Train sets and inaccuracies

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:

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...

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=============

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:

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:

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.

Yup. This time of year, we like to say "Yup, those (USN) SBDs are still clobbering Pearl Harbor....".

:D

Kennedy

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

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

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.

They still muckeled the thing up poorly.

Jim Stewart

I always marvel how these discussions get off message. Originally I think it was a complaint on how inaccurate train sets were. They are just that...........train sets for kids or entry level folks. I seriously think if a set were packaged with historically accurate rolling stock and locos vs. bright colored high cube box cars, red ATSF cabeese, and PRR steam locos of UP design it would jump off of the shelf. What ever gets folks into hobby is good in my opinion. Give them a chance to mature and learn, then they'll eventually seek out the accurate. Also train set manufacturers put out these sets because people seem to buy them. I'd hate to risk this delicate balance of nature, as all in the hobby are fighting attrition..........a major concern coming from the promoter of a fairly large train show. HZ

=> 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)

=>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.

Oh, the train set makers do know all that. But the buying public doesn't. Trains are still choo-choos, even though the real trains are hauled by diesels. Train sets are marketed as toys, not models, so a bit of artistic license is acceptable.

Wolf Kirchmeir ................................. If you didn't want to go to Chicago, why did you get on this train? (Garrison Keillor)

Or maybe, just maybe, that's what the train set buyers want!

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

Bzzzt! I'm sure I know the shots you're talking about, and that was no stuntman. That was CGI. I have to say that while some of the CGI in that movie was a little obvious (the first wraparound shot of the ship as it sailed, for example), there is an absolutely astounding amount of CGI that you'd never know or suspect was there. Almost *all* of the water shots as the ship was sinking, including the people falling into it, was CGI. Any time you saw water while the stern of the ship was in the air, that's all CGI.

Obviously, even with CGI it's cheaper to just re-use what you've already done, so I'm not saying they didn't re-use the same shot. They probably did.

I am 100% sure they know, and I am 100% sure they do this on purpose. How exciting is it for the average person to buy a train set with a UP diesel and 5 identical UP box cars?

It seems like they probably just mix it up for variety's sake. Nobody ever claims these sets are accurate on the box (they may claim the individual

*parts* are accurate, but not the whole train). They're just to give people a lot of pretty colors to look at so they'll buy the train.

Accurate train sets do exist, anyway, though mostly passenger trains, I think. Most sets are not complete (you can really only fit so many cars in a set before it gets too big and/or expensive, and it's always easy enough to add cars later), but many are accurate as far as what's there. Look at sets like the Spectrum Acela Express, Walthers' new Super Chief or any of Kato's Shinkansen trains - those are just a few examples. But those are pretty hardcore sets; not the kind you usually find in Wal-Mart, which is what I think you're talking about. Those are mainly toys anyway, and the manufacturers are just trying to sell sets with variety.

// Jeff Williams // snipped-for-privacy@yahoo.com

AP> What's the deal with the makers of train sets? Look at some of the AP> combinations of rolling stock they mix up and sell in a set. AP> You will see a steam engine, a box car lettered for BN, a Canadian AP> grain hopper, etc, etc.. It's as if the train set makers haven't AP> figured out some of that stuff just didn't occur together in real AP> life.

Which *brands* of train sets are you looking at? I would not expect Botchman, etc. to have much of a clue. OTOH, such sets are meant as 'toys', so they are put together from a childs point-of-view: colorful cars, etc.

AP> AP> Also, shows like Andy Griffith are also mixed up on trains and rolling AP> stock. AP> Example, it showed Barney coming home or leaving for Raleigh, NC on a AP> UNION PACIFIC passenger train!! In NC, in the 1960's? Noooo. That is

Probably filmed in LA at the LA train station (where a UNION PACIFIC passenger train would be quite at home). You really think that they would film such as low-budget program on *location* in NC?

AP> just incorrect depictions of actual life. Also, Andy was dealing with AP> a hobo in one episode. AP> At the end of the show you hear a steam engine blow its whistle and AP> Andy tells the hobo "I hear your train." Wait. Steam power was phased

Probably some stock, canned audio from who knows when.

AP> out of most major rail lines by 1960. Yet this show was filmed 61-62. AP> If a steam engine was in use, it would be on a something like a AP> logging railroad, not a major road. AP> The show's writers failed to research the background of railroads, in AP> my opinion.

Hollywood has no clue about railroads. Never has, probably never will. Almost every movie or TV program featuring trains will be seriously loaded with gratious errors.

AP> AP> Any one else observe stuff like this? AP>

\/ Robert Heller ||InterNet: snipped-for-privacy@cs.umass.edu

|| snipped-for-privacy@deepsoft.com /\FidoNet: 1:321/153

"Edward A. Oates" , In a message on Fri, 09 Jan 2004 17:52:04 GMT, wrote :

"AO> Though I agree with you that TV and movies should do their research on "AO> trains, cars, airplanes, etc., it will never happen because they don't care "AO> and the viewing public doesn't either. It's sort of like trying to get rid "AO> if the sounds of explosions in space and fires on weightless space ships in "AO> which the flames go up.

The *original* Star Trek attempted to have a properly soundless flyby of the Enterprise during the opening, by the network execs asked Gene R. to add a 'woosh' sound effect, even though it really should not be there.

Only a *few* space movies managed to have accurately silent space travel (2001, Solaris) and only in recent times (since Star Wars) has there been much attempt to produce gravitationally correct explosions in space (ILM filmed the explosions from underneath).

"AO> "AO> Tilting at windmills says I. "AO> "AO> Ed. "AO> "AO> in article snipped-for-privacy@posting.google.com, A. Paul at "AO> snipped-for-privacy@ipa.net wrote on 1/9/04 9:45 AM: "AO> "AO> > What's the deal with the makers of train sets? Look at some of the "AO> > combinations of rolling stock they mix up and sell in a set. "AO> > You will see a steam engine, a box car lettered for BN, a Canadian "AO> > grain hopper, etc, etc.. It's as if the train set makers haven't "AO> > figured out some of that stuff just didn't occur together in real "AO> > life. "AO> > "AO> > Also, shows like Andy Griffith are also mixed up on trains and rolling "AO> > stock. "AO> > Example, it showed Barney coming home or leaving for Raleigh, NC on a "AO> > UNION PACIFIC passenger train!! In NC, in the 1960's? Noooo. That is "AO> > just incorrect depictions of actual life. Also, Andy was dealing with "AO> > a hobo in one episode. "AO> > At the end of the show you hear a steam engine blow its whistle and "AO> > Andy tells the hobo "I hear your train." Wait. Steam power was phased "AO> > out of most major rail lines by 1960. Yet this show was filmed 61-62. "AO> > If a steam engine was in use, it would be on a something like a "AO> > logging railroad, not a major road. "AO> > The show's writers failed to research the background of railroads, in "AO> > my opinion. "AO> > "AO> > Any one else observe stuff like this? "AO> "AO> -- "AO> Ed Oates "AO>

"AO> DCC wiring information is at "AO> To help eliminate spam and scams, send it to FTC gov "AO> (hee hee hee: Happy spam bot message) "AO> "AO> "AO>

\/ Robert Heller ||InterNet: snipped-for-privacy@cs.umass.edu

|| snipped-for-privacy@deepsoft.com /\FidoNet: 1:321/153