Re: Accurate STMFC freight car list


If we view "relative accuracy" in terms of how one need modify
commercial model X to accurately model prototype Y, the judging scale
is even more contextual. I remember someone saying a boxcar model was
totally off, but meaning it had the wrong running board, door, brake
gear, and trucks; and there were ladders not ladder *grabs*. To me
those are all matters of applying the right detail parts: but I want
the right height, width, ends, roof, side framing, rivet pattern if
it's a steel car. Underframes (even truck spacing) can be modified
surprisingly easily if they're separate plastic parts, much less so
if the frame is cast integrally with the car floor. So, to me the
useful form of "ratings" would be notes about what features are
accurate and what aren't.

Al Brown, Melbourne, Fla.

--- In, Martin McGuirk <mjmcguirk@...> wrote:

Did I miss something?? I can easily list a dozen flat-out
I've found on F&C models, as can others. So, when did F&C kits get
automatic "given" for accuracy???

Paul, we've toyed around with rating systems for years on this,
predecessor freight car, lists . The problem remains the same --
rating system is going to be subjective by its very nature. My
"A" (or whatever type of rating is used) model may be your "C" --
which in turn may be the next person's "D". This "relative
is, of course, impacted by the era each individual is modeling.
for example a boxcar painted in NYC/PC Jade Green. the model may
dead on accurate for the car, as it was built, (an "A") -- but
not include shortened ladders, steel (or no) running boards and
platforms, ACI labels, etc . . . (would that make it a "C"
or "D"????
In any event, not having the all details to match the later patin
scheme (or vice-versa) doesn't mean the model is "wrong," it
needs to be detailed.

It's better to find out what is right or wrong with a particular
model, relative to the body style, and era you model. Then decide
it's (1) Close Enough, (2) Dead on, or (3) Something that's worth

I hope my comments make sense.

It's always fun to discuss this sort of thing (anyone remember the
"accuracy label" discussions from 1997 or so . . .??), but I
seriously doubt you're going to get a number of model railroaders
arrive at a consensus on how accurate each model is, or isn't.

Marty McGuirk

Join to automatically receive all group messages.