KRModels announce a GT3 Model

[cctransuk]

I've read it as being based on a Standard Four somewhere. Don't know where though.

 

 

 

 

Jason

 

Like I said - a lot of misinformation .....

 

If anyone doubts my word - you can always check my research; it really does ONLY match a 'Manor'.

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

[Clive Mortimore]

I've read it as being based on a Standard Four somewhere. Don't know where though.

 

 

 

 

Jason

It has a different wheelbase and looking at photos of it being built the frames look nothing like those of a steam loco, black five or standard 4. When researching my model I found an article which stated the frames were a spare set of BR 4s and showed a photo of the loco under construction and it was clear in the photo the frames did not match a steam locos.

 

From Wikipedia "As constructed the locomotive was built with bespoke heavy steel frames which not only bore the auxiliaries, combustion chamber, turbines, heat exchanger and locomotive cab, but also provided adhesive weight for the finished machine."

 

As John says the wheelbase matches a Manor but many classes of loco had matching wheelbases......Saint, Hall, and Grange were the same as each other, not only did the GWR use the same template for making loco frames but the MR did for its Kirtley goods, 2F, 3F 4F  and so the list goes on.

[Edge]

Yeah, while the chassis was steam outline, it was most definitely a custom chassis for both the loco and the tender. The loco was build with massively robust frames in order to provide strength and distribute the weight over the driving wheels properly for adhesion. In all, the engine appears to have actually been a success and achieved everything that it was meant to. However, BR and other prospective customers could achieve cheaper, proven and just as effective designs with the diesels of the day, so the concept was never taken forwards. 

[Steamport Southport]

It has a different wheelbase and looking at photos of it being built the frames look nothing like those of a steam loco, black five or standard 4. When researching my model I found an article which stated the frames were a spare set of BR 4s and showed a photo of the loco under construction and it was clear in the photo the frames did not match a steam locos.

 

From Wikipedia "As constructed the locomotive was built with bespoke heavy steel frames which not only bore the auxiliaries, combustion chamber, turbines, heat exchanger and locomotive cab, but also provided adhesive weight for the finished machine."

 

As John says the wheelbase matches a Manor but many classes of loco had matching wheelbases......Saint, Hall, and Grange were the same as each other, not only did the GWR use the same template for making loco frames but the MR did for its Kirtley goods, 2F, 3F 4F  and so the list goes on.

 

Probably the same article I saw then.

 

 

 

Jason

[Ian Hargrave]

The GT 3 was based on a Standard 5MT IIRC from articles written at time of construction.

[decauville1126]

The GT 3 was based on a Standard 5MT IIRC from articles written at time of construction.

 

Possibly from an accounting perspective, a production run might have used former steam loco chassis and thus be treated as a repair to be set against the revenue account, whereas a wholly new-build loco goes on the capital account to be written down at possibly 10% per annum. But this would perhaps be of little consequence to a loss-making organisation.

 

But whatever was involved in the concept/design/prototype process, English Electric were still going to get orders for locos - gas turbine, diesel electric, or electric. 

 

I think GT3 was the practical outcome of thoughts and theories from overseas observations. Yet is it not this uniqueness that interests us to this day, particularly with the hindsight and knowledge that has now developed, especially with metallurgy and control systems.

 

And I'm another with a box containing a Golden Arrow body, McGeordie etches, High Level chassis etch, Gibson P4 wheels, and CC custom transfers! 

[Clive Mortimore]

The GT 3 was based on a Standard 5MT IIRC from articles written at time of construction.

 

Possibly from an accounting perspective, a production run might have used former steam loco chassis and thus be treated as a repair to be set against the revenue account, whereas a wholly new-build loco goes on the capital account to be written down at possibly 10% per annum. But this would perhaps be of little consequence to a loss-making organisation.

 

But whatever was involved in the concept/design/prototype process, English Electric were still going to get orders for locos - gas turbine, diesel electric, or electric. 

 

I think GT3 was the practical outcome of thoughts and theories from overseas observations. Yet is it not this uniqueness that interests us to this day, particularly with the hindsight and knowledge that has now developed, especially with metallurgy and control systems.

 

And I'm another with a box containing a Golden Arrow body, McGeordie etches, High Level chassis etch, Gibson P4 wheels, and CC custom transfers! 

From Wikipedia "As constructed the locomotive was built with bespoke heavy steel frames which not only bore the auxiliaries, combustion chamber, turbines, heat exchanger and locomotive cab, but also provided adhesive weight for the finished machine."

 

 

Yeah, while the chassis was steam outline, it was most definitely a custom chassis for both the loco and the tender. The loco was build with massively robust frames in order to provide strength and distribute the weight over the driving wheels properly for adhesion. In all, the engine appears to have actually been a success and achieved everything that it was meant to. However, BR and other prospective customers could achieve cheaper, proven and just as effective designs with the diesels of the day, so the concept was never taken forwards. 

 

It did not have a steam loco set of frames and steam loco frames would have been unsuitable.

Edited December 7, 2018 by Clive Mortimore

[Ian Hargrave]

From Wikipedia "As constructed the locomotive was built with bespoke heavy steel frames which not only bore the auxiliaries, combustion chamber, turbines, heat exchanger and locomotive cab, but also provided adhesive weight for the finished machine."

 

 

 

 

It did not have a steam loco set of frames and steam loco frames would have been unsuitable.

I posted on recollection of articles written......possibly in either T I or Railway Magazine at the time of its construction.I obviously cannot vouch for their accuracy.

[cctransuk]

I posted on recollection of articles written......possibly in either T I or Railway Magazine at the time of its construction.I obviously cannot vouch for their accuracy.

 

.... but several of us can, and have, vouched for their inaccuracy !!

 

This can readily be established by consulting diagrams of the Standard Five and GT3 - or is that too simple?

 

It is the repeated quotation of inaccurate past publications that leads to such myths becoming 'established fact' (fake news).

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

[Covkid]

I did speak to the guys at Warley this weekend and they sounded very hopeful, but it didnt escape my notice the pitch they occupied was the near enough the same spot of the hall where DToS equally enthusiastically promoted the APT last year with similar gusto.. i was equally interested in that, but then it all started becoming a bit funky, so i decided to pass when it became clear the environment had shifted.

Not to be cynical but maybe we should call that spot Crowdfunders corner ?

 

Not really up to speed on the APT-P project because it is outside my zone of interest, but are you suggesting there are issues with DTos and DJM and the factories ?   If so then perhaps the crowdfunding model is leaving people reticent, untrusting and reluctant to invest.  Is it easier on the soul to hand over a wedge of crowdfunding to an "unknown" with no track record, than to an existing manufacturer who has had the odd glitch with production, particularly relating to using the crowdfunding method to produce the next must-have model ?

 

In my case I really would need to have trust in the proposer before committing my cash.  I do however wish KR all the very best with GT3 and hope they have enough EoIs to go to production and make it a success. 

Edited December 8, 2018 by Covkid

[adb968008]

Not really up to speed on the APT-P project because it is outside my zone of interest, but are you suggesting there are issues with DTos and DJM and the factories ? If so then perhaps the crowdfunding model is leaving people reticent, untrusting and reluctant to invest. Is it easier on the soul to hand over a wedge of crowdfunding to an "unknown" with no track record, than to an existing manufacturer who has had the odd glitch with production, particularly relating to using the crowdfunding method to produce the next must-have model ?

 

In my case I really would need to have trust in the proposer before committing my cash. I do however wish KR all the very best with GT3 and hope they have enough EoIs to go to production and make it a success.

 

Ive not seen much update on the APT and DToS werent at Warley this year, so I cant comment beyond that, other than I thought it may have been higher profile than it is currently, and when I wandered to the spot of last years new crowd funded project, I found another new one in the same area, which I felt was Ironic. I don't feel informed enough to jump in and buy the APT (2017) or cl92 (2016), because my heads over ruling my heart, despite wanting to. I hope, unlike Brexit, that with time, information and visible progress, theres oppourtunity to convince my mind and commit.

 

Niggling in my mind is gestation of models is quite long, often much longer than initially touted. Ive slowly been burning down my backlog of pre-orders, i have several pre-orders over 5+ years old, some prepaid. i have concerns at crowd funding something with no end date, guarentees on risk, including factors like inflation, factories, domino effects, competitor actions against this new market, or even a rubbish end result. Its easy to set up a crowd funded project, its harder to deliver. I could easily drop £5k of orders on currently promoted schemes, but if one wobbled could they all collapse, is too many crowd funded eggs in one basket ? Similarly if they did collapse, tools dont turn to dust, someone else will inevitably start a tool auction, and see them finished at intial crowd funders loss, and bring it to market under a different name,its just a matter of time.

I dont want to sound negative, but maybe I just think too much, but then on this hobby I already spend too much.

 

Crowd funding seems to becoming plat-du-jour, so is bit-coin.. look where that is. Popularity of a process doesnt equal success.

 

I really hope the GT3 comes to fruition, indeed I hope they all do. My EoI is definitely in and I would not discourage anyone ether, as without it, it wont happen, however, a bigger informed picture allows better decisions. We dont know who is the architect behind the GT3 (2018), well, at least not publically. A big name manufacturer, even one not serving the UK market currently would do a lot for confidence, even a proven retailer could do it.. where as unproven, unknown or unreliable names may not... afterall Brio make trains for beginners too...international brand, millions of customers...

https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B00RMLUWGW/ref=asc_df_B00RMLUWGW57417977/?tag=googshopuk-21&creative=22110&creativeASIN=B00RMLUWGW&linkCode=df0&hvadid=218075768043&hvpos=1o1&hvnetw=g&hvrand=17454453441530972362&hvpone=&hvptwo=&hvqmt=&hvdev=t&hvdvcmdl=&hvlocint=&hvlocphy=9045859&hvtargid=pla-385527352740&th=1&psc=1

Edited December 11, 2018 by adb968008

[No Decorum]

Ive not seen much update on the APT and DToS werent at Warley this year, so I cant comment beyond that, other than I thought it may have been higher profile than it is currently, and when I wandered to the spot of last years new crowd funded project, I found another new one in the same area, which I felt was Ironic. I don't feel informed enough to jump in and buy the APT (2017) or cl92 (2016), because my heads over ruling my heart, despite wanting to. I hope, unlike Brexit, that with time, information and visible progress, theres oppourtunity to convince my mind and commit.

 

Niggling in my mind is gestation of models is quite long, often much longer than initially touted. Ive slowly been burning down my backlog of pre-orders, i have several pre-orders over 5+ years old, some prepaid. i have concerns at crowd funding something with no end date, guarentees on risk, including factors like inflation, factories, domino effects, competitor actions against this new market, or even a rubbish end result. Its easy to set up a crowd funded project, its harder to deliver. I could easily drop £5k of orders on currently promoted schemes, but if one wobbled could they all collapse, is too many crowd funded eggs in one basket ? Similarly if they did collapse, tools dont turn to dust, someone else will inevitably start a tool auction, and see them finished at intial crowd funders loss, and bring it to market under a different name,its just a matter of time.

I dont want to sound negative, but maybe I just think too much, but then on this hobby I already spend too much.

 

Crowd funding seems to becoming plat-du-jour, so is bit-coin.. look where that is. Popularity of a process doesnt equal success.

 

I really hope the GT3 comes to fruition, indeed I hope they all do. My EoI is definitely in and I would not discourage anyone ether, as without it, it wont happen, however, a bigger informed picture allows better decisions. We dont know who is the architect behind the GT3 (2018), well, at least not publically. A big name manufacturer, even one not serving the UK market currently would do a lot for confidence, even a proven retailer could do it.. where as unproven, unknown or unreliable names may not... afterall Brio make trains for beginners too...international brand, millions of customers...

https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B00RMLUWGW/ref=asc_df_B00RMLUWGW57417977/?tag=googshopuk-21&creative=22110&creativeASIN=B00RMLUWGW&linkCode=df0&hvadid=218075768043&hvpos=1o1&hvnetw=g&hvrand=17454453441530972362&hvpone=&hvptwo=&hvqmt=&hvdev=t&hvdvcmdl=&hvlocint=&hvlocphy=9045859&hvtargid=pla-385527352740&th=1&psc=1

 

The involvement of Kernow in the Class 74 project is a case in point. How much money was lost on the project and by whom I don’t know but it wasn’t lost by me, for which I am very grateful. I have been stung in the past and do not intend to be again if I can help it. I do wish this project well and would dearly like a GT3 but I am not prepared to commit to it at this stage. The proposer asks people not to express interest unless they intend to go ahead with funding. I’m very interested but I won’t commit unless there is a trustworthy guarantee of a refund if no model appears (or a wooden one by Brio does).

 

I intend no slur on the proposer – on the contrary, I admire his initiative. He is probably a capable and trustworthy sort. The trouble is, I myself don’t know that he is.

[black and decker boy]

DToS are not now the commissioner or promoter of the APT, it is a wholly DJ Models venture. Invoices and contracts rest with DJModels.

 

There is a whole thread on it and other DJ Models crowdfunded wishlists. They make eye opening (and at times, eye watering) reading.

[Ian Hargrave]

.... but several of us can, and have, vouched for their inaccuracy !!

 

This can readily be established by consulting diagrams of the Standard Five and GT3 - or is that too simple?

 

It is the repeated quotation of inaccurate past publications that leads to such myths becoming 'established fact' (fake news).

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

Many thanks,Mr.Trump.Who on earth are you to once again pontificate acidly on such matters ? .For what it’s worth in no way did I claim it to be what you trumpet as established fact. It was ....and remains ...a recollection of what was published at the time. .If you were around at that period maybe you’d care to share your memories with us..Otherwise,maybe restrain yourself to less unkind and unnecessary outpourings of unmitigated rudeness..I am not in the business of perpetrating myths. How dare you!

[cctransuk]

Many thanks,Mr.Trump.Who on earth are you to once again pontificate acidly on such matters ? .For what it’s worth in no way did I claim it to be what you trumpet as established fact. It was ....and remains ...a recollection of what was published at the time. .If you were around at that period maybe you’d care to share your memories with us..Otherwise,maybe restrain yourself to less unkind and unnecessary outpourings of unmitigated rudeness..I am not in the business of perpetrating myths. How dare you!

 

I was around at the time, and I do recall what we now know to be published misinformation.

 

What i was referring to as perpetrating myths was your posting that "The GT 3 was based on a Standard 5MT IIRC from articles written at time of construction"; (which sounds to me at least like a statement of fact); after the true facts had already been posted.

 

If you wished to contest what had already been posted, you might have taken the trouble to check your 'facts' first.

 

Let's face it - you will take issue with anything that I post, regardless of whether it is correct or otherwise.

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

[Enterprisingwestern]

Gentlemen, may I intervene in this unseemly bout of petulance, and act as devils advocate.

Your crossing of swords seems to originate from post #30, which although it could have been worded with more clarity, in my reading didn't state categorically that the fact was true, just a vague memory, which we all have from time to time. The continuing spat seems to be what happens too regularly when the cold hard fact of a word on a page is taken differently than that of a spoken conversation.

I have no axe to grind against either of you.

If we could get back to the job in hand please?

 

Mike.

[Edge]

Well, I've expressed my interest - mostly because I don't want to / have the skill to make a model of my own. I will happily pay the proposed price for an RTR model of this unusual prototype and hope that the project succeeds. 

[locoman462]

Regrettably, it is beginning to look like this project will hit the buffers in the next couple of weeks unless a sufficient number of modellers who may be sitting on the fence, sign up their expression of interest with KR Models. Please see statement on Facebook outlining current status.

If you want a GT3, now is the time to act. Not next week, next month but NOW.

I personably will be very disappointed to see this project fail and miss out on the chance of owning a model of this iconic locomotive.

[cctransuk]

Regrettably, it is beginning to look like this project will hit the buffers in the next couple of weeks unless a sufficient number of modellers who may be sitting on the fence, sign up their expression of interest with KR Models. Please see statement on Facebook outlining current status.

If you want a GT3, now is the time to act. Not next week, next month but NOW.

I personably will be very disappointed to see this project fail and miss out on the chance of owning a model of this iconic locomotive.

 

The problem that you have is that many of the select few who might have bought such a model have taken the quite recent opportunities to obtain the body, chassis and detailing kits that are available.

 

They may have, as I have, completed their models; be in the process of building them; or simply have invested significant finance and intend to build their models as time permits.

 

 

I seriously doubt that a viable market now exists for an RTR model; why not try the DIY method yourself.

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

[ac1874]

This is where they need to come out, cards on the table and reveal some facts. How many expressions of interest made? How many required? What can be revealed about the manufacturer (maybe they can't)?

 

Whether there is a market for this is debatable in the first place, add the risks and it starts to become even more tricky. To me that means the only way to stimulate is to get as much info out there as you can, after all there is no competitor as such. It may just push some on the fence to order.

 

It is an interesting proposition and even though it doesn't fit anywhere close to what I model, I kind of like it. Would I be interested in ordering, probably not but if I saw that xyz were making it and they needed 10 more orders it might just tempt me.

Edited January 6, 2019 by ac1874

[jjb1970]

I would be quite interested in a GT3 model but I am not a fan of crowd funding, certainly I would need to know more about the people asking for money so as to decide whether they are a safe pair of hands. So far if I look at model suppliers I have confidence in Revolution if I was going to get involved in crowd funding.

[PMP]

The problem that you have is that many of the select few who might have bought such a model have taken the quite recent opportunities to obtain the body, chassis and detailing kits that are available.

[snip]

I seriously doubt that a viable market now exists for an RTR model; why not try the DIY method yourself.

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

 

I'm not so sure that holds true. Undoubtedly there are people like yourself who have gone the DIY route, but bear in mind that RTR one offs are viable if they are interesting enough, I think GT3 falls into that category.

The two posts following yours underline I feel why there been no traction on this crowd funded project, virtually nothing is known about the individual/s behind it in terms of previous history in the hobby. Nothing is known about the manufacturer selected, and their history either.

 

With the lack of information, and if I recall a request not to register EOI's if not prepared to stump up a deposit when requested, its not surprising they're not over flowing with EOI's. I'd be interested, but not without a significant increase in information to take a punt on.

[Steamport Southport]

Wasn't this only started at Warley? Made public at least.

 

Seems a bit quick to expect loads of people to sign up. What is it, six weeks or so?

 

 

 

Jason

[PMP]

May 2018 according to their FB feed is when they started asking for EOI's without any obligations. I only heard about the project in the week before Warley, I suspect for many others it was the same.

[ac1874]

Their Facebook suggests they are now back on track. Would be interesting to hear how far they are along the path to the target to make the project viable.