I was just looking at the newest issue of CTT and there were advertisements in there from MTH and K-Line. Where do they get some of their ideas to make up variations of locomotives or put a railroad’s name on an engine they never owned. Sometimes they even make up their own paint scheme for that railroad; some people see that one of these companies made a certain engine, so then they believe the model to be prototypical. What the heck? These companies should be more like Lionel and Atlas and stick to more realistic models.
I always liked the LIONEL blue Conrail steam locomotives!
I sure hope they don’t follow your advice! I doubt that they will, so I’m really not all that worried.
As for the people who may be misled by any locomotive made by a toy train manufacturer: Well, they obviously didn’t do their homework! There are thousands of books out there that more than adequately document anything the prototype roads ever had. Sticklers for precise realism and accuracy should probably do a good bit of research before buying, and/or wait for Atlas to release the model they want. For the vast majority of us toy train enthusiasts, though, I suspect it doesn’t really matter if Railroad X never operated Locomotive Y. Make it in a roadname we prefer, even a purely fanciful one, and we’ll likely go for it.
You want prototype? Find me a major carrier–or even a not-so-major one–that is operating over track with a center rail (and on significantly oversize rails, at that). Seems to me that the two-rail O scale enthusiast may have a point in seeking across-the-board accuracy, but I sure don’t see that standard being applicable to the three-rail toy train world.
My personal feeling is that these major firms should really get back to basics–the sooner, the better. This business of trying to cater to the individual interests of the rivet-counting crowd may not lead to their downfall, but it darn sure isn’t going to help them grow. Truth is, I think that most of them have already recognized that.
Just my own humble opinion on the subject.
I strongly suggest that you avoid Williams’ website, because your head will most likely explode. [;)]
There’s a reason they are called Classic TOY Trains.
I personally enjoy the whimsical aspect of toy trains. I like my gatemen to tower over the trains, having couplers the size of volkswagens and carper for grass - adds to the charm!
I was a “scale” modeler for many years in HO. Nothing wrong with that, but it can get a bit tiresome to put a lot of work and effort into the paint, decals, details and weathering on a model only to have some yahoo critcize it for having the wrong number of vents on the doors or the builders plate 3 inches out of position.
It is a hobby, after all.
End of sermon.
[#ditto]
Good sermon.
You mean my satellite car, giraffe car, sheriff &outlaw car, roadrunner car and aquarium car all made by Lionel are not prototypical. Where’s the trash can?
I think we could use more tolerance and less name-calling. There is room for a wide range of approaches to toy-model trains. And whether the other guy prefers counting rivets or making giraffes duck, it’s no skin off anyone else’s nose.
All good points here. I do understand to some degree where Railbullfan is coming from. The train companies have gone to great lengths in their own PR and advertising to tell us how “real” and “prototypical” their products are. I’ve actally had the owner of one train company tell me “that idea is not prototypical.”
You all know I’m not a big fan of all this expensive scale stuff and the direction the hobby overall has headed. On the otherhand, I do understand there are those who do like these more scale detailed trains. So if you are dropping $500 on a single train engine (or more!) I think it is reasonable to expect that the product will be as “accurate” as the manufacturer so-often likes to claim it acutally is. On the other hand, griping about the non-prototypical fuel tank on a $125 engine is unfair.
As far as unprototypical goes, yeah, I wi***he companies would put some more modern roadnames on the basic starter trains… models of trains that never really did have those road names. Yes, the Alco FA2 was long retired before any of thoday’s big railroads came to be, but I’d still like to see it with some modern roads. I’ll have an Alco FA2 in the CSX orange MOW scheme that always gets comments like “who makes that one?” “Is that an uncataloged loco?.. I really like it.”
And scoobster… who made a blue Conrail steamer? I’m unaware of that one myself. I’ve always thought it’d be a good idea for Lionel to can the NYC and PRR road names on the “Flyer” starter sets and make one a Norfolk Southern Flyer Set. Heck, the black color of the steamer would be prototypical if nothing else!!
Bob, I honestly don’t see any name calling here. Simply some honest disagreement expressed in a civil manner by the posters.
You are absolutely correct that there is a wide range of approaches to toy-model trains. At the same time, I think we each have a right to disagree over statements such as, “I think the manufacturers should ( insert opinion ).” I appreciate railbullfan starting this thread. I am sure he did so with the understanding that he would receive replies. I certainly intended him no disrespect by disagreeing with him, as I hope you understand that I intend no disrespect to you.
To me, part of the fun of forums is the ability to address topics and opinions and debate them. But I will agree with you that name-calling has no place on this forum. I just don’t see where that happened in this case.
When it comes to 3rail toy trains, I don’t care if they paint the dang Locomotive “PINK”! Well heck…Lionel sure did back in 1957! K-line did too!
If you want scale and prototypical paint schemes there are plenty of them available! Some folks are happy to have any locomotive in their favorite paint scheme or they just like a little whimsy and fun! Especially K-I-D-S! Which a lot of the toy train stuff is all about anywho! Lighten up or go scale!
brianel027,
Lionel did in either the late 1980’s or the early 1990s. I remember seeing advertisements in Model Railroader. It was their typical 2-4-0 steam locomotive if I remember correctly and there was a completely blue engine and tender with Conrail can openers on the tender, a completely green engine and tender with SOUTHERN on the tender, and a third that I don’t remember. I thought they were funny looking then, and that hasn’t changed. I will see if I can dig up the model railroader it was in.
When it comes to 3rail toy trains, I don’t care if they paint the dang Locomotive “PINK”! Well heck…Lionel sure did back in 1957! K-line did too!
If you want scale and prototypical paint schemes there are plenty of them available! Some folks are happy to have any locomotive in their favorite paint scheme or they just like a little whimsy and fun! Especially K-I-D-S! Which a lot of the toy train stuff is all about anywho! Lighten up or go scale!
The CTT forum discussing “prototypes”! Sounds like a possible definition of oxymoron to me! [:)] Or is it? I think CTT does a great job of balancing their coverage of toy train and more prototypically detailed train layouts…maybe because there isn’t enough business for just one or the other? Anyhow, at the end of the day this is a hobby and is suppose to be fun. If folks get upset about lack of detail then I’d say they may be more into modeling and less into playing with toy trains. Now that I’m back from HO land I see though where the terms used can be a little upsetting. See when I am downstairs “modeleing” it sounds… well more professional than I’m down stairs “playing”… but I’m really still doing the same thing! I am struggling with trying to select a track style for the new layout. I think my rivet counting evil twin still has influence as I can’t quite agree to go tubular… but you can still have a nicely detailed layout without Gragraves!
Jim
I’m pretty sure I know the ad you mean. It was on the back cover of some issues of CTT in 1993. These engines were each numbered 2000, but the blue engine had a tender lettered for Jersey Central, not Conrail. I guess you could call it a poor man’s Blue Comet. I can definitely see how you would have thought it was Conrail, though.
On a related note, Marx made Penn Central steam engines back in the 70’s. Previously, their 400, 666 and 1666 steam engines were sold with NYC tenders, but after PRR and NYC merged into PC in 1968, they “updated” them by switching to PC tenders. At least the paint scheme was correct-all flat black.
I read in the mags,on the web,concern about where new 3rd railers will come from.If unprototypical locos,decoration etc will attract some youngsters away from gameboys,ipods and computer games,would that not be good?Remember when you ran your trains as fast as possible and now are not happy if they wont start at two mph?Lets hope these people will be attracted by these things to our hobby. roger
BOYS they are TOY TRAINS, dang it have fun and play nice.
laz57