Menards Beta 3.5 (4th Generation) Santa Fe Product Review

That's a bummer.

Bruce, wow that stinks.  I too was one of the "lucky" ones who just happened to get the email while at my desk and was able to place an order before they sold out.  This will also be my first Menard's locomotive.

I'm really sorry for your disappointing experience.  I hope that one was a fluke.

There have been four releases?

The company I work at, ~330 employees, has lost about 30 since Christmas. Quality is going to suffer. I am guessing Menards is having similar problems.

@Bill DeBrooke posted:

There have been four releases?

Yes, that's right: 1.0, 2.0, 3.0 and 3.5

And people wonder why I question how significant improvements can be made with a mere 20 day gap between releases.

Rusty

@SteveH posted:

I'm really sorry for your disappointing experience.  I hope that one was a fluke.

Steve,

Yes. I drew the "short straw" from the shipping inventory. Menards return policy is to take the product back to the store which will be difficult living 1,000 miles away from Eau Claire. I've written to customer service to see how they will handle.

Based on previous reviews here, odds are that you will receive a working engine.

Might be a refund if there are no more left...

Bruce, I’m all for Menards trying the Ogauge market but if you want a bullet proof inexpensive engine for the kids please look at some offerings from Williams/Bachman. Several dealers advertise right here and don’t charge freight.

Bruce's pictures sure look like manufacturing issues.  This is no consolation but just a comment on the state of shipments and the non sensical events that can and do happen.  I have both bought and sold train items that had no to minimal external box damage (at least according to the receiver in that situation). In spite of this, the items have had significant damage. Einstein and Yoda could not explain the physics involved. 

Today I have an example the reverse can happen- a box can look terrible and the item survives. My Beta 3.5 showed up yesterday from the USPS and here is the box.  I figured it was cooked but in spite of this appearance, it survived and appears to run well after 15 minutes around the layout.  It pulled 10 cars easily- still has the jack rabbit start which others have noted (similar to my Williams diesels). 

External shipper box - I thought what can survive this?

Internal box containing the engine- guess what corner was next to the shipper damage?

Here's my report on the Beta 3.5

Roy Yost’s test of Menards Beta 3.5 Santa Fe diesel loco  2/3/2022

First off, let me say thank you for replacing my poorly built Beta 3.1 with this Beta 3.5. It cost me about $28 to ship the 3.1 back to you, but it could have been worth it. Let me explain.

The good:

The loco came to me in fine condition. The packaging materials are doing their job.

The firmware is working well. Speeding the loco, slowing the loco, and reversing the loco were smooth. I would still prefer the first speed step to be slower than it is. I run the loco at about 8 volts of track power. I like to run at medium and slow speeds.

The loco body ran smoothly and without all the shimmying and shaking of the 3.1 model. Both wheels on one axle are pressed on crooked and that truck did a mild hunting/yawing while running, but the loco body seemed to run true. More on this later.

The body mounting bolts were installed with reasonable force, not like the excessive force used on my 3.1.

The bad:

I still feel strongly that the gears press fit onto steel axles must be made of metal and not plastic. Two plastic gears must be changed to metal if the loco is to have a long and happy life. These are the driven worm wheel gears and the drive gear for the external idler gears. Due to the different expansion rates of the steel axle and the plastic gears, the gears that are press fit onto steel shafts will eventually split and will rotate/slip on the shaft. Since it seems unlikely that this will actually happen, I may have to lower my expectations. But I still feel that these plastic gears will come back to bite Menards eventually. For me, if these gears get into production, that will be a deal breaker and would prevent me from purchasing a production model.

The couplers still sit a bit lower than standard. The “thumbtacks” on the couplers were not fully riveted and flopped around. The rear coupler was floppy, so I applied the same fix of coating the threads with fingernail polish to hold them and tightening the mounting screw almost tight.

The two non- traction tire wheels on the rear truck were both pressed on crooked. Running the loco upside down, they really looked bad. Fortunately they did not affect the loco operation as badly as it looked like they should. Maybe because they did not have tires, maybe because they were not gauged too wide? I tried to straighten the worst one, but the pressure required was greater than I was comfortable applying. I am wondering if the non-traction tire wheels are made with the center holes too small, so they must be pressed on with excessive force. There still seems to be no manufacturing fixtures to assure that the wheels are pressed on straight and to the proper gauge.

While there was grease on the external idler gears, there was no grease whatsoever on the brass worm gears on the motors.  I do not know the various friction properties of brass and Nylon, but worm gears slide in operation and they require grease, in my opinion.

The really ugly:

I ran the loco on a freight train on my layout at medium/slow speed for about 45 minutes one night. The track is O-54 with no switches. The cars were mostly old wooden/metal kits from the 40’s and 50’s, all equipped with modern trucks made by Atlas. Everything ran smoothly and no odd noise or excessive heat was observed.

Here’s where it gets strange.

The next morning, I fired up the track at 8 volts again. I happened to be looking at the loco when I turned the remote throttle. There was a brief flash of light inside the cab, just for an instant. It was a cold white flash, like an LED and not a yellow flash like a spark. All the lights worked as they should. All the sounds worked like they should. But the loco would not move.

Taking the loco to the work bench for some tests revealed some surprises.

Examining the circuit board with a magnifying glass revealed no cold solder joints, no non-soldered solder joints, no burn marks, no loose components, no burnt components, no loose plugs, nothing. Everything looked good.

Unplugging the motor plug and running the motors on DC, the motors did not draw excessive current. I did not record the actual current, but it was about  90% of the current drawn by similar Williams motors that I tested at the same time.

This is where it really gets strange. I plugged an incandescent light bulb into the socket where the motor plug goes, so the board was only powering the bulb, not the motors. The bulb was off when the remote was in neutral position, and lit up when turning the throttle either forward or reverse. It seems as if the board is working, but will not handle the current of the motors – but these motors are not drawing excessive current. Very strange.

Conclusion:

So now my roster has a Beta 1 that is almost unusable because of the abrupt starts and stops. The roster also has a Beta 3.5 that does not run at all.

I have to admit that I am losing faith in the product. I cannot find the receipt for the Beta 1, but the Beta 3.1 was $201.77 and shipping it back was $28, so I am roughly $400 in the hole with nothing to show for it. I could put reverse units or bridge rectifiers in the locos and run them until the gears fail – and they will. When that happens, I could retrofit the locos with Williams motors and drive blocks, but that seems like a lot of work and additional expense.

I thought being a Beta tester would be fun, and I still like doing it, but I did not realize that it would be so expensive.

Regards

Roy Yost from the west coast

@RoyBoy- re-wire your 1.0 in series. I just did my 1.0 last night and it makes a world of difference.

Thanks for the thorough review. I think all of us beta testers agree on the same construction and QC issues. I will consider buying more if these issues are addressed.

Bob

Shipping back my defective 3.5 back to Menards, a couple of weeks ago, cost me $17. The replacement one has just been shipped to me. I'll give an updated report as soon as it arrives. What possibly could go wrong with this new one?

Reading everyone's reviews it was never clear to me what improvements were actually made in the 3.0 and 3.5 releases compared to 2.0.  While Beta's 1 and 2 were met with a good deal of interest and excitement, it seems to me the subsequent releases have resulted in several negative comments and experiences, including my own. So unless Menards makes substantial changes in this engine design and manufacturing (misaligned/bent wheels, jump starts, horn quality, bad couplers, polymer drive components, truck color, etc) I don't see the benefit to their design team releasing a another tranche of products other than they get about $35,000 in sales revenue!! Nor do I see the need for reviewers to shell out out $175 of their own money when the same design and manufacturing issues seem to persist. Wouldn't Menards get substantially the same feedback by offering free engines to, say, 5 to 10 well-known evaluators like an Eric Siegel, Bob Keller or a few selected people in this forum?

As far as I can tell, here are the changes:

Beta 1 had the jump start/stop issues and plastic worm gears on the motors and packaging damage to the paint.

I did not get a Beta 2

Beta 3.1 had much improved firmware for the start/stop, and a brass worm gear on the motors only. But... the workmanship suffered and the wobbly wheels appeared.

Beta 3.5 was indistinguishable from 3.1 as far as poor/spotty/inconsistent assembly  workmanship. No design improvements that I could see.

The suggestion that Menard's could have supplied a limited number of engines to a select number of testers makes sense. Over the past few years, I have worked with several companies and provided detailed test results on new products, particularly wireless control systems.

@Bruce Brown posted:

Shipping back my defective 3.5 back to Menards, a couple of weeks ago, cost me $17. The replacement one has just been shipped to me. I'll give an updated report as soon as it arrives. What possibly could go wrong with this new one?

Hmmm.  That tells me there's more units waiting in the wings for 4.0 and 4.5 "upgrades" and "Beta Fever."

Rusty

@Bruce Brown posted:

Wouldn't Menards get substantially the same feedback by offering free engines to, say, 5 to 10 well-known evaluators like an Eric Siegel, Bob Keller or a few selected people in this forum?

I assume that since the "big name" train manufacturers require a minimum order for a production run Menards is no different. This is probably a number that the overseas manufacturer deems profitable.

The very selling of toy trains is merely a hobby itself for Menards. It has little if any effect on their bottom line. Investing in real testing probably isn't worth it.

It's nice for Menards to offer affordable alternatives in O Guage.

However, (and I say this respectfully as I know there are folks with limited budgets) Sometimes you get what you pay for.

Oh well.   At least you got to "enjoy the privilege" of testing their engine for free.

Some folks have said that that was the basic reason that they were willing to shell out the $175.

Mannyrock

By  "for free", I meant that the tester is not being paid anything for testing it out for Menards.  :-)    Instead, the tester is paying Menards!

Wouldn't it be great if we could all get our quality- control R&D done by somebody else,  and have him pay US for the "privilege?"

Mannyrock

@Mannyrock posted:

By  "for free", I meant that the tester is not being paid anything for testing it out for Menards.  :-)    Instead, the tester is paying Menards!

Wouldn't it be great if we could all get our quality- control R&D done by somebody else,  and have him pay US for the "privilege?"

Mannyrock

I didn't think that way until I purchased version 3 and it was identical to version 2 in every way.  I bought version 1 and 2 was an improvement, but each version should have something improved about it otherwise call it a second or third release of version 2 for the purpose of getting more feedback.

That is why I opted to stop at version 3.  It appears there is no change from versions 2 and 3 in version 3.5.  But that is maybe just me.  There were some who felt that by telling us what was improved we wouldn't be objective when we evaluated.  I give people more credit than that.

Either way, I am not unhappy I have the three locos.  They will be fun to try experiments on and share them on this forum just like Bob did (above).

John

@RoyBoy posted:

Here's my report on the Beta 3.5

Roy Yost’s test of Menards Beta 3.5 Santa Fe diesel loco  2/3/2022

First off, let me say thank you for replacing my poorly built Beta 3.1 with this Beta 3.5. It cost me about $28 to ship the 3.1 back to you, but it could have been worth it. Let me explain.

The good:

The loco came to me in fine condition. The packaging materials are doing their job.

The firmware is working well. Speeding the loco, slowing the loco, and reversing the loco were smooth. I would still prefer the first speed step to be slower than it is. I run the loco at about 8 volts of track power. I like to run at medium and slow speeds.

The loco body ran smoothly and without all the shimmying and shaking of the 3.1 model. Both wheels on one axle are pressed on crooked and that truck did a mild hunting/yawing while running, but the loco body seemed to run true. More on this later.

The body mounting bolts were installed with reasonable force, not like the excessive force used on my 3.1.

The bad:

I still feel strongly that the gears press fit onto steel axles must be made of metal and not plastic. Two plastic gears must be changed to metal if the loco is to have a long and happy life. These are the driven worm wheel gears and the drive gear for the external idler gears. Due to the different expansion rates of the steel axle and the plastic gears, the gears that are press fit onto steel shafts will eventually split and will rotate/slip on the shaft. Since it seems unlikely that this will actually happen, I may have to lower my expectations. But I still feel that these plastic gears will come back to bite Menards eventually. For me, if these gears get into production, that will be a deal breaker and would prevent me from purchasing a production model.

The couplers still sit a bit lower than standard. The “thumbtacks” on the couplers were not fully riveted and flopped around. The rear coupler was floppy, so I applied the same fix of coating the threads with fingernail polish to hold them and tightening the mounting screw almost tight.

The two non- traction tire wheels on the rear truck were both pressed on crooked. Running the loco upside down, they really looked bad. Fortunately they did not affect the loco operation as badly as it looked like they should. Maybe because they did not have tires, maybe because they were not gauged too wide? I tried to straighten the worst one, but the pressure required was greater than I was comfortable applying. I am wondering if the non-traction tire wheels are made with the center holes too small, so they must be pressed on with excessive force. There still seems to be no manufacturing fixtures to assure that the wheels are pressed on straight and to the proper gauge.

While there was grease on the external idler gears, there was no grease whatsoever on the brass worm gears on the motors.  I do not know the various friction properties of brass and Nylon, but worm gears slide in operation and they require grease, in my opinion.

The really ugly:

I ran the loco on a freight train on my layout at medium/slow speed for about 45 minutes one night. The track is O-54 with no switches. The cars were mostly old wooden/metal kits from the 40’s and 50’s, all equipped with modern trucks made by Atlas. Everything ran smoothly and no odd noise or excessive heat was observed.

Here’s where it gets strange.

The next morning, I fired up the track at 8 volts again. I happened to be looking at the loco when I turned the remote throttle. There was a brief flash of light inside the cab, just for an instant. It was a cold white flash, like an LED and not a yellow flash like a spark. All the lights worked as they should. All the sounds worked like they should. But the loco would not move.

Taking the loco to the work bench for some tests revealed some surprises.

Examining the circuit board with a magnifying glass revealed no cold solder joints, no non-soldered solder joints, no burn marks, no loose components, no burnt components, no loose plugs, nothing. Everything looked good.

Unplugging the motor plug and running the motors on DC, the motors did not draw excessive current. I did not record the actual current, but it was about  90% of the current drawn by similar Williams motors that I tested at the same time.

This is where it really gets strange. I plugged an incandescent light bulb into the socket where the motor plug goes, so the board was only powering the bulb, not the motors. The bulb was off when the remote was in neutral position, and lit up when turning the throttle either forward or reverse. It seems as if the board is working, but will not handle the current of the motors – but these motors are not drawing excessive current. Very strange.

Conclusion:

So now my roster has a Beta 1 that is almost unusable because of the abrupt starts and stops. The roster also has a Beta 3.5 that does not run at all.

I have to admit that I am losing faith in the product. I cannot find the receipt for the Beta 1, but the Beta 3.1 was $201.77 and shipping it back was $28, so I am roughly $400 in the hole with nothing to show for it. I could put reverse units or bridge rectifiers in the locos and run them until the gears fail – and they will. When that happens, I could retrofit the locos with Williams motors and drive blocks, but that seems like a lot of work and additional expense.

I thought being a Beta tester would be fun, and I still like doing it, but I did not realize that it would be so expensive.

Regards

Roy Yost from the west coast

Roy,

Nice write up!!  Excellent analysis. 

Maybe someone will bring one to show tomorrow and run on layout.  Have to ask Chris to bring his as I don't believe he has a table.

See you tomorrow,  Mike D

@Mike Desing posted:

Roy,

Nice write up!!  Excellent analysis.

Maybe someone will bring one to show tomorrow and run on layout.  Have to ask Chris to bring his as I don't believe he has a table.

See you tomorrow,  Mike D

I will have my Beta 1 for sale on my table. I hope to get a percentage of what I paid and retrieve at least some of my money.

@Dan Kenny posted:

Maybe the minimum order for a production run is much more than the number they offer for beta testing!

On my shipping box, and that of Hokie71, it indicates that there were a total of 250 in the batch. So maybe they have 50 spares anticipating a 25% failure-return rate of the 200 publicly announced!! 

Hello O gauge friends,

Although I am primarily an S Gauge American Flyer collector/sometimes operator, I enjoy all aspects of the train and toy train hobby.  I have been following the Menards entry into the O gauge market since their first products came on the scene.  

Full disclosure: I have purchased the Menards “Frenchies” Lionel Train House Chevy Panel Van and their Valley Motors Ford Dealership.  We lived near Sea-Tac in Seattle in the late 40s and early 50’s which is where “French’s” train store was apparently located.  Also my dad was a Ford dealer from 1960 to 1984, and the Menards Valley Motors is very reminiscent of one of our older downtown dealerships.

I believe every “Lionel” needs an MTH or a “K-Line” (or in my case, an S- Helper, American Models, MTH or, hopefully, ScaleTrains) to keep them on their toes and competitive and to allow people of all economic levels to enter and enjoy the hobby.  As some of those names have exited the market, it is good to see others come in or increase their participation.

So I have been interested in the “Beta Testing” of the Menards Santa Fe Diesel Loco, and I am hoping for its eventual successful introduction into the O Gauge market, followed by other such locos at moderately affordable prices.

That said, can anyone verify for me whether any of the production problems identified by the reviewers of the previous beta test models actually have been successfully addressed in the later releases?  If so, which ones?

Thank you,

Alan

An S Gauger in an O Gauge World

Bruce

Times 4

I received from Menards today a replacement for the non-operable Santa Fe I originally got 3 weeks ago. The good news is that this one actually works!

The 2nd through 4th generation versions have been thoroughly reviewed by others in this forum so I will try not to repeat too much....

Here goes:

a. Measured drawbar pull at 12 VAC: 1.0 to 1.1 lbs

b. Minimum track voltage: 7 VAC (but slow speed);  engine works OK at 12 VAC.

c: Couplers won't open on uncoupling track because thumbtacks are too low.

d. Engine vertically jumps/bounces through Ross switches (but does not derail). Problem is that the wheel rises at the frog. Wheel dimensions apparently not the same as MTH. Lionel, etc.

e. Too rapid minimum speed (even at 12 VAC); engine exhibits flywheel effect but makes the engine somewhat uncontrollable in terms of using remote control to precisely position engine at a specific location; e.g., having the thumbtack positioned exactly over the uncoupling track electromagnet just by using the remote.

f. Horn makes pulsating background sound on long press of horn button; not a pure tone.

I reviewed the 2.0 and 3.5 in this video I uploaded today. Also, I compare both to the Santa Fe Diesel in Lionel’s RTR set.

@TheRambles posted:

I reviewed the 2.0 and 3.5 in this video I uploaded today. Also, I compare both to the Santa Fe Diesel in Lionel’s RTR set.

Outstanding review!

I think it bothers me that a Wunderbar was used to tear open the box (and as a hammer) and a ruler to open the camshell in a review.  There are things in this world called box cutters (or Stanley knifes) and small hammers.

Interesting the Lionel box apparently wasn't assaulted with the Wunderbar.

Rusty

@TheRambles posted:

I reviewed the 2.0 and 3.5 in this video I uploaded today. Also, I compare both to the Santa Fe Diesel in Lionel’s RTR set.

Excellent review. I also picked up the complete Lionel RTR SuperChief set for $209 on that 4 hour Amazon sale. I gave it as a Christmas gift to the very young son of a close friend of ours. He absolutely loves it. His parents say it is his favorite toy. (I never got to see it operate myself.)  But as I, Tony, and many others here have discovered, "caveat emptor" applies to anyone planning on purchasing the next iteration of this Menards engine.

What's somewhat surprising about the posted reviews is how behind the technical curve this engine appears to be. I have tested a large number of available sophisticated control systems and this engine seems to be lightyears behind what is currently commonplace for engine control systems.

@BOB WALKER posted:

What's somewhat surprising about the posted reviews is how behind the technical curve this engine appears to be. I have tested a large number of available sophisticated control systems and this engine seems to be lightyears behind what is currently commonplace for engine control systems.

I dont know , but It seems to be about the same as Lionels low end remote ?

The currently most advanced control systems in the OGauge arena are Legacy, LionChief2.0 and BlueRailTrains all of which are highly sophisticated and have been generally available for some time.

The  Rail chief remote I have must be an earlier model, and its receiver is currently installed In a MTH Rail  Car chassis  that is Waiting for my McKeen Car.  Dead rail of course.    I have no need for Lionels new electronics.

@Bruce Brown posted:

f. Horn makes pulsating background sound on long press of horn button; not a pure tone.

Maybe it is a repeating sound loop?

@BOB WALKER posted:

What's somewhat surprising about the posted reviews is how behind the technical curve this engine appears to be.

I think what’s surprising is how behind every curve this Menards Loco is. Anyone feel free to correct me.

1. Didn’t Lionel create an operating knuckle coupler in 1947? That’s 75 year old technology.

2. A die cast block truck that’s machined with axles and gears, Lionel came out with in 1955? That’s 67 year old technology.

3. A traction tire that fits in a grooved wheel. Did American Flyer use this before Lionel in the 60’s? Let’s say 60 year old technology?

Menards you’re doing something very wrong if you can’t get these pretty old ideas right. How many more beta’s are needed to figure that out?

I put my phase 1 loco on the shelf. I'm going to try Bob's re-wire suggestion and see how it runs.

I ran my phase 3.5 loco a few times. It gets very warm to the touch after 10 to 15 minutes of run time. I checked the trucks and everything moves easily. So no binding.

As an amendment to my last review, I attempted to add the venerable Lionel passenger cars Elizabeth, Summit, Clifton and Newark to the engine.  The Santa Fe rear coupler dangles so low that the Lionel cars could not even couple. Unless I modify the rear coupler height, my engine is totally useless to pull any Lionel freight or passenger cars.

Where do we formally send feedback to Menards? Is this the correct email:  guest@menard-inc.com.

Totally useless…. I used to take my airplane models I goofed up and load them with snakes (remember those) and firecrackers with a model glue lead in as a fuse to give them a proper send off.  Menards should offer those as an add on.  Just a thought.

To raise the rear coupler height, I took off the shell and removed the motor to free the truck. By turning a loose screw, I was able to raise the knuckle coupler. I did not completely tighten the screw in order that the coupler arm could still swing freely laterally.

The knuckle still sits a bit lower than other brands but now is usable. BTW, when I had the shell off, I made the series-motor wiring mod implemented by several others.

Bruce did the series-motor wiring mod work?

Hokie 71 that is the correct email address. They will get the info to the correct party. It might take a day or 2 to get an answer.

@RSJB18 posted:

@RoyBoy- re-wire your 1.0 in series. I just did my 1.0 last night and it makes a world of difference.

Thanks for the thorough review. I think all of us beta testers agree on the same construction and QC issues. I will consider buying more if these issues are addressed.

Bob

Hi - is this rewiring explained elsewhere?  I have a 1.0 and that was my only issue, the jackrabbit starts.

Thanks.

@BwanaBob posted:

Hi - is this rewiring explained elsewhere?  I have a 1.0 and that was my only issue, the jackrabbit starts.

Thanks.

this thread has details

@BwanaBob posted:

Hi - is this rewiring explained elsewhere?  I have a 1.0 and that was my only issue, the jackrabbit starts.

Thanks.

Here's the pix again.

Series motor wiring is generally a good solution to too high a speed issue. A suggestion, wiring to the top of the motors without some form of strain relief for the wires can result in a broken connection at some point.

@RJ Shier posted:

Bruce did the series-motor wiring mod work?

It definitely slowed down the engine and made it a bit more controllable. On the other hand, the top speed now--unsurprisingly--feels slower than other engines in the toy category. (I can't prove that statement.)  As a childs toy or first-timers engine, I can't say that the motor modification will improve overall play-value. I think it is more important for Menards to fix all the other mechanical and manufacturing issues.

BTW, as others have mentioned the internal wiring and electronics board looks very good and well laid out.

It's probably good that Menard's is releasing small batches of these to work out the bugs.  I'd feel more confident in the "beta" releases if there was more progress between the releases.