Date
1 - 20 of 43
Should we be mfgr bashing?
Guys,
Here's the thing (from where I stand) ...
Our priorities - primarily prototypical accuracy - are ... let's face it ... out
there on the outer fringe of the modeling community. The mfgrs are, for the
most part, trying to make a buck ... or at least to not loosing money on a run.
So they make stuff that will sell first - and second is less expensive to produce.
Rarely does that result in a model is going to be prototypically accurate ... at
best it means that they will leave off some details that -we- consider important.
Are the manufacturers going to suddenly start producing models that are
accurate (or at least what they do is correct but there is some/a lot of missing
stuff)? Unlikely. They are probably going to continue to reuse molds and
paint setups they already have - as often as possible. They are even going to
produce models that are pretty much total foobies. Even re-issue a model
that was a total foobie from the get go. Some of the -lesser- sins they will
commit are errors in paint, or details such as hardware, etc.
So "grousing about it" seems, to me at least, a waste of emotional energy
and creates an atmosphere of negativity.
Should we be pointing out the inaccuracies of the releases? Of course we
should! I'm just saying that we should do so - without the editorializing and
hyperbole. Focus on what we can do to improve stuff and not on what's
wrong.
I know that's a difficult thing to ask. Especially when the mfgr of the day
has just announced/released a new model of a freight car that "you've
been waiting for all this time" - and when we've had too much coffee. *G*
I, for one, would like to see simple reporting. In the words of Joe Friday
"Just the facts, maam."
- Jim in the PNW
P.S. This post/thread is NOT aimed anyone in particular. We've all had
these complaints ... and voiced them ... myself included.
Here's the thing (from where I stand) ...
Our priorities - primarily prototypical accuracy - are ... let's face it ... out
there on the outer fringe of the modeling community. The mfgrs are, for the
most part, trying to make a buck ... or at least to not loosing money on a run.
So they make stuff that will sell first - and second is less expensive to produce.
Rarely does that result in a model is going to be prototypically accurate ... at
best it means that they will leave off some details that -we- consider important.
Are the manufacturers going to suddenly start producing models that are
accurate (or at least what they do is correct but there is some/a lot of missing
stuff)? Unlikely. They are probably going to continue to reuse molds and
paint setups they already have - as often as possible. They are even going to
produce models that are pretty much total foobies. Even re-issue a model
that was a total foobie from the get go. Some of the -lesser- sins they will
commit are errors in paint, or details such as hardware, etc.
So "grousing about it" seems, to me at least, a waste of emotional energy
and creates an atmosphere of negativity.
Should we be pointing out the inaccuracies of the releases? Of course we
should! I'm just saying that we should do so - without the editorializing and
hyperbole. Focus on what we can do to improve stuff and not on what's
wrong.
I know that's a difficult thing to ask. Especially when the mfgr of the day
has just announced/released a new model of a freight car that "you've
been waiting for all this time" - and when we've had too much coffee. *G*
I, for one, would like to see simple reporting. In the words of Joe Friday
"Just the facts, maam."
- Jim in the PNW
P.S. This post/thread is NOT aimed anyone in particular. We've all had
these complaints ... and voiced them ... myself included.
Benjamin Hom
From the STMFC Group Rules, updated June 9, 2011 and available in the group files section as "STMFC Rules2011.eml":
"Members are permitted to criticize or praise manufacturer's products free from criticism from other members. Criticism of a manufacturer's business practices is, however, not within the scope of the group."
This has been a core tenet of the Group from Day One. Whether or not you choose to participate in what actually has resulted in past product improvement is up to you.
Ben Hom
"Members are permitted to criticize or praise manufacturer's products free from criticism from other members. Criticism of a manufacturer's business practices is, however, not within the scope of the group."
This has been a core tenet of the Group from Day One. Whether or not you choose to participate in what actually has resulted in past product improvement is up to you.
Ben Hom
Chris Barkan
Thank you for the reminder Ben, I strongly agree that such discussions are and should remain legitimate fodder for this group. Among the several things of value that I derive from this and other lists is frank candid assessment of manufacturers' model accuracy, quality, etc. Personally, I think such evaluations should be as detailed and as possible, including errors, omissions etc. Each of us can decide what our accuracy threshold is in making purchases. Besides the model quality itself, other types of manufacturers' descriptors of their models are also valuable so we know what something is, or is not. For example, a recent case in point is another new thread about IM's announcement of a re-release of the retooled Red Caboose (nee Front Range) 40' boxcar models, that Tim O'Connor points out are described as "AAR 1937" boxcars when they actually represent post-war prototypes. This sort of info is also useful, so thank you to all for your continued, careful scrutiny and reporting on models, good, bad, and ugly!
--
Chris Barkan
Deerfield, MA
--
Chris Barkan
Deerfield, MA
np328
Among the several things of value that I derive from this and other lists is frank candid assessment of manufacturers' model accuracy, quality, etc.
That sentence above from the post from Chris stands by itself as a most valid reason that I spend time going through posts here both new and old.
Chris then goes on to state: Each of us can decide what our accuracy threshold is in making purchases. Yes!
Calling out manufacturers on foobies does not make us a fringe.
If a manufacturer turns out crap and nobody buys it and they go belly up, well that's raw capitalism - working as it should.
There is nothing (not one thing) wrong with being an informed buyer. James Dick - Roseville, MN
That sentence above from the post from Chris stands by itself as a most valid reason that I spend time going through posts here both new and old.
Chris then goes on to state: Each of us can decide what our accuracy threshold is in making purchases. Yes!
Calling out manufacturers on foobies does not make us a fringe.
If a manufacturer turns out crap and nobody buys it and they go belly up, well that's raw capitalism - working as it should.
There is nothing (not one thing) wrong with being an informed buyer. James Dick - Roseville, MN
Ted Culotta
Hello Jim,
I am paraphrasing from memory, but Richard Hendrickson was fond of pointing out that if a manufacturer was going to produce something, it wouldn't cost more to make it right for at least one prototype. Our hobby is awash in expert consulting that is usually no more than the cost of several gratis models. Manufacturers have very few excuses for making this small subset of the hobby unhappy; they need only make one correct model for every offering they produce. They can sell the foobies to others, but give us at least one thing we can use.
Cheers,
Ted
Ted Culotta
Speedwitch Media
Guys,
I did not say "don't criticize" ... I said:
"Should we be pointing out the inaccuracies of the releases? Of course we
should! I'm just saying that we should do so - without the editorializing and
hyperbole."
I then added:
"Focus on what we can do to improve stuff and not on what's wrong."
and that was my bad - because it is easy to interpret as saying "don't tell me"
when what I was trying to say was "tell me what to do to make it better".
- Jim in the PNW
I did not say "don't criticize" ... I said:
"Should we be pointing out the inaccuracies of the releases? Of course we
should! I'm just saying that we should do so - without the editorializing and
hyperbole."
I then added:
"Focus on what we can do to improve stuff and not on what's wrong."
and that was my bad - because it is easy to interpret as saying "don't tell me"
when what I was trying to say was "tell me what to do to make it better".
- Jim in the PNW
This may be toeing close to the line, but I believe it falls within the discussion's purview.
The problems with releasing foobies can be broader in scope than what has been discussed. I will provide an example below:
When Rapido released concept art of their GARX 37' meat reefer in 2011, someone in their camp made the following statement in response to a user question regarding the accuracy of paint schemes:
"All of these schemes are based on photos and are correct for GARX built meat reefers."
At the time of the reefers' announcement, it was apparently correct. But when the reefers were finally released in 2014 (iirc), there were Armour, Cudahy, and Wilson schemes added which were not accurate for that particular car.
I do not think that anyone was purposely trying to mislead anyone else, but the release of the foobie schemes somehow caused more than one high-profile modeler to personally assert their accuracy to me when in fact they were foobies. Since meat reefer types are such an obscure topic, I just simply don't think the information was widespread enough.
So we have a situation whereby many modelers have the Rapido reefers painted in GARX/URTX schemes. This is very good since these reefers made up a large part of the GARX/URTX meat reefer fleet.
But many modelers also have the Rapido reefers painted in ARLX, CRLX, and WCLX schemes and believe that they are accurate, which is not the case. It turns out that ARLX, CRLX, and WCLX all had specific reefer designs that numbered in two cases more than the Rapido reefer (980) in real life. The WCLX 8101 series (1,295 built), CRLX 5600 series (~700 built), ARLX 11000 series (1,000 built) are all significant proportions of cars that bore those reporting marks. I believe the Rapido model depleted the demand for accurate meat reefers of different designs, which many of us would find useful in plastic.
On top of that, "intermediate" (c.1950-51) sans-serif URTX schemes for lessees like Dubuque (without an Iowa billboard logo in this case) were never produced by Rapido. In my opinion, those were missed opportunities to add some additional accurate schemes to the third run.
Many modelers don't seem to realize that in a single hotshot mainline train, several strings of 10 or more meat reefers from the same meatpacker were not uncommon. This means many of us mainline prototype modelers need fleets of the aforementioned WCLX, CRLX, and ARLX reefers, to say nothing of classes like the NADX 12000 series (~1,300 built) or the SRLX 3300 series (a staggering 1,900 in the block, although some had four hinges). All of these have never been offered before in RTR plastic and, in my opinion, would be good candidates because of their sheer numbers. The Swift 3300s are an especially glaring hole because there has never been an accurate HO carbody with the correct door height made, at least for the six-hinge cars.
In sum, I am using this very specific example to illustrate that the problems with releasing a product can be more multifaceted than just simply releasing an obviously-wrong paint scheme or a crude model. They can have long-lasting implications (another more obvious example was the Exactrail X-3 debacle).
-Phil Lee
The problems with releasing foobies can be broader in scope than what has been discussed. I will provide an example below:
When Rapido released concept art of their GARX 37' meat reefer in 2011, someone in their camp made the following statement in response to a user question regarding the accuracy of paint schemes:
"All of these schemes are based on photos and are correct for GARX built meat reefers."
At the time of the reefers' announcement, it was apparently correct. But when the reefers were finally released in 2014 (iirc), there were Armour, Cudahy, and Wilson schemes added which were not accurate for that particular car.
I do not think that anyone was purposely trying to mislead anyone else, but the release of the foobie schemes somehow caused more than one high-profile modeler to personally assert their accuracy to me when in fact they were foobies. Since meat reefer types are such an obscure topic, I just simply don't think the information was widespread enough.
So we have a situation whereby many modelers have the Rapido reefers painted in GARX/URTX schemes. This is very good since these reefers made up a large part of the GARX/URTX meat reefer fleet.
But many modelers also have the Rapido reefers painted in ARLX, CRLX, and WCLX schemes and believe that they are accurate, which is not the case. It turns out that ARLX, CRLX, and WCLX all had specific reefer designs that numbered in two cases more than the Rapido reefer (980) in real life. The WCLX 8101 series (1,295 built), CRLX 5600 series (~700 built), ARLX 11000 series (1,000 built) are all significant proportions of cars that bore those reporting marks. I believe the Rapido model depleted the demand for accurate meat reefers of different designs, which many of us would find useful in plastic.
On top of that, "intermediate" (c.1950-51) sans-serif URTX schemes for lessees like Dubuque (without an Iowa billboard logo in this case) were never produced by Rapido. In my opinion, those were missed opportunities to add some additional accurate schemes to the third run.
Many modelers don't seem to realize that in a single hotshot mainline train, several strings of 10 or more meat reefers from the same meatpacker were not uncommon. This means many of us mainline prototype modelers need fleets of the aforementioned WCLX, CRLX, and ARLX reefers, to say nothing of classes like the NADX 12000 series (~1,300 built) or the SRLX 3300 series (a staggering 1,900 in the block, although some had four hinges). All of these have never been offered before in RTR plastic and, in my opinion, would be good candidates because of their sheer numbers. The Swift 3300s are an especially glaring hole because there has never been an accurate HO carbody with the correct door height made, at least for the six-hinge cars.
In sum, I am using this very specific example to illustrate that the problems with releasing a product can be more multifaceted than just simply releasing an obviously-wrong paint scheme or a crude model. They can have long-lasting implications (another more obvious example was the Exactrail X-3 debacle).
-Phil Lee
Alex Schneider
Early in Rapido's existence I pointed out that one of their cars was never owned by NYC. His reply indicated that he knew better but needed more sales to support the cost of tooling the car. I gather that painting is a small part of the cost of a model and
some buyers will buy an appealing model in their favorite scheme as a stand in for an authentic one. AHM did the same thing in the late 50s or early 60s with both streamlined and heavyweight cars. Branchline broke new ground producing their heavyweights in
authentic schemes; I haven't found any with bogus names or numbers but I haven't checked them all.
While bashing foobies one by one may educate readers against ill advised purchases, at a certain point it is obvious that making foobies is a business practice
George Courtney
I like to know whether or not a car is accurate. But I cannot ask a supplier to lower his standard of living just to please me. Yes, the info is nice. But I can't blame someone for wanting to support their family,imho. But I do thank those who supply accurate info at the same time.
George Courtney
George Courtney
nyc3001 .
Alex,
I think there is a difference between attacking the rationale of a manufacturer to produce foobies and bashing foobies themselves.
The former seems to constitute a violation of this group's rules. The latter will likely lead to a discussion in which prototype information is shared.
There is also a difference between a company like AHM, which produces models not far removed from "toy trains," and a company like Rapido, which prides itself on its accuracy down to the very contours of the prototype.
If you're referring to the "NYC" passenger cars produced by Rapido, I believe Rapido was clear that they were CN prototypes. The dialogue regarding the meat reefers (a much more relevant car for most of us than NYC passenger cars, and I say this as a Central modeler), was decidedly more nebulous.
Again, I do not think anything underhanded was afoot, but I wish the story surrounding these reefers were clearer at the time of their release.
Who knows? Maybe some of us could even have learned enough to request more sans-serif URTX and GARX schemes.
And I will likely still be buying six Rapido X-3s.
-Phil Lee
I think there is a difference between attacking the rationale of a manufacturer to produce foobies and bashing foobies themselves.
The former seems to constitute a violation of this group's rules. The latter will likely lead to a discussion in which prototype information is shared.
There is also a difference between a company like AHM, which produces models not far removed from "toy trains," and a company like Rapido, which prides itself on its accuracy down to the very contours of the prototype.
If you're referring to the "NYC" passenger cars produced by Rapido, I believe Rapido was clear that they were CN prototypes. The dialogue regarding the meat reefers (a much more relevant car for most of us than NYC passenger cars, and I say this as a Central modeler), was decidedly more nebulous.
Again, I do not think anything underhanded was afoot, but I wish the story surrounding these reefers were clearer at the time of their release.
Who knows? Maybe some of us could even have learned enough to request more sans-serif URTX and GARX schemes.
And I will likely still be buying six Rapido X-3s.
-Phil Lee
On 1/19/2023
7:03 PM, Dennis Storzek via groups.io wrote:
On Thu, Jan 19, 2023 at 05:37 PM, Alex Schneider wrote: Branchline broke new ground producing their
heavyweights in authentic schemes; I haven't found any with bogus names or numbers but I haven't checked them all.
And where is Branchline Trains now? Dennis Storzek
-----------------------------------------------------
It's called Rapido now :-D
Just kidding. I think Branchline just missed the RTR boat, among other things. You just can't make
enough money selling high end plastic kits*. But the models are still in production, as are Red Caboose
models, and RC no longer exists either.
* I think I bought ten Branchline passenger car kits for $10 each at Lombards, back then!
On Thu, Jan 19, 2023 at 05:37 PM, Alex Schneider wrote: Branchline broke new ground producing their
heavyweights in authentic schemes; I haven't found any with bogus names or numbers but I haven't checked them all.
And where is Branchline Trains now? Dennis Storzek
-----------------------------------------------------
It's called Rapido now :-D
Just kidding. I think Branchline just missed the RTR boat, among other things. You just can't make
enough money selling high end plastic kits*. But the models are still in production, as are Red Caboose
models, and RC no longer exists either.
* I think I bought ten Branchline passenger car kits for $10 each at Lombards, back then!
--
Tim O'Connor
Sterling, Massachusetts
Dave Nelson
The difference should be obvious to all.
OK: Paint and lettering for X, Y,, and Y are imaginary.
Not Ok: They’re cheating every customer who buys one of those and have been at it for years.
It’s not hard.
Dave Nelson
From: main@RealSTMFC.groups.io <main@RealSTMFC.groups.io> On Behalf Of nyc3001 .
Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2023 5:22 PM
To: main@RealSTMFC.groups.io
Subject: Re: [RealSTMFC] Should we be mfgr bashing?
Alex,
I think there is a difference between attacking the rationale of a manufacturer to produce foobies and bashing foobies themselves.
Eric Hansmann
Dennis Storzek asked:
And where is Branchline Trains now?
-----------------------------------------------------
Tim O'Connor replied:
It's called Rapido now :-D
It's called Rapido now :-D
Just kidding. I think Branchline just missed the RTR boat, among other things. You just can't make
enough money selling high end plastic kits*. But the models are still in production, as are Red Caboose
models, and RC no longer exists either.
* I think I bought ten Branchline passenger car kits for $10 each at Lombards, back then!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
enough money selling high end plastic kits*. But the models are still in production, as are Red Caboose
models, and RC no longer exists either.
* I think I bought ten Branchline passenger car kits for $10 each at Lombards, back then!
If I recall correctly, Branchline Trains was a subsidiary of a hobby distributor. The principal owner of the distributor passed away and things came undone. The HO scale rolling stock tooling ended up with Atlas, while the Laser-Art wood kits continue under the Branchline Trains name/brand.
As a point of interest, the About Us page on the Laser-Art website still notes the original rolling stock kit releases.
I welcome any corrections to my fuzzy memory.
Eric Hansmann
Media, PA
“ it wouldn't cost more to make it right for at least one prototype.”
--
Ted Larson
trainweb.org/mhrr/ -------- NASG.org -------- https://www.nasg.org/Clubs/RegionsMinnesota.php
GN in 1965
--
Ted Larson
trainweb.org/mhrr/ -------- NASG.org -------- https://www.nasg.org/Clubs/RegionsMinnesota.php
GN in 1965
Jerry Michels
Phil, do you have some data to support this? I am not being argumentative at all, I don't like foobies, but want to know how you arrive at 'many.' Is there a survey or is it primarily 'water cooler' data? Thanks.
Jerry Michels
'But many modelers also have the Rapido reefers painted in ARLX, CRLX, and WCLX schemes and believe that they are accurate'
To me, there are a couple of related topics that it would be good to see addressed:
- how does prototype modelling advocate for itself (and against certain problem conduct such as actively misleading advertising & product labels, very poor quality/fidelity, etc.)?
- how does prototype modelling present a positive force within the wider hobby?
Interested to hear thoughts on that.
Rob
- how does prototype modelling advocate for itself (and against certain problem conduct such as actively misleading advertising & product labels, very poor quality/fidelity, etc.)?
- how does prototype modelling present a positive force within the wider hobby?
Interested to hear thoughts on that.
Rob
nyc3001 .
No, I haven't surveyed modelers, but the old club I was part of in 2016 bought WCLX and ARLX reefers because they were "accurate."
When I was asking questions about meat reefers in general (which I still do), there were two well-known modelers (you would recognize their names) who recommended that I buy the ARLX-painted Rapido reefer, citing it as "very accurate."
I am also basing my assertion on the fact that in 2014, at the time of these reefers' release, there wasn't as much prototype data on online forums such as this pertaining to specific reefer classes. A quick search shows a good several modelers apparently buying Rapido reefers in foobie schemes who mention nothing about the discrepancy between the scheme and the body.
Full disclosure: I ended up buying at least one of all of the foobie schemes. I simply didn't know better. All have been sold except for my CRLX reefer, which I intend to eventually repaint in one of the schemes (likely the "intermediate" Dubuque scheme with no billboard) that Rapido didn't release.
-Phil
When I was asking questions about meat reefers in general (which I still do), there were two well-known modelers (you would recognize their names) who recommended that I buy the ARLX-painted Rapido reefer, citing it as "very accurate."
I am also basing my assertion on the fact that in 2014, at the time of these reefers' release, there wasn't as much prototype data on online forums such as this pertaining to specific reefer classes. A quick search shows a good several modelers apparently buying Rapido reefers in foobie schemes who mention nothing about the discrepancy between the scheme and the body.
Full disclosure: I ended up buying at least one of all of the foobie schemes. I simply didn't know better. All have been sold except for my CRLX reefer, which I intend to eventually repaint in one of the schemes (likely the "intermediate" Dubuque scheme with no billboard) that Rapido didn't release.
-Phil
Chuck Cover
I think we are all going around in circles with this discussion. Our modeling and our layouts are entirely our own responsibility.
If you want to model prototypically then it is up to you to seek out the information to do so. I don’t know how many times I have seen and heard the phrase, “model from prototype photographs”. Although we cannot always find prototype photos of every freight car on the internet or in published books, we usually can, and these photos are what we should be using to model.
If you are not a prototype modeler, then freight cars that are not prototypical may be fine for your purposes. You are probably modeling what you like, not what is prototypical.
We should all know better than to take everything we read on the internet as fact. We need to do our own research before making a decision on what is correct and what is not.
Chuck Cover
Santa Fe, NM