Trying to figure out if Walthers is lying to me

[mbinsewi]

He did add to conversation once, on early page 1, but hasn't been back since.  For sure he didn't like what he was reading.

Your probably right.  Gone!  

Mike.

[SeeYou190]

mbinsewi

Probably a better direction than where it all started.

I think so. I really don't enjoy threads started that look like they are just to complain about a manufacturer.

-Kevin

[turbine71]

Sorry but I don’t read these forums on a regular basis

here are the facts

walthers sold the deluxe sets 1 and 2 which,as in their advert,stated they included figures,factory painted names and interior lighting

In both sets the “creek” series cars did not have lights

the standard walthers lighting unit will only fit if you hack away the partions 

when asked by me why the car was not lit I also was told it won’t fit

numerous retailers have been  advertising the Creek cars come with lights even though they clearly do not

[Trainman440]

IMO, as the OP, you are responsible for checking up on your own posts. 

Just to end this:

"PRODUCT UPDATE: Walthers was not able to create interior lighting for this model due to the design of interior compartments." 

This quote was found in an old Ebay listing, which was clearly copy and pasted from somewhere, unknown source. Worthpoint has since saved the ebay listing. 

https://www.worthpoint.com/worthopedia/proto-9252-prr-broadway-ltd-12-duplex-1816662307

Walthers seems to have indeed left out one or more cars with lighting. Although given that this was a duplex sleeper, adding a lighting kit would only illuminate the top set of rooms, not the lower half. 

If you watch this video of the deluxe set, it seems multiple cars may be missing lighting. 

https://youtu.be/LMQ2dS3Joqk

Indeed, I would consider this misadvertising, but it seems not significant enough as no one besides you have brought this error up. 

That's just my 

Charles

[garya]

Trainman440

IMO, as the OP, you are responsible for checking up on your own posts. 

Unless Railrdjeff is the same person as Turbine71, he isn't the OP.

[riogrande5761]

Trainman440

Indeed, I would consider this misadvertising, but it seems not significant enough as no one besides you have brought this error up. 

From what it sounds like, Walthers wasn't intentionally trying to deceive, as the OP seems to assert in the title of the topic.  Rather it's probably a sin of ommission. 

In otherwords, to err is human.  I don't think it was an intentionally deceptive act.  

Case closed but we'll be still reading the accusatory title for some time to come.