Nomination for Biggest POS: 2009

[Dave V]

[Erik W]

The 'Colorado Effect' meant that all SD40T-2s are correctly detailed for DRGW with incorrectly applied SP paint.  

Coloradans and D&RGW fans are just miffed about what happened to their railroad when it merged with SP.  

Erik

[C855B]

... unique SP details never materialized.  The 'Colorado Effect' meant that all SD40T-2s are correctly detailed for DRGW with incorrectly applied SP paint.  While these models somewhat resemble actual SP locos, once the details are examined it continues to dissapoint even today. ...

Your assessment is evidently out-of-date. My box-stock IM SD40T-2 bought two years ago has the A/C, horn platform, cab roof bell and SP-specific light clusters not found on the DRGW versions. Just add the two Locotrol antenna stands to this model of the 8314 and the recollection of its 1970s appearance is, well, simply remarkable. Though by your book it may have taken too long to correct the issues, correct them they did.

Hyperbole notwithstanding, I still fail to understand why the model and the entire manufacturer's product line is to be summarily declared "a POS" because of minor assembly issues on a model of your focus, or that it lacked certain specific details which could have been easily added by a modeler with mid-level skills and the motivation to count these particular rivets.

Just sayin...  :-\

[oakcreekco]

So, am I to understand that with the InterMountain T-motors the mechanisms (which would be most difficult to address) are fine, but the bodyshell details (which are the easiest to alter) are not to your liking?

I think that the IM mechanisms make the bodies look like "SUPER MODELS".

POS inside and out, especially at the pricepoint.................run after run, after run

[MichaelWinicki]

Hyperbole notwithstanding, I still fail to understand why the model and the entire manufacturer's product line is to be summarily declared "a POS" because of minor assembly issues on a model of your focus, or that it lacked certain specific details which could have been easily added by a modeler with mid-level skills and the motivation to count these particular rivets.

Just sayin...  :-\

I think IM's F3's & F7's are flat-out excellent.  I own several and consider them to be right up there with my Atlas and Kato's.

[bbussey]

I think that the IM mechanisms make the bodies look like "SUPER MODELS".
POS inside and out, especially at the pricepoint.................run after run, after run

Your statement implies you have more than one.  If you feel that the models are below your standards, why do you keep buying them?

This sounds like more IMRC-bashing to me.  You can accuse me of being biased because I have a professional relationship with them - but I also own multiple examples of their products and I've never had any bad experiences.

If their motive power was as bad as some people here profess, then the company wouldn't continue to offer new engines (as well as additional schemes on current engines on a semi-monthly basis) because the demand wouldn't exist.  Since that is not the case, the "POS" proclamations appear to be a minority opinion.

[Mr. G]

Since we're covering the whole decade, how is it that there hasn't been a single mention of Model Power steam?  I'm pretty sure I recall them dropping some steamers on the modeling community in the past decade.

[TiVoPrince]

Your assessment is evidently out-of-date. My box-stock IM SD40T-2 bought two years ago has the A/C, horn platform, cab roof bell and SP-specific light clusters not found on the DRGW versions. Just add the two Locotrol antenna stands to this model of the 8314 and the recollection of its 1970s appearance is, well, simply remarkable. Though by your book it may have taken too long to correct the issues, correct them they did.

Hyperbole notwithstanding, I still fail to understand why the model and the entire manufacturer's product line is to be summarily declared "a POS" because of minor assembly issues on a model of your focus, or that it lacked certain specific details which could have been easily added by a modeler with mid-level skills and the motivation to count these particular rivets.

Just sayin...  :-\

Never
once condemnned IM as a whole, please verify your facts before posting.  I look forward to your public apology.

The SD45T-2 showed that IM can recover but I'm no longer preordering every one of every roadnumber like I did on that first release.  Can't say that I ever commented on the F units or SD45-2 since I don't need any.  While I don't own a shedload of IM cars (mostly because hoppers don't interest me) I do like the ones that I have accumulated.

SD40T-2 uncorrected issues: (not looking at one right now, so this is from memory)
Poorly scaled SP front light package, Sunrise parts to the rescue
SP rear light cluster completely missing, Hard to find Sunrise part or collection of bits are needed
Missing the front anti climber, Evergreen styrene to fix
Missing the SP signature rear snowplow, BLMA to the rescue
Missing the SP specific safety chain stachions, GMM to the rescue
Standard headlight on cab, not correct Gyralight, Sunrise part to the rescue
Inorrect cab subbase, missing SP signature split equipment doors
Locotrol antennas (as mentioned), BLMA part
Antenna ground plane, BLMA part
All seem to have a legacy incorrect paint seperation at the long hood end, way too close to the body end
Based on all the detail parts I'm adding paint and decals are absolutely necessary, I would prefer to start with an undecorated model anyway but IM has not made that an available option.  This makes any commentary on paint a moot point but it also is just another gaffe in research and paint masks that could have been corrected but were not.

Given the $30.00US higher price point (over the Atlas SD60 produced around the same time) the manufacturers pricing and marketing set expectations much closer to brass than run of the mill generic plastic that the SD40T-2 bodyshell is.

This was the model that coereced me to change down from HO.  While I don't regret the change I think that I simply believed too easily, because I so desperately wanted the IM model to be a great one.  As a model the IM Tunnel Motors are kind of nice (as a project starting point) but nowherenear the game changer marketing announcements led us to expect.  These are only 'satisfactory' models in my mind, and if that is good enough for you, then enjoy the mediocraty...

[Erik W]

These are only 'satisfactory' models in my mind

Wow!  Tivos gettin' soft on us.  That's the nicest thing you've said about the tunnel motors yet.  

Erik

[oakcreekco]

I think that the IM mechanisms make the bodies look like "SUPER MODELS".
POS inside and out, especially at the pricepoint.................run after run, after run

Your statement implies you have more than one.  If you feel that the models are below your standards, why do you keep buying them?

This sounds like more IMRC-bashing to me.  You can accuse me of being biased because I have a professional relationship with them - but I also own multiple examples of their products and I've never had any bad experiences.

If their motive power was as bad as some people here profess, then the company wouldn't continue to offer new engines (as well as additional schemes on current engines on a semi-monthly basis) because the demand wouldn't exist.  Since that is not the case, the "POS" proclamations appear to be a minority opinion.

Pretty easy answer. I model DGRW, and IM released multiple numbers every run. I bought into the "hype" for these premium locos, and bought all the first numbers.

Sold all of them because I had way too many problems with them. I inspected later runs, and they were the same thing.

When I pay a premium price, and get a "loaf", or should I say "loaves", I have the right to be a "critic".

Call it "bashing" if you like, but I'm a consumer, not a seller. You're fortunate if you haven't had any problems at all, and if you're happy with a hight priced loco that some are calling turds, then enjoy them.

[bbussey]

... Call it "bashing" if you like, but I'm a consumer, not a seller. You're fortunate if you haven't had any problems at all, and if you're happy with a hight priced loco that some are calling turds, then enjoy them.

Bashing is bashing, regardless of who is doing it, and being a consumer (or not) has no relevance on the legitimacy of it.  Saying one is fortunate to have not had any problems with IMRC locomotives again implies that product problems are the norm rather than the exception, a position of which the product demand over the years does not support.  The last part of your statement is the one that closest reflects reality, with "some" being the operative word.  No product is ever going to please the entire consumer base.  Suffice to say that the majority, of which you are not a part of, find the IMRC models to be satisfactory - otherwise the consumer demand would not warrant the steady ongoing stream of IMRC motive power releases that is currently in force.

[Mark5]

The WM F7s and SOUTHERN FP7s I have are fantastic. I'd like to lower them a little and fix the close coupling but that's not that hard for me. They run silky smooth at all speeds.

I'm also a big fan of the 4750s. I still see these regularly even today:



IM makes other rolling stock that is important to the era I model - my rolling stock fleet would be impaired if IM wasn't around.

Mark

[Ryan87]

The key word is "satisfactory"... the Intermountain Tunnel Motors and SD45-2's were advertised as a premium product, and sold at a premium price (15 - 20 dollars more then the competition at the time)

The models have poorly rendered or entirely missing detail. Without even getting into prototype specific details they botched key details and spotting features of the models...

The mechanism was once again "Satisfactory" (in subsequent runs the mech has improved as far as I can tell). However it was not up to present standards (especially for a premium product)...

Personally I did the only thing I can do as a consumer, I spoke with my wallet...

I disagree with your argument Brian, just because a large enough number of consumers can ignore a flaw (or don't know about it) doesn't mean the flaw doesn't exist... And sub par equipment can be produced and sold in large quantities (otherwise N scale wouldn't have survived the 1970's)

It may just be coincidental but I wonder why you are so quick to defend this locomotive that you have no personal experience with, yet there's 7 pages of similar arguments for other models that you mentioned nothing about...

[Robbman]

The basic detail errors on the SD40T-2 are also on the subsequent SD45T-2 and on the even later and held back SD45-2. 

The tooling is crude... which for the premium price point, is simply unacceptable.

As for people buying it... you of all people should know that a models sales does not correlate to it's quality or correctness to prototype.

[bbussey]

The basic detail errors on the SD40T-2 are also on the subsequent SD45T-2 and on the even later and held back SD45-2. 

The tooling is crude... which for the premium price point, is simply unacceptable.

As for people buying it... you of all people should know that a models sales does not correlate to it's quality or correctness to prototype.

That doesn't necessarily qualify it for "POS" status either.

I don't have any of the Tunnel motors.  I do have a Conrail SD45-2.  While there are some details I would have done differently, I can fix what I don't like.  From a performance standpoint, the unit is fine.  And the detail on the F units appear to be fine to me.  I have a handful of FP9 shells and detail parts which I plan on kitbashing into a pair of FL9 units.  The number of body variations (nose doors, roof details, etcetera) that allows for more prototypically-correct F unit models would go toward explaining the higher price-point.

With my primary road being the NH, which until the explosion of recent years meant no NH-prototype-specific RTR models, I guess I'm used to kitbashing what I wanted and don't expect a perfect-for-my-road model straight out of the box.  There aren't many NH models that I don't modify to some extent, including the excellent Atlas-made NH-specific models that have surfaced this decade.

The key word is "satisfactory"... the Intermountain Tunnel Motors and SD45-2's were advertised as a premium product, and sold at a premium price (15 - 20 dollars more then the competition at the time)

The models have poorly rendered or entirely missing detail. Without even getting into prototype specific details they botched key details and spotting features of the models...

The mechanism was once again "Satisfactory" (in subsequent runs the mech has improved as far as I can tell). However it was not up to present standards (especially for a premium product)...

Personally I did the only thing I can do as a consumer, I spoke with my wallet...

I disagree with your argument Brian, just because a large enough number of consumers can ignore a flaw (or don't know about it) doesn't mean the flaw doesn't exist... And sub par equipment can be produced and sold in large quantities (otherwise N scale wouldn't have survived the 1970's)

It may just be coincidental but I wonder why you are so quick to defend this locomotive that you have no personal experience with, yet there's 7 pages of similar arguments for other models that you mentioned nothing about...

I'm defending the company in general, as opposed to this model specifically.  I quickly tire of people saying something sucks without presenting a thesis to back it up.  You and Robb presented the best argument for what you feel is wrong with the Tunnel motors specifically.  Most of the other comments regarding IMRC in this thread and other recent ones have been general condemnations of their entire product line, which is unjustified and diminishes what are the valid issues - in this case, the fidelity of the Tunnel motor models.

And again, THIS thread was started to specifically address and assess the releases of 2009 - so why are the IMRC Tunnel motor issues being discussed here, other than for the purpose of bashing the manufacturer?