riogrande5761 Doughless I'm not sure I agree about some of this. When the term "not looking like" was used, I didn't think you were talking about fine details like grab irons, stirrups, ladders, paint color, etc. That's right, I am not talking about fine details here, I'm talking about whole models when I discussed this - I'll repeat for clarity: As for generic freight cars which do not appear to be replica's of any real freight car, a number of the old Model Die Casting (Roundhouse) freight cars have been described by many over the years as not matching any real freight car There are a number of MDC freight cars from the earlier days which have been discussed over the years by modelers who have tried to discover what prototype they were copied from and it has been agree'd upon and there is a consensus that a number of those models are "generic" and don't match any real (for example) box car in general body style: sides/doors/roof/side sills etc. I have done some looking but I haven't done an exhaustive study of Accurail freight cars, but I have wondered if a number of them actually matched a real box car (most of Accurails kits are box cars) or if many of them are generic also. Whether or not a generic model is a good thing or not, is totally up to the hobbyist. As pointed out above, back in the olden days of 60's, 70's and 80's, we were generally happy with what we got. As for wide body diesels like those made by Athearn, as a 14 year old I could see something didn't look right about that SD45' I got for Christmas - the nose and long hood looked fat. I understand many years later the history behind the fat body Athearns and am glad they are a thing of the past.
Doughless I'm not sure I agree about some of this. When the term "not looking like" was used, I didn't think you were talking about fine details like grab irons, stirrups, ladders, paint color, etc.
As for generic freight cars which do not appear to be replica's of any real freight car, a number of the old Model Die Casting (Roundhouse) freight cars have been described by many over the years as not matching any real freight car
Jim, I've been in the hobby about 40 years and I am totally aware of the facts you bring up. Many people saw the "errors" but didn't care, and still don't. Some stand out more than others too.
My original question remains. Why did MDC make a boxcar that doesn't look like any one boxcar but is more of a generic car, or an Athearn SD45 that didn't look like one? Sure, technology issues like a fat motor can cause unavoidable dimensional errors in the older designed locomotives. But a boxcar? An SD45?
They were built to look like that because that's the way the manufacturer chose to make them look.
I assume that any compromises made towards generic models were done so because that's where the broader based consumer demand was leading them, not because that's what the companies wanted to produce in spite of consumer demand.
But whatever was being produced for whatever reason then, could be the case now. They are either meeting our demand, or they are producing what they want in spite of consumer demand and we have to settle for more expensive, but unneccessarily accurate, products.
- Douglas
Back in the day, "research" might well be going down to the nearest yard or siding and taking a few measurements. Problem is that the locomotive or boxcar might have been a one off - rebuilt from a wreck, homegrown, modified from the original, etc.
But it looked railroady. Besides, even if you faithfully copied a Sante Fe boxcar, it's probably not correct to decorate it for the PRR or NYC or several others. But you do it to sell more boxcars.
Personally, I'm more interested in the overall effect than spending a lot of money for a museum quality, 100% correct model.
Paul
Doughless Jim, I've been in the hobby about 40 years and I am totally aware of the facts you bring up. Many people saw the "errors" but didn't care, and still don't. Some stand out more than others too. My original question remains. Why did MDC make a boxcar that doesn't look like any one boxcar but is more of a generic car,
My original question remains. Why did MDC make a boxcar that doesn't look like any one boxcar but is more of a generic car,
Doughless, I saw questions being asked and gave my best "in a nut shell" answer. Apologies, I didn't know if you had been in the hobby a few years or many.
As to the MDC generic box car question, I would like to know too, but my guess is we may never know - it may very well be that those in charge of those decisions are no longer alive - so probably it's moot.
Regarding the SD45, my "only" observation about it was that it was fat at the time and of course I learned years later why. Other than that, the basic model looked like a real SD45 to me at age 14.
They are either meeting our demand, or they are producing what they want in spite of consumer demand and we have to settle for more expensive, but unneccessarily accurate, products.
It makes no economic sense to produce products despite consumer demand; if consumers didn't want those items, then they wouldn't buy them and model train companies would slow production down. So as long as they continue to be produced, it's a good assumption they are filling a demand. I can't speak to whether people are buying unwillingly but that sure doesn't make sense to me.
Rio Grande. The Action Road - Focus 1977-1983
Jim, the whole gist of my response to you was that I thought you were criticizing manufacturers for making products back in the 70s and 80s that didn't look like the trains you saw every day....as if the consumer demanded something dramatically different and had to settle for what was being produced.
I think the culture back then was to for a modeler to buy a generic model, then detail or modify it to meet their specific needs to the degree they needed to look exactly like their prototype. Therefore, they were likely very happy with what was being produced.
That actually makes much more sense than what we are doing today...paying high dollars for manufacturers to make a specific prototypically accurate model...railroad after railroad after railroad... which is nearly impossible to do at an affordable price....which also creats a problem figuring out how many of what particular model to make, or stock in the case of an LHS.
Doughless, no criticism in my analysis. Just how it was. The lack of trains I saw every day was simply a function of it wasn't economical to make them - I already stated why (cost of tooling up more than a small number of models not being economically feasible). It was what it was. Did I like it? No but I like most back then I accepted things as they were. As you mentioned, we were relatively happy with what we got.
Heck, I remember in high school having to type papers on old type writers and was "happy enough" about it. But once I went to text editors and word processors some years later, it's hard to imagine going back to those days. Thats a bit like how I feel about the hobby. Them were the days but look what we have now! We have the old, the new and everything inbetween. Golden age - ride the wave!
riogrande5761 Doughless, no criticism in my analysis. Just how it was. The lack of trains I saw every day was simply a function of it wasn't economical to make them - I already stated why (cost of tooling up more than a small number of models not being economically feasible). It was what it was. Did I like it? No but I like most back then I accepted things as they were. As you mentioned, we were relatively happy with what we got. Heck, I remember in high school having to type papers on old type writers and was "happy enough" about it. But once I went to text editors and word processors some years later, it's hard to imagine going back to those days. Thats a bit like how I feel about the hobby. Them were the days but look what we have now! We have the old, the new and everything inbetween. Golden age - ride the wave!
Jim, I guess what I'm noticing is you apply your personal concerns about the products to the modeling consumer as a whole, that they shared your point of view. You say the consumer had to accept things the way they were back then.
Maybe its semantics, but I would say they demanded things to be the way they were..not accepted them..And were very happy because they got what they cared about.
Now, some aren't so happy because they have to pay for things they don't care about.
Maybe that's why the hobby is dying..they simply stopped participating.
DoughlessJim, I guess what I'm noticing is you apply your personal concerns about the products to the modeling consumer as a whole, that they shared your point of view. You say the consumer had to accept things the way they were back then.
I prefer to call them observations rather than concerns. What is past is past, and I'm not really concerned about it. I say the consumer had to accept things the way they were back then because, well, what choice did we have? It's the same about many other things. I have intended no value judgements to my posts like "criticize" or "concern"; those are things I'm not saying or feeling. Words mean things so I've been fairly deliberate in neutral words I've been using to avoid any misunderstanding but alas...maybe I was unsuccessful.
/shall we put a fork in it? I'll even give you the last word and say no more. Aren't I nice? Cheers!
Or, more likely, do without. You wanted an SP Trainmaster? You were SOL unless you can find a brass one. Even then, it probably was at best a foobie. Santa Fe steam? Unless you could be satisfied with Bachmann's offering of the 3776/2900 class 4-8-4, your choice was brass or nada (unless you were willing to scratchbuild). We settled for generic models not because we were happy about it, but because there really was no alternative. We settled for the Athearn Blue Box F7 because no one was making one with correct nose, roof and windshield contours, let alone prototypically correct details for any particular railroad.
That actually makes much more sense than what we are doing today...paying high dollars for manufacturers to make a specific prototypically accurate model...
High dollars as compared to what? The last steam engine I bought was Athearn's SP MT-4 with the skyline casing, 160C-2 tender, multiple bearing crosshead guide and disc main driver. The great thing is that Athearn has several variations of the MT-4 that actually existed, with different crosshead guide/main driver/tender variations including those that were repainted for use on the "San Joaquin Daylight".
The MSRP on the MT-4 (with sound and DCC and the detail variations that ring my chimes) is $420. Sounds like a lot, until I run it through the Bureau of Labor Statistics inflation calculator and look back 50 years when the choice was brass or nothing. Lo and behold, the equivalent price in 1967 would have been $58.45, or slightly less than it would have cost for an undecorated brass MT-4 without sound/DCC and without a choice of detail variations. The great thing is, I didn't pay $420 for it, but $320 ( $44.53 in 1967 dollars). IOW, on an inflation adjusted basis, the engine I bought is not only cheaper than an "equivalent" model of 50 years ago, it is far more feature rich. Don't want sound/DCC? MB Klein will sell the identical model I bought, but without the sound and DCC for $240, or the equivalent of $33.40 in 1967 currency (that's down into Mantua territory on a comparative basis) and it's almost half the price that you would have paid for an equivalent brass engine 50 years ago (and which didn't have detail options). So tell me again how outrageously expensive things are for highly detailed models today, especially for those of us unwilling to settle for generic.
Andre
riogrande5761 Doughless Jim, I guess what I'm noticing is you apply your personal concerns about the products to the modeling consumer as a whole, that they shared your point of view. You say the consumer had to accept things the way they were back then. I prefer to call them observations rather than concerns. What is past is past, and I'm not really concerned about it. I say the consumer had to accept things the way they were back then because, well, what choice did we have? It's the same about many other things. I have intended no value judgements to my posts like "criticize" or "concern"; those are things I'm not saying or feeling. Words mean things so I've been fairly deliberate in the words I've been using to avoid any misunderstanding but alas... /shall we put a fork in it? I'll even give you the last word and say no more. Aren't I nice? Cheers!
Doughless Jim, I guess what I'm noticing is you apply your personal concerns about the products to the modeling consumer as a whole, that they shared your point of view. You say the consumer had to accept things the way they were back then.
I prefer to call them observations rather than concerns. What is past is past, and I'm not really concerned about it. I say the consumer had to accept things the way they were back then because, well, what choice did we have? It's the same about many other things. I have intended no value judgements to my posts like "criticize" or "concern"; those are things I'm not saying or feeling. Words mean things so I've been fairly deliberate in the words I've been using to avoid any misunderstanding but alas...
I think the back and forth took longer than it had to because you keep assuming your concerns about the lack of prototype fidelity in models are shared by the consumer as a whole, even the consumer back in the day. Since you choose your words deliberately, I assume after 4 responses, its intentional. I would just finish by saying that producers always meet demand and the customers as a whole don't accept anything. Its the individual that has to.
I have one LHS that is within a reasonable driving distance. He carries a lot more than just trains to make his business work, and it appears to be thriving. Not as big a selection of trains as Georges, but he's more flexible in pricing. Was in there not too long ago with my son, the owner pops out with a box full of older used trains and hands them to my son. FREE. You don't get that online. He ended up with 3 useable Athearn passengers as well as 3 useable cabooses.
Brought to you by the letters C.P.R. as well as D&H!
K1a - all the way