Getting Fooled by the Foob

[Rossford Yard]

I think we all have our varying levels of foob tolerance. 

Our personal fave loco gets made but its 90% accurate?  Pretty big to Big foob. 

A covered hopper gets made and it looks at least similar to one our favorite road ran?  Acceptable foob, until someone else makes one closer and better.

I am generally pretty accepting of some foobiness.  I have been a raliroader since 1958 Lionel sets, and figure its the way of the world.  I notice we get less foobie all the time, which is great, but I love it when it happens, accept it when it doesn't.

Sometimes, I don't like the current trend among apparently the majority of modelers who the mfgs listen too.  For instance, I would take an Atlas GP 38 in IHB, for instance, but Cory tells me the radiator fans are wrong and no one would buy them.  I have looked....cannot tell, and I think I could tell even less in IHB black.

It is one of those deep philosophical questions - do I want that 90% correct in my paint scheme, or NOTHING, holding out for something better?  One of the reasons I changed to N was that the overall train length was impressive enough (to me) to overcome lack of details.  In most cases, I am happy for reasonable (by my standards, yours might vary) stand ins.   I mean, 99% of us would vomit at the idea of a 1930's reefer among the autoracks, but not care if the paint scheme on the racks was a bit off,or color, or whatever.  So, it really is a sliding scale.

Honestly, I can't think of a time when my main source of enjoyment wasn't running an actual train, and I don't obsess because the third car back is two years out of era, and lacking some valve or another.

[Robbman]

But... 
Why apply the SP signature light package to the nose and not the tail? 

Why put fans on TOP of the radiator cores on a tunnel motor? 

[TrainReign]

Nowadays, with so many "accurate" cars and locos being produced, I'm proud to say that I don't have any Foobs.

I'm down to getting rid of tippy toes cars and dimensionally distorted cars.

[jagged ben]

But... 
Why apply the SP signature light package to the nose and not the tail?

You do realize that any given unit may or may not have had the big rear light cluster at any given time?
http://www.rrpicturearchives.net/showPicture.aspx?id=384463
http://www.rrpicturearchives.net/showPicture.aspx?id=294702

[tehachapifan]

Good find with the first photo! The second photo is of SD45T-2's, none of which had rear light clusters.

[Rossford Yard]

Interesting that IM probably did their research better than some complainers......I wonder if their road numbers matched the non light package units on the proto? 

I still sympathize with the mfgs more than most.  I just can't see how, even with modern tooling, they can commerically justify every little variation.  In this case, they probably discussed whether it would be easier for modelers to add a light package on specific units vs. cut one away.  I wonder how hard it would have been to cast the light package as a separate item that could be (gasp) glued in separately?  We generally look down on that kind of thing, don't we?  Kits and even adding handrails just don't sell any more.

So, tough calls on details that matter not a lot to most modelers, at least IMHO.  I bet we have a higher percentage of specific detail rivet counters here than in the general MRR population, but have no real proof.

[Ike the BN Freak]

My two SDP40s, which just have the extra length on the rear, no shifting the loco forward like the prototype, but hey, it looks like an SDP40...

[TiVoPrince]

Vast 
(perhaps even overwhelming) majority had the rear light cluster at any moment in time. 

As with most everything, it is possible to find exceptions to every rule.  I'm just not that comfortable with collecting exceptions, my preference is for the common and mundane.  I have seen several layouts that are simply filled with exceptions, they are just not for me...

[Mark5]

N&W designed and built (in some cases had built) all of their hoppers, so much of my coal car fleet is populated by close enough "stand in" hoppers.

[Rossford Yard]

Yes, rebuilds, time, and real life intervene to make true fidelity really, really hard.  NW hoppers a good example.

Again I ask, how many of us let this infidelity ruin our enjoyment of running trains?  Or how much of this is just wishful thinking and hoping for "better days?"

[TiVoPrince]

Ruined
my enjoyment, no.  Knickers twisted, occasionally.  Annoyed, sometimes.  Irked, often.  Mostly its about getting only 90% or less of the pre-release marketing hype...

[Puddington]

My two SDP40s, which just have the extra length on the rear, no shifting the loco forward like the prototype, but hey, it looks like an SDP40...

Ok Ikey; you need to show us those man !

[Freight Train]

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

Weren't those packaged as C424/C425's in those paint schemes?? Kind of like the Kato SF U30C's in the B&Y warbonnet scheme but sold as U23C's and the Atlas RSD 4/5....so ok which is it?? A 4 or a 5?? Like the old saying goes..."Sometimes you feel like a foobie.....sometimes you don't!" 

[jagged ben]

Okay, before this thread dies, I need to add a major topic to it...

Trailers.

I've recently been looking at expanding my pig train fleet for the 80s and 90s and such.  Much of this is thanks to this awesome album recently uploaded by Ron Hawkins.

Then I have looked at my trailer fleet, and at what has been done and is available on eBay and such, and I've come to following disappointing conclusions...

1) As awesome as it is that Atlas has done so many paint schemes on their 45' Pines trailers, this prototype was actually pretty rare, and many of the schemes appear to be foobs.  Some of them would apparently be appropriate on MTs trailers, some call for other prototypes.
2) A couple more trailer prototypes would be welcome.  I'm still learning my trailer manufacturers, but Strick and Great Dane would be candidates.
3) ConCor trailers are a total foob.  I mean, I knew this, but they have some good paint schemes and another trailer adds variation to my fleet.  But they are total foobs.  The doors really don't look right, so much so that it might be worth working up a modification.
4) Why has MT done so many foobs that are 'wrong size trailer' foobs.?  E.G putting the gorgeous 'Route Rock' scheme on their 48' trailer instead of their 40' trailer, as if the CRIP didn't go bankrupt before 48' footers were legalized.  I can name two other paint schemes (NW and 70's Santa Fe) that are similar mistakes, and I think there are others.   Seems like it would have been easy to get this right.   Oh well, fodder for redecorating.   

On the plus side, Athearn and Trainworx have really raised the bar for N scale trailers lately, but most of their schemes are more suited to the 70's, leaving us still with big gaps in the 80s and 90s. 

[mecgp7]

There's money in them there foobs. Just ask Con Cor and the new Atlas Trainman line. I can deal with the Trainman foobs as Atlas does such a good job with them. I think Con Cor pushed the envelope in my eyes with the U50s in the likes of Conrail, etc. Bottom line it would be crazy for manufacturers not to stretch the bounds in order to produce variety.

In reality, if you are a rivet-counter then ALL models are foobs.