Where is the picture? A DD tank is quite obvious even under a tarp.

One thing about secure shipments, though, you don't draw attention to them
by posting a sign saying "The object underneath this tarp is TOP SECRET" .

Hi All,

First and foremost - this is not an attack on, or refutation of, what
others have said about these models ... I'm merely using the prior postings
on that thread as a spring board to my ideas/attitudes on this topic.

Sometimes we can take prototype accuracy to a level that is 'unrealistic'.
This may be one of them.

While Bruce is correct in what he says about these models ... I feel that
it is important to point out that a two inch difference in the real car
height is .02 inches (real inches - in HO scale). And that when I went to
my digital caliper and opened it to that value the size of the opening was
not just small ... but -very- small.
Probably small enough that if I was looking at two HO cars coupled
together on a track that I would be unable to detect the difference -
without changing my view angle to be precisely at roof level. I
certainly do not think I would notice nor even be able to detect the
difference in a train moving on the layout - even if I was viewing it
at the optimum angle to determine car height differences. And when I
look at photos/videos of real trains I see that there were lots of
minor variations in car height - and although I don't always look for
it I like the fact that the trains that I run have those same differences -
even if those differences are on "the wrong models". Yes, I would like
the car height in the trains I run to all be correct for the cars being
modeled - but I guess I'm also admitting that I'm willing to accept the
fact that I care more about seeing some differences from car to car ...
than in the fact that the differences I'm seeing are those that would have
actually been there on a real train (ie. the cars modeled).
Let's face it 2 scale inches is in the range where most of us would
be tempted to not even fix it if it is a difference in the coupler height ...
much less the roof line. Yes, most of us would grumble about "why couldn't
they even get the couplers right?" ... and fix the coupler mismatch ===> but
some of us would say "good enough" and leave them alone. And I'm not
certain I'd have to disagree with that decision because it isn't clear
that it would cause any problems in operations - nor that anyone would
notice the difference unless they were focusing on the coupler matches
at the time. This is definitely the level of difference that I see on
operating layouts ... every ... time I go to a run - when I look for it.

Take your digital caliper and open it to .02 inches and see what I mean.

(If you don't have one you can buy them from Harbor Freight for very
reasonable prices - I recommend the 4" metal one at $14.99 which is
their item # 47256-6VGA - I bought two so I'd have one at the model
bench and another at the work bench. These are ideal for most
purposes in HO and it is uncertain how often you need the 6" size.)

I would certainly purchase the correct model based upon height - if I
had two models in front of me and they were, in -all- other respects,
identical ... and the same price.
But, for me at least, items such as the accuracy of the paint scheme,
the level of detail, the size of the detail, whether or not it has the
correct doors or roof, etc. are of far more importance ... to me ... than
whether or not the roofline is 2" high/low.

I am not saying I don't care about the accuracy of the dimensions
of the models I purchase and build. I do. But I don't think I'd "pass"
on the subject model or any other due to 2 scale inches. Based upon
the opening of my digital caliper I'm not certain I'd pass on 4 scale
inches quickly - I'd probably stew over it a few days and then end
up purchasing it "until a better example comes along".

I do agree that these particular models are lettered incorrectly and
wish that Intermountain would "get their act together" on these kinds
of details - but I also understand the 'pressure' to re-use molds and/or
lettering setups when you are doing relatively small runs of a model.
Stuff like this is relatively easy to do if you are starting out on a
totally new project (model for production) but can be expensive to do
if you are doing a "rework" project. And I'd certainly rather have
Intermountain continue in existence than not. I don't think that the
success or failure (based upon number of copies sold) of any one model
will make/break a company like Intermountain - and I share everyone's
concern for "do it right the first time" - but I do sympathize with
the almost daily dilemma that companies such as Intermountain are faced
with in making decisions of this type.
And I also understand that if I ... and hundreds/thousands of other
guys keep buying them "until a better model comes along" that we are
effectively contributing to the continuation of the practice of providing
us with so many inaccurate models.
All of this makes me "uncertain" where I come out on the question of
whether or not I'd prefer Intermountain to not have produced these
models in this size and paint scheme at all - versus not having them
available.

There is a part of me that wants to do "just one accurate model every
so many days/weeks" ... but I also have to admit that I am far more
willing to "just purchase a model, replace/check the couplers and trucks,
weather it, and put it in the train case to be run" than that desire to
have -correct- models would imply that I should be doing. Just like most
of you I have to admit to a CONsiderable amount of laziness when it
comes to researching and/or executing the models I call "mine". A fairly
large part of this is due to the fact that I prefer to "run trains"
to "working on trains".
It's sort of like golf ... it's much more fun to play 18 holes than it
is to spend an hour on the driving range working on your game. And then
you grumble to yourself about "why do I keep doing that?" when you miss a
shot. But you don't necessarily go to the driving range the next day ...

On the plus side these are very nice models and do "look the part" even
if they aren't "spot on". Personally, I always have to consider my time -
there are so few models that are "perfect" - even in terms of 'sins of
commission' much less 'sins of omission' - that I find I have to accept a
lot of compromises I'd rather not even have presented to me. The old saw
about " ... in a perfect world ... " is certainly very much in play on
this topic! And life is much more prone to be "messy" than it is to being
"perfect". We each have to choose how much messiness makes us happy ...

- YMMV (and that's a GOOD thing) ... Jim

________________________________________________________________________
6a. Re: Intermountain FGEX / WFEX Reefers
Posted by: "Bruce Smith" smithbf@auburn.edu smithbf36832
Date: Sat Apr 19, 2008 1:58 pm ((PDT))

On Fri, April 18, 2008 12:44 pm, John Hile wrote:

Hello All,

Recently ran across the notes I made after reading Bill Welch's
information (Thank you Bill) on the FGEX and WFEX prototypes IM
recently attempted to model. From that info, along with Bill's RMJ
article and posts from this list, I believe I made correct
assessments as listed below. I would, however, appreciate any
corrections or confirmations.

John,

Bill has indicated that he feels that these cars are models of the 12'11"
rail to eave height post-WWII rebuilt cars (FGE 5000-56999, 57000-58999
and 59000-59999 series), which is clearly how you have addressed your
comments on the models. However, as I have noted before, they measure
12'9", falling almost exactly in the middle between the 12'7" 1927 cars
and the 12'11" rebuilds. As we talked about these over on the PRRPro
list, I think it was Ed Martin who pointed out that a loaded 12'11" car
would likely measure 12'9" ;^) so if you revise the truck sideframes to
show 2" of spring compression, you're good to go. Otherwise, these cars
might be useful fodder for the 12'7" variety with some trimming (which we
will be doing in a few projects on the PRRPro list), but alas in their RTR
forms, these are accurate models of nothing...

Of course, as you note, the attempt by IM to number them for 1921, 12'1",
6" side sill reefers is completely bogus.

Unfortunately, the Sunshine resin cars for the 1921 and 1927 (and I assume
the post war 12'11" cars) are a full foot too short in length, leaving us
with no accurate models of the signature FGE wood reefers.

Regards
Bruce