Sir William Stanier - wheels turn but loco stays still!

[The Johnster]

I suspect that, if my local shop is aware of an issue about them 'not being pemitted to open the box and test models on behalf of the manufacturer or purchaser', they are doing it on their own behalf, and I for one am very glad that they are doing it on their own behalf.  Presumably the customer is within his rights to take his own property out of the box and test run it on a retailer's test track after he has paid for it, but my shop does this before any money changes hands.  I am now reluctant to name the shop in case I get it into trouble with the manufacturers!

 

I have never had any problem beyond an impression of being regarded as a bit of a nuisance if I ask for a test run in any shop I have dealt with, by the way, over a period of over 50 years, for new or secondhand locos.

[Joseph_Pestell]

This thread echoes another recent thread about a lack of real progress in the quality of models since 2000.

 

We want fine valve gear but then complain when it can't deal with the amount of "slop" in the chassis that is needed to get round a 438mm R2 curve. H-D/Wrenn valve gear was horribly out of scale but it was compatible with train set curves.

 

I am the first to complain about the vagaries of Chinese quality control. But the main problem is asking them to assemble a square circle.

[Pete the Elaner]

According to what a number of retailers have told me, they are not permitted to open and check/test models on behalf of the manufacturer for the purchaser.    If an item is faulty, however slight, then it should be returned to the retailer for a refund or replacement, if latter is available, and the errant item should then be returned to the manufacturer by the retailer.    Likewise, if a faulty *new* item is responsible for causing damage to another required part, so fitted, then the purchaser has the right to request the cost of the damage or replacement thereof.    So that if the said *new* locomotive is defective and blows the decoder, generic or sound, then the cost of the replacement decoder is claimed from the retailer by the purchaser and the retailer then claims costs from the manufacturer/supplier with whom their contract of supply is with.

This sounds very strange.

In the past (a few years ago now), I have bought a couple of locos from a shop. The seller has unboxed & test ran both up & down the short test track to ensure they ran ok. He saw something wrong with one & refused to sell it, insisting it should go back.

 

I can understand a manufacturer getting upset if you have taken the model apart & broken a couple of lugs in doing so, or hacked away at the chassis in order to fit a speaker & then return it due to a defect.

This is one of the reasons that it is recommended to test a loco before taking it apart for DCC fitting.

[robmcg]

This thread echoes another recent thread about a lack of real progress in the quality of models since 2000.

 

We want fine valve gear but then complain when it can't deal with the amount of "slop" in the chassis that is needed to get round a 438mm R2 curve. H-D/Wrenn valve gear was horribly out of scale but it was compatible with train set curves.

 

I am the first to complain about the vagaries of Chinese quality control. But the main problem is asking them to assemble a square circle.

 

I very much agree with that sentiment.

 

The several Duchess models I have bought have all required careful assessment, and considerable care is required when removing them from their packaging. Some have had one or two bits fall off, like a fall plate, and two have had binding rods and motion, in both cases the crosshead wasn't fully 'right inside' the slidebars. I fixed them.  These are delicate models and I doubt every assembly worker is perfect.  Remember British Leyland in the 1970s?

 

These assembly issues are common to nearly all new top spec steam RTR models...   Heljan 47XX or O2,, even some Rapido Stirling Singles, and some Bachmann Branchline, but Hornby have got very fine detail on such as 4MT 4-6-0 or Britannia,  just look at second-hand Bachmann Standard 4MT 2-6-4Ts and it would be very rare to find an undamaged one.

 

Not that this excuses a new model which won't run properly.  (It was rare to find a new Brtish Leyland car which ran properly straight off the production line, it needed careful attention by a person who knew what they were doing)). 

It just explains that it is worth checking a model before running it. In my opinion

[Buhar]

Mine has the flanged wheels fitted. Once channels had been cut in the rear truck brace to allow the wheels to turn, they were fine. I wouldn’t have bought it if it hadn’t had flanged wheels. It’s only required to run on large curves, by the way.

 

Hello, any chance of a figure for "large curves"?  At the moment I'm fixated on this issue as I'm going to be building a large shed and want to have an idea of how wide it needs to be.  Unfortunately, I don't have the space at the moment to lay out even a quarter circle to do some tests.

[Guest Mancunian]

Where is the evidence for this assertion?

 

If you buy a DCC ready locomotive manufacturers recommend that you test the model on a DC supply before taking apart to fit a DCC decoder and they will often state that they are not liable for consequential damage to items fitted to a product.

 

Please don't give readers a false 'I read it on the internet' get-out claim.

 

I'm sorry but I'm not in the habit of recording tel-cons, It's only what I've been told in the past and it was the truth!    Is it an excuse then..??    What is the legal position and why has more than one retailer told me this.    I had no intention whatsoever of giving anything false and was surprised at what the retailers had told me.    I tend to rely more so on "Consumer Advise" people.

[Andy Y]

and it was the truth!

 

How have you established that you were told a 'truth'?

[Fireline]

I'm sorry but I'm not in the habit of recording tel-cons, It's only what I've been told in the past and it was the truth!    Is it an excuse then..??    What is the legal position and why has more than one retailer told me this.    I had no intention whatsoever of giving anything false and was surprised at what the retailers had told me.    I tend to rely more so on "Consumer Advise" people.

 

Most model shops will test a loco on request, and some in fact include a slip in their mail order items to the effect that "this item has been tested by Fred". (Fred must work in a LOT of model shops.) In my personal experience, the only shops that wouldn't were either too busy, worked on a warehouse basis, or had staff that didn't know their base from their apex.

 

So yes, it's an excuse, not the truth.

[Alex TM]

"What is truth?" asked Pilate ......

[No Decorum]

Hello, any chance of a figure for "large curves"?  At the moment I'm fixated on this issue as I'm going to be building a large shed and want to have an idea of how wide it needs to be.  Unfortunately, I don't have the space at the moment to lay out even a quarter circle to do some tests.

 

Probably not very helpful but I’ve laid my track to 6' radius and used Peco large radius points. I’m afraid I’ve nothing tighter to test stuff on.

[Guest Mancunian]

How have you established that you were told a 'truth'?

 

Good question but that could apply to many things we are told in life...    Somebody once said, "I can assure you that, one day, you will die".    As a young child, I can recall running home where my parents explained certain facts of life!    I can't remember who that was who told a very young child but should I believe what I was told..  ;-)    I just thought it was strange that two retailers, in different parts of the country and on the same day, told me the same thing.    That said, I too leaned towards it being more of an excuse after my asking why the retailer(s) hadn't checked the relevant models prior to sending them out.

 

In this crazy mixed-up world I suppose many things could apply in many situations.    If a new model has a serious fault which damages a new decoder, sound or generic, would it be correct to make a claim against the manufacturer/supplier, or retailer ?    For those who don't know, the claim would be against the retailer who would be liable for the replacement or refund of the model and also the cost of the decoder so damaged.    Now please don't take this the wrong way but I was told this by "Consumer Advice" and I had to believe that they were telling me the truth in order for me to proceed.    It was necessary for me to quote "Consumer Advice" service to one of those concerned but I had the models replaced and full allowance for the decoders, one sound and one generic.    The purchases, in this case, were via the Internet.