Who should be responsible for the cost of mazak rot.

[Nearholmer]

45 minutes ago, Phil Parker said:

The decisions on "reasonable" would need to be settled in court with lots of long and expensive arguments

Quite so.

 

I never said it would be a cheap question to settle.

 

Which is why I doubt people will attempt to settle it.

 

My gut feel is that the strongest argument that something was not done properly in recent years is the fact that there is a good track record of castings of this kind lasting many decades, in multiple applications, including toys and models. Somebody somewhere “un-learned” how to do it properly.

Edited June 28, 2022 by Nearholmer

[cypherman]

On 25/06/2022 at 18:29, Nearholmer said:

The law doesn’t limit to safety related items, it’s couched in terms of fitness for purpose, so if a thing fails in a way that makes it impossible to use it for its purpose, without fixed time limit, subject to it having been properly used, but bounded by reasonable expectation of lifespan, then the customer should be able to obtain redress from the retailer, although the customer might have to employ an expert to investigate and report, which can cost a significant sum.

 

My car suffered a catastrophic failure of the clutch recently, rendering it unusable, and first response was “it’s out of warranty; sorry, but you’ll have to pay”. I gently pointed out the foregoing, and they began to think harder, then I suggested that I might employ an expert, and suddenly it was all fixed at no cost to me, with the fix warranted for a further two years.

 

Which, for Mazak-rotted toy trains takes us to the question of reasonable life expectancy when used as intended. Be interesting to see someone take a case to court to establish that, but it might be possible to establish a reasonable life of multiple decades.

Hi all,

As Nearholmer has said he got his clutch fixed for free as a one-off. Something similar happened to me with my last car. A Peugeot 3008. It was sold with a life span date for the timing belt of 120k miles. 7 years after me buying the car I got a Warranty recall letter saying that they had dropped the life span date to 70k miles. The letter informed me that once the car had reached 70K miles I was to take it to my local Peugeot dealership, and they would replace it free of charge. 3 things here:

1/ It is a very time-consuming and costly job to do at about £700.00, and they were doing it for free.

2/ This was well after the 3-year warranty the car was sold with.

3/ I bought the car at 2 years old, so it was second-hand. No quibble about who bought it first or how long I had the car for.

This is why I used the car analogy. To my knowledge there had been no reported incidents of these belts failing and causing accidents or ruined engines.

So if a major company like Peugeot are doing things like this Hornby might have a problem defending their actions over historic mazak rot. It is not that they were unaware of the problems with the mazak and the quality control for it with their manufacturers. They just that they seemed to have ignored it. Look at the problems with the T9 and Class 31 engine chassis as an example.

Edited June 28, 2022 by cypherman

[RedgateModels]

Not that costly though, can't be many Peugeots that last 7 years 🤣

[melmerby]

2 hours ago, Enterprisingwestern said:

 

But only if you have it serviced every year by an approved installer.

 

Mike.

Normally the case with items like boilers and cars etc.

 

They are hardly going to guarantee against back street joes who will service your boiler and give you a certificate for £10

The service cost of an approved installer isn't exactly expensive. (£64.80 last time)

 

Ours is now 13(?) years old and last year the engineer, who actually installed it, remarked how little deterioration there had been in that time.

It did have a new part a while back when a water manifold(?) split and was leaking and also had an updated control unit before that, which was a recommended but not essential upgrade, when  out of guarantee.

 

 

[kevinlms]

54 minutes ago, cypherman said:

Hornby might have a problem defending their actions over historic mazak rot. It is not that they were unaware of the problems with the mazak and the quality control for it with their manufacturers. They just that they seemed to have ignored it. Look at the problems with the T9 and Class 31 engine chassis as an example.

I suspect that realistically there is not a great deal that Hornby can do, about mazak rot. It is something that historically doesn't present itself immediately. It can be a long time after Hornby have paid for those models, so they can hardly use their big stick of refusing to pay!

 

The only option, is to tell the manufacturers to do better, which is hardly a huge threat. How good is international law, against Chinese companies? Not very I suspect, judging on the lack of progress on many of Australia's exports, which China made dodgy excuses over.

[ejstubbs]

1 hour ago, melmerby said:

4 hours ago, Enterprisingwestern said:

But only if you have it serviced every year by an approved installer.

Normally the case with items like boilers and cars etc.

 

Not so with cars, AIUI, so long as it can be demonstrated that the person/garage performing the regular servicing did so at the recommended intervals and carried out the work as specified by the manufacturer at each service interval.

 

From https://www.theaa.com/driving-advice/service-repair/faqs:

 

Quote

 

Do I have to get my car serviced by a main dealer?

 

You are not obliged (since October 2003) to get the car serviced by a franchise dealer during the warranty period.

You must though get it serviced according to the manufacturer's recommended schedule and criteria using only manufacturer approved parts.

The legislation only applies to the part of the warranty offered by the manufacturer, i.e. insurance-backed extended warranties offered by dealers are not covered and may stipulate different conditions.

If you do get the car serviced outside the dealer network, you must make sure it's done to the maker's recommended schedule and criteria using approved parts. You must also keep records so you can demonstrate to the manufacturer that servicing was undertaken to their requirements.

You should still get warranty work undertaken by the franchised dealer as it is easier for them to deal directly with the manufacturer.

 

Edited June 28, 2022 by ejstubbs

[melmerby]

Semantics/pedantics.

 

If you are doing as the manufacturer specifies and only using manufacturer approved parts, surely that could be called doing a manufacturer approved service?

 

 

[frobisher]

3 minutes ago, melmerby said:

Semantics/pedantics.

 

If you are doing as the manufacturer specifies and only using manufacturer approved parts, surely that could be called doing a manufacturer approved service?

 Only if you're a manufacturer certified service engineer if they require that as well.

[ejstubbs]

4 hours ago, Phil Parker said:

On 27/06/2022 at 09:52, Nearholmer said:

I would certainly look to demonstrate that a reasonable life expectancy for an adult market is measured in decades, and that such a lifespan is achievable with reasonable levels of care around quality control.

The word "reasonable" is doing a lot of heavy lifting in that sentence. The manufacturers would likely argue that they are already are emplying "reasonable" levels of QC. You can apply the sames levels of mazak testing that defence and medical contractors apply, but that's going to push the price right up, and we know how the UK modeller loves low prices.

 

The decisions on "reasonable" would need to be settled in court with lots of long and expensive arguments. Probably enough to either bankrupt the manufacturer, or at least persaude them that the model railway business isn't worth the effort - which solves all the problems of course as we get no more new models. AND, you may well find a judge who looks at the stuff and says it's toy trains, so how much do they really matter? After all, a faulty OO gauge Class 31 kills no-one.

 

Sounds to me like the argument over whether a Jaffa Cake is a cake or a biscuit:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaffa_Cakes#Legal_status

 

IIRC the final judgement was based on the proposition that a cake is something that goes hard (i.e. stale) when left out of the packet, whereas a biscuit goes soft.  If only someone could come up with a straightforward criterion like that for deciding whether a model locomotive is a toy or an "adult collectible"*, how much simpler life might be.

 

* Which sounds to me more like the kind of dodgy magazine that you can find for sale in the darker recesses of eBay** - but maybe that says more about me than it does about the phrase itself.

** Er, so I'm told.  I'm not speaking from personal experience, obviously.

[ejstubbs]

6 minutes ago, melmerby said:

If you are doing as the manufacturer specifies and only using manufacturer approved parts, surely that could be called doing a manufacturer approved service?

 

Sophistry.

 

"Approved installer" were your original words: that clearly refers to the person doing the work, not the work being done.

 

Words have meanings.  Unless you're Humpty Dumpty (or a certain kind of politician) you can't change their meaning willy-nilly to suit your argument.

[cypherman]

If I remember correctly as long as a garage is paying VAT then they are allowed to work on your vehicle and not affect any claims against the original manufacturer. In fact my Peugeot dealership has 2 prices. One using Peugeot original parts and a second using none Peugeot approved parts. The second is about 25% cheaper than using original parts. But it still counts towards the warranty.

[melmerby]

2 hours ago, ejstubbs said:

 

Sophistry.

 

"Approved installer" were your original words: that clearly refers to the person doing the work, not the work being done.

 

Words have meanings.  Unless you're Humpty Dumpty (or a certain kind of politician) you can't change their meaning willy-nilly to suit your argument.

In the first sentence I had replied to Mike's post and alluded to "cars etc" being like boilers, which is what I was actually posting about.

Maybe not being specific enough?☹️

 

I then said "Approved Installer" whilst talking boilers, which I specifically knew about.

 

Obviously, from the information posted by yourself the service does not have to be by a manufacturers approved agent but is OK as long it is done to the approved requirements and requiring approved parts (which are normally more expensive than after market parts) and means cutting out the cheapo back street boys.

 

I found the main dealer cost for my car wasn't that much more than other "better quality" outfits, not that I've had any work done on it apart from service and latterly MOT.

 

[melmerby]

12 minutes ago, cypherman said:

If I remember correctly as long as a garage is paying VAT then they are allowed to work on your vehicle and not affect any claims against the original manufacturer. In fact my Peugeot dealership has 2 prices. One using Peugeot original parts and a second using none Peugeot approved parts. The second is about 25% cheaper than using original parts. But it still counts towards the warranty.

In the Ford warranty non approved parts are specifically excluded and will invalidate the warranty.

It's there in print.

[AndrueC]

5 hours ago, cypherman said:

This is why I used the car analogy. To my knowledge there had been no reported incidents of these belts failing and causing accidents or ruined engines.

And I don't consider it 'reasonable' to compare cars with model trains. Car failures can cost their owner money due to inability to get to work, failure to make appointments, having to call recovery and get a taxi back home.. Car failures can also cause injury and loss of life (not just to the owner).. Cars are dangerous machines with strong legislation dictating their operational worthiness.. Lastly car purchases are typically one of the biggest single expenditure any of us make.

 

Model train failures don't cost anyone money. There's even an argument for saying they enhance the hobby by giving us something to moan about and something to tinker with. Model train failures aren't going to cause injury, let alone loss of life. There is no legislation mandating how well or how safe model trains should operate (aside from basic electrics rules I suppose). And although we moan a bit about their price they are nowhere near the huge cost of a car.

 

So I don't think yours is a valid analogy.

 

Maybe you should try comparing them to households appliances. Most of them are only expected to last a few years and their failure is again more catastrophic to the owner than the failure of a model train.

Edited June 28, 2022 by AndrueC

[RedgateModels]

2 minutes ago, AndrueC said:

Lastly car purchases are typically one of the biggest single expenditure any of us make.

 

 

Blimey, how much was your car, my house cost over 180 grand 6 years ago 🤣

[DCB]

5 hours ago, RedgateModels said:

 

Blimey, how much was your car, my house cost over 180 grand 6 years ago 🤣

Sadly for a large number of younger people their car will be the most expensive item they ever purchase as they are squeezed out of the housing market and into rentals.   Some people spend more on their push bike than I spent on my car, I think £2000 was the most I ever spent, though my wife spent over £10K, but my last was about £750 around 10 years ago.   Quality.  UK made.  No Mazak rot never been welded.

Edited June 28, 2022 by DCB

[newbryford]

11 hours ago, cypherman said:

Hi all,

As Nearholmer has said he got his clutch fixed for free as a one-off. Something similar happened to me with my last car. A Peugeot 3008. It was sold with a life span date for the timing belt of 120k miles. 7 years after me buying the car I got a Warranty recall letter saying that they had dropped the life span date to 70k miles. The letter informed me that once the car had reached 70K miles I was to take it to my local Peugeot dealership, and they would replace it free of charge. 3 things here:

1/ It is a very time-consuming and costly job to do at about £700.00, and they were doing it for free.

2/ This was well after the 3-year warranty the car was sold with.

3/ I bought the car at 2 years old, so it was second-hand. No quibble about who bought it first or how long I had the car for.

This is why I used the car analogy. To my knowledge there had been no reported incidents of these belts failing and causing accidents or ruined engines.

So if a major company like Peugeot are doing things like this Hornby might have a problem defending their actions over historic mazak rot. It is not that they were unaware of the problems with the mazak and the quality control for it with their manufacturers. They just that they seemed to have ignored it. Look at the problems with the T9 and Class 31 engine chassis as an example.

 

Peugeot will have swallowed the costs as protection of their reputation.

Spend a few £s now on fixing a potential problem before it breaks and the customer remains a Peugeot customer. Don't fix it - and it fails - lose a Peugeot customer  - potentially for ever.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Sir TophamHatt]

On 22/06/2022 at 16:51, The Johnster said:

Suck it up, Buttercup.  If you want better materials and build quality, this is capitalism, buddy, and you've got to pay the market price.

 

Who said the OP wouldn't pay market rates for a better product?

I find your post does bring something but the delivery and tone is quite belittling 🤔

 

Perhaps it would be better to think about ways to stop / slow down this happening?
A couple of coats of matte varnish?

Edited July 5, 2022 by Sir TophamHatt

[kevinlms]

12 hours ago, Sir TophamHatt said:

 

Perhaps it would be better to think about ways to stop / slow down this happening?
A couple of coats of matte varnish?

You have made an assumption that mazak rot is preventable. It's the metal composition that is the problem and my understanding that it isn't the same at all as rust, so putting a surface coat on it, isn't going to prevent a chemical process that has already started.

Stripping a modern RTR chassis down, isn't an easy task and is not for the faint hearted. Many thousands of locos get made without any sign of mazak, but a few thousand that do, so is it worth risking wrecking by slightly careless dismantling?

Edited July 6, 2022 by kevinlms
Spelling

[The Johnster]

2 hours ago, Sir TophamHatt said:

 

Who said the OP wouldn't pay market rates for a better product?

I find your post does bring something but the delivery and tone is quite belittling 🤔

 

Perhaps it would be better to think about ways to stop / slow down this happening?
A couple of coats of matte varnish?

Well, it was not my particular intention for the delivery or tone to be belittling, but I did feel a need need to ‘tell it like it is’ as I see it, and if that has upset anyone I’m sorry.  I think that the reality of the situation is that UK modellers in general (individuals may differ) will not pay for models made of better quality materials or better running quality in the way that US and European modellers do; we focus on detail and want a Pullman ride for a Parliamentary Fare, Buffalo Bill Enterprises UK PLC…

 

The solution to the mazak problem is to not use it, but if you must, then expensive and stringent QC must be paid for, and guess who has to bear the cost; yeah, I’m lookin’ at it🤨!  
 

My subjective impression, without empirical evidence but based on experience, is that mazak is less prone to deterioration if the model is taken out of the box and exposed to the air.  The curse seems to be associated to some extent, albeit not definitively, with long periods in storage, and this suggests that ‘sealing’ the chassis block with varnish could be counter productive!

[ejstubbs]

1 hour ago, The Johnster said:

My subjective impression, without empirical evidence but based on experience, is that mazak is less prone to deterioration if the model is taken out of the box and exposed to the air.

 

Unless the box is vacuum sealed (which they aren't) the model is going to be "exposed to the air" inside its box anyway.

[The Johnster]

But not to freely circulating fresh air.  The clear plastic two-piece packing/display inserts are pretty air-tight, while not actually being hermetically sealed.  Any damp or chemical fumes inside that space is going to stay there for a good long time.

[Reorte]

Isn't it down to the materials in the metal reacting with each other? Since they're mixed in together anyway storage won't affect it in the slightest. I suppose it's possible air or moisture getting in to that mix could slow or accelerate the process, but it'll only be prolonging the inevitable at best, if it's going to happen at all. Slight differences in batches could easily lead to speculation about whether storage was a factor, it would need some tightly controlled experiments to really determine if it is.

Edited July 5, 2022 by Reorte

[Sir TophamHatt]

16 hours ago, The Johnster said:

I think that the reality of the situation is that UK modellers in general (individuals may differ) will not pay for models made of better quality materials or better running quality in the way that US and European modellers do; we focus on detail and want a Pullman ride for a Parliamentary Fare, Buffalo Bill Enterprises UK PLC…

It's a really interesting subject because you're right with people's expectations.

 

I see many comments about the price of new locos or units, but people don't really consider the cost of materials, speakers...  and yes, I appreciate not everyone wants DCC or Sound but not everyone wanted a flat screen / HD TV and look where we are now.  These things add to base costs as well as the basic "if XXX (manufacturer) are going to give their staff a pay rise, the money will have to come from adding the cost to the model" - hence where we are with inflation and all that.

 

The real problem comes with some companies making too much profit.

Yes, every company can make as much profit as they see fit but it'll do much more damage in the long term.  In the short term, higher prices will stop people buying the models (then you'll have the problem of models hanging around or manufacturers not making as many = higher cost).  But if too many models are too higher price, people will start coming away from the hobby all together, which will only make things worse for everyone.

 

I wonder how much more expensive the product would be if production was in the UK.

[Bernard Lamb]

21 hours ago, Sir TophamHatt said:

 

Who said the OP wouldn't pay market rates for a better product?

I find your post does bring something but the delivery and tone is quite belittling 🤔

 

Perhaps it would be better to think about ways to stop / slow down this happening?
A couple of coats of matte varnish?

The problem is that the contamination has already occurred so sealing it in will not help.

I mentioned earlier that it is possible to find the problem, or at least be suspicious of a problem, by weighing the castings. The contaminated material will be of a looser structure and will weigh less. Given the full product details it should be possible. I must have checked 10s of thousands of clips that were used to support shelves and cannot remember a failure in normal use. This did mean checking right through from the tooling being made to a comprehensive control procedure for each batch, so not a cheap option. I knew a chap who made castings for at least two F1 teams and I imagine that these had even tighter control procedures as I never heard of a failure.

Bernard