8500HPGASTURBINE YES, BUT YOU HAVE TO ADMIT THAT EXCATRAIL MAKES SOME OF THE BEST CARS OUT THERE. MIKE
YES, BUT YOU HAVE TO ADMIT THAT EXCATRAIL MAKES SOME OF THE BEST CARS OUT THERE.
MIKE
Assuming you model the correct place and time to use them. There are lots of great products out there today, but many are of no interest to many modelers. As time maches on, and the available "history" of railroading expands, the model market will shrink and become ever more specialized unless the total number of people in the hobby expands greatly, which it does not seem to be doing.
So I wish Exactrail lots of success, but unfortunitly I will no be helping them with that success based on their current offerings - virtually none of them are in the era I model.
Sheldon
My 2cents.
If a company is going to use a name like "Exact Rail" and advertise that theirs are the most accurate models on the market and also charge a fairly high price then they should get things right including doors and numbering. otherwise why not just take old bluebox kits and use them.
I think the real problem here is that the manufacturer failed to identify his prototype model. Even at $35 the best the manufacturer can do is follow one prototype car exactly. With molded on doors, the tooling is too expensive to do multiple times, one for each variation. And to keep the cost relatively low, the production run has to be fairly large. But the manufacturer, is this case Exactrail should identify their prototype.
One advantage of kits with all the parts separate, is that the manufacturer can include variations of parts or you can buy/make alternate parts where you want.
Only in brass would I expect the level of correctness that you desire across multiple versions. And that comes at a higher cost.
Enjoy
Paul
I see we have to talk about seperate parts and pieces for seperate time frames now. Sigh.
OK--lets see if we get this straight. Let us suppose that we have a boxcar of the transitional era. This particular boxcar has the number of 4556676. I'm just saying that that is its number for argument sake. This boxcar gets impaled on the door by a forklift in the early 1960's. The door gets replaced by a non conforming door. The other door gets impaled about 6 months down the road and it gets replaced by another non conforming door--so we have 2 seperate replacement doors. Over the years we find that the boxcar got renumbered by a new owner---new decal sheet also included---then we get a new end for the car---
Out of all this we see now a kit boxcar that comes complete with 2 sets of doors, a seperate sheet of decals for the numbering, and a new boxcar end---or better yet---research the period you are modelling better and if it does not fit that period DON"T BUY THE DANG THING!!!
Any argument carried far enough will end up in Semantics--Hartz's law of rhetoric Emerald. Leemer and Southern The route of the Sceptre Express Barry
I just started my blog site...more stuff to come...
http://modeltrainswithmusic.blogspot.ca/
There are many plastic boxcars with separate doors. If exact rail had done just a little more homework they could have made provisions for different doors with minimal additional cost.
Bdewoody There are many plastic boxcars with separate doors. If exact rail had done just a little more homework they could have made provisions for different doors with minimal additional cost.
And, I suppose, seperate boxcars for every number that that series came out with----even if the series were 566 cars---
Barry... in your own words: Any argument carried far enough will end up in Semantics--Hartz's law of rhetoric
I've arranged to divest myself of the CSX cars - another responder(Ricky) was very helpful in providing what I had originally requested - again, Ricky... thank you.
I'm also going to divest myself of the ExactRail 4780 hoppers in a particular scheme that apparently never existed for this type of car - no fantasy crap for me.
To ALL: yes, I'm particular about the modelling I do - and when I pay $35.00 or more for a freight car, I want it to be representitive of a given prototype and I'm not being unreasonable about this - I understand that the real cars will undergo many repairs and changes over its service life - that isn't the point and many keep missing it.
AGAIN: the point was that ExactRail has offered a car based on a prototype of the PS car that was utilized by the Southern and later, the CRR, and NS and a similar design by CSX (I'm not sure that this model is even a correct rendition of the CSX car, but it is close enough to pass my scrutiny- except for the original door) ...and I find the car to be a excellent model for the SOU version.
Ricky had sent me a photo which I was requesting , that has satisfied my concern regarding the NS cars and I have since found a second of the prototype that is evidence that there may be a handfull still operating today.
Someone mentioned here the tooling should have been made with the doors separate - and I agree except that as previously stated, I would bet that this tooling has been done a while ago and the cost (ROI) would not have been justifiable to alter the tooling further.
Barry: moving forward, I plan to be more careful regarding the accuracy of the cars I buy - ExactRail has done some nice offerings and I've been pleased with most of products. Had I caught this error prior, I would have done exactly what you suggest: Don't buy the dang thing.
If this car was offered in thier 'Express' series at 19.95 or less, then I could understand Exactrail logic.
But this car is in their Platinum/Signature lineup and at this price point, the car sould have been offered in only the 'as-delivered' livery for Southern. And since it is a 'Signature' series car, it is supposed to be railroad specific prototype anyway, meaning the origins of the prototype car was mainly utilized by SOU.
IF they(ExactRail) wanted to offer the cars in the CSX or NS Liveries, then they should have tooled the mold to represent the more recent (modern) version with the updated doors -period.
But this is only my opinion.
Thanks,
Heritagefleet1
Heritagefleet1To ALL: yes, I'm particular about the modelling I do - and when I pay $35.00 or more for a freight car, I want it to be representitive of a given prototype and I'm not being unreasonable about this - I understand that the real cars will undergo many repairs and changes over its service life - that isn't the point and many keep missing it.
And I agreed with you once I understood the error, but I have a question about this "particular" kind of modeling - somewhat retorical, somewhat serious, somewhat not, and a little bit of a challenge.
In this highly "particular" modeling that you do, what radius curves does your layout have? What number turnouts are on your main line? Do you have a signal system? Just to ask a few of the possible questions.
Obviously they are your trains and you should be particular, or not, in any way you see fit, just as I do.
I model 1954 and I insist that passenger cars have working diaphragms that touch ALL the time and stay touching in curves. I couple all equipment as close to scale spacing between cars as I can, passenger or freight. My typical freight train is 35-45 cars, a respectable representation of my era. I model a large Class I, so signals are a must.
I do find it interesting that many "particular" modelers today are very concerned with each piece of equipment, as in your orginal question/problem, but many seem more than willing to overlook gaps between passenger cars, run 80'+ cars around 30" radius curves and through #6 crossovers, put 14 cars behind 6000 HP worth of locos as a "regular" train, etc, etc.
And, we all have different goals for our layouts/trains, but if the goal is a believable layout, balance and overall impression is often more effective and more important than the number of ribs of every boxcar door or end panel.
I don't pay $35.00 for many, if any freight cars. In fact, I'm more likely to spend that much on a craftsman kit for a freight car than to spend that on a RTR freight car - a kit I would have to paint and decal myself so I would do the research.
Much of my rolling stock is of the Athearn Blue Box varity, some with extra details, some not, some kitbashed and upgraded. I do have more detailed RTR models and many craftsman level kits, wood and plastic, but a general value for each would be well below $35 each. It's a big fleet, 700 freight cars about 100 passenger cars for a layout with an 8 scale mile long double track mainline - cost and time are a factor.
BUT, to remind everyone I'm not being TOO serious here, please know that while I model the B&O, C&O and WM on my layout, the bulk of the layout is the freelanced ATLANTIC CENTRAL. And, I am more likely to "demand" that some piece of ATLANTIC CENTRAL equipment be "just so" than some B&O, C&O or WM piece - BECAUSE, the plausablity of the ACR rests on the details.
I understood the original post to be commenting that this car was only accurate regarding the doors for one railroad. And that the doors were innacurate for the other railroads that they offered paint schemes for, not because the doors had been replaced somewhere along the line. If this is so it would not have geen difficult to have them molded with separate doors. As I stated there are many inexpensive plastic boxcars out there done this way. Of course this ship has already sailed but maybe these upscale companies wanting to have a rep for super accuracy should do a little better advanced planning when desiring to release a car with multiple markings.
Maybe to be really accurate, every post 1995 model should come with an HO scale tagger with scale sized Krylon cans. However, on second thought, has anyone actually seen a tagger at work on a piece of rolling stock?
Jay
There was a boxcar up here that got skewered 3 times in its life time--renumbered 9 times and repainted at least 6 times. Now, in order for the fellow who wants to do an accurate model of this specimen he would have to know exactly when the skewerings took place, when the doors were replaced and renumberings occured as well as the repaintings. I only know of the skewerings and the 4 renumberings that occured around that time period---in the 1980's these --these occured in a 6 year time frame---now--If I were to do an exact model of the boxcar I would have the exact measurements of said boxcar and all photos of said car catalogued as well. Then I would collate any and all data required for the car to be done--down to the window of time that the car was in such and such a version. In this case the dang boxcar had 2 seperate doors that were not the same--as well as an end that was different in kind from its mate.
To make this car would require the molds--that would be what we are dealing with--to be totally seperate from each other--and then when put together I would place in the kit--as that is what it wil be--RTR--may be rather more expensive here---the information we gleaned from our research. The proviso being that any other information be shared among the other purchasers of said piece.
Imagine a kit/rtr that would include the photos proving the car in front of the purchaser IS the EXACT replica of the car they are searching for--
Barry if your rant was directed at my comments you totally missed my point.
btw if anyone has one, esp painted Sou that they no longer want I would love to buy it as I missed out on getting any.
Sheldon...
My layout has an operating minimum radius of 42" on visible mainline(32" on hidden helixes, etc), Code 83 w/ both wooden and concrete mainline crossties - Mainline crossovers are #8 & #10 fast tracks, and I utilize a custom logic signaling system that is interfaced with PC despatching control software designd by a friend who works for Lockheed Martin. The layout itself is not completed but in the 1st phase - when I built the house I had the second floor for the layout exclusively but left partition walls in place for appraisal purposes (3 bedrooms and a full bath on second) so it is being built in three phases, room by room and all mainlines pass thru openings in the walls designed for this operation. it is also a double deck set up with 24" between tiers.
This is a modern Union Pacific layout based on prototype operations loosly based on the Overland Route in Utah and Wyoming. But I also run a lot of steam(post-war era) and also have a very vested interest in the Pennsy(grew up there and was from a Pennsy family of railroad employees), I've been in the hobby for over 4o years now and don't plan on switching to gardening at this point.
Okay, that's my resume'
Peace out.
Heritagefleet1 Sheldon... My layout has an operating minimum radius of 42" on visible mainline(32" on hidden helixes, etc), Code 83 w/ both wooden and concrete mainline crossties - Mainline crossovers are #8 & #10 fast tracks, and I utilize a custom logic signaling system that is interfaced with PC despatching control software designd by a friend who works for Lockheed Martin. The layout itself is not completed but in the 1st phase - when I built the house I had the second floor for the layout exclusively but left partition walls in place for appraisal purposes (3 bedrooms and a full bath on second) so it is being built in three phases, room by room and all mainlines pass thru openings in the walls designed for this operation. it is also a double deck set up with 24" between tiers. This is a modern Union Pacific layout based on prototype operations loosly based on the Overland Route in Utah and Wyoming. But I also run a lot of steam(post-war era) and also have a very vested interest in the Pennsy(grew up there and was from a Pennsy family of railroad employees), I've been in the hobby for over 4o years now and don't plan on switching to gardening at this point. Okay, that's my resume' Peace out. Heritagefleet1
That sounds very similar to my layout design standards. My minimum radius is 36", most 42" or larger, Mainline turnouts/crossovers #8, all others #6, grades all less than 2%, all code 83 as well.
I'm also doing a double deck spaced at 24".
My control system is DC using Aristo Wireles throttles and a custom walk around block selection system I designed, based partly on Ed Ravenscroft's MZL control.
My signal system and CTC/dispatch is all fully intergated with the control/turnout selection system and uses relays just like the real thing in my era. My interlocking plants even "lock out" based on train occupancy.
It can be operated by a single walk around operator, with a dispatcher, or even with a dispatcher and local tower operators. It is designed for 8-10 trains requiring a crew or 12 for maximum operation.
It too is under construction - actually reconstruction after being redesigned to make it "moveable". It is currently housed in a 22 x 40 room above my detached garage.
Happy railroading,
BdewoodyBarry if your rant was directed at my comments you totally missed my point.
Nope--Rant was directed at no one in particular--just a commentary on the way things can be done is all
Two things to add to our discussion:
You're right... it sounds like we're both involved at similar stages of progress. BTW: I'm utilizing the CML DTM30 TowerMaster logic which allows all signal controlling,turnout position and train routing, and interfaces with a microsoft based driver program and it also automatically 'routes' trains thru yards, interlockings and diverging routes, based on track occupancy... all from the dispatchers computer, which on my layout, will be located in a separate room, away from the layout.(Dispatcher's Desk)
Since these boards come from the UK, it took about 3 weeks for delivery-but for the money, it was well worth the wait for what they do.
It will also drive a repeater board for remote yard and interlocking led panel displays located at various points at yards and interlockings on the fascia board. Only manual thrown switches will be allowed to be controlled by the operator(engineer)via Form D track permit- just like the real thing.
Secondly, I finally got a call back from ExactRail this morning, but had to leave a messege for the support guy(I forgot his name already) so we'll see what research info they have on the Waffle Side cars and what response they will have about the CSX model... if they can provie me a photo of the prototype car with the 'as built' doors, I'll stand corrected and move on down the road.
Thanks for your repsonse,
RIck
HeritageFleet1
Rick,
I considered computer control for the signals and, at one point, for computerized block control. As well as considering DCC and sound. I actually helped Chuck Davis of Oak tree Systems with modeling/prototype info in his developement of his computerized block control and his signaling system.
In the end I opted for technology that I am in nearly complete control of, being an industrial control system designer from way back. Relays can be had cheap these days and I have strong background in that. Each section of the control/signal system is designed in advance and wired on the bench, requiring very minimal field connection wiring.
I did have a circuit board made for the relay circuit that selects the cabs - it saves a lot of wiring time.
I like the Aristo Radio throttles and don't like sound, so with a fleet of over 100 locos needed for this layout, many I already had in DC, I decided against DCC.
I don't care for the "computer screen" thing and would rather have more traditional control panels.
Each mainline interlocking has a local panel, but the CTC dispatcher can lock those out preventing local use, or, with no dispatcher on duty the layout can be operated "walk around". Even when locked out, those local panels show the selected route through the interlocking via the lighted pushbuttons. And, routes are fully selected with one button in most cases.
Same here with manual turnouts, yards, sidings, etc, that would be hand thrown on the prototype are that way here.
My blocks (actually prefer to call them "sections" as per Paul Mallery) are large and are assigned to cabs via lighted pushbuttons that can be/are duplicated at each end of a section, at the CTC panel and anywhere else it makes sense. Interlockings and similar trackage are all "X sections" or floating sections/blocks as some call them, elminating about half of the "traditional" sections/blocks needed. This allows either dispatcher operation or walk around or a mixture of both.
Take care,
Sheldon... thanks for sharing your experience with the CTC. We've strayed off-topic here so I'll end with saying that you model a different era than I, so it is appropriate that you would choose the hardware and control system that you have. I don't know if you know anything about David Barrow's Cat Mountain & Santa Fe operation, but he has a classic CTC (I believe it is a US&S style)dispacher's desk located on the lounge floor just below the Layout room, which is accessed be a metal staircase from the lounge- it is a 1st class operation and allthough it has been many years since operating there on Tuesday and Thrusday evenings, I will always appreciate the opportunity to have had the pleasure of running on that layout and having met David in person.
Watching the assigned dispatcher throw all those panel switches and routing trains on that panel was always fun.
I just model a more current era and choose to go with what I identify with - because I worked closely in the railroad industry, I have access to the BOC and other operations centers at BNSF in Ft Worth, TX and at Union Pacific's Davidson Yard. It has given me a lot of ideas about how I want my railroad to run.
Take care and good talking with you,
UP extra 3985 west, out...
I guess there IS a difference between being a "rivet counter" & a "door critic"?
IMHO..if it is a good running & good looking car...then what does it matter..RUN IT
Are you building a model railroad for FUN or a museum piece?
And if you are that critical of all of your rolling stock & locos..why did you not do your homework before your purchase?
If I were to come to visit, I would not notice the "mistake"..nor would many of us here on the forum
Hey guys,
I'm late replying this discussion - I just joined the forum - but I thought I'd explain the CSX side of things as far as these doors are concerned. I've spent considerable time studying CSX box cars in general, and these PS wafflesides in particular. Be forewarned - I'm a dedicated prototype modeler (a.k.a. "rivet counter"), so some of this might be more info that you care to know.
The CSX cars are all from Seaboard predecessor / Family Lines railroads (roster courtesy of Jim Eager on the Modern Freight Car List):
SCL 29050-29449 built by PS 8=9-80 Lot 1107CRR 7300-7449 built by PS 9=10-80 Lot 1107BGA 55400-55474 built by PS 10-80 Lot 1107C
The three series became the following numbers under SBD and CSX:
SCL 29050-29449 to SBD 138370-138766 to CSXT 138370-138766CRR 7300-7449 to SBD 136085-136234 to CSXT 136085-136234GA 55400-55474 to SBD 136235-136309 to CSXT 136235-136309
Here are examples of SCL and CRR cars from these series:
SCL 29061: http://rr-fallenflags.org/scl/scl29061akg.jpg
CRR 7354: http://www.rr-fallenflags.org/clin/crr7354akg.jpg
Here's a former GA car patched for CSX (can't find an original GA car):
CSXT 136303: http://www.rrpicturearchives.net/showPicture.aspx?id=591937
Here are some detail shots of an ex-CRR car that I found a few years ago:
CSXT 136217: http://drolsen.rrpicturearchives.net/rsPicture.aspx?id=345785
As you can see from the photos of the original SCL and CRR cars, they were delivered with Youngstown doors, not the Pullman-Standard style molded on the ExactRail model. You're not likely to find any CSX cars with that style of door unless one was used as a replacement in the late 1980s or so. As CSX shopped and repainted / renumbered these cars, the doors were replaced by the late style Youngstown door shown in the photo of CSXT 136303 above. Nearly every CSX sliding door box car has this style of Youngstown door since around 1990. WrightTrak Models has just released a resin version of this door that I've been hoping to see for years. I worked with another friend to provide them with the photos and measurements to produce the door, and I can attest that it's accurate and very nicely done. The only problem is that it will be a lot of work to remove the molded ExactRail door and replace it with the WrightTrak door. That's why I passed on the factory-painted CSX cars and bought the undecorated kits instead.
There are a few other details on the prototype CSX cars that are different from the model. The CSX car ends do not have the small vents at the top of the end just under the eaves:
http://drolsen.rrpicturearchives.net/showPicture.aspx?id=1390757
The CSX cars also have 4 extra waffles (the waffle at the bottom of each panel on either side of the doors) and small pulling(?) tabs mounted on one side post on either side of the door - the small square tab with the hole in the middle to the left of the "50-K" label to the left of the door in this photo:
http://drolsen.rrpicturearchives.net/showPicture.aspx?id=1390750
Lastly, Pullman-Standard offered two different styles of brake gear underneath these cars. The ExactRail car replicates the correct style for the Southern cars, which have vertical levers that connect the brake rods to the trucks (the levers sticking down just inboard of the trucks in this ExactRail photo):
http://www.exactrail.com/media/catalog/product/cache/1/image/5e06319eda06f020e43594a9c230972d/e/p/eps-90301-southern-waffle-01_1.jpg
The CSX cars do not have these vertical levers - the brake rods run straight from the center of the car to the trucks:
http://drolsen.rrpicturearchives.net/showPicture.aspx?id=1210714
The Intermountain PS 5277 box car model actually matches all of these CSX details, except of course the waffles. It's interesting to see how the two manufacturers modeled the different options offered by the prototype builder.
One other thing that Intermountain did was to mold the doors separately so that they could offer both the Superior panel style door (seen on many NS wafflesides) and the Pullman-Standard door that ExactRail did. I would have liked to see ExactRail do the same thing, which would have allowed them to match the prototypes better. I think a few years ago, modelers weren't as conscious of this types of details, but with access to all the prototype photos online these days, we notice things like the door style almost immediately.
Sorry for the long-winded post, but I hope that clarifies the CSX details.
Dave Olsen
Dave,I really appreciate the information you "dedicated prototype modeler (a.k.a. "rivet counter")" shares on various forums even though I'm not a "dedicated" modeler but I do use the information in my good enough modeling style.
I really love it when this information is backed by photos.
Thanks!
Larry
Conductor.
Summerset Ry.
"Stay Alert, Don't get hurt Safety First!"
drolsen Hey guys, "I'm late replying this discussion - I just joined the forum - but I thought I'd explain the CSX side of things as far as these doors are concerned. I've spent considerable time studying CSX box cars in general, and these PS wafflesides in particular. Be forewarned - I'm a dedicated prototype modeler (a.k.a. "rivet counter"), so some of this might be more info that you care to know..."
"I'm late replying this discussion - I just joined the forum - but I thought I'd explain the CSX side of things as far as these doors are concerned. I've spent considerable time studying CSX box cars in general, and these PS wafflesides in particular. Be forewarned - I'm a dedicated prototype modeler (a.k.a. "rivet counter"), so some of this might be more info that you care to know..."
Dave,
Thanks for your detailed information. I was the one who initiated this topic several weeks ago. I did it out of frustration, more than anything else, I guess.
I'm going to be ridding myself of these cars if anyone will buy them...and have found that 'ExactRail' apparently doesn't care if the car is correct for CSX or NS(regarding the doors). To be honest, I could have lived with the cars having minor omissions or slight details not quite right for the Seaboard/SCL cars, but the Door is a glaring fubar.
As you have stated, the door is molded on so it would not be an easy(nearly impossible)task to modify, even if a correct door that fit that car, was available.
I am angry mostly with myself, for not being more thourogh in my research, but frankly - I trusted 'ExactRail' to have been forthright in replicating a car that would be accurate to the extent of the RR paint schemes offered. Again, my argument is that if this had been a $15-19 dollar car, like the 'Express series'...I could see this car being passed as a 'fantasy' offering... but not in their premium car line.
Exactrail was on the right track with most of the first releases but at $35-$40 each, I want a car based on a true prototype - not a close resemblance or something that may have been. I hope that ExactRail makes wiser decisions about pulling this stunt on their future 'Signature' series cars.
I, for one - will not be purchasing any that do not have the accuracy and prototype basis, that the ExactRail name implies.
For what its worth, some have written in defense of Exactrail and for the record, I do not question the overall quality of the product- I have for the most part, been very pleased with most of their cars and I have a small fortune tied up in their freight car line - that gives me a right to gripe when they do something really annoying...its called customer satisfaction.
HeritageFleet1 I am angry mostly with myself, for not being more thourogh in my research, but frankly - I trusted 'ExactRail' to have been forthright in replicating a car that would be accurate to the extent of the RR paint schemes offered. Again, my argument is that if this had been a $15-19 dollar car, like the 'Express series'...I could see this car being passed as a 'fantasy' offering... but not in their premium car line. Exactrail was on the right track with most of the first releases but at $35-$40 each, I want a car based on a true prototype - not a close resemblance or something that may have been. I hope that ExactRail makes wiser decisions about pulling this stunt on their future 'Signature' series cars.
I understand the frustration, but I think ExactRail's intention was only to accurately model the Southern version of the car (aside from the car number issue that's been discussed). That's really the only "Signature Series" car in the batch. I think they saw the other roadnames as a bonus for modelers who weren't particular about the details like the door and end differences. However, I think they should have made that clear on their website and probably on their packaging as well.
I don't have any problem with manufacturers producing inaccurate paint schemes on a model that's at least correct for the prototype the model was based on. Those other paint schemes help fund the base model, and they make modelers who aren't particular about the details happy by giving them models that are "close enough" for their tastes. But I think the manufacturers need to specify that the models are not prototypically accurate, like Tower 55's "Fantasy" schemes on their GEVOs, so everyone knows that they're inaccurate. That way everyone can make an informed decision about whether or not they want to buy the model and live with the differences. Until then, I guess we just have to keep checking the details on forums like this!
Dave
This thread honestly makes me laugh.
You see, I haven't had a pay raise in way too long, and (having a family) my future train budget is and will be at the Atlas Trainmain price point--and no more. Actually, I'm currently selling several steam locos and replacing them with Trainmain diesels--because I need the money.
Should I not buy a particular Atlas Trainman RS-32/36 because the fuel tank is not correct for a particular road?
Oddly enough, I just bought one of each NS and CSX versions of this waffle side boxcar at my local dealer today.
I basically understand this whole discussion as follows: The Pullman Standard car as modeled, painted, and offered by Exactrail comes with a Pullman Standard door that is correct for only a minority of cars. While I understand the OP's frustration and sincere desire for accuracy, if I were to attempt to apply this logic of not buying any car that is not 100% correct to one of my favorite roads (we'll use Santa Fe as an example) I'd end up with virtually no rolling stock at all. You see, Santa Fe built many of their own freight cars--or in some cases used kits supplied by the car builders--and customized them to their own preferences. In HO scale, very very few "modern" items of rolling stock would be correct for Santa Fe--because theirs were almost always different. As a matter of fact, I am only able to confirm one tiny series of Athearn Genesis Hi-Cube boxcar as 100% correct for Santa Fe, along with a few 89' pig flats.
For anyone that desires to model Bethlehem Steel gondolas and hoppers, the OP's logic will literally drive them insane. It is well documented that many railroads bought kits from Bethlehem Steel--but the end resulting cars are different. For example, Reading Railroad slope sheet angles and break points differ from other roads.
Which one car should a given manufacturer tool? Perhaps separate boxcar doors would have been better--but at what additional cost?
I've given up on far too many railroads, eras, or even spans of time because the available rolling stock was not "accurate" enough for my tastes. To continue with that obsession for 100% correct detail, one can make oneself ill--or worse cause a heart attack. If you like it, buy it and run it. Otherwise you will never find joy in this hobby if 100% perfection is the goal.
John
But I think the manufacturers need to specify that the models are not prototypically accurate, like Tower 55's "Fantasy" schemes on their GEVOs, so everyone knows that they're inaccurate. That way everyone can make an informed decision about whether or not they want to buy the model and live with the differences. Until then, I guess we just have to keep checking the details on forums like this!
--------------------------
Indeed Athearn stated the forth coming CR GP60Ms was fantasy road names.I order both CR units because I thought the Conrail Quality sceme looked sharpe on these units..Usually I don't buy fantasy locomotives but,I been wanting a brace og GP60Ms and didn't want Santa Fe.
I call these "almost locomotives"..You see CR order the GP60M and changed the order to SD80MACs.
The manufacturers are learning, too.
Now MTH labels which products are imaginary right in their catalog with an icon.
Yet some people are still ticked off at MTH for not carrying that to far enough lengths regarding the sand dome placements on their Berkshires (which are correct for NKP and....well, not C&O).
So MTH tried to do a service--and still people are ticked off.
It's hard for the manufacturer to win. How accurate is accurate enough to not receive the "imaginary" label?
UP 4-12-2 Yet some people are still ticked off at MTH for not carrying that to far enough lengths regarding the sand dome placements on their Berkshires (which are correct for NKP and....well, not C&O). So MTH tried to do a service--and still people are ticked off. It's hard for the manufacturer to win. How accurate is accurate enough to not receive the "imaginary" label?
Not ticked off, just not buying.
Proto and Bachmann did not have any problem making thir 2-8-4's correct for each road name.
"how accurate" - well I don't know how to define that, but domes in the COMPETELY wrong place, headlights in the wrong place, tenders the wrong size, and cabs the wrong size are noticable enough differences to keep my money in my pocket. Maybe this works - if you compare the model to a prototype photo and can spot 3 obvious things, its too far off.
UP 4-12-2This thread honestly makes me laugh...
Hi John...
I'd like to address a comment you made about "not buying any car that is not 100% correct ...".
In my original post, I don't recall stating that I required 100% accuracy. I did say- and I paraphrase - that for the price-point that Exactrail places this car, it should not have been offered in a RR paint scheme that isn't even close to protoypical for the CSX model...it is only correct for the Southern Car - and even then, only as delivered.
If the car was close but still had a few minor details that weren't correct for the CSX(and as an earlier poster points out- it lacks the additional waffles and has small vents that are not correct for the CSX car), I would have found the car to be more than acceptable, even with these minor differences.
The DOOR is about 1/3 of what the eye sees when you look at the side of the car - not a tiny detail, so, it becomes quite obvious.
I'm not a rivet counter and know that there are not many 'perfect' cars out there, but this is not acceptable to me...and its my fault for assuming that ExactRail would offer on only cars that were based on true prototypes.
Maybe you can understand that or maybe you can't - it's okay... I don't hold anyone at fault for having a different opinion than mine.
I feel your pain about the Economic climate...my MR Budget has gone from about 20K a year down to about 8K... I just don't have the disposable income that I had due to a reduction in my salary and bonuses.
I just recieved confirmation of my MTH SP Daylight set and I'm trying to figure out how I'm going to pay for that, and the 4 BLMA bridges I just got for the layout... fortunately, I have a LHS that has layaway terms with easy payments.
DID you say you just got your Gensets???
I've been waiting for mine to get here... are they out???? Oh no!... here we go again....
hooooo boy--
I can see this thread has a life of its own--
I know a few modellers up here who are quite picky about what they consider to be accurate cars--and the still say that Exactrail is still "accurate" enough---for them. Now, I'm still going to suggest that if I was to model, say, Santa Fe ca 1955 I'd be in a pickle. I think it's a good thing that boxcars and such did, in fact, get bashed around a fair bit--and had doors replaced--------can't we just suggest that as a CYA?
ATLANTIC CENTRAL but domes in the COMPETELY wrong place, headlights in the wrong place, tenders the wrong size, and cabs the wrong size
I knew a woman once that had her domes in the wrong place, and her tender was the wrong size.
I traded her in on a MTH. Good trade. I love my NKP 765 ...what a great running model.
The Erie is terrific too. Can't comment on the others... just know they run like a Rolex.
Meanwhile, back at the ranch...we've gone off topic.