Hot Water posted:phrankenstign posted:Hot Water posted:phrankenstign posted:The fact MTH chose to make such variations between each of the two models would make it silly for them to make each one unlike the prototype in some way. What would be the reason to get very accurate with those differences, and then add a detail totally unlike the prototype? For example: If #44 prototype didn't have lift rings, why would they specifically add them to the model? If MTH's intent was to include the lift rings, it would be simple to find a cab number that DID have the lift rings. (I'm not saying #44 prototype didn't have lift rings---that was just used as an example.) I'm inclined to believe MTH included the lift rings on their #44, because the prototype #44 had them. It's such a prominent detail to add, that it seems non-sensical to put it on a model with a specific cab number that the prototype cab number didn't have.
(I'm not referring to any compromises made to allow the model to negotiate tighter curves or to be compatible with any other O gauge-specific situation.)
It might be time to point out that MTH probably used the Santa Fe painted "F Unit", currently on display at the California State Railroad Museum, as an example for technical details. As has been pointed out by many, MANY people; you can NOT always go by how ANY piece of railroad equipment appears in ANY museum, as being totally accurate for the give era being represented. If you want it totally correct, then you MUST refer to actual photographs of the item, from the exact time frame, you are attempting to model. Some of the worst abominations are pieces that are "on display" in parks & towns all over the country!
Whether you call them abominations or not, I think it's okay if a model is a miniature example of an "on display" prototype. Like I mentioned earlier, if there is at least ONE picture from any time frame of a prototype with a certain paint scheme and options/accoutrements, then a manufacturer could rightfully claim their model to be accurate.
BTW Hot Water, perhaps I'm misinterpreting your tone, but it appears to me you're getting angry.
Yes, I tend to get angry with those folks from museums, city park committees, and "preservationists" in general that do NOT do proper research, but simply "paint up" their display piece because "that looks nice". I have spent almost 60 years in the railroad motive power business, and find it pretty difficult to accept some of the actions of some museums, and city park displays. That said, everyone should visit the Illinois Railway Museum, as those folks REALLY know what they are doing!
If I'm wrong, I apologize. If I'm right, then please calm down. This is just a discussion. There's no need to get emotional about it.
Off topic, but did anyone see that the B&O Museum is restoring its lone remaining EA to its as delivered appearance down to the correct details? I find that quite exciting.
Back on topic, from the photos I've been looking at, it appears that the ATSF F7 347C at the CA Musuem is accurate in everything but its road number. Renumber it to it's prior 306C number and it accurate for its service days on the ATSF.
