As two engineers, we can probably have a good discussion around this. The first thing we were taught in statistical quality control class was the technical definition of "quality." Quality = conformance to an established specification. That specification may demand extremely high level materials and ultra precision manufacturing. It can also require just about anything else. I haven't purchased lumbar for years, but that is certainly an area where what was required by specification likely varied a lot. That ugly piece of lumber I bought for just a few bucks was technically a quality item if it was 8' long and strong enough for the framing application intended. That said, I'm guessing that if IM upped the material and manufacturing spec requirements for their frames, they either wouldn't find anybody to produce them or they might increase in price by 50%. IM has a different business model than Kato. They have produced a much broader variety of prototypes, included higher levels of detail and provided a much larger selection of road names/numbers. So they may not have a choice but to stick with what they've done and wind up with long term owners who aren't happy. It's like when I used to buy GM cars. They would fix anything under warranty, but warranties run out and equipment that wasn't designed/spec'd for long term reliability often fails. Now I buy Toyotas. It may be that IM is GM and Kato is Toyota. That said I enjoyed a lot of new GM vehicles back in the day. But, as I said in my previous post, things sometimes change.
Maybe they need to get together and have Kato produce frames and Intermountain produce shells. That would definitely be a win-win for us modelers, we could get the variety and detailing of Intermountain with the quality and dependability of Kato.
I would rather have locomotives that still run maybe 50 years hence (which I do have) and minus a bit of detail than have details galore locos which fail in ten years. Toy/model train manufacturers have been aware of the Zamac problem for many decades and there really isn't any excuse for not being able to make castings that last indefinitely. Doug
At what price increase? I believe that Kato spends more on their mechanisms and IM spends more on their shells (I don't think I'm too far out on a limb here). I've suggested in the past that Micro-trains could make a ton of money by making (only) F unit shells that would fit onto a Kato locomotive chassis. MT is fantastic at injection molding and painting. Rather than screwing around with China for mechanisms, just sell a wide variety of shells. Kato F units are very reasonably priced, and readily available in the secondary market (especially if road name/number is of no consequence.) What do you think Joe?
Well, I went to the IM web site to see if I could get new handrails. After filling out a few "boxes" on the parts site explaining which hand rail on which locomotive, I hit enter. Got a notice in email saying they would get back to me. Today in the mail I got a box from them with a new shell, hand rails and all but only charged me for the handrails. A nice personal note from Darwin along with it. Oh, well. I am happy at least.
David (DCESharkman), you said in several previous threads that you had 50 or 55 IM locomotives with frame rot. Then on April 1 you started this thread, stating "Well I have been away for a bit checking all my InterMountain locomotives. So far over 200 locomotives suffer from this problem, and it has affected almost my entire fleet of Intermountain F-Units and the SD-40 Tunnel motors." After mtntrainman said that you had over 300 IM's, others assumed you had 300 IM's affected with frame rot. Then, on on April 5 you said "Here is an update, I tested 74 F units had 66 good and 8 bad." So, how many IM locomotives have you actually tested, and how many of those have you verified to have frame rot? Please post pictures showing what you've considered to be frame rot in your IM locomotives. I assume you took lots of pictures for Intermountain Customer Service.
I am nowhere close to testing all. I just tested a bunch of F Units and found swelling more than rot. That added 27 more bad pack. I have to pull so many more from the storage boxes that have decoders installed, before I have a final talley. I have 530 total IM locomotives, the bad ones thus far are units waiting on decoders, the DCC units are spread over 20 boxes or so. It will take some time to gather them all.
IM confuses me I bought their SD40-2 new, and eventually returned it. No more IM purchases, I swore. But, I bought a load secondhand for good prices of prototypes I wanted. Guess what? They are all fine.
David, adding up the numbers, you're claiming that more than 235 of your 530 IM locomotives (>44%) suffer from frame swelling/rot, and you believe this is due to poor quality control by Intermountain. It's hard to believe that if there really is a problem of this magnitude, we wouldn't have heard much more about it than scattered reports before. And if was that widespread, Intermountain would probably be out of business. I have 14 (11 FT, 2 F7, 1 tunnel motor) without any suggestion of frame rot/swelling - it's very unlikely I wouldn't have seen at least one case of frame rot if it occurs at the rate you suggest. Seems more likely to me that either you are incorrectly assuming that your difficulty removing the shells is due to frame swelling, or that your IM locomotives have been exposed during storage (perhaps without your knowledge) to conditions that are unusually hostile to the zinc alloy frames - or both. It can be very difficult to remove Intermountain F unit shells: see http://www.spookshow.net/loco/imf37.html and https://www.nscalesupply.com/imr/imr-mtl-fts.html . For several of mine I had to carefully pry the shell from the ends using a very small screw driver, easing the frame out no more than 1 mm at a time from each end. Curiously, after a shell was removed it became almost too loose.
You can't presume that no news is good news. If you polled N Scalers you would probably find that the vast majority test a lokie when they buy it and then place it in storage waiting for the day they have their dream layout. My last layout that could operate on was taken down in 2005. I still have over 300 lokies from that era that get checked rarely if at all. I'm currently bargaining with the missus for room and plan to start again. I have only owned a couple IM lokies due to my modeling era/locale but I have no reason to doubt another's experience.
By that reasoning Bachmann should have been out of business years ago. Split gears and half axles and poor quality tender wheels on the 4-4-0. All my F Units had split gears and all my steamers did too. All my 4-4-0s developed swollen frames on the tenders locking up the wheels. I went from about 70 steamers to just four operational in the space of a year. All my Bachmann F units failed about the same time. What steam I have left are MicroAce, Atlas. and Kato. The majority of my diesels are now running with Japanese power chassis.
My understanding is they are older IM locomotives that are stored in banker boxes and in an environmentally control room since bought. Personally I have no reason whatsoever to doubt David.
I went with 2 Bachmann 4-4-0's that just stopped running. Not knowing it that would have maybe been my issue along with a 2-8-0 and a 4-6-0. I am currently having issues with a 44toner that's been back to Bachmann three times now and are split frames. Maybe that's why i had so much of issues with them. I have had so many issues with them, That this 44 toner will hit the trash can sooner or later.
However, Bad news is most certainly very likely to be aired. I'm one of those guys with 300+ locomotives, 95% purchased between 2000 and 2008, and tested and moved into storage until 2019 when I finally got the space for a decent layout. Since I completed the main line last fall I've been going through the steam and diesel locomotives that I'll most likely be running, as well others my grandkids like the looks of. Sure I found problems: disintegrated Kato mikado traction tires and cracked GS4 axles, cracked drivetrain parts in DCC ready Atlas SD7/9's and SD24's, but in the 90 or so I've carefully examined and run, no zinc rot. I'm not doubting DCESharkman's "experience," i.e., his observations, which seems to be difficulty removing IM locomotive shells, but I am questioning his interpretation. He does not mention shell distortion or cracking, or frame breakage. provides no measurements of the "swollen" frames, and no pictures of any damage to frame or shell to support his assertion that the frames are in fact swollen, and that it's due to zinc rot. He's been posting about this for several months now, with no freakin pictures! Come on man! And he's just going to throw them away? Yes, there have been sporadic reports of IM frame zinc rot before, but I can't imagine that a problem of this magnitude, >44% with zinc rot, would go undiscovered so long. You don't think dealers and then Intermountain would be aware it? Claims like this without any evidence border on slander.