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
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.
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.
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.
- Douglas
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
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 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
Rio Grande. The Action Road - Focus 1977-1983
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".
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
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
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.
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!
ATLANTIC CENTRALWell 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. A few years back MRN ran a review of the Bachmann gas-electric and trailing coach. The reviewer used the Maryland and Pennsylvania one. He never pointed out that the gas-electric was not the right model nor was the trailing coach.
But the flip side is that if you didn't want to build your own and wanted DCC, maybe it's close enough. Personally, if someone comes out with a camelback with dcc and sound lettered for the Ma&Pa in S scale I'll buy it.
Doughless Paul3 Why would anyone take offense if someone else judges a model to be generic? Especially when it is. How is that considered elitist? Unless it also included a statement like, "I would never, of course, lower myself to use such plebian models. Those are reserved for the lower classes." Now that would be 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. As far as foobie or bogus. I cant see how someone who truly cares about fidelity can be tricked into buying something. Either they know or they don't. If they don't know the product is inaccurate before they buy it, then they apparently don't want to put the work it takes into the standards they pretend to have. It almost seems they want to hang with others in the elitist bubble even though they dont really have the knowledge. It makes for a weird discussion on a lot of forums.
Paul3 Why would anyone take offense if someone else judges a model to be generic? Especially when it is. How is that considered elitist? Unless it also included a statement like, "I would never, of course, lower myself to use such plebian models. Those are reserved for the lower classes." Now that would be elitist.
Why would anyone take offense if someone else judges a model to be generic? Especially when it is. How is that considered elitist? Unless it also included a statement like, "I would never, of course, lower myself to use such plebian models. Those are reserved for the lower classes." Now that would be elitist.
As far as foobie or bogus. I cant see how someone who truly cares about fidelity can be tricked into buying something. Either they know or they don't. If they don't know the product is inaccurate before they buy it, then they apparently don't want to put the work it takes into the standards they pretend to have. It almost seems they want to hang with others in the elitist bubble even though they dont really have the knowledge.
It makes for a weird discussion on a lot of forums.
Well said, why is it the manufacturers job to inform you? If it really matters that much, learn before you buy.
As far as foobie or bogus. I cant see how someone who truly cares about fidelity can be tricked into buying something. Either they know or they don't. If they don't know the product is inaccurate before they buy it, then they apparently don't want to put the work it takes into acquiring the standards they pretend to have. It almost seems they want to hang with others in the elitist bubble even though they dont really have the knowledge.
Paul, thanks for the history lesson that I have often given others on this forum about early piggyback.
I have nearly 100 early piggyback flats. 50/53', 40', many with single 32/35' vans, as well as twin 25/26' vans.
I modify the Athearn cars by making the trailers single axle, relocating the landing gear, adding bridge plates, improving the rub rails, etc. Easy and effective.
I also have about 18 of the "brand new" 75' flats (old Walthers kits) , in PRR, WABASH and ATLANTIC CENTRAL, with two 32/35' vans.
A great many of the earliest 40' cars were home built from the ground up, often on box car frames. Nobody is offering any of those cars in the "high end" market.......
Varney and Ulrich both had nice 40' early TOFC models.
Paul3Brakie,Even when I'm focused on the switching move, my eyes are still wide open. I can see that this: http://www.knuckleheadquarters.net/images/TRA-TycoNewHavenBoxCar.jpg doesn't compare so well with this: http://rrmodelcraftsman.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/NERPM-2015-04.jpg Both are plug door NH boxcars, except one is realistic and the other...not so much.
Paul,Apples to oranges.We both know when you have cars like the older Roundhouse FMC (now Athearn RTR) they blend in just like BB cars with the higher tier cars especially if you're holding waybills,a throttle your eyes are not on the details. but,running your train-unless you are bent on smashing the cars against the bumper.
I suspect everybodies eye are open when they are switching-I have seen members doze of while running mindless loops during a open house though.
Brakie,Even when I'm focused on the switching move, my eyes are still wide open. I can see that this: http://www.knuckleheadquarters.net/images/TRA-TycoNewHavenBoxCar.jpg doesn't compare so well with this: http://rrmodelcraftsman.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/NERPM-2015-04.jpg Both are plug door NH boxcars, except one is realistic and the other...not so much.
And IMHO, yes, track is a model, too. It's why I stay away from Atlas Code 100 and above-the-plywood switch motors these days. At my club, we do a lot of handlaying, some MicroEngineering flex, and Fast Tracks jigs for switches.
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?"
BigDaddy,Hmm... I dunno. Are you looking at their page or your own newsfeed? Maybe they have set up their page to sort by latest reply instead of chronologically? I generally "follow" a page I like vs. going to that page. That way it appears on my newsfeed.
Crandall,For many years, I've seen people complain that real modeling topics get ignored while silly topics get all the replies. It's because as a discussion forum, debate drives it. Someone has to be pro and someone has to be con. When someone posts an awesome modeling topic of "How I did this...", at most there will be a few posts saying, "Huzzah!" but there's no debate about it because there's no con to be had...just pros. To get a good modeling discussion going, there needs to be at least two conflicting approaches or ideas to it. Otherwise, it will get just a couple replies and quickly sink to the bottom of the page.
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 NH E60F from Walthers as a 15 year old kid only to find out later that not only did the NH not actually have any, the paint scheme was completely fictional and the loco itself was never even on the East Coast, let alone in New Haven territory. At least today, the manufacturers are more willing to note when they do something completely fictional (in the fine print).
"Generic" really doesn't work, either. The new Atlas Trainmaster run of models is accurate, generic, and has a foobie. It's a very accurate model for one version of the TM. The detailing is generic as it's the same across all the paint schemes (they all have steam gen.'s even if the prototype did not). The NH paint job is a foobie; the NH never had any...which Atlas admits in the fine print: "Alternate History paint scheme: F-M produced artwork for the New haven Train Master, but the locomotives were never ordered."
BTW, the Athearn twin van 50' flat is representative of the late 1930's through WWII. In 1944, 53'6" flats started becoming the norm as trailers went from 24 to 26 feet long. By 1954, the trailers were getting to be 32'-35' long, and single trailers on 40' or 50' flats were more the norm. There's a picture in a NH book I own that shows the TOFC facility in New York City in 1954. Of the 35 trailers shown, only one is less than 30' long. The old Varney 40' single TOFC is actually a pretty good model for early 1950's TOFC.
Now that I've said all of the above, and getting back on topic, is the above TOFC paragraph in any way offensive to Sheldon? I hope not. I relayed accurate prototypical information in a polite "just the facts" way. Some, however, would see this as a personal attack on Sheldon and his modeling. Um, no, it wasn't. And maybe Sheldon has different data that conflicts with mine. That's fine, too. Neither is an attack on the other, but some would see it that way.
riogrande5761 ATLANTIC CENTRAL Jim, here is the total disconnect between us, I'm not talking about Athearn 85' or 89' flat cars........they did not exist in my 1954 era......... I'm talking about the 50' flat car with two 25' vans, the classic original piggyback service on the B&O, SP, NKP, etc. Too much trouble to post pictures with this tablet, I will post some later, Sheldon ok, never mind! You did say "Athearn Blue Box piggy back flat" to be fair and Athearn does make two 85' piggy back flat cars in the blue box line in addition to the shorter ones. I do know they weren't built until 1960 but I forget everyones modeling era. Giving the length at 50' would have helped. That reminds me, not long ago Athearn announced a new run of the 50' piggy back flat cars with two trailers - but my guess is you won't be interested in them because AFIAK, they are shall I say "alternate reality" paint jobs - the 25' trailers are painted in schemes you would have seen on mainly 45' trailers in the 1980's. I've seen 40' FRP trailers painted for CR and BN in the late 1970's as well. But man are these alternate reality trailers wierd looking to me! http://www.athearn.com/Search/Default.aspx?SearchTerm=50%27+Flat&CatID=THRF
ATLANTIC CENTRAL Jim, here is the total disconnect between us, I'm not talking about Athearn 85' or 89' flat cars........they did not exist in my 1954 era......... I'm talking about the 50' flat car with two 25' vans, the classic original piggyback service on the B&O, SP, NKP, etc. Too much trouble to post pictures with this tablet, I will post some later, Sheldon
Jim, here is the total disconnect between us, I'm not talking about Athearn 85' or 89' flat cars........they did not exist in my 1954 era.........
I'm talking about the 50' flat car with two 25' vans, the classic original piggyback service on the B&O, SP, NKP, etc.
Too much trouble to post pictures with this tablet, I will post some later,
ok, never mind! You did say "Athearn Blue Box piggy back flat" to be fair and Athearn does make two 85' piggy back flat cars in the blue box line in addition to the shorter ones. I do know they weren't built until 1960 but I forget everyones modeling era. Giving the length at 50' would have helped.
That reminds me, not long ago Athearn announced a new run of the 50' piggy back flat cars with two trailers - but my guess is you won't be interested in them because AFIAK, they are shall I say "alternate reality" paint jobs - the 25' trailers are painted in schemes you would have seen on mainly 45' trailers in the 1980's. I've seen 40' FRP trailers painted for CR and BN in the late 1970's as well. But man are these alternate reality trailers wierd looking to me!
http://www.athearn.com/Search/Default.aspx?SearchTerm=50%27+Flat&CatID=THRF
Correct, I already have nearly all the previous RTR releases with the period correct paint schemes, as well as the old BB schemes, and lots of repaints, pictures later.
ATLANTIC CENTRAL My solution to the 89' car coupler issue is larger curves.......and true body mounted couplers.... Sheldon
My solution to the 89' car coupler issue is larger curves.......and true body mounted couplers....
Basically that is what I did to my blue box flat car, converted it to body mount coupler vs. the quasi talgo mount that they have out-of-the-box.
BTW, here is a comment by Harry Wong regarding the upgrading the Athearn blue box car:
A-Line still makes an excellent weight + lowering kit for the classic Athearn blue box 85' flat. It works very well, and even allows for working cushion draft gear. All you need is the end weight kit, but the centersill kit is good stuff as well.
Tinker skills are pretty useful in the hobby. I had my own solution what worked fine regarding the funky tongue and swing mount, but what bothers me the most personally is the deck height. Here is the A-line kit for correct the deck height - the end weights are sold separately as well.
https://ppw-aline.com/collections/stick-on-lead-steel-weights/products/13202-athearn-85-flat-car-w-end-weights-undec
https://ppw-aline.com/collections/stick-on-lead-steel-weights/products/13200-weight-set-1car
I'll probably hunt the latter down to upgrade my bb flat car and have 3 of the upgraded 85' PS TT RTR cars coming in the mail this week to balance out the TOFC fleet a bit.
Sheldon,We had a guy to do that with Athearn 86' autopart boxcars at one of the clubs I was a member of and those cars ran without issues but our tightest main line curve was 36"..We called it the "Chevy Fast Forwarder" and it ran from North to South staging.
riogrande5761 Larry, whatever some may think, it appears the consensus disagree's - and the upgrades Athearn has made are proof that they felt the old swing coupler system was inferior. The one bb flat I have left works well enough the way I modified it - I don't plan on buying anymore since I prefer the improvements Athearn made.
Larry, whatever some may think, it appears the consensus disagree's - and the upgrades Athearn has made are proof that they felt the old swing coupler system was inferior. The one bb flat I have left works well enough the way I modified it - I don't plan on buying anymore since I prefer the improvements Athearn made.
Jim,Perhaps I had the "tinkerers skill" to solved the problem. Of course I could have listen to the consensus of the time and toss the kit into the nearest trash can but,seeing how well those cars ran at the club I wasn't about to toss it. I ended up building 17 of those flats (all TTX) and added two trailers to each flat and those trailers could be removed*-I used a "U" shape channel from Evergreen glued on its side as a holder and it worked quite well. The trailer's landing gear slip into the "U". As you know the TTX car came in one number so,I spent several hours renumbering those cars with decals.
*The club had a no lose load rule..I was told that rule was voted in after a load fall off a flat car and caused a derailment that sent a brass steam engine plummeting off a bridge.
What we really need is the forum to have dedicated spaces for two divergent groops, one for newbees to post, every one expects begining questions and the people who go there are newbees or want to help newbees and an advanced section, not rivit counters per say but for people who want to show off or ask questions about advanced stuff like the best way to add advanced track detail wether it be turnout details or the grime found around turnouts. The forum I was most involved with was (it is a dead forum, still up but nobody posts) mmforums, it had alot of manufacturers and people like Dave Frary who has written books and articles on scenery for decades and been published countless times in Model Railroader. Like I said, that other forum is all but dead and I drifted over here. In fact I would post more but relying on other companys web services for posting pics has led to a lot of proublems for me and also a loss of valuble info from pics posted to this forum from accounts that have died, the links no longer work and the picture is lost to the newer forum members. It used to be a storage issue but not anymore with the cloud etc.
I think with the direction this thread has taken, it should now be part of the "Nitpickin" thread.
Mike.
My You Tube
Jim,I had several of those old BB 85' pig flats several years ago and never had any reason to modify the swing coupler box ..The only issue I had was with the tricky yoke and frame assembly and once I figured that out it worked quite well.
I was not worried about the swing coupler box because I knew it worked even during reverse moves into the club's intermodal yard. First hand observation helps.
I will agree with you on the deck height but, the height was unnoticeable when those flats was ran together.
ATLANTIC CENTRAL Jim, I have stayed out of this so far, but here are few thoughts: Terms like "bogus" and "foobie" unquestionably have a negative connotation, as if the owner/purchaser/viewer has been "fooled" or "duped" or "tricked". Why can't we just call them what they are "generic"?
Jim,
I have stayed out of this so far, but here are few thoughts:
Terms like "bogus" and "foobie" unquestionably have a negative connotation, as if the owner/purchaser/viewer has been "fooled" or "duped" or "tricked".
Why can't we just call them what they are "generic"?
Generic is one euphamism that may work and I'm fine with that. It could be in time, that word may eventually be thought of as unpleasant or negative because it is still assocated with an negative idea for some. Only time will tell.
Now for my favorite gripe on this topic - the use of the word "quality". To me quality implies a lot more than just prototype accuracy. It also implies good trucks and couplers (even though I change them a lot), parts that fit, clean, well done paint/lettering, good execution of detail (even if the detail is not completely accurate or is molded on). So using the word "quality" to seperate a Spring Mills B&O caboose from an Athearn Blue Box piggy back flat, does not work for me. The Athearn Blue Box piggy back flat is very well made from every standpoint except high level of accuracy.........it is very high quality for its price point........and while not overly "accurate" for any one prototype, it is highly representive of a vast number of prototypes. Prototypes that by the way were largely home shop retrofits, with as many variations as there are photos of them - impossible for any manufacturer to even begin to cover accurately for more than a small series of car numbers for one or two roadnames........ Despite the high number of highly detailed and accurate models I own, I still own even more BB cars, 1950's Athearn and Varney metal cars, etc. And in the 1954 period I model, most are VERY "representitive".......... Sheldon
So using the word "quality" to seperate a Spring Mills B&O caboose from an Athearn Blue Box piggy back flat, does not work for me.
The Athearn Blue Box piggy back flat is very well made from every standpoint except high level of accuracy.........it is very high quality for its price point........and while not overly "accurate" for any one prototype, it is highly representive of a vast number of prototypes. Prototypes that by the way were largely home shop retrofits, with as many variations as there are photos of them - impossible for any manufacturer to even begin to cover accurately for more than a small series of car numbers for one or two roadnames........
Despite the high number of highly detailed and accurate models I own, I still own even more BB cars, 1950's Athearn and Varney metal cars, etc. And in the 1954 period I model, most are VERY "representitive"..........
Interesting you brought up the blue box Athearn piggy back flat car. I have owned, fiddled with and ran a number of Athearn blue box 85' flat cars. There are two types I am aware of - the all purpose flush deck flat car, of which to my knowledge there is no 85' prototype (lets call it "generic") and the 85' piggy back flat car, which appears to be a decent copy of the Pullman Standard F85B flat car:
http://canadianfreightcargallery.ca/cgi-bin/image.pl?i=ttx473930&o=ttx
I did have some of the generic flush deck bb flat cars but once Accurail offered their decent 89' flat car, I sold off all my blue box Athearn flush decks. Since then Atlas and Walthers have offered 89' flush decks which I now favor. The Athearn 85' P-S models, however, are decent replica's of a real flat car so those were kept.
Now as to the quality thing with the blue box piggy back flat cars, here is where I don't quite agree and from what I've read, quite a few others might not either. I have never been happy with the funky swing pocket coupler mount and the coupler tends to sag. Add to that the flat car sits pretty high up. To address that for modelers who didnt' care for the height, A-line has offered kits to gut the underframe and replace it with weighted parts to improve the ride height. So quality is, in this case, in the eye of the beholder. As another "quality" beef many have had with most blue box kits are those coupler draft gear metal clips. By todays standards, quality is "not so much". I apologies if I'm treading on hallowed ground here but even Athearn has acknowedge some of these quality misgivings and upgraded, improved their rolling stock in recent years.
Exhibit A: www.athearn.com/Products/Default.aspx?ProdID=ATH93673
The RTR Athearn 85' flat car offers the following two major improvements:
I still do have one blue box oxide brown TTX piggy back flat car. Some years back I did modify that swing coupler box which I disliked and glued the tonge with the draft gear box to the underframe. The couple is close to the height gauge and the car operates well through #6 turnouts and 30" or greater curves. I am still not happy with height of the deck so I may try to hunt down the A-line kit to improve the quality of the car. Since I have confirmed the 85' cars were pretty common during my modeling time, I have found some RTR versions to beef up the fleet painted in TTX brown (see link above) and yellow.
As I have said before, I can likely count rivets with the best of them on many subjects, I can identify the automobiles made by Checker Motors nearly to year by their visable features - you know those cabs/cars that never changed body style from 1958 to 1983........
And on many railroad topics I'm equally as knowledgeable. But I see no need to point out such things on other peoples modeling - unless the owner would happen to ask.
I agree with you and Paul, too many on both sides on this forum are too sensitive about this topic.
And then there are those like me...in the middle. I like correct well detailed models, but as I have said before, I'm not replacing a lifetime collection even if more correct models did exist, a great many of which don't, and I am not "doing without" key players in my operational or visual scheme just because no "perfect" model exists for that item.
And because I am a "big picture" kind of modeler, I accept, and in some cases even want "selectively compressed" or even "generic" rolling stock because sometimes they actually fit the "theme" better.
Now for my favorite gripe on this topic - the use of the word "quality". To me quality implies a lot more than just prototype accuracy. It also implies good trucks and couplers (even though I change them a lot), parts that fit, clean, well done paint/lettering, good execution of detail (even if the detail is not completely accurate or is molded on).