Sign in

Stephan Lamb Associates, LLC

Sharing is caring! Have something to share about Stephan Lamb Associates, LLC? Use RevDex to write a review
Reviews Stephan Lamb Associates, LLC

Stephan Lamb Associates, LLC Reviews (1)

Mr. [redacted] complaint is unfounded and his accusations are false. Mr. * did indeed contract me to build a model railroad to his specifications.   He wanted prototypical train operations including switching and signal operations.  From the beginning I stated my concerns with his choice of...

the [redacted] DCS control system, warning him that the poor DCS signal strength would cause inconsistent operation, which also had many complaints online in forums. He insisted on the DCS control system he had chosen so I incorporated it into the railroad.  His accusations: “Mr. [redacted] designed the control of the platform using a MTH DCS Control and it appeared to operate properly during test runs in Lowell, MA. After the platform was installed in Morton, PA there were major problems with the control of the locomotives on the platform with dead spots and interruption of signals. Mr. [redacted] blamed the problem on the installation and my selection of control system.” My response: There were problems with the signal strength as anticipated and Mr. *. visited our shop in Pepperell MA, (not Lowell) twice in the spring of 2012, and I showed him personally both times the DCS command signal issues we were having.  Before we installed his railroad in the fall of 2012, I had initially recommended a conversion to the NCE DCC system, which is one of the best train control systems on the market.  He still wanted us to install the MTH DCS system.  Regarding the “dead spots”, the railroad operated well, even providing Mr. * with video of his trains in operation in May of 2013.  His accusations: “He convinced me to change the system to a NCE DCC Control at considerable expense and without any appreciable difference in the problems of control and track signal problems.” My response: I had temporarily installed another control system (NCE), which I had initially recommended, and he decided to convert his system over to the NCE system after he saw that it operated flawlessly.  A proposal was made for the full conversion in early 2013. His accusations: “I hired an engineer to review Mr. [redacted]'s work on my platform and he provided me with report that identified sloppy workmanship, wiring that was not properly soldered, track work that did not provide continuity & signal strength. I made my engineer prove his allegations and he did successfully proving that correction of the issues outlined provided good signal strength and continuity in the track.” My response: In February 2015 I received a message from him explaining that he had hired a consultant (his “engineer” according to his complaint) to help with the DCS signal strength and he requested that we answer any questions that this consultant may have.  I told him that we would but didn’t get any calls from him for several days.  When the consultant finally called, we referred him to the electrical manual that we had provided (as we do with all our clients), to which he said he didn’t have it.  We asked Mr. * to provide him with it.  I did not hear from him again until May 2015, when I received one of several emails from Mr. * stating that I provided him with poor wiring and workmanship among other things.  I replied that I had always been available for him to answer any questions or address any issues that he had, and to call me so that we could resolve the issue.  He said that we – Mr. *, his consultant, and I – would, in his words, collectively decide what was to be done with the railroad.  His accusations: “I asked Mr. [redacted] to come down to meet with the engineer & me to review the report and he agreed. After, reviewing the report with Mr. [redacted], he agreed to comply with corrective action involving installing split track connectors, checking wiring and removing insulators that were blocking signal strength.” My response: I received a report from his consultant that listed issues that had nothing to do with the signal strength but had to do with unfinished areas of the railroad.  The areas in question were unfinished because it was still a work in progress and the areas could not be finished until the rest of the wiring was done.  Up to this point I had not received any phone calls from Mr. *, however he continued sending insulting and threatening emails and texts.  I agreed to bring my crew to his facility in August 2015 to address my concerns with his consultant’s reports.  With their permission I recorded part of the meeting, and upon inspection of the railroad, found that there were areas that had been tampered with, documenting them with photos.  Most of what was in his report were maintenance issues, which were likely because we had not been there in over two years. As our conversations continued, a number of problems with the platform were brought to our attention which included: loose track electrical connections, short circuits, springs on the lift bridge not making a good connection, the components of the bridge made out of plastic were broken, turntable problems, train derailments, a crossover Tortoise machine burnt out or shorted, and track issues.  These are problems that were never brought to my attention by Mr. * over the past two years, otherwise we would have come down to troubleshoot and fix them. His consultant had torn out crossover switch tracks to make the railroad line a continuous loop, which would successfully run with good DCS signal strength, as would any single line railroad.  However, this was not the original design of the railroad.  The original design was for prototypical operations with switching and prototype signal operations.  Removing the insulators compromised the custom-made prototype signal system and rendered it useless. His accusations: “Mr. [redacted] agreed at the meeting to perform work and then later changed his mind putting conditions on his repairs and limiting the repairs to one line.” My response: I suggested at the meeting in August 2015 that we wire only the outside Big Boy Line that was “untouched” by his consultant, at “no charge to Mr. *.”  I provided Mr. * with a report after this meeting on September 1, 2015.  Our wiring plan was to use the existing power buss lines and leave the insulated block wiring intact.  In my rewiring proposal I outlined the details on how we would accomplish that and the conditions that had to be met before we did the work. Our work was based on these conditions: 1)     His consultant would not to be present while we were working.  After seeing firsthand what he had done to his platform, as far as I was concerned his consultant destroyed our work and the original model railroad operations. 2)     Our wiring and upgrade work would only be done on the Big Boy line District 4 first, to prove that our wiring concept will work. (I suggested at the meeting in August and Mr. * and I shook hands on it) 3)     After the above work was complete and we had a strong MTH command signal with trains running on the Big Boy line District 4, the two catenary lines (Districts 1 & 2) had to be restored to the original track design and block wiring as it was before his consultant modified it.  This was necessary before any work could be done on the mine loop (District 3) and short line loop (District 5).  Mr. * could have his consultant restore it at his expense, and if he was unable then my crew would restore it, being fully compensated for labor and expenses. 4)     Once the two catenary line districts were restored, we would make new plans for a future visit to complete the updated wiring on the mine loop and short line loop districts. His accusations: “I have spend over $300,000 with Mr. [redacted] on this platform and I was willing to allow him just to repair the problems with me providing the material; My response: Yes he spent some money, but the amount spent for the size and his custom parameters he had placed on the railroad is not unusual.  In fact, I have also invested over $30,000 of my own money into his railroad.  I would only agree to address the problem at my own expense if his consultant restored the railroad to the condition it was when I left it, to which Mr. * refused. Since then Mr. * has been sending emails and text messages insulting me, my family and even the professionals who provided the custom products for his railroad, even as recently as April 8, 2016.  He has also threatened me both physically and legally, resulting in my retaining an attorney. Everything provided on Mr. [redacted] railroad was what he wanted and was to his specifications.  All receipts and labor hours are documented, as is all correspondence, including his recent threatening emails and text messages. His accusations: “now I am demanding full restitution for all costs including rewiring, new track work, repairing defective equipment installed and damages to many of my locomotives and Cars. At the very least, I want the Public to know about Mr. [redacted] and what he did to me so that others will not fall into the same situation.”  My response: His claims that we damaged many of his locomotives and cars is baseless, as I had no way of knowing who or what had been done to the railroad from the time I was there in 2014 to the time he brought his consultant in.  Since the consultant tampered with the railroad before we had the chance to “collectively decide” on a resolution, I am not responsible for the modifications Mr. [redacted] consultant has had done. I have made many reasonable efforts to resolve this dispute.  I have always strived to keep my customers happy and am always available for service calls, and Mr. * was no exception. His quote from a recent text message to me 4/3/16: “I am going to report you to the Revdex.com,  [redacted], and the U.S. Attorney's Fraud Dept” [redacted] Associates has never had any complaints to the Revdex.com.  I stand by my customer service reputation and I do not appreciate the lies that Mr. * has generated about me and my associates.

Check fields!

Write a review of Stephan Lamb Associates, LLC

Satisfaction rating
 
 
 
 
 
Upload here Increase visibility and credibility of your review by
adding a photo
Submit your review

Stephan Lamb Associates, LLC Rating

Overall satisfaction rating

Address: 28 Warwick St, Lowell, Massachusetts, United States, 01851-3721

Phone:

Show more...

Web:

This website was reported to be associated with Stephan Lamb Associates, LLC.



Add contact information for Stephan Lamb Associates, LLC

Add new contacts
A | B | C | D | E | F | G | H | I | J | K | L | M | N | O | P | Q | R | S | T | U | V | W | X | Y | Z | New | Updated