Pennsy ?

[Frisco Larry]

Can anyone tell me if the two cars Lowell Smith is doing are real cars or fantasy cars

https://lowellsmith.net/product/pullman-park-series-3-pennsylvania-valley-forge/

[jmlaboda]

Foobie.

[dougnelson]

The PRR did have several shadow-lined heavyweight cars to run in the Congressional/Senator trains, but they were parlors and cafe cars, not Pullmans.

[peteski]

But it says "PULLMAN" right there on the car!      

[thomasjmdavis]

He almost got me with the ATSF cars.  The shame of it is that with the amount of effort that goes into these things, he could do some amazing prototype models, but I suppose it is all in the eyes of the collector.  He must know his market, but his market isn't me.

I also almost bit also on the Ferdinand Magellan- which could have been a model of the real car - but he opted instead to create a generic and paint it up. 

But I wish him well.  He seems to sell out on just about everything he does, so I can only assume he has a group of collectors out there who are pleased.  And his work sells for good prices in the secondary market. I just wish he would focus more of his skill on producing accurate models of prototype equipment. 

[jmlaboda]

But it says "PULLMAN" right there on the car!      

The issue isn't Pullman, its the paint with the name that is wrong from the start.

Tom Madden's Pullman Car Construction Records (shameless plug, "gotta have it") says none of the cars that carried the name VALLEY FORGE were ever painted in shadowline paint.  NONE!  PERIOD!  Took me a whole three minutes (including time for the database to load) for me to know the answer (man, I've got to fix that).

The car also says "Pennsylvania" in the center of the letterboard showing that the car was then owned by Pennsy and only maintained and leased by Pullman.

Heck, its easy enough for anyone, including you, to look them up.  The database lists nearly every fart that any Pullman car saw during their service as "named" cars that's easy enough to read once each column is understood, easy enough for ANYONE to read, including types of battery boxes and sizes with many having paint records... no shadowline paint listed for them period.  (There were some "named" cars orphaned by Pullman after construction... hard to say why but it may have simply been as easy as the company not being able to keep up with thousands upon thousands of cars without computers... boy, was that ever an ancient time...)

Worse still, never a car named INDEPENDENCE ever... another foob.

And, if a person wants to know even more I recommend the out-of-print (read "expensive") book, The Complete Roster of Heavyweight Pullman Cars, which fills in dispositions of roughly 65% of the cars, something Tom simply has not gone in pursuit of (can't blame him... gotta draw a line somewhere).

[DISCLAIMER]I will be the first to say I am usually rather unforgiving towards errors such as foobs and that is an attitude I am trying to change.  The products are usually top quality and beautiful to have (if I were to run corrugated equipment about five years later, which I am not, having such a car as these would be something I might enjoy).  Lowell Smith sells what modelers could be interested in irregardless of accuracy... they are none the less great products.[/DISCLAIMER]

[peteski]

The issue isn't Pullman, its the paint with the name that is wrong from the start.

I realize that Jerry - that is why I had not one but 3 emoticons at the end of that statement.  I just found the fact that the photo clearly showed the word "Pullman" on that car while the text above it was categorically stating "not Pullmans".  Looks like those emoticons didn't do the job. I should have added a "The above statement was made in-jest." disclaimer in small print under it.

[Frisco Larry]

Thanks, I couldn't find anything about these cars, so I figured they were foobs, but wanted to see if anyone knew something I didn't.

[chicken45]

And today I learned about shadow liners.  I'm thankful for threads like these that bring obscure-ish stuff to light for us kids.

[CBQ Fan]

He almost got me with the ATSF cars.  The shame of it is that with the amount of effort that goes into these things, he could do some amazing prototype models, but I suppose it is all in the eyes of the collector.  He must know his market, but his market isn't me.

I also almost bit also on the Ferdinand Magellan- which could have been a model of the real car - but he opted instead to create a generic and paint it up. 

But I wish him well.  He seems to sell out on just about everything he does, so I can only assume he has a group of collectors out there who are pleased.  And his work sells for good prices in the secondary market. I just wish he would focus more of his skill on producing accurate models of prototype equipment.

I don’t see what the issue is.  He tells you exactly what he is doing and why.  It is kinda like complaining about a used car dealer not building their own inventory.

[jmlaboda]

I realize that Jerry - that is why I had not one but 3 emoticons at the end of that statement

Oh, I know... but always look forward to mentioning Tom's site.  Its top notch but there are still many, many people who know nothing at all about it... that's why I wrote what I did...

[dougnelson]

But it says "PULLMAN" right there on the car!      

The car shown in the photo (John Hancock) is a 30-1 parlor operated by Pullman. I should have said it is not a sleeper as are the Lowell Smith models. Foobs yes, but I was just showing that the PRR did have shadow-lined heavyweights.

[Lemosteam]

The issue isn't Pullman, its the paint with the name that is wrong from the start.

Tom Madden's Pullman Car Construction Records (shameless plug, "gotta have it") says none of the cars that carried the name VALLEY FORGE were ever painted in shadowline paint.  NONE!  PERIOD!  Took me a whole three minutes (including time for the database to load) for me to know the answer (man, I've got to fix that).

Jerry when I need a passenger car reference I come here and look at your signature links.

Why don't you add this one?

[wm3798]

So a heavyweight car is painted to look like a fluted stainless car, which is itself a foobie by definition, but the model of the foobie car is a foobie because it's the wrong car with the wrong paint?  It seems to me they hit the nail on the head! (or was it a screw painted to look like a nail?)

I wonder how long it will be before we actually find the elusive Conrail Steam Locomotive in a prototype photo...  Ed's Law must be enforced!

Lee

[jmlaboda]

Jerry when I need a passenger car reference I come here and look at your signature links.

Why don't you add this one?

Space.  Signatures are limited in size and having something posted isn't always easy to do.  And TRW is very generous... other forums (gasp... "They do exist.") not so much...

So a heavyweight car is painted to look like a fluted stainless car, which is itself a foobie by definition, but the model of the foobie car is a foobie because it's the wrong car with the wrong paint?

Not sure I would call one a foobie simply because, 1) it is a prototype, and 2) it was never advertised as being something its not... it simply was given a bit nicer of a dress making the old girls quite beautiful.  And beautiful they were.

Some roads dressed up some of their older Pullmans (which likely included interior redress as well) making for some beautiful older cars.  Santa Fe shadowlined business cars that lasted in that paint for years what with the cars being modernized, making them very much a different girl.  But others did the same thing in their own paint, applying beautiful new paint schemes to cars so shadowlining isn't so unusual... just something that some chose to use... GM&O's beautiful heavyweights are a perfect example as is the B&O's own.  Many very beautiful cars... many beautiful dresses to wear.