I'm just going to put this out there and leave it for others to comment or not, as you see fit.
Today I was at the LHS and got a look at the new HO MTH PRR "H10s" 2-8-0. I use quotation marks because the engine has the PRR snifter valves atop the valve chest, which is an H9s feature, not seen on the H10s class. In fact, valve chest details are probably the only consistent spotting feature that distinguishes one class from the other. The engine was behind glass, and there were reflections, so I couldn't tell whether the other valve chest details were correct. Am I the only one who notices, or cares, when manufacturers fail to do their basic homework?
Similarly, Bachmann's new N scale K4s has a sandbox that looks to be much too tall. I haven't seen Bachmann's new USRA 2-8-2 in person, but advertising pictures seem to show a sandbox that is too tall on this engine, too.
Correct information is readily available. I wish the manufacturers would use it. Now MTH can market their engine in good conscience if they change the advertising to call it an H9s, and change the road numbers. As for Bachmann, I don't see why we should have to cut down their domes to arrive at accuracy. These companies are charging a lot of money for these engines. Considering the price, these errors are inexcusable.
End of rant.
Tom
In the good old days, product reviews would list key model dimensions in a comparison to the scaled down real dimensions. Any flaw in details was painstakingly mentioned and the overall rating was depending on accuracy of the representation as well as the performance.
What do we get today? Statements like "the model matches prototype dimensions" are useless and the ability to run on code 70 track as a noteworthy feature in a product review is a joke.
I wonder how many of the inaccuracies are attributable to a "lost in translation" scenario since so much of the tooling and design work is done by people who have never laid eyes upon anything close to the model that they are attempting to replicate.
The process of making a pre-production sample and shipping it across the waters is costly and time consuming and we model consumers all know of many products that were delayed, sometimes by years, and that has to take a toll on the importers bottom line so they cut corners. Then, of course, there's that factory time constraint window which probably puts even more pressure on the importer to rush the model out the door and into the shipping container.
I admire Jason Shron for the candid reports he makes concerning the developments of his Rapido products through his news postings. There may be others who place a great deal of care in the research of a model but he is one who is not shy about "telling it like it is" as far as the manufacturing process from concept through final shipping.
Yes, you would think that any engineer or toolmaker could look at detailed drawings and photographs and make an accurate model from that information (many of us who have scratchbuilt models of an unseen prototype can attest) but I would bet that when errors slip in and costs and time constraints are evaluated the importer will just shrug it off and say, close enough is good enough.
Sometimes, a reputable manufacturer will correct problems at their expense (Bowser's fuel tank and sill height on their recent Alco C-636) other times the model hits the streets and the buyer either doesn't know enough about an error or simply wants to "run trains" and use the "20/20" rule, at 20 feet away at 20 miles an hour, it looks OK.
I know Broadway Limited has been working closely with the PRR Historical and Technical Society and that is sure a good sign that a manufacturer is at least making an attempt at accuracy. I have heard that other manufacturers would prefer to "roll the dice" and go without any input from outside sources.
Reviews, as Ulrich points out, seem to be largely vague on certain details and for the most part, with the "preorder" zero inventory type marketing prevalent today the model is sold out before the review gets to the readers...
There's my 2¢ — Your Mileage May Vary
Ed
Ed:
You beat me to it! I was going to mention Jason Shron as an example of a manufacturer who is intent on getting it right, but who also seems to be able to maintain his bottom line.
I suspect that the manufacturers who are compromising on the accuracy of the details are doing so because the bean counters are essentially running the company. Personally, I lack the knowledge to discern the accuracy of various details, but that is not to say that I don't admire those who have the knowledge and apply it.
My advice to those who are focused on the accuracy of their models is to put, or more accurately - not put their money where they will not be happy with the purchase. Somehow I doubt that the OP or other like minded modellers needed my advice on that.
Dave
I'm just a dude with a bad back having a lot of fun with model trains, and finally building a layout!
To be honest, expecting a plastic-boilered mass produced engine to have the same level of detail as a brass engine costing 5X more may not be realistic.
Keep in mind too that engines, particularly steam engines, often changed dramatically over time. A 2-8-2 bought new in 1920 might be unrecognizeable by the 1950's after all the additions and alterations. If a railroad that owned a USRA Mike added a larger sand dome on it in the 1940's, and that happens to be the one the manufacturer is able to get data on, they could produce an engine that's "wrong" for many other railroads.
wjstix To be honest, expecting a plastic-boilered mass produced engine to have the same level of detail as a brass engine costing 5X more may not be realistic.
I may be assuming too much since I admit steam is not my area of expertise, but it "appears" there are some mass produced (however that is defined) plastic steam engines with a high degree of fidelity such as the Intermountain cab forward, Genesis and other makes UP Challenger, and doesn't Broadway make some fairly accurate steam engines too? Many of those models stand up well against brass.
Or are the afore mentioned not considered "mass produced". In my mind they are or else you'll need a new middle ground category for many plastic high fidelity models produced by Athearn Genesis, Intermountain, Broadway etc.
Rio Grande. The Action Road - Focus 1977-1983
Tom,
I have a different perspective. Not because I think the manufacturers don't have to get it right, but because I, like many I suspect, would not realize the model is wrong. That is one of the reasons why I appreciate when the experts here can direct me towards more prototype fidelity.
As an example, you and I had a conversation about the PRRs tendency to "share" boilers across steam locomotive classes. If you will recall, I had inquired about the potential that BLI would be able to use their H10 boiler to create an E6. You pointed out to me that while those two classes shared a common boiler design, things like sand domes were different. That is something quite honestly I may not have noticed until it was too late. Then it would really bother me, but it may not bother others.
Like anything else, I guess it goes back to buyer beware. There will always be manufacturers who will go the extra mile to make a model as correct as possible, those who will be very open about a model being "good enough", and those who may knowingly try to pass off models as "prototype" when they are anything but.
Regardless of this debate, I want to thank all of those who willingly share their knowledge with thE rest of us. I for one am grateful for your efforts!
Chris Ballinger
Modeling the Clementon Branch of the Pennsylvania-Reading Seashore Lines in HO scale
No one can know for sure what is right or wrong, we can only compair to the norm. In the steam era you made it work, you should see some of the jerryrigs that were done. Even in the diesel area, things like the S1 had one type of truck but another was availible that came on a later model, now did some road change things at some point because they had the parts or a rebuild. We do things all the time in the hobby like this and it is done in the 1-1 world too! Being in the trades, do you know how many times I have seen simple plumbing hooked up wrong! When I had a plumbing inspection once, before we ever got in the building, I was asked if I knew the difference between drain and service, makes me wonder what he saw at one time????????
I find this totally ironic as today's models are MUCH more accurate than those os yesteryear (other than brass). In the "good old days" it was common practive to just slap any popular road name on any model, the models not necessarily being accurate for ANY road, let alone the ones it got lettered for. Not tiny little details like a snifter valve that may or may not belong, but completely wrong driver sizes, boiler diameter, and even firebox shape. Box cars may or may not have had the proper size door, good luck for it having the correct type of ends.
These days - you have one box car offered in mutiple versions with different ends and doors to attempt to match the proper prototype. And that's in plastic RTR, not brass. Same with locos. As ndprr states, BLI works with the PRRT&HS to design their PRR prototype locos. This is still more than some do - Athearn, for example, was informed of the mistakes in their Reading GP-7 when it was still in the conceptual art stage and never made the change.
--Randy
Modeling the Reading Railroad in the 1950's
Visit my web site at www.readingeastpenn.com for construction updates, DCC Info, and more.
rrinker I find this totally ironic as today's models are MUCH more accurate than those os yesteryear...
I'm pretty much with Randy, although I would caution that brass can have its own share of issues. Most mfgs make an effort if they hope to appeal to scale modelers. It's good that people note discrepancies, as wider knowledge improves the hobby. But keep in mind this can take time. Why?
Tooling and production costs are always a factor in correcting errorneous features. Now, a few may say, dang the cost, full speed ahead, but vendors need to keep pricing so stuff sells. They may know about an error for some time before the economics make correction feasible.
Best is to never make mistakes, but who in life is ever perfect? Building a new model is a complex endeavor involving many of the same cost-benefit analyses as correcting past mistakes.
Ultimately, it's up to the consumer to assess whether a model is suitable for their use or not. It is after all, a model, not a perfect replica. No one claims to make perfect replicas. Many say they make accurate models and that's usually true any more. If people want to browbeat folks over that last 1.5% of accuracy, well, I guess that's a big deal for some folks. But I find it quickly gets tedious unless its nuanced to appreciate what might be at play in correcting an issue or which might otherwise explain it.
Mike Lehman
Urbana, IL
This is why I am glad I am a freelancer. I don't care one bit about prototypical accuracy. If I can't tell something is wrong by looking at it, it's good enough for me. My modeling year is 1956 but I have no problem with paint schemes on rolling stock and locos that didn't appear until several years later. I also have a few 1959 Fords on the layout because of the limited number of choices available in transition era automobiles.
I said I would stand back and let others comment, implying that I would say no more. I guess I had my fingers crossed behind my back when I said that. I don't intend to add much, but I will respond to a couple specific points.
1. Yes, many models --- probably most --- are much better today than they were in the earlier days. For example, the new acid tank car by Kadee was preceded by a very early metal model by MDC. Atlas produced the car, and now Kadee. There may have been other efforts in between. Each version was progressively better as better information has surfaced and manufacturing standards have improved. All of these are good models, and good examples of the technology of their day.
2. When errors find their way into production models, the better manufacturers do their best to improve future runs of that model. Some of the old Penn Line steam locos had skinny boilers. After Bowser took over the line, they produced new boilers with a more accurate profile, and made the parts available to upgrade old runs.
3. While most of my modeling focuses on non-Canadian subjects, I understand and agree that Jason has consistently held Rapido to high standards. With regard to PRR prototypes, you will notice that my criticism of the PRR engines was restricted to MTH. I did not criticize BLI, which seems to adhere to higher standards, detail-wise. I don't mean to suggest that the products of Rapido, BLI, or anybody else, is perfect. Nothing in this world is. But it's clear that they try harder.
4. If you look hard enough you might find a USRA 2-8-2 with an unusually tall sandbox a la Bachmann. No matter how hard you look, you won't find a K4s with a sandbox as tall as the one on their N scale model. Two K4s and a few USRA 2-8-2's exist, so these dimensions can be field checked by anybody with the energy to do so. A K4s is in Strasburg, 60-65 miles west from Bachmann's headquarters. The very first USRA light 2-8-2 is in Baltimore, about 100 miles south. The headquarters of MTH is Columbia, MD, about 95-100 miles from the only surviving H10s in Strasburg, PA.
5. As it stands, the MTH "H10s" is a very presentable H9s. So why not offer it that way and market it that way? From my cursory look at the engine, it seems to have a pretty nice rendition of a PRR tender that was used on H8 variants, H9s, and H10s locos.
6. Without careful checking, I'm not sure whether any H9s were rebuilt into H10s. However, the H8, H9, and H10 shared the same boiler, and many H8 variants were definitely rebuilt into H9s or H10s. The main reliable and consistent spotting fearures are centered on the steam pipes, cylinders, and valve chests.
For me ignorance is a bliss.
Modeling an HO gauge freelance version of the Union Pacific Oregon Short Line and the Utah Railway around 1957 in a world where Pirates from the Great Salt Lake founded Ogden, UT.
- Photo album of layout construction -
"Closely matches prototype dimensions..."
Quoted from Walther's Proto page:
Working directly with railroad historical societies, museums and modeling authorities to obtain the most accurate data possible, each WalthersProto model is superbly detailed to match its prototype.
Oh, really?
It might be entertaining to start a new thread highlighting some of the most outrageous foobies ever offered.
Happy Modeling, Ed
Onewolf For me ignorance is a bliss.
That was me back in the 1980's regarding a lot of rolling stock. Then I bought Rio Grande Color Guide to Freight and Passenger Equipment by Jim Eager around 1990 or so. It was a bit like the model train version of biting into the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil! Suddenly I could compare many of the models I had bought to nice large photo's of most of the D&RGW roster and my eyes were opened to the many fantasy models I had.
Thus began my weeding out of the many bogus models I owned and putting them up for sale to raise cash for newer, accurate models. It's not all bad. Why? Because I am on a limited budget and for years when I didn't have space to work on a layout, I could spend some time researching and focusing my budget on finding and obtain fairly accurate freight cars. You see, I have always wanted to put together model versions of trains I watch in my teens and twenties, and now with all the accurate models coming out in the past 10 years, that is a very attainable goal.
Even back in the late 1990's I found that there were a lot of fairly correct models out on the market if you just did a little research. Many of my early red-box Walthers kits and other models were pretty good matches. I even put together a list to help myself identify what models on the market were fairly correct for D&RGW and to avoid the rest. As time has gone by, I have done the same thing for numerous connecting roads too such as BN, SP, WP, MP, MILW and so on. To this day I'll often do informal vetting by taking models from Atlas (for example) and compare them to photo's on Fallen Flags or RRArchives etc.
It would be nice to see a picture of the model. However, I can't seem to find one anywhere, not even on the MTH website. They do show 5 models, but all show a delivery status of "cancelled". I guess their website needs updating.
https://www.google.com/search?q=mth+ho+prr+h10&biw=1366&bih=681&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0CCIQsARqFQoTCJvlruDhhskCFYVXPgodCEYMAw
These photos show no snifter valve?
http://www.pacific-western-rail.com/announcements/view.php?ID=7090
But this one does!
http://mthtrains.com/80-3240-1
riogrande5761 Or are the afore mentioned not considered "mass produced". In my mind they are or else you'll need a new middle ground category for many plastic high fidelity models produced by Athearn Genesis, Intermountain, Broadway etc.
Yes, I would say there may need to be a third category of model, as there are different strata of models. Bachmann makes very nice models of SP 4449 and N&W 611 for example, but they're not as good as BLI's versions of those engines - but the Bachmann engines only cost 1/2 or 1/3 as much. It's the same as with say Athearn diesels - an Athearn "blue box" F7 might have very well done decoration, but it's not going to have the detail of the Genesis version of the same engine / railroad.
BTW in general, I haven't been very impressed with MTH's HO products. They're primarly noted for producing O three-rail models, and have been criticized in that field for producing "scale" models that really sometimes are and sometimes aren't correctly proportioned.
ACY Correct information is readily available.
Correct information is readily available.
Incorrect information is also readily available, maybe even more readily available, and sometimes is stridently proclaimed to be correct. Back when I was a Pennsy modeler I learned that there were some untrustworthy but "noisy" sources who unfortunately had marvelous resources of photos and such. I cannot say that was the problem here but it is not unthinkable that some H9s photos or drawings got mixed in with H10s photos. And yeah I know the Pennsy's numbering system could be unhelpful.
Even within a reputable source, things can get mixed up in era and there have been such "era hybrid" models released because the source information all related to the same prototype, just at different times.
Dave Nelson
ACY I'm just going to put this out there and leave it for others to comment or not, as you see fit. Today I was at the LHS and got a look at the new HO MTH PRR "H10s" 2-8-0. I use quotation marks because the engine has the PRR snifter valves atop the valve chest, which is an H9s feature, not seen on the H10s class. In fact, valve chest details are probably the only consistent spotting feature that distinguishes one class from the other. The engine was behind glass, and there were reflections, so I couldn't tell whether the other valve chest details were correct. Am I the only one who notices, or cares, when manufacturers fail to do their basic homework? Similarly, Bachmann's new N scale K4s has a sandbox that looks to be much too tall. I haven't seen Bachmann's new USRA 2-8-2 in person, but advertising pictures seem to show a sandbox that is too tall on this engine, too. Correct information is readily available. I wish the manufacturers would use it. Now MTH can market their engine in good conscience if they change the advertising to call it an H9s, and change the road numbers. As for Bachmann, I don't see why we should have to cut down their domes to arrive at accuracy. These companies are charging a lot of money for these engines. Considering the price, these errors are inexcusable. End of rant. Tom
ACY I said I would stand back and let others comment, implying that I would say no more. I guess I had my fingers crossed behind my back when I said that. I don't intend to add much, but I will respond to a couple specific points. 1. Yes, many models --- probably most --- are much better today than they were in the earlier days. For example, the new acid tank car by Kadee was preceded by a very early metal model by MDC. Atlas produced the car, and now Kadee. There may have been other efforts in between. Each version was progressively better as better information has surfaced and manufacturing standards have improved. All of these are good models, and good examples of the technology of their day. 2. When errors find their way into production models, the better manufacturers do their best to improve future runs of that model. Some of the old Penn Line steam locos had skinny boilers. After Bowser took over the line, they produced new boilers with a more accurate profile, and made the parts available to upgrade old runs. 3. While most of my modeling focuses on non-Canadian subjects, I understand and agree that Jason has consistently held Rapido to high standards. With regard to PRR prototypes, you will notice that my criticism of the PRR engines was restricted to MTH. I did not criticize BLI, which seems to adhere to higher standards, detail-wise. I don't mean to suggest that the products of Rapido, BLI, or anybody else, is perfect. Nothing in this world is. But it's clear that they try harder. 4. If you look hard enough you might find a USRA 2-8-2 with an unusually tall sandbox a la Bachmann. No matter how hard you look, you won't find a K4s with a sandbox as tall as the one on their N scale model. Two K4s and a few USRA 2-8-2's exist, so these dimensions can be field checked by anybody with the energy to do so. A K4s is in Strasburg, 60-65 miles west from Bachmann's headquarters. The very first USRA light 2-8-2 is in Baltimore, about 100 miles south. The headquarters of MTH is Columbia, MD, about 95-100 miles from the only surviving H10s in Strasburg, PA. 5. As it stands, the MTH "H10s" is a very presentable H9s. So why not offer it that way and market it that way? From my cursory look at the engine, it seems to have a pretty nice rendition of a PRR tender that was used on H8 variants, H9s, and H10s locos. 6. Without careful checking, I'm not sure whether any H9s were rebuilt into H10s. However, the H8, H9, and H10 shared the same boiler, and many H8 variants were definitely rebuilt into H9s or H10s. The main reliable and consistent spotting fearures are centered on the steam pipes, cylinders, and valve chests. Tom
First of all, remember that MTH has a different target market than BLI.They sell collectables, while BLI appeals to prototype modelers. Also, the're a lot of people out there who are unaware of the difference, and really don't care one way or another.
I'm not really in to steam power, although I have a BLI I1 and a BLI H10. I also have a BLI Reading T1. I primarily model PRR, 1966 -1968, or nine years after the last steamer was whitelined. Ironically, the I1 was prohibited over the branch I am trying to model, and the H9 was more common, so technically, all my steamers are foobies, no matter how accurate.
I did some further checking on the MTH H10s & here's what I've found:
* No H9s were converted to H10s, but many H8 variants were.
* All H10s were numbered 7001 or higher. Most H9s were numbered below those numbers, with the exception of a few H9s originally assigned to Lines West.
* Among the pictures in Ed's post, one showed 7103 without a snifter valve, making it a correct H10s. All other pix, including other pix of 7103, show snifter valves, making them H9s. These all appear to be artist's impressions, rather than straight photos.
* Various numbers mentioned and/or illustrated include PRR 7103, 7107, 7099, 7122, 8421, LIRR 103, LIRR 107, and LIRR 130. All of these were H10s except LIRR 130, which did not exist. I suspect some of these are misprints, or represent erroneous artists' conceptions which will not be released.
* I checked the MTH site and tried to do a quick search, typing in Pennsylvania RR H10s 2-8-0. The response I got was "your search yielded no results". AAAAARGH!
I think I'm done now.
I am glad to see that Rapido was mentioned as someone who cares about the correctness of the model trains and passenger cars that they sell. My premier train on my layout is the Rapido Canadian with its 3 F units.
I am just so taken back to see that train on my layout and still marvel at the level of detail it has.
I thought I was more or less through buying trains for my layout, however with Rapido's recent announcement that they will be releasing a series of Canadian Streamers I know that I will be adding to my layout a model or two of each of their steamers. That is one set of engines that I will gladley preorder to try to ensure that the numbers are there for them to produce the proposed engines. Given the level of detail in their past offerings i am sure that there will be sufficient interest for the Rapido steamers to be brought to the marketplace.
jecorbett This is why I am glad I am a freelancer. I don't care one bit about prototypical accuracy. If I can't tell something is wrong by looking at it, it's good enough for me. My modeling year is 1956 but I have no problem with paint schemes on rolling stock and locos that didn't appear until several years later. I also have a few 1959 Fords on the layout because of the limited number of choices available in transition era automobiles.
Me too. My layout is set in SP territory, but I added a short line to it that was actually proposed but never completed in the 1/1 world. So anything that doesn't match accurate SP (as near as I can tell) will get lettered for that short line. Cop out? Maybe, but I don't have to fret the inaccuracies.
I do understand completely the OP's concern however. I don't like to see these liberties taken by manufacturers. I can't bring myself to run the Athearn "SP" cupola cabooses based on the distinctly Santa Fe prototype.
What's interesting is that I have only learned of any and all inaccuracies from the model building community, never from my own observastion of the real thing.
The difference between manufacturers like Rapido and the others is that companies like Rapido are run by modelers. Bachmann and its contemporates are not run by modelers, but by a corporate board who answers only to investors. 99% of companies only care enough about customers to keep you buying product. They don't care if you complain. They dont care if you are unhappy. All they care about is that you buy it and 99% of their customers do just that, buy it anyway.
You came here to express your concern that some details on this particular locomotive were not right. You are unhappy with the manufacterer because of this.
The real questions here are: Did you buy it anyway? Will you buy it anyway? If they keep getting them wrong, why do you keep buying them?
Hobbez The difference between manufacturers like Rapido and the others is that companies like Rapido are run by modelers. Bachmann and its contemporates are not run by modelers, but by a corporate board who answers only to investors. 99% of companies only care enough about customers to keep you buying product. They don't care if you complain. They dont care if you are unhappy. All they care about is that you buy it and 99% of their customers do just that, buy it anyway. You came here to express your concern that some details on this particular locomotive were not right. You are unhappy with the manufacterer because of this. The real questions here are: Did you buy it anyway? Will you buy it anyway? If they keep getting them wrong, why do you keep buying them?
Points well made. Jason Schron of Rapido is a modeler as you said, and goes the extra mile to research and develop models with a high degree of fidelity to the prototype. They aren't cheap, but they are among the very best made in HO. The Canadian passenger train mentioned by another person is gorgeous and accurate, and not cheap. But if I were a Canadian or American and wanted to accurately model that train, I would save up for it!
ExactRail and Tangent are two other companies run by modelers, like Blaine and David, respectfully - they also do research and produce some of the most accurate and exquisite models made in HO today. They are two of my favorite companies these days.
I do not limit my purchases strictly to any company, but I do prefer to focus my limited budget on trains which are good copies of prototypes as much as possible, so that means I do tend to purchase mostly from ExactRail, Athearn Genesis, Tangent, and lately Moloco, but with some care one can also find decently accurate models from Atlas, Walthers and yes, Athearn and some Accurail etc.
Ok this topic is aimed at steam so Broadway, MTH, Athearn Genesis, Intermountain, Riverossi, Bachmann etc. are among the current makers. Those who are into steam and want accuracy from what I am seeing have never had it better. Prior to the last 10 years, give or take, it was a rare plastic model that was accurate in steam so it was pretty much a brass game. Now we have a lot of plastic models coming out with more and more paying attention to fidelity to the prototype. With Rapido's recent announcement, another company is joining the fold of accurate steam engines.
Do your homework before buying to increase odds of having a more satifying experience with your models.
Southgate jecorbett This is why I am glad I am a freelancer. I don't care one bit about prototypical accuracy. If I can't tell something is wrong by looking at it, it's good enough for me. My modeling year is 1956 but I have no problem with paint schemes on rolling stock and locos that didn't appear until several years later. I also have a few 1959 Fords on the layout because of the limited number of choices available in transition era automobiles. Me too. My layout is set in SP territory, but I added a short line to it that was actually proposed but never completed in the 1/1 world. So anything that doesn't match accurate SP (as near as I can tell) will get lettered for that short line. Cop out? Maybe, but I don't have to fret the inaccuracies. I do understand completely the OP's concern however. I don't like to see these liberties taken by manufacturers. I can't bring myself to run the Athearn "SP" cupola cabooses based on the distinctly Santa Fe prototype. What's interesting is that I have only learned of any and all inaccuracies from the model building community, never from my own observastion of the real thing.
Everyone gets to decide what level of accuracy is right for them but even if I were a prototype modeler I can't imagine being concerned about that level of prototype fidelity. This hobby forces us to make compromises. Selective compression isn't exactly accurate either but it is something that almost all of us must do because of limited space. Sometimes I think too much knowledge is a bad thing. My freelance railroad interchanges with real railroads. My BLI Niagra looks like a faithful reproduction of those I've seen in pictures and videos. If I have to research every last detail on it to find out something is wrong with it, I'd rather not know. To me, close is good enough.
I would think that anyone's desired accuracy in a model would be proportional to that individual's own interest and familiarity with a particular prototype.
My particular interest is Conrail, so it was important to me that my BLI C30-7 came with the proper truck sideframes. That particular model came painted for other railroads, some of which had different sideframes. Since BLI offered two different types, I wanted those on my model to be correct. I determined that those on my model were incorrect, and BLI sent me the proper items. But I'll bet that there are many Conrail models out there right now where the otherwise happy owners don't know or care about the difference.
Concerning the original subject loco, the average individual who maybe bought one because he saw a steam loco at Strasburg or Steamtown probably won't know/care about boiler discrepancies or whether or not the model came with snifter valves. And I would almost be willing to bet that the average modeller on the street would not even know what a snifter valve was in the first place, much less whether or not a certain loco did or did not have them.
Being a diesel guy, I certainly didn't know what one was until I used Google.