ever likely too. But it does make a nice small locomotive, and in the version I ordered -  BR black - I am sure the splashers will not be very visible, Just like the lack of daylight under the boiler on the Hatton's Barclay. I can live with both.

 

It is not as if it has gigundous oversized splashers like Tri-ang's Caley single forced onto the Dean Chassis.

 

As an engineer, who works in the rail industry I would have proposed a different compromise: Wheels to minimum size, ie, worn down to the minimum wear limit, RP25 flanges, and a somewhat raised footplate. But I am sure there would have been screams about 3" too small on the wheel diameter and footplate 1 mm too high. You just can't win.

 

Or buy a Polly or Nellie!

Edited September 26, 2017 by sparaxis

[Legend]

I don't recall there being howls of outrage that the Heljan one had its footplate too high, so that would seem to have been the best way to go. Sorry but I just can't get past that there are splashers where they shouldn't be. Yes small. But still there and noticable now .

[Les1952]

 However if the footplate had been completely flush it would have fouled movement of the wheels so another compromise would have been necessary.

 

 

 

Might I ask those criticising the splashers how THEY would have accommodated the oversized flanges and excessive side play that OO models need to remain on the track of the majority of people any manufacturer needs to buy the things to make the model viable?

 

Given that a plastic footplate needs to be thicker than the prototype and that the prototype has very little clearance between a wheelset with new tyres and the underside of the footplate the alternative to me seems to be make the wheels undersized.  And given that scenario how long before someone refused to buy it because the wheels were undersized?

 

Les

[Legend]

Might I ask those criticising the splashers how THEY would have accommodated the oversized flanges and excessive side play that OO models need to remain on the track of the majority of people any manufacturer needs to buy the things to make the model viable?

 

Les

Yes it's easy in this case. Just have a look at the Heljan one.

[Steamport Southport]

The answer is already out there. Heljan did it.

 

 

 

 

 

Jason

 

 

Posted as another reply came in.

Edited September 26, 2017 by Steamport Southport

[dibber25]

We're really into the art of compromise with this little loco. There actually isn't a way to produce the perfect model - well, not in a mish-mash scale/gauge combo like "OO' anyway. Looking at this objectively, don't we actually have the best possible outcome, thanks to the thing that I've always disliked - duplication? We have two manufacturers offering two different interpretations of the same loco. If we can't live with bogus splashers, then we have the option of slightly too tall instead. (CJL)

[Steamport Southport]

My twopeneth.

 

 

I haven't been following the threads on the 1361s, but I gather they both have "issues".

 

So pick your preferred one. Quite simple really.

 

 

 

Jason

 

 

Posted when Chris was posting a similar thought.

Edited September 26, 2017 by Steamport Southport

[Clearwater]

I think the presence of splashers on a loco , even as small as this, when there shouldn't be any is fundamental and not something that can be easily remedied. I also don't think its negativity pointing this out , after all , unfortunately it is now a known flaw. Given the intense scrutiny the Dean Goods attracted , many of whose issues I don't think are as significant as splashers where there should be none, I would expect this to be pointed out in a review, but then I'm still waiting in the press for any comment on the Heljan L&B 2-6-2. While folk on here are shouted down for negativity it seems to me there is an aversion to pointing out flaws or manufacturing issues, unless you're Oxford Rail

 

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.

Of course, some might argue the major flaw with the model is that the wheels are 16.5mm apart as opposed to 18mm or 18.83mm... The fact that the splashers were so little remarked upon until the last day or so strongly suggests that most people did not notice it and it looked close enough/good enough for them taking into account the major compromise to OO standards.

 

I've found the last couple of pages here quite interesting. Understanding the nature of compromises that have to be made is interesting and informative. It's a squashy balloon problem where fixing x causes problem y which puts z out of kilter and the eventually the Gasman cometh on a Monday. I'm sure if you want to remove the splashers it will be possible not least if you are building a chassis to fit EM/P4 track rather than OO.

 

As I've commented before, I've preordered here not just because I want one but also because some of the proceeds are hypothecated to support GWS. Without them, we might not have an original to argue about and scan. Sometimes there is a bigger picture than whether the model has scale rivets, barely visible splashers or whatever fault someone can conjour up next.

 

David

Edited September 26, 2017 by Clearwater

[Legend]

It is odd. If you look at Andy's pictures the splashers are much more visible in the top photos than the side on views underneath . Similarly they are very obvious in Grahams pictures. So it does look like they are much more noticable looking down on the model , which of course most of us will do.

[JSpencer]

We're really into the art of compromise with this little loco. There actually isn't a way to produce the perfect model - well, not in a mish-mash scale/gauge combo like "OO' anyway. Looking at this objectively, don't we actually have the best possible outcome, thanks to the thing that I've always disliked - duplication? We have two manufacturers offering two different interpretations of the same loco. If we can't live with bogus splashers, then we have the option of slightly too tall instead. (CJL)

Of the two, anyone wishing to perfect it, will probably be easier to cut the splashers off than reduce the height of the Heljan one.

Interesting I just spent a good moment grinding back the running plate thickness on a resin kit to get the right hight (an SECR O1). The splashers were in the slightly wrong place. A thin cutting disc soon removed them allowing me to re sight them.

My kit and it's bits will cost more than this or the a Heljan loco. It won,t be anywhere near as perfect and the effort to make it will surpass that of just buying the thing RTR off the shelf.

Sure super detailed models were cheaper once, but still cheaper/better than what many of us can do.

Edited September 27, 2017 by JSpencer

[Les1952]

The answer is already out there. Heljan did it.

 

 

 

 

 

Jason

 

 

Posted as another reply came in.

 

... and according to that thread ended up with a loco with valve gear that locks up (and some nasty looking wipers on the wheel backs as an aside).

 

You pays your money, you takes your choice......

 

Les

[woodenhead]

If you operate the Kernow model with the right hand side facing you then the splashers are even less obvious because of the toolbox and levers on that side of the model.

 

Like others have said, the flaw is so obvious only a complete pedant may have noticed them on the CAD, I appreciate we can't now unsee the splashers but both models are a compromise and one has displayed some mechanical issues.

 

If I was to buy a 1361 it would still be the Kernow/DJM version, the coreless motor is not to everyone's taste but I am happy with my Well Tanks and 02.