Foobie and their effect on production

[FrankCampagna]

I think I'll take up origami.

Frank

[Brakie]

Michael,Now you are getting to the core of "foobie land" since the things you mention can be consider foobs on a era and location specific layout..This could be the subject of another interesting topic.
-------------------------
Jeff asks these thought provoking questions: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  Paint scheme out of date by 1 year, 3 years, 5 years, or 10 years?
-----------------------------
Jeff,Good questions!

IMHO the answers will vary from modeler to modeler since the car will need to be acceptable to a modeler's modeling style..

You see even with my good enough/close enough modeling style I have standards a model must meet regardless if the road name is a foob or not.

[Denver Road Doug]

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  Paint scheme out of date by 1 year, 3 years, 5 years, or 10 years?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.

Jeff, be careful about asking THE QUESTION. (cue Jack..."you want the truth?  You Can't HANDLE the Truth!")      But really there is some value in the fact that we use a nebulous, made-up word to define the "standard" we are attempting to hold the manufacturers (and ourselves) to.   It gives manufacturers some bit of leeway, and gives us an excuse to buy a car for the hell of it! (ya know--my favorite phrase--"plausible deniability")

As I said in the beginning, there are so many different facets to this topic. (which can be said of just about everything in this hobby, which is what makes it GREAT imho)  You mention "prototypical roster", and that is another dimension altogether compared to "foobie factor" and "level of detail".  So looking at the broader picture than the car itself, is a representative set of rolling stock that performs certain duties on a roster.  I think sometimes I am more concerned with that than I am the individual cars.  So living up to what we "can" do, well I think I try to do as much as I can within the limits of my knowledge and budget.  I do think it is a real problem that I really do have another hobby altogether we call railfanning and a subset of that is my interest in freight cars.  And it is tough to separate the two sometimes and I do think I get too critical at times of what the manufacturers are doing.  But on the other hand, it is frustrating when they get so close and then drop the ball for no apparent reason. (like leaving off dim data...ahem...FVM)  But, I do proudly possess foobies to populate many areas of my overall roster, like carbon black cars for example.

Great discussion everyone....the varying perspectives are good!

[wm3798]

Here's another flaming rag to throw onto the pyre...

One of the reasons I'm less concerned about whether this car or that car is accurate, is that when I'm railfanning, I don't know what the hell I'm looking at anyway!

It doesn't matter to me whether a car is a Thrall or ACF or Gunderson, because I couldn't tell the difference.  Now, that's not to say that on my layout I completely look the other way...  So the Atlas double door 50' box stands in for the WM's double door 50' box...  The sills are wrong, and probably a host of other sins, but at first glance, it's a 50' DD box, so the decals go on, the car card gets whipped up, and off it goes into circulation.



Lee

[Bob Bufkin]

Years ago if it had PRR on it I would buy it.  I'm a lot more picky on what I get now.  I'll get one of the foobie boxcars even though I kinow it's the wrong car for the same reason as Lee did his 50" dd.  At one time I had domes on my PRR passenger trains not realizing they didn't have any and C636's with Pennsylvania painted on the side now knowing that was improper paint scheme.  Many years and many reference books and material later I now know better.  Some thing still have to pass on my small layout until something I like better comes along.

[Mark5]

Like Bob and others I was thrilled back in the 70s when MT released a 5 car set of N&W twin hoppers ("foobs"). I know a lot more than I did then, and those cars have long since disappeared from my roster. I still have plenty of stand-ins on my roster, but for the most part they are closer to prototype than they used to be.

Stand-ins are pretty much unavoidable. The goal on my model railroad is to minimize the amount of "things" that detract from the illusion* of a real railroad.

Mark

(* ie my idea of a real railroad )

[Rossford Yard]

Lee,

For my money, all I see in that boxcar of yours is that it rides too high!  That is part of my point - lets get the mfgs to get the overall look right now that technology allows it.  The paint scheme looks right to me, so the door sill is of fairly little consequence, at least to my eyes.  But then, I tend to operate and simply don't care to that level of detail.

Bob,

I think that kind of research and learning is all part of the hobby.  But like Doug says, if they made a C636 I don't see any reason for them to paint it in a wrong color scheme and logo!  There is no doubt the mfgs are moving closer to ptoto all the time.  I recall talking with the Atlas boys and they are very aware of which GP38 body styles are associated with which road name, and rarely do one in the wrong body style, because they know we know.  As DRD notes, there have been a few head scratchers though!

I will bet that the mfgs have a pretty good idea from experience how far they can veer off the proto and still sell stuff.  That tolerance has no doubt been reduced over time and will continue to do so.  Most locos are offered in a few variations of body styles to match different roads.  

Even the Atlas 5700-5800 series would have at one time, perhaps been only offered as one model, rather than two similar ones in the same release.  

RC has steel coil cars, but Atlas deems it feasible to offer a more modern model.  Atlas and Athearn are offering many similar modern tank cars, each of a slightly different mode.  I hope that the reduction and standardization of the rolling stock fleet makes modeling easier than the old days when each road has its own unique box cars, but it will never get to perfection.

So, its getting better.

[BN1970]

  I'll have to confess I painted a couple of Atlas C630s up as SP&S C636s.........  Looks quite good and its been running for the past 4 years or so.

  I remember reading a series of articles by Allen McClelland on his V&O, his term was 'Good Enough'.  The point is as your layout size goes up and if you want to finish your layout in a reasonable length of time you may need to make compromises.  I know a number of (for the lack of a better term) rivet counters who have extremely detailed knowledge on a given prototype railroad.  But from what I have observed they don't actually produce much nor buy much in the way of model trains.

--Brian

[Bob Bufkin]

In the early days of N the only caboose you could get was the A&SF variety.  It was a godsend to me when Bowser came out with there PRR cabin cars.  One car I still use as a stand-in is the Atlas 2 bays painted up in PRR.  I know Bowser makes the proper type and I own a few but find that the Atlas cars look and run better in my book.  Foobie for sure but they pass the close enough looks in my mind.

[Rossford Yard]

BTW, this whole discussion reminds me that one of the reasons I changed to N is that I felt like I could buy anything in HO.  There is some real human nature factors - basically the anticipation is greater than the actual event - that makes using stand ins while hoping for 'someday' pretty gosh darn satisfying.
 
I would even wager that the day that rapid prototyping and 3D models allows us all to home make every model we want might even be the end of model railroading as we know it!  We are all getting to be more buyers than modelers anyway.  When we have bought all we want, we will move on to something else, no?

[2-8-8-0]

I think Denver and mister WM nailed it.

I like things that appear realistic, even if they arent perfect for my prototype. I would never know that the WM 50' box wasnt a real WM car, and if i did, i would still buy one like that. I like a car that looks real (ride height, couplers, etc) but I dont care if it has the wrong number of rivets. When its a bigger detail, like number of ribs (when they are obvious, like on a RS hopper) or length of the car maybe ill get pickier. If it is an outright fantasy thing (like a 4-8-4 lettered for B&O) I draw the line.

I just got my new LL 0-8-0. I want to move the air pump and change the walkway and cab a bit to more closely resemble a C&O C-16. But its pretty close as it sits. Im going to do the changes, but more because I want to do them (my first real kitbash of a steam engine) than because I feel it needs to be done. No one but me or other C&O fans would notice anyways.

I wont buy anything that says B&O or C&O on it blindly anymore (I used to think the Rivarossi 2-8-8-0 was great!) but, I dont expect them to be perfect either. My C&O hoppers should have slope sheet supports...but, its N scale. Who cares, really?

[wm3798]

Aaaah.  that's a key question!  Who does care?  I think we all do, somewhere deep inside.  But we are also pragmatists that realize that adding those slope sheet supports might take our beloved $10 foobies and turn them into $25 Models (with a capital M).

Some of us are willing to fall on our swords over such a disparity, but it's been noted above, some of us don't actually have model railroads, either, making it easier to fuss.

Lee

[2-8-8-0]

Hehe, I dont have one (as in a layout) just yet, as upon completing my degree, there is NO WAY i am staying in NE Ohio. When i get settled wherever i wind up, then the spare room (or basement, if im lucky) will enter the construction phase.

Ive accepted a few things over the past few years. I want an accurate layout, but I also want one I can complete in my lifetime. The dreams of a basement sized B&O West End layout have changed somewhat, to perhaps a B&O (or these days C&O!) coal branch with a few mines, winding sleepily through Appalachia, in a spare bedroom or perhaps part of a basement, if my home has one that is (ill make sure It at least has that spare room!)

I want people to see that layout and think "West Virginia" and to see the trains and think "C&O". I dont care if every car is perfect, if every loco is perfect, if every tipple is perfect. Signature structures, like stations or coaling towers, ok. Signature items, like the Allegheny, sure (If one ever gets made, and/or I were to build one) I want those as close as the scale allows. Anything else, a point is reached when its close enough. I can get arched end OS twin hoppers, and they even have the right number of ribs! Good enough for me. But if i dwell on every detail of those cars (i dont have much else to do just now, just collecting a roster of locos, cars, and structure kits, but I still accept limitations of the scale) it will never get done. I dont need a huge number of things; a dozen or so locos and maybe 150-200 cars will probably keep me entertained for a loooooong time.

If people want to collect and/or build extremely accurate models, thats fine, I encourage it and think they are beautiful models. The concession they make is simply quantity for quality. I couldnt ever hope to aquire even the fairly modest number of models i am after if i expected perfection.

[wm3798]

I want people to see that layout and think "West Virginia" and to see the trains and think "C&O". I dont care if every car is perfect, if every loco is perfect, if every tipple is perfect. Signature structures, like stations or coaling towers, ok. Signature items, like the Allegheny, sure (If one ever gets made, and/or I were to build one) I want those as close as the scale allows. Anything else, a point is reached when its close enough.

This my friends, is the recipe for an effective layout (fill in the blanks for the prototype of your choice).  There really is no other.

Lee

[daniel_leavitt2000]

I think this discussion kinda of dovetails with ESM's X58 announcement. The PRR X58 has been one of N scale longest foobs. MRC came out with a slightly squashed X58 back in the 60's, though they used a Murphy roof, a smaller than prototype plug door, and side skirts that looked a little odd. MRC/Kato never really stated what prototype it was based off, but the consensus seems to be the X58.

A few years later, Lima produced their own version with an incorrect door, roof, side still and had the added bonus of being about 20% TOO SMALL in length and height. Awesome.

Not be be outdone, MDC produced their FMC plug door boxes in X58 (and X71) numbers, thus becoming the third manufacturer to foob the X58.

But the dissatisfaction of these half-assed models led to us grumbling that no one makes an accurate X58, which led us to New Rail Models, then Fine N Scale and finally ESM, who took up our cause. So in this case, the foob models pushed us to demand better, and get it.

I try to stay true to my prototype as possible. But for me, its much broader than a specific phase of a specific car. I buy all my rolling stock based on what I saw used on the Boston line in the 1990's. If I didn't see it, no matter how much I like it, I simply won't buy it. My focus is to get the train to look like the ones seen a decade ago. That being said, do I avoid buying a Chessie ACF 2 bay hopper because the slope sheets meet the end at the top? Nope. That's a foob I can live with because the bright, highly weathered paint scheme was the focal point of the train, not the cars' slope sheets.

That being said, there are lines I will not cross. I REALLY want 19,000 gallon corn syrup cars in AE Staley. I will not paint the Atlas 17,000 version because the differences are just too apparent. The 19k car looks a lot larger next to the 17k car and the ladder/handrails are TOTALLY different. I think this may have a lot to do with the paint scheme, which is relatively dull, so you spend tome looking at the details of the car rather than the paint job. On dull cars, details count more.

This is why I wish there were more accurate gondolas. They are dull, with boring schemes and basic shapes. This is where individual details MUST set them apart from eachother. Take a string of MDC 53' gons. They look funny if placed together with different paint schemes. Now add a few Atlas Evans, a few Thralls and you start to see the uniqueness of each car. This is why I believe that covered hoppers, tanks and gondolas must be modeled as close to the prototype as possible.