Model Railroading > Fox Valley Models Totally Blows It!!!!

I was actually admiring my first ever Fox Valley Models boxcar right up until I went looking for photos of how to weather it. I knew the car wasn't a exact match to the GN cars had been discussed elsewhere, but still it's pretty close. But as I started to examine similar cars I started to notice problems with the paint scheme. Like the big GN logo should be to the left of the door stops, not over them. And that the "Great Northern" lettering font was too thick. Well I gave FVM the benefit of the doubt that maybe these particular cars were painted differently, so continued to search on for a car closer to the number on the model. Not only did I find a closer number, I found the exact car;

http://www.rr-fallenflags.org/gn/gn138717alr.jpg

Not only did FVM mess up the above mentioned items, they got nearly the whole paint scheme wrong. Pretty much everything is out of place, and even the data is wrong. If I had looked closely I should have realized something was up. The car has a built date of 4-73 (three years into the BN merger) and a "New" date of 3-70. It only took 15 minutes of searching to find a photo of the matching car, why the hell didn't FVM research the model? Now I'm glad I didn't also buy the MRL version because of the modern conspicuity striping. I'm extremely disappointed and still trying to figure out what to do with the model. It's a nice model otherwise, so may just end up repainting it.

Ted Curphey
Ontario, OR

---

I honestly wouldn't be surprised if there is a photo out there with the placement like it is on the model. But I could be wrong.

I seriously doubt it. This car was built in 1968 just prior to the BN merger, and many of these GN cars wore their factory paint right to their end in 2008.

Ted Curphey
Ontario, OR

Ted;

How about sending the correct info directly to Matt, that way he correct the errors on the next run. Matt is very approachable and is always looking for more and better info, since he is a one man show.

Russ Goodwin

Posted from BlackBerry

NSTopHat Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Ted;
>
> How about sending the correct info directly to
> Matt,


already did.

Ted Curphey
Ontario, OR

Considering the whole model is completely wrong for a GN car (major being, the GN cars are taller Plate C cars and the model is a Plate B) they can paint it pink with GN goat polka dots for all I care.

I thought this kind of love was only for Athearn.

Just weather the hell out of it



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/20/12 07:51 by WAF.

One of the comments about the prototype was putting the rocky emblem behind the rolling plug door, the door would obscure or wear off the paint. The model builder may have considered that or, found a photo of one with the emblem outside of the door clearance. But as was explained in a previous thread, the paint job is only one of the details to be overlooked if someone really wants to buy this car. I did buy a SOO car, just fine in my books. The LHS only had one left on the counter.

The two things that sort of boggle my mind as to why a PROFESSIONAL model manufacturer would overlook them are:

1) The raised vs indented horizontal "rib" on the bottom.
2) The contradicting NEW vs BLT dates

While paint job differences CAN somehow be explained, those two differences just could not exist. It is highly unlikely that a raised rib like that would be made into an indented one (is it even possible?), and the dates are just violations of rules regarding them.

Looks like a very well-detailed model otherwise, but the two things outlined above.....

chrisbutts Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Considering the whole model is completely wrong
> for a GN car (major being, the GN cars are taller
> Plate C cars and the model is a Plate B) they can
> paint it pink with GN goat polka dots for all I
> care.

This. The car is a stand-in for the correct Plate C car. It's not surprising that some of the paint details are off.

-Rick

Rick Selby
Redmond, WA
Pacific Northwest RPM

Hello Everyone,

Interesting to watch these discussions and how exciting things can get. Being blasted on line is to be expected sometimes, but at least waiting for a reply from the company would be nice. However, as pointed out - the car is completely wrong for the exact number shown. True enough. So how does this stuff happen? Easier than you think.

First, this GN scheme is not based on this particular photo. Google GN 137094, or GN 137031 or a few others. There you will see the GN scheme with the logo to the right and the data to the left and the small DF not present on the above photo. As a manufacturer, it is common to do one base scheme and then change road numbers for more offerings. In this case, we did base art for the 137 series cars. (Blt date still clearly an miss) When we do a new scheme, sometimes we have people submit photos or info and suggestions for schemes and numbers. We also ask our artist for 12-24 road numbers on the art for multiple car offerings. Then when we get the art and it's time to announce them, you need to dive in and pick the road numbers you want to offer.

Picking road numbers is not an exact science. It is surprising the feedback from modelers that want multiple numbers, but do not like numbers that end in zero, or sequential road numbers, or 4 car offerings that all end in the same digit, or.......you name it. So you try and get a good mix and pick numbers that have a nice range. On this car, we did two cars in the 137 series and two in the 138 series - clearly the 138's are different - Our bad. I am not a GN expert and relied on outside info too much for some of this. When base art is created almost two years ago, then announcing the car 11 months ago, and having 100 other unrelated projects in the mix between there, it is easy to become unfamiliar with all variations of a specific car. Does this excuse it - Nope. Does it happen - Yep. Bottom line is that I should have spent more time and caught the difference of the 138 series and keep it for another run. Any 138 series numbers have been removed from this base art and may be offered later in a revised scheme.

Sorry for the trouble this road number has caused. For modelers that would like a nice GN car to use on their layout, enjoy. For those that want a more correct - not quite correct car, pick the first two road numbers. We'll take a closer look at things on this end and hopefully prevent future GN issues.

Have a great Thanksgiving everyone!

Best regards,

Matt
the FVM dude

Fox Valley did an exact match of the Soo Built far. You have to admire and support them for that.

In the meantime we have these common GN, BN and MRL cars which really need to have models made available. Athearn did an old blue box model for the GN cars early in the Big Sky Blue era. Modelers' Choice did a rather complex kit for the car which was very accurate. These did not sell well and required lots of additional effort on the part of the modeler to secure all the additional parts to complete the kit. These are no longer available.

So until some one tools the correct model no one has done the car closer than FV RR. I guess with some cushion drawbar detailing I can live with the FV car. That is just me, perhaps.

Posted from Windows Phone OS 7

funnelfan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I seriously doubt it. This car was built in 1968
> just prior to the BN merger, and many of these GN
> cars wore their factory paint right to their end
> in 2008.

Since Mat kindly suggested the google, here is the link to the first number:

http://pfe_coi.rrpicturearchives.net/showPicture.aspx?id=2571468

The artwork and model compare visually pretty well to the example linked. It has been pointed out the plate size is wrong, so if 100% correct isn't good enough, then it makes a darn good stand-in for schmucks like me. It used to be that it was very hard to find very many plastic models which were even a decent match like this car appears to be. Now that we are so spoiled with so many nice models, it appears models like this get thrown under the bus.

Now that I've had a chance to compare the photo of in the link to this model, it seems pretty decent! If this only qualifies as a stand-in, its a pretty good one. Thanks Matt for the references.

"It's a nice model otherwise, so may just end up repainting it."

Ted, maybe just renumber it to match the prototype photo - a lot less work the repainting eh? =P



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 11/20/12 17:04 by SPDRGWfan.

Boy, reading peoples BIT***NG about something being exactly correct. I support Fox in their products and to the ones who complain, not just this post but and and all other posts, if you don't like it, do it yourself.
What happened to modeling?
I know the model isn't cheap but FVM needs to be able to recoup the investment of what they have out there. If their numbers are off, why not just change it?
In closing, next time you find an error, why not go direct to the manufacturer first instead of flaming them in the public domain?
Let the flaming begin...................

Well a easy way to solve number selection is to have a small collection of the Offical Railway Equipment guides from various dates in the past. You can look in one to see what number series a car will fall into. The guide groups cars by order and gives important info about each order of cars. The guides are generally around $10 and are easy to find on E-bay.

Ted Curphey
Ontario, OR

I think it's fair to call public attention to the flaws in a model and/or its paint scheme, but I don't think the degree of vitreol in this thread -- especially the title -- was necessary to convey that information.

There certainly have been errors that were more wrong than the one described here. Like the green Walthers used on its CP Rail newsprint cars (after Life Like of Canada used the correct color on earlier runs) or its insistence that all of its Chessie/C&O autoracks have the 1991 TTX logo on the flat cars.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/21/12 04:34 by toledopatch.

Lucky for me I'm just happy to see some additional MRL cars out on the market. I have my 4 on order and I can't wait for them no matter if they are correct or not. I just figured my trains will be great from a safe distance. Thanks Matt for bringing out some MRL cars and I hope to see more kinds of MRLs later from you.

Zak Gardner / Glendora, CA.

fbe Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Fox Valley did an exact match of the Soo Built
> far.

That I'd consider debatable as the carbody is about 9" scale too short and the ends have issues. Perhaps nit-picking to some, not to me and others. The missing length doesn't scream out but just try swapping the roof for a Moloco diagonal panel roof, or a Branchline Berwick/Athearn SIECO x-panel roof that doesn't have the errors of the FVM roof, or an Exactrail or Athearn NACC overhanging Pullman-Standard roof (the prototype had all three roof variations). All of these parts are the correct length and won't fit the FVM body as they are too long. Shorten the new roof you say? You'll either lose the rivet strip and overhang at the ends, or have to cut and splice. No thanks, especially when it wouldn't have cost any extra time or money to have tooled the car the correct length in the first place. I'd intended to get 10-12 of the FVM cars but have capped it at three, and know others that passed entirely - it's a shame to see potential support for a 'needed' product untapped when the execution stumbles.

Doug Stark

BNModeler Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Boy, reading peoples BIT***NG about something
> being exactly correct.

Yeah, well, when it's a <$5.00 shake the box kit, there's no room for complaint. When the manufacturer takes over all aspects of model building because he thinks he knows best, and then charges 10x or more (not FVM, but others), then I say we have a valid complaint.