In a message dated 9/27/2004 11:42:23 AM Mountain Daylight Time,
georgeloop1338@... writes:
Hey Brian, how come you haven't bought any of my Micro-Trains Santa Fe
PS-1's, especially in the "Grand Canyon" scheme? These are acurately done with no
maps! Ship and Travel slogans only, two classes, Bx52 and Bx57.

I do have one set that I thought was one of yours, I just pulled them out,
the package says "N Scale Collector, NSC 03-74" and the cars are 276524 and
276609. I was going to pick up some others, but I guess I procrastinated my way
out of them :< You and Micro-Trains have done some beauties. I almost managed
to talk myself into buying some of your Espee cabooses, but was not able to
justify them on the Grand Canyon Line - too far north of the Sunset Route! What
all do you have (if anything) left? Feel free to reply off line if you prefer,
but they are steam era cars!

Take Care!

Brian R. Termunde
West Jordan, Utah
"Ship and Travel the Grand Canyon Line!"

In a message dated 9/27/2004 4:17:29 PM Mountain Daylight Time,
cvlk@... writes:
Printing a copy of the photograph used as a reference on the packaging would
be a solution but, in most cases, it is not feasible to obtain permission to
publish the photos used for the R&D.
<<snip>>
How close a stand-in body molding is the question and is
strictly a matter of personal standards.

The ideal solution would be one that would be easy (and inexpensive) for the
manufacturers, as well as easy for modelers to understand.

I wouldn't expect that every Mfgr. has all of the prototype info that we
would want. Sometimes it happen that they see a photo of a car and reproduce it in
miniature as they have a car that is the same or similar.

Speaking of which, while I'd prefer all of my equipment be accurate
miniatures, I accept that, especially in N scale, that this is not possible at this
time. I look at a model and decide if it's good enough for me. If a Mfgr. wants
me to purchase their product, it's their job to sell it to me. I'll still do
some research if I need to, but if I look at a car from brand X and brand Y. If
X gives me the data, and it fits my prototype, I'd buy it over brand Y even if
its a better car and/or cheaper price. If neither provides the prototype
data, and I don't know about the car, I'll wait and may not get around to doing
the research required as I only have so much time available. Then both might
lose out on a sale.

In short, I can understand reasons that this information is not provided, but
I think that properly done, it would add value and increase sales.

Take Care!

Brian R. Termunde
West Jordan, Utah
"Ship and Travel the Grand Canyon Line!"

In a message dated 9/27/2004 5:05:38 PM Mountain Daylight Time,
georgeloop1338@... writes:
I know what RR's had PS-1s and can tell if MT did a correct job, usually by
the dates.

I wish Atlas would come out with a new (in N) 40 foot boxcar. Their 40 footer
with those (poorly rendered) doors of theirs do me no good at all. The (very)
few I do have will need to go into the GCR shops to have their doors replaced
before they'll rub their flanges on my rails!

Take Care!

Brian R. Termunde
West Jordan, Utah
"Ship and Travel the Grand Canyon Line!"

Ted Culotta wrote

Part of the solution is that at least we can be assured that the
Branchline car did exist at some point in time.

Ahem, well, technically not ALL of them existed... some of the
first batch of 50 foot cars for example.

Never one to let sleeping dogs lie, there seem to be a variety of
opinions and, I am sure, each opinion is held for good reason.
Further, it doesn't appear that there will be consensus on this list
any time soon.

It seems that a number of us would like more information from the
manufacturers.

Some are a little distrustful of the information and would prefer to
do their own research.

The opinion that such information isn't too important seems to have
been expressed by some.

It has been asserted that research is part of the hobby.

A few have come to the defense of manufacturers and asserted several
possible negatives about providing such information. Negatives seem
to include:
-Most modelers aren't interested.
-Providing the information would increase the manufacturers cost.
-The information might be inaccurate.
-Sales might be dampened for various reasons.
-It might be difficult to decide what to include or exclude.

Hopefully most of the points have been summarized in a general but
fairly accurate way. Would it be instructive to look at other model
hobbies?

I already know that model trucks are sold with every possible
paint/lettering schemes including all sorts of 'never was' things.

On the other hand, manufacturers catering to the military modelers
seem to place a great deal of emphasis on accuracy and do provide
information.

I believe this discussion within this group is especially appropriate
because so many of us do or could provide information to
manufacturers should such information be deemed desirable.

Gene Green

--- In STMFC@..., "Gene Green" <lgreen@e...> wrote:

On the other hand, manufacturers catering to the military modelers
seem to place a great deal of emphasis on accuracy and do provide
information.

========================
I believe the two hobbies approach things from opposite ends.

From what aI have seen the military modeler tends to build the scene
around and for a specific model, the model is the object and while it
might fit within a theme (i.e. late WWII) it rarely has to interact
with another model so the specific date isn't that relevant, the
model exists in its own "time". I can build a model of a M1A1 Tank
circa 1994, then build a Britsh battlecruiser circa 1914 and there is
no conflict between the two, they are considered separate, stand
alone models.

On the other hand a model railroader tends to combine models into a
larger scene, the overall scene is the object and everything in it
has to fit the theme (e.g. Surf Line 1952)and the models have to
interact with all the other models. Specific dates of the individual
models then become relevant, as all the models have to dwell in a
common time frame. If I build a 60 ft centerbeam flat circa 1994 and
a 36 ft wooden boxcar circa 1914 they will not look appropriate on
the layout because they are considered together, part of the same
train.

Dave H.

Gene Green summarized, I think, the discussion about research/info quite well. I would add the following:

I've noticed that buyers of whatever model are attracted to the model by the amount and quality of detail present. The accuracy of such details really only apply to buyers that practice RPMing...whether they know it or not. IOW, an individual examining a model of something may actually be aware and interested in the prototype even though the individual may not be planning to put it in its prototypical setting. Regardless, detail wins.

Potential purchasers are also attracted to a model if information regarding it is present. Hence, I'm impressed by the P2K booklet included with its steam locos even though I'm already familiar with the locomotives. The point is that such information gives the potential buyer an impression that the manufacturer is both aware of the prototype and has gone to the trouble to research it.

Does this mean that all manufacturers should include such material? Nope. Just that those that do may strengthen their sales potential. IMO.

I would also note that manufacturers are rather sensitive to potential products that they might be planning...for good reasons. Hence, a manufacturer is placed in the dilemma of not broadcasting a new model until it is significantly far enough in development to avoid being beaten to the finish line. At the same time, manufacturers may need to obtain info that they don't have. In that case, they must rely on individuals for such and the process must, necessarily, remain hidden. For that reason, a manufacturer going public on the STMFC when a product is being considered may not be realistic.

Mike Brock

At 01:25 PM 9/30/2004 -0400, you wrote:

Does this mean that all manufacturers should include such material? Nope. Just that those that do may strengthen their sales potential. IMO.

Well I think we all agree that it certainly can't hurt. While a glossy booklet may not be practical with every model, I don't see how accurate box labeling can hurt anything. Or cost anything, since the box has to have a label anyway. Even just doing as much as Red Caboose puts on their box car labels is more than most will bother with.

Andy

Andy Harman wrote:

Well I think we all agree that it certainly can't hurt. While a glossy
booklet may not be practical with every model, I don't see how accurate box
labeling can hurt anything. Or cost anything, since the box has to have a
label anyway. Even just doing as much as Red Caboose puts on their box car
labels is more than most will bother with.

Well, no, we don't all agree: Charlie Vlk and Jeff Aley think it will bankrupt the manufacturers.

Tony Thompson Editor, Signature Press, Berkeley, CA
2942 Linden Ave., Berkeley, CA 94705 www.signaturepress.com
(510) 540-6538; fax, (510) 540-1937; e-mail, thompson@...
Publishers of books on railroad history

If the information on the box label was limited to the data printed on the
car I don't see any major problems.
If the manufacturer is expected to hold out that particular paint job
existed for a specific period of time and that the carbody and all its
features are accurate (to somebody's standard) I don't think that is going
to happen....
First, the manufacturer has little need to do in-depth usage documentation
research (being more concerned with the L&P ...I am talking about releasing
paint jobs on existing tooling, not tooling a new car where the emphasis is
on the mechanical aspects of the prototype) and second is not going to
limit the sales of their product to a few dead accurate paint jobs because
others were on carbodies with different sidesills or door styles.
Of course some of this depends on the size of the manufacturer, their
production profile and capabilities as far as tooling, size of runs, and a
host of other factors.
BLI is advertising their stockcar as a PRR K7a which is what was used to do
the tooling. By inference the NYC and other paint jobs are on a PRR car.
Now I took pains to spec that the factory apply boards in the locations
necessary so that each road's car is as close to their prototype as I could
make it....down to creating custom fonts for all the stencil lettering on
each..... I find it hard to believe that the people on this list need any
further warning label on the box....
I agree with Craig's idea that manufacturers should cultivate a network of
assistance from RR Historical Societies and
individuals who have information and are willing to help. I am grateful to
those who have assisted me in my work at JMC/ConCor,
Kato, and now as Railroad Model Resources / Broadway Limited. But from the
manufacturers viewpoint it is not always a smooth
road. We have business pressures and deadlines to work on projects and
often you get promises and hints of information but it
doesn't come forth.....or the "expert" sends you a bad xerox of a MR
article. We've had this discussion before.
Competition is another subject altogether..... there is some cooperationn (I
don't believe that it is good form to find out what someone
else is working on and try to beat them to the market with a competing
model) but some head-to-head competition is going to be
inevitable in an environment where many of the logical prototype selections
(the ones you can get reasonably large variety of roadnames
and paint schemes off of) are already tooled decently. Some improved models
will take business from lesser models and sometimes
there will be a need to duplicate to round out a range of products offered..
(BLI doing F7s is an example of this). Many of the manufacturers R&D guys
do talk to each other and respect each other's work..... but there are some
mavericks out there who don't play well with others.
The Model Railroad Industry, at least in North America, works best when each
company finds a niche that they are best at and contributes product to the
Hobby that works with others..... LifeLike, for example, has made tons of
passenger diesels but not one Pullman or Coach to go with them...
if it weren't for Walthers, ConCor, Athearn and now Branchline they probably
wouldn't have sold so many DL109s, PAs, E6,7, 8&9s, and Erie-Builts if they
didn't have "competitors".
Charlie Vlk

--- In STMFC@..., "Charlie Vlk" <cvlk@c...> wrote:
<snip> "BLI is advertising their stockcar as a PRR K7a ..."

If there was that much information - what the prototype for the model
was - about more cars it would surely be a big help to me. As to the
relative amount and quality of the detail, each can and will make his
or her own judgement.

I only want the PRR version of the BLI stock car but I hope they sell
a million of each paint scheme.

Gene Green