LGB 24267 RuKB steam loco 0-6-0TT 99 4652

idlemarvel said:
I am miffed by LGB trying to tell me mine was a one-off, but as @PaulRhB said it was probably a standard response rather than a thoughtful one.
Click to expand...

If the majority of owners have simply gone about modifying the fall plate, then LGB won't know there's a problem - it's one of the issues when manufacturers don't have demonstration railways, they don't learn about the bugs
:confused:
 
I have decided to send the loco back to LGB/Maerklin for "repair" so we'll see what they come back with.
I could have done what MaybachMD MaybachMD did and others suggested and modify the footplate myself but as a matter of principle I would like LGB to acknowledge the problem and fix my loco.
 
LGB returned my loco today. They have fixed it by removing the tool box on the tender so that the footplate now has room to lie on top of the tender foot plate, see before and after pictures.

BEFORE
152576_ce54b1bee0f03f2fecf43b30646abb34.jpg

AFTER
IMG_20201001_131825.jpg

Not sure it bears close inspection and I would have thought it would have been easier to reduce the size of the folding footplate, but it now runs round R1 curves no problem. They have reset the decoder which I wasn't expecting but I guess they do that to test it before they return it. It cost me £20 to send it but they paid the return postage, and returned it within 4 weeks.

IMG_20201001_140805.jpg

I am reasonably content with the end result, but given that they ended up modifying the loco, it would have been better if they had acknowledged there was a problem on receipt of my loco, and provided some suggestions on how to modify the loco if desired. That way I would have known it was not a build fault with my particular model, even though I was already pretty sure it wasn't. I might have still asked them to fix it, but I might have decided to fix it myself.

I think the lesson from this is if you can fix it yourself, do it, and in retrospect I wish I had. Lesson learned.:(
 
Dave

Thanks for reporting back. It is an interesting solution. Like you, I would have thought they would have gone for a redesign of the Fall plate. Thanks for taking the trouble to try to resolve the problem more effectively than than my file. I don’t feel quite so bad about my butchery now, though.

Regards

Simon
 
I would have thought that as the fault lay with the loco, they should have paid postage both ways.
 
JimmyB said:
I would have thought that as the fault lay with the loco, they should have paid postage both ways.
Click to expand...
You may be right but I don't really begrudge them that. Different matter if they had tried to charge me for the "repair" but that matter was never raised. My hope is that any future models of this loco take this design flaw into account.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom