Foobies


Clark Propst
 

It's been mentioned that the Accurail gon list is not a witch hunt, but to get an understanding for which are correct or acceptable lettering schemes. Don't we miss Richard's and Ed's articles in the Journal?

Many of my modeling friends are perfectly happy with mismatched car type/paint schemes. As long as the paint job looks right they're good to go.

Example: When IM came out with meat company paint schemes on their ART reefer I rode along as two buddies picked up RTR models they'd ordered. When they dropped me off they asked to look at my color reefer book. They held the model's boxes up to the photos and were happy as pigs in slop when they saw they matched. I mentioned that the car was wrong, but they didn't listen.

Clark Propst
Mason City Iowa


Tim O'Connor
 

Even though we tend to be literalists about prototype models, I can
see how people who want to model prototype -operations- would be happy
to have an accurate paint scheme for their era on a model that is only
close-to, but not an exact copy-of, the prototype car. Especially when
the differences between model and prototype get increasingly esoteric.

In other words I guess I'm slipping towards "whatever floats yer boat"
when it comes to other folks' preferences.

Tim O'Connor

Example: When IM came out with meat company paint schemes on their ART reefer I rode along as two buddies picked up RTR models they'd ordered. When they dropped me off they asked to look at my color reefer book. They held the model's boxes up to the photos and were happy as pigs in slop when they saw they matched. I mentioned that the car was wrong, but they didn't listen.
Clark Propst


eddie_walters <eddie_walters@...>
 

Absolutely. Frankly the way I see it is that if the foobies sell and allow "us" to get more prototypically accurate models made (because it's easier to amortize the tooling cost when you're selling the "near enough" cars), then all the better.

What is more frustrating (to me!) is when cars are produced that have a fundamental flaw that renders them inaccurate for anything (eg the infamous Tichy tank car). In so many of these cases the money involved to make it right

Ed

--- In STMFC@..., Tim O'Connor <timboconnor@...> wrote:


Even though we tend to be literalists about prototype models, I can
see how people who want to model prototype -operations- would be happy
to have an accurate paint scheme for their era on a model that is only
close-to, but not an exact copy-of, the prototype car. Especially when
the differences between model and prototype get increasingly esoteric.

In other words I guess I'm slipping towards "whatever floats yer boat"
when it comes to other folks' preferences.

Tim O'Connor


Example: When IM came out with meat company paint schemes on their ART reefer I rode along as two buddies picked up RTR models they'd ordered. When they dropped me off they asked to look at my color reefer book. They held the model's boxes up to the photos and were happy as pigs in slop when they saw they matched. I mentioned that the car was wrong, but they didn't listen.
Clark Propst


Mike Fleming
 

Since my wife got sick 5 years ago I have little time for modeling. My first choice is for a model to be dead on exact or extremely close. So it takes me little time to tweak it. A good example is the Marklin/Trix NYC Caboose, Shorten the smoke stack and tweak the grab irons and it is there. Major modifications/kitbashing or scratchbuilding are out of the question any more. Fortunately for me, I like NYC coal and there are several good models or different hopper types out there. To me, foobies can be good to fill out a train and make it look right.
And another nibble for food for thought. You may know the shortcomings of each car you own but probably 99.99% of those viewing your fleet would not be able to pick out even one of those shortcomings. And I would say that would include the model railroaders.


Mike Fleming
Superintendent, Bluff City Div. SER, NMRA
President Emeritus, Memphis Society of Model Railroaders
Vice President, Memphis Railroad and Trolley Museum Model Railroad Club, a 100% NMRA Member Club

---------- Original Message ----------
From: "eddie_walters" <eddie_walters@...>
To: STMFC@...
Subject: [STMFC] Re: Foobies
Date: Wed, 11 May 2011 21:31:42 -0000


Absolutely. Frankly the way I see it is that if the foobies sell and allow "us" to get more prototypically accurate models made (because it's easier to amortize the tooling cost when you're selling the "near enough" cars), then all the better.

What is more frustrating (to me!) is when cars are produced that have a fundamental flaw that renders them inaccurate for anything (eg the infamous Tichy tank car). In so many of these cases the money involved to make it right

Ed

--- In STMFC@..., Tim O'Connor <timboconnor@...> wrote:


Even though we tend to be literalists about prototype models, I can
see how people who want to model prototype -operations- would be happy
to have an accurate paint scheme for their era on a model that is only
close-to, but not an exact copy-of, the prototype car. Especially when
the differences between model and prototype get increasingly esoteric.

In other words I guess I'm slipping towards "whatever floats yer boat"
when it comes to other folks' preferences.

Tim O'Connor


Example: When IM came out with meat company paint schemes on their ART reefer I rode along as two buddies picked up RTR models they'd ordered. When they dropped me off they asked to look at my color reefer book. They held the model's boxes up to the photos and were happy as pigs in slop when they saw they matched. I mentioned that the car was wrong, but they didn't listen.
Clark Propst



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


Tim O'Connor
 

A page from the Mike Brock Manual of Prototype Fidelity:

"The ability of model railroaders to distinguish perfect models from
foobie models is inversely proportional to the speed of the train that
is passing right in front of them".

So when Richard Hendrickson, et al, come to visit, just lay on the throttle!

Tim O'Connor :-)

-----------------------------

And another nibble for food for thought. You may know the shortcomings of each car
you own but probably 99.99% of those viewing your fleet would not be able to pick out
even one of those shortcomings. And I would say that would include the model railroaders.
Mike Fleming


Mike Fleming
 

LOL!!!!!!!!!!


Mike Fleming
Superintendent, Bluff City Div. SER, NMRA
President Emeritus, Memphis Society of Model Railroaders
Vice President, Memphis Railroad and Trolley Museum Model Railroad Club, a 100% NMRA Member Club

---------- Original Message ----------
From: Tim O'Connor <timboconnor@...>
To: STMFC@...
Subject: [STMFC] Re: Foobies
Date: Wed, 11 May 2011 18:24:31 -0400


A page from the Mike Brock Manual of Prototype Fidelity:

"The ability of model railroaders to distinguish perfect models from
foobie models is inversely proportional to the speed of the train that
is passing right in front of them".

So when Richard Hendrickson, et al, come to visit, just lay on the throttle!

Tim O'Connor :-)

-----------------------------

And another nibble for food for thought. You may know the shortcomings of each car
you own but probably 99.99% of those viewing your fleet would not be able to pick out
even one of those shortcomings. And I would say that would include the model railroaders.
Mike Fleming




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


Brian Carlson
 

My concern with foobies, is that a market awash with them may preclude
someone from doing the correct car.



Brian J. Carlson, P.E.

Cheektowaga, NY



From: STMFC@... [mailto:STMFC@...] On Behalf Of Tim
O'Connor
Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2011 6:25 PM
To: STMFC@...
Subject: [STMFC] Re: Foobies






A page from the Mike Brock Manual of Prototype Fidelity:

"The ability of model railroaders to distinguish perfect models from
foobie models is inversely proportional to the speed of the train that
is passing right in front of them".

So when Richard Hendrickson, et al, come to visit, just lay on the throttle!

Tim O'Connor :-)


eddie_walters <eddie_walters@...>
 

Brian,

I think (and this is a guess - no inside knowledge!) that because there's an RTR model of just about every basic type of car (i.e. wood side reefer/stock car/box car/etc) then the chances of the well being poisoned by foobies is unlikely to increase - simply because that ship has already sailed.

I think the more "dangerous" thing in that regard is a poorly executed model.

Ed

--- In STMFC@..., "Brian Carlson" <prrk41361@...> wrote:

My concern with foobies, is that a market awash with them may preclude
someone from doing the correct car.



Brian J. Carlson, P.E.

Cheektowaga, NY



From: STMFC@... [mailto:STMFC@...] On Behalf Of Tim
O'Connor
Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2011 6:25 PM
To: STMFC@...
Subject: [STMFC] Re: Foobies






A page from the Mike Brock Manual of Prototype Fidelity:

"The ability of model railroaders to distinguish perfect models from
foobie models is inversely proportional to the speed of the train that
is passing right in front of them".

So when Richard Hendrickson, et al, come to visit, just lay on the throttle!

Tim O'Connor :-)










asychis@...
 

Ed wrote, "What is more frustrating (to me!) is when cars are produced that
have a fundamental flaw that renders them inaccurate for anything (eg the
infamous Tichy tank car). In so many of these cases the money involved to
make it right"


I have a few of the Tichy tank cars that I built when they first came out
and the resources available to make a decision on accuracy was not what it
is today. In fact, I believe there was a drawing in Mainline Modeler by Bob
Hundman done expressly to show that there was such a car. With Mainline
being the de facto source at that time, I was happy with that
"confirmation." I still have those cars, and you know what, I had an open house at my
layout last Saturday and ran a "Korean War" tank car extra that had one of
those cars in the consist. Curiously, no one noticed and no fingers wagged.
I am all for the greatest accuracy possible, but there are situations
where the ambience is what makes the impression, not a close examination of
each and every car and the attendant details.

Jerry Michels


Benjamin Hom
 

Jerry Michels wrote:
"I have a few of the Tichy tank cars that I built when they first came out
and the resources available to make a decision on accuracy was not what it
is today. In fact, I believe there was a drawing in Mainline Modeler by Bob
Hundman done expressly to show that there was such a car. With Mainline
being the de facto source at that time, I was happy with that
'confirmation.'"

Sadly, we learned the hard way that depending on a Hundman drawing as a sole
source is living dangerously - witness the Branchline 41 ft postwar AAR boxcars
and various bogus USRA DS boxcar paint schemes offered by Ertl as more examples
to go along with the Tichy tank car.  Additionally, for the drawings of the PRR
Class X29 radial roof express car (unfortunately, a rare variation that wasn't
representive of these cars) that accompanied my articles that ran in Mainline,
he completely disregarded my redlines, resulting in another set of incorrect
drawings.


Ben Hom


Clark Propst
 

A lot depends on what we've using our cars for.

I'm not 'contest quality' modeler, 'layout quality' at best. My cars are made to operate on my layout. If I had several members of this group in my ops team I would take their criticism because my models represent the best I could do at the time. Sure, I'd upgrade if information surfaced. But, I don't have any of you guys regularly at my house. The guys that show up don't know and or don't care that much about accuracy. I still feel the need to do the best I can, others are happy with 'close'.
Clark Propst


Anthony Thompson <thompson@...>
 

Jerry Michels wrote:
I believe there was a drawing in Mainline Modeler by Bob Hundman done expressly to show that there was such a car.
Since the drawings for the USRA tank car design (not ever built) were in the Cyc in 1919, Hundman doing a drawing confirmed NOTHING.
What should have happened in the aftermath of the Tichy (then Gould) kit release was articles showing how to correct the minor differences in the model. Hundman could have taken the lead in getting such articles into print. But unfortunately Gould (and Hundman) took the position that it was a widely built car, with "many prototypes," as the kit directions and other materials stated.
My own view is that, in addition to being a superb kit to build, it is a fairly close stand-in for early 1920s AC&F cars, and the underframe in particular (available as a separate kit) can be used for AC&F underframes during succeeding years. No, it's not exact, and no, it was never a physical USRA car, but that doesn't mean it's a total loss.

Tony Thompson Editor, Signature Press, Berkeley, CA
2906 Forest Ave., Berkeley, CA 94705 www.signaturepress.com
(510) 540-6538; fax, (510) 540-1937; e-mail, thompson@...
Publishers of books on railroad history


eddie_walters <eddie_walters@...>
 

Clark - and isn't that the point of it all? To me the reason to model as accurately as I can is to please myself. I don't care if anyone else likes the result... and similarly I don't expect anyone to care if I approve of their work or not.

Ed

--- In STMFC@..., cepropst@... wrote:


A lot depends on what we've using our cars for.

I'm not 'contest quality' modeler, 'layout quality' at best. My cars are made to operate on my layout. If I had several members of this group in my ops team I would take their criticism because my models represent the best I could do at the time. Sure, I'd upgrade if information surfaced. But, I don't have any of you guys regularly at my house. The guys that show up don't know and or don't care that much about accuracy. I still feel the need to do the best I can, others are happy with 'close'.
Clark Propst


Denny Anspach <danspach@...>
 

What is more frustrating (to me!) is when cars are produced that have a fundamental flaw that renders them inaccurate for anything (eg the infamous Tichy tank car).
The infamous Tichy tank car....... Well, I love this model for what it is; I love it because it simply looks great; I love it for what it aspires to be; and I love it especially because something so small and harmless continues to cause so much consternation.... just by existing!

Denny

Denny S. Anspach, MD
Sacramento


George Courtney
 

I like to think of model railroading as a tree. We all grow out of the same roots but we tend to branch off. One branch may be close to ground and provide for a swing, another branch might tower toward the sun and another shade the house. One branch is not better in value than another, but if you choose to be a swing branch then it's better to be close to the ground.

George Courtney


Tim O'Connor
 

It's still the best engineered HO plastic tank car kit ever.
I love them myself; don't care if they are foobies. It's one
thing to assess the qualities of a model and say, well, it is
flawed in this way and that. That's just being objective. But
we can still love it. That's just being human.

Tim O'Connor

The infamous Tichy tank car....... Well, I love this model for what it is; I love it because it simply looks great; I love it for what it aspires to be; and I love it especially because something so small and harmless continues to cause so much consternation.... just by existing!
Denny S. Anspach, MD
Sacramento


Anthony Thompson <thompson@...>
 

Denny Anspach wrote:
The infamous Tichy tank car....... Well, I love this model for what it is; I love it because it simply looks great; I love it for what it aspires to be; and I love it especially because something so small and harmless continues to cause so much consternation.... just by existing!
The irony is that if it had been honestly presented from the beginning, reviewers would not have been all over it for pretending to be something it isn't. But as Denny says, it looks great and is a complete pleasure to build. Shows what CAN be done in styrene--not that anyone else has come very close. (Unless you count the masters at Kadee. Their PS-1 is amazing too.)

Tony Thompson Editor, Signature Press, Berkeley, CA
2906 Forest Ave., Berkeley, CA 94705 www.signaturepress.com
(510) 540-6538; fax, (510) 540-1937; e-mail, thompson@...
Publishers of books on railroad history


jerryglow2
 

Isn't that the truth! And they came out how many years before those other highly touted ones who had the benefit of more research and technology.

Jerry Glow

--- In STMFC@..., Tim O'Connor <timboconnor@...> wrote:


It's still the best engineered HO plastic tank car kit ever.
I love them myself; don't care if they are foobies. It's one
thing to assess the qualities of a model and say, well, it is
flawed in this way and that. That's just being objective. But
we can still love it. That's just being human.

Tim O'Connor


Clark Propst
 

Reading about the Tichy tank car again gave me an idea. I have lists of tank cars that we at the packing plant I model and have no idea what they looked like. I might pick up a couple of the Tichy models and decal them with the reporting marks I have documentation on.
What the heck, I will get the pleasure of building those kits and have real reporting marks to boot.

I think I can live with that?
Clark Propst


Benjamin Hom
 

Clark Propst wrote:
"Reading about the Tichy tank car again gave me an idea. I have lists of tank
cars that we at the packing plant I model and have no idea what they looked
like. I might pick up a couple of the Tichy models and decal them with the
reporting marks I have documentation on.

What the heck, I will get the pleasure of building those kits and have real
reporting marks to boot."

Do that, and you'll guarantee photos of those tank cars will surface AFTER you
finish the models!


Ben Hom