Getting Fooled by the Foob

[tehachapifan]

I typically try to model actual prototypes as much as possible but have, on occasion, been fooled by convincing-looking foobies that I went ahead and purchased. Probably topping my list is the Kato Business Car in SP. Beautiful car, but.... What foob(s) fooled you?

Disclaimer: This is all in fun and I"m not knocking these models as some are still extremelely nice and I can understand the reasons for creating them.

[jagged ben]

Okay, I'll start....even though I don't have that much.  Some of these are not so much 'fooled' as 'I didn't care.'

1)  The first run of Kato BNSF H2 Dash-9s.  The ones with 3 side windows on the cab and ditchlights in the wrong place.
2)  A bunch of 45' Pacer Stacktrain containers (that I've now sold, since I got a bunch of 53 footers)
3)  Those 50' MDC 'High Cube' boxcars that come in so many great paint schemes.... but do not match any prototype construction.  They just 'look right' though.  I still keep hoping to spot the prototype for these in an old photo.
4) MT 89' TOFC cars.  I understand that a bunch of the paint schemes or road numbers on these are made up.
5) Spent well enough money a few years ago to win a 'mid-production' SD40-2 on eBay that was custom painted in SF Kodachrome.  Didn't look up the road number before I bid.  It does not appear to have ever been painted in that scheme.  IIRC, the road number may not have been for an SD40-2 at all.

[rogergperkins]

I am a firm advocate of relaxing one's modeling standards from time to time to allow introduction of a less than prototypical model onto the layout or into the collection.  My goal has been to model 1940s era and steam locomotives; several years ago when the U-50s were introduced in n-scale, I purchased two
and eventually bought undec shells that I painted and lettered for B&O.
I have enjoyed those locomotives immensely for many years.  It opened my eyes to thinking outside the box of model rring. 

[CBQ Fan]

I dont mind foobs once in awhile.  If it has the flavor of the original than I am good with it.  Now when a more accurate model comes along I will buy it and replace the older not so accurate version.  I enjoyed the Rapido Milwaukee Road passenger cars until FVM came out.  Rapidos got retired and FVM were purchased!  Seeing that I started out with a whole bunch of passenger roads from the Con-Cor line and every single passenger train looked alike I was glad when I got to the point that none of my 9-11 passenger trains look the same!  I remember how dissappointed I was when I was a kid and learned that Con-Cor was not true to prototypes on their releases.

[bbussey]

The last one I bought inadvertently that truly annoyed me was the very first MTL Evans covered hopper, which was decorated for Seabaord (a Magor prototype).  I usually check ahead of time, but that one I didn't.    I was so torked off that Joe offered to buy it back from me.  But I kept it since modifications to the roof would be enough to backdate the car and give it a Magor appearance without damaging the deco.

Now, I always check.  Then it's my choice if I want to buy the foob or not.

[TiVoPrince]

IM
tunnel motors.  Missing almost every SP specific detail.  Missing details included rear light packages, split equipment doors, and jacking plates to name a few.  Adding this to incorrect paint made for a must have, but deeply flawed signature SP item. 

Simply repurposing a DRGW body/frame with a couple of nods to obvious SP details did not live up to the promises of accuracy before the 'steaming yard loaves' arrived.  Eventually I bought far more of them than I would have thought at the original announcement.  Age has mellowed me a bit, but I'm still quite annoyed about 'what might have been'...

[tehachapifan]

I guess there's also different interpretations of "foobiness", or it is in the eye of the beholder. I wasn't really thinking about details being off on a model as much as it simply did/does not exist at all...or it is WAY off. A foobie to me is something like; X company didn't even have Y cars at all. Or, if they did, it was something completely different. One example above was that X scheme did not not even exist on a 45' container. That is a true foob in my opinion.

[jagged ben]

IM tunnel motors.  Missing almost every SP specific detail. 

Aww, give them break!  They are the only maker to ever do the SP three light nose package in plastic!  Haha.

Now when a more accurate model comes along I will buy it and replace the older not so accurate version.  I enjoyed the Rapido Milwaukee Road passenger cars until FVM came out.

This is so right on.  Always striving for improvement but never letting the perfect be the enemy of 'I know what that's supposed to be'. 

BTW, I forgot a big one on my list above.  That would be my original Santa Fe passenger train by Arnold, with these cars and some F9 diesels (that apparently I should send to Spookshow because they are not in his Encyclopedia?)   That's right, the cars with the trucks that looks like they are the 19th century.

[jagged ben]

I guess there's also different interpretations of "foobiness", or it is in the eye of the beholder. I wasn't really thinking about details being off on a model as much as it simply did/does not exist at all...or it is WAY off. A foobie to me is something like; X company didn't even have Y cars at all. Or, if they did, it was something completely different. One example above was that X scheme did not not even exist on a 45' container. That is a true foob in my opinion.

Yeah, I was thinking along the same lines.  I only included those H2 Dash9s on my list because those details are kind of major and not really possible to fix.  I generally don't consider missing details to be a foob.  I just add them.

[chicken45]

I typically try to model actual prototypes as much as possible but have, on occasion, been fooled by convincing-looking foobies that I went ahead and purchased. Probably topping my list is the Kato Business Car in SP. Beautiful car, but.... What foob(s) fooled you?

Disclaimer: This is all in fun and I"m not knocking these models as some are still extremely nice and I can understand the reasons for creating them.

It's funny you mention that business car. They did a Pennsy version. And interestingly enough, Pennsy owned a lightweight business car. ONLY one, in fact. The Kato one isn't too far off. The most noticeable difference is that the Kato version has "PENNSYLVANIA" on the side of the car, where the prototype does not.
But...the Kato version looks quite nice with that on there, and it matches every other Pennsy business car by having the railroad name on there.

As far as other foobs... mostly passenger cars for me.  I doesn't much bother me (yet) if if the PRR didn't own a Pullman Plan xxxx car. Maybe someday, it will, but not today  But then there are some things that just don't look right...like cars with freaking domes in them. That's too far for me.
The MTL 60ft RPO is a nice beautiful car foob. Maybe I'll get another one some day and Clause the two of them together."

That's the thing about this hobby. The things we consider acceptable are pretty subjective. I think it is important for me to try to be consistent in those such decisions, though.

Am I the first to use "Clause" as a verb?

[johnh35]

Probably the favorite foobs that I own are my Life Like Phase I Alco C424's in SP&S and BN paint.

[Kisatchie]

Hmm... Kiz wouldn't know
a foob if it bit him on
the aaaaankle...

[PAL_Houston]

My MTL Illinois state commemorative box car (I also have Kentucky, Indiana, Wisconsin, New Jersey and Texas, because I've lived each in of these States).  They never go on the layout, however. 

I really like billboard reefers, for some reason, but they don't fit the era I model. 
So I run them with steam power. 

[C855B]

I try to avoid things that I know to be complete foobs, but OTOH for certain things like freight cars I subscribe to the "close enough" school of thought. (I would have said "rolling stock", but since Kato is doing a moderately good job with successive runs of models of UP passenger prototypes, I don't have to foob too much there other than fixing questionable lettering on older runs.)

Missing or slightly "off" details don't bother me too much, I'm going for ambiance, that is, "Does it capture the look-and-feel?"

A problem I am addressing now is era foobs, with 1975 my cutoff. Locos are easy, with a couple of exceptions I can be safe with "No Dash-2's, no Dash-7's,". However, there are a lot of attractive, well-executed RTR models of rolling stock that press the ">1980" button. Yes, I have been a sucker for picking these up blindly (literally - glasses not strong enough to see "built" dates) at train shows, getting them home and then under magnification realize they're too out-of-era. Now I've become that nerd at train shows who wanders around the tables wearing an OptiVisor.  [shudder!] 

Anyway, I've been culling the fleet, and need to make the decision whether to liquidate the "too new" cars or keep them in the boxes I schlep for running on the club layout.

A more frustrating issue and pet peeve is what I call "lettering foobs" - cars that would be perfect in my era, but have distinctions that clearly post-date them. The manufacturers have developed a bad habit of putting era-specific lettering details such as ACI labels, consolidated stencils, U-1 dots, and conspicuity tape on models that would otherwise have build dates 10, 20 or 25 years earlier than the "required" dates for these identifications. This stuff is a b!tch to remove without damage, though I'm learning. "Guys, we can add this stuff if it suits our later modeling period and we care, but it sure is a pain to subtract 'in-the-future' letterings." Harumph!

[TiVoPrince]

Aww, give them break!  They are the only maker to ever do the SP three light nose package in plastic!

But... 
Why apply the SP signature light package to the nose and not the tail?  Especially the SD45-T2 where there was no DRGW 'cheat' that would create incorrectness.  While some (all?) of the 'follow on' paint schemes done by IM did not retain the rear light package the mount as quite resilient until the scrappers torch finished them.  Mostly the rear headlight remained when the gyralight and mars light vanished and were pplated over.  Other than an order of GP40-2s the rear package was pretty darn consistent over the second generation of locomotives.  Why IM overlooked this I suppose that we will never know...