MTL Bay Window Cab. On time but Two roadnames to start.

[bbussey]

Well first off I was not placing responsibility on anyone - those were your words.

Yep !  They SHOULD contact the societies.

They didn't, so Conrail modelers get something less than they want/desire/need. No one do anything and enjoy what you 'get'. Now that makes sense.

Yeah, you did.  Telling the modelers to persuade the historical societies to provide information to the manufacturers unsolicited is putting the onus on the societies.

Yes, the modeler is going to have a less-accurate model available to buy.  But no one is twisting anyone's arm to buy it.

The entity hurt the most here is the manufacturer, because less product is sold.  It is SOLELY the responsibility of the manufacturer to do the proper research for a project that will generate profit for that manufacturer.

... When you announce your next project BBussey, if it is not so RR specific, you may get suggestions sent to you on this scheme or variation or get asked if you need additional info. Surely that would be helpful in your research, unless you have lots of time to do in-depth research.

Yes, I have sent drawings, paint chips, photos etc in to manufacturers. No, it was not my responsibility, however I enjoyed the accurate model when it was released. And, I just bet that the manufacturer appreciated the additional information.

Yes, ESM might receive suggestions unsolicited for a project, which would be generous of those who would do such and of which I would be appreciative.  But I wouldn't be and shouldn't be expecting it.  It is still ESM's responsibility to do the research ahead of time prior to making the decision to proceed on a project, since the number of potential releases on a new bodystyle helps dictate whether or not to proceed with the project.  And I would certainly, certainly try to be as accurate as possible on a deco scheme that I have already decided on.  I wouldn't plan, for example, on releasing a G26 mill gondola painted for New Haven and expect outside sources to voluntarily send me information.  I would confirm that such a specimen existed beforehand, specifically contacting the NHRHTA as one of the sources.  Just as, as far back as when ESM was planning to release the G26 as a resin kit years ago, ideas and samples were run through the PRRH&TS.

I'm not saying there is no benefit to sending information unsolicited.  I've done it with more than one manufacturer, and yes, some of them will utilize most of everything you send them.  All I'm saying is that it isn't the responsibility of anyone to do such.  And, for every example of when a manufacturer uses unsolicited information, there are exponentially more examples of when a manufacturer choose not to.  People constantly send photos and other information to Micro-Trains of prototypical schemes of their models, yet many modelers complain continuously about the non-prototypical schemes released every month.  I've provided information to the company over the decades and had more success than others in seeing many of those suggestions get produced, but by far they don't utilize everything I send them or suggest.  So, it isn't a given that Micro-Trains automatically would use any Conrail information provided to them.

bb

[Atlanticflier]

" So, it isn't a given that Micro-Trains automatically would use any Conrail information provided to them."

Yes - you are so right. However it increases the chance more, than if they do not have the info. As You said, they have used the information that you sent them.

To each their own. The ACL/SAL Historical Society does a fine job of providing information to manufacturers. While I do not have a responsibility to make them aware of manufacturers plans, IF I, am interested in a model - and want to see in in one of the societies coverred schemes, than I can notify them that xyz manufacturter is making plans, so that is all I am suggesting to the Conrail modelers.

There is no responsibility or onus on anyone to participate. It's just promoting some Teamwork. Some of us modelers and many Societies don't mind doing that for our interest.

Steven

[James Costello]

Lets just remember it's an Espee prototype caboose....

All you Conrail modelers could just wait a few months for this:



(Note it also is an Espee prototype).

[asarge]

As I recall, the Athearn cab is also an SP prototype. Looks like both are designed to be modular.

I'm not terribly knowledgeable when it comes to the manufacturing process, but I believe it would be much less labor intensive therefore more cost effective to not change the slides to make each model on a run detail specific. You might be able to add specific items during the assembly process but not when injecting the molds. So you CR guys are gonna get one of the first two new "Side Hung Cupola" cars produced. Lucky you!

Personally, I think they should;ve done Southern b4 CR, because we could sell a whole boatload down here without too much BS.

[Ed Kapuscinski]

I agree. I don't know why they picked CR as a "launch roadname", but they did.

I'm still probably going to get the Athearn car. Why (besides the fact that I feel dirty sending MTL my money)?

Because they actually DID contact the CRHS about these. We talked with them at length about road number selection, etc... and you know what? THAT is the type of responsible smart behavior I want to encourage with my dollars, and which I would encourage other modelers to do as well.

[Denver Road Doug]

Telling the modelers to persuade the historical societies to provide information to the manufacturers unsolicited is putting the onus on the societies.

Yes, the modeler is going to have a less-accurate model available to buy.  But no one is twisting anyone's arm to buy it.

The entity hurt the most here is the manufacturer, because less product is sold.  It is SOLELY the responsibility of the manufacturer to do the proper research for a project that will generate profit for that manufacturer.

I know you qualified these statements somewhat, later.  But I have to say I couldn't disagree more about the "entity hurt most".  The manufacturer is going to follow the path of least resistance most of the time.  They are gonna make a best effort attempt, but to say that most are passionate enough about every single thing they do to "bird dog" their research to exhaustion is probably off the mark.  I'd say that without input from the outside, most models would be "less".  (...prototypical ...-er quality ...available ...inexpensive ...correct ...purchased)

Is it the "hi-fi" modelers' or societies' responsibility to spoon feed the manufacturers?  No.  But it's the "hi-fi" model railroaders that become the "entity hurt the most" when a manufacturer screws up.  Why?  Because half the model railroaders don't care, half that do will still pre-order, half-that don't preorder will still buy them after release, and the ones left are expecting--after all that--another manufacturer to come along and do them "right", or the current manufacturer to fix the issue?  Probably not gonna happen.   SO, we can either sit on our hands and declare "get it right on your own or else!" or we can do the prudent thing and drown them with the facts, the research, the paint chips, the road numbers, the photos.  If they still screw it up, then we can all join in the great model railroad pastime known as complaining.

It's not our responsibility to the manufacturers, it's our resonsibility to each other....to the modeling community as a whole...to pony up.  Complaining means it's too late.

[Ed Kapuscinski]

Dammit Doug, it's clear thinking and elucidation like that that makes our squabbling seem stupid!

I think you hit the nail RIGHT on the head there.

[wcfn100]

Until there is full transparency of the production process, the burden rests on the manufacturers to get it right.

You can't have it both ways.



Jason

[Dave V]

FWIW, MTL is also making THIS this month:



...and as far as I can tell, it's good!  I'll be buying one.

[wm3798]

I'm not sure, but I thought I heard "The Battle Hymn of the Republic" playing softly in the background of Doug's post.

Jason, you can't expect full transparency.  Does Macy tell Gimbell?  Transparency is only half a step from collusion.  Prices are high enough to begin with.  Doug's absolutely right.  Out of 100 model purchasers, probably less the 20% care a lick about accuracy of every detail.  Maybe another 20% care about accuracy at all.  The rest are "Gee that's a cool paint scheme", or "That'll look great pulled by my Conrail steamer!"  As such, manufacturers are content to get pretty close with most of their work.

I agree with Doug.  If you want to see a car done to your specifications, then you need to be willing to provide the specifications.

Lee

[asarge]

Me too Dave. I remember PC more than I remember their predecessors and I remember seeing lot's of PC cars coming thru New prt and Covington Kentucky as a kid.

I think we're assuming alot to think manufacturer's should do their homework to get the cars run for the "Hi-Fi" modellers. We would have to assume that every manufactuere want's to get every detail correct on every model and that's almost impossible to achieve within the whole of the manufacturing process. Most if not all do their homework and many have reams of research material to draw. Ask Craig at Bluford about his "closet".

How close "acceptable" is on prototypical detail on a model is a personal choice. The manufacturer's are gonna sell what they have to and what they can to make a profit, which in turn "foobie" or somewhat close makes lot's of models happen for alot of us. Like the Magor Caboose.

Of course then there is the simple fact that all of us who participate on the forums are just a small percentage of modellers....even in N scale..... so in reality our opines are only important to a pretty small group of people, us.

[Dave V]

Guys, I have to respectfully disagree with the concept of research being a time-consuming burden on the manufacturers.  Maybe it was, say, 10-20 years ago, but now there's so much free information on the Internet that it's almost harder to do it wrong than to get it right.  A Google search takes seconds.  Or, sites like Railpictures or Fallen Flags will instantly show you if your choice of road number or road matches your body style.

I'm thinking it's just a matter of cost/benefit analysis.  Sure, guys like us will bellyache, but most potential buyers won't know and/or won't care.  My cost/benefit analysis says to me that if I can get this cabin somewhere for less than $20 I can also not care.  It is still frustrating just the same.  But I live with tons of 90- ton hoppers from Atlas pretending to be 70 and 100 tonners, so...

[SkipGear]

Dave,
  I'm not sure I agree with that. The manufacture has a blank sheet to work with effectively. They start with a body style, then they have to search through the archives to decide what roads had that body style, then find photo's or rosters to decide on a scheme or number. Unless somebody has a particular interest in a road, they don't know where every photo archive site may be. Googgle searches only reveals about half the stuff that is actually out there. Everytime one of the witch hunts start on a new release, I seem to find somebody posts a picture from another photo album that I hadn't seen before. Just for B&O stuff I have probably 30 different archives bookmarked. They have to narrow it down to on car or at least a series. As an example, go searching for a car out of your particular PRR/CR comfort zone, a UP 40' box car. Then pick a car that matches an available body, then a paint scheme, then research if anybody has done it before, did they sell well.......etc. etc. Then they have to do the artwork, proof, correct, etc. etc. I know when I drew up the decal sheet for the B&O cabooses, it took roughly 4 variations and 2 weeks to of research, waiting on replys from others, and test shots to get them right, and there are still changes I would like to make.

We the consumer, on the other hand have a picture of a finished car, a road name and a number to look up and instantly say, "NOPE, they got it wrong!" Yes it only takes us a few minutes to prove it wrong. It could take days to find the right car for some and they may have to do that for 60 different cars a month in the case of Athearn, Atlas, or IM. I guess maybe that is why MT gets so much grief, they do few releases a month and should have more time to research each and get it right.

The process is harder than many people seem to think.

[Ed Kapuscinski]

Yeah, but here's the thing. This is people's JOBS.

We may research things as hobbyists, but when it's your JOB to get it right, you should DO YOUR JOB. If you're a professional, you should know MORE research avenues than average Mike the Modeler, not less.

I'm sorry, but saying "oh, I didn't know about FallenFlags, or I didn't think to check RailCarPhotos" is just flat out unprofessional.

[ai5629]

The Penn Central 60' double plug door high cube that MTL is painting this month should be very accurate.  The MTL car is an excellent match for a Penn Central / Conrail X78.  These were produced by Greenville in 1973 I beleive.  I just checked, and the prototype is from the Fallen Flags web site.  Check under the Penn Central page and you will see the prototype (PC 221005) in full Penn Central livery in 1991!!!    A full 15 years after Conrail started up.  I know that even Ed will have to relent and get one.  All she needs is an ACI tag above the COTS and into service she will go.  Micro Trains appears to have gotten this one right, and I hope you support their efforts with your wallet.  I know I will be.  If someone can tell me have to remove MTL lettering without screwing up the paint, I will add a few more to the roster via renumbering.  Micro Sol and 600 grit sand paper didn't work last night on a Conrail hopper.  Into the stripper it goes...