Large Scale Central

Request of Kader Industries (mfg. of Bachmann trains)

General Discussion
#1

After reading this message, please use the Bachmann site to register your response to the following.
Why? Because Kader Industries uses, according to direct Bachmann sources, the Bachmann site as a source for consumer responses.

Posted for your input on Ask the Bach-mann, in the Large Scale section, is a request entitled: “To Kader Industries: Please read this request.”

I, along with others who are simply disgusted with the Kader’s admitted lack of pre-testing of Bachmann’s excellent locomotive models. We are asking your support in requesting Kader Industries to offer their response to your now in-print request for pre-shipment testing. Indicate you favor pre-shiopment testing to your purchasing and virtually testing their new products.

Thanks,
Wendell

#2

Wendell,
changed manufacturing policies have basically ensured that beta-testing is the way of the future. In days of old when manufacture was ‘inhouse’, then manufacturers were able to do test shots and assemble the components for testing. These days with manufacturing centred on a few factories in China, producing almost the entire train market across all scales, then production ‘time slots’ need to be contracted. Basically the ‘test shots’ become the production run.

#3

Tim-
Thanks for your analysis. My best guess is you are absolutely accurate. Unfortunately the drive train is the usual culprit and I would think holding the shipment until at least ten hours of run time were accumulated in testing would save grief later. As to the production time slots, are not the drive trains “borrowed” from previous designs and could not one could be developed as a prototype and tested propr to the actual production run.

Any insight as to the procedure LGB used to ensure product quality – as a company over the years it certainly garnered a reputation for reliability.

Wendell

#4

Wendell, practically all LGB motive power used to be produced `inhouse’ at Nurnberg. Any part manufacturing problem could then be directly corrected. I guess (and hope) that the new Hungarian production line will be set up in a similar way. Once you extensively test the prototype and make sure that all the parts are manufactured correctly you do not need to test every locomotive for hours and I believe that LGB only tested drive trains for functionality during assembly, but not for endurance.
A different procedure was applied to Limited Ed by Aster since they sub-contract making all the parts. In this case it is not impossible to end up with the entire run of faulty parts which may have to be produced again thus introducing a considerable delay. But in this case the assembly was done by Aster who designed the products and tested the prototype, and not by unskilled workers who do not understand what they are assembling and could not care less anyway… Best wishes from Tokyo, Zubi

#5

Wendell,
LGB used the basically same drive block in just about everything from steam to diesel outline. Their drive train was proven back in the early 70’s, once they accepted the use of sliders to assist power pickup (and to clean the railhead supposedly). Bachmann, since the old 2-4-2 model does not have a generic drive block, so it is not possible to carryover drive components to new models. Everything must be designed and engineered from scratch and tested (in the marketplace). We want our models as cheap as possible and so must bear part of the development ‘cost’.

#6

Tim, I am sure that you realise that that is not correct. LGB uses at least ten different motor blocks not counting the Limited Eds. To start with they have three or four different motors in their programme. I think the most recent new design was the 2-10-2 Harz (this is not the same design as that used on the Limited Ed Harz by Aster!) Before that we had the Mikado drive which as you probably know had its problems (to my knowledge this was an isolated case of an LGB drive with problems, but it existed) Before that we had an excellent drive for the Ruegen 0-8-0, before that the tiny drives for the Porter and Koppel 0-4-0 and so on and so on, not forgetting the rack locos!. The important thing is that except for the Mikado drive and starting with the Stainz all these drives performed flawlessly when released in LGB’s new models. Best wishes from Tokyo, Zubi

#7

Meanwhile, will Kader get the message to PLEASE test a couple of the locos before shipping them out to the innocents.

The Bach-mann’s response was interesting and accurate: Can’t stop the assembly line to test.
So it is obvious to me there is NO test “mule” or prototype used. Drawings are translated into the assembly line and there it is…

Wendell

#8

Zubi, I agree with the letter of what you’re saying, but I think Tim’s comments are aimed more towards the spirit of the concept. Yes, LGB has different drive blocks for different locos, but the engineering behind them (horizontally mounted motor, double shaft, double gears driving the axles (or an idler to drive the axles) in a completely enclosed motor block has been around from day 2. (The original Stainz gearbox was a gear-grinder.) Each new locomotive LGB introduced simply made minor adjustments in the positioning of these elements to account for wheelbase, number of axles, etc. If you take one LGB locomotive apart, you know what to expect when you need to take any other one apart. The form may change, but the mechanics are 100% identical.

That’s the advantage of having a “block” drive. You can use longer, shorter, fatter, thinner motors and gears to suit the space provided, but the mechanics are all quite tried-and-true. When you re-invent the wheel with each new loco you make, there are growing pains associated with each change from what was done before. There are certainly Bachmann locos which have benefitted from carryover technology. The 45-tonner, Heisler, and Shays all have fairly robust power trucks now, thanks to lessons learned from the first go-round. The 4-4-0, 2-6-0, and 2-8-0 also have similar drive trains and performance. The chink in that armor is the screws holding the motors in place–something that isn’t even necessary in a “block” power truck design.

I agree with TOC, in that there were simply too many innovations crammed into the K. Too many wheels were reinvented with this one. I have to wonder, though, how much of this innovation could have been better tested if the public wasn’t clamoring every day, asking “are we there yet?”

Later,

K

#9

Zubi,
my reference to the drive block design is that LGB, since the original ‘growler’ block, have basically reinvented the wheel with each successive model. From the Stainz to bogie drive Euro diesels the same block (or a variation on it) have been used. The biggest departure was the RhB switcher tractor which necessitated a drive block wit, ‘heaven forbid’, a wheelbase that was not that of the Stainz and the soon to be released LGB ‘historic train’ set that replicates the train outside the now vacated factory, which similarly has a wheelbase longer than the Stainz.

   The six-coupled drive was basically an extension of the original block design with an idler gear fitted to enable the motor to be raised to clear the centre axle.   The Mikado is more the exception but still an articulated  'block' drive and the Rugen eight-coupled the first attempt at an actual drive chassis.  The Harz is a recent development and to be honest, like the Aster releases,  not withing the realm of the day to day modeller.   I do not classify the Aster-contracted releases as 'true' LGB as they were more destined for the wealthy rather than the average consumer. 


   The recent Genesis release has a drive block that was taken from the F-7A/B and one could trace the lineage back to the Stainz.  Different electric motors are available for specific uses.  There is the generic motor which fits about anything.  The long shaft that fits the mogul,  The larger motor designed for the electric rack loco (2X46X series) and the small motor designed for the track inspector trolley.   One could argue the lineage of the majority of the drives back to the drive block released after the 'infamous growler,  with the Stainz 'sandwich block construction' being the derivative of most block drives available today.



  In so far as Bachmann drives,  well,  the infamous loose motor mount screws did not begin with the Connie.  Every Anniversary drive loco that I have purchased,  has been so plagued.  The first course of action is to remove the gearbox and tighten the mount screws on the motor.   I have yet to find one drive that I could not tighten the screws, with more that 20 Anniversary purchases.  Aristocraft have been criticised that their attach screws are torqued too tightly,  stripping the screw heads when attempting removal.  Bachmann are criticised for having loose screws in every stage of the construction process.   A simple QC check would show any discrepancies,  as the loose screw phenomena is symptomatic of a manufacturing process flaw which should have been corrected years ago.  



  I have now read the B'mann Forum response from the Bach-man and as suspected 'beta' testing is here to stay,  due primarily, I believe, to the contacting out of valuable assembly line time slots.  The manufacturing process these days does not allow models to be made available for testing.  Basically the testing is done 'inhome' rather than 'inhouse'.
#10

I suppose what causes me the most consternation in all of this is that pre-production units ARE made, and yet, neither I nor anyone willing to leave the rose-coloured glasses off and actually LOOK at it have had one.

If you look at the videos of the three-truck Shay, there are, if I recall, three of them running.
With pivoting third trucks, no less.

We get one report that one person “fine tunes” them for the videos.
Yet, the problems we discover on production units are apparently never addressed, as Philly is surprised at the report.

They send one home with Stanley to “wring out”, and he calls ME to ask what to look for!
I think, based upon the last two months of communication with Philly, that he must have missed 99% of what was obvious.

Look at the photos of the 4 versions on the Bachmann Forum, and when they were shown.

Like everyone else, I got the first one THIS YEAR!

I have been told by numerous sources that someone in Philly hates my guts.
Seems I pick on his designs, or some such.

Exactky how hard is it to get me an early unit, and actually converse with me (or anyone else as described above) to get the issues worked out?
My understanding is that the pre-production units are shXt out before they harden the moulds.

Obviously, they fire up the line, run a batch, then shut it down again.

This last go-round, it seems someone had talked Philly into being worried over what I might say.

One would think that after 11 years of doing this, and every one of the reports made have proven 100% true, someone would get off their high-horse.

I am really, really tired of this run-around.

I had asked early on for a chassis, as I was concerned.
How did I know to be concerned?

#11

“Hates your Guts”

Why ? Because you find design flaws or poor design work ! He must hate alot of people then .

#12

More to the point, he’s AFRAID of Dave! Lord knows WHY! (Except that Dave is brutally honest about his testing and he doesn’t care to play the political game…) I’ve given up trying to understand the corporate mindset! Dilbert has it pegged!! The latest decision from Bachmann shows that they STILL don’t get it!! The counterweights are in but you have to send in a receipt to get them!! Bachmann is STILL not thinking of the customer! If they were, they would realize that the consumer DOESN’T WANT TO JUMP THROUGH A BUNCH OF HOOPS to get an engine that works! One would think that they would try to make this retro-fix as painless as possible! Apparently not…
Purposefully excluding Dave from any pre-examination has “bit them in the butt” yet again! They never learn!! The model, once tweaked, is a pretty d*mn fine model locomotive!! Too bad that certain people (with less technical know-how than ego) pretty much condemned the K-27 to this fiasco! (Sigh So much potential…)

#13

Steve,
if one stands to gain financially from a project then he is hardly likely to ‘look a gift horse in the mouth’. For the rest of us, well, we are committed to accept the result of their less than critical eye and be condemmed for speaking out.

#14
Kevin Strong said:
Zubi, I agree with the letter of what you're saying, but I think Tim's comments are aimed more towards the spirit of the concept. Yes, LGB has different drive blocks for different locos, but the engineering behind them (horizontally mounted motor, double shaft, double gears driving the axles (or an idler to drive the axles) in a completely enclosed motor block has been around from day 2. (The original Stainz gearbox was a gear-grinder.) Each new locomotive LGB introduced simply made minor adjustments in the positioning of these elements to account for wheelbase, number of axles, etc. If you take one LGB locomotive apart, you know what to expect when you need to take any other one apart. The form may change, but the mechanics are 100% identical.

…

I agree with TOC, in that there were simply too many innovations crammed into the K. Too many wheels were reinvented with this one. I have to wonder, though, how much of this innovation could have been better tested if the public wasn’t clamoring every day, asking “are we there yet?”

Later,

K


Kevin, regarding the basic concept of the drive I tend to agree with you, indeed LGB prefers to employ a proven concept of enclosed drive. But in details these drives are different, and this is where some degree of testing is always required before releasing the product. Also by the same logic. Bachmann employs two types of drives, closed like on the Big Hauler and the Shay and open like on the K and the Connie, etc. Obviously I understand that the drive which is re-designed for each new engine will face new challenges, but the company which decides to go this way knows this in advance and they should accommodate the necessary time and effort thoroughly to test the new idea. But quite frankly, if we look at the K, the drive is to the best of my knowledge, a close copy of what has been developed by Aster/LGB for the K-28. OK, I agree the semi-equalised chassis is nice, but this hardly qualifies as an innovation. Also, as far as I understand the nature of the problems with the K, they are caused by inferior quality of manufacturing the parts (counterweights) and once these parts will be replaced the engine will run OK. I must say that I am somewhat astounded by the fact that quite a few of the recent releases of large scale engines were met with mass hysteria. This concerned the live steam K-28, the 4-6-0 WD Baldwin, now the electric K-27. I wonder whether this is not - considering the substantial costs of these engines - some kind of a psychological effect, such as anger caused by the guilt after a large scale shopping spree;-))). Once this initial shock is over, these engines will become accepted as good or even exemplary performers of very decent if not top quality. Best wishes from Tokyo, Zubi
PS I have no data to verify your statement about the first generation Stainz (my Stainz is second generation and a perfect pefrormer) but I seriously doubt that a company introducing a poor quality product would survive on the German market in 1960/70s, or now.

#15
Zbigniew Struzik said:
Kevin Strong said:
.... The original Stainz gearbox was a gear-grinder....
.... I have no data to verify your statement about the first generation Stainz (my Stainz is second generation and a perfect performer)....
"Generations" is not a term that can be accurately applied to the Stainz or most LGB products. The Stainz was virtually in constant production and the modifications can be best described as evolutionary. These modifications run into the hundreds, not counting the total retooling when the original dies wore out.

The original Stainz can best be described as an open frame drive and while noisy, this drive was modified to allow it to preform better in an outdoor environment rather than simply reduce the noise. Noisy drives were far from uncommon in the Sixties. I have had N scale locomotives that were louder.

Jack

#16

Hmmmmm.
Apparently, there is a BIG discrepency between the recent statement given to me on the Bachmann site and what I know of conversations with TOC and his stated experience in his own posting above.

Consider the following points from the Dave’s posting:
1 - There are pre-production units e.g. three videos of the newest Shay shown before shipment.
2 - A report available to him indicated these Shays were “fine tuned” for the video.
3 - Dave was asked by a person named Stanley, with a pre-shipment Shay to test, what should he “look for?”
4 - On the Bachmann Forum, there are 4 pictured versions of the Shay on the forum and the dates taken shown.
5 - Dave gets his Shay to “test” in 2008 along with those delivered to customers. His conclusion is corporate declines his willingness to receive one for evaluation prior to shipment.
6 - Dave concludes the production line is run and shut down in order for the Shay samples to be tested.

Any further information?

Wendell

#17

I do believe it was the K-27 being discussed…

#18

Yup.
Kay-two-seven

#19

Other than that, anything incorrect with that summary?

#20

1 - There are pre-production units e.g. three videos of the newest Shay shown before shipment.

Maybe better phrased “The video provided with the new three-truck Shay show 3 pre-production units running, pivoting third trucks and all.”

2 - A report available to him indicated these Shays were “fine tuned” for the video.

Roder Cutter posted on one of the forums that he fine-tuned pre-production units for the video shoot.

3 - Dave was asked by a person named Stanley, with a pre-shipment Shay to test, what should he “look for?”

Better to replace “Shay” with “K-27”.

Rest is okay if you replace “Shay” with “K-27”.