Non-prototypical cars from various manufacturers (or importers)

This has occasionally come up in discussions including our own Trainboard Special Run car(s). I’d rather the rolling stock and locomotives I purchase be prototypical (or very close) to what actually ran/runs on real railroads. I’m not questioning the more ‘obvious’ fantasy products (Micro-Trains Birthday Car, Mint Car, and any manufacturer/importers Holiday or special occasion cars/locomotives). It’s the one’s that look like they are the ‘real deal’ but are actually fantasy productions.

Frequently… manufacturers or importers would do totally fantasy schemes which are interesting and appeal to several model railroaders… so obviously there is a market for these models. There are reasons we should accept this behavior without complaining… and I’ve come around to accepting this inevitability for good reasons. However, as a person that came into the hobby believing that everything being made were actual miniature ‘replicas’ of the prototype… I was extremely disappointed when I found out to the contrary. Initially when I found out that models being produced were not necessarily prototype ‘replicas’… I stopped buying several items before checking out their ‘pedigree’ (LOL). I found this to be a bit frustrating… since it seemed almost everything was somewhat non-prototypical. SIGH… I had to adjust my perspective of the hobby.

Many of the models I had purchased were actually ‘foobies’ (faked or fantasy schemes or substituted body styles) as they’ve been referred to occasionally. So I know that I’m a collector of model railroad ‘foobiana’. I would have rather had been ‘warned’, before buying, that these models are the NOT real deal, instead of either somewhat close… or completely fantasy models. I’ve seen some manufacturers and importers state in their print ads or online sites when the models are not ‘the real deal’… and I greatly appreciate their candor. I may STILL buy these models; but at least, I would know and accept it’s not prototypical in advance.


There are a lot of newbie and even some old timers in this hobby which may not recognize the foobies from the real deal. I wonder if they would feel ‘cheated’, if their perspective of the hobby was to collect/run actual replicas of the prototype, only to find out they were uninformed and made purchases not in line with their desire. I know someone will state 'Caveat Emptor' (buyer beware), but, we are not always buying with the full knowledge of the item we are buying and 'TRUST' the model is a miniature prototype replica without first checking.

Your opinion on this would be interesting... and... hopefully the manufacturers and importers will look at being more open about the models 'pedigree' or fidelity to the prototype.

 

I understand what you are saying, and the issue is particularly acute in N scale, where product selection is much less than HO.

Given the situation, there are 3 main options: (1) scratch-build or kit-bash what you want from prototype plans to look exactly like the real railroad you want to model, (2) use what is availalble to construct a "fantasy" railroad where YOU choose what to run, based on what you like that you can get, still using realistic railroad practices, or (3) buy whatever you like and run it however you want, without concern about it meeting somebody else's tastes.

I chose option 2 for my N scale hobby. In HO, I had chosen option 1, but that seemed impractical in N Scale. It is much harder to build stuff to good quality levels in the smaller scales. And, if the goal is to RUN a layout, then being too much of a perfectionist about making the items that will be running gets in the way of actually getting them running.

Most of us in N scale don't have the time to make historically accurate, museum quality models. So, we adopt some scheme that makes US happy AS INDIVIDUALS and go about enjoying the hobby within the realistic constraints imposed by our own skills, finances, available time and availability of commercial products. It is a HOBBY that is supposed to make us HAPPY. If you let it become something that makes you unhappy, why do it?

All that said, I do still want my fantasy railroad to have an interconnection to the real railroad that I would like to have modelled if I had unlimited resourced and lifetime. My representation of the 'real' B&O simply CANNOT be perfect. There will be some trains the are B&O-LIKE, to the extent that they use equipment that the B&O used. But, one train will need to represent the Capitol Limited, National Limited, Ambassador, etc, etc. Folks who have a consist list down to the car numbers in each train as of various dates and locations WILL be disappointed. But, I won't. I still do reasearch on what the B&O had and used at various times, but I don't let it become an obsession to reproduce it all, perfectly. But, I do avoid obvious foobies, at least the ones obvious TO ME. Still looking for that steel-end, wood sided caboose with centered coupala with a peaked roof that B&O had so many off, and avoiding the off-center coupalas.

Steve

 

Though often "foodies" as you put it, I've often enjoyed the "Way They Should Have Been" models that have come out of Intermountain, N-Scale Enthusiast, Atlas, etc. The beautiful designs and paint schemes are often quite complimentary of the prototype railroad.

And of course the railroads have been getting into the act themselves with Heritage units wearing paint schemes that never existed. Still, they are quite attractive.

 

A friend and fellow n-scale modeller recently shared photographs of wood side refrigerator cars that he has custom painted and decaled for a brew pub where he lives. Obviously a prototype for these never existed, however they are nice looking cars and in my opinion very welcome editions. I think MTL has done cars for regional breweries; I am not certain if these were special runs someone contracted MTL to make, but again I think these are well to the options. Same goes for various food, vegetable and fruit brand cars.

 

I also model B&O with the location in Illinois in the 1940s. Like Steve, many of the items are not true to a B&O prototype, but they are acceptable stand ins for my modelling.

 

I go with option 2 also. Prototypical as possible but run what I like how I like it. It's my Railroad so run it for fun.

 

I like to make the effort to convert commercially-available models to prototypical cars when practical, especially "signature cars". I'd like my roster to be 60-75% proto, and maybe 20% "stand-ins." For instance, after I rode the Amtrak "Texas Chief" in 1973, I wanted N scale cars to represent the kinds of car TYPES found on that train. N scale had Atlas/Rivarossi corrugated streamlined coaches that somewhat resembled Santa Fe coaches. And by mid to late 70s, Concor had corrugated sleepers- not corrugated quite like the Santa Fe cars or with the exact window arrangements, but at least they WERE streamlined sleepers. But N scale had nothing like a corrugated streamlined diner. Some 10 years later, JnJ had brass sides (I have never gotten around to building mine.) And some 35 - 40 years, KATO modeled a Super Chief set which had a corrugated streamlined diner, ATSF prototype. It was numbered for the cars which ran only on the Super Chief but there was one identical car among those used on the Texas Chief. I managed to get a single car for my Texas Chief, with the Super Chief #603. Maybe I will change the number "someday". But for now, close enough.


I call my layout the "Santa Vaca and Santa Fe" with the holy-cow-with-the-halo herald I use as my member logo here. Some friends have asked if they can get one of the cars painted for my railroad. I don't have any, and hadn't planned any.
I have a few ideas for foobie roadnames and cars that would be fun. There was a real "Booth Open Kettle Syrup" company near Sugarland, Texas, an old stomping and railfan grounds of mine. Don't think they ever had any cars for interchange, but it might be neat to have a private-owner covered hopper for their sugar, lettered for Booth Open Kettle Syrup, reporting marks BOKX. That would be a "BOKX" car that was a covered hopper!!! But I have a lot of other things I want first...

 

I totally agree with the freedom to do one's own thing and thus enjoy the hobby in whatever way we feel like. Even my logo is a fictitious alliance of the CB&Q, D&RGW and several of the 'Pacific' roads (Southern Pacific, Western Pacific, Missouri Pacific etc..).

But... my post really isn't about our personal way of enjoying the hobby. It's about the existence of models which we may have been lead to believe to be prototypical replicas, when in fact, they are close or distant stand-ins. When I began in the hobby... and ignorance was bliss... I assumed the models being sold were actually rostered on the railroads or actually decorated for companies had those specific models. I was disappointed to find otherwise, but, in reality I still continued to buy stuff with 'blind faith' that they were prototypically correct.

Over the years, I've asked for manufacturers to 'step-up' and make the models which were actually used by the railroads they were decorated for... and many old and new model railroad companies have done so. I definitely buy those models even though they may be more expensive. I'm still buying what looks good and runs well... but... it would be nice to have 'replicas' of prototypes instead of 'stand-ins' or as some of us call these 'foobies'.

So... I appreciate all modelers enjoyment of the hobby regardless of whether they have prototype models or close 'stand-ins'... since I too have an abundance of them. Personal road names are great... a way to make the hobby 'Yours' and therefore individual. That's why the BRG&P exists as my railroad.. a 'fictitious precursor' to the Burlington Northern merger. OH YES... and to make my railroad world even stranger... The UNION PACIFIC-SANTA FE was a competitive alliance as well. Go figure... more fiction. LOL

 

The example that quickly comes to mind was Concor's BN PA-1. I LOVED that thing, but knew it never existed. Nobody else had any type of BN passenger locomotive at the time, so I got one. Only thing I didn't like was the pilot being part of the lead truck. Looked very "Lionel-ish" !!! My all-time favorite foobie is the Mini Trix U30CG in BN. I have three of them, and still use 'em. Sometimes it's just nice to pull "my" NCL with something besides my beloved E8s. Calzephyr, my World is a bit strange, too. Passenger trains flourished in mid '70s, as did the CRI&P and the PC !!! Another vote for option 2 !!!

 

My take is that unless a manufacturer states that an Item in a specific paint scheme is prototypical, then it should never be assumed. If high prototype fidelity is important to your modeling, then it's on you T do the research and know. Never assume that any model is appropriate.

 

What can you say, "Foobies makes the N-scale world go round!!!" and if it weren't for so many modelers desire to have "something... anything" in their preferred road (freelancers aside) N-scale would not be nearly what it is today. Want an accurate model, build or kitbash it. Don't have the talent or ability... well... its "Foobie Smells, Foobie Smells, Foobie all the way!!!"

Most older equipment and a lot of newer equipment were purchased by more than one road and that alone helps to take models miles beyond what the manufacturer hopes for. But unless you have one of the "unabridged" Color Guides for your road (no, they don't exist and if they did they would be as huge as WAR AND PEACE) something I am willing to wager is that there is at least something close on most prototype rosters that you just don't know about more so than the "Foobie" community could imagine.

I am continually researching various sources of prototype roads to find the right type of equipment to use for run-throughs for my freelanced Class One lines (I also model some subsidiary shortlines) and continue to be amazed at what I find. Because I am modeling 1949 quite diligently none of the modern equipment that I see being produced fits but there is a heck of a lot that does, just maybe not in my prefered roads. (N&W, VGN, INT, etc... 1½ door boxcars? I have known since first introduced to the Southern Railway that the Central of Georgia had quite a variety but, hey... guess what? The N&W had some as well, and not that much different from the CofG cars.) And with so many variations there is a lot of differences that can be incorporated in the rosters I am developing well beyond what I might have thought was possible just a few years ago. Things might not be quite as Foobied as you might think...

 

Everything, and I mean EVERYTHING, in N Scale if not in Model Railroading in general is a compromise. All that varies is the degree to which this is true, and the degree to which the individual modeler is willing to accept this. In my view, this has been true since the first "toy train" appeared. There have been advances in N Scale and elsewhere made possible by technology that have certainly narrowed the gap in some areas, though not without cost-- literally and otherwise.

From there I think there is divergance into two negative and positive extreme camps with respect to Doing Something About It:

- The Eternally Unsatisfied who find fault with everything-- often before it is actually released-- who are and will continue to be a Rounding Error in the hobby despite their extremely inflated view of how much they influence actual manufacturers and importers, which is, trust me, not statistically different from ZERO. (Hey, if you really think you can do better than anyone already in the business, there is this show called "Shark Tank.")

- The various Railroad Prototype Modelers meets, several of which I have had the pleasure and honor to attend, in which scholars and modelers display "show and tell" and talk about what they've done in a purposely non-threatening uncompetitive venue. They are there to learn and do better themselves, and they will share, but they don't procscribe and they don't belittle. I will always be grateful for the opportunity to take my late father to a RPM in New Jersey, where he admired and was treated to a "tour" of an HO Scale freight car that had been meticulously detailed by the creator.

Most of us, and that includes me, are somewhere on the middle of this spectrum. Rule #1 always applies.

Need I mention that the nominal minimum radius on North American mainline radius (per the Wikipedians), 710 feet, translates to 53 inches in N Scale, and the absolute minimum of 350 feet equates to over 26 inches? So who's playing with toys? Most of us... and I, with my 19 inch radius curves that will Simply Have To Do, put myself first in that line.

 

Prototype-based cars are important to me also. But there's a limit as George said. One might want to have Proto160-type details for a contest model, but I doubt it would ever be workable for operating in N. I want to run trains. Still, I'm thinking Calzephyr here is thinking in terms of schemes and body styles and body details.

Now the newest manufacturers certainly have held themselves to high proto standards for schemes and body styles and have helped push the old guard (though not completely) in the same direction. Overall, I have more confidence that new stuff, after its announcement, sticks close to prototype. Your mileage may vary.

Of course, it cuts both ways in that some railroad's variant body won't be made, whereas a slight foobie might be good enough for most people. We probably won't ever see new weirdo cars (like the good old helium tank cars) unless someone gets REALLY inspired on Shapeways. We can still always fight about paint color, though ...

One of my earliest N purchases was the WP steel reefer. Remember that? No such thing in real life. I was somewhat irritated when I found out; just lucky that I didn't buy a 12-pack. It was then clear then that the research was up to me. With a proto interest ignited, 1:1 cars became a big part of the hobby for me. That, in turn, has led to many kitbash projects (with most still to be completed).

 

ROFLMAO... HAHAHAHA... LOL... I have thousands of pieces of rolling stock and I may have the same situation!!!!

YOHO... I agree in principal with you... at least I do as of the past 15 years since I realized how bad the problem really was.
I mean... it's really not a problem... because the manufacturer would not be able to make a dime on this hobby if not for the 'close-enough' factor of the foobies.
The reality is that close enough is a fact of life... however... It would be nice to have them advise us which of the cars being produced are prototypically correct for certain roads... and close stand-ins for other roads they decorate for. Some manufacturer/importers are doing this... and I appreciate that candor... because at least I know what I'm buying is what it is.

Yes Jerry... the foobies make the N scale world go round and round. Sales have to materialize in order for new models to be funded. Just let the manufacturers let us know which ones are the real McCoy's... and which are not. We can chose more informed that way... and if we feel it's going to be as close as may ever be made... we'll buy it and live with it. BTW... a big thumbs-up for your passenger car photo index list.

George... YOU were the one that let the 'foobie faeries' out of Pandora Box with your UMTRR... That's were I found out most of what I'd purchased was not as prototypical as I had once imagined. I had always thought the Micro-Trains I purchased were prototypically correct replicas... what a huge letdown to find out the truth. BUT... Thank-you for all of the information you have compiled over the decades... two big thumbs-up for your efforts.

My observations over the past 15 years of 'added scrutiny' in this hobby has been the necessary compromises we live with even in THIS scale. The idea of selective compression has been the norm for HO and O scales for many decades. I believe that reality is what make HO and O scale modelers take the added interest in super detailing everything they do. HO & O scalers would need a 747 airplane hanger to model even about a 5 mile section of a prototype area. The only thing they can do is recreate the model rail car or locomotive and model in a highly compressed area a small section of prototype.

Even in N scale or Z scale... we would need a large garage or small warehouse to model a 5 mile prototype area with any degree of fidelity. Again... we can only control the model rail cars and locomotives within a compressed area and create plausible vignettes of those areas. Our problem is that the size of our models is so much more difficult to detail... and cutting a shell literally can remove a scale foot of model. We benefit much more from a model being made exactly as prototype than the other larger scales. Most of us in the N & Z are not sufficiently skilled to do that work. So we ask for the prototypes models to be made for us... not a stand-in if possible.

 

Somewhere I read that the USRA steam engines were designed to run on a curve radius that comes out to 23" in N scale. I suspect that many of the smaller engines (4-4-0s, 2-6-0s and 4-6-0s) could handle even smaller curves. Does anybody have specs for those locos?

 

I may have a slightly different perspective.

I look at foobies as necessary evils. If it takes foobies to put out paint schemes on cars that didn't necessarily exist to make enough of a market to make a profit, well, good for the manufacturer if it keeps them producing and happy in N scale. I'll put up with it as long as they also manage to put out some 'right' schemes as well. Sometimes it's inexplicable, like the old Lima FP45's that came in Santa Fe, but not the passenger scheme - the F45 freight scheme, wrong locomotive wrong color. Duh. At least Trix did a passable job on the U30CG even if they did put in in PC and BN as well.

If you're really concerned about accuracy, this is different than the 1970's and 80's. You can look darn near anything up now, look for pictures, ask for help, check out online photos. Not sure if it's real or not? Well, if you're that concerned, usually the answer is just a google search away now.

I'm often more surprised that some of the oddball schemes (particularly by MT) are real. May have only been on one, or two, or a handful of cars, but yup, check the 'net and Morning Sun color books, and geez, there it is.....

If you really want to check out Foobieville, go to Lionel. It's hard to find right ones anymore. Want a warbonnet ballast hopper, no problem.

Now, for fantasy cars.... that never ever existed anywhere..... a little less tolerant there. I'm still looking for that mysterious bobber caboose body on the end of a crane tender flatcar prototype that everybody models in every scale. http://www.ho-scaletrains.net/ahmhoscalefreightcars/id75.html "TRUE TO BLUEPRINT" (cough, sputter..) That and huge searchlight cars, submarines, missiles, etc.