Sorry Guys, but I'm a little lost here.
Does this run conventional as well as remote, or is it remote only?
Thx,
Mannyrock
Unfortunarely, @Mannyrock, this edition does not run conventionally; the remote is the only way to operate it. I think Menards fell short by not having it be fully functional in a conventional mode as well:
*Speed varies with AC voltage
*Power break cycles direction F-N-R-N
*DC offsets activate whistle/horn and bell
Optionally:
*Patterned DC offsets activate crew talk
@Craftech posted:If they can't replace the remote and you still want to keep it here is another alternative:
https://www.amazon.com/Youlian...626784844&sr=8-6
John
John, thanks, after I posted that I realized that I meant to say that the positive contacts are missing. Anyway the other thought I had was to cut the leads in the remote and bring them out to an external 4.5 volt battery box. Would make the remote bulkier to hold but would work. However, so far Menards isn't getting good grades for standing behind their sales. thanks
Conventional operation with the transformer lever is the one form of control by which every 3-rail, O gauge locomotive, can be run - as far as I know. In my opinion, any new manufacturer would be wise to provide that capability in addition to any proprietary system that they may have.
MELGAR
Obviously little quality control or checking in china (small c). Probably test ran all engines using one remote, rather than testing engine with the remote it would go with as a set. If it was done that way, then the bad remote would be obvious, but that takes time to insert, test all functions (stuck/inoperative buttons, no transmissions, dead battery), and remove batteries (time is $$).
So that old saw, "ya all got what ya paid for" 
If I was able to obtain this locomotive in the deal, I would of probably by now removed their electronics an I would of converted it to TMCC. If anyone with a bad remote wants to sell their locomotive I would be interested in a project......
I know it's a long shot...but if anybody has buyers remorse or is unhappy with it,I'll be glad to take it....thanks...joe
My remote does not work. Tried bending the contact plates to make sure they contact the batteries and the remote won't turn on. I checked the batteries and they have a full charge. My engine also has the scuff marks on the top as described by others. Definitely should be a switch for conventional operation. The packaging is also not secure enough. Mine arrived from the USPS with tears/gouges in the cardboard box but thankfully it didn't extend in to the plastic clam shell holding the engine. Menards has some work to do before trying another run of these engines. Back to Menards it will go. What a bummer.
Neal Jeter
@Lionlman posted:My remote does not work. Tried bending the contact plates to make sure they contact the batteries and the remote won't turn on. I checked the batteries and they have a full charge. My engine also has the scuff marks on the top as described by others. Definitely should be a switch for conventional operation. The packaging is also not secure enough. Mine arrived from the USPS with tears/gouges in the cardboard box but thankfully it didn't extend in to the plastic clam shell holding the engine. Menards has some work to do before trying another run of these engines. Back to Menards it will go. What a bummer.
Neal Jeter
Hello Neal,
When you say "The packaging is also not secure enough." what do you mean?
The box is a standard cardboard box which houses a clam shell insert that is surrounded by Styrofoam all along the top and bottom edges.
I'm not sure how Menards can guard against the USPS from damaging the exterior box during shipment.
I've had deliveries from them without issue using the same type of cardboard box.
With respect to the remote, does the red light on it come on at all?
Hopefully Menards will certainly address the non conventional mode. Seems that’s a major issue. Even if they don’t it’s still a winner.
@MELGAR posted:Conventional operation with the transformer lever is the one form of control by which every 3-rail, O gauge locomotive, can be run - as far as I know. In my opinion, any new manufacturer would be wise to provide that capability in addition to any proprietary system that they may have.
MELGAR
Incorrect. Lionel’s LionChief starter sets depended strictly on the remotes, just like this Menards locomotive. LionChief Plus locomotives had the option to switch between remote or transformer control.
But I agree with your view. I didn’t like the basic LionChief models, for that reason, and think Menards should address the design as well.
The red light does not come on. In my opinion the cardboard box is not sturdy enough to handle shipping.
Neal
Just finished testing my copy.
Over all a well deserved “ A “.
Comments sent to Ray @ Menards as requested.
@Lionlman posted:The red light does not come on. In my opinion the cardboard box is not sturdy enough to handle shipping.
Neal
Hello Neal,
1. You noted that the batteries are charged - that's good.
2. Is there any corrosion on any of the terminals or contacts?
3. Have you tried a different set of batteries?
4. You are certain that the contacts are touching the battery?
5. If you answered yes to 2-4 of the above, you may need to open the remote to see if the wiring to the contacts are secure. Could be a poor soldering job or broken wire at the joint. Check the red and black leads.
Parent photo posted earlier by Craftech.
Hope this helps!
Attachments
Images (1)
As a FYI if you missed out there are now some on the big auction site with a $299 starting bid.......
@Allegheny posted:Hello Neal,
1. You noted that the batteries are charged - that's good.
2. Is there any corrosion on any of the terminals or contacts?
3. Have you tried a different set of batteries?
4. You are certain that the contacts are touching the battery?
5. If you answered yes to 2-4 of the above, you may need to open the remote to see if the wiring to the contacts are secure. Could be a poor soldering job or broken wire at the joint. Check the red and black leads.
Parent photo posted earlier by Craftech.
Hope this helps!
If you have a DC voltmeter (or multimeter), put some batteries in it and put it in DC volts mode and check for 3 volts at those two terminals.
But I thought you said you were missing a battery clip on the other side??
John
@Lou1985 posted:As a FYI if you missed out there are now some on the big auction site with a $299 starting bid.......
always someone looking to make a BIG profit.....
@joe krasko posted:always someone looking to make a BIG profit.....
nothing wrong with that.
Neal, you said thatyours is going back to Menard's. Who did you contact to a get a RMA for it? I have ran into a dead end.
John:
Thank you for all your suggestions. I took the remote apart and the wires were correctly attached to the terminal plates. The batteries I used read about 1.47 volts which I thought would be good. When I tried some absolutely brand new batteries that read 1.53 volts, the remote came on. There is definitely an issue with the contact plates in the battery compartment as I had to manipulate the batteries and the contact plates to get the remote to turn on. I tried it again with the 1.47 volt batteries and the remote would not come on. The voltmeter was reading over 4.5 volts on the terminals with 1.53 volt batteries but nothing with the 1.47 volt batteries. I'll try it later to see if it will now control the engine.
Neal
Frank:
I just started the process to return it this morning. I've had to return other train items before to Menards but it does take a couple of days before you'll get an answer. It would be nice to be able to speak to someone by phone but email is the way Menards has chosen to handle customer service.
Neal
@Lionlman posted:Frank:
I just started the process to return it this morning. I've had to return other train items before to Menards but it does take a couple of days before you'll get an answer. It would be nice to be able to speak to someone by phone but email is the way Menards has chosen to handle customer service.
Neal
This is one of the major short comings I have with Menards is that you can't give them a call when you have an issue.
I had a minor shipping issue and it was not possible to contact customer service to help clear up the matter.
However, once you get their attention via email, they are right on it and will try their best to rectify the situation.
I've asked store managers to pass along my suggestion as they really need a customer assistance call center.
@EscapeRocks posted:nothing wrong with that.
if you say so....
I found it. $299.99 but with FREE SHIPPING!!!! I wonder if he tested the remote? Last week I posted that it was just a matter of time before one of these popped up. We will probably see more of them. With only 200 make, this is what I expected. This is the way the free market works.
All I can say is, . . . Oh Geez.
They should'a started with the simple conventional control first. And then, when all of the mechanics were ironed out, proceeded to offer an upgraded model with remote control. I think people would have glad to pay $25 to $50 more, if the thing worked.
The most brilliantly designed electrical plans are irrelevant, if you have super cheap parts and assembly procedures.
I really hope they work all of this out, because I would sure like to have one.
But, I do applaud them, for trying something new!
(Just hope this will not be the Ford Pinto of locomotives.)
Mannyrock
While we didn’t sign a contract to test and respond to these, I would be disappointed in people who sold them before doing so. If they checked it out, reported any issues, then I have no issue with them moving them on. This is just me, no one else has to live by my standards.
Steve
@Dick S posted:I found it. $299.99 but with FREE SHIPPING!!!! I wonder if he tested the remote? Last week I posted that it was just a matter of time before one of these popped up. We will probably see more of them. With only 200 make, this is what I expected. This is the way the free market works.
FWIW .Seller has 100% feedback rating and is offering 60 day returns, albiet the buyer pays the return shipping.
Steve,
I agree with you wholeheartedly!
Ron
@Mannyrock posted:(Just hope this will not be the Ford Pinto of locomotives.)
Mannyrock
Or the Ford Edsel (horseshoe grille)?
@RON ARNDT 091718 posted:Steve,
I agree with you wholeheartedly!
Ron
I contacted the seller and asked if it had been tested. He said no, it’s NIB. I then told him many did not work out of the box and require some fiddling. Up to him what he does about it.
Steve
@Lionlman posted:John:
Thank you for all your suggestions. I took the remote apart and the wires were correctly attached to the terminal plates. The batteries I used read about 1.47 volts which I thought would be good. When I tried some absolutely brand new batteries that read 1.53 volts, the remote came on. There is definitely an issue with the contact plates in the battery compartment as I had to manipulate the batteries and the contact plates to get the remote to turn on. I tried it again with the 1.47 volt batteries and the remote would not come on. The voltmeter was reading over 4.5 volts on the terminals with 1.53 volt batteries but nothing with the 1.47 volt batteries. I'll try it later to see if it will now control the engine.
Neal
So if all the contacts are there and not missing what people have been doing is sticking a small flat head screwdriver behind the terminal clip and wiggling it from side to side to bow out the center of the clip so it reaches the positive electrode on the battery.
Also worth noting that SOME batteries have a smaller positive tip than others. If you are using something like Duracell, that shouldn't be a problem and if you bow out the terminal any of them should touch.
In terms of voltage requirements I am not sure why 1.47v should not work. Hopefully the engine works now. I would keep it if it works and wait for some people to come up with new hacks.
John
Before this veers too far off:
The entire purpose of this exercise by Mark and Menard's is for the 200 who got one to find all the things that are being found that need attention, and to let them know via that specific email address. I think the hyperbole; "think of the kid opening this on Christmas", etc in the context of what they're trying to do is a bit much. They want to know what is broken or needs more attention.
I applaud their efforts on this.
@EscapeRocks posted:Before this veers too far off:
The entire purpose of this exercise by Mark and Menard's is for the 200 who got one to find all the things that are being found that need attention, and to let them know via that specific email address. I think the hyperbole; "think of the kid opening this on Christmas", etc in the context of what they're trying to do is a bit much. They want to know what is broken or needs more attention.
I applaud their efforts on this.
Exactly .... this was a beta test run of a mere 200 units to find out what works and what doesn't and report back to the manufacturer.
"This limited edition is our first locomotive, and we want to know your opinion of the model's appearance, functionality, reliability, performance, value, and most of all, did you have fun running it? This will help guide us in the future.
Please email your thoughts and feedback to Ray at Guest@menard-inc.com
Remember, the purpose of this test run is to gather feedback."
This was not intended to be a normal retailer-to-consumer transaction and I find it disturbing that some people are measuring it as such, let alone reselling it on the open market. Let's say some one on the 'net buys that $299 engine and has a problem with it. Even though they may be able to get their money back, they are now turned off to Menard's and their products - not an outcome they intended.
My suggestion to Menard's for future events like this is to clearly imprint the model with language that it is for testing purposes with a limited production run and not intended for commercial resale.
Right on point, Richie. It is sad that this person had no intention of performing the service that Menards is seeking. He never opened the box. He wants to resell it and turn of nice profit. Quite frankly, I am not surprised. I expected that someone would do it with only 200 pieces made. A sad situation.
@Dick S posted:Right on point, Richie. It is sad that this person had no intention of performing the service that Menards is seeking. He never opened the box. He wants to resell it and turn of nice profit. Quite frankly, I am not surprised. I expected that someone would do it with only 200 pieces made. A sad situation.
Agreed. If that's an example of the "free market" you can keep it.
John
@Craftech posted:So if all the contacts are there and not missing what people have been doing is sticking a small flat head screwdriver behind the terminal clip and wiggling it from side to side to bow out the center of the clip so it reaches the positive electrode on the battery.
Also worth noting that SOME batteries have a smaller positive tip than others. If you are using something like Duracell, that shouldn't be a problem and if you bow out the terminal any of them should touch.
In terms of voltage requirements I am not sure why 1.47v should not work. Hopefully the engine works now. I would keep it if it works and wait for some people to come up with new hacks.
John
I am using Duracell's and had to bend the terminals to make good contact.
A few more comments about Menards Santa Fe as I try different operating modes with it.
Today I ran it on my 4 X 8 test layout powered by a CW-80. I ran it with 5 heavily weighted box cars and a caboose. I use the extra weight to allow for using extra voltage to the track, which makes my small Lionel 4-4-2 smoke better.
With the remote set to the W in Forward, I was able to start out and stop the engine using the transformer with a normal smoothness and no abrupt starts or stops. Almost like running any conventional engine. The extra weight is certainly a factor in smooth operation.
I then ran it on my regular layout with 10 MTH cars and a caboose, using a GW-180. With the remote set to F in Forward and using the transformer handle for control, I was back to less smooth starts and stops.
As a side note, when running in reverse with low lighting, the almost red number board lights resemble "taillights" on the train, complete with an orange glow through the headlight. Anyone for red number board bulbs?? Just kidding !
Ron
@RSJB18 posted:I am using Duracell's and had to bend the terminals to make good contact.
I did too to make good contact, but there are some AAA batteries that have even shorter + ends than Duracell or Energizer. I was wondering if that may have been part of his problem even after bowing the terminals outward.
John
@EscapeRocks posted:Before this veers too far off:
The entire purpose of this exercise by Mark and Menard's is for the 200 who got one to find all the things that are being found that need attention, and to let them know via that specific email address. I think the hyperbole; "think of the kid opening this on Christmas", etc in the context of what they're trying to do is a bit much. They want to know what is broken or needs more attention.
I applaud their efforts on this.
Though a technical analysis of the engine is probably the main focus of this beta engine knowing its marketability is critical to their business plan.
Alan
Our experienced reviewer is preparing a review of this locomotive for our Oct. issue. A generous forum member forwarded a new-in-box locomotive to him this week.
Well all well and good but for myself and others whose remotes don't have terminals to bend out we still are left with a completely useless product that the retailer won't stand behind despite making all of the requested feedback.
@ChooChoo1972 You can always offer it up to others who have offered to purchase anyones loco they decide was not working or just not wanted.
@ChooChoo1972, generally speaking, companies with products in a beta program do not have customer facing support and Menards has not set the expectation otherwise.
While it sucks that you can't get another one, I'm sure its returnable so its not like you're out anything, plus I believe I saw someone already show you an alternative for adding the terminals, if its worth it to you, you'll find a way, if not just return it.
@Allegheny posted:However, once you get their attention via email, they are right on it and will try their best to rectify the situation.
In my experience it’s more like IF you get their attention via email. It’s not when everything is perfect that a supplier should be judged, but rather how they handle problems when things go wrong. It’s not just train stuff, but in general Menards has horrible customer service when you can’t simply bring something to a store. But hey, let’s hear more about the “value” from Menards!
@bmoran4 posted:@ChooChoo1972, generally speaking, companies with products in a beta program do not have customer facing support and Menards has not set the expectation otherwise.
Also, usually beta testers sign non-disclosure agreements with the company involved and cannot post in social media regarding the product. In addition, they get usually get the product for free and have to return it at the end of the test. The last thing many companies want is public announcements based upon beta testing.
@ChooChoo1972 posted:Well all well and good but for myself and others whose remotes don't have terminals to bend out we still are left with a completely useless product that the retailer won't stand behind despite making all of the requested feedback.
Frank, I'd be happy to buy it from you. email is in my profile.
Steve
@Richie C. posted:...This was not intended to be a normal retailer-to-consumer transaction and I find it disturbing that some people are measuring it as such, let alone reselling it on the open market. Let's say some one on the 'net buys that $299 engine and has a problem with it. Even though they may be able to get their money back, they are now turned off to Menard's and their products - not an outcome they intended.
My suggestion to Menard's for future events like this is to clearly imprint the model with language that it is for testing purposes with a limited production run and not intended for commercial resale.
THIS is what's wrong with trying to immediately flip the item for a profit, especially without even verifying that the unit is functional. Despite the auction site seller's high reputation score, this act of putting profit above all else speaks volumes about that person's lack of a moral compass. Just because it's legal doesn't make it right.
Mallard 4468: You hit the nail on the head.!!
@Mallard4468 posted:THIS is what's wrong with trying to immediately flip the item for a profit, especially without even verifying that the unit is functional. Despite the auction site seller's high reputation score, this act of putting profit above all else speaks volumes about that person's lack of a moral compass. Just because it's legal doesn't make it right.
glad someone else agrees with me...well said
Menards: Welcome to the quagmire that is O gauge locomotives...
Rusty
I get what you are saying here, the spirit of this "non-conventional" beta testing program was to get this into the hands of enthusiasts and regular everyday operators to get real world feed back from everyday model railroaders and not just a few hand picked folks for a beta test program. I like how Menards did this, the unit we sampled work pretty good, and I sent my feedback to Menards directly as they requested.
The guy who is selling the unopened model didn't care about the true spirit of this beta test program but he is still contributing in one small way, what are folks willing to pay for this thing? Obviously not $300 because as of now it has zero bids. But also we need to consider that selling an unused beta product only gives a loose idea of what the finished product might be worth on an open market.
Is his moral compass broken? I would say not completely, but his intentions are clear. Make a quick buck by taking advantage of the demand over the supply... still a little slimy.
@RoyBoy posted:Maybe someone had already made that FP7 mold, or maybe it's an old/existing mold from another defunct manufacturer. I checked my old two rail Atlas/Pola F7 from the 70's, but the Menards loco mold is not from that family/lineage.
FWIW: The Atlas F from the 70's was an F9 and it was made by Roco. Pola made stuff for AHM/ Rivarossi.
Mark in Oregon
@Strummer posted:FWIW: The Atlas F from the 70's was an F9 and it was made by Roco. Pola made stuff for AHM/ Rivarossi.
Mark in Oregon
And the Rivarossi model was of an FM C-Liner.
Rusty
The tool for the body of this locomotive is not at all familiar to me. If it is a pre-existing tool, it is not one that went into any type of mass production in the last 20 years at least. The only O scale FP7s I am aware of are the Sunset ones I worked on and the surprisingly scale tin-plate Pride Lines FP7. I will speculate, and I hate doing that, that perhaps this tool was paid for by another manufacturer but never made it to full production. Another thought is that it is a new tool and the cost of developing it will be offset by sheer numbers if the final production piece costs anywhere close to the pre-production model. The Blomberg truck side frames are readily available from any number of sources across Asia.
I still need to get some run time in with mine. I was hoping to last weekend, but my daughter was more interested in other activities and that always comes first. Perhaps this weekend I will break it in.
The modeler in me sees the opportunity in several potential modifications and repainting, but the collector in me sees the value in having something that is a limited run and keeping it in its as delivered state.
Perhaps when the model is offered after beta testing is completed, I will purchase some additional ones for projects. Of all the F Unit variants, the FP versions are among my favorite.
@ChooChoo1972 posted:Well all well and good but for myself and others whose remotes don't have terminals to bend out we still are left with a completely useless product that the retailer won't stand behind despite making all of the requested feedback.
What about the replacement terminals I found and posted earlier?
https://ogrforum.ogaugerr.com/...0#156701992174880560
John
I’m becoming convinced that this is new body tooling, or at least one never before used in a final production model. I have found no matching shells on anything in the world of O scale.
Here’s some more pure speculation. Maybe the missing louvers that always are a part of the sides of F units landed the tools for these shells in storage for later modifications, only to be abandoned after the manufacturer withdrew from our hobby. (I can see forgotten tools from the last days of K-Line, whose tooling ended up in the Sanda Kan factory’s possession as a partial debt settlement following MDK Inc.’s bankruptcy. That tooling ultimately mostly ended up in the hands of Kader, which bought the troubled Sanda Kan facility shortly thereafter. Kader has been rumored as a tooling source for Menards for years.)
I don’t know. Total guesses.
@Jim R. posted:I’m becoming convinced that this is new body tooling, or at least one never before used in a final production model. I have found no matching shells on anything in the world of O scale.
Here’s some more pure speculation. Maybe the missing louvers that always are a part of the sides of F units landed the tools for these shells in storage for later modifications, only to be abandoned after the manufacturer withdrew from our hobby. (I can see forgotten tools from the last days of K-Line, whose tooling ended up in the Sanda Kan factory’s possession as a partial debt settlement following MDK Inc.’s bankruptcy. That tooling ultimately mostly ended up in the hands of Kader, which bought the troubled Sanda Kan facility shortly thereafter. Kader has been rumored as a tooling source for Menards for years.)
I don’t know. Total guesses.
Except it's been stated many times that a company called Golden Wheel makes the Menards trains.
Although I would agree the FP7 is likely an "abandoned" (for whatever reason) project from an unidentifiable source. Whatever. It's a pretty fair representation for the price.
Rusty
@ChooChoo1972 posted:Well all well and good but for myself and others whose remotes don't have terminals to bend out we still are left with a completely useless product that the retailer won't stand behind despite making all of the requested feedback.
I agree with Frank on this one. How can he help Menards with a review when the unit arrives with missing parts. Selling it is not the answer. He bought it in good faith so come on Menards, answer his call. Quality goes beyond just the product.
@Rusty Traque posted:Except it's been stated many times that a company called Golden Wheel makes the Menards trains.
Although I would agree the FP7 is likely an "abandoned" (for whatever reason) project from an unidentifiable source. Whatever. It's a pretty fair representation for the price.
Rusty
Golden Wheel makes items for Menards, that’s for sure. That doesn’t mean Golden Wheel makes all of Menards train line.
Jim R.,
You are probably right about not having the F-3 diesel for Christmas. I don't want to see it until its perfect. However, they must continue to produce train items on a more frequent basis. More buildings, freight cars, accessories and "O" Gauge tubular switches and rubber roadbed for their track. They must keep their foot on the pedal.
@jim sutter posted:Jim R.,
You are probably right about not having the F-3 diesel for Christmas. I don't want to see it until its perfect. However, they must continue to produce train items on a more frequent basis. More buildings, freight cars, accessories and "O" Gauge tubular switches and rubber roadbed for their track. They must keep their foot on the pedal.
It has been quiet this year. I like the structure and some of the rail cars and usually purchase about 1 building per year. The first fire station, the gas station, and the Fed Ex buildings are excellent.
@ChooChoo1972 posted:Well all well and good but for myself and others whose remotes don't have terminals to bend out we still are left with a completely useless product that the retailer won't stand behind despite making all of the requested feedback.
1. I would bet dollars to donuts that Menard's will make good on a replacement controller as long as you comply with their return policy. I have returned train product in the past and their customer service has always been great to work with. OTOH, it's possible that since this was a limited production test run of only 200 units, they may not have another controller immediately available for replacement or more likely, that since a number of beta testers have already raised issues with the controller, Menard's is probably already working with the manufacturer to solve those issues and doesn't want to replace any defective ones until the units are corrected and working properly.
2. If they don't make good, like others have offered, I would be happy to purchase yours for what you paid for it.
3. I understand your frustration, but it seems to me that the risk you run when you agree to be part of a beta testing program and are not purchasing a conventional retailer-to-consumer product, is that there may be issues/problems and they may not be easily or readily solved.
@Richie C. posted:3. I understand your frustration, but it seems to me that the risk you run when you agree to be part of a beta testing program and are not purchasing a conventional retailer-to-consumer product, is that there may be issues/problems and they may not be easily or readily solved.
I didn't read the terms of the purchase that way. Where was the "as is" language? I must have missed that part.
John
@Craftech posted:I didn't read the terms of the purchase that way. Where was the "as is" language? I must have missed that part.
John
Well, it was kinda-sorta spelled out on the Menards Shop Now page. Perhaps not too clearly as it mentions that this is a test run rather than using the Beta Test or As Is phrasing. Most seemed to be dazzled by the $129.99 price tag, but it's there.
The folks involved with this project at Menards are probably wondering about this can of worms they got themselves into.
Rusty
Attachments
Images (1)
I would have bashed the remote by now with an old AAA battery pack and run the darn train.
Can we move on?????.
@Rusty Traque posted:The folks involved with this project at Menards are probably wondering about this can of worms they got themselves into.
Rusty
I agree. If I recall correctly, some on the forum even wondered whether the divisiveness apparent here and often applied to any manufacturer’s new locomotives would be enough to discourage Menards from getting into this end of the hobby.
For what’s it’s worth, I have seen snarkier comments on a toy train mail list concerning this product.
Not to worry. John Menard can take it. It won’t affect the production. Sales will determine the train line’s future.
Quite often people who have no clue what it takes to bring a new product online, whine when the product does not cure what ails them, lash out because it isn't a Cadillac at a Rambler price, the seats aren't comfortable, the windshield wipers are only on/low/medium and the doors sound clunky when close.
I give Menards an A+ for the product they have offered, if Henry Ford listened to the whiners and naysayers, we might not be driving what we do today and have manufacturing as streamlined as it is.
And there will ALWAYS be the 10% who aren't satisfied if you GIVE it to them.
@Jim R. posted:For what’s it’s worth, I have seen snarkier comments on a toy train mail list concerning this product.
It's sad that these things happen.
I am beginning to conclude (by no fault of this or other Forum operators & moderators) that these forums themselves contribute and let others promote the divisiveness seen in people here between manufactures. Much like how Social Media does with Politics.
I commend Menards on this effort, they put out a nice model. Yes it need some work and I am sure they know that, but for a first attempt and also letting anyone participate in the beta testing, I am really impressed!!
I will definitely be looking at these in the future to be used with our KIDS layouts.
@Craftech posted:I didn't read the terms of the purchase that way. Where was the "as is" language? I must have missed that part.
John
Apparently, the language in the Menard's offering was not the only thing that got missed.
I never said it was sold "as-is" and that phrase is nowhere in my post.
O M G
Attachments
Images (1)
I finally opened up the box. Had it since this past Saturday. But I am glad of all the information that people found out already. Out of the box the remote would not work. From previous information from here I used a screwdriver to bend the contacts out a bit and that is all it took and the remote was ready to go. Placed the engine on the track hooking it up to a train I already had on the track. Turned on the transformer and the sound came on right away. The engine moved forward pulling a train of 26 cars and a bobber caboose. The cars were basically 6464 size. All and all the engine ran good. Except for the jack rabbit stops and starts. I think overall Menards did a pretty good job so far............Paul 2
@Craftech posted:@rrman replied:
"I suspect a momentary short that happens when engine moves. Check wires to the trucks for abrasions or missing heat shrink tubing. Or a pickup rollers are unevenly round or holder warpped and touching the truck frame."
I didn't listen to him so I set up a Menards circle with O Gauge track instead of using my 027 layout and it ran flawlessly. Thinking there must be a short in my 027 layout I tore the entire thing apart and tested each section of tubular track and the Marx switches. Couldn't find the short.
So I set up lengths of 027 track and tested it a little at a time as I added track and it shorted after I set up around 3 feet of track.
So I put a 30" section of 027 against the bottom of the Menards engine and flipped the sandwich upside down and lo and behold one of the spring loaded coupler screws (phillips) was touching the center rail. It came from the factory not screwed in all the way. Screwed it in and it ran flawlessly. Apparently regular O Gauge track elevated the truck enough that the screw didn't touch the center rail. Dropped down on 027 it touched.
Oh well, I wanted to tear my layout apart anyway so this was a good excuse.
Sorry @rrman - you were right.
John
EDIT: I have been following the other posts and am not using 18v. Much lower.
One more issue with the coupler. It has far too much up and down play (mine does anyway). It doesn't line up properly with the first car behind it (tried various cars). It sits too low because of the excessive play.
If you have had a similar problem, how have you corrected it?
Thanks,
John
I was able to get my remote working by bending the contact plates to make good contact with the batteries. The engine runs and performs normally and responds well to the remote.
Neal Jeter
My evaluation
So far I haven’t notice anybody remark that Jack the German has his picture on the battery cover of the remote. ( Jack is so photogenic )
As others have found, the positive connectors on the AAA batteries on the remote needed a little tweak with a screwdriver so that they made good contact.
It is a nice looking engine with crisp paint. It had the usual small scuff marks on the center line of the silver paint both in the front and back on the roof. Otherwise no paint defects that I noticed.
The sound volume is controlled by the remote. After much head scratching and complaining to myself about no directions on how to control volume, I looked at the side of the remote, and there was the volume control.
The directional headlight and reverse light are bright and work as advertised. The round red lights in the number boards look weird.
Run by itself, the engine is comfortable and somewhat sedate at 9 volts, it is still happy at 12 volts, and is a real racer at 18 volts.
When is starts to move, it jumps, and when it stops it really stops. At any voltage. It slows down nicely, and then bam, it stops.
It is hard to inch the engine up to another car. First it doesn’t move, then takes off like a battering ram. If you try to move back and forth to line up with something, you just end up with the engine jumping 3 or 4 inches from forward to reverse.
Run with a heavy load it was a different matter. I had some problems with the rear engine coupler opening by itself.
I ran it with 3 dummy diesel engines as a load, just for weight. Probably the equivalent of 6 or 8 heavy cars. On the flat it ran fine with this load, but on about a 3 % grade the engine lost traction and stopped moving, just spinning its wheels. A little extra weight might help here, because it seems to have plenty of power, even if it is spinning in one place jumping up and down with no traction.
This would probably be fine with many lighter cars on a flat layout.
My wife liked it. I liked it.
Took this pic last night. The number board lights give a nice glow in the headlight lens when the engine is in neutral. This was mentioned previously but I don't recall seeing a pic.
Attachments
Images (1)
@RSJB18 posted:Took this pic last night. The number board lights give a nice glow in the headlight lens when the engine is in neutral. This was mentioned previously but I don't recall seeing a pic.
This idea looks interesting. Diffusing an LED with a blob of hot melt glue:
John
You can also sand the top of the LED to spread the light. Another option is flat-top LED's, they have a much wider lighting angle.
jack is not the engineer?
Folks, what Menards did here is brilliant. Created massive buzz at little cost and collecting piles of feedback at the same time. And I am not implying that they did anything nefarious. Just brilliant marketing.
Interesting point Jim. Perhaps they did this intentionally, to drum up interest.
But, if so, it may be somewhat risky.
No doubt, the Train Review magazines will create lists of "Must Fix" items at the end of the reviews, and no doubt, the Members of this Board will assemble as similar detailed list.
If so, then Menard's is going to have to fix all of those items, or draw negative reviews from people in the know.
On the other hand, since probably 95% of the folks who walk into Menards and want to buy a train set for Christmas probably never do any research, or read any reviews, maybe it won't matter at all?
And maybe, little kids will like the Jumping starts and Quick stops?
(I spent most of the first two years with my Lionel Super-O set building Lincoln Log walls and cabins, full of cowboys and Indians, and watching the big Steam Engine and Tender crash through them at high speed .)
Mannyrock
"
I will give my feedback as a consumer looking at this for possible purchase.
The chrome on the bottom looks cheap. Like a really cheap kids toy. I guess if that is your target audience, then it is great. As a lifelong model railroader that is looking for something a little more realistic it is not good for me. I am not a rivet counter. Without the chrome I think it would look a lot better. The shell looks pretty good. About the detail level of the Williams F7, but with better nose and window contours.
I am not a fan of the remote. it is a non-starter if I can't control it conventionally from my transformer.
A dummy would be great as most times you wouldn't see an F by itself, especially on a passenger train. I am guessing that a dummy wasn't offered with this run because it is basically a beta test run.
I don't know of any FP7's made in O so that is nice to see a new loco type on the market.
U.P. had a couple of FP7's on the roster, so if these are made in U.P. colors without the cheap looking chrome, conventional operation capability and a dummy I can see myself buying a set.
I reconfigured my layout and can report the loco runs thru 031, 042 and 072 k-line switches with no issues at all. Smooth as silk!
@jjm posted:Folks, what Menards did here is brilliant. Created massive buzz at little cost and collecting piles of feedback at the same time. And I am not implying that they did anything nefarious. Just brilliant marketing.
Jim that was the 1st thing i thought. Menards in essence is having the customer pay for the BETA testing. Brilliant.
@GG1 4877 posted:3rd Rail did FP7s around 2014. The PRR version is shown in these images for comparison.
I wasn't thinking about brass models in my previous post because they are a niche market that are typically limited production, highly detailed and high priced models.
Thanks for posting the pictures of those two locos that are on complete opposite ends of the model spectrum. It is easy to find shortcomings when comparing a model to another model that can be considered a benchmark. I am surprised how good the Menard's looks compared to the 3rd Rail model. I know it is lacking in details, but it scales out fairly well and the contours look decent as well. With some tweaking they could have a model that appeals to a wide audience.
@Mike D posted:I wasn't thinking about brass models in my previous post because they are a niche market that are typically limited production, highly detailed and high priced models.
Thanks for posting the pictures of those two locos that are on complete opposite ends of the model spectrum. It is easy to find shortcomings when comparing a model to another model that can be considered a benchmark. I am surprised how good the Menard's looks compared to the 3rd Rail model. I know it is lacking in details, but it scales out fairly well and the contours look decent as well. With some tweaking they could have a model that appeals to a wide audience.
The 3rd Rail model is plastic also. I agree that the Menards version is a very good representation of an FP7 for the price and if that price holds for the production version, I wouldn't hesitate to get another one. I only posted the two together to show that the Menards locomotive is indeed an FP7 based on the proportion and the details.
Mini update. Busy weekend, hosted a TCA Western BBQ Saturday and then our TTOS meet today. I am nearing 25 hours of run time. Other than the common issues mentioned earlier, it has performed flawlessly. Lots of interest and great comments from club members. All positive.
Steve
Wow. Having seen the front end photo of the Menard's, I have to agree that the bright flashy "chrome" paint on the bottom just has to go! What were they thinking? Flat paint instead.
Mannyrock
Speaking of budget conscious pricing, I noticed in the latest Charles Ro ads that they are pricing some LionChief diesels at around $170-180, with which Menards presumably would be competing . Since we don't know what the final Menards price will be, when they make the consumer models, sounds like this price range will be competitive between Menards and Lionel, no?
@Landsteiner posted:Speaking of budget conscious pricing, I noticed in the latest Charles Ro ads that they are pricing some LionChief diesels at around $170-180, with which Menards presumably would be competing . Since we don't know what the final Menards price will be, when they make the consumer models, sounds like this price range will be competitive between Menards and Lionel, no?
I think you may be referring to the entire set:
https://charlesro-com.3dcartst...om/store_L84719.html
AFAIK they don't have the LionChief Superchief as a separate engine. Correct me if I am wrong.
John
@Landsteiner posted:Speaking of budget conscious pricing, I noticed in the latest Charles Ro ads that they are pricing some LionChief diesels at around $170-180, with which Menards would be competing =. Since we don't know what the final Menards price will be when they make the consumer model, sounds like this price range will be competitive between Menards and Lionel, no?
I have zero experience with a standard lionchief engine, but I’ve read stories of burning up engines and lack of pulling power. The menards engine has two motors, which from what I’ve heard seem to have plenty of pulling power.
I wasn't specifically referring to the ATSF locomotive, just the LionChief diesel line in general as a direct competitor to the future possible Menards diesels.
LionChief is the standard entry level locomotive in Lionel's sets and they make some separate sale locos in the same price range as Menards. Neither operate in conventional mode. Both use essentially command control and come with a remote. Neither is intended for the rivet counter 
. LionChief locos do not have some of the problems seen with decorating, packaging or strange abrupt starts that the prototype Menards loco, so it remains to be seen if Menards fixes these problems. As for burning up engines and lack of pulling power, these may be unrealistic expectations on the part of buyers and unwise attempts to pull very long trains, but I wouldn't know for sure.
Just thinking out loud about what competition Menards might have for the budget conscious buyer or beginners.
@Landsteiner posted:I wasn't specifically referring to the ATSF locomotive, just the LionChief diesel line in general as a direct competitor to the future possible Menards diesels.
LionChief is the standard entry level locomotive in Lionel's sets and they make some separate sale locos in the same price range as Menards. Neither operate in conventional mode. Both use essentially command control and come with a remote. Neither is intended for the rivet counter
Just thinking out loud about what competition Menards might have for the budget conscious buyer or beginners.
You are right. My grandson (five) has a UP LionChief set which he got for Christmas. It's pretty neat and works really well except for an under powered wall wart (which was replaced with a laptop power supply that works really really well).
But I think the design (ATSF) is a winner because in the reasonable price range a lot of people want that model in that color. Unless you want to spend a lot of money that color Superchief only seem to be readily available in sets. So Menards chose the right model I think.
John
@Csxcellent posted:I have zero experience with a standard lionchief engine, but I’ve read stories of burning up engines and lack of pulling power. The menards engine has two motors, which from what I’ve heard seem to have plenty of pulling power.
So based on zero experience and incorrect assumptions, you’ve decided the Menards model is better. 😂 Why not create a post about it?
@Landsteiner posted:As for burning up engines and lack of pulling power, these may be unrealistic expectations on the part of buyers and unwise attempts to pull very long trains, but I wouldn't know for sure.
Some of the conventional and LionChief models use the very small and anemic flat-sided set motor, those are very prone to burn up with even reasonable loads. Any of the LC or LC+ models that use the Mabuchi 3xx series motors are far less likely to suffer the same fate.
FWIW, the new LC+ 2.0 0-6-0T Docksider also has the dreaded flat-sided small set motor, so I have some reservations about pulling more than a few cars with that one as well.
@gunrunnerjohn posted:Some of the conventional and LionChief models use the very small and anemic flat-sided set motor, those are very prone to burn up with even reasonable loads. Any of the LC or LC+ models that use the Mabuchi 3xx series motors are far less likely to suffer the same fate.
FWIW, the new LC+ 2.0 0-6-0T Docksider also has the dreaded flat-sided small set motor, so I have some reservations about pulling more than a few cars with that one as well.
Agreed. The big motor I saw in these entry level Menards engine are a nice welcome over any of what I see in the LC engines that come in for repair.
For a short while there was a cheap electric water gun that I would buy at Wal-Mart just to salvage the motor to repair these engines.
Some of the newer LC stuff has a better motors but a great deal of the entry level items still use cheap "can" motors.
One of our kids layout is powered by a 14 volt DC power pack and for informational reasons we decided to run a brand new LC Christmas Express 0-8-0 engine with a five car consist and with an hour meter hooked up to see how long it will last. The last time I checked it was around 60 hours and still going. I'll let you know when the motor goes.
Finally someone making affordable trains. That's how to get the model train market going again. Don't forget, you can upgrade your Menards engines to TMCC with:
My suggestion is: ERRCC - ERR Cruise Commander + F3 - Railsounds Commander.
Perhaps some smarties can figure out how to trigger the unique crew talk or sound module all together with a serial output of the Cruise Commander.
@H1000 posted:One of our kids layout is powered by a 14 volt DC power pack and for informational reasons we decided to run a brand new LC Christmas Express 0-8-0 engine with a five car consist and with an hour meter hooked up to see how long it will last. The last time I checked it was around 60 hours and still going. I'll let you know when the motor goes.
Don't forget to lube it every so often.
