going too far?

[asciibaron]

i'm sitting here looking through the ORER for October 1967 and looking up my fleet.  the first car, an Atlas 50 2 door boxcar, marked as ATSF 10338 is a foobie.  it should be a 50 foot boxcar with a single 7'4" door.  i know i'm setting myself for heartache and a small fleet, but should i sell all the foobies? repaint them into something that's correct?  or just ignore it and run trains?

[Philip H]

i'm sitting here looking through the ORER for October 1967 and looking up my fleet.  the first car, an Atlas 50 2 door boxcar, marked as ATSF 10338 is a foobie.  it should be a 50 foot boxcar with a single 7'4" door.  i know i'm setting myself for heartache and a small fleet, but should i sell all the foobies? repaint them into something that's correct?  or just ignore it and run trains?

Foobie, schmoobie!  Try being a KCS modeler until about 5 years ago.  We either painted or foobied.  Didn't affect how the train ran.

I vote for number three.   ;D

[John]

I think I would build the layout first .. then worry about foobies ..

[davefoxx]

Steve,

Is this an excuse to get away from benchwork and tracklaying?  Come on, get that thing framed up already.  What are you waiting for?  Heck, you had others build the framework for you.  Do they need to complete your layout, too?  ;D

Seriously, I'm with John.  You've got bigger fish to fry than to worry about the freight car fleet at this point.  Get something at least running and perhaps even go so far as basic scenery before worrying about the rolling stock.  Besides, who in this neck of the woods is going to have such knowledge on western roads, for example, that they're even going to notice?  Maybe you'll eventually de-foobie the home road equipment, but I would let the foreign cars go, at least for now.  A good plan is to avoid purchasing future foobies, if you believe that you'll be disappointed later.

By the way, if you hadn't pointed it out, most of us local guys wouldn't have known that AT&SF 10338 is a foobie.  But we'll be sure to point it out at ops sessions... if you ever get that far.  ;D

DFF

[asciibaron]

Is this an excuse to get away from benchwork and tracklaying?  

i'm trying to sort out an unforeseen problem and realize why Pelle did what he did with his plan.  the opposing grades look stupid when next to each other.  i'm going to work it so there is a backdrop that separates the two grades and showcase the one area so it's "outside" the layout.  this kills a few birds - it will be the first area to have scenery and it will block the rest of the mess from view (albeit just a little - the divider will only be a few inches above the scenery.  i just have to iron out a few issues and ruminate on the solutions.  my goal is to be running trains before the end of the year.

i was looking to increase the fleet at Bedford and wanted to know what i needed in terms of on line cars vs. through train traffic.  the foobies can be forsaken to the PRR run thrus that have no cars for the L&HR.

[ChrisNH]

I think I would build the layout first .. then worry about foobies ..

Yeah, layout first. Rolling stock is a distraction.. you can weed out the wrong stuff later.

Chris

[asarge]

There's plenty of time for all of it. Get yourself up and running....and then ignore it and run trains. Rule 1 always applies.

[asciibaron]

There's plenty of time for all of it. Get yourself up and running....and then ignore it and run trains. Rule 1 always applies.

Inverse Rule G is the only rule i follow. *burp*

i'm hoping to have some time tomorrow night to work on the layout.  many things going on and any time doing work toward the layout is productive at this point.  even if it's only researching cars.

[Mark5]

It is impossible to model many railroads, N&W for instance, without foobs.

Mark

[Chris333]

Yeah, hard to not have foobies, but try to get as close as you can and be happy.

[bicknell]

I maintain you can't get upset over a foobie unless you can tell why it is a foobie without consulting a book.  ;D

[Dave V]

Here's my rule (but obviously Steve and I don't agree on everything):

I try to be as close as possible for my road, whether PRR or CR (with PC), knowing that sometimes the best I can do is a foobie.  As for ALL of the foreign equipment, I don't really worry at all.  Close is close enough for non-PRR/CR for me.

[Ryan87]

Why are you asking us?

Does it bother you? If so get rid of it...

If not get back to building benchwork... 

[wcfn100]

You're just scratching the surface. 

I'd quit the layout until you get the rolling stock issues worked out.  You won't be able to run any of the cars until you change the shop and reweigh dates to the right years anyway and then they need to be weathered.  The reweighs are pretty easy except you need to learn the proper reporting marks for each road for where they would do the work.  This requires looking at hundreds of photos to figure out the most common marks.  And then there's the problem of getting the right weight reported.  Many cars had equipment added or removed (DF loaders, etc.) from the cars or if there was any shopping, the weight would change so you will need to go through the ORER for each car to see if it's weight may have changed for any reason.

 You're probably another year or five away from needing a layout.


Jason

[David Leonard]

If the ATSF car is the one I think, it's part of the Atlas Trainman line. The Trainman line is full of foobies (just look at the road names on the ATSF style caboose). Even if the car was accurate, it would still have the thick roofwalk and stirrups, so what difference would it make? If you can accept the bulky detail, just enjoy the car and run it--when that time comes!