Foobie and their effect on production

[Puddington]

Ok; you guys get my 2010 award for topic drift............... and Jason; where the H - E - Double Hockey sticks are you man ? I really wanted your take on my original topic..............but I guess that's done like dinner by now.........foob away boys !  ;D ;D ;D ;D

[bbussey]

To invoke full disclosure, the X58 has been in the works as long as the XIH and nearly as long as the G26.  It's just more costly to design and tool multiple variations of a model, so I wanted to cut my teeth on first a flat-design model (G26) and then a slide mold (XIH) first before jumping into a multi-configuration tool.  And, it was best not to release two Pennsy-prototype models back-to-back.  So ESM producing an X58 just happens to dovetail in nicely with the existing demand for one.

But manufacturers do listen and we're seeing more and more prototype-specific well-crafted models appear on the scene, both from the smaller manufacturers as well as the larger ones.  I believe there will continue to be an influx of railroad signature cars from a number of sources, with some surprises along the way.  It's all good for the hobby.

[up1950s]

Wasn't there a rumor 9 months ago or so that Westerfield was to dive into the N Scale pool?

[Chris333]

Yeah with a butter dish milk car.

And GHQ had some NP resin boxcars in the works for about 5 years now.

[Rossford Yard]

Okay, to get back off topic drift....

Here was the original hypothesis:

Jason posted this in the April MT thread.....


"Just remember, every foobie you buy is one less reason for someone to make the proper car."

Something about this comment got me thinking.... now; I'll preface this with my bias; I completely disagree with Jason here; I don't think that a faux ______ CPR/PRR/ATSF boxcar stops someone from making a more prototypically correct version in the long run. It may stop them making one the next month; or; it may not.

But the question here isn't whether Jason is correct or not; there isn't a way to categorically prove him right or wrong; the question is; what would we do with out foobies ?

I agree there is no way to prove Jason categorically right or wrong.  My gut tells me he is wrong because there is no finite market for freight cars in N.  Not only has this thread "proven" that we will all buy foobs, out of habit, because we have to, but mostly because there are only a limited number of cars EACH of us really cares about being "spot on" but there is nothing keeping us from REPLACING the Foobs we have.  In fact, we kind of look forward to it.

In short, its not like we are investing in a brass loco to replace.  As long as rolling stock remains one of the cheaper parts of the hobby (on a piece by piece basis) there is room for foobs (and most of us will buy them) and there is room for exact replicas of the cars on the main roads of any era (ATSF, PRR, UP, etc)

That said, the trend is very anti foob in mfg, unless labeled as a lesser line like Trainman.  A modern example is the big reefers, where BNSF and UP are the only or biggest users and have two distinct reefers, so no one has put out a foob like the Walthers version to fill the gap, knowing they have to tool two cars to sell two road names.  The non foob thinking has mfgs scared to over invest in any foobish model because it won't sell as well as it used to.

So, the anti foob movement has made it hard for mfgs to come up with a smash hit rolling stock item, IMHO.

I know IM has made a living with its covered hoppers, selling over a quarter million of them in both scales.  What car going forward could give and mfg a similar home run?

[FrankCampagna]

Wasn't there a rumor 9 months ago or so the Westerfield was to dive into the N Scale pool?

I believe it was Funaro & Camerlengo. They also promised a D&H car I wanted real bad. Oh, well, you lose some and you lose some.

Frank

[bbussey]

... That said, the trend is very anti foob in mfg, unless labeled as a lesser line like Trainman.  A modern example is the big reefers, where BNSF and UP are the only or biggest users and have two distinct reefers, so no one has put out a foob like the Walthers version to fill the gap, knowing they have to tool two cars to sell two road names.  The non foob thinking has mfgs scared to over invest in any foobish model because it won't sell as well as it used to.

So, the anti foob movement has made it hard for mfgs to come up with a smash hit rolling stock item, IMHO.

I know IM has made a living with its covered hoppers, selling over a quarter million of them in both scales.  What car going forward could give and mfg a similar home run?

There never will be a utopia where only prototypical models are produced.  There just isn't a mass market customer base to support that, not in HO or N anyway.

However, there is no reason that a happy medium can't be accepted - where prototypical models are tooled yet non-prototypical paint schemes are included in the releases.  As long as accurately-tooled prototypically-decorated models are released (ATSF 50' ice reefer, C&O Magor caboose, SP bay window, Pennsy G26 gon), why does it matter that other non-prototypical schemes are issued, especially if it helps pay for the tooling and helps keep the MSRP reasonable?  That seems to be the current trend with recently-released new tooling across the board the last few years.  I would embrace it, rather than lobby for an environment that would necessitate higher MSRPs than expected.

[Denver Road Doug]

why does it matter that other non-prototypical schemes are issued, especially if it helps pay for the tooling and helps keep the MSRP reasonable?  That seems to be the current trend with recently-released new tooling across the board the last few years.

Well, I think we're seeing that it doesn't matter to the majority of model railroaders.  But the original premise of the topic was that it would hinder production of similar cars representing the foobie schemes.

Let's look at the X58 for example...

Scenario 1: I understand that there were similar "clones" done by CB&Q. (I haven't researched this at all, and I don't know how "different" they are, but for the sake of argument lets say they're "close foobies".  I seem to recall a roof difference in a discussion on this forum.)  So you release, for example, 10 prototype schemes and 5 "CB&Q" schemes.   Someone else is working on the CB&Q specific car and is about ready to announce production when you announce your first three CB&Q schemes. (including BN, etc.)  What does that do to their sales?  What does it do to your sales of the other two Q schemes you announce?

Scenario 2: You decide to paint them up in ATSF, (even though they're not close to anything ATSF had) in a scheme and number series for a sought after ATSF boxcar that hasn't been released.  But it's Santa Fe, and you figure people will buy it and you've covered ATSF and Pennsy and that's model railroading manufacturing 101.   After your first run of ATSF Foobies, someone else announces they are doing that specific ATSF car "next" but it might be 18 months.  So in the meantime you're releasing every ATSF scheme under the sun in that number series.  How does that affect your foobie sales? What does that do to their sales?  Will they scratch the project altogether?

This came up with FVM's Trinity RD-4's, whereby they are putting schemes from other Trinity Cars or JA Autoflood II cars on the RD-4's.  Will that keep a manufacturer from doing an Autoflood, or one of the other Trinity models?  Maybe...at least one Railwire member thought it might at that time, and we haven't seen any new models of that type announced or even hinted at. (other than Exactrail doing the Autoflood II's in HO...so there is a possibility there maybe)  IMHO, no it won't...especially given the fact that FVM has botched the paint/lettering on at least a couple of releases of these cars.

[pfs]

.....where prototypical models are tooled yet non-prototypical paint schemes are included in the releases.  As long as accurately-tooled prototypically-decorated models are released (ATSF 50' ice reefer, C&O Magor caboose, SP bay window, Pennsy G26 gon), why does it matter that other non-prototypical schemes are issued, especially if it helps pay for the tooling and helps keep the MSRP reasonable?  That seems to be the current trend with recently-released new tooling across the board the last few years.  I would embrace it, rather than lobby for an environment that would necessitate higher MSRPs than expected.

I agree...As I stated before, just make the plastic as accurate as possible. Paint everything in UP yellow if it covers the accurate tooling.

That would make may who care (apparently the minority), including myself , more than happy.

[Rossford Yard]

Doug,

Interesting points, and no doubt, a popular Foob might stop mfg of a real car, especially when its a unit train car. I couldn't see myself replacing a whole coal fleet just because a better one came along, as I could in replacing scattered box cars, tank cars, etc. when something better came along.

I guess it would be a matter of staging capacity - nothing saying I couldn't keep both coal trains just for a variety of something to run.  But, it would be more of a wallet capacity issue.  If times were good, I figure I would eventually replace them, like I have replaced Con Cor Auto Racks with ones by Atlas, MT, RC and Athearn.  But, with the pre order mentality, I wouldn't buy a new 24-30 car unit train in this economy, and they might be gone in a year when I could afford it.

I gather that each Foob has its own unique circumstances as to how it would affect a prototype version being made. 

[BN1970]

  Rather than using the term "Foobie" I think "Stand In" is a better term.  So in the last 24 hours I have learned that ESB Models is planning on an X58 in about 20 months, great I can now retire a few Micro Trains PS1's at the local swap meet.  But the Micro Trains PS1s worked quite well as a Stand In until a prototypical car came along.  Plus I had the use of my PRR PS1s in operating sessions verses having less PRR boxcars.  That's the way I have worked for over 35 years, ever so slowly getting a better freight car fleet but not stopping because something is not 100% correct, life's to short.

--Brian

[bbussey]

Well, I think we're seeing that it doesn't matter to the majority of model railroaders.  But the original premise of the topic was that it would hinder production of similar cars representing the foobie schemes...

Two things are in play here.  First is that, generally any esoteric prototype will not be touched by the larger manufacturers.  There are exceptions of course, but mostly they are cabooses which the smaller manufacturers generally won't touch.  That leaves the smaller manufacturers to choose from the esoteric prototypes, most of whom communicate with one another to avoid the exact scenarios you've stated.  Even so, even with more venerable prototypes, it simply doesn't happen that often.  In the last two decades, the only direct head-to-head simultaneously-tooled items in N that I can think of have been the MTL/IMRC FT diesels, the ATH/MTL SP caboose and the BLMA/EXR CD4000 hopper.  Kato released their PAs after LL; EXR released their Trinity hopper after IMRC; Athearn released their Airslide after Atlas, etcetera.

I even have communication with the larger manufacturers, as when ATH told me they were about to release their 65' mill gon while I was designing the G26.  Two other prototypes I have contemplated are on the back burner because fellow manufacturers are either closer to moving forward on similar prototypes or already have them on their schedules.  So while sometimes it's a vacuum, more often than not there is some communication so that two manufacturers aren't simultaneously tooling products that potentially will pull sales from each other.

Now, I understand your premise, that if Manufacturer A releases a "stand-in" model of a prototype, Manufacturer B would have the sales adversely affected of the same deco yet accurate model of the prototype.  I'd argue that it would not be an issue.  Most likely, if a fellow manufacturer was planning to tool a model of the CB&Q XML-14/16, ESM would be reached out to to determine if any CB&Q/BN/BNSF schemes were planned for the X58 and adjust accordingly.

[Denver Road Doug]

I agree, the direct competition has been rare.  And, I pretty much look at it as this...if you are "discussing" foobies foiling your plans, quit talking and announce something.

[Dave V]

So what was the deal with MTL and IMRC releasing FTs at the same?

[Brakie]

Doug,Here's another thought..Let's say Brand C released a correct model of a PRR X29..Brand D has a close stand in..Let's say there's $10.00 difference in price between a correct car and a car I know is a close stand in..

Here is my policy..

Which is the better model of the two?

Let's say Brand C has the details correct but,stumbled and fell with paint and lettering.

Let's say Brand D has the paint and lettering correct on theirs..

Guess which one I will buy?

Let's look again at the same cars but,this time Brand C did it right..

I will go the extra $10.00 since a correct car is available and I need one.

Here's the trap..If Brand C's car is $20.00 more,there's no way will I buy that car since I really can't see the detail difference without comparing the car against a photo of the car's prototype..