Board Size Comparison on wooden freight cars.

[Nato]

          :|OK Petski, This one is for you and all the other lumber counters here at TRW. Some comparison photos. Thanks Robert 3985 . First shot, left to right, Rapido Trains Swift Reefer, Trix  UP caboose, Micro Trains wood caboose. Clearly the Trix car with its clunky roof walks takes first place followed by the Rapido of Canada car. MT car has normal board spacing. Second Photo, view of other side, L to R Rapido reefer,Trix Caboose, brown custom build by Robert 3985 MT caboose. Third photo Rapido of Canada Swift Reefer, Old Old Arnold Rapido of Germany reefer, Con Cor wood Swift car. The Rapido of Canada is the clear winner or looser in board spacing. "That's that's all Folks!" for now.                               Nate Goodman (Nato).   

[peteski]

And here Nato brings up the Rapido reefer's exaggerated board gaps, just as I almost forgot about that (and how passionate I was about it).  Nice job!   

[ednadolski]

The Rapido of Canada is the clear winner or looser in board spacing.

@Nato , I don't mean for this to come across as snarky or anything, but I gotta say that after looking at the ride height, flange size, coupler size, etc. it's not the board spacing that jumps out first (at least to my eye)

Ed

[learmoia]

Nothing stands out to me because the photos are taken from a distance. With low resolution uploads..

Excluding the vintage caboose, the only thing I can notice is I can see board lines on the Rapido car, but I cant see them on the MT caboose or the other 2 reefers.

So... I assume all cars have board gaps if the photos are taken up close.. or high res with sharp focus.  The Rapido car looks more like the vintage caboose than the others.

[peteski]

Nothing stands out to me because the photos are taken from a distance. With low resolution uploads..

Excluding the vintage caboose, the only thing I can notice is I can see board lines on the Rapido car, but I cant see them on the MT caboose or the other 2 reefers.

So... I assume all cars have board gaps if the photos are taken up close.. or high res with sharp focus.  The Rapido car looks more like the vintage caboose than the others.

I suspect that Nate doesn't realize that TRW automatically downsizes uploaded photos to 1024 pixels across.  So even if the original photo was very high res, it no longer is.  Me being me, I down-sample my photos to 1024 or smaller before uploading here.  That way I see exactly what others will see.

[basementcalling]

I suspect that Nate doesn't realize that TRW automatically downsizes uploaded photos to 1024 pixels across.  So even if the original photo was very high res, it no longer is.  Me being me, I down-sample my photos to 1024 or smaller before uploading here.  That way I see exactly what others will see.

Mastery. Epic.

Only Peteski could make a thread about board size on his favorite brand of reefer about picture size.

We are not worthy.

[Maletrain]

Well, not to be argumentative (but, this is TRW  ), I can see those boards clearly enough by (in Chrome on Windows 10) clicking on an image and then on "Open Image in New Tab", then going to that new tab and enlarging the image beyond 100% with the zoom feature.  So, Nate's images seem to be good enough to make his point about the differences.

But, I think there is a dichotomy in small scales like N, between how things look when viewed on a layout and how things look under a macro lens for those "Is it real, or is it N scale?" photos.  And, I think the on-layout effect is very dependent on the individual person's eyesight.  I have friends who want exaggerated details because they say they "disappear" when made scale sized, and they expect those details to be there.  Myself, I tend to prefer scale size or skip that detail.  But, my eyesight is better than most, and I enjoy photography, too. 

[CRL]

Very true. There’s a tendency to model n-scale details much larger than scale. Take for instance the surface of an asphalt road which is typically modeled using the scale equivalent of fist sized “gravel” so the viewer can see the texture. In reality, an asphalt road surface should be similar in texture to a fine emory cloth. Building details are also oversized. A 4x4 porch support or fence post is smaller than the material I’ve seen frequently used. It might look ok from a distance but horribly oversized when viewed up close.

[peteski]

Back to the discussion.  Yes, in N scale some details have to be slightly exaggerated to be even visible.  As far as the wood reefer board width goes, and width/dept of the gaps go, as I see it, MTL has the best compromise.

The boards are bit wider than the prototype, and  the gaps are fairly narrow and shallow, but pronounced enough not to be filled with the paint, and still visible by naked eye from a "normal viewing distance" (whatever that might be to the individual).

Other manufacturer's examples shown have much deeper/wider board gaps and the board width is also off by a questionable amount. MTL is a winner here. At least for me.

[thomasjmdavis]

I suppose I am in the "it all depends...." camp.
Many N models of wood cars (this would be true of most early ones, but we occasionally still see examples) have a roof circa 1950.  Granted, this did happen occasionally due to rebuilds, but in general, an USRA car should not have a diagonal panel roof, for instance.  If it has a roof that looks completely out of place, I really don't car about the relative width of board gaps.

Likewise, many N scale cars have steps and ladders that have rungs that are grossly oversized- and if so, I am probably not a customer for that car (although in a few cases where it is not too pronounced, I have made allowances in order to have a particular prototype.

So board gaps may be around 3rd on the list.  For some reason, it does not bother me so much when it is horizontal (on a double sheathed car, for instance). And what I have found is that I tolerate it better on a light painted car with dark lettering than the other way around.  My eye expects there to be delineation between boards, so it being a bit too pronounced does not bother me- unless it is really bad or unless I weather it. The difficulty in weathering a wood car is that it is logical that a lot of the "grime" on a wood car will be soot generated by proximity to steam engines- so weathering a car with big gaps results in alternating road color and black stripes. What does bother me is white lettering, weathered or not, with a bunch of black (or grayish shadowed) vertical stripes running through white lettering.  So, if you will, on Rapido meat reefers, it does not bother me as much on a "GARX" reefer with black lettering as it does on a red Swift car with white lettering.  And I will probably never weather the Swift cars, because I can tell in advance that I will just make things worse.

[Nato]

                Yes Robert and I were aware of the downsizing of the images when uploaded to TRW. Without precise lighting the boards on some of the cars are hard to see unless you blow up some of the photographs. The retro/vintage Trix car is the worse offender followed by the Rapido of Canada Car. I made this thread because of the photo of the Trix car in the retro thread and I mentioned how I sort of upgraded mine with correct Q trucks, but the clunky roof walk and other details do stand out. I would agree that the ride height is a big factor, and the Arnold Rapido Revell Rapido caboose clunky though it was was a low rider and even the MT cars shown in Roberts photos ride somewhat high.The wheels on all of these cars are Fox Valley Low Profile metal except for the Brown Caboose which has LP MT wheels.   Nate Goodman (Nato). 

[peteski]

. . .
What does bother me is white lettering, weathered or not, with a bunch of black (or grayish shadowed) vertical stripes running through white lettering.  So, if you will, on Rapido meat reefers, it does not bother me as much on a "GARX" reefer with black lettering as it does on a red Swift car with white lettering.  And I will probably never weather the Swift cars, because I can tell in advance that I will just make things worse.

Exactly!  The Rapido Swift reefers are probably the most glaring example of how bad the decoration looks on cars with board gaps that are too deep/wide.  With MTL reefers, the board gaps are so shallow/narrow that the ink used for lettering will cover the gap. But the gaps will still be barely noticeable (just like on 1:1 car).  And if someone insists on a more pronounced gap-look, they can always weather the car and add dark wash to bring out the small gaps.

[ncbqguy]

Nato-
I couldn't find good photos online of the missing ones, but you could do a comparison of wood board spacing just with the UP/SP Common Standard cabooses....
Lone Star 000, Revell-Rapido, MRC/TRIX/ConCor, and Micro-Trains!
Charlie Vlk

[learmoia]

I could probably put that comparison together.. (maybe sneak in a BLI stock car too)   

[thomasjmdavis]

.. (maybe sneak in a BLI stock car too)   

I can see that in some focus group chosen from people who model 0-27, you could end up with a majority wanting a view block instead of seeing the moo-cow sound gear.

BUT....why did they make solid sides, instead of molding an actual model of the PRR stockcar with open slats, and providing pieces of styrene that would fit inside to be the viewblock? People who did not want that could slide them out.  Or you could take the viewblocks out, paint cows on them, or download someone's cow decal from Railwire, then re-install.  And by tooling a floor, they could have marketed the non-sound version to those of us who want our stock cars to look like stock cars.