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

[Stubby47]

Doesn't the coupling look massive on the front of them.

[TerrySVR]

Like it

[The Stationmaster]

Doesn't the coupling look massive on the front of them.

 

When you realise just how small the engine is then that is easy to understand (and I bet that's a 'small' version' of the auto coupling!)

[Mikkel]

That chassis would look nice under my old Nellie.

 

(Ps, I am referring to Nellie the loco!)

[gwrrob]

I shall put my head above the parapet and say it's been brought to my attention this evening that there should be two handrail knobs on the smokebox.The model is missing one of these either side but hopefully this can be sorted before production starts.

 

[woodenhead]

They were also missing on the CADs but evident on all the prototype images.

 

Not too late but....

 

Have you informed Kernow direct?

[gwrrob]

They were also missing on the CADs but evident on all the prototype images.

 

Not too late but....

 

Have you informed Kernow direct?

 

 

You are correct so it might be too late.

 

 

Correct here.

 

 

Edited November 1, 2016 by gwrrob

[Loconuts]

I like the hole for the key in the chassis.

[The Stationmaster]

They were also missing on the CADs but evident on all the prototype images.

 

Not too late but....

 

Have you informed Kernow direct?

 

Kernow have been made aware.  

[Mikkel]

I've looked thoruhg the thread again and found no discussion of this:

 

Let's say that someone - could be me! - wants one of these for the pre-WW1 period, eg 1910-1914. Am I correct that this would simply be a matter of obtaining No. 1361 in photographic grey, and repainting it.

 

Can anyone confirm this?

[The Stationmaster]

I've looked thoruhg the thread again and found no discussion of this:

 

Let's say that someone - could be me! - wants one of these for the pre-WW1 period, eg 1910-1914. Am I correct that this would simply be a matter of obtaining No. 1361 in photographic grey, and repainting it.

 

Can anyone confirm this?

 

That is correct.  1361 will be in original condition as it is modelled on the engine as it appeared in photographic grey and the original works drawing was used for CAD design as well. The detail on the others is as it was for the livery they will be modelled with (although 1363 has of course worn a number of different liveries in preservation).  Although I haven't checked the chimney and buffers 1362 is another possible for early condition but you can take 1361 as a definite.

[Mikkel]

That is correct.  1361 will be in original condition as it is modelled on the engine as it appeared in photographic grey and the original works drawing was used for CAD design as well. The detail on the others is as it was for the livery they will be modelled with (although 1363 has of course worn a number of different liveries in preservation).  Although I haven't checked the chimney and buffers 1362 is another possible for early condition but you can take 1361 as a definite.

 

Thanks for that Mike, the preproduction model does look good when compared to the photo of the real 1361 in photo grey. It is still early to compare with the Heljan one, but not unexpectedly the Kernow one looks best to me so far.

 

The missing handrail knob is an excellent opportunity. People can add it themselves and say, "Ah, but mine is a modified one". 

Edited November 6, 2016 by Mikkel

[57xx]

I shall put my head above the parapet and say it's been brought to my attention this evening that there should be two handrail knobs on the smokebox.The model is missing one of these either side but hopefully this can be sorted before production starts.

 

7166686242_e84be0700b_b.jpg

 

Stop moaning and do some modelling... 

[Miss Prism]

I think there will be an after-market demand for a chimney with a parallel body. (Or an opportunity to put a better-shaped separate one 'in the bag'.)

[The Stationmaster]

I think there will be an after-market demand for a chimney with a parallel body. (Or an opportunity to put a better-shaped separate one 'in the bag'.)

 

It should be correct (or at least the original one is as that was scaled off the original Swindon drawing) - have a look on Kernow's site at the EPs

[Miss Prism]

I have looked, Mike, and it still looks awful to me, because of the taper in the body. The diameter of the outer rim of the top cap looks too small to me as well (but it is difficult to judge the latter from the pale EP shots).

 

I don't doubt they consulted the official drawing.

 

All manufacturers have problems producing parallel-bodied chimneys if they choose to have them as an integral part of the body moulding. It's because of limitations in the release angle in that part of the die.

 

Kernow are notoriously weak in this area, even for non-parallel chimneys like the Beattie well tank. (The 02 one looks ok though, but if I remember correctly, the pre-prods needed some considerable criticism before the shape was changed.)

Edited November 19, 2016 by Miss Prism

[The Stationmaster]

I have looked, Mike, and it still looks awful to me, because of the taper in the body. The diameter of the outer rim of the top cap looks too small to me as well (but it is difficult to judge the latter from the pale EP shots).

 

I don't doubt they consulted the official drawing.

 

All manufacturers have problems producing parallel-bodied chimneys if they choose to have them as an integral part of the body moulding. It's because of limitations in the release angle in that part of the die.

 

Kernow are notoriously weak in this area, even for non-parallel chimneys like the Beattie well tank. (The 02 one looks ok though, but if I remember correctly, the pre-prods needed some considerable criticism before the shape was changed.)

 

There shouldn't be any taper at all in the 1361 chimneys and incidentally they aren't an integral part of the body moulding in this case as the body comes in several separate parts and the smokebox is completely separate.

[Miss Prism]

Please convince me Mike that either of these is parallel:

 

 

 

[Miss Prism]

In comparison, here is the Heljan 1361 chimney - not perfect (the overlarge underside cap radius), but reasonable, and a very nice thin base fit on the smokebox:

 

 

 

 

[The Stationmaster]

I wouldn't necessarily take a CAD view without the correct viewing software - it dies make a difference.  I have seen the chimney moulding yet so what you get, especially in a three quarter view, depends very much on lighting whereas the Heljan view is a painted example photographed broadside.  The best way to get an answer is to have a look at samples which, I presume will be shown at Warley next weekend.

[Graham_Muz]

The 02 one looks ok though, but if I remember correctly, the pre-prods needed some considerable criticism before the shape was changed.)

 

I am glad you think the O2 chimney looks OK in the flesh, your memory is not actually correct, as I can assure you that despite the same issues being raised and discussed ad infinitum about the views from CAD screen shots and EP photographs that were not not taken square on, no changes were made to the shape of O2 chimney between the pre-prods and production versions.

[Miss Prism]

Thanks, Graham. I couldn't quite remember the sequence of events on the 02. The chimney still looks a tad fat to me, and doesn't quite capture the subtlety of the Adams Drummond shape, IMHO. The less said about the Beattie welltank chimney the better!

Edited December 15, 2016 by Miss Prism

[Miss Prism]

I wouldn't necessarily take a CAD view without the correct viewing software - it dies make a difference.  I have seen the chimney moulding yet so what you get, especially in a three quarter view, depends very much on lighting whereas the Heljan view is a painted example photographed broadside.  The best way to get an answer is to have a look at samples which, I presume will be shown at Warley next weekend.

 

I do not intend to be at Warley, Mike. I accept your point about 'correct viewing software', but we are not party to that here; what you are close to saying is that there is little point in commenting on any manufacturer's graphics or pictures, but I guess we have all learnt that a million times over on RMweb.

Edited November 20, 2016 by Miss Prism

[The Stationmaster]

I do not intend to be at Warley, Mike. I accept your point about 'correct viewing software', but we are not party to that here; what you are close to saying is that there is little point in commenting on any manufacturer's graphics or pictures, but I guess we have all learnt that a million times over on RMweb.

 

I am indeed close to saying that - an awful lot depends on viewing angle and lighting and it can create incorrect impressions (witness your comment and Muz's reply about the chimney on the O2).  Undoubtedly the best viewing angles for many components are an exact broadside view with proper lighting and that isn't necessarily always achieved in the pics published on here (or elsewhere).

 

However - and I won't be at Warley either as it happens - I have not yet seen 'in the plastic' either of the chimney mouldings for the Kernow 1361so I can't comment from an informed viewpoint on what they are actually like but I agree with you that they should indeed have parallel sides.

[B15nac]

I see some nice new painted samples of these on there Facebook page today not sure how to link them to this. But they look really good

 

Regards Neil