Re: Accurate STMFC freight car list

Paul Hillman


Well, maybe a list like that would turn out to be rather small, about
which model cars were very true replicas of the prototypes. But,
perhaps one (or more) of the prototype masters on this list could
produce such a book or booklet for SALE on the subject.

Our fellows like Richard Hendrickson, Ted Culotta, Mike Brock, Tony
Thompson, yourself and many others contibute to such a source, yet
one apparently is not compiled.

Like you stated, models could be listed as, "Close enough", "Dead
on", or "Worth fixing". Then the potential "purchaser" could decide
what route to take with the model.

One case in point. I impetuosly purchased Walthers, Proto 2000 Series;

Mather 40ft Stock Car, GM&O
Mather 40ft boxcar, C&IM
Mather 40ft Boxcar, C&EI

It was late, I'd had a couple of beers, I liked the way the cars
looked and assumed that PROBABLY (?) the manufacturer had done their
prototype research duty. (Or "close" enough)

Now, I have to do some research, as to how close I'd come to
my "guess" at such accuracy.

Also, F&C models at least LOOK very good and seem to have followed
deep prototype research?

Thanks, Paul Hillman

--- In STMFC@..., 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.