With reference to the closed topic on the Trix 2775 Ae 610, for which I thank very much Mike C for his precision, I went back and verified my SBB Cargo collection.

As a matter of fact, the 37363 displayed the same mistake, as shown in these pictures

Marklin 37363 - Ae 610





As you can see, the red line is quite visible from the upper angle.

As a comparison,, here are other SBB cargo locos:

Marklin 37345 - Re 421 [edited]




Marklin 37421 - Re 620 [edited]



Therefore I have to say that the above topic ends for me in a draw:

Mike, you are right to say that this is a mistake that could have been prevented by painting also the edge

Hemmerich: you are right to say that the new 37360 model displays exactely the paint job of the old Re 610 Cargo. And it is not perfect, as you can see from the pictures

For me, it is not a big issue, since I like them anyway but I can see Mike point and I respect it

Here is the shot of the three locos together



regards,

Mario

Edited by user 16 July 2010 17:31:48(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

Mario:
Thank you for the very nice photos.

I only saw a few photos of the 37363 and the one that I saw seemed to have almost no problem. I must admit I did not look at it from the top down, but only at a little below eye level.
As I stated in the other topic, it would have been pretty simple for Maerklin to simply continue painting the relevant portion of the top of the main shell blue, which would have yielded a seamless appearance.
As Lutz stated, the Ae 6/6 is a different model from the Re 4/4 and the Re 6/6 in that the model consists of separate body and roof pieces. This should not, however, prevent Maerklin from doing a better job with the painting to make the model as prototypical as possible.
Other manufacturers have also had smal flaws in their Ae 610 Cargo models. Roco's model has the incorrect Swiss crest on the lok faces. They used the crest that would normally be found on one of the Canton loks (11401-11425), rather than the smaller one that was used one the City loks (11426-11520) without the chrome stripes. The Roco model also had a silver painted section on the roof, which did not look prototypical to me as this should be painted gray on the Cargo loks.
The Hag model only has headlights on the front running end of the lok and has issues with light bleeding through the mounting hole for the motor bogie.
Both the Roco and Hag models do currently have the updated appearance with the modified handrails and the bottom mounted wipers.
As I already have several of the Maerklin model, I was anticipating the model and this would be my first Ae 6/6 with sound.
Ideally, I would want to look at the lok to decide whether it was acceptable to me. Can anybody suggest how I can do this, given the fact that a) there is no dealer within 500km of Montreal, b) if I made the trip, the closest dealers will at most have one of said item in stock and not a handful, making it impossible to choose the best of the lot, leaving only the "take it or leave it" option? In Germany or in Switzerland, most shops will have one or two in stock and if you don't like the way the models look in one shop, there is always another place a few km away that will have more.
So, I have no option, but to ask my dealer to send me a photo of the model they are going to send me, and if the flaw is too visible, to then ask that it be returned to Maerklin so that the appropriate work can be completed. Other than that, I will have no option other than to forget about this model...

The bottom line is that if enough of us ask Maerklin to improve this model in the next few weeks, they may actually make the changes before the models scheduled September release. If we do nothing, then we will get the model AS IS. If the model is corrected, it will still be a Maerklin model, but will be a BETTER Maerklin model, so what do we have to lose?

Regards

Mike C

Now that you mention it, yes, I agree that sound on the Marklin Ae6/6 is another weak point...

I would put it down on the type and/or size of speaker used. It's got probably one of the weakest speaker of all my models...

Welcome back Ranjit.

Thanks for the pictures Mario. Allows for a much better idea of the issue.

Close, but no cigar! Sorry Rajnish, welcome anyway. Yes, I thought you were Ranjit. Must be going cross eyed!

Thanks Mario,

Some wonderful pictures you made!

@ Mike: Just a thought, but striping tape in the same blue color found in an automotive shop might do the job. In my copy of the Ae 6/6 37363 model, the red stripe is hardly descernable and appears to be at the top of the chassis, so only a small piece of tape might be sufficient.

P.S.: sorry, Mario no lecture intended, but I think the Märklin model numbers of the Re 421 and Re 620 are interchanged in your posting.

Thanks Mario,

As already mentioned in the other topic about the Ae 6/6 or rather Ae 610 Cargo loco, the roof is a removable part of of the body. Two small screws are all that hold it. Once removed one can easily add some paint or tape to the red part above the blue Cargo painting.
Agreed, this may not be to everybody's liking, but still it could be "corrected" in this fairly easy way.

Mario,

I did not only say that, but also pointed out that the paint job is unchanged the same for every Ae 6/6 model since 1992; the green or red "line" on the roof is clearly visible on all of them. Every owner of a Märklin Ae 6/6 can verify and should be able to confirm this, starting right away with the "Bern" or "Geneve"; in particular for the ladder indent section and especially for those in "red" body or silver roof livery. Thus the cargo models are no different.

Fact really is - this nice model has been produced now multi thousand times in the last two decades including those 999 cargo models - and until now NO complaint was known/raised towards Märklin to change this part of the livery. Yes, on the cargo models the line might be more apparent than on the other versions, but your picture shows it only from one single angle and substantial "magnified". In almost any other view it's much less apparent to even invisible; not even to speak about the usual viewing distance to the model (I'm speaking of a normal operation on a layout).



Therefor your conclusion is very correct - it doesn't bother you (neither does me) and that's apparently how almost all customers viewed and still view it too. They also don't need others "support" to drag Märklin conducting changes which are merely nice to have, but imply additional resources and cost. There will always be certain differences between a model and its corresponding prototype and minor differences like this are just normal; due to whatever reason/s (here it's the additional effort required to paint as well the upper part of the body in the same livery as the separately mounted roof).

As said (different to some others) I have all those models and do know what I'm talking about; not only regarding the Ae 6/6 models, but as well for the relevant prototype(s) - which I happen to see and "explore" very regularly. As an example, the earlier mentioned "indent" is not the only detail which is nicely reflected on the Märklin models (and not just on the Ae 6/6), but there is much more behind that in real operation (and could be a topic for another forum). Just for clarification - painting the relevant roof section in blue as it was suggested here lately would be completely wrong regarding the prototype/s.

Nevertheless, I'm waiting to see what happens.

If Märklin changes their livery process for this model in future, fine with me; if not, fine too. If I really wanted to have this detail changed for any model/s of my collection, regardless whether in the past, now or in future, I surely know how to manage this to my own satisfaction; for example like Guus mentioned. No different than for the pantos, the windows, interior lighting or the loco drivers in the past and pretty soon as well for the rails and wipers on my "Erstfeld".

BTW: Still missing the same level of complaints and correction demands for the prototypically even worse wrong vertical handrails and/or specific roof livery "mistakes" on the very same Ae 610 models from HAG by those people who feel it being inacceptable on the Märklin models.

PS: Some words about not having seen a model or "exact" picture thereof before purchase - many worldwide customers, including here, today purchase online and the rules are mostly clear and the same everywhere: If you don't like what you get/got you can always reject it (in our country it's not even required to give any reason).

The Ae 6/6 design has a lip on the edge of the roof. The Maerklin model has this as part of the main locomotive shell and not part of the separate roof piece. On the green and red models, this detail was not particularly noticeable, as the shell was one colour and the roof was silver or gray. With the new Cargo livery, the main shell is painted in blue and red sections. The fact that Maerklin chose to use red as the base coat and apply the blue paint to the appropriate section has resulted in this strip of the top of the shell remaining red, and creating a nonprototypical red stripe at the lip of the roof. Yes, Lutz has a point, that it would be rather expensive to paint this whole area the same colour as the roof, which would correspond to how the actual loks are painted. For modelling purposes, the easiest solution to eliminate this visible red stripe would have been to either select blue as the base colour or to simply have painted the lip of the body shell blue adjacent to the blue section, which would have resulted in the blue meeting the gray and the red meeting the gray, which would not have been prototypical, but would have been a far sight better than the models as shown here. No matter what is said by those who feel that it must be perfect because it is Maerklin, it would still have improved the model.



I have one of the Hag Ae 6/6s. It is a green Canton lok with the chrome stripes. It is an older model from the 1990s. I have not complained about the Hag models, whether it be about the diagonal handrails that are not anchored in the footboard, the light that shines through the motor bogie opening or any of the other weak points on that model because I have not ordered any of those models.
I have mentioned on several occasions that the Roco model is equipped with the incorrect Swiss Crest for one of the second series Ae 6/6 loks. The Roco model comes with the larger chrome crest from one of the first series, the so-called Canton loks with the chrome stripes. The Roco model additionally has the main segment of the roof painted silver, which does not correspond to the loks that I have seen in prototype.

For that, and other reasons, I decided to wait for the Maerklin model, and as these were the first photos of the actual model that I had seen, I decided to report this flaw in the forum and to contact Maerklin and ask them to make the necessary corrections to the model. Whether they correct one model specifically for me or correct the entire batch before shipping is at their discretion. I have stipulated to my dealer that they should not send the model to me if the red stripe is visible. I invited them to send me photos of the lok selected for me, so that I could either approve or reject the model before it is shipped to me. I am quite aware of the German and EU laws pertaining to the right of return of purchases, but as it costs 35 Euros to get here and another $30-60 dollars if I choose to return it, I would rather have the ability to make that decision before the item is actually under way.

As far as Guus' suggestion that it can be painted. Yes, it could be done, but at the prices that they expect us to pay for these locomotives, they should be able to get it right and we shouldn't have to kitbash a new model and void the warranty just to get it correct...

...and before this topic too is locked, this argument is simply a difference of opinion between a modeller who collects and models Swiss loks and expects his loks to be as true to the prototype as possible and somebody who collects Maerklin and for whom that is more important than whether it is prototypical or not. Unfortunately, this person does not feel that I have a right to reveal such a flaw in this forum. The forum should allow for such comments/reviews/criticisms...

Regarding Lutz' response to Rajnish: Actually, the Hag lok has the blue section painted all the way to the lip of the roof, where the blue meets the gray. That is correct and prototypical for this locomotive. The lip of the roof, which is red on the Maerklin lok, is painted the same colour as the roof, as the Hag model is made of one piece and not two as is the Maerklin model.

I never said that painting the top of the main shell blue (adjacent to the blue side panels) would be absolutely prototypical, but it would certainly be better looking than the current appearance of the lok.

Regards,

Mike C

Good Pics and the red at the top is pretty clearly seen. I would think that if you want an accurate model (re paintwork) then you dont buy it but if you like it the way it is then you do. HAG would be the way to go for correct paint but then maybe it has something which may not be correct as well that is OK on the Marklin model.


dave

Interesting point, allthough I'm not certain about the bottom overlapping the grey section.

Slightly off topic, but I must inform you that the SBB have recently decided to rebuild their locomotives following the standards set by Marklin - among other reasons in order to avoid discussions such as those contained in this thread...

Since the end of June, 2010, SBB's Re 4/4 II 11229 actually is equipped with LED headlights. It looks awful, but it is "Marklin-prototypical".

In a similar attempt to imitate Marklin models, all Re 460 will soon see their pantographs exchanged from the traditional Schunk type to the Faiveley units which have been tested on some locos for quite some time.

The factual information contained in this message is true and NOT a belated April Fools joke!

If you look at the left of the blue segment, you will see that there is one small space where the blue extended onto the top of the main shell. If the entire surface had been painted, the red stripe would not be visible and even though it would not be entirely prototypical, it would not draw the eye's attention as does the red stripe, and this would have resulted in a better model.

Regards

Mike C

Hmmm.... - when comparing the excellent close-up pictures by Guus of the model to this picture

http://www.trainzitaliaf...71/size/big/si/Ae610.500

I increasingly get the impression that the actual problem might be caused by the fact that the separate Marklin roof part is less wide than the body. If the roof met the side walls "snugly", the color flaw would at least be less apparent.

I think it is now time for me to compare a couple of Marklin and HAG Ae 610...

I have just compared my Marklin 37363 and a HAG Ae 610, and can confirm that you are right: A narrow "lip" or "step" between the loco's side and the roof is present on both models. And to be fair, I must say that the resulting red line on my 37363 is so thin that it is hardly noticeable - on the photos posted above, the effect looks far more dramatic than when looking at the actual model.

However, in my opinion, HAG's painting/printing solution looks slightly better: the horizontal "step" is exactly the same color as the roof, and thus no red or blue interference is visible anywhere.

I thought that TGV trains already used Faiveley CX pantos and not Schunk. I may be wrong, but I work in railway equipment design (although not in pantos design) and at least I'm sure that the 574+ km/h world-speed record train used a single Faiveley panto (a modified CX panto) to pick up the current from the catenary.

Seems like Swiss models are a bit more scrutinized in the forum than other, regarding prototypicality...

I have a new German MäTrix model - and when I find time to post pictures I'll also mention the missing handrails and footsteps.

For era V & VI models there are many digital pictures on the web so customers can easily point out flaws of the models.
M* could use those pictures to avoid these flaws ...

There are several reasons/causes for this phenomen; "one" in particular.

Hmmm - did you really "overlook" these remarks: " " ?

Just for clarification - and almost needless to say - the TGV POS is equipped with Faiveley CX pantos (I see and examine the train very often here in Stuttgart); but obviously not with the modified version as used for the world record. And Yes, as everyone can see from the product description, Märklin also plans to deliver their TGV model as well with a newly created design (by Sommerfeldt) of the Faiveley CX panto.

I'd rather say "that the models are fully acceptable even if..."

BTW: My comment regarding "reasons/causes" was not specifically related to people.



It is obvious that those who are willing to accept a model "as delivered", even by knowing that it doesn't 1000% match all prototype details, are being personally attacked here for their tolerant opinion (you know the response I gave you regarding some of those "... postings").



Not only I can very well live with "imperfect" models - knowing that it is a fact in model railroading; if others can't it's their own personal problem. IMHO such kind of (in this example) Swiss models are also offered by Lematec, Fulgurex, EMB, etc. and might be much more suitable for those folks; maybe even regarding the price.

"Minor issue" complaints and change requests are nothing wrong or bad, unless they are expressed just by a few and too late in the product generation process with potential negative impact to the vast majority of customers; for examply by leading to higher cost, delayed delivery, reduced usability or more stringent operating conditions (like very fragile extra pieces, requiring larger radii, etc.).

Coming up with "last minute" change requests, especially for minor details that are not even seen critical by most customers IMHO has only some chances for acceptance if the change can just be done with the snap of a finger (like for the VT08 recently).

Although claimed here different, this body livery change is definitely not done just by the "snap of a finger" for this new Ae 610 or any future Ae 6/6 model.

In particular regarding this "case" here: I pointed out that, although very apparent, this particular body livery change had not been requested during the last 20 years; thus it was not perceived and claimed as a major product deficiency - not even for the Ae 610 cargo predecessor model #37373 "Erstfeld". Opposed to that, the prototype discrepancy of the handrails and wipers on that "exclusive" model had knowingly been pointed out to Märklin; also long enough in advance such that they could implement change now for this new 2010 Ae610 cargo model #37360.

Nevertheless, it's all up to Märklin, which is good since they know "their" customers and what those want and should get.

Slightly off topic but I love the access ladder (steps) in this picture.
The colour, cleanliness and general bulkiness of it almost gives a "model railway plastic kit" atmosphere don't you think?

I can easily find thousands and thousands of very unhappy ex-Marklin customers who are disatisfied with Marklin these days and refuse to even have anything to do with Marklin. Of course they don't post in Marklin forums because they have turned their backs on Marklin.

So if Marklin know "their" customers, how come their customer base continue to shrink year after year, as witnessed by their total sales numbers?

Such simple generalization might be correct to a point, but the opposite is also true.



Point taken that it's difficult, time consuming, costly, and can be negative to make "last minute" changes to a production ready model,
but the overall argument seems to point that you don't really like it if other people taken the initiative to point out certain issues that if addressed correctly from the start by Marklin would have led to an improvement to their overall product satisfaction.

The true measure of greatness of any business is to be able to address the needs of their most difficult or demanding customers and retain their customers; as this is the market share that is up for grabs.

If 90% of Marklin customers have the same high level satisfaction as you, than 90% of their customer base is VERY secured. Then they don't really need to worry about retaining their sales now, would they?

The way I see it, there is only one way that Marklin can improve their product / quality / satisfaction, it is by listening to those customers who speaks up.

If, as you seem to suggest, no one should put their hands when Marklin asked, "in what area do you think we can improve ourselves",
wouldn't Marklin just be taking stabs in the dark, perhaps assuming that they had always "known" their customers, and that the same formula would always do the trick twice regardless?

Interesting point. Who are those beta testers? MArklin fanatics who will accepta flaw or two just to keep the legacy alive in these difficult times? That might ne convienient but thos not lead to better products on the long term.

I'm also very curious what customer profile Marklin has in mind offering us these products?

Personally I think the group of customers who will accept everything because it is MArklin, is getting smaller and smaller.

Therefor it might be a good idea to put more effort in there testing before launching a product.