If a person follows the “prototype” theme to their limits, and this can be a controversial subject, would the rule be that no steam locomotive should ever be on a layout in a shiny unweathered condition, unless 20 minutes before, it just left the factory. I see layouts with beautiful detailed (and weathered) buildings and cars, being pulled by pristine, brilliant, shiny, glistening, brand new locomotives, prototypically, how could this be??? does the prototypical concept continue on everything on the layout Except the shiny locomotive??? I’m awaiting some great replies(hopefully not: “you can do anything you want”)
Not necessarily. Many railroads employed laborers to “wipe down” locomotives, particularly those assigned to passenger service, as they were the image that the public had of the railroad. Take a look at photos of steam era passenger trains. Many roads’ locomotives were relatively clean and shined up.
Having said that, locomotives are filthy things and there would always be certain parts that would accumulate a coating of oil, grease and/or dirt after a single run, and no amount of steam cleaning or care could prevent that build up.
Model railroading is an individual thing and we all do it our own way (well except clubs which do it a group way). One of the continuums in this hobby is painting vs photograph. Personally I am very much toward the painting end.
Years ago, MR ran a very good article on modeling realistic trash along the ROW in urban eras. The author had produced a scene which was very realistic, but to me it was ugly - so I don’t do trash and I don’t do dirt. I do the prototypical where it appeals to me and not where it doesn’t.
Enjoy
Paul
I have a video of N&W 611 in excursion service. At the ‘out’ end of an out-and-back run (not in the shops at Roanoke) the crew broke out the buckets, brushes and soapy water and scrubbed her down - including washing the oil off the running gear (which was promptly re-lubed.) If some photographer clicked his shutter before the rinse water dried, he certainly imaged a shiny locomotive![^]
In regular service, every trip for a J or other N&W steam locomotive (including Ys) ended with a trip to the wash rack. Toward the end, they might have been rust-eaten, but they were clean.[:I]
OTOH, my prototype turned the steam locos that ran on that route without benefit of a wash, which they would get at the other end of their run when they returned to the home engine shed (my model of which is conveniently located in hidden staging…[:-^]) Thus my model steam all looks pretty scroungy.[V]
Chuck (modeling Central Japan in September, 1964 - with steam burning low-grade coal)
I think it’s a very individual thing. During the steam (not ‘transition’) era, most first-class railroads were generally ‘good housekeepers’. The locomotives that pulled their trains were what the public saw–especially the passenger locomotives. They were the railroad’s advertisment for safe, dependable transportation. During the transition to diesel, some railroads could care less about the ‘cosmetic’ appearance of their steamers, after all, they were being run out to get the most mileage before the scrap yard. But even then, individual steam locomotives were often cared for very carefully by their crews.
So sometimes, it can be a hit and miss proposition, and a lot of times, it depended on the particular locomotive and what it was used for. On my own MR, which is 98% steam, I like to think that my model ‘crews’ and model ‘administration’ believes in the Good Housekeeping rule. That doesn’t mean I don’t weather my locos, but I weather them to show the normal wear and tear that they’d get during a day’s service, not let go for months. Other modelers do some INCREDIBLE weathering jobs on their steamers, and I admire them.
So, as in the prototype, it seems to be in the model railroading hobby: a very individual approach. I don’t think either one is ‘wrong.’
Tom
Let’s look at extreme weathering…Some modelers weather by following pictures in roster books,on line photos and of course personal photos.
Some model “rust bucket” weathering while others use moderate weathering.
Some just dullcote while others don’t weather at all.
So,as the others have said its a personal thing.
As far as steam locomotives they were filthy beast by nature after all they was a hard working machine in a world of coal,smoke,cinders,bad water etc.
Watch any vintage railroad tape or DVD and pay close attention…Study pictures.
After doing that then come and say how “clean” railroads are.
I have photos of a Norfolk Southern E3 2-8-0 that’s nice and shiny except for around the running gear and smoke box. The lettering is crisp and sharp, the pain is shiny.
I have a photo of an A2 owned by the same railroad, taken around the same time, that depicts a locomotive that looks like it hasn’t had a wash in years. The lettering is almost invisible, dirt and rust all over.
The NS F1 2-8-4s where kept in good condition untill WWII, after which they began to get grimy and were allowed to go down hill until they were sold in the early 1950s.
Meanwhile, connecting Atlantic and North Carolina (later Atlantic and East Carolina) kept their locomotives in beautiful condition even at the height of the depression.
Dismal Swamp RR, a narrow gauge logging line in the Great Dismal Swamp of NC and VA had locomotives that looked much like the afore-mentioned E3–for the most part clean and shiny with dirty smoke box and worn wood buffers. It looks used but well kept.
Erie passenger crews were strongly encouraged to keep their engines clean. They even had periodic contests and winners were awarded a red number plate (Order of the Red Spot) for the front of their locos. It has been written that many Erie engines were cleaner than the trains they pulled. And the contest wasn’t just for passenger power. At least one switcher, 0-8-0 253, has been photographed with the Order of the Red Spot.
I think part of it is the fear of “ruining” something by weathering it and having something go wrong. It’s one thing to screw up a $8 freight car, another to screw up a $300 BLI locomotive. Course you can always weather with chalks; if you decide you don’t like (or want to sell the engine down the road and figure it would sell better in ‘new’ condition) you an remove the weathering.
I personally don’t weather any of my loco’s. Why? I like them nice and shiny and I’m kind of afraid I might over do it and ruin the appeal of the loco. I get asked once in awhile at shows why my loco’s are in “like new condition”. I say the samething, I don’t want to take away the appeal I have for the loco.
Me, I weather everything I have. Engines, cars, flatcars, tankers, you name it. I don’t like the look of shiny engines/train cars. I guess its just what you like, and if you feel like you can weather good enough without messing up the car. I like my cars from rust buckets to just some faded paint and graffiti. I believe they make the layout look alittle more relistic. Thats why I think the engine needs to be weathered as well. I know there are engines and train cars that aren’t rusted and dirty. But…that what I like.
I guess its all about what you like.
I think it depens largely on the time frame you are modeling in. But in all cases, I too weather just about everything. The most mild weathering is painting a diesel semi-gloss, which represents the newest loco my RR acquired. Then it gets more extreme from there. Older equipment gets more weathering.
And it is also a personal thing. Me, I am trying to build models and a layout that represents the real world. Not run toy trains or build a christmas layout where everything is assembled and put on the layout as is.
Mac,Another point on the steam era the yard buildings had a covering of coal smoke,coal dust and faded.Even the widows wasn’t squeaky clean because of the coal smoke.
There is no doubt to the knowledgeable modeler the majority of the steam layouts is way to clean.Never happen in the steam era because of the steam locomotives.
The roof of freight cars didn’t escape the coal dust,smoke or cinders along with the natural weathering process…
In my opinion, and mine alone, I have kept the engines in pretty good shape (clean and orderly) as I would think they would get more maintenance and therefore be in good shape. Now on to the rolling stock. This stuff is pretty weathered up on my layout. Road grime, dirty sides, sooty roofs, etc. I would think that aside from being rebuilt the only washing and cleaning would have been done by Mother Nature Herself.
Just my thoughts on the subject.
T:
The first rule of controversy is that you have to present your argument so people can understand you. What are you saying, exactly?
Most of my rolling stock isn’t weathered. Neither is my track. In fact, it isn’t ballasted, and the layout is only beginning to get scenery. My H9 is still bare zamac. A lot of my cars are Life-Like cheapies from the train show with weird color schemes and some quickie upgrades to make them usable until I get better stuff going.
This doesn’t mean I don’t value realism or weathering or painted track or scenery. I do, but I want to have fun, and there’s railroading to do, so the stuff gets pressed into service as-is. It might not be strictly realistic in a representational sense, but it’s 100% accurate to prototype operational practices. NS didn’t pull all their Conrail units until they had a chance to repaint them all into full dogfood colors.
Eventually I’ll get all the scenery, painting, and weathering done. By that time, there will be new stuff that isn’t finished. This might easily include a shiny new steam engine that I have just bought, and am too pleased with to avoid running for some lack of weathering.
In a hobby where most of our layouts are ongoing projects, that’s just how it is. Anybody who thi
I agree wholeheartedly about not wanting to “ruin” a costly engine. Part of that is insecurity about my ability to weather an engine so that it looks halfways decent. In time, it is my hope that my insecurity will change. I have to use brushes and acrylic paints, or I have used chalks and Dull Coat on my 0-6-0 switcher. I have been pleased with some results and not so pleased with others. I recently weathered my choke-a-horse-cost PCM Y6b for a photo. I will have to feather the edges of my paint a bit to get it to look good, plus add more tones and do some studying first. It turned out good enough for the image contest, and I tied for first place with the owner of the forum.
I think that the ‘varnish’ that the public were meant to get up close and personal to were kept clean due to the times and the fact that it was the preferred way of travel, especially for those commuting. For those engines in drag service…well…why bother? Coal haulers that burned coal, that had heavier service, went through more coal and water per unit time than many of the passenger engines…it was almost a lost cause. The running gear and grease fittings were about the only thing that got used/cleaned regularly, plus windows and instruments/gauges in the cab.
Oh, my first engine was the BLI Hudson, and I sort of made it look weird when I weathered it. I can undo the worst of it in time, but it serves me well as a close visual reminder of what not to do.
-Crandell
I’m with Stix on this one. I admire well weathered engines/rolling stock, as well as structures and wouldn’t it be great if all of us could do it as well as, oh… say the work Aggro puts out. But, in my case at least, that just ain’t gonna happen anytime soon and most likely never. I would love to have my entire roster weathered but I rather do it correctly so that it looks good rather than the job I know I’d do at present. Right now I’m trying to get a better handle on wiring,
track laying,
structure put’n together,
backdrop painting,
improve the soldering
decoder installation
figuring out how to make more realistic grass, rocks and trees… not to mention water.
and, and… well, you get the picture.
For me weathering will come one day… I hope. I’m just not ready right now to screw up a $200 to $300 engine and I also know that’s exactly what I would do.
Jarrell
To weather an engine “properly” it takes some good airbrush skills, a bit of practice, and good prototype photos. (Or at least a model engine that has been weathered to compare it to.)
That makes people a little nervous when you have a $200+ engine in your hands. And I don’t think most modelers airbrush to begin with.
Don–
Count me in on the Airbrush-Afflicted. I started out bad and got worse, so now when I weather a locomotive, I use a soft toothbrush and Bragdon self-adhesive chalks. But I really admire some of the air-brush techniques I’ve seen on the forum as far as weathering both cars and locomotives. Aggro for one–his expertise just blows me away! But Air-brushing just doesn’t seem to be within my realm of either expertise or even competency.
I was at my LHS not too long ago, and we were having a discussion about weathering. I mentioned that my MR was a ‘good housekeeper’. One of the guys grinned at me and said, “Is that because you don’t know how to ‘weather’ very well, yet?”
“Yup,” I blushed.
We all got kind of a laugh out of that one.
Tom [:)]
DG:
Some of the MTW people would definitely say that, and there is something to it, if the weathering is the main concern, and the goal is to make it look just right when looked at closely. Some of the MTW forum gang /do/ do really nice work without airbrushes, however.
However, I do think there is a huge middle ground, for simple weathering that isn’t really perfect, but which is good enough to avoid standing out. A shiny car might stand out. Really bad weathering stands out. Weathering that is decent and understated, if not strictly correct, can at least get rid of that distracting shine, and be subtle enough not to attract attention to its own faults.
It’s like Star Wars. The science is really improbable, if you think about it, but it’s done with just enough realism to avoid attracting attention on its own, so you can enjoy the story. Movie sets are often like this, too. The realism doesn’t have to be perfect; it just has to be good enough to avoid drawing attention to itself.