Do we over weather our locos and rolling stock?

Model Railroader General Discussion (Model Railroader)
1

I am throwing this out as a point of discussion as opposed to making a definitive statement. Take for example the cab forward that is currently being shown on this website’s home page. It has been weathered to a dull gray. I don’t doubt that some steam locos ended up looking like this. Most of the photos we have of steam are in B/W but we do have some color too. My observation is that most of the pictures I’ve seen the locos still look black with some signs of weathering. The same can be said of rolling stock. Of course most freight cars didn’t look like they just came from the paint shop but it seems to me there is a tendency to overdo it. A little rust and a little grime go a long way toward giving a freight car the look of a working piece of equipment. I’m not sure it is necessary to make them look like they just came through a dust storm or were submerged in salt water.

When it comes to weathering, I think there is no one right amount but it seems to me the heavily weathered look is overdone in this hobby.

2

The key word in weathering is MODERATION, the true test of weathering is when you enjoy looking at a locomotive or car and you don’t really notice that it is weathered, thats when it’s done correctly.

3

Yes,most modelers over weather simply because its been taught over the years. In truth a shipper can refuse a freight car if he feels its unsafe to load. Gons are not beaten by dropping scrap-its a safety hazard to drop steel or flatten vehicles. A shipper can be charged for damaging a freight car.

I prefer a wash of grimy black or India Ink wash with old silver paint for some bare metal spots and a light rust wash along the ribs… I use a Testors wide brush and a detailing (micro brush) for this.

4

Weathering starts the first day a new unit is released and most diesels get really dirty in a few years after climbing over mountain via tunnels. Flat land units are normally cleaner, but the amount of weathering is varied from one unit to another. The amount of weathering is a choice for each person and using a prototype picture for your particular model is a good idea.

5

This has been an ongoing debate ever since John Allen made weathering a standard practice. The late Paul Jansen’s photos of brass steam locomotives that used to grace the Pacific Fast Mail catalogs often showed engines painted gray, in part because the details tend to disappear when things are painted black, particularly gloss black.

That is why prototype steam locomotives and rolling stock were often painted a special shade of gray for original builders’ photographs.

The late John Gascoyne used to use various shades of black and gray to highlight details on the steam locomotives he custom painted or scratch built. When he was accused of over-weathering he pointed out that it depended on what he was modeling – if it was a C&O 4-6-4 for the FFV passenger train it was dark and glossy. If it was a C&O 0-6-0 that never was sent through a wash rack in its career, it looked pretty rough.

But I have seen photos of steam locomotives, such as SP, MoPac, NYC and Pennsy, where the engines did indeed appear gray or at least not very dark, due to the paint being aged, or perhaps for SP, due to sandy terrain or salty air. By contrast for whatever reason Milwaukee Road steam locomotives, even when shown on a dead line or meeting a scrapper’s torch, look very black indeed.

Locally, when Wisconsin Central boxcars were new, or newly painted, the paint was not only shiny like a new car, but was a beautiful deep rich red. As the cars aged the paint first got chalky and lost all gloss, then lightened in color more and more. Some eventually looked nearly pink. The C&NW had some covered hoppers in a beautiful dark green - as they aged not only did the gloss go away but the paint faded in such a way as to turn the cars a shade of blue!

And I have seen gondolas get loaded with scrap where the railroad crane with a magnet drops the scrap from quite a height - and the gons have&

6

Absolutely yes, most people dramatically over-weather.

It is supposed to be subtle.

The thing that drives me crazy about many contemporary modelers is they want a dead flat finish on their motive power, which just is not typical of what is actually out there on the rails.

Even on most relatively boring black NS diesels in service today, there are quite a few areas of shiny black paint, in addition to the sooty streaks, etc.

Especially for those engines in captive yard-transfer service in and around Harrisburg, PA–they may be older high nose GP38’s and the like, but NS keeps them gleaming clean, so clean one could almost eat off them. They are so image conscious that I can’t really name a time that I saw dead flat engines in service…maybe perhaps in storage?

John

7

i had asked why weathered locos are gray and i recall someone saying they looked better when photographed.

but the image below shows a locomotive that still has bright shiny black paint that hasn’t been dulled to flat black or possibly flacked off in areas of high heat. While I think it definetly shows signs of heavy use, it doesn’t show signs of neglect, rust.

8

If I’m not mistaken (famous last words), this is a hobby. For me a hobby is a relaxing pastime that gives me satisfaction and enjoyment. What is good for me may not be good for others, but that is just fine and dandy. If someone wants to weather their locos and rolling stock to look like the grungiest train that ever rolled through their neighborhood, and they enjoy doing that, then that is exactly what they should be doing. I am currently building a Roundhouse locomotive kit and I am building it to look like it just rolled out of the factory and doesn’t have a scratch or spot of grease on it because that is what appeals to me. If I was building a model of a corvette, I would make it look brand new, not like it just drove through a New England snowstorm - covered with salt and road sand. That doesn’t make it right or wrong, it’s just what gives me pleasure as a modeler.

What’s right - what’s wrong ??? Don’t worry about it. Build your model railroad in a way that is pleasing to you, and don’t worry about how others build theirs, or what they think of yours.

9

A few thoughts:

The farther away from the real train you are, the less obvious its weathered condition is - unless of course it is just a pile of rust.

At three feet, in HO, you are 261 scale feet from the model. That is my guide for how stuff should look. I don’t spend much time with my eyes 12" from the model…

Much of today’s detailed weathering is based on up close viewing of the prototype - 20, 30 feet away. My feeling is that always leads to an over weathered model when viewed from layout operating distances.

Railroading is dirty business, more important to me to add some of the dirt, not so much the deterioration…

Some stuff should look nearly new - the railroads do have car washers, steam clearners, paint shops, etc.

I’ve seen color photos from the 50’s, a lot of stuff was in very good condition…

From what I have been able to figure out, steam looked its worst during WWII and right before it all went to the scrap line. Other than those times in history, they were generally kept clean and painted within reason.

Even right after WWII, steam was cleaned, painted, repaired as soon as war traffic levels slowed down - but then maybe not much else done as diesels started to take over.

I like very light generic “dust and dirt” weathering, with just a few hints of rust here and there, very subtle.

A lot of my stuff is unweathered right now, simply because of time being spent elsewhere.

I do like passenger trains and some locos to be nearly perfectly clean…

Sheldon

10

These look pretty weathered to me…

http://www.carrtracks.com/CArgentineKS.jpg

http://s147.photobucket.com/user/VIEWLINER/media/0805/2-Delano.jpg.html

http://railfan.com/photoline/photoline_apr2013/apr2013-02.jpg

http://webapp1.dlib.indiana.edu/collections/cushman/screen/P02955.jpg

http://ogrforum.ogaugerr.com/fileSendAction/fcType/0/fcOid/35076991777140895/filePointer/35076991777141011/fodoid/35076991777141001/imageType/LARGE/inlineImage/true/1yard%20(3).jpg

http://webapp1.dlib.indiana.edu/collections/cushman/screen/P06833.jpg

Steve S

11

While I’m “Forbidden” from viewing your first link, most, if not all, of the others are wartime photos, which generally support Sheldon’s statement:

Each modeller has their own preferences for weathering, from none to “way too much” for all but the ones who like it that way.

I paint and letter all of my locomotives and almost all of my freight and passenger equipment, and everything gets some weathering.

I prefer my locos well-maintained but weathered (the initial weathering done within the paints chosen for the “new” paint job, then supplemented with additional road dirt and grime applied over the paint job).
This one’s still got a sheen on its boiler and, viewed from the right angle, the cab and tender have a definite gloss, but there’s soot along the top of the boiler and cab, and road dust and grime on the pilot, running gear, and flanks of the tender:

Similarly, freight cars’ “new” paint colours are altered as I paint to suggest wear and fading, even if all of the cars are from the same road and same builder’s order. Most such cars then get similar weathering added, but in varying degrees, and then some of those get additional different weathering.Here are a few home road boxcars, all supposedly built between March and July of 1924:

[IMG]http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b399/doctorwayne

12

In the 30’s which I model, neglect and dirt was the norm on most railroads, trackside was very dirty also. As far as shiny paint, the farther you are from the subject, the less shiny things appear in general.

13

DocWayne, outstanding work as usual and excellent advice!

IMHO, Tatans sums it up well.

Only tidbit I’m adding is for modelers (newbs or long-timers) that are curious but hesitant to give weathering a shot: Go light!

Back in the 90s my first weathering job, a bluebox PFE reefer, was a disaster! Made the mistake of trying to achieve a “Penn Central” effect. Didn’t attempt weathering again for a stretch until I eventually realized that I was trying too hard. Weathering should be a relaxing, enjoyable activity.

A very safe route to take is to lightly weather your locomotive’s or rolling stock’s underframe. I was amazed at how much more a unit stands out by lightly applying thin coats of earth tone colors on the truck sideframes, brake gear, tanks, stirrups, and couplers. Only takes a few minutes. Cool factor with using acrylics for weathering is that if you go overboard, it’s easy to wash off on the spot (but don’t wait too long).

Here are two identical units. Walthers Budd Baggage-Dorm cars. The top unit’s underframe was weathered, the bottom was not. You can clearly see which underframe stands out.

14

My wife reminds me that ‘less is more’ when it comes to certain things including weathering. I used to weather cars a lot partly because I got too excited and was just learning. The cars were probably over-weathered but I justified that partly because of their build date. Yes, I still proudly run the cars.

My technique is after applying dull coat, I use powered chalks to further dull the cars before combining artist paints to create rust spots applied with tooth picks. Sometimes, I use mineral spirits to create rust streaks. None of the cars get weathered the same. This is intentional and quite real. The tops and trucks get weathered a bit differently.

Some love to weather cars to look like rust buckets and others refuse to do anything. I get it. For me, weathering is not only creative but also fun because you can mimic real life. Also, weathering not only replicates real life but distinguishes your cars/locos/buildings from toys.

15

Stephen F wins the internet today. Weathering is most believable when based on photos of the real thing, and using a picture of a DRGW K-36 to weather a New York Central Mohawk doesn’t count. The rustbucket boxcars seen in the Northeast US in the 1990s don’t look much like western cars that ran out most of their miles in dry and sunny climates.

16

I’m not sure why the pic didn’t show. Here’s the one I was trying to link to (second photo down.)

http://www.carrtracks.com/nmtcndx.htm

I don’t know what the war has to do with it, given that the OP talked about old B&W photos of steam engines. The war and depression eras were a big chunk of steam’s history.

IMO, the problem isn’t the amount of weathering, it’s just that much of it isn’t done very well. Too many look as though the person spent 60 seconds on them. Dip a brush in powdered chalks or paint and scrub it on. Done. But look at the cars below. Most people here would say they’re overdone, but they’re beautifully executed and very realistic. I gaurantee you they spent a lot longer than a few minutes on them.

http://theweatheringshop.com/stmary.html

http://theweatheringshop.com/jerdh.html

Steve S

17

I’m not remotely interested in arguing the merits of various levels of weathering, but I will take just a minute to explain my statement and what Wayne was commenting on.

Historicly, the teens and the twenties were big growth periods for the railroads, they had lots of money and were very image conscious - paint schemes were fancy and well maintained.

The depression, d

18

Well, as the saying goes, “it depends.” I took a lot of pictures in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan in the late 80s and early 90s, the period I model. A LOT of both the cars and the locomotives were weathered almost to the point of decreptitude.

Photos for your era and region should be your guide.

19

The cars shown in the pictures above all look really really good.

20

I agree with the “less is more” folks, but that’s based more on my ability than my preference. There was a picture of a heavily weathered Soo Line car posted a few days ago that was awesome. If I could weather like that, I’d change my opinion.