I'm just guessing here, but this is what I have heard from other companies that had the same problems (Rivarossi/Concor steam locos). At the end of the day, the factories (in the far east) would clean up the (contaminated) slag that was on the floor and put it back into the melting pots...probably to save on costs. This introduced contamination into the process. Since it usually takes years before the rot becomes apparent, the company that made the frame (almost always not the importer/manufacturer) doesn't care...not their problem. I'm also guessing that the one time MT had an issue it was probably related to humidity. I understands it occasionally rains in Oregon...but it was a problem that only seemed to happen one time. Not defending anyone here, I don't believe that IM did this on purpose. I doubt if QC could have detected it in advance as well since it takes years before the problem starts happening and it is intermittent...the IM F units I have (only a couple) seem fine while only several miles away DCESharkman (David) had devastation happen to his locomotives (of course, he has WAY more than I have). Of course, I believe that IM should have at least tried to offer a solution...like free replacement frames, or, at the very least, a significant discount on the new F units, but they chose not to offer anything, which is sad.
They did until I guess they were gone. I got a free frame for the one I bought used in 2019. Problem with that though was that it was defective and fell apart when I tried to put the loco back together. Sumner
I would hope that nobody participating in this discussion believes that any company does this on purpose.
When you hire someone to do a job the goal is to do it right the first time. That's what I.M. needed to build the best locomotives and motors out there. In this case a different culture and tolerances flashed back on I.M. I might add here this isn't a new problem with Pot Metal, White Metal, and the metal used to make I.M. locomotives. Tyco, Roundhouse, and others had the same problem. Sad to see this happening. Prompts me to ask, I have to ask, when do we learn?
NO...I don't think anyone believes so. However...As a manufacturer they need to stand behind their product. 'STUFF Happens' as they say. But to bury their heads in the sand hoping it all goes away is a fools errand ! I believe most are trying to find a solution or at least wonder why IM has given up on a solution for their customers. IM trying to just ignore this whole mess doesn't reflect well on them. IMHO They offered replacement frames...for awhile. Even then it was a 'one off' offer. If a consumer had 1 maybe 2 bad frames they offered replacements...until they ran out of frames. Anyone with many more of their locomotives with bad frames where left empty handed. IM needs to offer a reasonable solution. Jeff made what I think is a reasonable solution which I don't see IM doing...
IM was pretty smart in making the frames to start with. They made one frame that fits both the A Units and B units ! The B unit frames just didn't have the headlight...otherwise the are identical. I have been picking the rotting frames out of the many bad F units DCESharkman has. Almost all of the shells are still in excellent shape. All the internal components are working fine. It is those really nice shells people are really bummed about losing ! Why can't IM just contract with their Chinese manufactures to just make new replacement frames for those older F units. Just the frames. No motors or any other parts. The consumer could easily put the internal parts from the old frame into the new frame. And YES...send them to the consumers with bad frames....AT NO COST !!! Yes...IM would have to absorb the cost, but I would think that would be a small price to pay to save their reputation! .
I think as long as goods are manufactured in overseas vs. your own in-house factory, there's almost no way to completely ensure against this. Unless you had a full-time rep there (who you completely know and trust) watching every move like a hawk (including where the floor debris goes probably after hours) They would also have to have great understanding all the intricacies of working with these metals and I suppose also have the ability to spot test the mixture (or whatever the proper word for that is). Of course, this rep would be an additional expense. You could address it in the initial agreements/contracts but, as it has been mentioned, this issue may not crop up for a number of years or even decades and who know what your recourse might be then.
At this point, I don't think there is any "saving"..........IM has taken too big a hit. I've seen a number of comments in this thread of "I'll never buy Intermountain again" and a bunch of people trying to second guess if they should avoid IM stuff. It's too late to fix anything......the damage is done. I'm sure IM feels a bit lost........even if they fixed all the bad frames, word of mouth has already far exceeded the number of bad frames, and fixing them is unlikely to fix the damage to their reputation. Even if they sent new frames out, from comments made here, I doubt it would change the way most people already feel. All IM can do is move forward and try to continue producing a good product (there has never been issues with their cars) and providing good product support (they have ALWAYS come thru for me when I've had issues....even when it was my fault), and try to win back our support. I have no problem buying products from them down the road.
I have never owned an IM product but judging from what I have heard here, their detailing is excellent. I will play Devil's Advocate here for a moment though. They are not a monster corporation with unlimited funds. Their care to detail is obvious, so I will presume their desire for customer care is on par with that. How ever, their supplier screwed them over royally too. As a business, they are trying to satisfy customers and still afford to keep their own doors open. They may not be able financially to replace the disastrous frames out there without going out of business. Perhaps they could find a supplier to produce the replacement frames and make them available at cost. I have a couple of older Atlas locomotives with the Zamac frames that have failed, yes it is annoying, and even infuriating, but I don't think IM is deliberately trying to blow anyone off.
I have it from a very reliable source that there is a manufacturer of really beautifully detailed N Scale stuff that has it's own metallurgist at the Chinese factory that does just that !! .
While I mostly agree with everything you said Dave. IM should have (1) Known the Zinc rot was a known issue in this type of metal for years and years (not just in model trains) and (2) had a contingency plan in place in case things like Zinc rot happened like they did for them. Unless ignoring things and hoping for the best like they are doing is/was their contingency plan JMO
What IS the reason manufacturers use this material for frames? Why don't they make them out of copper, or aluminum, or steel, or plastic?
As I see it IM was a bit unlucky to get hit by a supplier for its loco using substandard zamac but the measure of a company is how it treats its customers. We've seen MT resolve the same issue for customers quickly and they have a very good reputation. By not coming to the party IM have lost some of the good reputation that they had. It's worth noting that their rolling stock is fine and of good quality so by not attempting to resolve the zincpest issue they risk endangering their N Scale Rolling stock market. What's the way forward for Intermountain?, they are going to have to work very hard in showing modelers that they no longer have a zincpest problem which will take years but if they keep producing fine quality items they will get over the hump. They just need to focus on quality and prototypical accuracy of their models. Back 20 years ago IM showed lots of promise with lots of products slated and an excitement among the mrr community, it's kind of sad to see them go this low.
It bothers me that we seem to be treating this as a problem that just happened and that we are not happy with the way IM is handling it. I had a SD45 that had the problem in 2019 and they sent a new frame even though I wasn't the original owner. According to SpookShow these were introduced in 2008, 15 years ago. Not sure over what time period they were produced but it seems from some posts it was some time before the zinc rot materialize. We can talk about it all we want years later but it isn't going to change the approach that IM took to resolve the problem back then. In my case I feel they did what was adequate for me, others feel differently but are we going to keep putting this company down for something that at this point happened a fair bit in the past. When is enough enough? When they go out of business for how they handled this some years ago or who they are now? I can't see it benefiting us to see them go out of business and a thread like this that goes on and on sure isn't helping them remain in business. Maybe some of us would like to have access to their products going forward and like to see them remain in business. Some of you have mentioned similar problems from other manufactures, maybe not on the same scale but I'd like to know if all of those problems where handled by receiving a new frame. If we expect IM to of done this then surely all of those manufactures should of sent out new frames. Did you all get one? Sumner
No one is trying to put them out of business ! That is not what this is about. This is about customer service. Plain and simple. It is not about a customer asking for a new frame because of something they did. This is something that came from the manufacturer...even if it happened years later. Obviously MT has done a good job of fixing the problem for customers. I have also read Atlas had the same problem and took care of their customers too. IM may have taken care of their customers in the past but haven't lately. Will MT and Atlas still send out a new frame if a customer just comes across a frame problem on an old locomotive today> That I can't answer for sure...BUT...I am betting they would. Customer service it what has put Micro Trains and Atlas in the top tier of Model Railroading companies they are today. JMO .
I can accept than a manufacturer can't support a model forever. AZL had this zinc rot issue with their first run of Z scale GP38s. And of course it wasn't noticed until 10 years down the road. They had their factory with the next production run produce extra chassis for the first run locomotives, and they are available as a $40 chassis exchange program. You pay $40 and ship them the old chassis (you keep the shell), they send you a whole new chassis. They couldn't do it for free, but they did it at cost. I think that is perfectly acceptable way to deal with this. IM currently has a bunch of locomotives for reservation, so it would be cool if they could do something like this. Otherwise your option is to buy a whole new locomotive to put a chassis under your old favorites.
