General Discussion (Model Railroader)

I really, really wish that manufacturers advised us when their models are lettered fictitiously.  This would truly help us ignoramuses on whether to make the "plunge" to purchase the items.  Isn't that one purpose of asterisks/footnotes?  I believe that manufacturers are ethically bound to disclose this information.  Very few comply.  Here is where the NMRA seems to have feared to tread.

Mark

Maybe this is too much to ask.  I'm willing to estimate that 90% of mass produced models are lettered for fictitous prototypes, that is, the prototype didn't have the particular characteristics of the model or even that the prorotype ever existed for the model represented..

Mark

Hoople wrote:

Darn, no espee... I wanted one of those.

Well, just redo the paint and add SP decals.  That shouldn't be so difficult.

Mark

Hoople wrote:

Darn, no espee... I wanted one of those.

We'll be announcing more paint schemes before too long.

Regards,

Jason

Rapido wrote:

Hoople wrote: Darn, no espee... I wanted one of those. We'll be announcing more paint schemes before too long. Regards, Jason

I would like to know if you will disclose that the prototype railroads didn't have these particular cars and that it is based on a ***** prototype?  Since that would take courage, I bet not.

Mark

markpierce wrote:

Rapido wrote:  Hoople wrote: Darn, no espee... I wanted one of those. We'll be announcing more paint schemes before too long. Regards, Jason I would like to know if you will disclose that the prototype railroads didn't have these particular cars and that it is based on a ***** prototype?  Since that would take courage, I bet not. Mark

Your tone suggests that you mistrust manufacturers - I'm not sure why. Most manufacturers are model railroaders, like yourself. And most manufacturers will answer questions like yours honestly, if you ask in a respectful way. Your email was not respectful (you claim I lack courage even though you don't know me), but I will answer it for the benefit of others.

Regarding the Steam Generator, almost every railroad had a different design. They were cobbled together from tenders, B units, heavyweight express cars, box cars, you name it. The only railroad to own a large fleet of standard factory-built steam gennies was CN, and was the logical choice for a prototype. Thus the only class 1 railroad for which our steam genny is 100% accurate is CN.

But I will not put a "bogus" sticker on my products if they are not correct for a given paint scheme. Let me tell you a true story.

A man walked into a Toronto-area hobby shop and picked up a freight car. The freight car was a very close stand-in for a CN gondola. It was also painted beautifully - everything was correct down to the reporting marks. Someone had convinced the manufacturer of this gondola to put a small disclaimer on the box stating that the car was not 100% prototypical for CN. The man consequently put the box down and picked up a CN gondola by another manufacturer, which was completely wrong in every respect, and bought it instead. Why? It didn't have the disclaimer.

With the resources of the internet, online discussion groups, historical societies and the thousands of railroad books out there, it is not difficult to find out what is and is not correct for your roadname. Something that may not be "correct" for you may be "close enough" for someone else. By putting a "bogus" label on fictitious paint schemes, I might turn away a lot of people who otherwise would have been very happy with my products.

Regards,

Jason

markpierce wrote:

I would like to know if you will disclose that the prototype railroads didn't have these particular cars and that it is based on a ***** prototype?  Since that would take courage, I bet not.

Why?  None of the US manufacturers have done it for the stuff they decorate for Canadian Roads.  You need a bigger brush to paint with because Canadian road modellers have been going through this stuff since day 1. Long established US manufacturers don't do it. 

 Would it be nice for everyone to disclose this stuff on the outside of a box.  Sure, but I'm not gonna hold my breath.

Rapido wrote:

markpierce wrote:  Rapido wrote:  Hoople wrote: Darn, no espee... I wanted one of those. We'll be announcing more paint schemes before too long. Regards, Jason I would like to know if you will disclose that the prototype railroads didn't have these particular cars and that it is based on a ***** prototype?  Since that would take courage, I bet not. Mark Your tone suggests that you mistrust manufacturers - I'm not sure why. Most manufacturers are model railroaders, like yourself. And most manufacturers will answer questions like yours honestly, if you ask in a respectful way. Your email was not respectful (you claim I lack courage even though you don't know me), but I will answer it for the benefit of others. Regarding the Steam Generator, almost every railroad had a different design. They were cobbled together from tenders, B units, heavyweight express cars, box cars, you name it. The only railroad to own a large fleet of standard factory-built steam gennies was CN, and was the logical choice for a prototype. Thus the only class 1 railroad for which our steam genny is 100% accurate is CN. But I will not put a "bogus" sticker on my products if they are not correct for a given paint scheme. Let me tell you a true story. A man walked into a Toronto-area hobby shop and picked up a freight car. The freight car was a very close stand-in for a CN gondola. It was also painted beautifully - everything was correct down to the reporting marks. Someone had convinced the manufacturer of this gondola to put a small disclaimer on the box stating that the car was not 100% prototypical for CN. The man consequently put the box down and picked up a CN gondola by another manufacturer, which was completely wrong in every respect, and bought it instead. Why? It didn't have the disclaimer. With the resources of the internet, online discussion groups, historical societies and the thousands of railroad books out there, it is not difficult to find out what is and is not correct for your roadname. Something that may not be "correct" for you may be "close enough" for someone else. By putting a "bogus" label on fictitious paint schemes, I might turn away a lot of people who otherwise would have been very happy with my products. Regards, Jason

Maybe what is desired is more Proto's approach, in that there were notes made in the distructions enclosed about little diffrent "tweaks" each version of x engine had. Where the beacon may or may not have been, odd placemnts of lights etc, or whether the engine had a Mars light. I realize this is for consumer applied parts, but the info might still be usable without turning people away

BTW: Jason, I wanted to thank you for taking time out in Hong Kong for the update on the Turbos.