Why so much focus on dilapidation?

Model Railroader General Discussion (Model Railroader)
1

I see so many models that try to show dilapidated buildings…rolling stock…locomotives…track…is clean, modern looking not that interesitng?

2

Because, my friend, an increasing number of us geezers look in the mirror of a morning, see that degree of dilapidation, and ask “hey, why should my trains look any better than I do?”

Dave Nelson

3

I’d guess that some of this depends on the era you might model. I am working on a switching design that is set in the post Depression era, so there is lots of decay and dilapidation in the area. Plenty of vacant structures, occupied buildings in disrepair because their occupants are just hanging on. Pictures from the era reflect that. Why do that? Because that’s what it looked like then. Also, most RR equipment leads a pretty hard, dirty life. In the days of name train passenger trains, they got cleaned on a regular basis, but work-a-day freight rolling stock did not get cleaned up unless it got rebuilt somewhere during its lifespan. The freight yards and customer sidings were treated in a like manner, so everything related to freight hauling got pretty cruddy, pretty quickly. Also, the life time of a RR car was pretty long, so it had a lot of exposure to the elements. As long as it worked, it was left alone. Interesting enough, the front of a railroad customer’s building probably looked pretty tidy, but the backside where the tracks were was likely never cleaned up. Things look a lot different from trackside than from roadside. From my time as a fireman on the B&O, I don’t recall ever seeing a pristine siding. The only thing on the engine that got cleaned on a regular basis was the cab because I swept it out prior to each run. Even the john in the nose of the Geep was not all that clean.

4

Just modeling what they see. A lot of the world, especially around the tracks, is falling into disrepair. Sad, but true.

It’s your railroad, do what you like.

Have fun,

Richard

5

I’m trying to figure that out myself sometimes.

I guess it satisfies a creative urge that some have to muddy things up some…some rolling stock do actually look weather beaten…then, OTOH we have some scenes like these…

6

I’m modeling fall 1944, and by that point (from what I’ve read and photos I’ve seen), the railroads were pretty beat up by a few years of incredibly hard use coming straight out of the Depression. I was not alive then, so if someone who was knows better, I’m all ears.

7

I agree with you. Even though in the real world things can be run down, seldom are things as dilapidated as on many model railroads and still be in use. If they’re that run down, they’re closed and abandoned. I think people tend to overdo the run down-ness in general because it give it “character”. Bob Hayden commented on this in the Allen Keller video on his C&DR.

8

I guess it depended on where one was…

9

10

You see that Rambler station wagon? That looks a little “weathered” to me.

11

precisely…but it is the only one that is 'weathered there…not all were…

Now, if you want we could go this route…

Now here is weathered…

12

Anyone else here play electric guitar? Ever notice how turning up the distortion and echo covers up inperfections in playing? I think the same is true for modeling. Fake dirt and decay can cover inperfections while a clean model needs to be highly detailed. It takes a lot more skill to play a clean tone on guitar and it takes a lot more skill to do clean detailing on a model and reach the same level of realism.

13

I think there are four things that influence the overemphasis on dilapidation in model railroading:

  1. The influence of John Allen, and several similar modelers, who exaggerated the “run down” look.

  2. The challenge of modeling sway-backed freight cars, sagging roofs, peeling paint. It takes a lot of skill to make a convincing “dilapidated” model.

  3. Some years ago, there was an article (actually, something like an op-ed) in RMC on weathering locomotives. The author showed an in-service photograph of a steam locomotive, when the machine was only a few years old, and still a workhorse on the railroad. The engine had some road dirt and wear, there was no sign of leaks, the engine looked well-maintained, and the boiler jacket even had a semi-gloss sheen. The author suggested that a lot of the historical record available to us was made as railfan photographers were frantically documenting the last of steam in the face of imminent dieselization, and not during the locomotives’ heyday.

  4. The railroads were in decline after World War II, and this situation accelerated in the 1960s and 1970s. Public relations was not a priority; maintenance dollars were needed elsewhere. The decay was the reality.

14

I don’t know whether it was all across the board though…Penn Cen I could think of had some issues there but I’m not so sure it was uniformly dilapidated…

This could be seen as dilapidated…somewhat…

15

[:)]

16

And I will repeat my constant observation - If you are modeling in HO scale for example, look at a building from 260’ away. Give me an impression o

17

Jim,

I had this discussion on another thread recently. While there was indeed widespread poverty and hardship during the Depression era of the late 20s and 30s - both in the US, as well as worldwide - not EVERY single building, structure, road, area, etc. was completely run down. Some folks - although they may not have had much - still swept out their houses or apartments with a broom and did their laundry. They took pride in what

18

I have to agree with Sheldon and Tom on this one, it brings up the old saying about “less is more” and to my eye this definitely applies to weathering.

Mark

RMR

19

Some general comments based on the research I have done.

First the depression was hard on some areas much more so than others. And, as a residential designer and historic building restoration professional, who has studied the intire history of residential architecture in this country, and is very familiar with how buildings are built, and how they age, having also worked as a home inspector - I CAN TELL YOU THIS - buildings don’t age that fast if they were in good repair to begin with. Much of that depression era “run down” image was of areas already less than prosperous when the market crashed.

Not everybody was broke and not everyone defered maintenance. Two year old cars don’t have faded paint, even then, even if they have never been washed/waxed. People still picked up trash, raked their yards, cut their grass, and painted their houses if they could.

Here is a big historical note for you. Prior to the depression, with the many Victorian styles only 20-40 years old, and with the new Craftsman and Colonial Revival styles in vogue, most houses where painted earth tones or bright colors. BUT, as the depression wore on, white paint was cheaper and “unassuming”, so many houses that once had colorful paint schemes were then simply painted white - as opposed to this idea that they simply were not painted and allowed to fall apart.

Historicly, this has distorted the record about the colors of older homes, making many people believe that most houses were painted white 100 years ago - not true, not until the mid to late thirties did a lot of the housing stock get painted white.

The fifties, while not some picture of perfection, was a time of repair, rebuilding, replacement, catch up on repairs, repaint, refresh, invest in new equipment time for MOST of America. Railroads were beat up, but now flush with cash - new box cars with colorful optimistic paint schemes, bold plans for upgraded passenger service, new diesels as fast as ALCO and EMD could turn them out. AL

20

Tom

I’m in agreement with you. Too much is too much.

On the other hand, many many times the comment has been made that it is your layout so do what you want!

My approach is to look at others work and if I am impressed I will say so, and if I am not I will keep that to myself.

Dave