supposedly now has twin motors- fixed quick start up issue & the horn button sound problems...& packaging...
@Sal V posted:supposedly now has twin motors- fixed quick start up issue & the horn button sound problems...& packaging...
It always had twin motors, all of the other things mention were done in 2.0
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I find it interesting it was months from Beta 1 to Beta 2. Now Beta 3 is out weeks after Beta 2. Seems like a quick turnaround to take customer feedback from Beta 2, make the changes, get it mfg'd in China, get in a container to menards and sold.
I too am extremely interested in the real changes between the models from the mouth of Menards.
I need a santa fe warbonnet engine like I need a hole in the head, but I'm interested to see what road names go into production.
@samparfitt posted:I don't claim to be an expert on plastic versus metal gears but all my HO engines have plastic gears on the axles.
True, there is a lot more force on an O gauge engine versus an HO engine but I've been running some of my HO engines for 45 years without any problems. I'm assuming my plastic gears are hi grade nylon.
It seems like metal gears would wear faster if not properly oiled versus plastic gears. I just use a light '3 and 1' oil on them.
The worm gear on all my engines are brass. Also, the combination of the two may work well to prevent 'wearing'.
I think a lot of people view plastic as cheap.
I've 'googled' nylon versus metal gears and find a lot of positives for nylon.
Nylon is also more quieter than metal gears.
It seems like nylon would, also, last longer if not properly lubricated as, I'm guessing, a lot of railroaders don't lubricate their engines as often as they should.
All my engines have this type of gear where the center is brass to prevent any cracking on the axle.
These comments should 'stir up' some debate!
Tell that to all who owned mpc diesels with the nylon gears. Once brass replacement gears came out as a fix, guess where the owners of those locomotives went.
@PRRick posted:Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I find it interesting it was months from Beta 1 to Beta 2. Now Beta 3 is out weeks after Beta 2. Seems like a quick turnaround to take customer feedback from Beta 2, make the changes, get it mfg'd in China, get in a container to menards and sold.
I too am extremely interested in the real changes between the models from the mouth of Menards.
I need a santa fe warbonnet engine like I need a hole in the head, but I'm interested to see what road names go into production.
Menards air frieghted these which is obviously much faster than a boat and the current supply chain hot mess.
Perhaps these 3.0 units have some of the mechanical changes requested from 1.0 and the software enhancements from 2.0. Just a guess...
Even after the final product goes to production, people here will still critique it and criticize them for not addressing their one or two concerns which may or may not be trivial. Menards pays little attention to the comments made here because it's hard to determine which comments are from actual owners. It's probably a bit interesting to Menards to see when & which changes are made that go unnoticed.
Mark the Menards Man, Thanks for the engine project. The next test piece if there is one needs to be with a clear body shell. Then a black bonett, followed with a yellow bonett, and on and on. Keep up the great work, Dave
@H1000 posted:Menards asked for user feedback to be sent directly to them. Everyone here will nit pick at this thing until Menards includes every feature found in a Vision Line locomotive and still want it to cost $170.
Menards has a pretty good locomotive, especially at that price point, even if the final revision costs more. Astonished version 3 is out a few weeks after version 2 if it includes user suggested updates.
Between 2.0 and 3.0 it appears Menards turned on a dime and left 9 cents change.
Having worked in manufacturing, I don't see how they could analyze customer feedback, make changes, test and release in that short a time.
Given that nothing has really changed in the decoration department, I suspect Menards is simply using up the remains of a large inventory of body shells and frames. Or clearing the decks before Chinese New Year.
Rusty
Dave Nichols I would hope Menards bring their product to market before we all add our wish list, remember these are big trains for small hands
Dave Khoeler WHATTTTTTTT
Playing devil's advocate, it is possible that when Menard's received its run of the 200 Beta 2.0 locos, they already knew at that time that it was full of flaws, and had already identified several of them to fix going forward, and then just sold the 2.0s with great fanfare asking for consumer tests and reports. They didn't want to eat that loss.
So, they may have beenb already making the manufacturing changes to the very first 2.0 proto-type, before they even advertised the run of 200 Beta 2.0s for sale. They may have known that many of the reviewers would point out some of the defects they had already perceived and that thesewere already in the works being fixed for the 3.0
Mannyrock
Menards hasn't even (other than the Beta testing) had a chance to market their F units, to the public in their stores! As far as the Big Trains for Small Hands) reference, Its from an old Lionel add, they Knew, who these trains were designed for, children !
Just let Menards do what it does best!
Mannyrock, so they could hear every one here complain about it? I dont think so!
Lets give credit where credit is due, the company is soliciting and apparently listening to company feedback, they are producing small batches which indi ates to me a working partnership with the manufacturer, and they have invested in a workaround for shipping by using air transport. Using air instead of sea shows a level of commitment. I have no need to quibble over road names at this time, good job Menards, keep it up.
They’re practicing Agile development.
Design -> Build -> Release -> Feedback -> Prioritize Next Features.
Then start the cycle over. Continue repeating this cycle until you have a viable product to sell at scale.
@ChiTown Steve posted:They’re practicing Agile development.
Design -> Build -> Release -> Feedback -> Prioritize Next Features.
Then start the cycle over. Continue repeating this cycle until you have a viable product to sell at scale.
Sorry, but given the quick trunaround, I'm beginning to think 2.0 may have been more of an "Ooops," and was released before everything was implemented.
Seriously, how can anyone effectively analyze customer input, institute changes, order and receive replacement components (if any) and set up production and test before release within 20 days? Especially given current supply chain issues. Unless all that was done was twiddling with the firmware, which doesn't appear to be very sophisticated for this product.
Of course, we won't know exactly what other changes occurred until folks get their 3.0's and start their own testing.
I have no issue with Menards offering their own locomotive, it just seems like it's being rushed through right now.
Rusty
Geez, you blink and miss them!!!! Lol
@Rusty Traque posted:Sorry, but given the quick trunaround, I'm beginning to think 2.0 may have been more of an "Ooops," and was released before everything was implemented.
Rusty
Rusty,
Not every iteration is of the same time period. People in IT always do 2 week iterations which is wrong. The iterations should be 2-6 weeks in length and produce a logical unit of work. In other words, primarily, a set of features that work together.
Also every new feature, or feature improvement, doesn’t have to come from customers. They may already have had improvements they had queued up and were working on before 2.0 even shipped.
Steve
I believe Mannyrock, Steve and Rusty all bring up valid points. I too was surprised by the rapid release of 3.0 after 2.0--a 20 day interval to be exact. Version 2.0 came approximately 150 days after 1.0. If you subtract out from the 20 days the air shipping time and the several days to receive user feedback...well, there is hardly enough time to change much of anything based only on December user feedback even under Agile software development and Just-in-Time manufacturing. Maybe a Menards rep will chime in on this.
I don't think the menards rep needs to respond here other than to solicit feedback. Regardless how you feel about development cycles it appears those actually tasked with carrying out the project are doing so to the best of their ability. I see no need for armchair quarterbacking.
Gosh Necrails,
The whole reason we are on these boards is to do arm-chair quarterbacking! :-)
I mean, really, . . . what else have we got to do?
Mannyrock
necrails shut your front door i feel cold air. Dave
@Bruce Brown posted:I believe Mannyrock, Steve and Rusty all bring up valid points. I too was surprised by the rapid release of 3.0 after 2.0--a 20 day interval to be exact. Version 2.0 came approximately 150 days after 1.0. If you subtract out from the 20 days the air shipping time and the several days to receive user feedback...well, there is hardly enough time to change much of anything based only on December user feedback even under Agile software development and Just-in-Time manufacturing. Maybe a Menards rep will chime in on this.
What you assume is that every change made to 3.0 came from 2.0 and not 1.0. Did you consider that Menards has incorporated some of the feed back from 1.0 that will now show up in 3.0? Maybe those improvements include mechanical updates that take far longer than software.
Also keep in mind that the 3.0 units were air shipped which usually arrive at your distribution center in matter of days, not months like shipping on the water. Is it possible that 2.0 could have been here in 20 days had it been shipped via plane instead of boat?
@prrhorseshoecurve posted:Tell that to all who owned mpc diesels with the nylon gears. Once brass replacement gears came out as a fix, guess where the owners of those locomotives went.
I have run many MPC engines and never had a gear failure plastic or otherwise. I have to say I have heard these stories for years and worked in a repair station years ago, I had one engine come in with a gear failure and it was because of damage to the truck not a failure of the gear.
@Jeff T posted:Cost of customers doing your testing... Regardless, would be nice to know what was changed.
You have it right, this is not a 2 grand engine yet it seems to have what it takes, yes a few issues but again lets look at price. If they get this right and I believe they will, this could be the next K-Line scale Hudson. Fair price quality.
I have been attracted to the Warbonnet F3's for as long as I can remember. I am very interested in Forumites opinions about the Menards units as an AA and the Lionel scale units produced about 14 years ago. As I understand it, the Lionel units have TMCC, one powered A and (in the photo) an unpowered B and another unpowered A. I have seen the three unit set on auction sites LN/Ex for about $475-$550. Two Menards A units would be about $340. How would you assess value here? On top is a Lionel scale F3 A, the middle a new Menards F3(7), and on the bottom the scale Lionel F3 ABA. I totally understand that the Lionel units are more expensive, but then again, that is for an ABA, no?
@Al Nevada posted:I have been attracted to the Warbonnet F3's for as long as I can remember. I am very interested in Forumites opinions about the Menards units as an AA and the Lionel scale units produced about 14 years ago. As I understand it, the Lionel units have TMCC, one powered A and (in the photo) an unpowered B and another unpowered A. I have seen the three unit set on auction sites LN/Ex for about $475-$550. Two Menards A units would be about $340. How would you assess value here? On top is a Lionel scale F3 A, the middle a new Menards F3(7), and on the bottom the scale Lionel F3 ABA. I totally understand that the Lionel units are more expensive, but then again, that is for an ABA, no?
How much do you think menards could build an unpowered A & B for? I'll bet it's less than Lionel considering the cost of their curret rolling stock.
@H1000 posted:How much do you think menards could build an unpowered A & B for? I'll bet it's less than Lionel considering the cost of their curret rolling stock.
Remember the orange and blue box will always for the foreseeable be at the premium. The Mernards is a a great engine to install TMCC to get a feel on how to do it. The engine is scale in size has nice graphics and is sold at a great price.
@H1000 posted:How much do you think menards could build an unpowered A & B for? I'll bet it's less than Lionel considering the cost of their curret rolling stock.
An un-powered "A" unit would be easy for them to build. They have all the parts and paint masks already in production.
Making a "B" unit would be much more expensive. It would require a completely new body mold and frame stamping.
I am still curious as to where the mold for the A unit body came from. Was it an old project of some manufacturer that never came to fruition?
@RoyBoy posted:I am still curious as to where the mold for the A unit body came from. Was it an old project of some manufacturer that never came to fruition?
Menards has previously stated that this project is all new tooling.
I have one of the 1.0 F7's. I added a Lionel B (6-18103) later. Not bad IMHO.
Hmm, . . . let's see.
200 x $160 x 3 Beta runs = $96,000.
Not a bad haul, from the folks volunteering to test them.
All in all, a brilliant marketing campaign.
Mannyrock
@Mannyrock posted:Hmm, . . . let's see.
200 x $160 x 3 Beta runs = $96,000.
Not a bad haul, from the folks volunteering to test them.
All in all, a brilliant marketing campaign.
Mannyrock
Well are they just supposed to give them away? You get to keep it when you're done with your evaluation. It's not that much different from buying a regular production engine from any other manufacture.
@Mannyrock posted:Hmm, . . . let's see.
200 x $160 x 3 Beta runs = $96,000.
Mannyrock
A drop in the bucket for Menards $10.7 Billion in revenue (2020.)
Rusty
I use a Williams B unit with my 2 version 1.0 A units.
Steve
For the ones that have two beta 1's or a beta 1 and 2 ... does the same remote work to run them both ?
@yamawho posted:For the ones that have two beta 1's or a beta 1 and 2 ... does the same remote work to run them both ?
I have 2 Beta 1’s. You need 2 remotes to run 2 loco’s, but either remote will run either engine, just not at the same time.
Steve
Access to this requires an OGR Forum Supporting Membership
