Kernow MRC announce 4-TC

[lyneux]

The reason why the bottom of the door looks so wrong when comparing the photos on the Kernow site is because the bottom of the recessed panel and the check plate are both painted black on the model, whereas on the prototype shot (even the one on kernow's website) these are yellow. Visually this compounds the problem.

 

Here is a photo of the recess panel and the checkplate so you can see the parts that I refer to (although they are unhelpfully purple in this photo!). Kernow/Bachmann: please paint these yellow on your unweathered models!

 

 

In reality, the model looks to still be wrong, but not by a scale foot (more like 3-4 inches).

 

EDIT, further evidence here that the check plate is yellow: https://www.flickr.com/photos/74009/4332806147/sizes/o/

 

Guy

Edited March 9, 2017 by lyneux

[Ian Hargrave]

You have to wonder whether some members of this forum who are deeply critical have the intention to purchase one of these units.

There is the stated expectation of discovering aspects of this model that in their eyes are wrong.That being the case,they perhaps might walk away in order to avoid the disappointment of a self fulfilling prophecy.Roy is right.There Is no such thing as 100%accuracy in 4mm scale. Or are we approaching the era of models tailor made to suit our own specification ?

 

What never ceases to amaze me are just how many people feel that they know better than those striving to bring the most amazing products to market under the most daunting of circumstances of budgeting and manufacturing.I wonder why....

[ColinK]

Sadly there seems to be some people whose sole aim is to try and find fault with everything. Last time I was over in Germany photographing trains, we had at least two diesel hauled freights every hour, plus four loco hauled passenger trains each hour, we were delighted with all the good action and lots of photospots. Another group of English 'enthusiasts' arrived and just complained about everything. I don't think anything would have made them happy. While anyone who has been on a managing people course will know that you should give 10 complements to every grumble.

 

The Kernow TC looks like a TC to me and I'm looking forward to recieving mine (and my DJ 74 to pull it).

[lyneux]

You have to wonder whether some members of this forum who are deeply critical have the intention to purchase one of these units.

There is the stated expectation of discovering aspects of this model that in their eyes are wrong.That being the case,they perhaps might walk away in order to avoid the disappointment of a self fulfilling prophecy.Roy is right.There Is no such thing as 100%accuracy in 4mm scale. Or are we approaching the era of models tailor made to suit our own specification ?

 

What never ceases to amaze me are just how many people feel that they know better than those striving to bring the most amazing products to market under the most daunting of circumstances of budgeting and manufacturing.I wonder why....

It's precisely because I want one that I want it to be right.

 

There is a perverse logic to not striving for 100% accuracy on a new model. Granted, for certain parts, compromises need to exist (e.g. due to minimum wall thicknesses or moulding undercuts) but in the case of the gangway there doesn't seem to be a reason for it not to be spot on. Or for that matter for the parts I mentioned above not to be painted the right colour.

 

Your last paragraph is just belittling and insulting to those people who want an accurate model. I am fully aware of what is involved bringing these products to market. Models are a compromise between accuracy, time to market and cost, not to mention the modern problems of dealing with communication with offshore teams. This doesn't stop me from wanting the accuracy to be as close to 100% as possible though.

 

Commenting on the accuracy of models is to our hobby what peer review is to the scientific process or press freedom to Democracy. Long may it continue....

 

Guy

[Ian Hargrave]

It's precisely because I want one that I want it to be right.There is a perverse logic to not striving for 100% accuracy on a new model. Granted, for certain parts, compromises need to exist (e.g. due to minimum wall thicknesses or moulding undercuts) but in the case of the gangway there doesn't seem to be a reason for it not to be spot on. Or for that matter for the parts I mentioned above not to be painted the right colour.Your last paragraph is just belittling and insulting to those people who want an accurate model. I am fully aware of what is involved bringing these products to market. Models are a compromise between accuracy, time to market and cost, not to mention the modern problems of dealing with communication with offshore teams. This doesn't stop me from wanting the accuracy to be as close to 100% as possible though.Commenting on the accuracy of models is to our hobby what peer review is to the scientific process or press freedom to Democracy. Long may it continue....Guy

I think not.You have your view and I have mine and they have little to do with principles of democracy or press freedom. I stick firmly to what I post.

Edited March 9, 2017 by Ian Hargrave

[Roy Langridge]

It's precisely because I want one that I want it to be right.

 

There is a perverse logic to not striving for 100% accuracy on a new model. Granted, for certain parts, compromises need to exist (e.g. due to minimum wall thicknesses or moulding undercuts) but in the case of the gangway there doesn't seem to be a reason for it not to be spot on. Or for that matter for the parts I mentioned above not to be painted the right colour.

 

Your last paragraph is just belittling and insulting to those people who want an accurate model. I am fully aware of what is involved bringing these products to market. Models are a compromise between accuracy, time to market and cost, not to mention the modern problems of dealing with communication with offshore teams. This doesn't stop me from wanting the accuracy to be as close to 100% as possible though.

 

Commenting on the accuracy of models is to our hobby what peer review is to the scientific process or press freedom to Democracy. Long may it continue....

 

Guy

Sorry, but the bottom of the unit *has* to be a compromise. The footsteps are 1/2" plate on the prototype or 0.16mm on the model. Never going to work. Looking at the Bachmann 4CEP the footsteps about 0.5mm. That is straight away going to make the bottom of the gangway doors look too low.

 

We are yet to see a straight "head on" shot of the 4TC, until we do conjecture that the gangway door is too low is pure speculation. Personally I think it will be about right looking at the angled photo and what that will do to the relative heights.

 

It is not possible to strive for 100% accuracy, it just would not work in 4mm. What we need is acceptable compromises, where necessary. The problem I see is people criticising, without basis, and with little or no evidence to back it up. You pointed out incorrect colours, with evidence, just as it should be.

 

Roy

Edited March 9, 2017 by Roy Langridge

[Ian J.]

It is not possible to strive for 100% accuracy, it just would not work in 4mm. What we need is acceptable compromises, where necessary. The problem I see is people criticising, without basis, and with little or no evidence to back it up. You pointed out incorrect colours, with evidence, just as it should be.

 

Roy

 

It is possible to strive for 100% accuracy. Striving means trying, not succeeding. And as regards evidence, I did plenty of that back towards the beginning of the topic regarding the front of the model and its serious inaccuracies with the windows in relation to the gangway. The issue with the gangway floor is also evident in those images. It may not be a foot (I think that was exaggeration on the part of the poster) but the issue is there and is visible.

Edited March 10, 2017 by Ian J.

[amwells]

Will it have traction tyres

[Hilux5972]

Why would it have traction tyres? It doesn't have a motor.

[Roy Langridge]

It is possible to strive for 100% accuracy. Striving means trying, not succeeding. And as regards evidence, I did plenty of that back towards the beginning of the topic regarding the front of the model and its serious inaccuracies with the windows in relation to the gangway. The issue with the gangway floor is also evident in those images. It may not be a foot (I think that was exaggeration on the part of the poster) but the issue is there and is visible.

No, trying to achieve what is not possible is a waste of time and therefore money. We know what the constraints are to begin with, then you achieve the most accurate around that, knowing that it will not be 100% accurate. For example, and using my footstep reference, why even start with a footstep at 0.16mm? No point at all.

 

Roy

[John Isherwood]

I already go to Specsavers, and I can say it's not made any difference to my feelings that the front doesn't look right. But as usual it seems a sufficient number of modellers will be happy with the errors yet again, and we'll end up with a front end that still isn't right. I haven't even begun to look at the rest of the unit yet, so no telling what might be wrong there.

 

Why this obsession with searching for errors? Are some people determined to find a reason not to buy a new model because, a] they can't afford it anyway, and / or b] they had no intention of buying it anyway?

 

If a modeller needs a particular subject for his chosen area / period, he can either buy the commercial offering, warts and all, or build a perfect model from a kit or by scratchbuilding.

 

I strongly suspect that the majority of the naysayers will do neither of the latter options, because their interest is solely in denigrating commercial products in order to demonstrate their 'superior' knowledge.

 

If you don't like it, fine; don't buy it; the rest of us will form our own judgement and act accordingly.

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

Edited March 10, 2017 by cctransuk

[John Isherwood]

Why would it have traction tyres? It doesn't have a motor.

 

Humour is wasted sometimes, isn't it?

 

Before we all get too worked up about this, remember - it's toy trains we're talking about !

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

Edited March 10, 2017 by cctransuk

[Southernman46]

and the wheels will still be 7" too close together ...................

[amwells]

Humour is wasted sometimes, isn't it?

 

Before we all get too worked up about this, remember - it's toy trains we're talking about !

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

Indeed... sometimes when we all get a bit serious, humour can take the heat out of a topic (that is not to undermine the points in anyway).

[JSpencer]

Phew! Nearly switched my order from a Blue Grey to an NSE one. Then I remembered that an NSE one won't go very well with a class 74.....

[Gwiwer]

Phew! Nearly switched my order from a Blue Grey to an NSE one. Then I remembered that an NSE one won't go very well with a class 74.....

You could always repaint the 74

 

The 4TC model appears to be as accurate as can realistically be expected within the scale and cost bracket. We might indeed get a precision model even closer to 100% accuracy if we were willing to pay a great deal more money. Economies of scale prevent that to my mind. In any case we are left with the gauge problem which renders all OO models out of kilter with actual reality. That can affect the frontal appearance as can any engineering tweaks which might have been necessary to allow the model to naviagate track geometry.

 

Amongst our community there are only a couple of strident voices putting the models down and there are a few more among us who are perhaps precision modellers willing to accept compromise on what may not be errors so much as essential constructional constraints.

 

Most of us with an interest in these items would probably take them quite happily as they are and hardly - if at all - notice any apparent shortcomings.

 

Certainly I fall within that (mostly) silent majority and am very happy with what I see.

[Ian J.]

Why this obsession with searching for errors? Are some people determined to find a reason not to buy a new model because, a] they can't afford it anyway, and / or b] they had no intention of buying it anyway?

 

If a modeller needs a particular subject for his chosen area / period, he can either buy the commercial offering, warts and all, or build a perfect model from a kit or by scratchbuilding.

 

I strongly suspect that the majority of the naysayers will do neither of the latter options, because their interest is solely in denigrating commercial products in order to demonstrate their 'superior' knowledge.

 

If you don't like it, fine; don't buy it; the rest of us will form our own judgement and act accordingly.

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

 

Searching for errors comes with the territory when a model is announced that is on my wish list of absolute favourites. I don't know about anyone else, but the more interested I am in a particular prototype that I'd like a model of, the more I want that model to be right. My criticism is therefore about trying to get a better model, and certainly better than any kit or scratchbuild attempt I could ever make.

 

It has absolutely nothing to do with denigrating products or companies just to 'demonstrate superior knowledge'.

 

What irks me most about this 4TC is that it was, apparently, a cherished project of the Kernow proprietor. So for it to have been insufficiently researched and developed in such a way as to have what to my eyes are clearly noticeable errors feels doubly disappointing.

 

That word - disappointing - pretty much sums up how I feel when a 'holy grail' model is released with visible deficiencies, barring the error in the gauge. And on that gauge point, before anyone decides to throw the old 'the gauge is wrong so what's the problem?' argument, the cab front's problems have nothing to do with the gauge and could have been designed and tooled correctly, and shouldn't have cost any more than doing it wrong.

[Roy Langridge]

Searching for errors comes with the territory when a model is announced that is on my wish list of absolute favourites. I don't know about anyone else, but the more interested I am in a particular prototype that I'd like a model of, the more I want that model to be right. My criticism is therefore about trying to get a better model, and certainly better than any kit or scratchbuild attempt I could ever make.

 

It has absolutely nothing to do with denigrating products or companies just to 'demonstrate superior knowledge'.

 

What irks me most about this 4TC is that it was, apparently, a cherished project of the Kernow proprietor. So for it to have been insufficiently researched and developed in such a way as to have what to my eyes are clearly noticeable errors feels doubly disappointing.

 

That word - disappointing - pretty much sums up how I feel when a 'holy grail' model is released with visible deficiencies, barring the error in the gauge. And on that gauge point, before anyone decides to throw the old 'the gauge is wrong so what's the problem?' argument, the cab front's problems have nothing to do with the gauge and could have been designed and tooled correctly, and shouldn't have cost any more than doing it wrong.

 

If you have to search for errors they aren't that bad, and you are just setting yourself up to be disappointed. The TC unit is good, not disappointing, yes there are some minor niggles, but I, like most people, can live with those. Not doing so may have made the unit unaffordable for either me, Kernow, or both.

 

So, the bottom of the door looks ok to me and many others - it is higher than the bottom of the unit front. The windows are a hell of a lot better than the VEP and I believe are not that bad. Indeed, I think some of the quoted errors are actually incorrect.

 

Some people are unfairly criticising the model - and that is to denigrate.

 

Roy

Edited March 10, 2017 by Roy Langridge

[lyneux]

Searching for errors comes with the territory when a model is announced that is on my wish list of absolute favourites. I don't know about anyone else, but the more interested I am in a particular prototype that I'd like a model of, the more I want that model to be right. My criticism is therefore about trying to get a better model, and certainly better than any kit or scratchbuild attempt I could ever make.

 

It has absolutely nothing to do with denigrating products or companies just to 'demonstrate superior knowledge'.

 

Well said Ian. 100% Correct! ;-)

 

Just as a reminder, from page 1 of the thread, here is a prototype shot showing just how much higher the gangway floor is on the prototype. Getting this right has absolutely nothing to do with manufacturing tolerances or the thickness of the checkplate steps in front of the recesses. Let's hope we see some photos in due course to establish whether Bachmann have got this right (fingers crossed it's just the angle of the photo!).

 

It true that a model is made to a price (in this case, a very high one) so it's not unreasonable to expect a result commensurate with the price. In this case, the additional cost of adding, for example, etched steps or handrails if they help to improve the appearance and proportions of the front end is a price worth paying. In my opinion, getting the shape right is far more important than stuff like interior lighting and DCC gimmickry - and that's speaking as someone who has many sound chipped locos and who is very fond of DCC gimmickry! I can easily add that stuff later, it's less easy to rectify major errors in the shape of a model that might require a full or partial repaint.

 

Guy

 

[John Isherwood]

Searching for errors comes with the territory when a model is announced that is on my wish list of absolute favourites. I don't know about anyone else, but the more interested I am in a particular prototype that I'd like a model of, the more I want that model to be right. My criticism is therefore about trying to get a better model, and certainly better than any kit or scratchbuild attempt I could ever make.

 

This model is now at the painted sample stage - well beyond that point where structural changes will be made. Like it or not, what you see in the shape of the model is what you will get; (or not - that's your decision).

 

I can see the point in drawing attention to apparent structural errors at the stage where they could, possibly, be changed; we're now at the stage where apparent livery errors could be amended.

 

There is absolutely no point in repeating criticism of aspects of a model when we're past the point of no return, and it's that continued criticism that makes me suspect some form of attention-seeking.

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

[Colin]

It certainly looks a whole lot better than anything I could scratch build.......

[Ian Hargrave]

Well said Ian. 100% Correct! ;-)

 

Just as a reminder, from page 1 of the thread, here is a prototype shot showing just how much higher the gangway floor is on the prototype. Getting this right has absolutely nothing to do with manufacturing tolerances or the thickness of the checkplate steps in front of the recesses. Let's hope we see some photos in due course to establish whether Bachmann have got this right (fingers crossed it's just the angle of the photo!).

 

It true that a model is made to a price (in this case, a very high one) so it's not unreasonable to expect a result commensurate with the price. In this case, the additional cost of adding, for example, etched steps or handrails if they help to improve the appearance and proportions of the front end is a price worth paying. In my opinion, getting the shape right is far more important than stuff like interior lighting and DCC gimmickry - and that's speaking as someone who has many sound chipped locos and who is very fond of DCC gimmickry! I can easily add that stuff later, it's less easy to rectify major errors in the shape of a model that might require a full or partial repaint.

 

Guy

 

Right then .....you define a result commensurate with the price.Or even a price that matches the specification of a model you,might consider acceptable ? Presumably you will know with pinpoint accuracy the costing of research ,development and production necessary to bring this unit to the UK ? If so,we'd appreciate some enlightenment .From your posts ,I assume some experience of trading with China.

 

 

 

[Roy Langridge]

Just as a reminder, from page 1 of the thread, here is a prototype shot showing just how much higher the gangway floor is on the prototype. Getting this right has absolutely nothing to do with manufacturing tolerances or the thickness of the checkplate steps in front of the recesses. Let's hope we see some photos in due course to establish whether Bachmann have got this right (fingers crossed it's just the angle of the photo!).

 

Guy

 

 

How can you say the thickness of the checkplate has nothing to do with it? It is that which changes the appearance, and in 1/76th scale there is nothing we can do about it. Compare this post  http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/111962-kernow-mrc-announce-4-tc/page-16&do=findComment&comment=2366992 and this post http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/111962-kernow-mrc-announce-4-tc/page-20&do=findComment&comment=2516654. They look pretty close to me with regards to the gangway - the gangway floor is higher than the bottom of the front as you claim it should be (but less so than above the top of the footsteps which is what I think is causing the issue). Where is the problem with the gangway?

 

edit: and I should have noted that the angles of those photos actually make the Kernow gangway look lower and the prototype look higher. As I posted before, this photo shows how the difference in height on the prototype is not that much: http://setg.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/20150529-Ilford-depot-visit-46.jpeg

 

Roy

Edited March 10, 2017 by Roy Langridge

[autocoach]

Next time use the 4 TC chassis for a 4 SUB? Just 4 new body castings required. Pre-war version preferred.

[Budgie]

Next time use the 4 TC chassis for a 4 SUB? Just 4 new body castings required. Pre-war version preferred.

The bogies are not right for a SUB.