Train sets and inaccuracies

What's the deal with the makers of train sets? Look at some of the combinations of rolling stock they mix up and sell in a set.
You will see a steam engine, a box car lettered for BN, a Canadian grain hopper, etc, etc.. It's as if the train set makers haven't figured out some of that stuff just didn't occur together in real life.
Also, shows like Andy Griffith are also mixed up on trains and rolling stock. Example, it showed Barney coming home or leaving for Raleigh, NC on a UNION PACIFIC passenger train!! In NC, in the 1960's? Noooo. That is just incorrect depictions of actual life. Also, Andy was dealing with a hobo in one episode. At the end of the show you hear a steam engine blow its whistle and Andy tells the hobo "I hear your train." Wait. Steam power was phased out of most major rail lines by 1960. Yet this show was filmed 61-62. If a steam engine was in use, it would be on a something like a logging railroad, not a major road. The show's writers failed to research the background of railroads, in my opinion.
Any one else observe stuff like this?
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Though I agree with you that TV and movies should do their research on trains, cars, airplanes, etc., it will never happen because they don't care and the viewing public doesn't either. It's sort of like trying to get rid if the sounds of explosions in space and fires on weightless space ships in which the flames go up.
Tilting at windmills says I.
Ed.
in article snipped-for-privacy@posting.google.com, A. Paul at snipped-for-privacy@ipa.net wrote on 1/9/04 9:45 AM:

--
Ed Oates
http://home.earthlink.net/~edoates
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Well, it's also because most TV shows _set_ in the east are actually _filmed_ in the west - if you need a shot of a train, it's a lot cheaper to run out to the train tracks and shoot the first one to go by than to send a crew across the continent to shoot the "right" train.
Even moreso, most shows use "stock footage", reusing clips orginally made for movies and such... Again, if you don't want to spend untold hours looking through the archives, you just grab what's closest to the door. It's a lot easier now with digital archives and computers than it was in the 1960s!

As far as the "sound in space", well, it's actually been tried. The pilot for the original Star Trek series did NOT have a "whoosh" sound as the Enterprise flew across the screen in the opening credits, for exactly that reason... but it bothered people enough that it was added for the regular run of the show.
Trains isn't the only place this happens, though... Remember the (bad) movie "Ice Station Zebra"? It had a flight of "Russian" aircraft that kept changing back and forth from _three_ models of MiG 21's in shots from an "aerial" POV, to _FOUR_ F4 Phantom IIs in "flyover" shots from a "ground" POV.

LOL... but they're such nice big targets... <<grin>>
The WORST "train set" gaffe I ever saw was one sold at Toys'R'Us a few years ago... It was a battery powered "N _SCALE_" set... at least according to the box. However, the set was "N scale" in width and height... but HO in length!
That's right, the "models" were about twice as long as they should have been for their width and height. They had a Santa Fe Warbonnet F3 as the locomotive, and the Lionel keychain F3 in the same paint job in 1:160 hanging right next to it. Same height - same width... but twice as long as the Lionel piece. It was pathetic. -- Joe Ellis € CEO Bethlehem-Ares Railroad - A 1:160 Corp. ___a________n_mmm___mmm_mmm_mmm___mmm_mmm_mmm___mmm_n______ ___|8 8B| ___ /::::: / /::::X/ /:::::/ /:::::/|| ||__BARR| | | /::::::/ /:::::X /:::::/ /:::::/ || ---------------------------------------------------------------- [(=)=(=)=(=)=(=)] |_________________________| [(=)=(=)=(=)=(=)] =============Serving America's Heartland Since 1825============
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Another recent example is the downright HORRIBLE "Pearl Harbor" movie. They loused up just about everything that could be loused up. History be dammed! Aside from a general reference to the US Naval base being attacked by the Japanese, and a lot people getting hurt or killed, there was almost NOTHING correct in the whole movie. Some of the special effects were pretty good, if inaccurate. A bigger mess of hogwash I've rarely seen. IMMENSE threads lambasting this movie ran in the military groups. Boy, does Tora-Tora-Tora look GOOD by comparison, even if the special effects are dated!
Hmmm ... If the better special effects footage from "PH" could be cut into "TTT" it might make a pretty good movie!
Dan Mitchell ========Joe Ellis wrote:

<snip>
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Some of us have been saying that with all the new costuming and accurate gear and CGI effects, a good movie to be remade would be The Green Berets...
Kennedy
--
-------------------- http://NewsReader.Com/ --------------------
Usenet Newsgroup Service New Rate! $9.95/Month 50GB
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

That isn't as bad as the recent sub film about us capturing the enigma machine from a German U-boat in 1940. Brits still say we don't know our history.....
Jim Stewart
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Early reviews of the film did say it was the Brits and not us. I believe also in the trailers (you watch those, right?) it did say something about the sub that actually captured the enigma or at less something to that effect.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

something
that
They still muckeled the thing up poorly.
Jim Stewart
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Actually, they "muckeled" it up quite well! :-(
Accuracy is quite a different matter.
Dan Mitchell ========Jim Stewart wrote:

Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Jon Miller wrote:

Whatever - it was still Hollywood formulaic schlock. Get the director's cut DVD of Das Boot. Watch it in German with the subtitles. See what they did using "primitive" in-camera effects and model shots, immensely better than the U-571 stuff done 20 years later - and a much better story as well.
Fun commentary track as well.
--
Steve Caple

Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Steve Caple wrote:

Ja, eine U-boot gehört ein immer dazu!
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Sure enough! Another fine example of revisionist history.
Fantasy is FUN, but history should stay history.
Dan Mitchell ========Jim Stewart wrote:

Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

According to P W Higginbotham in "The Ultra Secret", the Brits were approached by some Poles that had built copies of the machine for the Germans, saw what was coming, and offered it to the French. The French refused it. The British grabbed it, installed it in Bletchley Park, outside of London, and were reading German signals through most of the war.
Once America got in the war, Ike was briefed on it and was thrilled at once. It was kept a secret among top American general staff.
However, the machine did have a downside.
Churchill knew the raid on Coventry was coming. Should he evacuate the town and tip his hand, or sacrifice citizens and keep the secret?
Jay CNS&M North Shore Line - "First and fastest"
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Fri, 09 Jan 2004 13:50:46 -0500, Daniel A. Mitchell wrote:
=> Boy, does Tora-Tora-Tora look GOOD by comparison, even if the =>special effects are dated!
One of the best war movies of all time IMO, and historically more accurate than most.
Wolf Kirchmeir ................................. If you didn't want to go to Chicago, why did you get on this train? (Garrison Keillor) <just one w and plain ca for correct address>
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Battle of Britain isn't bad for a fictionalised version of what really happened given it was made in 1968 when few of the original aircraft models were around.
Many of the events shown in the movie were based on actually events in W.W.II, as were all of the leading (fictional characters) roles, on both sides.
-- Cheers Roger T.
Home of the Great Eastern Railway www.highspeedplus.com/~rogertra
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Daniel A. Mitchell wrote:

I don't think so. PH has those airplanes going way too fast and making maneuvers that are physically impossible (A WWII plane can't pull 11 Gs and stay together). Makes it look like a cartoon to me. Artificial effects would describe it better.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
I DID say the 'better' special effects footage. There is SOME in 'PH'.
But, as you say, a lot of it, while it may look good, is just plain inaccurate.
Dan Mitchell ========SleuthRaptorman wrote:

Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@mindspring.com (Joe Ellis) wrote:

Yup. This time of year, we like to say "Yup, those (USN) SBDs are still clobbering Pearl Harbor....".
:D
Kennedy
--
-------------------- http://NewsReader.Com/ --------------------
Usenet Newsgroup Service New Rate! $9.95/Month 50GB
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Every day, in most every type of show. It's nothing new ... most older films and TV shows were every bit as bad.
Much of the problem is "stock footage" ... they need a clip of a train, they get one from a stock footage collection, probably the first one they find, and splice it in. So it's a GG-1 in an old west flick ... they don't know, and don't care, and neither does 98% of the audience.
Look at the old, and some newer, war movies. Generically, the hero takes off in a P-40, dogfights the enemy in a P-51, shoots a Japanese Zero, a German pilot bails out of a stricken Me109, and the hero lands in a P-38! Everybody cheers!
Every naval documentary ever made (I think) used footage of the British battleship HMS Barham rolling over and blowing up (after hitting a mine) to represent every warship that ever exploded! Another favorite is the Austro-Hungarian battleship (Szent Istvan?) capsizing with the unfortunate crew crawling over the sides and bottom as the ship rolls. That footage shows up EVERYWHERE in war films.
Currently, the History Channel is particularly BAD with this sort of thing. Most of the RR and Military presentations are complete GARBAGE as far as the 'visuals' go. Only those few who know something about the subject matter are appalled. And, when you see something you KNOW something about so badly mishandled, it makes you wonder how much you can believe for those things YOU don't know much about. Not much!
And most people still don't know, and don't care.
Dan Mitchell ========"A. Paul" wrote:

Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Fri, 09 Jan 2004 13:31:17 -0500, Daniel A. Mitchell

Even when the make it up, they get it wrong. In Titanic, when the ship is sinking, (You knew the ship sank, right? The rest of the film was more predictable than that.) There are two shots of a "high fall" about ten minutes apart. Even on the first viewing, I could clearly see that it was a shot of the same stuntman doing the same fall from the same camara angle, with the appropriate costume added in post production.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Polytechforum.com is a website by engineers for engineers. It is not affiliated with any of manufacturers or vendors discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.