Hello,

I am happy to be able to report that I have finally seen photos of both sides of the model, showing both the cab with the pantograph and the one without.
My first question that has now been answered is whether the model is equipped with a destination sign in both cabs.

The answer to that appears to be YES.

This makes me very happy as the model can be run in either direction. The ebay photo also shows both sides outfitted with HO couplers. Some of the Re 4/4II models came with one end already fitted with a closed front skirt.

I never checked to see whether the actual locomotives have these destination signs on both sides. It would seem that, for example, on the run to Chur and back that one cab might say Zürich HB and the other might say Chur, In a push-pull consist, only one destination sign would be required, on the lead end of the locomotive, with the other sign being in the pilot coach. Hopefully one of our Swiss experts can elaborate on this.

The second question concerns the Swiss Pleitegeier logo (that's a lot of "e"s). I had noticed on my earlier 69842 and 62690 that there was a cut out where the logo symbol was set into the locomotive shell. I was hoping that the new model would have this more flush, but they have once again used the same design. The good news is that the ebay photos do not look as ill-fitting as some of the official Roco ones do.

I am going to have to adjust the roof wiring so that the wire leads from the air blast circuit breaker to the pantograph. In many of the photos, this seems slightly out of position. It should slide a little in the direction of the pantograph with a little manipulation.
https://www.roco.cc/resp...Mnw3NTAwMDAyLWQ1LmpwZw==

The ebay photos can be found here: https://www.ebay.com/itm/386517781668?

I guess that my lok will arrive at my dealer sometime within the next month.

Regards

Mike C

Roco detailing is super. Small add on parts can fall off and get lost. Marklin has also done a great job on detailing on the newer re 4/4 and re 420.

I had a chance over the past few days to do a lot of catching up and I have been dismayed by some of the posts about the new Roco Re 420 (Re 4/4II) on Drehscheibe and Stummi Forums:

https://www.stummiforum....xpress-erste-Bilder.html
https://www.drehscheibe-...en/read.php?010,10673214

It seems as though there is a significant problem with the rendering of the model.
One of the posts describe how the two hand rails on the side of the roof are incorrectly positioned. Another post goes on to mention that the battery compartment (the box which sits between the bogies) is inverted. The author describes how he had to modify the locomotive shell to get the shell to sit properly in the opposition direction with the battery compartments properly aligned. I presume that the battery compartment is a part which can be detached, but I am not certain it can be mounted in the other direction.

Thinking about these two issues, it occurred to me that both are symptoms of the same mistake. Neither part is falsely positioned. Where somebody at Roco made a mistake is that the pantograph and the roof details were added to the wrong side of the model during the design process or during the mould making process. I don't know how this affects the power feed from the pantograph to the PC board (if this exists).

In my opinion, the only way to correct this flaw would be for Roco to replace the shells for all customers who have ordered this model, so that all the details appear as they should per prototype.

Would this be a deal killer for you or would you accept it as is and just run it, even though it is visibly "off" from all of the other Re 4/4s that Roco has made?

I have contacted Roco and I wait to see how they respond. I was really really looking forward to this model but I'm kind of asking myself whether it is worth the $450-500 at this point?

The original mockup of the model as it appeared on the AJCKids site in early 2023: https://ajckids.com/cdn/...02_580x.jpg?v=1673370744
The model as it appears at release (Roco): https://www.roco.cc/rde/...8-swiss-express-sbb.html

You can see the AJC image with my comments here:

For those who want to dismiss this as "Nietenzahler" nonsense (Nitpicking), I just want my models to match and for a model that costs 100% more than the older versions, I expect better.

For comparison, here are my 69842 and 68690 models (68690 is the version with a single arm pantograph):
63842/68342 (11141)

62690/68690 (11108)


Regards

Mike C

I have had a few dealings with that person and respect them on that basis, as I do you for the assistance you have afforded me in prior instances as well.
I admire the fact that he decided to try to correct the flaws himself, but for a new model that costs EUR 400, I would not want to do all kinds of kitbashing myself
and would probably tend to avoid the model. However, in the case of a model that is greatly anticipated, such cases should be dealt with as manufacturing defects.

Roco's website leads to this: https://www.roco.cc/ren/...I-complain-about-an-item

https://www.roco.cc/rde/...inen-artikel-reklamieren

If you try to address such a situation with a dealer, the most likely response will be along the lines of:

"Do you want it or not?" because dealers have other concerns other than acting as your intermediary with the manufacturer.

It is a shame that manufacturers have decided on attitudes like this, but at least ESU is probably not feeling as bad about the Ae 6/6 as they were a month ago 🤣🤬

Regards

Mike C

Some manufacturers seem to have a policy of "laissez faire" when it comes to dealing with design or rendering flaws in production.
Roco, however, seems to have been more proactive. For example, the SBB Re 4/4II "Bourret" had some issues with the paintwork and the models were recalled or Roco replaced the loco shell for it's customers. A similar example would be when LS Models issued replacement shells for some SBB coaches where the rain gutters were omitted on one side of the model.

This type of service has a cost, but in terms of making the clientele feel that the company cares about them, it goes a long way.

I have had a few Roco models where there were issues with light shining through the loco shell. In each case, the matter was remedied by the factory or by the dealer.

I had a few similar cases with other companies and was left to find my own solution. I am usually adverse to tampering with models while they are under warranty.

I hope that Roco will find a "Bourret" type solution to remedy this situation.

Regards

Mike C

In the Swiss Hag Forum, one member stated that he received a reply from Roco about the Re 4/4II Swiss Express



They apologize for the mistake. They are taking steps to ensure that the hand rails will be corrected for future models to be released in 2024 and beyond.
As far as any remedy for the current model, the missing rear view mirror will be sent to all dealers, but no action is announced for the problems with the locomotive shell.

Not acceptable. As it stands, my order is likely to be cancelled.

Regards

Mike C

Outwardly, it may appear to be a simple issue of four little handrails that were drilled and mounted in the false position, but when you take a closer look at the model, the flaw is more serious.
The flaw is actually that somewhere during design/production, the pantograph and other roof details were applied to the model in an inverted direction. The result is the following:

1) Handrails on roof appear on the wrong side of the center vent
2) Battery compartments on chassis frame are inverted vis-a-vis the prototype

Without addressing anybody personally, I seem to remember some people critical of comments/reviews on this model were going on about a recent ESU model for a minor flaw in design/production of that model.

Regards

Mike C

David,

this model is the tenth or so model of this locomotive. The first was 63840, which was followed by 63841-45, 63847 (1/2 of Re 10/10 Set) and then 62690-91.
The prior nine models were correctly rendered. So, how is it that Roco flubbed a detail that they had right up until then?

Having been to Switzerland numerous times I have seen the prototype and I know what they look like. I have ten other models of the same locomotive type that this new model would be sitting next to on the layout or in my display, where the differences would still out like a sore thumb.

I don't expect it to be perfect. Merely to be as accurate as possible, meaning that small deviations for operational requirements are acceptable, but I expect the models to look as correct as possible. Especially when you consider that the original models around 2001 cost EUR 200 and today's models are over EUR 400.

Respectfully yours,

Mike C

Hi Mike. I do understand that with your knowledge of Swiss Locos and a collector of what must be a large number of locos and coaches you will look for as near to perfect detail as possible. I have three Swiss Locos along with coaches and a set of Marklin coaches on order to come and enjoy running them and they do look good but I have no idea as to how accurate they are.
I agree that the cost now is high and in many ways that has to be justified by the manufacturer.
Hopefully you will be able to obtain the model you are looking for in the future.

David

I received a surprise yesterday when Canada Post delivered a parcel. Inside the box was the 7520002 Re 4/4II Swiss Express. My dealer did not inform me that the item had arrived and so it left the West Coast on January 19th and arrived in Montreal on the 24th. I decided that I would keep it in the end. The total cost of the item was CAD$560 including tax and shipping. As I stated before, for that amount of money, I expect the manufacturer to fully conduct proper inspection of the production process, from the CAD work through to the final product. In addition, for production involving models where prior models of the same model exist, that the company have said model on hand for comparison to ensure that details match the prior editions.

When looking at the model on its own, the flaws do not seem significant. The handrails on the roof and the inverted battery case are minor when taken on their own.
When you look at the model closer, you notice a few more details of interest. The slider is on the bogie with no pantograph. On all of the prior models, the slider was situated on the bogie under the pantograph. This is the first model of a Re 4/4II (11106-11155) with a driver figure. I presume that the part was just mounted in the cab under the pantograph.
It is my opinion that these flaws are not separate, but rather an indicator of the true flaw.
Somewhere between the CAD design and the production of the diecast molds used to make the final shell, the roof details were inverted, meaning that the pantograph moved from cab 1 to cab 2 and the roof ventilators and wiring was rendered in the opposite direction. If you picture the pantograph as I describe, you will note that the position of the handrails and the direction of the battery compartment now appear correct. It also means that the slider would be correctly fitted to the bogie with the pantograph.

Here are my Swiss Express models (69842, 68690 and the new 7520002):

7520002


68690



The flaw becomes very noticeable when the locomotive is alongside other models of the same series and I just happen to have 10 other ones.

Regards

Mike C