Hi Mike,

Sorry, both links are not working.

Cheers

Renato

Hi Mike,

Yes, I have notice it. It is a error painting at factory.

>Marklin 37446 Ebay< click to zoom.

This one from stummi >Stummi 37446< look prefect!

The pictures that appear at first in the Stummi post are the Trix 22631. A few posts below, there is a photo of the Demonstrator (Handmuster) model of the new Maerklin model (Right click and select open in new tab)
https://abload.de/img/ha...stervonmrklin37zmupo.jpg

Regards

Mike C

IMHO a Review should be a Review: a hands on test of the real thing with own photographs.

So far we are discussing pictures showing on eBay and the famous hand-made samples showed at exhibitions - and so far nobody has commented how she runs.

Is it not the same body? Why would Marklin make a perfect example for Trix and a flawed one for Marklin?

Is it not possible that what we have is a one-off flawed model that was missed by the quality inspection? Maybe the bulk of the new models are perfectly OK?

As of today we have two offers on eBay - and both are flawed.

Between printing and boxing, the loco goes through many different hands (windows and roof details will be added, it gets clipped onto the loco frame, it gets a test run, finally it is packed into a box) and the dealer took it out of the box and took a photo instead of sending it back.
Several instances of quality inspection missed those flaws.

On Märklin TV we always see that each body is taken out of the printing machine by hand and gets a close inspection with a magnifying glass ...

I think we will soon see more and more pictures on eBay and maybe also on MRR fora.

Maybe they used airbrush for the Trix version and now tampon printing for the Märklin version.
Air brushing is done by hand, tampon printing is done by a robot.

A lot can go wrong with manual airbrushing, but robotized tampon printing gives reproducible results.

Tampo printing start up cost more than airbrushing, but labor cost is less. Perhaps they plan to make enough of the Marklin version that it became cost affective to change.
Provided they did change production methods. I think that is just speculation at this point.

The Trix model was in 2008. The Maerklin model is 2014. The Maerklin loco has a different road number than the Trix one. Maerklin already used that one in the hobby 36606.

There remains NO excuse for this shoddy paint job. Maerklin already received numerous complaints about the 37360 that had a very similar issue. If you want to see how Maerklin resolved that one, compare the Maerklin 37360 (corrected) with the Trix 22775. On that model, the main body was also painted red and then the blue was painted over the red, leaving an exposed red line at the top edge of the blue. Maerklin corrected this on the 37360 by either changing the base colour to blue and then painting the red sections over the blue, or by simply repainting the top edge of the blue section so that it was contiguous to the grey roof.

Here is the problem with this model:

1) There is a red line between the blue painted section and the grey roof.
2) The red paint (base coat) is visible underneath the handrails and inside the assorted cutouts in the locomotive shell
3) The red paint can also be seen around the cab side windows

All of these details are not prototypical, they are readily noticeable and detract from the model
I suspect that the base colour on the Trix model was blue and not red like the current model.

I have instructed my dealer to place my order on hold and to contact Maerklin to see whether they will repaint the loco.
I am waiting for the reply.

I just paid $60 to send my new 37347 back to Goeppingen because it was missing some wiring on delivery and I just paid a similar amount to send my ordered ACME "Ambrogio" container cars back to the dealer because the coupling shafts were jamming and the middle bogie was not freely rotating.
I am not in the mood to have to spend an additional amount to get a correct loco. This time they had better get it right before they ship it across the pond.
At $300+ per loco, I am not going to accept a model that could have been much better with a few minutes more work and care by the staff and management.

One last thing. If anybody wants a review, here it is (37465 DB 146):

With one added comment: The paint job on the SBB version SUCKS

Regards

Mike C

I based my assumption on the fact that the lining of the cabin side windows and the cutouts on the loco shell were blue.
In DSO forum it was suggested that the Trix model was probably airbrushed and the new Maerklin model might have had the blue applied by pad impression *aka Tampondruck)

I asked my dealer to look into this situation with Maerklin and his reply was that "communication with Maerklin is very difficult"

That does not leave a good feeling in my gut.

Regards

Mike C

I have not heard any reply from Goeppingen, so I sent my original message again. I hope to receive the standard acknowledgement and then a reply within a few days time.
I have decided that I will NOT buy this item if Maerklin does not correct the paint job. I would be willing to accept the model with the shell from the Trix 22631 or even with the white Crossrail shell from the 22636 but the 37446 shell is NOT acceptable AS IS.

Regards

Mike C

Here are the photos of the 37446 in it's original condition when received (before the swap):
The first one shows the red paint visible in the window frame of the side cab window, at the top edge of the blue painted side panel, underneath the handrail, the camera and the cut-outs in the loco shell.
The second one shows the red line at the edge of the roof and inside the cut-outs in the loco shell.
The third one shows the other end, with the roofline, the handrails, the cab window and the cut-outs
The fourth one is a close-up of the handrail showing very clearly how visible the red is.
The last one is the 22631 on the left and the 37446 on the right.

Regards

Mike C

Wow...that's a really bad paint job...completely unacceptable!

If there are enough people who let them know that the paintjob of the 37446 is considered "not acceptable", then maybe they will return to the old printing quality.

Not that it is any excuse, but the Roco model has the exact same curse. They did not paint the inside of the window frame. I took my model apart and did it myself. It makes a world of difference. I would of course prefer not to have to do it, but it is a work-around.

I have had the Trix models for ages, they are very good runners and I truly love them. The Roco counterpart "only" has a standard NEM 652 plug and does not come with the option to turn off the red taillights. I like that feature about the Trix models. The running conditions of the Roco and the Trix models are about the same.

Søren,

I have the 69592, 69599 (Holcim) and 69591.1 (ChemOil) and none of those locos has a problem with the red paint and the cab side windows. The only issue that I have found with the 69592 and 69591.1 is that the black painted section around the front windows is not 100% exact. I also have the 68506 (Re 482.2) without this problem either. Which Roco model do you have and can you post a photo of the problem?

Regards

Mike C

Lame. That someone approved it for production is simply shameful.

Mike,
Thank you for the photos and the review.
It would be nice to see a photo comparison between the 36606 and 37446/22631

Thanks! Very detailed comparison.