pmorgan_cym
Registered
Honestly.... that lookslike how I worry a R/House kit would turn out if i built it!!
Sabre Steam
- Thread starter HGLR
- Start date
- Status
garrymartin
My Family,Railways, Beer and the Seaside
That is a truely dreadful mess. What condition was the box it arrived in like , did it show signs of being run over by a heavy vehicle?
R J Mitchell
Registered
Pardon the pun, but let's get this straight...
From the overhead view, the boiler is bent towards the right-hand side of the loco.
From the front view, the tanks lean towards the left-hand side of the loco, but the chimney leans right.
Using the front view, I put a ruler on the screen in line with the tank tops to see how badly they lined up. I really wish I hadn't....!
Shocking.
From the overhead view, the boiler is bent towards the right-hand side of the loco.
From the front view, the tanks lean towards the left-hand side of the loco, but the chimney leans right.
Using the front view, I put a ruler on the screen in line with the tank tops to see how badly they lined up. I really wish I hadn't....!
Shocking.
brianthesnail96
Registered
Shocking indeed- I was stunned that someone would even contemplate sending that out of the factory doors.
Personally I'd have made no effort to sort it out and would have simply returned it with a post- it note saying "Money back, please" stuck to the boiler.
This is a real shame because I saw one of the very early engines run and it looked very nice indeed and seemed to go pretty well too. Things have gone a long way downhill since then.
Best of luck getting it sorted.
Personally I'd have made no effort to sort it out and would have simply returned it with a post- it note saying "Money back, please" stuck to the boiler.
This is a real shame because I saw one of the very early engines run and it looked very nice indeed and seemed to go pretty well too. Things have gone a long way downhill since then.
Best of luck getting it sorted.
Ferrysteam
Registered
We're not talking Mamod money here.This engine can only have been built this way.You have a right to a full refund plus costs.
Unfortunately what one's 'rights' are and what actually happens are two different things. If a limited company goes bust then Mr Hillman would, from his post, be 2700 sovs down and not 500... Magazine subscriptions are perhaps the one thing that is protected. If one's Playboy magazine went bust then the subscriptions are legally ring fenced. Not so with returned steam locomotives.Ferrysteam said:
I can understand his thinking here and suspect I would do the same.
pmorgan_cym
Registered
I suspect he feels that if he sends the loco back he'll never see it again or that if this is a common event that the supplier may well disappear before any settlement is reached, therefore leaving him stll with a duff loco to sort out.
Is it simply that in continuing Sabre those now behind the wheel have found it harder than they thought to pick up the mantle and have found themselves overwhelmed?
I have had an experience of a well thought of supplier acting in a way I found less than ethical, though others have and still have good service from him.
Is it simply that in continuing Sabre those now behind the wheel have found it harder than they thought to pick up the mantle and have found themselves overwhelmed?
I have had an experience of a well thought of supplier acting in a way I found less than ethical, though others have and still have good service from him.
Ferrysteam
Registered
Ghosty said:
R J Mitchell
Registered
As one who did not win anything - again - I seem to remember that a Sabre loco was the first prize in the last 16mm Association raffle at Stoneleigh. Does anybody know how the lucky (hopefully, if he's got a good one) winner is getting on?
400Parker
Registered
The last report I had from the "Lucky Winner" was "At the moment my loco is being despatched to be examined and fired by an experienced coal-firer, so I am awaiting his report."
As far as Peter Hillman returning his loco to Sabre Steam for repair goes, if Rob Cooper were to go bust while he still had the loco, Peter would have great difficulty proving to the Administrators that the loco was his because (as he wrote above) he was never given a bill of sale, credit card receipt or boiler certificate.
And if Rob believes that the loco he sent out was of good quality what repairs could he make to improve it?
I had the pleasure (?) of seeing the loco a week or so ago and took a photo of the inside of one of the water tanks. This shows that the tank wasn't washed out properly after soldering and the dried acid flux remains. Goodness knows what this would do to the loco over time.
With regard to the "bendy boiler" it's a bit of an optical illusion because the smokebox is on crooked and the tanks are at an angle. The boiler itself is fine and - from reports I've had - is a sound and professional piece of work. No worries there.
The basics of the loco are fine - Roundhouse running gear, MJ boiler - it's just the way that it was put together that's the problem. Peter should end up with a fine loco but at a higher cost than he expected. It makes the DJB Engineering RTR Ragleth look the bargain that it is.
Steve
As far as Peter Hillman returning his loco to Sabre Steam for repair goes, if Rob Cooper were to go bust while he still had the loco, Peter would have great difficulty proving to the Administrators that the loco was his because (as he wrote above) he was never given a bill of sale, credit card receipt or boiler certificate.
And if Rob believes that the loco he sent out was of good quality what repairs could he make to improve it?
I had the pleasure (?) of seeing the loco a week or so ago and took a photo of the inside of one of the water tanks. This shows that the tank wasn't washed out properly after soldering and the dried acid flux remains. Goodness knows what this would do to the loco over time.
With regard to the "bendy boiler" it's a bit of an optical illusion because the smokebox is on crooked and the tanks are at an angle. The boiler itself is fine and - from reports I've had - is a sound and professional piece of work. No worries there.
The basics of the loco are fine - Roundhouse running gear, MJ boiler - it's just the way that it was put together that's the problem. Peter should end up with a fine loco but at a higher cost than he expected. It makes the DJB Engineering RTR Ragleth look the bargain that it is.
Steve
I feel that I have to respond to all of these posts regarding this locomotive.
Firstly all of our locos are fully tested twice using a gas burner, and they are all run on coal before they leave the workshop.
There is no way the loco was in that state when if left us, I really cannot comment on what must have happened to cause that.
I have also contected the gentleman concerned and offered to take a look at the damage, and in the interests of customer service put it right.
and i leave you with this thought regarding warrenty, you buy anything in this day and age that comes with a gurantee, a car, tv, pc, anything, and there is a fault when you get it home, do you contact the supplier?, or ask someone else to look at it? regardless of how well respected or how much knowedge they have? and then expect a refund? No. and this industry is no different.
Firstly all of our locos are fully tested twice using a gas burner, and they are all run on coal before they leave the workshop.
There is no way the loco was in that state when if left us, I really cannot comment on what must have happened to cause that.
I have also contected the gentleman concerned and offered to take a look at the damage, and in the interests of customer service put it right.
and i leave you with this thought regarding warrenty, you buy anything in this day and age that comes with a gurantee, a car, tv, pc, anything, and there is a fault when you get it home, do you contact the supplier?, or ask someone else to look at it? regardless of how well respected or how much knowedge they have? and then expect a refund? No. and this industry is no different.
robsmorgan
Registered
A WARNING TO YOU ALL
The photos & description are shocking
Trading Standards are a total waste of space in my experience and as to the 'Law' being there to protect you - my solicitor(s) both said I would be wasting money and adding to my loss by trying to recover anything from the boat builder who had taken me for £32,000.00 as he was protected by 'limited liability' unless I could prove intent to defraud on his part..... and IF you win and are awarded anything, you still have to recover it.... no chance :Looser: :wits: :Looser: :wits: :Looser:
Regards
Rob
The photos & description are shocking
Trading Standards are a total waste of space in my experience and as to the 'Law' being there to protect you - my solicitor(s) both said I would be wasting money and adding to my loss by trying to recover anything from the boat builder who had taken me for £32,000.00 as he was protected by 'limited liability' unless I could prove intent to defraud on his part..... and IF you win and are awarded anything, you still have to recover it.... no chance :Looser: :wits: :Looser: :wits: :Looser:
Regards
Rob
400Parker
Registered
The answer, Rob, is that when you buy something from a trusted supplier that has been thoroughly tested and it doesn't work, the assumption must be that you are doing something wrong. The obvious thing to do is to take it to someone more experienced and see if they can find out why you can't get it to work. The consistent message from everyone who has had recent problems with coal firing is that coal firing is difficult and it's their fault they can't make their loco work. It isn't so.
In Peter Hillman's case, the wheels wouldn't go round and the blower pipe was blocked with solder. Even if "tinkering" invalidated the warranty, "tinkering" didn't affect the paint job. Paint shouldn't be flaking off a brand new loco.
Rule 1 in business. The customer is king (regardless of whether he is right or not). The bad publicity generated by arguing with a customer does no good, and in this case has brought coal firing into disrepute and may affect the reputation of other small coal fired loco builders such as ELR Engineering and Riverdale.
If the loco was good by your standards the simple thing would have been to give Peter Hillman a refund, rectify any problems (if there were any) and then sell the loco to the next customer on the waiting list with the confidence that you are supplying a product of satisfactory quality.
The damage is done I'm afraid.
Steve
In Peter Hillman's case, the wheels wouldn't go round and the blower pipe was blocked with solder. Even if "tinkering" invalidated the warranty, "tinkering" didn't affect the paint job. Paint shouldn't be flaking off a brand new loco.
Rule 1 in business. The customer is king (regardless of whether he is right or not). The bad publicity generated by arguing with a customer does no good, and in this case has brought coal firing into disrepute and may affect the reputation of other small coal fired loco builders such as ELR Engineering and Riverdale.
If the loco was good by your standards the simple thing would have been to give Peter Hillman a refund, rectify any problems (if there were any) and then sell the loco to the next customer on the waiting list with the confidence that you are supplying a product of satisfactory quality.
The damage is done I'm afraid.
Steve
I am saddened by this whole thing but, having looked at this locomotive I feel I should make a couple of obvious points. The smokebox is fitted into the position it was in ? so that was how it was sent (the packing was clean and not damaged). The paintwork, as can be seen in the photographs, is appalling ? the worst I have ever seen. Did this pass the test procedure? Is it being suggested that Mr Hillman took this loco apart and resprayed it? While I fully believe Ralf Copely (who I know from reputation) and Dave Pinniger (who I have known for years), I did not actually see for myself that the blower was blocked with solder. I have seen the uncleaned state of the water tanks internally as shewn in the last set of pics and I have seen the general state of this loco as supplied.Sabre1 said:
While I am aware that this model was probably not actually built by Mr Cooper, he is surely responsible for the condition that this model was sent out in. Certainly with no credit card and other receipt I would not consider sending this product back for I would then have no proof of purchase. At least this way Mr Hilman will lose only 500 squid. These still not have been sent according to Mr Hillman this morning. One cannot help feeling that the offer to put this product right is designed largely to ensure that the credit card co will not refund.
So this industry is no different? Really? There are only another couple of suppliers of coal firing in this country and they would certainly pay attention to David Pinniger. This is a specialised business and if one wishes to stay in business then a refund for what 'may' be a rogue locomotive is the only way to make a start. I did contact Sabre myself but received no reply ? hence Mr Hillman's original post. How would others fell if they effectively lost 2700 squid.
This is a sorry business. I do have a report here on an Australian loco as well ? this does not make happy reading either.
Rhos Helyg Loco Works
Registered
Coincidentally, I have another Annette that belongs to one of my valued customers on my bench at the moment . This loco first came to me direct from Sabre in March for some lining and other paintwork, and I tried to steam it but found a number of faults that prevented me from doing so. On the owner's instruction, I returned it to Sabre for repair and it was then sent to its owner a few weeks later. It still did not work satisfactorily on its return and now the owner has asked me to "do whatever it takes to sort it out", which I am doing.
My work will include a full repaint as the existing paintwork is of poor finish and seems to have been applied direct to the brass with no visible etch primer coat.
The boiler is a substantial and well-made piece of work, but other aspects of the locos construction (mainly) and design (not so much) leave a lot to be desired in my opinion.
I am guessing that by completely dismantling the loco to its component parts (which I have done) I have invalidated the warranty. However, I will be giving my own warranty for the work that I do in the same way that I would for any other customer or locomotive.
SAFETY CONCERN:
One fault reported by my customer was the passing comment that "the blower valve is fizzing a bit", and my investigations soon revealed why...
On the left is the steam turret (actually a large banjo bolt) that screws in to the top of the firebox and provides the steam supply for the pressure gauge (using a fitting screwed in to the top), the regulator (using the male thread to the right of the fitting) and the blower. The blower steam supply is controlled by the valve shown on the right and this was screwed in to the hole shown in the banjo bolt collar. A fibre washer was placed around the valve's thread before it was screwed in to the collar in order to make the connection steam tight and to allow the valve body's rotation to stop in the correct place to line up with the blower pipe. This washer had started to disintegrate, hence the fizzing, as it was trying to do a job that it was not designed to do.
Fibre washers work fine under even compression but they do not have a lot of strength or life when used with curved surfaces. Here we have a sphere (the "globe" of the valve) screwed in to a cylinder (the banjo collar). In my opinion the fibre washer was always going to lose this particular battle for life.
Even more worrying is the modification to the blower valve itself. The picture shows that the male thread (60psi boiler steam in) at the 9 o'clock position in the photo is significantly shorter than the thread at 12 o'clock (controlled steam out). Knowing the manufacturer of these valves I know that the threads started life with the same length. The "steam in" thread has been shortened so that it does not foul the banjo bolt inside the collar (visible through the hole). This leaves just over 1mm thickness of metal (i.e. the thickness of the collar) for it to screw in to. This means that the blower valve is ONLY SCREWED IN BY 1 TO 1.5 TURNS. In my view this is plain bad practice and insufficient to withstand a 60psi boiler pressure safely.
There is, of course, a solution to this problem and I have applied that to the loco I have here, and it involved obtaining a replacement valve as the first step.
If I owned one of these locomotives I would be EXTREMELY CONCERNED about this particular aspect of the design and the future safe operation of my locomotive.
My work will include a full repaint as the existing paintwork is of poor finish and seems to have been applied direct to the brass with no visible etch primer coat.
The boiler is a substantial and well-made piece of work, but other aspects of the locos construction (mainly) and design (not so much) leave a lot to be desired in my opinion.
I am guessing that by completely dismantling the loco to its component parts (which I have done) I have invalidated the warranty. However, I will be giving my own warranty for the work that I do in the same way that I would for any other customer or locomotive.
SAFETY CONCERN:
One fault reported by my customer was the passing comment that "the blower valve is fizzing a bit", and my investigations soon revealed why...
On the left is the steam turret (actually a large banjo bolt) that screws in to the top of the firebox and provides the steam supply for the pressure gauge (using a fitting screwed in to the top), the regulator (using the male thread to the right of the fitting) and the blower. The blower steam supply is controlled by the valve shown on the right and this was screwed in to the hole shown in the banjo bolt collar. A fibre washer was placed around the valve's thread before it was screwed in to the collar in order to make the connection steam tight and to allow the valve body's rotation to stop in the correct place to line up with the blower pipe. This washer had started to disintegrate, hence the fizzing, as it was trying to do a job that it was not designed to do.
Fibre washers work fine under even compression but they do not have a lot of strength or life when used with curved surfaces. Here we have a sphere (the "globe" of the valve) screwed in to a cylinder (the banjo collar). In my opinion the fibre washer was always going to lose this particular battle for life.
Even more worrying is the modification to the blower valve itself. The picture shows that the male thread (60psi boiler steam in) at the 9 o'clock position in the photo is significantly shorter than the thread at 12 o'clock (controlled steam out). Knowing the manufacturer of these valves I know that the threads started life with the same length. The "steam in" thread has been shortened so that it does not foul the banjo bolt inside the collar (visible through the hole). This leaves just over 1mm thickness of metal (i.e. the thickness of the collar) for it to screw in to. This means that the blower valve is ONLY SCREWED IN BY 1 TO 1.5 TURNS. In my view this is plain bad practice and insufficient to withstand a 60psi boiler pressure safely.
There is, of course, a solution to this problem and I have applied that to the loco I have here, and it involved obtaining a replacement valve as the first step.
If I owned one of these locomotives I would be EXTREMELY CONCERNED about this particular aspect of the design and the future safe operation of my locomotive.
I am now forced to bring to the attention of People who may be contemplating buying a Sabre Steam Annette, the circumstances of serial /number 038.
This Model was shipped to Australia and on opening the box , immediately brought to our workshops, no attempt to run it on steam or even air was made just the external appearance caused serious doubts.
On attempting to run it on air, it would not run smoothly in forward gear , with an intermittent regular "bind" in the motion and not in reverse gear at all.
A partial dismantle showed faults with the Crank pins on one side, axle pump, both design and machining, boiler fittings, piping and layout thereoff, smokebox design and blast pipe and blower pipe,the general body work and paint finish unacceptable, twisted tanks and cab.no indication of primer usage in the painting.
It is the worst example of I have seen of commercial engine building I have seen in 30 years!
The owner of course will finish up with a model costing much more than he contracted for with Sabre but he is beyond the point of no return money wise and at this distance there seems to be no other solution.
Gordon Watson,
Argyle Locomotive Works [service]
This Model was shipped to Australia and on opening the box , immediately brought to our workshops, no attempt to run it on steam or even air was made just the external appearance caused serious doubts.
On attempting to run it on air, it would not run smoothly in forward gear , with an intermittent regular "bind" in the motion and not in reverse gear at all.
A partial dismantle showed faults with the Crank pins on one side, axle pump, both design and machining, boiler fittings, piping and layout thereoff, smokebox design and blast pipe and blower pipe,the general body work and paint finish unacceptable, twisted tanks and cab.no indication of primer usage in the painting.
It is the worst example of I have seen of commercial engine building I have seen in 30 years!
The owner of course will finish up with a model costing much more than he contracted for with Sabre but he is beyond the point of no return money wise and at this distance there seems to be no other solution.
Gordon Watson,
Argyle Locomotive Works [service]
- Status