Should we be mfgr bashing?
|
John Barry
Pure jets no, but there are several turboprop conversions. John Barry ATSF North Bay Lines Golden Gates & Fast Freights Lovettsville, VA 707-490-9696 On Saturday, January 21, 2023, 12:05:34 PM EST, Bob Chaparro via groups.io <chiefbobbb@...> wrote: Agree. Same can be said for airplane models. No manufacturer I know is putting jet engines on DC-3 airplanes. Bob Chaparro Hemet, CA |
|
|
|
Ted Culotta
Hello Tim, I think that you're responding to a reply to my posting. The gist of what I was saying is that our hobby has a large pool of info in the form of people like ourselves who are willing to provide that accurate info for very little, often no more than a few models. Ergo, it's not that much more expensive, if more expensive at all to make something that is accurate for at least one prototype. Cheers, Ted Ted Culotta Speedwitch Media |
|
|
|
Jerry Michels
Craig, your post is pretty much where we're at. I am not on the BOD per se, but one of four ARM founders, I am about the only one who talks with the BOD about custom cars. In fact, at least five of our most recent crs were due to my research, and BOD approval. I have rarely had a member suggest a custom car that falls under our rules. Lots of ideas about producing a model for which no model exists, but that is out of the question financially. Suggestions on anniversary or cars decorated for the ARM, or Coca-Cola cars abound. That won't happen while I am around. I hope our future models are pleasing, I will strive to make them as accurate as possible. Jerry Michels |
|
|
|
Craig Wilson
Andy Carlson wrote: Let us not forget the evisceration Richard Hendrickson received for accurately calling out the CB&Q historical society for a society special run of a box car. The ire was raised from Richard's chastising (correctly in my opinion) a foobie car with a Q paint scheme. Richard rightly mentioned that it is implicitly expected that a society selling a custom run car would be highly accurate. Some remarks were like "Richard Hendrickson, the 'so-called expert' should mind his own business." Or "this poor society shouldn't be attacked like this as they are performing great (?) work". This reminded me of something from a couple of years ago. I was a founding member of a historical society then BOD member for a modest sized railroad some thirty+ years ago. At the time there were not a lot of commercially available models for the RR's freight car and locomotive fleets. We strove to provide accurate information and "how to" articles for those interested in trying to do it better. I went on numerous layout tours and open houses where I saw models created by putting a Champ decal set on a blue box car kit. Nothing prototypically accurate about it other than the road name applied to it. We had some good modelers on the BOD so we started collecting photos and information. The result was a 90+ page book focusing on all the post-war freight cars from this railroad. Lettering diagrams, photos and lists of available models and decals to point modelers in a positive direction. We argued that it took no more effort to paint/letter a foobie car as it did a more accurate one as long as the information/photos/modeling suggestions were readily available. Skip ahead several decades and much better models are available to use as a starting point. Every car in that book (with a couple of exceptions) can now be modeled without having to extensively kitbash or scratch build it (in HO scale). Most of the original BOD members are gone and the present board does not include more than one or two serious modelers. I was contacted by one of the present board members saying that they were discussing a custom run of Accurail cars as a fund raising project. Accurail produces a small number of models that match what our prototype railroad rostered and Accurail has already offered those decorated for that prototype RR. So the board was discussing what other Accurail offerings could be painted/lettered for the RR as a fund raising project. I sent back a strongly worded reply pointing out that any of these would be foobies at best. Doing this would undermine our credibility as a HISTORICAL society with the very people that we were attempting to educate and inform about the history of the railroad. Thankfully the BOD agreed and did not produce any of those cars. Craig Wilson who presently is working on the three single sheath boxcar types that formed the backbone of that RR's car fleet for 40 years - thanks to resin models, Rapido and 3D printing technology. |
|
|
|
John Monrad
On Fri, Jan 20, 2023, 10:34 PM Andy Carlson <midcentury@...> wrote:
Or at least be forthcoming with fidelity to the protype, if not provide suggestions for improvement. The GNRHS offers the Red Caboose/Intermountain 40ft drop-bottom gondola painted for the GN in their online store. Following a detailed history of the car on the GN, they include the following paragraph: "The model fills an important place in the Great Northern’s car fleet, and is worthy of use on any operating model railroad. That said, it is a mass-produced car not based on a GN prototype. The obvious flaw us the corrugated ends which this series of GN cars did not have. The eye-catching flaw is the use of side ladders. GN gondolas were all equipped with grab irons, which is an easy modification for the modeler. The final obvious visual anomaly is that the model has the door opening and closing mechanism exposed for the entire length of the car, while on all GN cars the mechanism is obscured by a metal plate across the panel between the truck center and the ends. To increase prototype fidelity, thin styrene can be applied to cover the exposed operating mechanism on both ends of the car. The final possible touch would be to scribe the side sheets to represent the welding on of early 1950’s vertical side sheet pieces, but that could introduce paint matching issues." Perhaps a model for other societies to follow? Or a way for manufacturers to assist sales of their foobies - cheaper to provide a description in print how to fix flaws than to cut accurate molds. John Monrad |
|
|
|
EXCEPT that what set all this off was an odious (and very inaccurate) roof on a new $85 plastic freight car. I am calm and rational when it comes to Athearn blue box. Not so much overpriced imports from China. :-) On 1/20/2023 7:18 PM, Richard Townsend via groups.io wrote:
--
Tim O'Connor Sterling, Massachusetts |
|
|
|
Rob Kirkham,
For -many- people in this hobby - if the paint says "CPR" then it looks like a CPR car. They simply can't see/don't know the difference. I said "many" but I should have said "most". Sooooo, the mfgrs/importers/marketers make stuff that isn't prototypically accurate. Often. Again and again. And not just sins of omission but also sins of commission (which are harder to correct). Could they do so - make it accurate - and it would still sell? Yes. But the guys making the decisions about what they will/will not do are often starting out with the premise that they "will produce something with as little development effort as possible" and where development effort includes research effort and the time to do the research (even when we proto modelers offer to do it for them). I'm not even sure I would hold a Historical Society's feet to the flame if they produced a foobie ... they want - even need - to make money first. Yes, I want/need to know what is right and wrong with a model - so I can make an informed decision about whether I will use it or not. That decision includes how much time I will spend to end up with a model that I consider to be acceptable. I have to admit - I'm probably a lot less of a prototypical modeler than many of you. I'm saying that "acceptable" is easier for me to achieve than for you. Often, for me, if the paint and lettering are "right" and the detailing is "good enough" (meets my personal standards) ... then the rest of it is "for the next model". (My modeling time is also a resource - and is getting to be the most critical resource.) - Jim in the PNW |
|
|
|
That's a popular saying, and it couldn't be anything but wrong. Getting things right takes manpower and money for research. On 1/20/2023 9:43 AM, Ted Larson via groups.io wrote: “ it wouldn't cost more to make it right for at least one prototype.” --
Tim O'Connor Sterling, Massachusetts |
|
|
|
Both the airplane and armor manufacturers have released kits of German tanks and jets that never got off the drawing boards.
|
|
|
|
There is a manufacturer (12” to the foot) who takes DC-3 and essentially returns the airframe back to zero hours, and installs turboprops. I flew on a King Air to a fishing lodge in Canada, and the pilot was considering one.
Thanks!
From: <main@RealSTMFC.groups.io> on behalf of "Bob Chaparro via groups.io" <chiefbobbb@...>
Agree. Same can be said for airplane models. No manufacturer I know is putting jet engines on DC-3 airplanes. |
|
|
|
Agree. Same can be said for airplane models. No manufacturer I know is putting jet engines on DC-3 airplanes.
Bob Chaparro Hemet, CA |
|
|
|
It takes all kinds, right. And fair enough. Still, I find it surprising still that in our hobby a Sherman tank model to put on a flatcar will bear a significant resemblance to a Sherman tank (not a Tiger or a T34), but sometimes a "CPR Boxcar" won’t bear a resemblance to any CPR car ever.
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
Rob On Jan 20, 2023, at 3:09 PM, Jerry Michels <gjmichels53@...> wrote: Well said Josh! I've learned that the majority of our club members have little interest in the prototypic view. As long as the cars have good detail and run well, they are satisfied. We have members ranging from being very true to the prototype to those that run a steam locomotive, 100-tom BNSF hoppers and no caboose to Baby Ruth trains. It takes all kinds, and as long as they pay their dues.... Jerry Michels |
|
|
|
Andy Carlson
Let us not forget the evisceration Richard Hendrickson received for accurately calling out the CB&Q historical society for a society special run of a box car. The ire was raised from Richard's chastising (correctly in my opinion) a foobie car with a Q paint scheme. Richard rightly mentioned that it is implicitly expected that a society selling a custom run car would be highly accurate. Some remarks were like "Richard Hendrickson, the 'so-called expert' should mind his own business." Or "this poor society shouldn't be attacked like this as they are performing great (?) work". I knew Richard appreciated Rogers and Hammerstein and when I saw Richard and Bat Masterson (a 'Q' content provider) walking amicably in the hallway the following Naperville I couldn't help but sing-song "Oh I'm glad to see the Farmer and the Cowbow being friends." Bat didn't understand my humor, but Richard's side gusting laughter made my afternoon! -Andy Carlson Ojai CA |
|
|
|
Steve Haas
On Fri, Jan 20, 2023 at 04:18 PM, Richard Townsend wrote:
My main issue with certain reviews is their tone. There is a vast difference between "the roof is poorly done in that the ribs don't reach the edges" and "the car is a POS and XYZ Corp should be ashamed of themselves." A straightforward review that calmly and rationally points out shortcomings as well as what's been done right, without editorializing is useful. The other is not.Richard makes an excellent point: 1) "the roof is poorly done in that the ribs don't reach the edges" is a statement of fact (assuming that is correct for the model being dissected). 2) "the car is a POS and XYZ Corp should be ashamed of themselves" is an opinion as it includes no factual information to justify the judgement. Richard continues: "A straightforward review that calmly and rationally points out shortcomings as well as what's been done right, without editorializing is useful. The other is not."; I could not state this better. Best regards, Steve Steve Haas Snoqualmie, WA |
|
|
|
Richard Townsend
My main issue with certain reviews is their tone. There is a vast difference between "the roof is poorly done in that the ribs don't reach the edges" and "the car is a POS and XYZ Corp should be ashamed of themselves." A straightforward review that calmly and rationally points out shortcomings as well as what's been done right, without editorializing is useful. The other is not. Richard Townsend
Lincoln City, OR
-----Original Message-----
From: Jerry Michels <gjmichels53@...> To: main@realstmfc.groups.io Sent: Fri, Jan 20, 2023 3:09 pm Subject: Re: [RealSTMFC] Should we be mfgr bashing? Well said Josh! I've learned that the majority of our club members have little interest in the prototypic view. As long as the cars have good detail and run well, they are satisfied. We have members ranging from being very true to the prototype to those that run a steam locomotive, 100-tom BNSF hoppers and no caboose to Baby Ruth trains. It takes all kinds, and as long as they pay their dues.... Jerry Michels
|
|
|
|
Jerry Michels
Well said Josh! I've learned that the majority of our club members have little interest in the prototypic view. As long as the cars have good detail and run well, they are satisfied. We have members ranging from being very true to the prototype to those that run a steam locomotive, 100-tom BNSF hoppers and no caboose to Baby Ruth trains. It takes all kinds, and as long as they pay their dues.... Jerry Michels |
|
|
|
Jeffrey White
I hate to think I took us down this rabbit hole asking about the new Atlas releases. I am just looking for something to do with 2 undecorated kits I bought several years back before I thought to look at the list and see how prototypical they were. I model the IC in 1955-1960 time frame so I have to live with a lot of stand in cars. I'm going to confess that there are some things that occasionally run on my module that aren't prototypical. There are some locos and cars that came from my good friends layout that make an appearance every once in a while. Jeff White Alma IL On 1/20/2023 2:08 PM, Steve SANDIFER
wrote:
|
|
|
|
Josh
I know a lot of folks here won't like this, but the attitudes of this board really don't reflect the majority of the hobby. Strict prototype modelers really are probably less than 20% of the market force, based on my unscientific estimation through experience working in the industry at various levels. The majority of modelers fall somewhere between "I buy what I like" and "I buy what looks right but I'm not going to count rivets or compare kodachrome slides." It's very hard for a manufacturer to turn a profit catering to us alone, even though we act as if they owe us something out of some moral obligation. "Foobies" and close-enough options are what keeps prices down, even with inflation continually driving costs of production up. Ask any manufacturer and they'll tell you that in spite of the whining from this list and other forums the "foobies" sell just as well and often better than the accurate paint schemes even when they are openly advertised as foobies. I picked a time period to model in which none of these plastic manufacturers are offering any products for, everything I have I build from resin, laser cut or 3D printed kits, so whenever these kinds of passionate discussions come up I find them humorous because I am responsible for the accuracy of my own models, not anybody else. Inform us and inform yourself, but complaining about the mere existence of close-enough paint schemes I find to be silly. Model Railroading is supposed to be fun, so let the people have fun who do it differently from you instead of tearing them down for buying products you don't want.
Josh Bernhard |
|
|
|
cptracks
Good points. Even Jason Shron of Rapido has been very clear that
he needs the foobies to keep going. Buyer Beware. And, to be
honest, if you use the two foot rule as most modellers seem to,
who is to know? If its not in my particular interests, not I. I
just enjoy what I see and make sure to compliment the owner. On 2023-01-20 12:08 p.m., Steve
SANDIFER wrote:
-- Colin Riley |
|
|
|
Like 200-300 right? Plain Jane was the majority by 1956.
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
Brian J. Carlson On Jan 20, 2023, at 2:51 PM, Scott <repairman87@...> wrote:
-- Brian J. Carlson, P.E. Cheektowaga NY |
|
|