Somewhere I'd heard the term "foobie" to describe a stand-in on a model railroad that doesn't match the prototype but fills a role until a prototypical piece can be built. That word stuck with me and I use it to describe many of my "almost-correct" cars that may never actually be replaced by anything better. A foobie can be a loco, a car, a structure, etc.
I recently picked up a 3-pack of ConCor N scale Conrail 50' grain-door boxcars. What attracted me to them were the large "canopener" logo common in early Conrail operations. While I couldn't find protoype photos or information about these cars, they look typical of the hodgepodge of cars Conrail used from its 1976 inception until the early 1980s. So I figured they'd be fun anyway.
One the left is an unmodified car. Note the oversized wheelsets, flimsy trucks, and Rapido couplers. First order of business was to replace the trucks and couplers with MicroTrains roller-bearing trucks and knuckle couplers. The replacement wheelsets have low-profile flanges. Then I hit them with a good shot of Dullcote and weathered them with acrylic washes. A completed car is on the right.
The third car in the set has the spectacular super canopener logo. This was in use very early, early enough to justify an ACI plackard (I used Microscale decals for that). Here it is in consist:
My only complaint now is that the cars sit too high; I'm considering filing down the bolsters to lower them.
Modeling the Rio Grande Southern First District circa 1938-1946 in HOn3.
They look great will like to have some in HO.
Russell
Dave,I like your foobies.
Foobie, eh? What if the entire model railroad is a "foobie"? Then is a foobie a foobie or something not a foobie? If a foobie takes the place of something that it's not, and everything around it is "not" then what by definition would a "foobie" then be- something that "is" but shouldn't be? So if you had a correct piece of prototype, in an enviroment that is "foobie" or indeed, "fubar", then wouldn't the prototype peice be of itself a "foobie"?
Besides, how correct can any N scale railroad be when it's built indoors where a prototype is not? The entire concept then becomes foobie until a model becomes 1:1 scale its all foobie to me.
The Dixie D Short Line "Lux Lucet In Tenebris Nihil Igitur Mors Est Ad Nos 2001"
I guess a "foobie" is what I call a "Close enough model". I have many of those for sure.
Nice work, Dave, with the ConRail bxocar !
GARRY
HEARTLAND DIVISION, CB&Q RR
EVERYWHERE LOST; WE HUSTLE OUR CABOOSE FOR YOU
CattDave,I like your foobies.
What a great pair of foobies! (Actually a trio )
This space reserved for SpaceMouse's future presidential candidacy advertisements
tangerine-jack Foobie, eh? What if the entire model railroad is a "foobie"? Then is a foobie a foobie or something not a foobie? If a foobie takes the place of something that it's not, and everything around it is "not" then what by definition would a "foobie" then be- something that "is" but shouldn't be? So if you had a correct piece of prototype, in an enviroment that is "foobie" or indeed, "fubar", then wouldn't the prototype peice be of itself a "foobie"? Besides, how correct can any N scale railroad be when it's built indoors where a prototype is not? The entire concept then becomes foobie until a model becomes 1:1 scale its all foobie to me.
Sounds pretty existentialist (BS in my opinion ). It might also be an Other Scale vs N Scale arguement veiled in intellectual smoke . Either way I see no constructive critcism (to help the modeler do a better job) or compliment on a job well done with the materials available.
Dave, that's another example of really nice work in what N Scale has to offer the creative modeler! Keep it up.
Bob
OK were does one get those 'foobies'? They look good!
Any argument carried far enough will end up in Semantics--Hartz's law of rhetoric Emerald. Leemer and Southern The route of the Sceptre Express Barry
I just started my blog site...more stuff to come...
http://modeltrainswithmusic.blogspot.ca/
I rather enjoy occasionally taking something a so-called "serious modeler" might dismiss and trying to make it look decent. It can be as fun as an advanced project. Variety is good.
Dave VollmerI rather enjoy occasionally taking something a so-called "serious modeler" might dismiss and trying to make it look decent. It can be as fun as an advanced project. Variety is good.
You're not serious are you? Foobies done well are nice! Yours are very nice!
Ray Seneca Lake, Ontario, and Western R.R. (S.L.O.&W.) in HO
We'll get there sooner or later!
Ever wonder if to get such nice "foobies" he had to get plastic surgery?
navygunner tangerine-jack Foobie, eh? What if the entire model railroad is a "foobie"? Then is a foobie a foobie or something not a foobie? If a foobie takes the place of something that it's not, and everything around it is "not" then what by definition would a "foobie" then be- something that "is" but shouldn't be? So if you had a correct piece of prototype, in an enviroment that is "foobie" or indeed, "fubar", then wouldn't the prototype peice be of itself a "foobie"? Besides, how correct can any N scale railroad be when it's built indoors where a prototype is not? The entire concept then becomes foobie until a model becomes 1:1 scale its all foobie to me. Sounds pretty existentialist (BS in my opinion ). It might also be an Other Scale vs N Scale arguement veiled in intellectual smoke . Either way I see no constructive critcism (to help the modeler do a better job) or compliment on a job well done with the materials available. Dave, that's another example of really nice work in what N Scale has to offer the creative modeler! Keep it up. Bob
Oops, I saw the word "fun" in the title of the thread and thought it meant to have fun with the thread and the foobie concept. My mistake. No more foobie jokes or inuendos please......
Ok, here is the compliment: Great job taking an off the shelf boxcar and changing the trucks. Excellent work buiding a foobie!
Don't worry, I got what you were after...! After all, I've been known to have fun witha few threads myself as well as to wander into the existential... I recall my thread about the theory of "good enough." That was an interesting trip!
Dave Vollmer Don't worry, I got what you were after...! After all, I've been known to have fun witha few threads myself as well as to wander into the existential... I recall my thread about the theory of "good enough." That was an interesting trip!
Yes, I remember that thread> But you never answered one very important question. Was that thread really "good enough?"
Irv
The cars look great. I don't really worry too much about things being 100 percent historically accurate. My approach is more representational than realistic more or less about what looks right. I'm not gonna rip my hair out because a car might have 44 rivets where the prototype only had 43 or toss and turn all night just because I may have placed a detail part a scale millimeter off from where it was on the actual engine or freight car.
DV:
The cars look good. Blending in, that's the important thing.
As a user of a lot of stand-ins for (eventual) good equipment, I feel I can present some Fooby Don'ts.
1. Try to avoid direct comparison between foobies and the equipment they are supposed to represent. It just looks obvious. :)
(The mockup building is foobish, too.)
2. Upgrading a substitute can cause problems. For example, you might end up with a loco that runs way too well to quit using, even though it looks like this:
(This was the only engine I used for a while, when getting my current railroad running)
3. Silly trainset cars may be used temporarily, but Tootsie Roll car-cards are taking the joke too far.
(Fortunately, this boxcar is now in the track cleaning pool)
4. Hiring robots to substitute for scarce MoW equipment is never a good idea.
So there are foobies and there are other foobies...
Dave, if my foobies and stand-ins ever look half as good as yours (even if they are twice as big!) I'll be a very happy camper.
Currently, I have two operating "stand-in" locomotives:
Also, some `to be modified' 4-bay hoppers have just become my designated derailment checkers, so they are on the rails and in regular operation. The backshop crew is busy doing necessary electrical work, so their conversion to 7-axle articulated units will probably be delayed.
I could put others on the rails, but I have been resisting the temptation.
The GG1 is neither a stand-in nor scheduled for modification. Its wide-swinging carbody is my designated clearance checker.
Chuck (Modeling Central Japan in September, 1964 - but not a fanatic about it)