IRONROOSTER ATLANTIC CENTRAL Well said, why is it the manufacturers job to inform you? If it really matters that much, learn before you buy. And don't rely on the reviewers to point it out either. Paul
ATLANTIC CENTRAL Well said, why is it the manufacturers job to inform you? If it really matters that much, learn before you buy.
And don't rely on the reviewers to point it out either.
Paul
I don't rely on any of the magazine reviewers, as their job is dependent on the advertisers, and they will not point out the faults of the model so as to not piss off the advertiser.
I belong to the both the Steam Era and Modern Freight Cars Yahoo Groups along with Diesel Detailers Forum. I use these to check on the prototype accuracy of any cars I build and or purchase hoping they are at least 90% correct. I may stray from this as even all PS1 or 1944 AAR Boxcars are not alike, but I try to get my models as close as possible, making the models visually correct versus the prototype, but not always succeeding.
I am one to call a foobie a foobie, like the Athearn PRR Bay Window Caboose, the only PRR Bay Window Cabin Cars, were those built out of old outside braced boxcars and nothing like Athearn's Model.
I remember posting a picture of a CGW Airslide I did, and I got a nice e-mail from an CGW expert who let me know what I did incorrectly, and a listing of all the paint schemes on the various CGW Airlslides, which I still have in my library.
I know this as strayed from the original posters start on this thread, but I belong to about 5 forums and 10 or more Yahoo Groups. I get more information from the Atlas Rescue Forum and the various Yahoo Groups than I do from this forum, as many of the topics do not suit my fancy.
Rick Jesionowski
Rule 1: This is my railroad.
Rule 2: I make the rules.
Rule 3: Illuminating discussion of prototype history, equipment and operating practices is always welcome, but in the event of visitor-perceived anacronisms, detail descrepancies or operating errors, consult RULE 1!
dti406 IRONROOSTER ATLANTIC CENTRAL Well said, why is it the manufacturers job to inform you? If it really matters that much, learn before you buy. And don't rely on the reviewers to point it out either. Paul I don't rely on any of the magazine reviewers, as their job is dependent on the advertisers, and they will not point out the faults of the model so as to not piss off the advertiser. I belong to the both the Steam Era and Modern Freight Cars Yahoo Groups along with Diesel Detailers Forum. I use these to check on the prototype accuracy of any cars I build and or purchase hoping they are at least 90% correct. I may stray from this as even all PS1 or 1944 AAR Boxcars are not alike, but I try to get my models as close as possible, making the models visually correct versus the prototype, but not always succeeding. I am one to call a foobie a foobie, like the Athearn PRR Bay Window Caboose, the only PRR Bay Window Cabin Cars, were those built out of old outside braced boxcars and nothing like Athearn's Model. I remember posting a picture of a CGW Airslide I did, and I got a nice e-mail from an CGW expert who let me know what I did incorrectly, and a listing of all the paint schemes on the various CGW Airlslides, which I still have in my library. I know this as strayed from the original posters start on this thread, but I belong to about 5 forums and 10 or more Yahoo Groups. I get more information from the Atlas Rescue Forum and the various Yahoo Groups than I do from this forum, as many of the topics do not suit my fancy. Rick Jesionowski
I also look at other forums and get information from them. Knowledgeable comments are very helpful, and I try to read them all. When doing so, I do get annoyed at the comments that bash the producer for making a foob, as if the producer is trying to cut corners.
I can see where there would be plenty of demand for foobies, which is a good reason they're produced. A car may not be their home road, but a customer may still want a highly detailed model that is overall correct for their goals, just lacking in the specific details that would apply to that "off" road name. Buy the accurate models for their home road. Buy the foobs to fill out the train.
In fact, many who operate layouts would not want to spend the time learning every boxcar detail for a railroad they don't specifically model, but they do want an overall accurate car. Some might, but I doubt the vast majority of operators would take the time to study the "off" railroads that much. OTOH, if the goal is to assemble the most accurate collection of models, despite road name, then I can see where foobs can be a problem.
Also, were not talking TYCO here. Many complaints are about models that are very accurate in most any way measured, exept proto specific details.
But informative comments do help nearly everybody.
- Douglas
Paul3 Yes, operationally it makes no difference. I get that. But it's like the difference between operating on a Plywood Pacific-type railroad vs. a fully scenic'd one. Both can be operated the exact same way, but one certainly makes me feel better vs. the other. I can get drawn deeper into the illusion if I'm not distracted by unrealistic elements.
Yes, operationally it makes no difference. I get that. But it's like the difference between operating on a Plywood Pacific-type railroad vs. a fully scenic'd one. Both can be operated the exact same way, but one certainly makes me feel better vs. the other. I can get drawn deeper into the illusion if I'm not distracted by unrealistic elements.
I think the fancy term is "immersiveness"! I know as a kid, putting my head down on the rug and trying to imagine the scenery etc. didn't ever work too good for me - same on the plywood pacific.
At my club, we do a lot of hand laying, some MicroEngineering flex, and Fast Tracks jigs for switches.
As Rob Spangler has shown, Atlas pre-fab code 83 can look pretty good if ballasted and weathered - as shown in some photo's he has posted. I just don't have enough time to hand-lay and some hand lay track has looked bare to me - much fewer spikes, and other detail missing. I'm sure it does depend on how it is implemented.
Lake,It's not just "...your standards are not as high as mine...", it's also "Your high standards are evil and are destroying the hobby!!!"
Or RTR is destroying the hobby because modelers aren't forced to build kits to keep the "bear skins and stone knives" modelers happy. There are several camps that fairly often repeat the mantra's.
riogrande5761,WRT overly sensitive people online, sometimes it gets to the point where you can't wish some people a "Good day," without them replying, "What do you mean by that?" Smile, Wink & Grin
I do feel like there are some who seem have to take an opposing view as an MO or be a contrarian - such as every post you make there is an opposing view. Stop that! ... I had to look WRT up today, looks like I'm not up on the acronyms as I should be - that one seems to have popped up all of the sudden. It wasn't the first hit to come up in my google search.
Sheldon,WRT terms like "bogus" and "foobie" referring to being fooled or tricked into buying them, some times that's exactly what it is. I remember quite well how disappointed I was when I bought a ... At least today, the manufacturers are more willing to note when they do something completely fictional (in the fine print).
In the olden days, I get it that tooling was a huge deal and not that many models were produced, so the only way to recoup the cost and make a profit, and provide some variety was to paint a box car for mostly incorrect road names. That was the 1960's and 1970's. ... I do remember in early 1990's when I became more aware of paint schemes and felt the same "betrayal" by companies - which I know now wasn't part of an evil plot. In the 1990's I bought a copy of Jim Eagers Color Guide and the blindfold was off and I began the process of "rationalizing" bit by bit, my collection. I've probably sold off most of what I had back then and replaced it bit by bit with models that more correctly reflect or match real rolling stock. ... For the past 20 years, times are different, and thankfully more companies are getting on board and making an effort, like Athearn has done with it's alternate reality paint schemes notes on some models.
"Generic" really doesn't work, either.
Perhaps it's going to be hard to find a proper "euphemism".
Rio Grande. The Action Road - Focus 1977-1983
Doughless If the term "generic" or similar term, is used as a pejorative, combined with the entire concept of "generic" being subjective, it lends itself to being elitist.
If the term "generic" or similar term, is used as a pejorative, combined with the entire concept of "generic" being subjective, it lends itself to being elitist.
So what euphemism is there to describe a model which matches no prototype that isn't pajorative? It seems if model does not match, any word used to describe it would be pajorative by nature or definition? A quandry to be sure. Don't say anything at all is the safe approach?
As far as foobie or bogus. I cant see how someone who truly cares about fidelity can be tricked into buying something.
I don't think "tricked" is the right word much of the time. But yes, "to err is human". Also, even people who care about fidelity have brain farts or might see something "shiny" and buy it impulsively if most were honest. It seem your suggesting if a person isn't perfect, taking it to the logical conclusion, they should keep their mouth shut or they are a hypocryte. But I say, it's still good to strive for something, even if we often sometimes fall short.
riogrande5761 I had to look WRT up today, looks like I'm not up on the acronyms as I should be
Same here...
I wondered what a Wireless Router Technology had to do with this conversation.
Perhaps Steven could post a sticky for acronym lookups?
Ed
riogrande5761Or RTR is destroying the hobby because modelers aren't forced to build kits to keep the "bear skins and stone knives" modelers happy. There are several camps that fairly often repeat the mantra's.
Jim,I think those type of modelers may become a endangered species.
Some whine because they say kits are far and few between while others whine because they still make kits? I don't get it.. Can't we have both?
Remember the big flap over Athearn dropping BB kits? There's still lots to be found at some shows both new and use and I'm told the use BB cars sells faster then the BB kits. BB RTR over BB kits who would have thought?
Larry
Conductor.
Summerset Ry.
"Stay Alert, Don't get hurt Safety First!"
riogrande5761, admittedly if I was modeling the 60's or newer, I might be a little more concerned about some of this. Modern box cars, and much other post 60's/70's rolling stock, have more distinctive features than my early 50's era.
Sure, the 40's and 50's has its wagon top and arch top box cars, and few other distictive pieces, but a lot of stuff from that era used common premanufactured ends, standard roof systems, etc. To a large degree, one 40' box car in 1950 looks pretty much like the next one - except for the ones with the new fancy paint schemes like the B&O Sentinal or NYC Pacemaker.
A 50' riveted flat car generally looks pretty much like the next one.....
Yes, I know there were lots of minor differences, maybe more than many people on this forum. I can think of about 5 people on here who are knowledgeable in the era I model, and if you pay attention, we have our little rivet counting conversations from time to time.
But again, I don't feel the need to bash every manufacturer who prints a wrong paint scheme on a freight car, or rub that in nose of someone who bought that car.
I'm pretty picky about paint schemes being of the correct era, and on cars that are at least "close", but I'm not measuring side panels, or counting end ribs........
If I look at a picture of the prototype taken from 150' away, and look at the model from a couple feet away, and I get the same visual impression from both - close enough.
https://www.bing.com/images/search?view=detailV2&ccid=h%2fadbUqW&id=3AA0519BFC08583298B30E66C8FD45EB2632DA9A&thid=OIP.h_adbUqWZQTwTZUVKycgiAEsCA&q=sp+piggyback+flat+car&simid=608008675878634289&selectedIndex=60&ajaxhist=0
Unfortunately I don't have a picture handy of my CNW cars like these, except for partial one below:
https://www.bing.com/images/search?view=detailV2&ccid=5SO3mxPe&id=777C67D5B147E3A81ABAC27CC6977CA01F0CDEFD&thid=OIP.5SO3mxPeFGLkSI_aA8D3kgEsDu&q=sp+piggyback+flat+car&simid=608027616698764758&selectedIndex=347&ajaxhist=0
And all of these are due for some light weathering......and my photo skills are only so-so....
Just my view.....
Sheldon
riogrande5761 Doughless If the term "generic" or similar term, is used as a pejorative, combined with the entire concept of "generic" being subjective, it lends itself to being elitist. So what euphemism is there to describe a model which matches no prototype that isn't pajorative? It seems if model does not match, any word used to describe it would be pajorative by nature or definition? A quandry to be sure. Don't say anything at all is the safe approach? As far as foobie or bogus. I cant see how someone who truly cares about fidelity can be tricked into buying something. I don't think "tricked" is the right word much of the time. But yes, "to err is human". Also, even people who care about fidelity have brain farts or might see something "shiny" and buy it impulsively if most were honest. It seem your suggesting if a person isn't perfect, taking it to the logical conclusion, they should keep their mouth shut or they are a hypocryte. But I say, it's still good to strive for something, even if we often sometimes fall short.
I think a lot of people wouldn't consider a model that is "not like the prototype" to be automatically pajoritve. Generic models that are painted in a variety of roadnames, can...and do... serve a purpose in our hobby. I guess those that automatically think that a model that does not match the prototype being pajorative, can't help but automatically use the term "generic" as a pajorative.
And what are we talking about when we say generic, or "is not like" the prototype? I think many of the criticisms of a producer that I read go in the area of a boxcar not having the correct end ridges, or door latches, or numbering font, for example. Generic would not be the best way to describe the car, IMO. I don't think "inaccurate" would be a proper word to describe the whole boxcar.
As far as foob, I'm just saying I don't understand complaining about the producer for building a car that has some details wrong. If I find out something about a product that later causes me to have buyers remorse, I tend to get disappointed with myself rather than the seller.
There's a lot of worthwhile discussion here, but I don't have the time or inclination to give a thoughtful response to it all.
One thing I would like to address is the idea that the preponderance of threads from newbies asking relatively similar questions drives experienced modelers away. I think that formulation suggests that only newbies can start a thread or address a topic? Have experienced modelers lost the ability to express themselves? I don't think so.
I will claim to be an experienced modeler, given I've been at this almost half a century. I build kits and scratchbuild when it suits. I also buy RTR and sometimes even just take it out of the biox and run it. I buy stuff to operate, not to invest in, although I do have stuff that might be considered an investment. It runs and gets dusty just like the rest. If it's really lucky, it even gets actual weathering, instead of just being dusty,
Sometimes I write about stuff, largeky because it might be of use to others. Where some aim for a perfect picture of a model immersed in a delicately detailed scene, that's just the end of the process for me. I tend to like the "in process" shots that show the good, bad, and the ugly before getting to a finished model.
I actually enjoy helping others figure stuff out for themselves. I'm not perfect at it, but I tend to like to contribute a questioning apprtoach to giving advicer. My advice is never any better than the other person's ability ti consider it, so I rarely say you must do anything to someone else. Rather, I offer my own experience as a potential factor that might be of aid to someone else's modeling issue. I try tol avloid having a personal stake in someone else's efforts. Their success almost anever hinges on following my advice; rather any "success" depends on my getting them to think more deeply about the situation that troubles them if the come looking for aid.
And there are plenty of skillful modelers here, as I'm hardly the only one or even close to the best. Ask for help here and you'll usually get a useful reply whther you just read your first issue of MR or are an experienced modeler. Is the MR forum the best for this? I don't know, but it's up there. I'm a member at a few others and a member of something like 40 email lists. When I started the push to finish my dissertation a few years back, I began dropping active participation in many, becaquse of time constraints if nothing else. Signal to noise is one way to look at it, but most provided useful info, just very focused and I often had little time to worry about what to do with such available expertise.
To me, active participation is encouraged by a low irritation to noise ratio. As a few examples have noted, the "expert" lists and forums often have a tendency to expect a lot of "respect" for the way things are usually done around their members. Sometimes, this goes awry to the point that considering new points of view -- not necessarily adopting them -- can turn quite controversial, even when the point was just to discuss an issue, not insist someone else adopt your point of view.
Thus, I appreciate the MR Forums for the positive energy they usually provide for me and my efforts to hang out online with like minded folks. If there's something here that's missing, then I can sure take a stab at making it happen. But there nothing preventing me from adding whatever I'd like except my own laziness.
Mike Lehman
Urbana, IL