Iowa Interstate business car.

[Midniteflyer]

Micro-Trains is going to do a run of 25 of the IAIS Business car "Hawkeye". From the conversation on the IAIS Facebook page they will be using the body that they already release and not do the correct windows of the Proto. Does Micro-Train not know what a limited run is suppose to be? Of course this should be expected from the "Foobie" N-Scale company.

http://custommodeltrains.com/products/iowa-interstate-executive-car-hawkeye

Body style MT will use.......

[Denver Road Doug]

Would you be willing to pay $200 for each car to get the correct windows?

[Dave Schneider]

I think your blame is misplaced. It seems to me that the group that is sponsoring the special run made the decision regarding the body style, not MTL! Are they supposed to turn down the business just because you don't like the product? I really dislike these attempts to generate a controversy.

Best wishes, Dave

[Puddington]

I think this is somewhat a "sign of the times"..... We are now getting used to the possibility of having more and more prototypical models available to us. It's getting to the point where a select few people get very angry (yes; physically angry; I've been on the other end of the conversation) at manufacturers when we offer a "non prototypical" model (aka foobie paint scheme)

Last year at the Ottawa show I was dang near attacked by a guy who was furious that we would put a NYC paint scheme on our HO scale Cafe Bar Lounge - it wasn't prototypically correct. I was ruining the chance that someone would make the correct car; I was attacking NYC modellers, I was restricting trade.... he should really get a restraining order against us...... (I kid you not... he actually said that) The car was in a series of 4 cars built for the NYC that matched nothing else built so they would have been useless for other roads...... chance that some one would build an RTR version...zero........

The good side of the move to more prototypical models, smaller runs and the like is we can get more "good stuff" than ever before... the bad side is that a small, but often vocal minority take great personal offence at anything else but 100% fidelity and that is both unhealthy for the hobby, as it makes the entrance to our hobby too expensive and it has zero chance of happening in this or any other economic climate.

[bbussey]

... Last year at the Ottawa show I was dang near attacked by a guy who was furious that we would put a NYC paint scheme on our HO scale Cafe Bar Lounge - it wasn't prototypically correct. I was ruining the chance that someone would make the correct car; I was attacking NYC modellers, I was restricting trade.... he should really get a restraining order against us...... (I kid you not... he actually said that) The car was in a series of 4 cars built for the NYC that matched nothing else built so they would have been useless for other roads...... chance that some one would build an RTR version...zero........

The good side of the move to more prototypical models, smaller runs and the like is we can get more "good stuff" than ever before... the bad side is that a small, but often vocal minority take great personal offence at anything else but 100% fidelity and that is both unhealthy for the hobby, as it makes the entrance to our hobby too expensive and it has zero chance of happening in this or any other economic climate.

In addition, your irate customer always has the option of doing some actual modeling by kitbashing or scratchbuilding the desired model.  As long as the foob isn't marketed as prototypical, he's got no legitimate beef.

[nkalanaga]

"As long as the foob isn't marketed as prototypical, he's got no legitimate beef."

That's my attitude.  Tell us that it isn't 100% correct, and let us make the decision.  Some would rather run trains that "look familiar", others want to count rivets, while yet others would rather build their own than buy even a correct model.  There should be room for everyone.

[learmoia]

Last year at the Ottawa show I was dang near attacked by a guy who was furious that we would put a NYC paint scheme on our HO scale Cafe Bar Lounge - it wasn't prototypically correct. I was ruining the chance that someone would make the correct car; I was attacking NYC modellers, I was restricting trade.... he should really get a restraining order against us...... (I kid you not... he actually said that) The car was in a series of 4 cars built for the NYC that matched nothing else built so they would have been useless for other roads...... chance that some one would build an RTR version...zero........

Wait.. he should get a restraining order for Rapido to not produce models?.. or you should get a restraining order against the guy for being an A-hole..?

Well if the car is so damn important to him then he can go buy the brass model.... For the rest of us back in reality.. we'll take the foob...

Pud, I value your openness on what you experience from the manufacturer side of the model railroading world..

~Ian

[Denver Road Doug]

Tell us that it isn't 100% correct

Nothing is 100% correct.   Every customer has their own level of tolerance.  Heck, I even have different levels of tolerance depending on what it is. (unit train cars get more leeway, for example)

While I applaud Atlas and a few other manufacturers for their "*** asterisks ***" denoting a foobie, I certainly don't think it is something they HAVE to do.

Anyway, I imagine that Micro-Trains has received at least a dozen "cease and desists"  from all of the other manufacturers clamoring to produce the Iowa Interstate business cars...this surely ISN'T OVER YET...   

 

[Denver Road Doug]

And just to clarify, this isn't a Micro-Trains project.  This is a company, "Custom Model Trains", contracting with Micro-Trains to produce the cars.

Micro-Trains deserves criticism, and I admittedly have sent plenty their way myself.   But this is not on them.   Custom Model Trains thinks people will buy the cars regardless, and they're probably right.

[bbussey]

... While I applaud Atlas and a few other manufacturers for their "*** asterisks ***" denoting a foobie, I certainly don't think it is something they HAVE to do...

To play Devil's advocate — No, manufacturers don't have to denote whether or not a model is a foob.  However, advertising foobs as prototypical is morally and ethically wrong in my opinion.  That's a huge sticking point that I always will rail against, and that's something that ESM never will do.

And just to clarify, this isn't a Micro-Trains project.  This is a company, "Custom Model Trains", contracting with Micro-Trains to produce the cars...

Also a valid point.  My point pertains to regular-issue items.  A manufacturer can't be held responsible for the veracity of limited-run items contracted for by third parties.

[Mark5]

I want that roof!

[iais509]

Figures, I go down with a bad cold for a week and something high on my IAIS wish-list comes out!  I'm not worried about the windows so much as the six wheel trucks.  Still, the car couldn't be worse than the foob Henry Posner figure I picked up a while back. [ Guests cannot view attachments ]   All kidding aside, does Micro-Trains offer a business car with that roof for sale?  I've spent the better part of the last hour searching their site and the net for a car with that roofline with no luck.

[nkalanaga]

Doug:  You're right, nothing is 100% correct, and every model I have ever seen, or heard about, received at least one critical comment.  I've even seen complaints about the prototype not being correct, which is a little hard to figure out, as it's the definition of correct...

However, I will rephrase my comment to "100% correct within the limits of manufacturing technology".  An exact scale model, in any of the common indoor scales, would be so fragile it wouldn't survive normal handling.

[Denver Road Doug]

However, I will rephrase my comment to "100% correct within the limits of manufacturing technology".  An exact scale model, in any of the common indoor scales, would be so fragile it wouldn't survive normal handling.

Yeah, I think that is really how I was taking your comment...wasn't trying to be that literal about it.    I was mostly talking about the things--even mostly correct given the limits--that still invariably happen for various reasons.   And then you have situations where a car that might be spot on for a handful of roads yet VERY VERY close to some others.   I wouldn't consider that bad form, but I don't have a problem if other folks do.  Hence my comment about varying levels of tolerance.

I think it would be interesting to come up with an Index of sorts. (reasonably objective)  Sort of playing off of Atlas' system of foobie designations but expanded a bit and maybe tacked on to Spookshow's data or something.   I'm not sure it would be great for the hobby since people get so caught up in attaching a negative connotation (as we see here, and quite honestly I'll admit to being guilty of it at times over the years) and not considering the fact that a model might not get done at ANY foob level or at very least in a timeframe that is appropriate.

[Puddington]

I honestly think there are a small cadre of guys out there that genuinely believe that ANY prototype can and will be brought to the market, regardless of it's obscurity, rarity, geographical limitation or years of operation. It's that rock solid belief (read delusion) that fuels the fever they have against anyone putting paint on plastic for a "close enough", "close to" or "ah, what the hell, it has wheels" version of a particular model. No matter that there were only 12 of them on one road for 3 years and they never left New Mexico; Kato will HAVE to do them for us... right ? (and don't get them started on the "scratch build or model something kick; they are past that now; they expect RTR service thank you very much.......)

The funny thing is; if an obvious foob is out there that fact doesn't necessarily mean a manufacturer won't make a prototypical version at some point. There were lots of foob FP9A's out there (well; F7's and F9's with paint on them anyway) when Jason brought out out FP9A.... There's a well established RDC in the HO market and yet, we're doing RDC 1's, 2's and 3's..... But that cadre of 100 % accurate or bust guys would have you think that "fobbing" a Great Northern duplex sleeper means that it's a fact that someone won't someday announce an Empire Builder with the correct sleeper.... they'll tell you it's a mortal lock.... it isn't.

I tried recently to describe "modellers vs model railroaders" to a client who was advocating for a specific model. When the majority of the revenue dollars still comes from model railroaders, those who might like a $ 325.00 locomotive but also are more likely to buy a $ 99.00 loco with pretty paint on it then the hard core modellers who would gladly mortgage the house for an accurate "x" then you have to make sure that, as a manufacturer, you are balancing your offerings to a degree that allows you to attract dollars from both in a proportion that supports your costs and profit expectations. Play to the $ 99.00 guys too much and you lose your "rep" with the hard core and they won't trust or support your high end projects when they come (Hello Bachmann...?). Play to the modellers too much and risk putting yourself out of the mind of a large group of mainstream buyers who look at you as too specialized, too detailed (yep; it gets said...) and too expensive... (Hello, Rapido... )

It's a bit of a high wire act............ but the fact remains that foobies, stand in's, close enough's or what ever you call them have a place and serve a valuable purpose in the hobby and do not significantly detract from the possibility of prototypical models being offered, if the market is right.