Foobie and their effect on production

[eric220]

I think my opinion on this subject can best be summarized by comments that Dave V. made on his blog.  In any modeling endeavor, there's a "sweet spot", up to which the work is fun, but beyond which, it's just work.  I think a lot of us, myself included, are happy with a close-enough representation of our rolling stock, if that's what it takes to build up a nice long train.  I'm alright with running close-enough foobies if it means that manufacturers are willing to build them en-mass and inexpensively enough for me to afford them.

I wish I had the time and patience to come up with the awesome results that Dave, Richie, Lee, and others show us every week on Weekend Update, but my "sweet spot" is nowhere near as close to reality as theirs.  I am perfectly happy with achieving the overall effect without being totally accurate.  Of course, I can rationalize away any inaccuracies by attributing them to the fact that by 1948, my PRR looks a LOT different than the prototype, so the differences are simply due to the different needs of the railroad.  In some ways, this is really good solution for me.  If I want to get an accurate model of a specific prototype, I can; if I just want to buy something and plop it down on the layout, I can; either way, it's accurate in my world.

As always, rule #1 applies.

[John]

I've resisted up to now commenting, but here is my take:

- I don't believe that N or Z can actually manufacturers can produce a completely accurate model. Some things just don't scale well at those scales and still have a reliable working model. I think the best we can do, without making them un-runnable (not a word), is about where we are now, with ESM, BLMA,etc. There is some more we can do with added details, but for now, I think we are pretty close to the limit where the return isn't the effort.

- With the above in mind, I think there is a lot a modeler can do to create the illusion of accuracy. Weathering, finer scale track, closer scale couplers and free standing details are all in that category.

flame away!

[asarge]

I don't think you can ever get a completely accurate model for every road. I also believe that those who spend alot of time pointing out possible "foobs", real or imagined, are really just trying to blow their own horn.

And it really has almost no effect on sales at all. Most people accept close enough. Rule 1 always applies.

[wm3798]

I don't disagree with you John, in fact, I've been lurking around the n scale boards for about 10 years now, and it's been said before that there's only so much that can be done.

Then along comes BLMA, then ESM, then Fox Valley...  Each one nudging the envelope a bit further.

That said, there is definitely a point of no return.  For instance, ten years ago, I don't think anyone would pay $28 for a gondola car unless it was brass.  So maybe the add-ons have already pushed us around that bend.

As great and groundbreaking a car as the Atlas 55-t fishbelly was, there are still parts missing from it, the grabs are wrong for the WM, which used separate ladders, and so far the only numbers that have been run have been the earliest series, not the rebuilds which looked essentially the same.  BUT, at a street price of around $10, I'm okay with that.  If Bryan runs the G-26 in the WM paint scheme that's close enough, I'd be in for a few of them, especially if I can get them around $20 or less. (Hoppers roam in herds, so a lower price point is critical - this concerns me about those new 70-tonners...  really nice cars, but it'll cost a small fortune to build a proper coal train, which for me runs around 30 cars).

Anyway, the sun is out and yardwork beckons.  Regrettably not the freight yard variety! ;D

Lee

[Denver Road Doug]

I don't think you can ever get a completely accurate model for every road. I also believe that those who spend alot of time pointing out possible "foobs", real or imagined, are really just trying to blow their own horn.

And it really has almost no effect on sales at all. Most people accept close enough. Rule 1 always applies.

Yes, every model is a "foobie" to a certain extent.  Certain elements such as coupler boxes, and parts that would be unacceptably fragile in n-scale will dictate that.

I would be careful about insulting those who are trying to push the envelope for something besides locomotives, though.  This hobby has many facets and while the majority of modelers are "loco loco", there are still a lot of guys that enjoy researching freight cars and attempting to craft the best models possible based on that.  I'd say the push is more, "whatever model the manufacturer decides to do, just get that one right" versus "we want the manufacturer to produce 42 variations to emulate every production run ever made".   Blow their own horn?  Yes there may be a few, but you're gonna have exentric types in just about any place you choose to look, no?

I'm curious how you come about your statement "has no effect on sales at all".  Seems like a pretty bold/cliche statement based off one shop's experience.  I know that personally I won't hardly even consider any of Athearn's old MDC boxcar and tank car tooling anymore since I know that most are not based on reality and models from FVM, IMRC, Exactrail, new Athearn, Atlas, and so forth are gonna be more likely to be accurate, high quality models for $2-3 more.  Amazingly, MTL is really in the same boat.  No metal details on covered hoppers, "short" boxcars, etc. means I hardly give them a second look anymore.

The "Rule 1" stuff is cute, but it's a copout.  Anybody I know that owns a layout would not stand for unsolicited nitpicking of any kind.  So of course "it's my railroad" is gonna prevail, always.  But it's the opposite interaction that we're talking about here....pride that you've researched a car and can discuss its heritage, who made it, when it was built, etc...and then talk about details added, etc, and then speak to the car next to it which "isn't quite as accurate", etc.  So, it's POSITIVE dialogue between a visitor and the modeler.  It's not always about some "chip-on-my-shoulder, over-my-dead-body, death to nitpicking rivet counters" kinda deal.   Many model railroaders DO enjoy this kind of stuff, believe it or not.

[SkipGear]

Doug,
 To back up Andy and make the statement more accurate, "It has very little effect on sales."

I know pretty much what is right and what is wrong on the cars setting on our shelf. Even when I mention descrepencies, the customers for the most part, really don't care.

Is it the type of car they want?
Does the paint look good?
Is it a road they are interested in?
Is it what they feel is a fair price?

If it answers those key questions, then a purchase is made. Wrong doors, car ends, and the like really don't enter into the equation for 99% of the customers that walk through our doors. Now being able to tell a customer that a particular car is actually a very correct representation of the particular model sometimes help seal the deal so to say but most of the time, they would have bought the car anyhow.

Our customers range from newbie first timers up to serious opperations based modelers with basement empires and the above covers most if not all of them.

A loose quote from one of my customers that has a 30x40 basement layout in process. He models the B&O main from Cincinnati to Chillilcothe in the 50's. "Life is too short to worry about stuff like that. If I was going to worry if every freight car on the layout was 100% accurate, the layout would never get finished, and there would be no cars to run on it."

He used to scratch build Sn3 before starting his N scale layout so he has the ability to get things 100% if he wanted to.

[Denver Road Doug]

A loose quote from one of my customers that has a 30x40 basement layout in process. He models the B&O main from Cincinnati to Chillilcothe in the 50's. "Life is too short to worry about stuff like that. If I was going to worry if every freight car on the layout was 100% accurate, the layout would never get finished, and there would be no cars to run on it."

Tony, yes, you will see in my first post on this topic something similar.

I don't dispute that a majority of folks feel that way.  My overall point always points to the fact that, if you don't care, you'll still buy a correct car as easily as you'll buy an incorrect one.  So there is no motivation for a manufacturer NOT to strive for high quality, other than cost.

And when you bring cost in the equation....well you've already established the person doesn't care, and there are numerous LOW COST options for cars out there.  So do they really have a dog in the hunt at that point?  How many people are just hell-bent on paying $20-25 street for a ER/BLMA covered hopper when Atlas or Athearn can give them a "version" of that car for $12?

[daniel_leavitt2000]

I have an awful time trying to track down if certain cars were released in certain paint schenes. I wish we could get a 5 star rating from an indipendant source to rate how close to the prototype the model is:

* The railroad did not own any cars of this type (ER modern 40' Conrail gon for example)
** The basic car type exists but the model only remotley resembles it (MTL using a PS1 50' box in place of a CN newsprint car)
*** The car is correct for the railroad save for a few details like doors or car number (TLT CN newsprint cars fit here)
**** The car is correct for the railroad and car number, but there are minor detail differences (NW hoppers with small heralds for example, though I think there are other issues with the car)
***** The car conforms to the prototype (pretty much every Atlas Master line release in the last 4 years)

[Freighttrain]

Actually,I will buy a foobie before I will buy a rivet counter car/loco if the foobie is perdy! ;D

[up1950s]

I wonder if MTL stopped doing the exceptionally bazaar cars and devoted as much effort on producing more close enough to prototype cars would they make / loose just as much money . MTL collectors collect it all .

[Rossford Yard]

I think its less important in N. Besides being harder to see, the emphasis is on longer trains to create a nice effect.

[womblenz]

This is rather timely discussion with my problems with the Ore dock

http://therailwire.net/forum/index.php/topic,20276.0.html

In the thread it was mentioned about the overall look would not make the "mistakes" that noticeable due to the shear size of said Ore dock

After much thinking I have decided that while that maybe true I still not happy. I will keep the atlas cars and use them around the layout the problems would not show at all but I will design and build some slightly more "correct" ones. The Ore dock could use 60 to 80 cars so I consider it worth while to try. Even more so after seeing 71jeep did with that caboose

Who knows before I get them done the right ones maybe done

I suppose a lot depends on the modeler wants and how strong his desire/desperation is

Cheers Warren

[shawnleon]

I think its less important in N. Besides being harder to see, the emphasis is on longer trains to create a nice effect.

I have been following along in the shadows, very interesting conversation. There are as many "right" answers as there are modelers here. Hundreds of tiny coal cars ago I was an HO modeler until my train club held a show. In a smaller footprint the N scalers blew me away with the reality they were able to project: mountains dwarfing long trains, convincing tunnels that actually had a purpose beyond simply being there, and dozens of people in miniature scenes! Everything HO I'd purchased at the show was immediately exchanged for N scale items and I never looked back.

For me, model railroading is about story telling. I want to balance the setting, lighting, main actors and so forth. While I do want certain details and weathering to help support the scenes, each individual car doesn't have to be an exact replica of something that ran the rails on March 14, 1998. When I assemble a 60-car coal drag behind two big diesels, they work in unison.

Heck, I am amazed how much many of you here know and wonder where you even find such detailed information. Ignorance is bliss!

Shawn

[Brakie]

Guys,I model in  N and HO and here is my unbiased thoughts.

I read a lot about "foobie" cars and how "wrong" they are..Let's take a closer look and then ask a question we can only answer for ourselves.

First let's look at the real end results price recalling nothing is free.As it stands now a  N car costs as much as a HO car...Now let's add all the correct road specific details-which gets changed over the years-now add each road class and subclasses...Ok..Now add the changes that happen during the car's shopping.

That's a lot of tooling to pay for and guess who will pay for that tooling? A hint not the manufacturer-we was warned about the cost years ago  when we started the battle cry of more details... 

I have boxcars from Athearn,Atlas,Trainman,Fox Valley,MT and Intermountain..Beautiful cars all however,its hard to tell which is which under normal operation viewing or while switching cars let alone which are foobie road names..

The detail is about the same on each car so,I personally don't see any real bar raising.

Of course the BLMA "Top Gon" is in a class by its self even as it is in HO.

Food for thought..With the added details came another price..Every highly detailed HO car I've seen to date is highly fragile..Even adding KD couplers iddy biddy detail parts one can't normally see can fall off in your hand..

Are you ready to pay that price?

Are you ready to pay $40.00-50.00 for a  N Scale car?

My answer is "NO!" I will return to HO first before I pay for details I can't see without using a optivisor and I suspect such high prices would be the start of the end of  N Scale.After  all why buy a $50.00 N Scale car when you can buy a highly detailed HO car for $35.00?

Guys,While correct details and road names are nice and all we must remember  N Scale has a lot going against it that needs to be corrected before we worry about foobie cars.

We also need those foobie cars to help pay for the tooling.

[Denver Road Doug]

Guys,I model in  N and HO and here is my unbiased thoughts.

I read a lot about "foobie" cars and how "wrong" they are..Let's take a closer look and then ask a question we can only answer for ourselves.

First let's look at the real end results price recalling nothing is free.As it stands now a  N car costs as much as a HO car...Now let's add all the correct road specific details-which gets changed over the years-now add each road class and subclasses...Ok..Now add the changes that happen during the car's shopping.

That's a lot of tooling to pay for and guess who will pay for that tooling? A hint not the manufacturer-we was warned about the cost years ago  when we started the battle cry of more details... 

I have boxcars from Athearn,Atlas,Trainman,Fox Valley,MT and Intermountain..Beautiful cars all however,its hard to tell which is which under normal operation viewing or while switching cars let alone which are foobie road names..

The detail is about the same on each car so,I personally don't see any real bar raising.

Of course the BLMA "Top Gon" is in a class by its self even as it is in HO.

Food for thought..With the added details came another price..Every highly detailed HO car I've seen to date is highly fragile..Even adding KD couplers iddy biddy detail parts one can't normally see can fall off in your hand..

Are you ready to pay that price?

Are you ready to pay $40.00-50.00 for a  N Scale car?

My answer is "NO!" I will return to HO first before I pay for details I can't see without using a optivisor and I suspect such high prices would be the start of the end of  N Scale.After  all why buy a $50.00 N Scale car when you can buy a highly detailed HO car for $35.00?

Guys,While correct details and road names are nice and all we must remember  N Scale has a lot going against it that needs to be corrected before we worry about foobie cars.

We also need those foobie cars to help pay for the tooling.

First off, it seems like many are blurring the lines between "foobie" and "added detail", which aren't necessarily related.  It seems you've focused on details so I'll address that...

I think the current level of cars from BLMA, some ExRail, some FVM, most Atlas "Master", and many others are a good balance of detail, technology, and price.  I don't get a sense that the majority are asking for more than what is being offered on the high end right now. (think, BLMA 4000PS)

So, I'm not sure where you are coming up with $50.  Almost every car made today streets for under $20, notable exceptions include autoracks, the BLMA hopper, ESM gon, some MTL, and multi-platform intermodal.  If you don't want to pay $20 street for a car, that's perfectly fine....there are HUNDREDS of cars available for purchase today with less details and lower price that fit your needs.  Many of us ARE willing to pay for the higher level of detail, and since various lines like Trainman are still available for those that don't means that everyone is accomodated.

I always get amused when people try to use boxcars to make their argument about "added details".  Of course, boxcars generally have very little in the way of external detail, at least when compared to just about every other freight car type made.  How about comparing MDC 50' Tank Cars and the latest releases from Athearn?   How about comparing old Con-Cor gons with Atlas newest Master series gons?  Compare the old Model Power ACF's with Intermountains.  And I'm not even considering "Foob-Factor" at this point....simply what they look like under "normal operating conditions".  There's no doubt that Trainman boxcars benefit from crisper graphics and better wheels/couplers when compared to true vintage tooling.

I have samples of just about all of the latest offerings from the various manufacturers, and have had ZERO issues with fragile parts, nor is it a complaint the commonly surfaces on forums.

You are right, N does have a lot going against it.  And foobies are important, but the two camps don't have to be mutually exclusive.