Large Scale Central

Request help from Stanley

General Discussion
#1

Hello Stan-

Please give those of us who are potential buyers of the unreleased Bachmann mallet your personal impressions of its running qualities. The following are assumptions I have made from reading the myriad postings on the engines’ electronics and motor size.

Are these assumptions accurate?

  1. You have a pre-sale copy for testing
  2. The testing is done, or was done, on an actual garden layout.
  3. The video showing the locomotive was taken on your layout and shows its running qualities as a goal.
  4. The testing of this particular locomotive is under your supervision and therefore can be as extensive as you wish.
  5. You have only one loco to test and that is the one we have seen in the video.
  6. There is more than one of these pre-sale locos being tested on actual layouts.

Request:
Would you please give us your assessment of the running qualities of this loco and how much run time the videoed locomotive has experienced.

Thanks,
Wendell

#2

Wendell,
you are asking Stan to walk a tightrope. As a spokesperson/‘consultant’ for B’mann Industries, he is hardly likely to criticise the quality or running properties. Similarly, if he praises the product then he will be seen as a shill. Dammed if he does and dammed if he “don’t”. From the video it would seem to be a high-quality product, that has the fortune to be a successor to any woes that the K-27 may have suffered. B’mann do actually learn from their ‘mistakes’.

        It would be nice to read of Stan's comments,  but, unfortunately,  everything he says will be scrutinised with a fine tooth comb,  which may explain a little reluctance on his behalf to respond.
#3

Tim and Stan,

Tim may be accurate that you, Stan, will choose not to make any comment as to the running operation of the new loco.

Meanwhile, would you please comment on the accuracy or non-accuracy on any of the above assumptions. Several readers on this site have cited one or two of them with the conviction of fact.

Thanks,
Wendell

#4

Any “Out-of-the-box” fool can place a loco on the track; run it around his/her pike and comment on how it ran, what it looks like, and all those basic descriptions. Whether the next person that does the same on his/her layout, will think, see, and feel the same is doubtful.

The true test is to go to the trouble to check the spectifications of wheel guage, and other things that can cause problems. These REAL tests come only after actual running, then breaking the model down and looking at it from all angles, and from inside out.
I very much doubt that young Mr.Ames would bother doing that and actually reporting his TRUE findings to any forum…he has too much at stake…

Best wait for Dave Goodson to have one in his hands, and see what he finds, without any political interference…

I'm sure Dave will give us all a very professional assesment of this new locomotive, by posting his findings here first.

Dave has always given praise where it was deserved, and constructive comment when faults were found. He also is known for suggesting to the manufacturers, and purchasers alike, how to improve on the locos, or fix faults that he has fouund, in a professional manner.

The only problems people have with David’s assesments, is when they argue, that there are no problems, or don’t take any heed of how they can learn from his suggestions.

I said it once before, on these forums, and I’ll say it again.

This articulated tank engine model, should be a fine example of good manufacturing skills. I'm sure B'mann has learned from past mistakes and has every reason for pride in it's production.

That’s the way I see the situation.

#5

BTW, it’s also possible (in fact, likely) that anyone doing official product testing for a manufacturer may have been required to sign a Non-Disclosure Agreement limiting or prohibiting the release of information.

#6

You mean to say that manufacturers would dare to restrict what a reviewer might say by signed agreement?

Really?

Since Bochman states they don’t have outside consultants, do everything in-house, and have no pre-production units for testing (11-1/2 years of those statements), you must be referring to reviews, right?

ANY commentary on pre-production units is absolutely worthless.

If the manufacturer sends a unit out for review, it isn’t pre-production.

If they later try to claim it was (as in, trying to minimize adverse review impacts), the manufacturer is not to be considered as trustworthy any longer.

One of the issues is if said reports are made public, all the manufacturer has to do to sink said reviewer is to change the items panned in the review for production units.

That said, think of all the headaches that could have been avoided over the years had some manufacturers stepped up to the plate and had someone who had a clue actually wring out a pre-production unit.

We could have seen a totally different hobby now. One where quality, workmanship, reliability was what folks discussed about manufacturers who did so.

Boggles the mind, it does.

#7

I’ve always wanted to watch a mind being boggled. It sounds like fun!

#8

Follow one of the Stanley threads some time.
You will see graphic depictions thereof.

#9

Shill…I see that word quite often on the Fora…even received a backhanded label once myself…you can see it here:

http://www.bachmanntrains.com/home-usa/board/index.php/topic,6736.msg57192.html#msg57192

it is an interesting word with an even more interesting definition, as seen in above post…my fav part is as follows…quoted from the Wiki…

Quote:
. . "Shill" can also be used pejoratively to [b]describe a critic who appears either all-too-eager to heap glowing praise upon mediocre offerings, or who acts as an apologist for glaring flaws.[/b] In this sense, they would be an implicit "shill" for the industry at large, as their income is tied to its prosperity. . .
#10

(http://www.jbrr.com/Pics/GIFS/BoggledMind.jpg)

#11

(http://www.jbrr.com/Pics/GIFS/shill.jpg)

#12
Curmudgeon said:
You mean to say that manufacturers would dare to restrict what a reviewer might say by signed agreement?
Please re-read what I posted. I was referring to someone who has been contracted by a manufacturer to conduct (or assist) product testing for the manufacturer. This is not the same as conducting tests of a finished product as part of a published review of said product.
#13

Question for Wendell -

I’m not being critical of you, but I’m curious. Was this thread a serious attempt to gain some real information or was it just bait? Your LGB threads always started with a harmless (but possibly loaded) question and always resulted in pages of bashing persons and manufacturers. I can’t tell if you genuinely want the answers to these questions, or just enjoy stirring the pot.

Either way is OK by me. I enjoy the serious answers and the debates too.

#14

Jon and all:

Jon, your question was a good one.
The inquiry was genuine of Stanley – as my other ones.
I do not have any record of “bashing” or using negative language, as I think you agree, along with setting anyone up to do so.

If the assumptions I listed are accurate, there is every reason to encourage Stanley’s participation on this site pertaining to new Bachmann products. IF Stanley is the singular testing feature for Bachmann, why not communicate what kinds of product testing (see above testing criteria Fred suggested) we think helpful – he will either respond or he won’t. If those assumptions are accurate, he is the only person of record with Bachmann who contributes to this site with employee first-hand knowledge of upcoming Bachmann products.

As certain as gravity we have not heard from Lee Riley or any of the other players at Bachmann.

As to Stanley, OK, disagree with him on electrical issues. Yes, disagree on Bachmann’s product controls. However, do it with civility and we may gain some information. Of course, we may not. We lose nothing asking.

So I did.

Thanks for asking my motive. I had hoped that Stanley would respond to the six assumptions affirming his role with Bachmann and the company’s testing process. At least we would have that.

Wendell

#15

Thanks Wendell -

I didn’t mean to imply that you were doing any bashing or intentionally setting it up, but somehow in these controversial threads it tends to happen eventually.

I hope you get a response - at least a “I can’t officially answer these” would be something. But I wouldn’t count on it.

#16

Stanley may be the official tester. Who knows.

He claims to not be a paid “employee” of Bachmann.

#17
Jon Radder said:
Thanks Wendell -

I didn’t mean to imply that you were doing any bashing or intentionally setting it up, but somehow in these controversial threads it tends to happen eventually.

I hope you get a response - at least a “I can’t officially answer these” would be something. But I wouldn’t count on it.


Jon,

Wendell asks the questions, Wendell receives some answers and almost without fail someone will take exception to the answers Wendell receives.
Did someone broach the topic of “shills”? :wink:

#18
TonyWalsham said:
Stanley may be the official tester. Who knows.

He claims to not be a paid “employee” of Bachmann.


Yes Tony, but he didn’t deny being a consultant, did he? :wink: :slight_smile:

#19

Jon,
without stealing any thunder from Wendell, I can assure you that Wendell is not a ‘troublemaker’. Wendell has a ‘professional’ interest in the recent business history of Lehmann/LGB and over the last two and one-half years, has attempted to glean some information on the failure of the company. I believe, that the information is part of a case study in business studies for his students (in how not to run a company). I also believe that his interest in B’mann may be both for his personal interest and possibly, as part of a further case study in business practice case studies.