Agreed... ergo "dealer dilemma". It's hard to say just how much can they do [if they even know the problem exists] without a clear path from the manufacturer. Meanwhile, these F7 units may still be selling to unsuspecting customers... hopefully... only by unsuspecting dealers.
I don't see a problem with a dealer continuing to sell these even if they are aware of the non-prototype configuration. The vast majority of purchasers, even if told about the problem, would probably just scratch their heads and say "huh?" I think folks like us that hang out on the forums are the obsessive fringe (and I don't mean that in a derogatory way). To me, fair would be for IMR to notify their dealers that they would grant full credit on any units returned for this condition for a specified period of time. Recalls are typically reserved for safety related product issues, and I haven't heard any reports of these things bursting into flames. That being said, I'm glad I haven't yet reserved the upcoming CB&Q F7s. I've learned to wait and see on N scale products from most manufacturers.
Does anyone have a photo of the specific problem being discussed in the Denver & Rio Grande F7 "B" unit? Stay cool and run steam....
You bring up a good point NorsemanJack. There are alot of people who just buy stuff without a great deal of knowledge about the prototype and probably wouldn't care how the parts are cast as long as it looks like an F7B. Unfortunately... I don't think that those are the majority of the people buying "these" F7 units. The ones that are that indifferent to the details are also likely to be purchasing the less expensive versions put out by Bachmann & LifeLike (IMHO). It's evident that most of us weren't looking at the details on these models... otherwise we would have spotted the wrong roof/side details after the first few releases. I'm not a rivit counter... I wasn't spending any time looking for the defects. I probably may never have noticed the problem... but... now I feel that I would not have purchased these had I known the flaw existed. After all... I got rid of lesser quality F units (LifeLike & Minitrix) because they were not going to be as 'correct' or as 'detailed' as the IMRC units were going to be. It would not make sense for me to get replacement shells if IMRC offers them. So... I'm not obsessive about the level of detail... but... I figure that I'm substituting a more detailed and correct model for what I considered to be inferior quality 'imposters'. BTW: No offense was taken to the comment 'obsessive fringe' The interesting part of this whole issue is how long it took to find the flaw. I'm of the opinion that we all ASSUMED that everything was correct and never bothered to 'count the rivits'. It wasn't until the very noticable gaff of leaving off the lower headlight on the NP F7A units that somebody took the time to see what else might be wrong. Had their been a similar issue on the A unit body (sand fillers/fuel filler/ porthole location)... I doubt it would have taken this long to catch. Ifyou recall my previous post regarding the IMRC F units about 3 months ago... I was concerned about the shell of my new IMRC F7's not fitting properly on the chassis. Numerous people responded to that thread... someone should have noticed it at that point. I know that I was looking at them not looking right... I wonder how much of that was a subconcious realization that the shells weren't right. I was putting the A/B set on the track with the "F" symbol (front) of B unit towards the back at first... because I was looking at the roof fan orientation... DB fans forward. It never dawned that IMRC would have made such a mistake as to put the roof details backwards (or the sides backwards... take your pick).
Bob, I don't know the particular problem with the Rio Grande B-unit but there is a photo of one side of the unit on the N Scale Supply website catalog page for IMR. Ben
Hi Bob, Sorry for the very blurry photo: I'll try to explain the difference which are hard to see First, as you can see the back of this unit is lower than the front... which was the reason I was complaining a couple of months ago. The battery box point toward the front when the "B" unit is running forward. Above the battery box on the IMRC model is the fuel filler (red dots)... they should be over the fuel tank not the battery box. The porthole locations are too far toward the front... the first porthole should line up between the back of the front truck and the battery box. The sand filler hatches (barely visible due to blur) should be over the leading wheels on each truck... not the trailing wheels of each truck. Here's a photo of the HO scale units for comparison... they were done correctly.
To better see the differences between "right" and "wrong", compare the incorrect N version against the correct HO version... N: HO: Note the sand hatch (which should be at the "F" end), the location of the portholes vs. the ladders, etc.
Looks like the roof is correctly aligned with with the fuel tanks but the sides are reversed. At least the left side showing in the photo should be on the other side. Ben
There's a lot of folks to, that buy, quickly check the unit for "damage", and pack it away until there's time to use it. I'm guilty of that. Do to work, I may "accumulate" a fair amount of things, and not get to them for months on end. I know what I want, and when I see it, and can afford it, I buy it. I would love to add some DRGW "B" units into my line up. But, with all the "issues" that IM has had, and this is before the latest "issue", I'm holding off. I'm one that may "need" something for my pike, but I have patience too. I don't buy whatever because "I have to have it". I get it when I get it, and I expect it to be correct for the premium price that I pay it. IM has possitioned themselves as a manufacturer of "premium" products, and the "B" units as they are now, are not acceptable. Now if they were on "sale" for $30/35 complete, with the "issues", I would be a player. Price does make my mind "justify" certain things.
You're probably right about that, although a dealer would likely have a more informed opinion (which most would be smart enough NOT to share ) Continuing on the subject of "dealer ethics", I would not fault a dealer for selling me one of these without disclosing the defect. I would, however, cry foul if I later found out about it and said dealer refused to accept a return/refund. In most cases, I try to resolve discrepancies directly with the manufacturers as a courtesy to the hard working dealers. However, in a situation such as this, I think the only remedy that is available is for IMR to allow the dealers to return these for credit/refund. I doubt that they will be able to mass-produce replacement shells in the large number of schemes and numbers that would be required. On that topic, I recently removed the shell from one of my IMR F3s and examined this condition closer. I had originally sent them back to IMR for them to seat them (which they did), but found that there was still some interference from the coupler mounting pad. A few minutes of careful filing of both the top and corners of the protruding black pad allows the shell to fit low and level, just the way it should. That RioGrande unit pictured above is in desperate need of this treatment (on the left end). I'm willing to work on the shell seating and even the coupler problems, but the reversed sides would drive me nuts (OCD rears its ugly head again).
Now, I have a greater understanding. Yep, add me to the list of upset individuals. I wouldn't buy the D&RG F-B-unit with this many errors. It would take a literal scratch re-building project to correct this. Sorry,... about any flak I threw your way...in the beginning of this discussion. Of couse the engine I thought we were discussing was a GN F7 Single light version. That would be easy to fix with a part and drill. But this...oh my gosh. Again the blame rests squarely... with the person who ordered this into production. My best advice is, "Let the buyer beware". You buy it they will produce it. Lucky is the customer who has a knowledgable vendor/hobby shop who will advise you of the errors. Still he/she needs to sell it to get it off their shelves. Historically errors are generally caught by the customers...when it's to late to change the production run. On a positive note: Nice paint job on the RioG.
There is a "quick fix" to the B units. Saw the sides off and reverse them. Would take some precise sawing and careful glue work but it could be done. Ben
Easy Fix I'm just going to move those teensy "F's" I can't see anyway to the other end of the body. :happy19pb:
Man... I wish it were only that easy to "fix", Flash. I happened to mention to Jada, of IMRC, that I spoke to Matt G about the shell not sitting flush a few months ago. She commented, while not certain, that the backwards sides could also be contributing to that fitting problem.
I was told, this week, that IM wasn't aware of the problem until the forum threads this past week. The above would certainly be a "smoking gun", wouldn't it?
Maybe the gun wasn't smoking... but hot... maybe? I would be a bit surprised and disheartened if they knew about the problem a couple of months ago when I brought up the fit issue about the F7's shell being uneven on the chassis. I do find it odd that Matt G didn't see it right then and there and have it corrected in the subsequent runs after the D&RGW model. Perhaps he only looked at an "A" unit, instead of a "B" unit, and didn't spot anything particularly wrong... ???
Since the same shell fit problem occurs on the F3s (which don't have the reversed sides), the logical conclusion would be that something else is causing the shell seating problem (which, I'll state conclusively one more time, was entirely due to coupler mounting pad interference on my two CB&Q F3 B units). I keep reiterating that because numerous posts still seem to be looking elsewhere for the cause with no indication that they've checked the coupler mounting pad for interference.
I think I can not buy and not be angry. If I had bought, I would be not very concerned. So I guess I'm in the category of not very concerned, but would not buy.
