Foobie and their effect on production

[CVSNE]

A lot of this is dependent, as some have said, on the definition of "foobie."

What I think is already happening, and you will see more of, is the reduced use of "common" components as part of a mentality that "in N scale, an incorrect (roof), (undeframe), (door), or whatever doesn't really matter." Back "in the day" manufacturers would tool one roof or one underframe and use it on everything. The advent of the less expensive aluminum inserts made multiple components for injection molded cars a little more affordable (at least until someone failed to make the steel ejecting pins were lined up correctly - then you only had a really cool paperweight!).

The only time I was called on the carpet during my time at MR was when I wrote a less than complimentary review of a Micro-Trains ARA boxcar. It was nice enough - but had the wrong roof, a PS-1 welded underframe, and the wrong trucks. But it was painted nicely - even though the smaller lettering was some sort of modified Helvetica font that was readable under a magnifying glass, but completely wrong for the car.

Someone mentioned resin cars. We tried - very hard - at Intermountain to make RP masters and cast resin cars in N scale, thinking it was an ideal way to do "oddball" cars in short production runs. The RP technology was not quite there at the time (still isn't) - although I recall we made RP shells for the HO AC-12 as a way to test the fit to the running gear.

The problem with resin kits is that you have to paint and decal them - mass production is an issue since the resin parts are not consistent enough to pad print.

[eric220]

Ignorance is bliss!

The longer I live, the more I agree.

[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.

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.

Doug,We can compare covered hoppers if you like..I can't tell my IMs from my Atlas covered hoppers or from my Exactrails..

BTW..There is a lot of detail differences in boxcars..

As far as the $50.00 price that may not be that far off for highly detailed freight cars in N..We already see $48.00 passenger cars from Rapido,$40.00 passenger cars from Walthers and Centralia..

How about those $40.00 autoracks from Red Caboose?


You quoted HO prices but,HO has a larger market which helps off set costs along with foob road names..N Scale doesn't have that luxury.

BTW..There are $50-60.00 freight cars in HO.

Doug wrote: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.


Sounds like you don't visit the Atlas HO forum enough.*evil grin*

[Denver Road Doug]

Doug,We can compare covered hoppers if you like..I can't tell my IMs from my Atlas covered hoppers or from my Exactrails..

I have no doubt that you and others cannot tell the difference in the models.  That is exactly my point!  Why on earth would you even spend the money on Exactrail or IM if you cannot tell the difference.  I wish I couldn't tell the difference...I would much rather spend $8 street versus $15-20!  But to me, comparing, for example, the Atlas Trainman Thrall covered hopper versus the Intermountain....wow, night and day.

BTW..There is a lot of detail differences in boxcars..

Of course there is, but on n-scale models the free-standing details typically amount to the etched grates above the couplers on the ends, a brakewheel, and maybe end ladders.  The rest is molded on and other than typically being very generic, or wrong altogether, there's not much that differentiates the tooling itself.  (I'm strictly talking model features here, not how it relates to the prototype)

As far as the $50.00 price that may not be that far off for highly detailed freight cars in N..We already see $48.00 passenger cars from Rapido,$40.00 passenger cars from Walthers and Centralia..  How about those $40.00 autoracks from Red Caboose? You quoted HO prices but,HO has a larger market which helps off set costs along with foob road names..N Scale doesn't have that luxury.  BTW..There are $50-60.00 freight cars in HO.   Doug wrote: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.  Sounds like you don't visit the Atlas HO forum enough.*evil grin*

Well, I never quoted any HO prices, I'm not sure where that came from.  Quite honestly I have no idea how the HO market works these days.  About the only reference I have is the comparison between the prices of Atlas N and HO, and there is still a pretty significant gap between the two with HO being more expensive.  I was referring to n-scale, and street prices, and stated that.  I also specifically mentioned the RC autoracks, (a car with significant expanses of etched metal) which streeted around $32 but sold poorly at that price point.  Most roads were available later at around $25 or less as time went by.   So market does dictate things, no doubt.

Comparing passenger cars to freight cars is very much apples to oranges, and again I really don't know how that translates to HO, nor really what the value comparison is in N.  From what I've read, the Rapido's are very specific INDIVIDUAL cars, that include lighted interiors.  Contrast with Kato's sets and the economics are pretty different.  But generally I would say that if it were a passenger car I really wanted, I would rather spend more to get a better quality car since i doubt I'm gonna be buying unit-coal-esque quantities of them.

[Brakie]

Doug,Wrote:I have no doubt that you and others cannot tell the difference in the models.  That is exactly my point!  Why on earth would you even spend the money on Exactrail or IM if you cannot tell the difference.  I wish I couldn't tell the difference...I would much rather spend $8 street versus $15-20!  But to me, comparing, for example, the Atlas Trainman Thrall covered hopper versus the Intermountain....wow, night and day.
-------------------------------
Doug,Let me clarify that.

Under normal switching operation viewing I can't see that much of a difference between brands-even the trainman .

My IM and ER covered hoppers looks about equal as does my Atlas 5701 and my ACF 4 bay centerflow.

Why do guys like me buy those cars since we can't tell the difference? Simple really.Speaking for myself I can read the end of the box and/or the advertisement and notice the available road names and once the car goes on the layout all that matters to me is the road name and car number..

Now I don't spend hours looking over the car encyclopedias,freight car books, etc and then scrutinize my models...

Maybe ignorance is a blessing after all?

[RockGp40]

Not to hijack the thread, but I had a hard time justifying to myself to pull the trigger on this guy just a couple of days ago on the 'bay:

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=120551697771&ssPageName=STRK:MEWAX:IT

I kind of wanted it, but the price was the deal breaker really, even with free shipping.

[wm3798]

Take this thread to CUBA!

[Puddington]

Take this thread to CUBA!

Yes Lee.... Trains, rum and really good cigars !

[Dave V]

This thread makes me consider why we're here at "A Forum for Modelers."  (Or "Asshats on Parade.")  I like to think that while we do accept foobies as stand-ins and as roster fillers, we're generally here at TRW because we want our little trains to look as much as possible like the big ones.  We all have different thresholds of what's acceptable, but I don't understand vilifying someone for wanting greater accuracy in what the manufacturers offer.  I'm not saying that's happening in this thread, but it happens all over the place.

The tired cliche "rivet counter" is often trotted out as a blunt instrument to clobber the more prototype-minded over the head, with the implied assumption that anyone interested in prototype fidelity is automatically inclined to deride others who fail to live up to his/her standard.  Often when one starts talking about what's wrong with a particular model, the defenses immediately go up and the "rule number one" is invoked pre-emptively.  Yes, there are snobby nitpickers who offer unsolicited bashes, but they don't represent the prototype elite as a group.  Oft times the most "snipe-y" have no work to show for themselves.

While I have admitted to being a foob runner with only a mild case of prototype-itis, I want to foot stomp my support of those who do push us and push the manufacturers, by example rather than hollow words, to seek ever higher standards of modeling.  I'm really glad there are plenty of folks who love just running whatever and not worrying about it.  For me, though, I approach my hobby like I approach my life.  I won't beat myself up for being imperfect, as long as I'm always improving my skills.  Model railroading represents for me just another opportunity to excel.  I imagine there are plenty of folks around here with a similar mindset.

My one suggested rule is that we respect one another.  We don't have to like what the other does...  We can offer constructive criticism.  There is no one right answer to any of these philosophical questions.  True, there's a right answer to how many rivets on a car, or how many hand grabs or what color it was.  But for the "how do we model railroad," there's no great answer key in the sky.  I am no more likely to be correct than Brakie or Robbman or Denver Road Doug or Jason on how we should approach foobies.

I just like to think that here at TRW, we lean toward the more accurate when available/possible.

[John]

This thread makes me consider why we're here at "A Forum for Modelers."  (Or "Asshats on Parade.")  I like to think that while we do accept foobies as stand-ins and as roster fillers, we're generally here at TRW because we want our little trains to look as much as possible like the big ones.

I think that's why a lot of us are here .. Rule#1 is ok, I invoke it on my railroad all the time .. but it is no reason why you can't strive to improve ..

I just like to think that here at TRW, we lean toward the more accurate when available/possible.

I think you have it right.

[TiVoPrince]

While
I strive to model the common and mundane the details are important to me.  C&M is still rich with details and nuance.  While the unique one-off is to be celebrated, the reality is that 99% of life is what makes up the common and mundane.  Many layouts are collections of unique to the point of becoming a caricature of life.  Its your railroad and if that is what floats your boat, go for it.

On topic, there are may cases where the models of the past influence and hinder the development of better models.  Ownership of MDC tooling has caused Athearn to produce 1980s vintage tooled boxcars next to 2010 tooled tank cars at the same time.  Differences are night/day. 

Improbable that SP correct tunnel motors will ever appear since we have accepted multiple runs of IM products that satisfied the demand.  Not to say that the IM product was not light years beyond the Hallmark brass or Father Nature shells that were the only realistic options of the past. 

Evolution is common but the truly revolutionary is not to be taken lightly.  Many manufacturers have left the game.  NuLine, Sunrise, Nscle of Nevada, and many others have 'folded thier tents' over the years leaving gaps still unfilled.  'New breed' pioneer manufacturers like BLMA, FVM, Exactrail and others are taking that 'blank sheet of paper' approach that makes this an exciting time to be modeling in Nscale...

[wm3798]

Meh.  I wrote a big diatribe, but I can't say anything that Dave didn't already drive home with a laser beam.

Rule 1-It's your Railroad... whatever.
Rule 2-That doesn't mean it's the best you can do.

Lee

[Brakie]

Meh.  I wrote a big diatribe, but I can't say anything that Dave didn't already drive home with a laser beam.

Rule 1-It's your Railroad... whatever.
Rule 2-That doesn't mean it's the best you can do.

Lee

Lee,I always felt Rule 1-It's your Railroad was a nice cop out for not knowing how the prototype works or to much about common things.

As far as Rule 2-That doesn't mean it's the best you can do.

I will agree to a degree based on the modeler's skills or the lack there of.There's a lot of modelers that need to think long and hard before they(and that includes me) attempts(fill the blanks) and that includes some so called scenery and layout design "experts".

As I have mention before I am curse with a eye for details that the majority overlooks.I scrutinize photos in order to see beyond the subject of the picture to see other every day details.
-------------------------------
Dave,Well said..

A foob road name is a word somebody used to bash a model or manufacturer just because the manufacturer decided to help cut the cost by using road names that didn't have a (say)a FMC 5347 boxcar...

Oddly  "foobie" has nothing to do with a fantasy model according to the urban dictionary.

[Rossford Yard]

I'm not trying to force my wishes on anyone!  I hope others don't either.

I think we are forgetting that there are far fewer foobs than previously.  Its all a matter of time and to a degree, technology that lets slightly different versions of cars to come out. I am always amazed when some new mfg chooses yet another box car (but one that is protypically correct for someone!) as their first venture.

Just what level of compromise constitutes a Foob, anyway?  A model of a Thrall boxcar when the road in question only bought from Gunderson?  12 ribs instead of 10?  A different box car door opening or track?  Wrong placement of brake wheel?  Paint scheme out of date by 1 year, 3 years, 5 years, or 10 years?

To be honest, I wonder if we as modelers live up to what we CAN do to create a prototypical roster?  One example is my recent count of my car fleet compared to the AAR roster for my year, where I found out I had far too many box cars proportionally to the % in the year I model.  Another is the fact that Atlas and others are coming out with more "letters only" paint schemes, and yet I hear reports that these don't sell well as the more colorful schemes. Lastly, many protest graffitti paint schemes on moral grounds, despite them being the most prototypical scheme around.

My point is that we are being pretty selective on picking on the mfgs.  Its all a compromise, and for me, compromising on the number of ribs on a box car is one of the less troubling aspects to me.  Smooth operation, scale track, decent structures, etc. all contribute FAR more to my enjoyment and layout realism because EVERYONE can see the effect they have.  Only 1% or less of us modelers and only 0.00000000000000000001% of visitors are going to notice slight prototypical discrepanicies in a particular hopper or box car.

I am not they type to model the unseen backs of buildings, just because I "know its there" so I don't worry too much about minor variations.  Of course, I know some do.  But before tugging like a Terrier on a particular fasset of what the mfgs can do for me, I ask, what can I do for myself.  (Sometimes, that turns out to be going for a strong maragrita, but that is a whole nother story!)

[MichaelWinicki]

I don't think any discussion of "foobies" should just be limited to loco's and rolling stock.

I think it can also include scenery items like trees & vehicles... I mean it's almost too easy to put a tree out on your layout that doesn't resemble any deciduous tree in North America or gluing down a vehicle that didn't exist in the time frame being modeled.

And then you have the whole track thing going on, which to me is far more noticeable than if a box car or caboose aren't prototypical for a given road.

Obviously everyone has to judge what amount of time, effort and money they wish to invest into their own "illusion", which I guess is how Rule #1 came about.