KR Models to make SR Class 4DD

[Graham_Muz]

The first pressing for the 4DD I will leave others to draw their own conclusions... 

ho hum...

Edited June 21, 2022 by Graham_Muz

[Pre Grouping fan]

To me the upper windows don't appear to go high enough up the sides so they're almost completely flat. Take it there's more nitty grotty details that I didn't spot? 

[pete_mcfarlane]

It doesn't help that a) there's no glazing in the windows, so you don't see the curved effect of the upper ones and b) the photos are from a different angle than almost all of the prototype ones. The top windows do look a bit better in the second photo - I'll reserve judgement until I've seen a decorated sample with glazing. 

[Lyddrail]

Some of my photos might be of interest having looked back over this topic. 4902 taken at Sellindge on 7-9-97. 

Cheers.

Edited June 22, 2022 by Lyddrail

[RFS]

I remember this train well as I travelled on it many times having grown up in SE London when it was running on our line. I'm also not sure whether the curvature of the upper windows is right but perhaps we need to see a model with glazing. But what does look quite wrong is the front end as the windows on the sample are too square. Compare the sample with Lyddrail's first picture above. 

Edited June 21, 2022 by RFS

[Roy Langridge]

There also seems to be no fishbelly with the bodyshells sitting flat. 
 

Roy

[Southernman46]

Well it's a damn good start ...........................

[Bluebell Model Railway]

mmm obviously it's a first EP off the tool... it worries me same with Leader that KR models have gone to tool... and produce a sample, either just to check the CAD which 3D printing or Rapid prototyping can do, and which other manufacturers do, just doesn't make much sense to me, especially if there are things that need changing... it's a worry.
 I don't mean to be rude but it just seems it's being pushed through... without much checking, modellers these days want of course value for money, if your paying maximum price for a model you want it to be correct.... otherwise its like buying from Wish... it looks like one of those expensive phones but it's anything but.

I hope that's not the case.

[Colin_McLeod]

Sadly KR Models 'previous' tends to ignore constructive criticism.  Let's hope they will listen this time.

[RFS]

Had another look at the front end and have cropped the two pictures below for reference. The roof is clearly too shallow. The curvature starts almost level with the top of the cab windows on the prototype, but much higher up on the model. No doubt that explains why the upper windows don't appear to be curved enough.  I hope this gets corrected.

 

 

 

[adb968008]

8 hours ago, RFS said:

 

That centre cab window looks very “masculine” with its protrusion 

 

😀

Edited June 22, 2022 by adb968008

[adb968008]

9 hours ago, RFS said:

Had another look at the front end and have cropped the two pictures below for reference. The roof is clearly too shallow. The curvature starts almost level with the top of the cab windows on the prototype, but much higher up on the model. No doubt that explains why the upper windows don't appear to be curved enough.  I hope this gets corrected.

 

 

 

Seriously though the front end looks wrong…

 

The centre window is not even to the top of the two driver view windows, it should be lower. The drivers windows should be more rounded on the corners. The curvature of the roof to my eye looks wrong, i’m thinking its too shallow.

The cab being sat on the floor looks wrong too, as the body side splays downwards after the baggage area, due to steps being under the doors at that point.

 

A bit of re-work here, is it a 3D print or an EP off the tooling ?.. the website says its a pressing, but an EP in a few months… as you don't “press” 3D prints its unclear.

Edited June 22, 2022 by adb968008

[Roy Langridge]

23 minutes ago, adb968008 said:

Seriously though the front end looks wrong…

 

The centre window is not even to the top of the two driver view windows, it should be lower. The drivers windows should be more rounded on the corners. The curvature of the roof to my eye looks wrong, i’m thinking its too shallow.

The cab being sat on the floor looks wrong too, as the body side splays downwards after the baggage area, due to steps being under the doors at that point.

 

A bit of re-work here, is it a 3D print or an EP off the tooling ?.. the website says its a pressing, but an EP in a few months… as you don't “press” 3D prints its unclear.

 

Fully agree with your view of the front, sides I am not sure about. As I commented above the fishbelly is missing, but the curvature of the upper windows may be right, or may be wrong - it is so hard to tell from those photos.

 

I really want to like this and I hope these niggles can be sorted out. It doesn't look a million miles away.

 

Some square on photos would help, taking away any doubt from the angles used.

Roy

[Pre Grouping fan]

56 minutes ago, adb968008 said:

 

A bit of re-work here, is it a 3D print or an EP off the tooling ?.. the website says its a pressing, but an EP in a few months… as you don't “press” 3D prints its unclear.

 

I suspect they mean first shots off the tooling, it definitely looks like a moulding rather than a print of any kind. Pressing is just the wrong word to use. 

[Graham_Muz]

It's not a 3D but the first 'shot', 'impression' or 'pressing' from the tooling.  The terms are pretty much interchangeable, I only used 'pressing' in this instance as it was used in KR's original FB post.

Edited June 22, 2022 by Graham_Muz

[The Stationmaster]

I believe the correct term is OOPS!  But don't forget that the fish belly was only on the driving cars and we can't see the bottom of that moulding in the photos.  So we don't definitely know if it is right or wrong but the photo of the driving end suggests to me that it isn't there because the end should have fresh air under it if the body has been correctly tooled.  S And if it is as wrong as it appears to be it won't be too easy to fix because it will require metal being put back into the tool or a retool of the driving car body.

 

What is very clearly wrong is the roof curvature - as noted above - and the error with it has affected the upper windows which look way off.  The problem appears to be two fold - firstly the curvature is starting very slightly too high and secondly - as already referenced above - the radius looks wrong.  Because of this error it makes it difficult to assess if the upper windows are, or aren't, correct but they definitely look very different from the real thing when compared with photos of the train in traffic.

 

Thus picture seems a good reference point for the real train when it was in traffic -

 

https://www.flickr.com/photos/rgadsdon/38532587206

 

[Michael Hodgson]

Attractive prototype, though I won't be getting one as Southern Electrics are outside my area of interest (I only ever saw it at the preservation site near Coventry) and I have no axe to grind.

 

Its windows are flush - that's got to be difficult to reproduce especially on upper windows with need to get that the curvature looking correct.  That detail has got to look right as it is one of the most prominent features of the vehicle from the angle models are viewed from - above.  So a moulding of the unglazed body doesn't really help to establish how good or otherwise that model will be.

 

I imagine the glazing was difficult on the prototype too, and presumably they had to keep a few spares.

[JSpencer]

This thing is miles out. Cabs and window sides already commented on but also I have the impression that the bottom edge of the driving car is flush instead of having a step just before reaching the bogie. And the photo seems to show the cab end is lower in height to the inner end between vehicles, as if the whole coach tapers from one end to the other which it certainly did not do with the prototype.

 

While I feel the leader still captures much of the bulk of the prototype concerned, this thing is - at best - a comical representation. 

Edited June 22, 2022 by JSpencer

[adb968008]

1 hour ago, Graham_Muz said:

It's not a 3D but the first 'shot', 'impression' or 'pressing' from the tooling.  The terms are pretty much interchangeable, I only used 'pressing' in this instance as it was used in KR's original FB post.

Thanks, but that sounds worrying. If the roof angle is imo wrong, does that affect the sides ? and the cab is wrong… I maybe wrong but that sounds like an expense to get right if its been tooled.

 

I was looking at Rue D’etropals 3D cad, and to be fair that definitely is imo inferior to kr  in detail, and the sides are definitely out too, however… it clearly shows how the bufferbeam / frame is incorporated and wrapped by the bodyside after the baggage doors, it also has the front window arrangement correct.

https://www.shapeways.com/product/TFSS8GCCA/0-76-bulleid-dd-emu-driver-coach

 

similar this picture shows how the front, as in the “pressing” shouldnt be sitting on the table but with an air gap of a few mm, given the body side wrapping the frame starts part way down the body side.

 

 

(flickr url).

 

I like this picture as it shows how they seemed to have made max use of the loading gauge to make it double deck.. long slab sides but a strong curved roof. I guess the one sat next to an upper deck window had his head to one side or used the roof as a pillow, but getting off youve not got benefit of a footstep under the door. But the curved glass is noticeable in this image accentuated by that roof curvature.

 

on the backwall end of the carriage detailing here is absent (maybe added later), but for example roof access foot steps, brake test butterfly, roof pipe detail, step handrails, end beading, finally the rainstripe guttering looks a little over pronounced.

 

(again flickr url)

 

Credit where its due though, the bodyside detailing, panels, door handles, door locks look nice, and I can see holes in the drivers door sides for metal handrails.

 

I have noticed most pictures show these units with the door windows open.. I guess it was warm inside there.. perhaps this should be considered, as well as that guy in a suit reading his broadsheet newspaper… if you notice there everyone is reading something… commuters then and now don't sit straight or look out of windows.

I wonder how NSE livery would sit on this ?

Edited June 22, 2022 by adb968008

[John Isherwood]

48 minutes ago, adb968008 said:

 

 

 

I wonder if the wrong roof profile is deliberate - inserting correctly curved flush glazing into three-dimensional body / roof recesses could be, shall we say, tricky.

 

Come to that, ejecting the body mouldings from the tooling could be quite a challenge!

 

CJI.

 

Edited June 22, 2022 by cctransuk

[Roy Langridge]

49 minutes ago, JSpencer said:

And the photo seems to show the cab end is lower in height to the inner end between vehicles, as if the whole coach tapers from one end to the other which it certainly did not do with the prototype.

 

Yes - and just as it should be, the inner ends were taller than the cab ends.

Roy

[The Stationmaster]

18 minutes ago, Roy Langridge said:

 

Yes - and just as it should be, the inner ends were taller than the cab ends.

Roy

But only because the bottom part of the body panel was omitted at the cab ends - which isn't seemingly the case on the photos of the mouldings.  And that in turn suggests the tooling isn't correct.

[Roy Langridge]

14 minutes ago, The Stationmaster said:

But only because the bottom part of the body panel was omitted at the cab ends - which isn't seemingly the case on the photos of the mouldings.  And that in turn suggests the tooling isn't correct.

 

Yes, and I noted above that the fishbelly is missing, unless it is actually leaning forward. Even then it probably isn't right as the shallower part is shorter, meaning that it should balance back towards the inner end, not towards the cab.

 

Roy

[PMP]

1 hour ago, cctransuk said:

 

 

I wonder if the wrong roof profile is deliberate - inserting correctly curved flush glazing into three-dimensional body / roof recesses could be, shall we say, tricky.

 

Come to that, ejecting the body mouldings from the tooling could be quite a challenge!

 

CJI.

 

I doubt either reason would be ‘valid’. The curved glazing is dealt with easily in the Heljan Park Royal/W&M/AC Railcars, and kit manufacturers make complex compound curve transparencies too.

 

I don’t see anything particularly complex in the body shape for tooling ejection either, think of any DMU/EMU by the other RTR manufacturers, and they have good shape fidelity and no noticeable tooling wear in contemporary releases of ‘old’ tool models, eg Bachmann 105/108.

Edited June 22, 2022 by PMP
Addition

[JSpencer]

1 hour ago, Roy Langridge said:

 

Yes - and just as it should be, the inner ends were taller than the cab ends.

Roy

 

That I agree with, but the cab end should have daylight. It does not so there is clearly taper instead of a step in the body shell before the bogie.