Just finished stripping a couple of old rolling stock to repaint in MRL colors and ended up scratching the plastic with a brass brush to remove some of the stubborn paint that wouldn’t come off with just the alcohol and toothbrush scrubbing. They are old cheap second hand cars so I wasn’t too upset. But then I got to thinking. Why do we try so hard to get a perfect paint job only to then weather the car to look old and beat up. Would a few scratches, peeled paint, partially missing letters, etc. look so bad on a car that is supposed to be 20-30 years old? Obviously we don’t want fingerprints (out of scale) and other non-prototype defects but I won’t be worrying about a few scratches here and there anymore.
That’s why I didn’t worry about the dents is this old Varney metal boxcar when re-working it with better details and new paint and lettering:
The same goes for this Stewart hopper: when I re-worked the grabs, ladders, and sill steps with new metal parts, I didn’t worry about matching the new paint to the old - these things got repaired and replaced all the time.
…and when some home-road hoppers went through a re-numbering programme, management couldn’t afford to tie them up for a complete re-paint when a quick paint-over and re-stenciling would do the job just as well:
Wayne
Why stop at a wire brush? Just dip the model in a vat of acid…or use a belt sander to remove that old paint! Who needs details? Silly modelers.
David B
The reality of railroads hit home when I became a 18 year old student brakeman…I was amaze at the dings,weld spots,oil and grease stains on the running board,chip and faded paint,crack door glass etc that reveal its self in workaday viewing.
I learned cars and locomotives wasn’t so perfect after all.
It depends.
Some colors, usually lighters ones, do not cover well over other, usually darker, colors.
Multiple coats of paint may obscure fine details, especially in the smaller scales.
Weathering is one thing: deep scratches, obliterated details, and evidence of the stubborn original paint job detract from appearance, and realism in ways that a proper weathering job, and intentional distressing do not.
At a certain point though, you do want to avoid overkill. I’m not sure I would take a brass brush to a plastic model, no matter how stubborn the paint was. (A fiberglass brush or a bright boy might be better choices in this instance.)
With some models, usually metal, etching the bare metal surface may be necessary to get the paint to adhere properly. There are both mechanical and chemical ways to do this.
What a coincidence: I noticed on a photo of a “real” train engine, that the stripes along the side of it, looked like I painted them by hand.
I DID paint a similar engine, by hand, recently, and only when I did a super macro closeup shot, and saw it displayed on my 30 inch monitor screen, did I see just how poorly a job I did of applying the paint exactly right.
I’ve never worked on an actual railroad, so I have no idea how repainting happens…possibly it is done by some person who is not really a “painter”–just some schlub handed a brush and a can, and told to make the safety stripe along the engine’s lower portion, stand out better.
That would explain the crummy job done…as for MY crummy job, well, I’m surprised (with eyesight and finger coordination getting worse by the day) that my result came out looking quite “prototype.”
I once saw a fellow at the Illinois Railway Museum in Union, Illinois, hand lettering a restored passenger car. From some of the markings on the car where this guy was working, it looked like he was trying to reproduce period lettering style, and that some meticulous work was involved.
I seem to remember occasionally seeing a prototype car or locomotive whose lettering wasn’t sharp, and looked like the spray got under the stencil.
I’m sure our working railroaders will have something to say about current paint/lettering practice.
Why the effort for perfect paint jobs? Because I like perfect paint on my trains![:D]
For me, I always try to do the best job I can. Whether I’m modeling an old dinged up car or a brand new one, I strive to deliberately achieve the end result. That’s not to say my modeling is the best because it isn’t, but I try to always have it be the best that I can do to achieve the end result I desire. I’m not a perfectionist either, I use what I build without apology and try to make the next one better.
Enjoy
Paul.
I model the CMStP&P through several era’s. This includes transitional period (which I have 1st hand memories of). I’m sure there was probably a lot of weathering going on with the prototypes of those times but it’s not in my memory. I also couldn’t tell of the subtle differences in colors back then. In my mind the maroon, orange, and black were darn good looking. I try to match prototypes as best I can but if I’m a few shades off it won’t be noticeable to me. As far as visitors go I doubt any will notice either unless they’re fanatic.
Why not?
The idea for me is that I want mmy layout to look as realistic as possible. If that means that some of the cars look like they have been through a few mills in their times and others look brand new…as in just out of the mfg’s shop then that is what the thing is…
Eaglescout
I think the answer to your question is that each of us models to our own standards. I like details like metal hand rails so I spend a lot of time scraping off molded details and fabricating wire replacements. I also strip my rolling stock before renaming them when it is not appropriate for the old lettering to show through the new paint. If it is appropriate for the old paint scheme to show through then I think you are modeling very accurate detail.
In any case, I think we all make the right choices for our own tastes and no-one should try to tell us otherwise. And besides, as I am sure many have heard me say before - if you run your trains faster then nobody will notice![}:)][;)]
Dave
Yeah, sometimes to be more realistic, you do have to just paint over the old scheme with the new. I can go down to the NS yard and see old southern units that were just painted black and the old southern stripes are there, the old name is there under the new scheme. But there are also plenty of equipment that has had only one paint scheme, and to get it to look right before the weathering and such, it does have to be painted carefully.
While weathering does hide a myriad of mistakes, it can’t hide them all. I’ve seen too many models where the painter was careless in the application of his base color and decals, and the weathering did nothing to hide this fact. You could still tell that the painting was done poorly and carelessly. A poor paint job can do more to “damage” the impression of realism you’re trying to make with the model, whereas a paint job that has been carefully applied can enhance that same impression.
Yes I just had this same epiphany. At the Santa Fe convention I just attended, one of the activities was the Verde Valley train trip. The FP7s have an Eagle Paint scheme. When I got up close I could see the raised areas of the old lettering and paint scheme. I will not be nearly as careful to remove all traces of the old paint any more. In fact, I’ve started doing research to find out some cars that were purchased from another railroad and painted over. I’ll buy the original and paint over the new scheme myself. Or have I fallen off the deep end again [:S]
We had a saying back in my hotrodding days when guys would show up with pristine restored cars. We called them “trailer queens”. Just like railroads, “real hot rods have stone chips!”
Hi!
I think a lot of us are trying to do the very best we can when building a model - be it structure, car, or loco.
In example, I just finished the Cornerstone Modern Coaling Tower (HO) kit and IMHO it really looked terrific. But, being a coaling tower, I just couldn’t put this “new looking” tower on my 50s era layout without weathering. Man, that was a hard decision, both to weather it and the actual slopping on of the various black washes, etc.
Once done, and placed on the layout, it just looked comfortable in its setting, fitting right in. And getting favorable (unsolicited) comments from the wife and #2 son, well that just was the icing on the cake.
I guess from what I have seen and read on this forum is that everything is not perfect in the real world of railroading. If a trigger happy painter gets a few runs or not enough paint on a couple spots of a giant diesel locomotive do they send it back to be stripped and repainted or send it out into service? Continue to strive for excellence in modeling but don’t sweat it when little oops! happen now and then. I doubt anyone but a bolt counter would even notice and some might even think you did it on purpose so it did look banged up a little bit.
I just do a lousy paint job and then weather the model. What’s the point in doing a perfect paint job if the model is going to end up looking dirty, weather-beaten, and sun-baked?
A lousy looking paint job in my opinion makes a model look like garbage. The base of any good model is the paint job. You can’t fix a bad paint job by weathering it.
Prototype anyone?
OK…let’s get this straight…this is the only one I’ve ever seen that had this done to it…however…if done once …and only once on any roster…I think you might get away with it…