I wonder if Athearn and other Chinese-made products are looked at these days before packing to see if they will basically just run right. Just received an FEF-3 which would not cross my Peco switches because the tender derailed. This Centipede is difficult to re-rail, and I thought that was my problem at first. But I found that on the back truck, three wheelsets were out of gauge, one badly. One of the front truck sets also. All four truck wheelsets on the engine. Got all this fixed, and it now runs OK.
The decoder was so far out of wack that the engine wouldn’t move until speedstep 24 and the chuff rate was half what it should be. With CV5 (max voltage) at the default value of 32, the engine looked like it was going about 150 mph at speedstep 126. I was mostly able to adjust these things, except that the chuff rate doesn’t quite adjust far enough. I believe the step-down gear ratio should be higher, for better low speed smoothness and torque, with more realistic top speed.
The engine does look good, but I see another Tsunami in my future.
Yes. But it probably won’t be in there long. I changed the MRC for a Tsunami in my Athearn Big Boy (which was given to me because the owner didn’t like the way it ran) with good results.
I’ve been installing a Tsunami in a steamer. They had me scratching my head immediately, because the installation guide in the package had nothing to do with the decoder I’d bought. (It was the right decoder, just the wrong manual.)
Now, though, the decoder will likely go back to Soundtraxx. I tested it successfully every step of the way, but once I connected the motor it would run forward, but in reverse the decoder would short out as soon as I applied the throttle. There’s no way that I can think of that a wiring error could cause this problem, and I repeated it several times, even with the motor disconnected. After that, the decoder just shorted permanently.
To their credit, Soundtraxx has been swapping e-mails with me and, according to my LHS, they will be happy to replace the decoder, as long as I send this one back so they can see what’s wrong with it.
If any quality control checks are conducted at the factory in China they are probably only random samples; i.e., one out of every 250 or so.
And then you have to consider how many times each model is loaded/unloaded from one conveyance to another before it reaches you. Some damage in shipment is unavoidable.
I’d be a little careful on blaming it all on outsourcing and the people making the items. Some blame has to lie in how the contract was written (which obviously still ties back to outsourcing in the first place). Let’s say they test 1 in 250 as stated above, but the contract says they are to be tested on level track, possibly only straight or to the minimum radius advertised for that engine. No going over switches or track less then code 100 is specified. Also, does the contract say if they find a problem that they have to check the entire lot? Are they required to just replace the one defective part not realizing that the whole lot of wheelsets are out of tolerance? Whose checking the gauges to make sure they are still in tolerance?
I deal with these kind of contracts and the folks building and inspecting them are doing exactly as they are told.
Having said all that, pride should be the motivator for anybody building anything, but the sad truth of the world is that we do just what we’re paid to do an very little if nothing more.
What inspection? The one I (ME, the guy in my moccassins) give EVERY piece of rolling stock before it gets loaded into a cassette for transfer to the layout. That applies equally to fresh off the UPS truck items and to item’s I’ve owned (and had stored in boxes) for years.
The one time I got over-anxious and skipped the careful look-see I regretted it! Fortunately the offending stock was a string of to-be-kitbashed RTR hoppers, not something costly and exotic.
So, what do I check?
Wheels - in gauge, centered on the axles, no damage to flanges or wheel treads.
Couplers - Kadees (or clones, if they cooperate when coupled to Kadees) - centering, head and uncoupling arm height. Some clones get Kadee-fied immediately if the brand has been a problem to me.
Frame - level and square (easy to verify if you have a surface plate and a machinist’s square.)
Bolsters - level, free of burrs or deformations…
Weight - close approximation of NMRA recommended practice.
Motor and drive system - reasonable start and top speed/voltages, appropriate radius capability, ability to operate over specialwork. I have a special test board with sub-radius turnouts and some rough spots that are worse than any on the actual layout.
I don’t worry about prototype fidelity, hyper-accurate detailing or whether the stenciled-on road name and reporting marks are the ones I want. I DO care about those things that directly impact operations.
I don’t expect some manufacturer to inspect to MY standards. That’s why I do it myself.
I’ve gotten Athearn’s wired backward some with the decoder just sitting inside the shell loose not clipped in. I’ve also gotten Spectrum’s where the drivers were completely out of sink causing it to not even move a couple of inches before it would lift up and derail. The difference between dealing with the tow companies were that the people at Athearn couldn’t be more apologetic and accommodating, where Bachmann just sent it back and wait 4 or 5 months for a repair or replacement.
I have also found other little cosmetic defects that they guy in the LHS I used to deal with told me you have to accept some minor imperfections thats just they way there made. Yeah ok But I remember working on brand new cars back in the 70’s and 80’s that were horror stories, rember the old don’t buy a car that was built on a Monday stuff.
So the torch of no pride in workmanship has been passed on to the Chinese. As someone else said final inspection before your rolling stock or locomotives run on your railroad is up to you. You check the weights, make sure the wheels are in gage etc. it’s just become something you have to do these days. It’s not right and it shouldn’t be but it is.
So who’s to blame the guys who run the companies are for not checking their products and if enough people complain even here they may listen. I know the owner of Rapido is a memebr of this forum and I was listening to him speak to a bunch of guys in Springfield and he is concerned with what people think about is product and does listen.
The issue with outsourcing is that the idea was primarily to reduce labour costs. Apparently the idea that QA had to be not just written into the contract but that you still had to have some kind of QA to be done–be it through some third party or through the originating firms own oversight–was not considered–until recently. The interesting thing is that there are now outsourcing consultants who now are saying that one CAN outsource LOCALLY. There are contract manufacturers who could do the job HERE much better than what has been done–and the costs are not as high.–Remember that while labour costs are an issue–they are NOT the ONLY issue–the hidden costs WILL clobber any savings---- As for the cynicism—meh—heard worse—
This happened long before outsource. Statistical Process Control - hey if 1 in 500 is good, then the majority of the others should be good too and we don’t have to check every one. That didn’t fly at my first job (where I learned about it) since we were makign parts for airplane engines, both military and civilian. EVERY piece had to be checked. 99% was 1% too many failures, and it doesn;t take many failures to potentially cause loss of life.
Besides, there’s probably a machine that presses the wheens to the axles, and hey, it’s physically set to the proper dimention so it MUST be accurate every time, right?
It’s not just Chinese made products - like others I always check new products with an NMRA guage, because on my previous layout any time there was an issue with derailments on turnouts, the wheels were out of gauge. Every time, and this happened across a wide range of products, some made right here in the US of A. Plenty of wobbly wheelsets in various kits, too - whereas I haven’t had a single out of gauge wheelset in the umpteen Proto 2000 sets I’ve bought (replacement wheels - I replace all plastic wheels with metal, and the P2K ones fit 99% of my kits) - and those are made in China.
You just never know, for every persont ha tgets a model with a defect and posts about it, there are probably 50 who have the same model and it worked just fine out of the box and since there weren’t any problems, they never wrote about it. Doesn’t help when
What a timely posting, giving me an opportunity to tell my latest “quality control” gripe…
The last three new locomotives I have purchased have had problems.
A BLI Paragon RSD-15 (w/dcc & sound), came without the sound unit. BLI installed one for me.
A Bachmann Spectrum 2-8-0 (w/dcc) threw a side rod screw and spacer while running in reverse. They went who knows where, and it was a LONG road before Bachmann replaced it.
Two weeks ago I got a Walthers Proto 2000 Illinois Central E7 A / A double loco set, both with DCC & sound. When I saw the shells up close, it was obvious they were inserted incorrectly, causing the front ladders (both sides, on both locos) to spread. When I removed the insert, I found the ladders to be cracked. While I probably could have applied some ACC cement to the cracks, the ladders needed to be straightened, which surely would have broken them.
I returned to Walthers and they are now balking at replacing them, because I purchased them from an Ebay store (not auction). Can’t figure that one out, hope they honor their warranty…
Well, batting 3 for 3, either I have terrible “luck of the draw” or meaningful quality control is really a thing of the past - and primarily for “domestic production”. Having purchased a good 30-40 Athearn “California made” locos from the early '60s thru the '80s, I NEVER had an issue with any of them.
Well a search thru the forum’s earlier discussions of MRC decoders will show you a lot of people have had problems with them, particularly in their engine running and control capabilities. (FWIW I have a couple of MRC “Sounder” sound-only add-on decoders and am happy with them.)
I’m guessing the wheelsets were too narrow?? That’s pretty common on all model RR equipment. I’ve heard the theory that they intentionally do that on larger pieces of equipment (like large engines) because it’s supposed to make it easier for the engine to negotiate tight 18-22"R curves that many modellers use.
It is not JUST outsourcing but outsourcing does make the issue of SPC more problematic—look, if you have to make a ‘tightening’ of said control happen it would be easier at the home plant I’d think. Now, add the outsourcing and it becomes more of an issue–due to the seperation factor. Add another layer onto that one by having the outsource going on to another outsource and you just found another issue. Now you have 2 areas that you have to do QA on. And, depending on how demanding you and that outsource are, you might not have too many issues----
Then again, I just rant about outsourcing anyways----[swg]
Well, maybe there is an MR article in here, not that it hasn’t been done before, but maybe they could have an article done on how to inspect and correct common problems with new locos and rolling stock. As many of the seasoned veterans have posted, they check everything before it goes on the layout. The article could focus on checking wheels, wobbling issues, applied details, DC/DCC operation, sound, lights etc. It could add the coupler height and weight as well but I was focusing more on manufactruring defects. It could go into what can/should be corrected by the buyer and what probably needs to go back to the manufacturer.
Newcomers generally think a new item can run right out of the box. While it should be able to, experience leads to us to know that it is just not the case. Might prevent some frustration and inadvertant destruction (train meets floor after derailing) or purposeful destruction (train meet wall like a Nolan Ryan fastball).
And yes I know, there are those who write and those who sit back and suggest! [B)]
At one place I use to work involved QC from outbound or inbound pallets…Only one item was randomly removed every 10th or 12th pallet-usualy from the middle of the pallet.That was company policy.Of course if we was running behind unloading/loading then QC was allowed to inspect 1 item in 15 pallets per company policy…
I just feel the need to chime in on this inspection thing. An inspection plan is only as good as it is set up. So if the requirements for inspection do not cover all items valued by the final customer there more than likely will be returns. Contract manufactures loose money when they need to rework product so they will not rework anything that passes the inspection plan. 100% inspection does not guarantee 100% good product. A good inspection plan that uses sampling can be more effective than 100% inspection. Inspection does cost money, a quick visual and a run test looks to be industry standard in model railroading.