The Foobie File

Re: The Foobie File

Postby scaro » Sat Feb 08, 2014 3:42 pm

Another foobie. The Athearn HO stockcar.

Generally considered a nice model, has a roof with pressed panels with a diagonal grooves running between the pressings, across the wagon. This diagonal pressed roof is sometimes called a 'Stanray' roof.

If you view it from on top, the diagonal grooves should run SW to NE. Whoever cut the dies at Athearn must have thought the plan was drawn from underneath the wagon looking up, as the diagonals on the model run SE to NW.

From looking at the TT scale stockcar on Shapeways, it also has the diagonals running the same way as the Athearn. I do not believe this is right, though happy as ever to be contradicted with photos of the real thing. This error was lovingly replicated through N scale as well, probably because the Athearn stockcar, aside from this huge flaw, was considered quite a nice bit of tooling back in the day.

There's a prototype photo of a diagonal panel pressed roof here:

http://www.rrpicturearchives.net/showPi ... id=1179121

Despite the caption, I question whether it is a PS1 boxcar; they generally had 'bow tie' pressings in the roof panels, though some were rebuilt with diagonal panel roofs which started to be called 'stanray roofs' in the diesel era.
scaro
 

Re: The Foobie File

Postby scaro » Thu Mar 27, 2014 3:34 am

Apologies to anyone who wants the TT one, but the MDC waffleside boxcar is wrong in almost every respect. Repeats the error of the Athearn stockcar roof, which alone is irreversible. Unfortunately the designer has left the business so chances of it being fixed are presumably zero.

It is said that if you ran it past people who weren't rivet counters, then it most resembles some rare Frisco or KCS cars. Good luck finding lettering for those RRs.
scaro
 

Re: The Foobie File

Postby ctxmf74 » Thu Mar 27, 2014 1:57 pm

"It is said that if you ran it past people who weren't rivet counters, then it most resembles some rare Frisco or KCS cars.'

That's fine cause 90% of model railroaders just want trains to run that look somewhat like they remember trains looking. They want to build scenery and run trains thru it and they would rather buy cheap train looking models than spend time and money on the finer points that they don't care about. Prototype modeling is an interesting subset of the hobby but it's not the core of the hobby. The improvements trickle down as better models are built but they are not the reason most folks model. I still have freight cars I built in 1957 that are just as useful and satisfying to me as the latest exact rail model....DaveB
ctxmf74
 
Posts: 702
Images: 32
Joined: Tue Jan 05, 2010 12:25 am

Re: The Foobie File

Postby Marquette » Thu Mar 27, 2014 3:08 pm

I would say you are far overestimating that 90% figure.

The majority would *prefer* to have accuracy but aren't willing for whatever reason (most often trepidation, or underestimating oneself!) to tackle a serious kitbash.

What you're saying is... more or less true BUT and this is a huge BUT: HO and N is already established. They already have *years* of product accumulation. In TT we have nothing.

That means, we have to make it. So my question to you is:

Why make it wrong on purpose?

If you *know* that what you're copying is horribly wrong, why do you copy it?

Amongst those who remember TT from back in the day, there was this general belief that TTers just collect and run ancient and mostly obsolete models that show their age. We are proving that that's not the case - we are making that not be the case. So when we're trying to overcome one "point against" us, why score an own goal by *knowingly creating* another point of ridicule?
http://espeett.blogspot.com - The SP in 1:120 - my attempt at a blog
#include <std/disclaimer.h>
User avatar
Marquette
 
Posts: 2059
Joined: Wed Dec 23, 2009 8:16 pm

Re: The Foobie File

Postby ConducTTor » Thu Mar 27, 2014 3:33 pm

You guys are both right. Not everything has to be exact but the closer to exact the better. It's a matter of finding the appropriate balance. A new model HAS to be if nothing else correct in size. Length, width, height. Also, the bigger details have to be correct - roof, ends, sides. From there on, how much detail is added or left out depends on the cost and effort.
What people think: "liberals/conservatives are ruining my country"
What the powerful know: divide and conquer
User avatar
ConducTTor
Site Admin
 
Posts: 8291
Images: 13
Joined: Sat May 23, 2009 4:52 pm
Location: Atlanta GA USA

Re: The Foobie File

Postby areibel » Thu Mar 27, 2014 3:41 pm

Well, I think it boils down to the master was made for the waffle side car by someone else, a few years ago and they evidently didn't care about accuracy. So now what, throw it away? We learned a lesson with the Smoky Mountain debacle- Start to finish a complete kit was around $85. They won't get made. Frrom other sources to do another "correct" RP master for basically the same car would be $400-$600 minimum if you have to pay to have it done. And that's not counting the cost of having it cast.. Is it worth it to sell 50 or 60 cars in TT?
It's not prototypically correct. OK, but to make a stink about it for nothing, well, that's beating one of the many dead horses in TT. If it fits your era, buy one and fix it! Sand down the roof details and add your own. Or replace the roof. It beats building the whole thing from scratch. If you think it's too bad, or too modern, or too old, or whatever just don't buy one!
Or do what I plan to do, run it as is. It will do nicely as a different model from anything else out there, and unless I get surrounded by a swarm of Vesties that will point it out I doubt anyone will say a word about it. And I do doubt that there are that many guys out there and know it's wrong- Did anyone know from the first look? Or did someone go onto another group and ask and was told, just to come back here and spread the word? I've seen guys that think the HP cars are fine, or Maisto, or worse- in the words of a now deceased but notoriously cheap TT'er that would run "boxcars made from Cheerio's boxes" before he would spend $30 for a Gold COast car. It takes all kinds, and TT has them, just like any other scale.
areibel
 
Posts: 1663
Images: 7
Joined: Fri Jun 12, 2009 10:12 am
Location: Cambridge Springs PA

Re: The Foobie File

Postby j p » Thu Mar 27, 2014 4:07 pm

I'd prefer prototypically correct cars. If I get "generic" models, I try to kitbash them to something acceptable for me.
X23 is done, it started as a double-sheathed kit. I'll make something also out of the 2-bay resin hoppers which were unfortunately made after a no-prototype H0 scale model.
I understand that the master is there in this case, so no problem.
It is harder to understand in case of some other cars - both shapeways and resin kits - which were made wrong from the start and where just placing the ribs or rivet rows correctly would make them prototypically correct.
Making it correctly increases the number of sold cars!
There is an easy way how to make this (or any other) model prototypically correct: lettering. I am sure that this model would be 100% correct for NuTT Line scheme (NTTL)!
j p
 
Posts: 1159
Images: 69
Joined: Sat Jan 30, 2016 5:08 pm

Re: The Foobie File

Postby scaro » Thu Mar 27, 2014 4:41 pm

i believe it is reasonable for the MDC waffle boxcar to be on the foobie file.

it's a health warning, not a fatwa.

people can make their own choice. at least it will be an informed decision.

roofs typically turn out to be an issue since no one ever seems to think of photographing them and athearn, MDC and a few other manufacturers got the diagonal panel roofs wrong back in the 60s and those mistakes were repeated.
scaro
 

Re: The Foobie File

Postby areibel » Thu Mar 27, 2014 5:20 pm

j p wrote:There is an easy way how to make this (or any other) model prototypically correct: lettering. I am sure that this model would be 100% correct for NuTT Line scheme (NTTL)!

There you go! A lease unit or who knows what. But I think to be proper it would have to be something like TTNX reporting marks? And the differences-Maybe a wreck or rust repair later in life- to try and be 100% prototpically correct is impossible in any scale, let alone TT! I've been working (slowly) on an EMD E8 as a project. If you look at a picture of the units in the early 60's you'll see portholes on the side. But the same unit in the 70's may or may not have them. The EL did some repairs and rebuilds on them, when the side panels were replaced they didn't bother to put the port holes back most of the time. You have to look at a picture of a particular unit at a particular date to make sure it's correct. If I ever get one built I'll do that, but if someone was to offer a RTR E-8 I'd be glad to buy one!
I'm old enough I remember seeing waffle side cars running in the 1970's. I never saw the roof, and back then I didn't pay attention to the ends. What do I remember? It was a waffle side car (so it caught my attention), and the lettering. They were Southern RR cars, and they had the "Green light to Innovation" slogan on the side. And the probable reason for me remembering that is they had the center of the "O" in Southern painted green (for the green light). I thought it was clever, and it stuck. I'd gladly put the same decals on any car, and if I get questioned about it just say I'd be happy to look at their model of the same thing (in TT) to point out the flaws?
areibel
 
Posts: 1663
Images: 7
Joined: Fri Jun 12, 2009 10:12 am
Location: Cambridge Springs PA

Re: The Foobie File

Postby Marquette » Thu Mar 27, 2014 5:46 pm

Bernd wrote:Interesting discussion. It seems no matter what scale you are into there seems to be incorrect models made. I'm starting to wonder if the people making the drawings and molds for the manufacturers are model railroaders or if they are just a person doing a job and has no interest in model railroading at all. Makes you wonder.


The latter. This comes up a lot in model airplanes, too. It's especially boggling when the kit is inaccurate of a model for which there is mountains of information available or even easily-accessible preserved aircraft/trains in museums, and a whole army of modellers willing to supply research materials. It is often simply a case of the manufacturer not caring, because they know they'll sell it anyways. Which is aggravating to no end.

Jason Shron of Rapido Trains, Inc. seems to be doing it right. They could copy their rolling stock and get it right. Another complaint I've seen a lot of is that there are very few if any roof shots of equipment since the equipment is higher.

Bernd


He does get it right indeed!

As for roof shots: this is true, however there *are* photos of roofs around, and there is plenty of text-based information of what car had what roof. So if you have a photo of an XY&Z 40' double-sheathed boxcar with a Hutchins Dry Lading roof that gives a clear view of the roof, but you want to do a model of an AB&C 40' single-sheathed boxcar with the same roof, but have no photo showing the roof clearly, you'd get a lot closer to accurate by using the photo of the XY&Z car to do your roof than if you were simply to use whatever roof at random (or worse, invent a roof) for your model of the AB&C car. It may not be 100% accurate, but 80% is much better than 0%.
http://espeett.blogspot.com - The SP in 1:120 - my attempt at a blog
#include <std/disclaimer.h>
User avatar
Marquette
 
Posts: 2059
Joined: Wed Dec 23, 2009 8:16 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Prototypes / Models

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest