Model Railroading > We Need a Foobometer (Foob-om-eter)

Sent to me by my friend that can't post.

++++++++++++
What would be helpful would be a foobometer. (Foob-om-eter)  

A rating as to how close the car is to the prototype, and if not correct, it's value as a stand in.

By Stottmans rating below the cars would score  MDW 80% ATSF 80% BNSF 80% NOPB 100% SOU.  0% CN. 50%  

A second scale would be value as stand in vs cost of model First score is MDC @ $7, second is Athearn at $29  MDW  80  40 ATSF. 70. 50 BNSF. 60. 40 NOPB. 70. 90 SOU.    20. 0 CN.       50. 10  

Sent from my iBrick
++++++++++++

Posted by Larry 

Larry020 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Sent to me by my friend that can't post.

That will be me tomorrow when my year sub expires.

> What would be helpful would be a foobometer.
> (Foob-om-eter)  
>
> A rating as to how close the car is to the
> prototype, and if not correct, it's value as a
> stand in.

I'm not sure where my Details West SP and WP 50 double door foobies box cars fit in that scale.  They are standing in for roughly similar looking SP/WP box cars until someone like Nick Molo comes along and offers some accurate versions.  Hey Nick, when are those coming?

These days what with all the nice, rather expensive accurate cars from Moloco and others, I don't have any money left over to add more foobies.

Cheers, Jim Fitch

OK lets start with this one.

---

Thats cheating!

Excellent model of AAR's "golden" yellow float for the upcoming inaugural parade!

I think I like "Foob-O-Meter" better.  Sounds more like something ACME would make and Wile E. Coyote would use.

Jim

I have found (the hard way) is to plan purchases. In other words, make a list of what you need then research what models are correct. 

That doesn't have to take the fun out of visiting a "train store" for the 1st time and buying a new frieght car. 

 

We do have afoobometer. It is the nmra compliance rating.which does take into account model fidelity to prototype

The meter is not necessary for me. I love both.
I just reassembled several 50' hi-cube flat roof boxcars manufactured by MDC/Roundhouse right now.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 01/13/17 08:24 by BN7023.

---

Ah yes, I used to have a bunch of those flat top hi-cube MDC cars - SP brown and D&RGW orange.  I think one had offset double plug doors - I never found a photo of the real thing - I wonder why?  >:-()    I sold them all off to help raise a little cash to fund less foob-a-licious modles.  I still maintain a few other foobies for old times sake!  On of them is my Details West orange D&RGW combination box car.

Cheers, Jim Fitch

Katoro 

I have so many of those.  The ATSF one was the first model that I weathered with chalk.  I masked one door to simulate a replacement door.

If they're 80% or better stand ins, I'll pull them out of storage.  If not, I'll donate them.

Larry

All the feedback I have ever read about the MDC flat top Hi-cubes is that they are generic and don't match any real prototypes.  The comments are also accompanied by MDC practice at the time these were tooled, basically not following specific prototypes, although later tool models like the FMC box cars and covered hoppers did copy prototypes specifically.

The only comments I have read about regarding any of the flat top hi-cubes being close to anything real is in relation to the smooth side version with double offset plug doors being close to a UP prototype.  Searching through photo's, they may have been referring to this box car:

http://www.railcarphotos.com/PhotoDetails.php?PhotoID=90730

Although the panels are different and it looks like this was a shorter box car series that had the roof raised, it does look pretty close.

This one looks like a repaint and maybe closer:

http://www.railcarphotos.com/PhotoDetails.php?PhotoID=8194


I haven't been able to find any ATSF box cars matching the MDC car - and suspect what others have been saying, the flat top hi-cubes are mostly, if not all, foobies.

Your call!


 

Not from me.
++++++++

Foobie: fake model

Foobite: one who likes fake models

Foober: one who builds fake models

++++++++

Larry
 

Larry020 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Not from me.
> ++++++++
>
> Foobie: fake model
>
> Foobite: one who likes fake models
>
> Foober: one who builds fake models
 
&  the old WWII acronym that ought to apply to some manufacturers' products: fubar

EO



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/13/17 12:22 by hogheaded.

-------------------------------------------------------
> We do have afoobometer. It is the nmra compliance
> rating.which does take into account model fidelity
> to prototype

Sorta.  There is a check box:  Is this model a reasonable representation of the prototype?      Yes    No
That box is for the manufacturer to check.  It is one box out of several pages of boxes.  Actually, the entire Conformance and Inspection document is a check list submitted by the manufacturer.  It is not checked by NMRA:  NMRA reserves the right to test the product at any time to ensure the product continues to conform to the NMRA Standards.

If I was a manufacturer I'd quickly figure out that ALL my products were a reasonable representation of the prototype!

Are there any manufacturers who bother obtaining NMRA warrants (Keadee, Tangent maybe?) and does the NMRA actually have a structure to review submitted models and issue warrants?  I'm like the guy above.  Study the prototype photos, decide what fits my program, and buy them as they appear. Saves a lot of money, and eventually crowds out the stand-ins.

NMRA does not nearly have the "pull" it once had.... 

 

grahamline Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Are there any manufacturers who bother obtaining
> NMRA warrants (Keadee, Tangent maybe?) and does
> the NMRA actually have a structure to review
> submitted models and issue warrants?  I'm like
> the guy above.  Study the prototype photos,
> decide what fits my program, and buy them as they
> appear. Saves a lot of money, and eventually
> crowds out the stand-ins.

Most Railroad Historical Societies have someone that reviews new models of cars for their perspective Railroads in their monthly Newsletters. For example, The Great Northern Historical Society has a review of every new model release of cars that may represent, or "try" to represent GN cars as they come out. The Reviewer will nitpick the car right down to door stops, tack boards, and any/all placards and lettering placement.  If the car is above a minimum in acuracy, tips on what to do to make an acurate representation are usually given by the reviewer. The problem for most modelers, they do not have access to these publications.

hogheaded Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Larry020 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Not from me.
> > ++++++++
> >
> > Foobie: fake model
> >
> > Foobite: one who likes fake models
> >
> > Foober: one who builds fake models
>  
> &  the old WWII acronym that ought to apply to
> some manufacturers' products: fubar

I've always presumed that "foobie" was derived from FUBAR.
 

Foobies: a nickname for surgically augmented breasts. Application of the term to models came after that.

The idea that manufacturers could be somehow bound (or self-inclined) to inform buyers that their cars are accurate to prototype and number -- or not -- is a pretty big RBL full of worms and vipers.

Making a model that's accurate is a voluntary process by the manufacturer. If a modeler cares enough about accuracy to object that something's out of line on a model, it seems logical that this modeler has a special set of knowledge, or particular sources of information that go beyond average consumer awareness. Practically speaking, to be able to object to a foobie, you have to know what's real, or care that something's not. And if you know what's real, you probably know as much or more than the manufacturer -- or at least have an idea where to start looking for that confirmation of their "errors."

But say you didn't. Say you bought a model thinking it was accurate, then someone told you it wasn't. You'd be disappointed. But it's something you didn't know, and now you do. There's no rewind for that, except to try and learn before a purchase.

If a manufacturer deliberately represents something as what it's not, even then I'm not sure how anyone could object. It's a hobby, and part of the hobby is learning. The more we know, the more we demand, and the harder it is for manufacturers to keep up. But if we didn't know a particular fact before making a purchase, I don't know how we're owed that information beforehand -- since no manufacturer knows our own particular standards, and what constitutes a deal-breaker foobie for each and every one of us.

And finally, a manufacturer has to stay in business. More consumers just want a representation of some icon they like. A nice Santa Fe boxcar, whether it's got the right stencils for that week or not. Or whether it's even a Santa Fe prototype. If a manufacturer were to state on each box containing a foobie that "This model may not conform to exact accuracy for the equipment it's intended to depict" or some other disclaimer, people who didn't care would suddenly be given a reason to not purchase, where they were perfectly happy before.

If you put on a Shakespeare play, you'll make cuts for time and nobody will object because nobody will notice or care. But if you also note in the program that you made cuts for time, expect every review of your play to contain critcism of how you "messed with The Bard or "disrespected history" -- you handed them ammo and a weapon where they weren't even interested in shooting before you mentioned it.

As has been suggested, forums like TO and others (Facebook is rich with interactive and friendly modeler's pages for specific prototypes) are the place you go to ask the question. Speaking to the indelicate analogy of the term, what's a foobie to me is just a nice rack to someone else.

When we see truly accurate models done by manufacturers who go out of their way to provide them, and duly let us know, it's probably evident without a printed legal claim. That's the time we can all pretty much say "Oh, they're real... and they're spectacular."

~ BZ