|
|
Post by nstophat on Aug 26, 2018 11:39:36 GMT -8
2) the trucks are 50T trucks where 70T are what were used on the Pennsy. On a $50 car this is a problem. Suggested solution: remove the 50T trucks at Arrowhead and substitute Tahoe (or other good fit) 70T. Even shipping the PRR cars truckless with the Tahoe trucks is a good solution. An option is to offer the buyer the choice of having the (seperately included) Tahoe 70T trucks in 110 or 088 flavor. Tahoe makes both. Will delight modelers who have to replace 110 wheels in all their high end cars. All those Reboxx wheels add up. Make sure coupler height is not adversely impacted. Based on the side on shot of Southern #74700 found on George Elwood's site, the trucks for the Southern Cars are correct, or atleast fully appear to be. Russ |
|
|
|
Post by snootie3257 on Aug 26, 2018 11:41:05 GMT -8
Oh, and for the uncalled for remarks about the box. I like the box. Looks long enough for a 60' car as well. Maybe Arrowhead is thinking ahead. What do I like about the box. The finger cutouts on each side that allow one hand to grasp the inner box while the other pulls the lid off. I hate the boxes that have a clear plastic insert that you pull out. When you put the car back in the same box, more times than not the tucked in flap tab at the other end of the box keeps the car from sliding in smoothly. You have to either jam it in or open the other end of the box and fiddle with the tab. On other manufacturers boxes, the vacuum is so tight that it is real work to pull the cover off. So for those that want to poke fun at the box announcement. I like the box. A lot of my models remain in boxes and this is a good one. Brian Wow Brian get the fireants out of your pants! My comment was in humor. I too hate the boxes come in these days for the same reasons you do. I’m glad to see this type of box return. I wish more manufacturers would go back to these but I doubt it. Steve |
|
|
|
Post by thebessemerkid on Aug 26, 2018 11:41:16 GMT -8
The other option is acknowledge it's a couple of "oops" and adjust the price to clear inventory.
Carrying cost of inventory is huge, especially for start-ups.
Maybe use a sliding scale of discount, based on quantity of the affected cars.
Don't know if an agreement can be reached with Tahoe (or whoever) to offer 70T trucks at a reduced price for verified purchasers.
|
|
|
|
Post by thebessemerkid on Aug 26, 2018 11:42:31 GMT -8
2) the trucks are 50T trucks where 70T are what were used on the Pennsy. On a $50 car this is a problem. Suggested solution: remove the 50T trucks at Arrowhead and substitute Tahoe (or other good fit) 70T. Even shipping the PRR cars truckless with the Tahoe trucks is a good solution. An option is to offer the buyer the choice of having the (seperately included) Tahoe 70T trucks in 110 or 088 flavor. Tahoe makes both. Will delight modelers who have to replace 110 wheels in all their high end cars. All those Reboxx wheels add up. Make sure coupler height is not adversely impacted. Based on the side on shot of Southern #74700 found on George Elwood's site, the trucks for the Southern Cars are correct, or atleast fully appear to be. Russ AFAIK, the PRR trucks are the only 70T for this run. |
|
|
|
Post by NS4122 on Aug 26, 2018 12:13:39 GMT -8
@csx: "I guess the Arrowhead defense attorneys would regard this as "innuendo, assertions or downright ridiculous claims that have no substance". I'm not sure that we have ever met (and I don't know who you are by your handle), but have I offended you? There is an odd vitriol to your comments that belies my experience. It as though you are seething to land a punch. Your posts read this way, to me at least, almost consistently. Specifically regarding your comments, I don't refer to my detractors in the way you describe and I don't make excuses for my missteps. I don't know that I ever have. This isn't even close to my voice. For example, when it came to light that the CAPY data is 100000 as opposed to 140000, I wrote this: " 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." I am not sure how this looks to you as someone who is trying to dismiss claims as "ridiculous" and of "no substance". But, if I have offended in some way, please accept my apologies. It certainly wasn't intended. In some sense, the posture of commentary of the thread generally seems analogous to the anecdote below: There was a math professor at a university who issued a final exam as a part of a her standard curriculum. The exam was strenuous, and year after year, the average grade for students who take this exam falls between 50% and 60%. Then, after decades of giving this exam, a student scores a 98%. It is the highest score that the university has ever seen for this course, and the professor is elated to see someone who holds such promise for this discipline of study.
When the student goes home, his father meets him at threshold of the door. With a feeling of entitlement and rage, he beats the sh*t out of his son. He drags his son into front yard, and to anyone within earshot, he points and ridicules. Perseverating only on the small percentage of what was missed (as if it was the only thing that matters), and he hits him with another stripe.For what it is worth, I don't mind open consideration of my missteps. Nor do I try to mediate the forums, even when I believe that there is misinformation. However, when the context is the first paragraph, I do mind when that the evaluation looks like the second paragraph. Objectivity has a sense of scale. For example: I have been criticized at length about a hyphen between an H and a 39. I produce a builder's photo of the precise car with a hyphen between the H and the 39, and I haven't seen the same individuals (who advance their efforts as a quest for objectivity) even attempt to correct the records in the various forums where they previously evangelized the mistakes. I am now being criticized for rivets in the interior of the car. The car has full rivet detail in the interior (please see the detail photos on our website). The slope sheets (which is what I think people are complaining about) and interior bays have welded sheet seams (like on our model). Please see the photo published in my Rio Grande Prospector article. There are two exceptions: there is an interior row of rivets along the center sill, and in the corner of the hopper bays near the gate doors. These were left off because of manufacturing considerations. They would shear off with the movement of the mold in release. For the record, I am sure that I can point to missing rivets on any car that has ever been created in the history of the model train industry anywhere. Again, it feels as though I am being uniquely criticized. For example, Tangent's beautiful riveted tank cars lack the distinctive conical shape due, most likely, to the same reasons I describe above. These rivets wrap the car body by the hundreds (thousands?). I don't recall seeing a word of criticism, and for the record, I don't think it deserves it. Yet, I am being criticized (as in: "how do we fix the Arrowhead car") for missing rivets that aren't manufacturable and underneath a coal load. When Tangent came out with the 60' Union Pacific flat car, the primary lettering of the car 'Union Pacific' is black. On the prototype, it is red. This is a primary lettering mistake, far more egregious than my error with the CAPY data--but that shouldn't take away from his reputation as a talented manufacturer, and it shouldn't be a call to arms for countless thread posts on countless threads. And guess what, for him, it wasn't. And this is my point. I am not saying that missteps don't deserve comments. I am saying that, when comments purport objectivity, then those comments should happen with a sense of context and scale. It means that when people begin to criticize, they do at least enough homework to consult a builder's photo. And, when I miss the mark on some particular, it doesn't mean I fail the test--and it certainly doesn't mean that I am alone. The Arrowhead hopper has a feature set without parallel in the industry. I believe that objective arguments can be made for how it is the finest open hopper ever created in terms of design integrity, part fidelity, part count, and a volume of brass, wire and plastic parts to create an accurate model--but would you know it from this thread? I don't think that a person would. My best, Blaine Hadfield Arrowhead Models Mr Hadfield, I bear absolutely no animosity toward you or your company and admire your work over the years producing many fine models. For the record, the words "innuendo, assertions or downright ridiculous claims that have no substance" were originally not mine but were used by (in my opinion) a biased individual who dismissed photographic evidence of the incorrect trucks (which I don't recall being addressed by Arrowhead) with that phrase. It appeared to me (from his comment)that just because the car was designed by you that there could be no mistakes and that those who pointed them out were uninformed malcontents. None of my comments were ever directed to you. I do have a problem though, with an attitude (not yours)that suggests that because it is a finely tooled model made by Arrowhead that we must accept and be quiet about anything that detracts from its prototype accuracy or be tagged as a whiner. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 26, 2018 12:40:19 GMT -8
Oh, and for the uncalled for remarks about the box. I like the box. Looks long enough for a 60' car as well. Maybe Arrowhead is thinking ahead. What do I like about the box. The finger cutouts on each side that allow one hand to grasp the inner box while the other pulls the lid off. I hate the boxes that have a clear plastic insert that you pull out. When you put the car back in the same box, more times than not the tucked in flap tab at the other end of the box keeps the car from sliding in smoothly. You have to either jam it in or open the other end of the box and fiddle with the tab. On other manufacturers boxes, the vacuum is so tight that it is real work to pull the cover off. So for those that want to poke fun at the box announcement. I like the box. A lot of my models remain in boxes and this is a good one. Brian Wow Brian get the fireants out of your pants! My comment was in humor. I too hate the boxes come in these days for the same reasons you do. I’m glad to see this type of box return. I wish more manufacturers would go back to these but I doubt it. Steve Fireants! I hate those suckers. They hurt something fierce. Brian |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 26, 2018 13:29:38 GMT -8
Blaine--
Nice job on the cars from what I can see, and I'm sorry for the boorish behavior of some of the folks on these forums.
Best Wishes to Arrowhead Models!
|
|
|
|
Post by wp8thsub on Aug 26, 2018 15:14:25 GMT -8
Good grief things are getting silly. Manufacturers ship cars with incorrect trucks ALL THE TIME. They typically use whatever's closest out of their parts bin. Rarely do we see any manufacturer acquire trucks from multiple sources to cover all the prototype variations, nor do they tool up every possible truck to fill in the missing links. Consider the following: - Tangent's ACF gondola in WP and Sacramento Northern with 70-ton ASF solid bearing trucks instead of roller bearing.
- Tangent's 40' high cube in IC (and probably others) using 70-ton roller bearing trucks instead of the correct 50-ton.
- Anything Moloco or Intermountain shipped using the poorly tooled Accurail roller bearing trucks that aren't decent models of anything (and certainly not accurate for any 70-ton truck known to man regardless of the wheelbase).
- Moloco's new ASF 70-ton truck is great but not accurate for all the cars for which they're using it.
- Athearn Genesis cars that frequently have the wrong trucks for any given prototype.
- Scale Trains Rivet Counter series cars that all use the same trucks regardless if they're correct.
- An ExactRail 42' UP flat in "1974 repaint" that needed 50-ton solid bearing trucks but received 70-ton roller bearing trucks instead.
- Tangent's "N-11" truck that has dimensional issues for nearly all prototypes but is still used on their 100-ton cars.
The above isn't even the start of high-end expensive products where the trucks may not be correct. Yes, I've ribbed manufacturers for using the wrong trucks, mostly when they brag about how they've selected exactly the correct ones when there's readily available photographic proof to refute them (especially when their own photos prove them wrong). It seems to me Arrowhead is being held to a standard none of its peers have achieved at (roughly) this price point. I'm all for legitimate critique of a product but this is nuts.
|
|
|
|
Post by NS4122 on Aug 26, 2018 16:21:03 GMT -8
Good grief things are getting silly. Manufacturers ship cars with incorrect trucks ALL THE TIME. They typically use whatever's closest out of their parts bin. Rarely do we see any manufacturer acquire trucks from multiple sources to cover all the prototype variations, nor do they tool up every possible truck to fill in the missing links. Consider the following: - Tangent's ACF gondola in WP and Sacramento Northern with 70-ton ASF solid bearing trucks instead of roller bearing.
- Tangent's 40' high cube in IC (and probably others) using 70-ton roller bearing trucks instead of the correct 50-ton.
- Anything Moloco or Intermountain shipped using the poorly tooled Accurail roller bearing trucks that aren't decent models of anything (and certainly not accurate for any 70-ton truck known to man regardless of the wheelbase).
- Moloco's new ASF 70-ton truck is great but not accurate for all the cars for which they're using it.
- Athearn Genesis cars that frequently have the wrong trucks for any given prototype.
- Scale Trains Rivet Counter series cars that all use the same trucks regardless if they're correct.
- An ExactRail 42' UP flat in "1974 repaint" that needed 50-ton solid bearing trucks but received 70-ton roller bearing trucks instead.
- Tangent's "N-11" truck that has dimensional issues for nearly all prototypes but is still used on their 100-ton cars.
The above isn't even the start of high-end expensive products where the trucks may not be correct. Yes, I've ribbed manufacturers for using the wrong trucks, mostly when they brag about how they've selected exactly the correct ones when there's readily available photographic proof to refute them (especially when their own photos prove them wrong). It seems to me Arrowhead is being held to a standard none of its peers have achieved at (roughly) this price point. I'm all for legitimate critique of a product but this is nuts.
How many of these cars were $50 cars hyped to be the most accurate, state of the art model not seen in decades? |
|
|
|
Post by kpack on Aug 26, 2018 16:34:00 GMT -8
I wonder how many manufacturers are going to be excited to do any sort of PRR cars in the future. My guess is not many.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 26, 2018 16:35:17 GMT -8
Good grief things are getting silly. Manufacturers ship cars with incorrect trucks ALL THE TIME. They typically use whatever's closest out of their parts bin. Rarely do we see any manufacturer acquire trucks from multiple sources to cover all the prototype variations, nor do they tool up every possible truck to fill in the missing links. Consider the following: - Tangent's ACF gondola in WP and Sacramento Northern with 70-ton ASF solid bearing trucks instead of roller bearing.
- Tangent's 40' high cube in IC (and probably others) using 70-ton roller bearing trucks instead of the correct 50-ton.
- Anything Moloco or Intermountain shipped using the poorly tooled Accurail roller bearing trucks that aren't decent models of anything (and certainly not accurate for any 70-ton truck known to man regardless of the wheelbase).
- Moloco's new ASF 70-ton truck is great but not accurate for all the cars for which they're using it.
- Athearn Genesis cars that frequently have the wrong trucks for any given prototype.
- Scale Trains Rivet Counter series cars that all use the same trucks regardless if they're correct.
- An ExactRail 42' UP flat in "1974 repaint" that needed 50-ton solid bearing trucks but received 70-ton roller bearing trucks instead.
- Tangent's "N-11" truck that has dimensional issues for nearly all prototypes but is still used on their 100-ton cars.
The above isn't even the start of high-end expensive products where the trucks may not be correct. Yes, I've ribbed manufacturers for using the wrong trucks, mostly when they brag about how they've selected exactly the correct ones when there's readily available photographic proof to refute them (especially when their own photos prove them wrong). It seems to me Arrowhead is being held to a standard none of its peers have achieved at (roughly) this price point. I'm all for legitimate critique of a product but this is nuts.
I couldn't have said it better myself. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 26, 2018 16:36:44 GMT -8
I wonder how many manufacturers are going to be excited to do any sort of PRR cars in the future. My guess is not many.  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 26, 2018 17:09:57 GMT -8
CSXT, Are you focusing ONLY on the PRR car or the SOUTHERN and Rio Grande cars also? Because there are three cars released and as far as I am hearing from the Rio Grande and Southern community is nothing wrong with those cars. Only praise. So if the PRR car is so offensive. Then possibly the PRR community would be just fine sticking with the Bowser car. Maybe Blaines choice to serve the PRR community was misplaced and with such anger toward him that he will not produce anymore PRR cars. Which to me is just fine. I am not a PRR modeler and I know that when the PC and Conrail cars come out they will be perfect!  Are you a PRR guy? Did you buy any of these cars and are so pissed off that you can't handle the errors? Have you made a large investment in them? I am curious as to what has you so wound up about them? I guess we all have our hickups on things. I am guilty of pounding on ScaleTrains for their release of the SD40-2 because of all the boogers on it. I was told to shut up. I still bought one just to see what it was like and yes it was as I was going on and on about. Not the end all SD40-2. So I am sort of seeing you in the same light. This was possibly a car you were so dearly looking forward to and are let down? On one thing I do agree. Maybe it would be wise for Arrowhead models to at least dig deep and offer a replacement for the trucks. Maybe a trade in. Brian |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 26, 2018 17:10:53 GMT -8
I wonder how many manufacturers are going to be excited to do any sort of PRR cars in the future. My guess is not many. Kpack, I was thinking the same thing. The vitriol coming from them is heavy in the air. Brian |
|
|
|
Post by carrman on Aug 26, 2018 18:11:19 GMT -8
Maybe if Blaine fessed up to shooting JFK, sinking the Titanic, and making the Hindenburg explode he might get forgiven?
|
|
|
|
Post by thebessemerkid on Aug 26, 2018 18:48:56 GMT -8
Perhaps an answer would be a voucher for purchasers of the Pennsy version to get 70T trucks (Tahoe or maybe an Arrowhead future design) for the cost of shipping. Put a sensible time limit on it so it doesn't get abused. Some will order them, others may not. As there is likely a PC version to follow, the issue will remain.
|
|
