Cool , no modern info crapola , I can squeeze this into the late 50's and it wont look out of place . https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-...AAAAOXc/6QmQ1SqTp7A/s400/tb_special_run_2.jpg
Does it really matter? I know that what I’m about to write is going to open the floodgates of attacks, but here I go. It seems to me that the artwork posted for the special run car has brought out the nitpickers and rivet counters and that they have forgot why this car is being commissioned in the first place. Does it really matter if The AAR Class is an ‘XM’ or ‘XML’? The AAR Class was changed and when? The wheels are 33 inch or 36 inch? The number is 250519 or 250518, or even the correct series? The color has more red then brown? That it was built in 63 or 64? The door is 8 feet or 9 feet wide? It fits into a certain era? You don't have to use it. Try to sell it on the Bay for a major profit. The purpose of this car is to SUPPORT TrainBoard while providing a tangible object in return for that support. I just wonder how much nitpicking there would be if the tangible object was a coffee mug or a tee shirt. [FONT=&]Before anyone asks, YES I did order one, the day they were announced.[/FONT] Regards, Gary
Good points Gary but while we have the chance to fix any small issues, which we still do, we can make those changes before they run the cars. We sure do appreciate everyone's support on this project. Sent from my Motorola Electrify using Tapatalk 2
Yes it matters a lot . Would you have spent that much for a stone ? So it's a freight car . Now we are so enamored with that fact and the Trainboard that we become blind to era , and details . Not me , not that rich . The Trainboard wants my money and this is a carrot to get it . I want that carrot to be as enticing to me to as my money is to the Trainboard . In this case I am bending a couple of years because I want to because I think it looks like it could fit in 1959 . I love the cars looks , and I hope the Trainboard loves the looks of my money . I just hope Micro-Trains don't add any ACI or other info to the car . I am trusting what I see I get .
I did not order a stone or a freight car, I made additional donation to TrainBoard this year and for my extra generosity I am getting a Micro-Trains car as a thank you.
Guys, There is nothing to argue about here. The proceeds of the car will *technically* go to support TrainBoard. I say "technically" because as explained earlier, we are not going to pocket the proceeds but we are going to use them to try and do this again. We have an announcement to make after this project that will be interesting. We appreciate people being willing to order the car in order to support TrainBoard, even if it is not a car that they would have purchased had it been released as part of Micro-Trains (or any other manufacturer's) regular releases. We will attempt to get the car as close to perfect as possible before it is actually produced, thus our posts here showing what it looks like (as of this point in time). We do so in order for people to point out corrections, etc., which has already been done and easily corrected. We are going to obsess over anything but we will make changes if they can be done so easily in order to get it as close to perfect as possible. Charlie
So let's start over. This is the car you're doing right? http://www.railcarphotos.com/PhotoDetails.php?PhotoID=52913 Why not just match what's on that car since it's the same number (minus the ACI and assignment lettering) and call it done ? This would require changing much of the demi data but you can read it all in the photo. Looking at several pictures, a couple things are clear. The Build date look to be '5-62'. And even though the car is listed as "XL" in the ORER at this later date, it is clearly marked as "XM" on the side of the car. But regardless of what you put as the build date, the "NEW" date should be the same as the "BLT" date. Jason
I think you missed a major phrase I included in my Incremental Information on this car, which I will quote for your convenience: "Depending on your implementation of Rule #1..." also known as "It's your railroad." No one twists anyone's arm to purchase anything or to read any post. BTW if you think this is nitpicking, I can cheerfully direct you to other venues online where releases are (selectively, depending on who makes them) dissected down to the sub-atomic level and openly mocked and anyone who dares dissent is punted, either literally or via "the great ignore." Part of my posting was to show that even within the same car series over time, there are going to be differences. Or you might consider them to be opportunities to be flexible. It's up to you. An aside to Richie (UP1950): MTL has yet to include an ACI label on any of their cars as far as I know and I doubt that they will start with this release. The Micro-Scale decal set 60-1, among others I believe, has plenty of ACI labels for those who want to place this car in that Approximate Time Period, which began in 1968. Oops, there I go giving unhelpful information again... I apologize. Not. I think I ordered Car #33, but it's been a while since I hit the "Order" button. I think this will be a nice car for a seldom-modeled railroad in what is possibly a never-before-modeled paint scheme.
Jason, thanks for really confusing me (he says with a big laugh). I've now seen photos of cars from the same series, at the approximate same point in their lifetimes, with different AAR classes applied. So it is easy to see that there is variation, and that even the real RR's have problems with consistency, perhaps. The question then becomes, I suppose, is the artwork "good enough?" Is there anything that would really make people unhappy with the car? I admit that I ordered mine artwork unseen, and despite recognition of some inconsistencies I'm overall pleased with the look of it.
I wouldn't mind if in the same size lettering as CAPY , if it said TRAINBOARD 2013 close to the sill on either side of the door . Something like this https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-Onmvwqt3kmk/UNTJYGqfwZI/AAAAAAAAOX4/_20JyAD5gzY/s800/tb_special_run_2%20a.JPG If someone wanted that off it could be patched out to look like a repair , but it's so understated one would hardly be offended , I would be happy to celebrate and give it the kudos as rightfully it deserves .
Since I ordered two , one each for my two frt roads. I am anxious that the marks on the car be correct , correct as can be as this is not some offering by a manufacturer that is " close" . This car is SPECIAL , and I belive that it needs to show it in it's prototypical livery if at all possible .Of all the time we have championed for correctness, this is the opportunity to have at least one RTR that is , and we have the wherewithall to make that happen BEFORE it gets cast . Paul
This is the most cogent argument I've heard yet for why we should obsess over the details on this car.
We're going to do the best we can. If you fellows have detailed information we are putting together a little group to hash this out before we have the car run. It shouldn't take long to get it figured out. Charlie
and I don't here anyone arguing that since it is a MT car, it probably won't ride at the proper height!!! Having said that, I ordered mine a long time ago anyway but it is the only new MT car I have bought in a long time and I have bought a lot of new cars lately.