Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 4, 2018 17:32:43 GMT -8
I had a ton of them back a few years ago. The look okay when they are by themselves in a consist. But, when you put them next to an ExactRail 3737 or Tangent UP quad, they are certainly lacking. Mine were all Stewart kits that I had scavenged at Train shows for $3-5 each. I sold them off on Fleebay.
Fortunately, we now have a car in the H39 class that can hang with either...or surpass them.
|
|
|
|
Post by drolsen on Aug 4, 2018 18:44:45 GMT -8
Reminds me of the Exactrail Southern waffles with incorrect data. No excuse for that. Well, the incorrect road number series on the ExactRail waffle was something that could be (and was) fixed on a subsequent run. Unfortunately, the incorrectly sized waffles could not be addressed without modifying the tooling. I decided I had to live with that. The tooling looks exquisite on this model. Bummer if the PRR data is incorrect, but that can be fixed on a later run. If it really bothered me, I would skip this release and wait for the inevitable second run. Dave |
|
|
|
Post by markfj on Aug 5, 2018 12:43:50 GMT -8
From PRR groups:
Follow-up: I contacted Blaine Hadfield regarding this issue and here is his response:
"Thank you for your interest in Arrowhead, and thank you for contacting us regarding the Pennsylvania H39 hopper.
As careful as I tried to be in the development of this model, I have to own this as a true oversight. Unfortunately, this may turn some people away from the model, and insofar as that is the case, we will own that too. I can tell you that no one is more bothered by it then myself.
I am pleased to say that this is the only error that has come to light in the production, which has been very complex."
-Ken Zahrt
Thanks, Mark J.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 5, 2018 13:20:08 GMT -8
Kudos to Blaine for owning it.
Blaine is a great friend and I am proud to be the first Arrowhead Models Customer. As I have stated already, if it weren't for Blaine and his tenure at ExactRail, I would not have the ability to model the line that I do from my hometown in Southern Illinois.
These new cars are going to enhance that line modeling, as I can now faithfully execute the modeling of the NYC/Big 4 Connection at Karnak IL. I now have a car that can be used for the pickups and set outs from Missouri Pacific train number 408; the daily West Frankfort to Joppa Local. This train consists of Genesis GP38-2 diesels; ExactRail and Arrowhead Models hoppers (The Blaine Train); and a Bluford HO scale short bay window caboose. As my modeling and knowledge has been enhanced, so has my desire for better models. I don't mind paying premium price for cars when they warrant it. The Arrowhead cars certainly fit the bill. I won't have an issue fixing my capacity data either. Pretty simple, really. Should it have happened? No. But no one is perfect, I guess. But these cars are pretty darn close. In fact, I'd have to say there isn't a "high quality" car from ANY manufacturer that is totally perfect...albeit a crooked or missing grab; bowed roof walk; coupler height; sprue remnants, etc.,
It's nice to have these cars made for us to where we can take a museum quality model right out of the box and run it on our layouts...I'll say that. I'll say this...after this most recent factory closing, and the fallout of it on our hobby, I have a new-found respect for these folks that bring us the goodies. I know a heck of alot more about producing these models and what it takes to do it now.
I certainly look forward to receiving my order for the Pennsy Cars. I also look forward to the next run of H39's...and future Arrowhead Releases. I know the scrutiny will be high; and I certainly know the maker will be even more vigilant.
|
|
|
|
Post by fcixdarrell on Aug 5, 2018 13:27:37 GMT -8
Kudos to Blaine for owning it. I agree... Darrell Sawyer |
|
|
|
Post by roadkill on Aug 6, 2018 6:08:34 GMT -8
First of all, kudos to Blaine for fessin' up, and second, it ain't no big deal to me as by my modeling era (summer 1975) my PRR lettered H39's would have been reweighed and have new stenciling (and not too neatly at that). So, with a some weathering and some reweigh data I'm good  . |
|
|
|
Post by grahamline on Aug 6, 2018 6:21:40 GMT -8
Make it bigger. I can't read the data panels.
|
|
|
|
Post by 12bridge on Aug 6, 2018 7:11:56 GMT -8
I see Blaine is active on here within the last hour, yet still no comment..
Seems like a great way to start a company. Its no wonder so many are quick to roast manufactures.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 6, 2018 7:26:20 GMT -8
Well, since my characterization of Mr. Hadfield has been affirmed by two posters already, I don't see comparing him to a superhero as being mean spirited. My point is that because of who he is he will get a free pass on his company's mistake, as was best characterized by Jim Fitch's comment that "s**t happens". Had any other company done this they would have been raked over the coals for "lack of quality control" or "poor research" etc.Also, since Mr. Hadfield monitors this forum and others, don't you think if the photos were of a preproduction sample and the production cars were OK he would be on here to set the record straight almost immediately to prevent loss of sales? And you have done just that. So you are keeping with the trend. Nothing wrong with it. When the ScaleTrains.com SD40-2 was first announced, the same hype was a flurry. The anticipation was high. We all expected it to be the end all SD40-2. When the first photos were published, I made comments about them and got hammered by the haters and the folks that thought ScaleTrains walked on water. SO what you are doing is no different than what I did or what most of us do. ScaleTrains did not loose any sales over my comments. People who wanted the SD40-2 are buying ScaleTrains SD40-2's. Hell, for that fact people who want SD40-2's are buying Intermountian SD40-2's of which have a shit ton more design errors than just a single digit. Not justifying the Arrowhead Models error, just saying. There are those that secretly want to see Blaine fail simply because of who he is or because they have an ax to grind with him or they do not like the people that support him. Nothing new there. I have met Blaine at the shows a couple times and had dinner with him once. I support his efforts because of his reputation for producing top shelf products. I am not a freight car guy. I do not know jack about them. I rely on others to keep me informed about the correctness of a model. I go to the freight car lists and ask questions. I purchased a bunch of the PRR models before I knew there was a printing error. I purchased them because I am a fidelity freak. At the same time I can live with the infidel RTR models for club running. When it comes to my personal standard though and when a model of this calibre comes out. I want to get in on it if I can use it for my modeling purposes. The next day a friend informed me that the PRR models had the wrong CAPY data. I was to say the least really disappointing to hear that. It tainted my purchase. I have considered cancelling my order because I just want the car to be correct in all aspects. The last couple days I have tried to convince myself that it is OK, but having a difficult time with it. I do agree with the critics that a car at this price should have correct printing. I could add the 54 and correct it, but 15 cars is a lot of decal sheets I would have to buy to do that. As for my purchase? Most likely I will keep them because of the era I will be using them in, the cars will all be for the most part painted out and re stenciled. For the cars that are not which would be very few. Correcting and adding the 54 would not be an issue and would not take long to complete. Disappointed? Yes, very much so. Game changer? No, because of what I will use the cars for. It is my best guess that Blaine is aware of this and when he has time, he will address it. I would be willing to bet right now he is thoroughly busy with orders and setting up dealers. The fidelity of the car is bar none the best in the industry right now. I do not like building freight cars. Manufacturers that can produce a car of this quality can build all day long for me. Repetition is monotonous. Building a fleet of coal hoppers is just NOT something I want to do or spend my time doing. I look forward to the next run of cars. I would be willing to put money on it that Blaine will review each individual letter and number to make sure they are all correct before committing to the run. Brian |
|
|
|
Post by cp6027 on Aug 6, 2018 9:47:28 GMT -8
It is not just adding the "54" on the CAPY line. The LDLMT and LTWT also appear to be incorrect as I believe they should add to 220,000 lbs gross rail load (compare to the data on the DRGW and Southern cars).
|
|
|
|
Post by wmrdgfan on Aug 6, 2018 10:23:12 GMT -8
Can't see the data without reading glasses or a magnifier??? Can you see the details that make this a $50 car without glasses or a magnifier??? Sorry, not gonna pay $50 for a freight car!
|
|
|
|
Post by fcixdarrell on Aug 6, 2018 10:37:35 GMT -8
Per a PRR diagram for class H39 (tracing E-460900A) the nominal capacity is 140,000 lbs and the light weight is listed as 53,500 lbs.
The 7/66 ORER lists a capacity of 140,000 also.
The 10/68 ORER lists 665000-674999 (7274 cars) with a capy of 140,000 and 2565 cars (same series) with a capy of 154,000. The 140K cars are type H150 and the 154K cars are type H250.
|
|
|
|
Post by roadkill on Aug 6, 2018 11:00:55 GMT -8
Can't see the data without reading glasses or a magnifier??? Can you see the details that make this a $50 car without glasses or a magnifier??? Sorry, not gonna pay $50 for a freight car! Well then, can I make you a deal on a box full of unbuilt Stewart H39's  ? |
|
|
|
Post by Paul Cutler III on Aug 6, 2018 11:01:50 GMT -8
I'm all too aware that mistakes happen, but this one is particularly problematic. This is their first car; they can't have accidently left the wrong data in from a previous product. All these cars are 70-ton cars. It should have twigged someone that "Hey, why is this one 100,000 when all these others were 140,000 or more?"
I think part of the problem with the current situation is that when someone bills themselves in the highest possibly terms and then doesn't live up to them, resentment is a natural reaction. Adding a premium price on top of that only ups the resentment.
Still, I know how they must feel; Working through the NHRHTA, I've let a couple whoppers get by me and make it into production. Later, you rack your brain thinking, "How could I miss that one?!" You get so involved in making sure that certain other things are taken care of that you can miss others that are blindingly obvious. You develop a blind spot; it takes another set of eyes to see something that you have missed over and over again. I didn't believe that actually happened until I got involved in the process myself.
This error, to me, points out that they need more eyes on the pre-production process. Most RR historical societies are willing to help for free and keep their mouths shut until the announcement. Work with these groups; they are knowledgeable and have just as much desire for accurate models as the manufacturer does. An extra set of eyes (especially those who know the subject matter) is critical in correcting mistakes before production.
As for a solution, if it's possible a small decal sheet should be offered to the consumer. It should have a black background so it can be put right over the painted model. I don't think they've have to make too many; most buyers won't care and a few more won't put the decals on anyways. The ones that do care and make the most noise will be taken care of, and most people will be satisfield. It would also show that they are willing to correct errors and would bolster their reputation, increasing future sales as consumers would have more confidence that things will also be corrected if there are future errors.
|
|
|
|
Post by dti406 on Aug 6, 2018 11:19:37 GMT -8
They would also have to have a decal to correct the class number, they were not H-39's they were H39's. No dashes in PRR Class Numbers.
Rick Jesionowski
|
|
|
|
Post by gevohogger on Aug 6, 2018 11:57:30 GMT -8
They would also have to have a decal to correct the class number, they were not H-39's they were H39's. No dashes in PRR Class Numbers. Wow! Betcha they didn't make this many typos on the box they were hyping in that other thread. |
|
|
|
Post by fcixdarrell on Aug 6, 2018 12:08:40 GMT -8
They would also have to have a decal to correct the class number, they were not H-39's they were H39's. No dashes in PRR Class Numbers. Rick Jesionowski Rick, Look closely at this image of PRR 666440 from the Fallen Flags site: rr-fallenflags.org/prr/prr66440kga.jpgIt appears that there's a dash between the H and the 3, but I could be mistaken, it's not that clear of a photo.. |
|
|
|
Post by dti406 on Aug 6, 2018 12:17:24 GMT -8
They would also have to have a decal to correct the class number, they were not H-39's they were H39's. No dashes in PRR Class Numbers. Rick Jesionowski Rick, Look closely at this image of PRR 666440 from the Fallen Flags site: rr-fallenflags.org/prr/prr66440kga.jpgIt appears that there's a dash between the H and the 3, but I could be mistaken, it's not that clear of a photo.. According to the PRR Group, there are not any dashes in the class numbers, but mistakes can happen when cars are being painted. Like the one red H39 car. www.rrpicturearchives.net/showPicture.aspx?id=4828718And don't go by what is written in the caption, many authors mistakenly put dashes in the locomotive and car class numbers, only the diesels and electrics had dashes. Rick Jesionowski |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 6, 2018 12:51:21 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by choochooboy on Aug 6, 2018 13:13:37 GMT -8
All,
As careful as I tried to be in the development of this model, I have to own the error in the CAPY data as a true oversight. Unfortunately, this may turn some people away from the model, and insofar as that is the case, I will own that too. I can tell you that no one is more bothered by it then myself. I am pleased to say that this is the only error that has come to light in the production, which has been very complex.
That said, there is a lack of proportion to some commentary on the matter such that I want to add a note: if a prophet descended from the ethers of infinite space and declared that a mistake must be made and that I must choose my error, this would be it.
Why?
Because, it is not a tooling error. It is not a primary or secondary color error. It is not an error to the primary or secondary logos or the logotypes--these are impeccable rendered. It is an error to a tertiary stencil on the car. One that is 0.034443" tall in the artwork--a numeral interposed among a string of characters on stencil that, on the prototype, didn't last for very long anyway. As most people know, most of these cars re-stenciled when reweighed--which translates to: if a person wanted to correct it, they could be a less than artful modeler and the stencil would still seem prototypical because re-weigh stencils rarely matched the original.
If a mistake had to be made that would cross the threshold of noteworthy, I would choose this kind of error--every day.
My point: I would genuinely prefer to not ever make an error anywhere. (After all, I tooled separate parts to account for different styles of dimensionally accurate defect card holders on the slope sheet bulkheads, which detail alone added entire man-days to the project.) But the other truth is, manufactures don't operate at perfect, and even the best manufacturers have made mistakes more egregious. Which, I would very much prefer not to point to in the spirit of goodwill.
And, the only reason I mention that is because, again, the proportions of some comments are made with the aegis of categorical imperatives.
By the way, I want to speak to the assumption that I didn't work with anyone from the PRR society in the development of this project. I did. They were helpful with the resources that they had, and my errors are not their fault. I own the project. But, I wasn't working alone or in a box.
One more note because it is a developing conversation: there is a builder's photo of PRR 666166 Pullman-Standard 2603 HT on page 228 of the Car Builder's Cyclopedia. It clearly has a dash between the H and the 39.
My best,
Blaine Hadfield
Arrowhead Models
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 6, 2018 13:23:26 GMT -8
A tooling error would truly suck big time. A 0.034443" tall digit misplacement not so much and is why I chose to keep my order as is. I HAVE to reweigh my cars anyway for the era I am modeling. Lots of black paint for paint outs on my cars too. The model you gave us is fantastic. For the modeler, it is an artist canvas. For the collector, it is a model that can be said to be museum quality. Thank you Blaine for for not making excuses for the error and not looking down your nose at us about it. I feel my $$$$ were put in the right place and I will continue to put them there. This one is definitely going into my fleet. conrailphotos.thecrhs.org/Images/CR-442296-Class-H39. I just have to come up with an HO scale paint roller. Brian |
|
|
|
Post by champagnetrail on Aug 6, 2018 13:27:48 GMT -8
No problem from my perspective, Blaine. I've been waiting a long time for this one. As long as someone creates an appropriate decal sheet with the right numbers for a car in service during the mid-70s, I'll be happy. The PRR H39 was one of the most common freight cars seen on the Erie Lackawanna, mainly because of the regular coal trains to the Met Ed power plant in Portland, PA, and to American Cement in Hercules, PA, via the P&S connection at Brockway, PA, or the PC connection at Northumberland, PA.
-pat
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 6, 2018 14:19:12 GMT -8
Can't see the data without reading glasses or a magnifier??? Can you see the details that make this a $50 car without glasses or a magnifier??? Sorry, not gonna pay $50 for a freight car! Well then, can I make you a deal on a box full of unbuilt Stewart H39's ? Touche' |
|
|
|
Post by ambluco on Aug 6, 2018 15:14:23 GMT -8
All, <apology> As careful as I tried to be in the development of this model, I have to own the error in the CAPY data as a true oversight. Unfortunately, this may turn some people away from the model, and insofar as that is the case, I will own that too. I can tell you that no one is more bothered by it then myself. I am pleased to say that this is the only error that has come to light in the production, which has been very complex. </apology> <excuses and annoyances> That said, there is a lack of proportion to some commentary on the matter such that I want to add a note: if a prophet descended from the ethers of infinite space and declared that a mistake must be made and that I must choose my error, this would be it. Why? Because, it is not a tooling error. It is not a primary or secondary color error. It is not an error to the primary or secondary logos or the logotypes--these are impeccable rendered. It is an error to a tertiary stencil on the car. One that is 0.034443" tall in the artwork--a numeral interposed among a string of characters on stencil that, on the prototype, didn't last for very long anyway. As most people know, most of these cars re-stenciled when reweighed--which translates to: if a person wanted to correct it, they could be a less than artful modeler and the stencil would still seem prototypical because re-weigh stencils rarely matched the original. If a mistake had to be made that would cross the threshold of noteworthy, I would choose this kind of error--every day. My point: I would genuinely prefer to not ever make an error anywhere. (After all, I tooled separate parts to account for different styles of dimensionally accurate defect card holders on the slope sheet bulkheads, which detail alone added entire man-days to the project.) But the other truth is, manufactures don't operate at perfect, and even the best manufacturers have made mistakes more egregious. Which, I would very much prefer not to point to in the spirit of goodwill. And, the only reason I mention that is because, again, the proportions of some comments are made with the aegis of categorical imperatives. By the way, I want to speak to the assumption that I didn't work with anyone from the PRR society in the development of this project. I did. They were helpful with the resources that they had, and my errors are not their fault. I own the project. But, I wasn't working alone or in a box. One more note because it is a developing conversation: there is a builder's photo of PRR 666166 Pullman-Standard 2603 HT on page 228 of the Car Builder's Cyclopedia. It clearly has a dash between the H and the 39. </excuses and annoyances> |
|
|
|
Post by thebessemerkid on Aug 6, 2018 15:24:50 GMT -8
All, <apology> As careful as I tried to be in the development of this model, I have to own the error in the CAPY data as a true oversight. Unfortunately, this may turn some people away from the model, and insofar as that is the case, I will own that too. I can tell you that no one is more bothered by it then myself. I am pleased to say that this is the only error that has come to light in the production, which has been very complex. </apology> <excuses and annoyances> That said, there is a lack of proportion to some commentary on the matter such that I want to add a note: if a prophet descended from the ethers of infinite space and declared that a mistake must be made and that I must choose my error, this would be it. Why? Because, it is not a tooling error. It is not a primary or secondary color error. It is not an error to the primary or secondary logos or the logotypes--these are impeccable rendered. It is an error to a tertiary stencil on the car. One that is 0.034443" tall in the artwork--a numeral interposed among a string of characters on stencil that, on the prototype, didn't last for very long anyway. As most people know, most of these cars re-stenciled when reweighed--which translates to: if a person wanted to correct it, they could be a less than artful modeler and the stencil would still seem prototypical because re-weigh stencils rarely matched the original. If a mistake had to be made that would cross the threshold of noteworthy, I would choose this kind of error--every day. My point: I would genuinely prefer to not ever make an error anywhere. (After all, I tooled separate parts to account for different styles of dimensionally accurate defect card holders on the slope sheet bulkheads, which detail alone added entire man-days to the project.) But the other truth is, manufactures don't operate at perfect, and even the best manufacturers have made mistakes more egregious. Which, I would very much prefer not to point to in the spirit of goodwill. And, the only reason I mention that is because, again, the proportions of some comments are made with the aegis of categorical imperatives. By the way, I want to speak to the assumption that I didn't work with anyone from the PRR society in the development of this project. I did. They were helpful with the resources that they had, and my errors are not their fault. I own the project. But, I wasn't working alone or in a box. One more note because it is a developing conversation: there is a builder's photo of PRR 666166 Pullman-Standard 2603 HT on page 228 of the Car Builder's Cyclopedia. It clearly has a dash between the H and the 39. </excuses and annoyances> You're right. We should wait for your model. When's it coming out? |
|
|
|
Post by gevohogger on Aug 6, 2018 16:20:06 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by ambluco on Aug 6, 2018 16:55:54 GMT -8
It’ll be the best model in its industry niche but my box will suck.  You're right. We should wait for your model. When's it coming out? |
|
|
|
Post by kentuckysouthernrwy on Aug 6, 2018 17:01:46 GMT -8
 . ASPCA is coming... Is this Groundhog Day?
|
|
|
|
Post by middledivision on Aug 6, 2018 19:02:03 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by Great-Northern-Willmar Div on Aug 7, 2018 2:55:41 GMT -8
When Champ called it quits after not finding someone to take over, it left a big hole in the decal world. |
|
. 
?
