No one has mentioned a specific type of fluorescent bulb that comes highly rated. These are Chroma 50 type bulbs. While any fluorescent is a compromise in most model RR configurations, they can be an important part of your color rendition in combination with supplememental spot lighting to highlight scenes. The one thing to remember is heat is a product of whatever you do. Depending on the ventilation in the room and whether you run the lights at all times or use the spots only during ops or photography, you can adjust what is tolerable to suit your needs. Since fluorescents run relatively cool, they work well for many situations.
I learned about Chroma 50 bulbs from a discussion that included Boone Morrison on the HOn3 Yahoo list. Boone was a student of Ansel Adams, so you can be pretty sure his photo skills are top notch, and his modeling work is familiar to anyone who reads the Narrow Gauge and Short Line Gazette. I used his ideas in desiging my own lighting system. It has supplemental halogen lighting, but most of the time, I depend on fluorescents in my suspended ceiling, which is less than ideal, but it’s what I have to work with.
I have yet to actually install Chroma 50s, but this is something that is about due. I’ve used standard cool white bulbs in the flourescents for the last decade while the layout was under construction, so it hasn’t mattered that much. Now, I’m starting to build structures and create scenery, plus the old bulbs are getting weak, so I’ll have to replace them anyway. I might as well invest in the Chroma 50s. From the comments of others I’ve read, it seems that people are very pleased with the relatively natural lighting provided. Boone’s pictures speak for themselves.
I know you’re in Sweden, electrolove, so you’re dealing with a different set of standards, wiring, and fixtures than much of the guidance provided above, which will nonetheless be useful for US-based modelers. I assume you can either get Chroma 50 bulbs or a European spec equivalen
It seems to me that I can get pretty good lighting if I use the Chroma 50. I just searched for them in Google and found a page where I could read the following:
Chroma 50 color matching bulbs give you great color rendition or 92CRI and generate a brighter, whiter light. The Chroma 50 light bulbs is also sometimes called daylight or a variation of it. Either way, you get more colorful lighting and a better feeling to your lit environment. Chroma 50 are used almost everywhere in the printing industry and auto body painting, where an exact color match is required.
The Chroma 50 is best suited to this task. Many manufacturers make a Chroma 50 type color matching bulb specifically for certain applications and it’s sometimes called a C50, ColorTone 50 or Chroma 50. Chroma 50 is GE’s trade name for this product, but Philips calls it Colortone 50. The printing industry uses these extensively in color matching for quality control and color integrity.
I think this is the best and easiest way for my layout room. I don’t think I have any other options if I look at the way my layout is built. And I can always add some halogens if I want.
What do other people think of this idea?
I also included a link to a webpage by Boone Morrison
A CRI of 92 is a very good number. Chroma 50 might be a good pick for you.
Dimmable ballasts are just what the name implies. They are flourescent ballasts that can be dimmed. Standard flourescent ballasts can’t be dimmed, only switched on or off.
Keep in mind that when a fluorescent is dimmed, it’s spectrum may change somewhat.
The Philips bulbs I mentioned sound about the same as the Chroma bulbs - a CRI of 92 (for the T-12; the T-8 is in the mid-80s) and a temperature of 5000. I get whichever ones are cheaper.
Avoid buying the T12. They use about twice the energy of a T8. Manufacturers are also cutting production of them (in the USA, at least) because of the energy savings of the T8 lamp and government regulations. Ballasts for T12 lamps are no longer being manufactured and production of the lamp itself will soon stop.
Joshua mentioned “Dimmable Ballasts” and it seemed to confuse you. Virtually all flourescent fixtures have a transformer in them. This is refered to as the “ballast”. I guess because some look a lot like some of the ballast stones used in ancient sailing ships, sort of brick shaped. The ballasts that have dimming capability are designed to keep the bulb lit as the input voltage goes down, only with less light output… They usually are of the electronic type. Bulbs that allow this without ballast change are new to me.
Yes it confused me a lot. So you mean that ballast is something in the fixtures? And not in the bulb itself? So I can use any bulb and have dimming capability as long as I have a fixture with dimming ballast?
Sorry to confuse you about the dimmable ballast. The ballast is part of the fixture and has nothing to do with the lamp. The dimming capability is in the ballast and again has nothing to do with the lamp.
You will probably still be able to get T12 lamps for the next 2-3 years (give or take). It has to do with the relatively new energy code passed in the US. Magnetic ballasts (used with T12 lamps) are much less efficent than electronic ballasts (used in T8 lamps). That’s the reason home depot has stopped selling T12 troffers. It’s not a requirement to stop selling them yet, but (if memeory serves correct) it will be by this time next year. At this point, getting a T12 fixture from a manufacturer is a special order item.
I just looked at the Simkar website - they’re the company who made several of the fixtures I have (the other company is Lithonia Lighting). Right on their home page they talk about the changes in regulations that effectively ban magnetic ballasts. I guess I’ll be going with the T-8s from now on…
Dimming tube (linear) florescents depends on the bulb and how it reacts with the ballast. To get true dimming capability (1% - 100%) means you will spend at least $50 per fixture for a good dimmable ballast, and this does not meet my criteria for economical layout lighting.
Plus, with linear florescent dimming, you have some considerations:
Bulbs must be “burnt in” before trying to dim them – typically, they should be run at least 10 hours at full intensity first.
For consistent dimming, all tubes must be the same age and type. Mixing bulb ages and types will produce inconsistent performance.
These dimmable compact florescents (CFL) cost about $13-$16 each (a bit pricey, but not exorbidant). Non-dimmable CFLs are within the same price range as incandescents ($2) and have the advantage that you can select a color temperature you prefer.
But if you want dimmable and inexpensive, the most economical is still low wattage incandescents. By staying with low wattages (25W or less) you can strike a workable balance between affordable price, adequate lighting levels, and minimal heat buildup.
Low wattage bulbs tend to give a more yellowish glow than higher wattage bulbs - at least it looks that way to me. Did you have to adjust the white balance in your camera(s) while filming for your DVDs? Or is the difference between the low-wattage bulbs and higher-wattage ones (like 100-150 watts) insignificant?
To the eyes, 15W and 25W incandescent layout lighting looks like a warm sunny August day – actually a very pleasing affect. Most people who visit the layout comment they are suprised at how good the lighting looks – plenty bright, and the “yellow sunshine” look is quite attractive. According to the white balance setting on my digital still and video cameras, we’re looking at about 2700 K with the room lighting.
Going to 100W bulbs in the same fixtures for the video shooting pushed the color temperature up just a bit to about 3000 K. To the eye, it just looks a lot brighter, but not especially any “whiter”.
In the case of the video shooting, standard tungsten indoor white balance yields video footage that looks just like what the colors look like to the eye. For digital stills, I use a custom white balance setting because the tungsten setting is just an ever-so-tiny bit on the yellow side and not how it looks to the naked eye.
By using a custom white balance on the still camera (take a photo of a white card under the light and tell the camera to make that white), I get stills that look just like how it looks when you are there in person.
You know I have to jump in here and say that the majority of model railroads I see haven’t given much thought to lighting at all. I think that any of the plans bandied about here will be head and shoulders above the norm and will ultimately cause the visitor to remark about how good the lighting is…
The key is to provide ENOUGH light to make the layout convincing. The sun is surprisingly bright, even on a cloudy day. Whatever system people use, the common mistake I see over and over is the dimly lit layout…It appears from what I see in this thread that no one here is planning on making that mistake. At least no one has suggested C-9 lights yet (don’t get me started)…
Speaking of trying to emulate outside lighting, you have two major components to think about.
First, the sun.
The sun is a bright yellow-white point light source. To properly emulate this outdoor daylight lighting component, you need a directional white point-light source.
Second, the sky.
The sky acts like a huge glowing blue bowl from horizon to horizon. To emulate this lighting component, you need a difused blue fill light.
The sunlight part is what most people think of when they think emulating outside lighting. But the other component that will add a real air of “outdoor” realism to your layout lighting is to remember the blue fill light effects of the sky.
Directional point source lighting is hard to emulate on a layout and do it inexpensively. You have to use cans with barn doors to direct the light, but that can get pricey or at least become somewhat of a pain even if you use home made cans.
The blue fill light is even trickier to get in a permanent lighting situation, but you can at least do some simple tricks like paint the ceiling over the layout light blue so you get some blue reflective light back onto the layout.
Linear tube florescents emulate the somewhat shadowless fill light well, and are probably best for simlating the lighting of an overcast day rather than doing a convincing job of lighting the layout the way it looks on a sunny day.
Compact florescents and incandescents work better to simulate a point light source, but you still have to deal with overlapping shadows inless you put in baffles or use the cans mentioned earlier.
In my case, I’ve elected to use a point light source and ignore any overlapping shadows. I’ve not found the shadows thing to be a big deal, and as was mentioned earlier on this thread, the lighting is still head and shoulders above most layout lighting. As to simulating the blue fill effects of the sky, I’m working on painting the ceiling
I will keep my rather poor lighting as long as I keep getting compliments about my first, and decidedly modest layout. When my skills improve, only then will I improve my lighting. [:D]
You found the drawback as far as I’m concerned. By the time you have enough to adequately light stuff, other methods appear to be simpler and easier. I have a couple of friends that use these. They don’t use enough and their layouts are dim. One layout in particular is a masterwork. Me and the other train guys laugh about using our flashlights to see all the details…
I will briefly outline my evolution with lighting, hoping it helps.
I had someone who was a theatre set designer come up with lighting based on theatre lighting physics. In short, it was a disaster owing to the ceiling not being high enough for colored lights to actually blend. So there were pockets of different colors that the trains went through. Track lighting was used with 75W floods and spots: far too much heat generated.
I replaced this system with banks of two-tube 48" fixtures ( I was able to tie these in with the track lighting systems using screw-in outlets in the light sockets). I experimented quiet a bit with different “temperature” florescents, not too concerned about the cost, as most florescent tubes have a pretty impressive life span. I was not happy with any one “temperature”. I talked further with some real lighting pros and came up with a mix I personally really like: in each two-tube fixture are one 3000K tube and one 4100K tube. Most are Sylvania Octron. I angle the fixtures somewhat and they are all valenced from view. This lighting system has kept me happy. I like what it does to the range of colors.
All these complicated situations come down more or less to personal taste and preference, no matter how much educated feedback comes in. That’s the beauty of this hobby.
This discussion prompted me to go ahead, bite the bullet, and spend the ~$200 it took to replace/upgrade my flourescent bulbs. As I noted earlier, the installation (15 dual-bulb 4’ fixtures) was still equipped with the orginal cool white bulbs that were ten years old, except for a couple I’ve had to replace in the last year.
Effectively, I would have had to buy all new bulbs anyway soon, since I was beginning to get regular failures to light. New cool white bulbs are available at the big box stores for about $2.50 each, so it would have cost $75 or so simply to replace what I had.
I managed to find suitable bulbs in stock at two different retailers. One carried the actual GE Chroma 50 bulbs. These came in a package marked as “GE Sunshine 40” on the sleeve. The UPC code is 43168 12224. The six-pack case carried stock number 12224. The bulb itself, however, was marked as “Chroma 50 F40C50,” which is the Chroma 50 bulb. These may be marketed in packages under slightly different names, but I would guess the bulb itself will always be so marked if it is a genuine Chroma 50. These bulbs were $7 each. These bulbs are claimed to have a 9-year life at 6 hours/day, with a 5000K color temp and a CRI of 90.
The one store did not have all the 30 bulbs I needed, so I had to purchase a few equivalent Sylvania bulbs. They are marketed as “Daylight Full Spectrum” bulbs, also with 5000K color temp and a CRI of 90. The UPC is 46135 24773. These bulbs were $6 each, but the claimed life was only 4 years at 6 hours/day.
So the GE bulbs may actually be cheaper in the long term, despite costing a bit more upfront. I didn’t notice any difference in the light produced by each bulb.
I was immediately impressed by the more natural colors on the layout. I model the Rio Grande also, electrolove, so you already know about the variations in color with different manufacturers’ Rio Grande paint. They all looked better to me, more lifelike. This seemed an odd result, until I consi