During the many times that I have been stopped by a train at a crossing, I’ve noticed that the brake lines and such can be seen under the cars. In the models that we buy in the stores, I see some of the details present, but they don’t hang down like the prototype cars. I’m wondering if there are pictures that illustrate how the brake lines are oriented or maybe an article in a magazine or book that shows how to model this? I model in HO if that mankes any difference. If my question seems vague, please let me know and I’ll try to elaborate some more. Thanks in advance.
Although you can go by prototype pictures, some of the more highly detailed rolling stock such as Intermountain and P2K do capture the brake details more acurately than before. For modeling purposes much of this may be generic and the parts may not hang as low as the prototype, but you can get a feel of the real thing. I have replaced or added rigging and installed new hangers to do just this. Not much of this detail is really visible once on the tracks, so I don,t know to what extreme you plan to model. Many in my club think I’m nuts to detail some of this equipment. Whatever make you happy. It"s your model to model as you please.
I purchased an Atlas RTR boxcar that had all the “stuff” hanging down beneath the car. Make the small investment by purchasing one yourself and replicate what you see on your existing rolling stock.
When we look at a train from a car or SUV at a grade crossing, we are looking at an angle that is actually below standing eye level. Then take into account that the railroad roadbed is normally higher than the highway - the highway usually rises to meet the track at the crossing - and we are looking up at the prototype, and down at our models. Very few of us put our models at anything close to true eye level - that would be about 1" above the subroadbed - because we couldn’t see anything beyond the 1st track that had a train on it. Switching operations would be very difficult, to say the least, at true eye level.
Because of the viewing angle difference, brake line detail is not as obvious on the model. MRs with large layouts, or cars that need frequent handling often prefer to forego the brake line details that get easily displaced or broken with handling, are time consuming to add, and are difficult to see under MR viewing and lighting conditions.
There are books and articles that lay out all the brake parts, their purposes, and locations. A Yahoo group on freight cars might be a great place to start.
I guess you gentlemen are correct. For the purposes of running trains on layout, detailing the bottom of freight cars is kind of pointless. I don’t have a layout as of yet, so I spend most of the time super-detailing my pieces, I guess making up lost time not running them. Many times I’m doing my projects, I find myself thinking, “Who’s going to inspect these pieces to make sure I’m 100% correct.” I suppose that’s how free-lancing started. I realized with this post that I don’t need to really focus on the bottoms as much as the rest of the car. I will start to focus more on the tops, roofs, walkways, loads and such. Thanks again to all that answered and I look forward to asking more questions here.
Well, here I disagree a bit, as noted some of the brake detail (mostly the rods) is quite visible at eye-level or so layout height (which, if you have a double decker layout, or a high layout, is common) - these brake rods are pretty noticible too (especially on gondolas, flats, and long box cars basically anything without the old ‘fishbelly’ side sill.
However, brake rods are fairly easily ‘implied’ (old modeling term) by simple brass wire and strip - noting particularly detailed, just somewhat following the general layout of the prototype, and then heavily weathered. You can even leave out any part that may foul the truck.
This is easier nowadays than in the 1980s (pre-web), when you basically had to take photos of the brake detail under a gondola or boxcar (from a public lot on the side, of course), and guesstimate the actual sizes…
[#welcome][#welcome][#welcome] First of all welcome to the forum. Detailing as you can see from the above is a matter of personal taste, I Wont detail engines and cars on my layout untill I get further along, super details disapear or get trashed by handling them. This week I noticed the front handrail missing on my GP 40, I have looked and have no clue where it went, perhaps its in the shop vac tank?
Show us some of your work, would be very interested in seeing them…John
jasperofzeal, it is really a matter of personal preference as to how much detailing you want to do on your rolling stock. Years ago I belonged to a club in Massachusetts and we had a member who would spend almost as much time on the underside of his models as on the topside; I never quite understood why but that was his particular fetish. Others - most really - were content to leave things as they were out-of-the-box so to speak. This was in the mid-sixties and there were a lot more craftsman kits around in those days and some required some extensive detailing - often the floor was a cast piece of metal and the detail was on a sprue and had to be glued in place. In some cases - many really - the builder was required to supply his own wire to simulate piping if he wanted to go to that extreme of detailing.
Model Railroader used to have a feature in the back of every issue titled “Clinic”; this subject of the appropriate wire to use for particular sized underbody piping was covered frequently both there and within the body of articles. I recall similiar information within the pages of RMC. I don’t recall having seen anything on this subject in quite awhile but, considering how many times I have encountered it in the last 40 plus years I probably would just read past it; this is why I’m hanging onto my back issues of MR and RMC and am planning on developing a computer program to index same.
I add some of the more visible parts of the brake gear to some cars, but I also have lots of cars that have no added underbody details. Nowadays, when building new cars, I try to add the very basic piping and the activating rods from the brake wheel and to the trucks. As time allows, some older cars get upgraded too, but it’s a lot of work to do just to amuse and occupy visiting railfans for those rare occasions when there’s a major derailment, which permits unimpeded viewing of the car underbodies.[:D] Here, as requested, are a few upgraded cars as viewed from a car stuck at a crossing:
I also add some brake detail to passenger and headend cars, although most already have quite a bit of underbody equipment that blocks the view. (these are underbody shots, not a major derailment[:D])
MDC/Roundhouse combine - rebuilt with steel underframe
Rivarossi 12-1 Pullman - rebuilt as solarium/observation, with all-new underbody
Same car as above, from opposite side
Athearn Pullman - rebuilt as wood express car, with scratchbuilt underbody
The exact level of detail to use is driven by a whole flock of factors, among them:
How closely are you going to observe your models in operation? Is your layout a bookshelf switching module (a la Ian Rice) or do you have a basement-filler?
How much handling (in fiddle yards and such) will probably take place?
Where are you on the rivet-counter scale? Some modelers are tens. I’m about a two.
How much hobby time do you have, and how much of it do you want to spend on details that the mundanes among your visitors will never notice.
In my personal modeling, I use the hundred meter test. If it looks right at a scale distance of 100m (about 4 feet in 1:80 scale) it’s good enough. I consider my non-powered rolling stock to be little better than pawns in the car distribution game, so lack of museum-quality detailing doesn’t disturb me. (I am a little fussier about locomotives - they have to pass the 50 meter test.)
I truly admire the work of those who have gone to the trouble of including all the lines and levers on their cars, but their priorities are obviously different from mine. The good thing is that all of us are right as long as WE are satisfied with OUR OWN results.
Chuck (who keeps a box of rivets for those who insist on counting them)
Not to nitpick! What one usually sees hanging under some RR cars, when standing track side, is the brake rigging. What brake lines sometimes seen under a car are the pipes to and from the brake reservoir,triple valve and brake cylinder. Not all RR car brake rigging is visable from standing track side. It is simpler and quicker, therefore less costly, to make models leaving that detail off or more simply modeled and rather crude. Compare prices of the models (Athearn Genises, Branchline Intermountain and P2K to name some) that do offer this detail (where applicable) to those that don’t, and the differance maybe about $10.00 or more.
Good eye, though. I used to wonder about this too, when I was younger, or rather not as educated, as I am now.
Of course one is always free to detail his/her models as they please.Here is the question I ask myself…Is the minute detail ready needed under normal operation viewing? If my answer is no then I don’t worry about.So,unless my cars come with the minute details attached I do not add them…Same applies to my ocomotives…Thats why you will look in vain for a speed cable on the trucks.
I also consider the transporting of my models to/from the club when it comes to finer details.