Kernow MRC announce 4-TC

[Gwiwer]

The model 4TC headcode panel is very marginally lower than the cab windows at the top which matches the bulk of photographic evidence so far posted.  The end gangway is extended beyond the buffers but as those are correctly in the retracted position and the only views I can find of the 4TC EP sample are inconclusive I cannot determine whether the gangway itself is extended or retracted.  

 

What I am confident about is Kernow MRC's ability to get a model right, or as right as scaling and production allows, before release even if early shots have some minor errors needing correction.  Their track record (pun intended) is as good as anyone in this repsect and better than many.

[Ian J.]

It's possible the corridor connection or cab windows might be wrong. Take a look at Andy's first post in this thread, and his first picture of the model. There is a definite 'gap' of cab front between where the corridor connection joins the face of the cab front, and the cab window beading. On the prototype pictures in the same posting, there is practically no gap between corridor connection and cab window. There must then be a dimensional error somewhere, possibly in the corridor connection, that is making the headcode panel look wrong.

 

 

 

Edit: include images from model and a prototype picture from the Swanage TC site to illustrate

Edited July 7, 2016 by Ian J.

[Gwiwer]

Fair point Ian.  This shouldn't be a constructional requirement in terms of rigidity. The cab windows and jumper recesses almost touch the gangway on the real thing but there's a gap on the model.  Which might be one of the "tweaks" already noted as being required. If I was being picky I'd say the angle of the cab window outer frames might also be astray as it seems the model has them angled quite sharply in from bottom to top.  the real one has a slight but less pronounced angle.  Again these may well be points already picked up at Camborne and in the process of rectification as we speak.

[number6]

IanJ's image of the cab shows the headcode box to be correct but perhaps its the height of the gangway that is too tall. Is the floor and lower part of the gangway not raised up a bit from where it is at the moment. The internal floor of the gangway seems level with the bottom of the coach body.

 

Sorry to be so vague in what I think is wrong but its the large area of the of the door that makes it seems too tall to me. A reduced height gangway would sort it!

 

[Ian J.]

What's most annoying about seeing this is that it* was a problem with Hornby's VEP too - something I would have hoped Bachmann would have taken note of...

 

If it were me, and I know it isn't, I'd have made the corridor cowling (that part which is attached to the cab front) a part of the cab front, then created an insert for the extended corridor to fit inside that cowling. That way it replicates what happens on the real thing, and does away with the gap on the model that can be seen round the cowling where that part has been inserted to the cab face. But there might be tooling reasons for why Bachmann have gone down the insert route.

 

Edit: * by it, I mean the proportions of the cab face, which in Hornby's 4VEP had the windows set in towards the corridor connection too far with a corridor connection that was too narrow. Bachmann seem to still have a too narrow corridor connection, but the cab windows seem to be in the right place on the cab front, leading to the gap between corridor and cab window. The cab windows do seem to be slightly oddly shaped as well.

Edited July 7, 2016 by Ian J.

[Colin parks]

Oh dear!  

 

These latest observations, especially number6's picture does show the gangway to be too narrow.  It should be 48" across the width of the moving part and the floor on the prototype is thicker than on the EP sample which all contributes to making the door appear too tall.  

 

The cab front windows do not seem right either, with the top of the window frame being too narrow.  It is easy to be fooled into assuming that on this design of cab, the window would follow the profile of the cab's outer edge, which it doesn't. Strange, as the MU cable recesses look just right.

 

Colin

[griffgriff]

IanJ's image of the cab shows the headcode box to be correct but perhaps its the height of the gangway that is too tall. Is the floor and lower part of the gangway not raised up a bit from where it is at the moment. The internal floor of the gangway seems level with the bottom of the coach body.

 

Sorry to be so vague in what I think is wrong but its the large area of the of the door that makes it seems too tall to me. A reduced height gangway would sort it!

 

I'm inclined to agree. Your horizontal red line passes through the steps and the bottom of the corridor connection. Whereas this is not the case on the prototype.

 

Griff

[Colin parks]

[...] also(!), the guard irons on the leading bogies of the DTC are set vertically and should be inclined inwards towards the rails. See post #37 here for Tomstaf's conclusive evidence (albeit a 4 CIG in this particular case)  http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/51422-4-cig-for-newhaven-harbour/page-2  This could all be part of the list of tweaks, but perhaps we should email Kernow with our concerns.  It could make a difference...

Edited July 7, 2016 by Colin parks

[number6]

You Colin probably have the best pedigree for that sort of email!!

Edited July 7, 2016 by number6

[Colin parks]

You Colin probably have the best pedigree for that sort of email!!

Hmm, I don't think so number6. I know little about 4 TCs and the little I do know is gleaned from staring at the same images as the rest of you!  Mind you, I did once email Hornby begging them to put a trailing pick-up bogie on their forthcoming 2 HAL...  

 

Colin

[Roy Langridge]

I'm inclined to agree. Your horizontal red line passes through the steps and the bottom of the corridor connection. Whereas this is not the case on the prototype.

 

Griff

 

I am not so inclined to agree. The red line has not allowed for the angle that the photo has been taken at / perspective. Take a look at the step on the left of the corridor connection, it slops significantly downward in the photo (despite being flat on the model), the red line should similarly slope downwards when it reaches the side of the corridor connection and then back at its original angle across the face of the connector. That would make it look more correct.

 

What we really need is a front-on photo.

Roy

[Trevellan]

Perhaps my photograph of 401 at Waterloo in March 1986 might help the debate?

 

[Colin_McLeod]

I believe it gets refunded virtually immediately to your card, it's the way their payment gateway works on pre-orders to validate that the payment details are genuine. The actual payment would be taken at the point of despatch.

I would have thought that they only need to take £1.00 to validate a card.

[Ian J.]

Does anyone know if anyone at Kernow would be likely to see this thread, or anyone here who knows someone at Kernow would be likely to let them know of it?

[Gwiwer]

You can rely on the fact that this topic will be monitored by those who need to know.

[Ian J.]

I've got a sneaky suspicion that the front cab windows are a fraction too tall, when compared with the positioning of the rain strip on the bodyside, though it's not that easy to tell. But it might explain why the window shape looks slightly wrong.

[rembrow]

The recent photos of the ep from the front have heightened my concern about the cab front and side horizontal continuous handrails, which are moulded with the body. These are too thick and I'm convinced they will look poor in white on blue livery. This has come more into focus following Hornby's release of the Class 71 last week, where similar handrails have been separately moulded in plastic and are much the better for it. It's also clear from more recent photos that the 4TC won't have any separately fitted handrails on any of the coach sides, which seems to mirror what has been shown with the eps for the forthcoming Thompson coaches. I wonder if Bachmann are adopting a similar strategy to Hornbys 'design clever' by reducing levels of added detail as Hornby did with their Mk 1 and Mk 2 coaches, but without broadcasting it as an initiative. Hornby have moved away from that concept and the recent coach releases show all handrails including passenger compartment, as separately fitted. Personally I don't believe it is necessary to have separately fitted passenger compartment handrails, as there smaller length means they can be well represented as moulded and finely painted, however long handrails do benefit from being fitted, as these will in the prototype and the model, show daylight and shadowing beneath, which is much more noticeable with the longer rail

[Colin parks]

Does anyone know if anyone at Kernow would be likely to see this thread, or anyone here who knows someone at Kernow would be likely to let them know of it?

Hi Ian, I emailed Kernow yesterday through their website.

 

Colin

[Colin parks]

I am not so inclined to agree. The red line has not allowed for the angle that the photo has been taken at / perspective. Take a look at the step on the left of the corridor connection, it slops significantly downward in the photo (despite being flat on the model), the red line should similarly slope downwards when it reaches the side of the corridor connection and then back at its original angle across the face of the connector. That would make it look more correct.

 

What we really need is a front-on photo.

Roy

Hi Roy, 

 

Please refer to Tomstaf's photo in the link here:  http://www.rmweb.co....-harbour/page-2 .  It is of a 4 CIG, but these cab fronts and gangways were identical.  The graffiti on the cab door is amusingly appropriate to this debate!

 

Colin 

 

Colin

Edited July 8, 2016 by Colin parks

[Ian J.]

I think Roy might be referring to having a head on shot of the cab of the model, not the prototype.

[PaulRhB]

The relatively higher angle of the 'red line' photo suggests the gangway must be fractionally higher than the steps as it protrudes. The steps are much thicker due to being mouldings so they decrease the difference a bit too.

The gangway may be a bit narrow but again hard to tell as all the prototype shots above have a darker shadow disguising the join.

The two pics on these sites here support the gap being smaller though.

Fourth photo

http://www.semgonline.com/gallery/class438_1.html

 

http://www.hastingsdiesels.co.uk/news/articles/2007a01/

Edited July 8, 2016 by PaulRhB

[number6]

Sorry about the 'red line' image causing confusion!

 

I was trying to illustrate that the inner base of the gangway is pretty much level with the bottom of the cab - from the prototype images it is obvious this should be higher.

 

In the real thing I remember a ramp up into the cab from the floor of the carriage as you walked through here when two units were in multiple so it must be at least a bit higher than the base of the drivers door in the side - which opened inwards over the floor.

[Colin parks]

The relatively higher angle of the 'red line' photo suggests the gangway must be fractionally higher than the steps as it protrudes. The steps are much thicker due to being mouldings so they decrease the difference a bit too.

The gangway may be a bit narrow but again hard to tell as all the prototype shots above have a darker shadow disguising the join.

The two pics on these sites here support the gap being smaller though.

Fourth photo

http://www.semgonline.com/gallery/class438_1.html

 

http://www.hastingsdiesels.co.uk/news/articles/2007a01/20070205-76275cabexterior-Armitage.jpg

Hi PAul,

 

The prototype's gangway shroud definitely abuts the cab window frame.

 

Colin 

[royaloak]

Also remember that head on shots need to be taken from the same effective height because the Gangway door is further out than the cab windows so any difference in angle will change the perspective heights of the cab windows and headcode box slightly.

[PaulRhB]

Hi PAul,

 

The prototype's gangway shroud definitely abuts the cab window frame.

 

Colin

Yes you can see it in the photo on the Hastings site, I've modified the link as the direct one to the photo corrupted.