marknewton wrote:QUOTE: Originally posted by Beowulf Why are so many plastic cars modeled with "V' grove HORIZONTAL siding? On the prototype it was rare... Really? So all those countless thousands and thousands of single-sheathed boxcars, composite gons, hoppers, and all the other rollingstock with horizontal siding were rare? You could have fooled me. Cheers, Mark.
QUOTE: Originally posted by Beowulf Why are so many plastic cars modeled with "V' grove HORIZONTAL siding? On the prototype it was rare...
I think that Beowulf's point was that the horizontal siding on those single-sheathed cars was not V-groove siding, and that most of our models of such cars, in an attempt to make the separate boards more noticeable, incorrectly portray it as such. The Accurail 9 panel boxcar, of which I have several, also suffers from overstated wood grain, something that on a prototype car in good condition would be barely noticeable. Both of these "faults" tend to work on our model railroads due to the generally lower light levels of most layouts.
I've seen photos of prototype cars, taken under certain conditions, where the individual boards are very difficult to discern. The so-called Fowler Patent cars were named thus for the feature that allowed the bolts that held the sheathing in place to slide vertically in slots in the steel framing, so that, periodically, the sheathing could be tightened as the wood shrank, thus preserving the "tightness" of the car. This was an important consideration, especially for bulk shipments of commodities such as grain or flour.
An Accurail car, lettering by C-D-S
A couple of scratchbuilt 36' Fowler cars, custom lettering by C-D-S. I used Evergreen freight car siding, but the grooves between the boards are still too wide.
Wayne
If we are to blame the "Selios" factor we must also consider the "Malcom Furlow" factor as well. I was a budding young MRR in the early eighties when Malcom was doing his San Juan Central. The guy was my hero and even helped inspire me to try narrow gauge. But, as I learned more about real railroading I realized that his rolling scrapyard of a railroad would be completely unsafe for anyone to operate and just wasn't realistic at all. Granted, the real narrow gauge looked pretty bad at the end of its life, but even the dying Rio Grande Southern kept its equipment in running order and even refurbished former D&RGW 461 with new paint just in time to use it to scrap the line! Stock cars so swaybacked their turnbuckles scrape the railhead would not be used in service. I still think Mr Furlow is a very talented modeler, but not necessarily the standard to match for a serviceble, operating railroad.
Nevertheless, I had his video on weathering and learned from it, and even as recently as this year I've found myself repainting or retiring equipment because I weathered it too much. I don't do narrow gauge any more, but what I do model, the Pennsy in 1956, was still pretty grimey. The older pre-WWII equipment, like the unmodified X29 boxcars, were usually (from photographic evidence) so grimey the only legible lettering was the road number, kept washed for the benefit of the hump yard operator. I have shots of reefer trains in 1956 on the PRR that look gray, until you notice the yellow rectangle where the PFE eporting marks have been wiped clean.
So, dirty yes, but decrepit, no. Railroading is an industry which takes safety as paramount. And a swaybacked, half-rotten coach would not be safe to transport passengers, no matter how fun it would be to build or photograph. Neither would a spindly, rotted-out trestle with undersized structural members.
Modeling the Rio Grande Southern First District circa 1938-1946 in HOn3.
I am always baffled when I read criticism's of George Selios' work. I think it is nothing short of magnificent. For those who think he is guilty of over weatherization, keep in mind that his layout is from the pre-EPA steam era when many major cities were dirty places to live. Clean air standards??? What's that??? His major cities are fictional so it is impossible to say how heavy the industry was, but it is certainly plausible that the air quality might be pretty poor which would certainly affect the amount of grime that might build up over time. I remember when I was in elementary school our textbooks showed pictures of Pittsburgh and it seemed to be engulfed in a dark cloud. You wondered how anyone could live in a town like that. Today Pittsburgh is a beautiful city but it wasn't always that way.
When I see pictures of the F&SM, I never ceased to be wowed by it. It certainly doesn't look artificial to me. You can nitpick and say he overdoes some effects but that is a modeler's license and it works. When you miniaturize the world, it certainly doesn't hurt to add a little character to it. I think most railroad scenes would be pretty bland if you model them exactly like that are.
Someone has pointed out that car marks and similar features are kept up to standard because they are a legal requirement.
One thing I like to do when weathering a car is to mask important lattering. If the mask is left in place throughout the weathering process the car ends up with several patches of re-done lettering. If some of the masks are removed during the process those areas get some of the later weathering building up the history of the car.
Similarly any graffiti may be applied part way through weathering so that it isn't all new.
And doors, hatches, grab irons, brake cylinders, truck springs, even car panels... all the bits get replaced at different times.
I guess that the short version is that weathering is never a completed thing... there is always more being added and, from time to time, work being done which reverses it.
My recent favourite has been an MP cylindrical hopper with a UP herald. I covered the herald on each side with a square of masking tape (Tamiya is good) and very lightly streaked the whole car body. End result... looks like someone has cleaned off enough of the side to apply the herald but no more.
As far as Selios layout I keep looking for Popeye,Bluto Wimpy and Olive Oil because his layout puts me in mind of the Popeye movie set.
As far as realistic weathering the BEST approach can only come by observation of the prototype.
Larry
Conductor.
Summerset Ry.
"Stay Alert, Don't get hurt Safety First!"
Dave-the-Train wrote: Something else I thought of... Especially in the steam era foliage was kept very much under control around rail tracks... this was to stop sparks from the locos starting fires which didn't respect the RR boundary and could cause massive compensation claims.
Something else I thought of...
Especially in the steam era foliage was kept very much under control around rail tracks... this was to stop sparks from the locos starting fires which didn't respect the RR boundary and could cause massive compensation claims.
About 30 or so years ago, I built two of these free-lanced weed sprayer cars to control the growth of that pesky ground foam along my right-of-way.
I gave one to a friend, but this one still gets the occasional trip around the layout, although certain areas are off-limits: that "Excess Width" notice isn't just for show.
jecorbett wrote: I am always baffled when I read criticism's of George Selios' work. I think it is nothing short of magnificent. For those who think he is guilty of over weatherization, keep in mind that his layout is from the pre-EPA steam era when many major cities were dirty places to live. Clean air standards??? What's that??? His major cities are fictional so it is impossible to say how heavy the industry was, but it is certainly plausible that the air quality might be pretty poor which would certainly affect the amount of grime that might build up over time. I remember when I was in elementary school our textbooks showed pictures of Pittsburgh and it seemed to be engulfed in a dark cloud. You wondered how anyone could live in a town like that. Today Pittsburgh is a beautiful city but it wasn't always that way. When I see pictures of the F&SM, I never ceased to be wowed by it. It certainly doesn't look artificial to me. You can nitpick and say he overdoes some effects but that is a modeler's license and it works. When you miniaturize the world, it certainly doesn't hurt to add a little character to it. I think most railroad scenes would be pretty bland if you model them exactly like that are.
If George's layout looks "real" to you and representative of Depression-era America, I suggest you look at some of the images from the various WPA photo projects. You will quickly find that there were very two distinct schools of thought among the urban photographers of the time. One sought to show the darkest and worst of conditions, the other the best and a hopeful, promising outlook. Their images were in stark contrast with one another. However, neither group was correct or accurate but wished to convey their viewpoint or to make a statement regarding the times. Unfortunately, it is the images of abject poverty and urban decay that are largely re-published today, giving a very false impression of what America, or in the present discussion, real Northeastern cities such as represented by Franklin and South Manchester, were actually like. Period documentary motion pictures (for which background structures were incidental to the people they were showing) show that most of the cities were quite clean and buildings well maintained. Remember, just prior to the Depression the United States had been in the greatest financial boom (artificial as it might have been) in history. There had been much new construction and the updating of existing industry. The situation could not possible totally reverse and decay away in just a couple of years.
I will grant that a few cities, like Pittsburgh and perhaps Chicago, were very dirty looking in the 1930's but, in general, most urban centers were not. In fact, the worst universal conditions (heavily weathered buildings) probably existed around 1900, based on the photos I've seen. By the 1930's NYC and many other Northeastern cities had long since established smoke abatement ordinances. Northing in the Northeast, which the F&SM is supposed to represent, ever came close to looking like George's cities. And while I'll be the first in line to say that George is a truly outstanding modeler, his work in no way is representative of the real world as it was 70 years ago. As Brakie points out, most of the F&SM's urban scenes are more cartoonish in their depiction of weathering and decay than they are realistic.
CNJ831
I've seen former Chessie covered hoppers on the CSX that used to be a yellowish color with a deep blue logo, but are now so weathered and rusty that the only "clean" part of them is where CSX performed a patch job on the numbers when it aquired them. Sometimes even that is so dirty you can't read them. In this case, overweatherization would match the prototype.
I think this whole debate parallels the same sort of debate one would find in the art world.
Everyone has their own artistic style, and thus will interpret the world in their own way. Unless a modeler is trying to pass off their work as an accurate representation of a particular point and place in history, there should be no rules. If someone like Selios wants to weather everything like it’s been around a few decades in disrepair, then fine. I don’t see how there is anything wrong with that - unless he’s trying to appoint his methods as the weathering standard or pass off his modeling as a period prototype (of which I’m not aware that he is).
What I do think is wrong is anyone trying to tell us that we must weather our models according to prototype. While that may be true if one is trying to achieve true period realism, most modelers I know are not into that type of strict prototype modeling. In the end, ALL modelers should feel free to make their own world in the way they choose to. It may not be considered 'accurate' to some, but if it pleases the modeler, then that person has achieved what a hobby is defined as: “An activity engaged in for pleasure and relaxation during spare time.”
MAbruce wrote: I think this whole debate parallels the same sort of debate one would find in the art world. What I do think is wrong is anyone trying to tell us that we must weather our models according to prototype. While that may be true if one is trying to achieve true period realism, most modelers I know are not into that type of strict prototype modeling. In the end, ALL modelers should feel free to make their own world in the way they choose to. It may not be considered 'accurate' to some, but if it pleases the modeler, then that person has achieved what a hobby is defined as: “An activity engaged in for pleasure and relaxation during spare time.”
Bruce - what I suspect is the problem is that indeed nearly all modelers ARE attempting to replicate what they believe to be essentially reality for a given time and approximate place to some degree (less than that is simply playing with a set of trains). But many are doing a poor job of it by drastically over weathering their models, particularly those from the steam-era and NG, to the point that they become caricaturish. In many cases this has probably been instigated by seeing it done by some big-named hobbyists, past or present, and that pictures of these highly unrealistic models bring oohs and aahs from those that simply don't know any better.
The name of the hobby is model railroading, in that you are modeling in miniature, a slice of the real thing. If it were called 3-D modern art, fantasy or caricature modeling, then "creative weathering" would be quite another matter...but it's not the case. Look at any other modeling hobby and you will see that nearly all the participants are attempting to replicate reality to the nth degree...in ships, aeroplanes, militaria, etc. Why hobbyists in model railroading uniquely seem to hold the eccentrics and their erroneous modeling concepts in such high esteem seems very odd to me.
CNJ831 wrote:Bruce - what the problem is, is that nearly all modelers ARE attempting to replicate what they believe to be reality for a given time and approximate place to some degree (less than that is simply playing with a set of trains). But many are doing a very poor job of it by drastically over weathering their models to the point that they become caricaturish. In many cases this has probably been instigated by seeing it done by some big-named hobbyist past or present and that pictures of these highly unrealistic models bring oohs and aahs from those that simply don't know any better.
I don't think we are really in disagreement here. If a modeler's goal is to replicate something based on an actual prototype, and is getting it wrong because they were misinformed, then that would be a problem. As it has been said many times already, one would need to do first their homework (get pics) on what they are trying to replicate - then replicate it.
But if a modeler heavily weathers something based on a freelanced version of what they want, then you really can't call it wrong - except to maybe say that you don't prefer their style.
The name of the hobby is model railroading, in that you are modeling in miniature, a slice of the real thing. If it were called 3-D modern art, fantasy, or caricature modeling, then it would be quite another matter...it's not. Look at any other modeling hobby and you will see that nearly all the modelers are attempting to replicate reality to the nth degree...in ships, aeroplanes, militaria, etc. Why hobbyists in model railroading uniquely seem to hold the eccentrics and erroneous modeling in such high esteem seems very odd to me.
I think our issue here is with your definition of 'Model Railroading'. I think it's far too narrow. That would mean all layouts would need to model only specific prototypes (that would include all buildings and landscapes), or they would not be considered true models. Can you say that everything on your layout is based on a prototype? I'd say that would be impossible from a space standpoint alone!
Chinatown,
Read my post, Alcohol/India Ink Wash. I would have been ticked off if the first car I tried to weather with this method had been a $30 Kadee.
marknewton wrote: MAbruce wrote: "I'd say that would be impossible from a space standpoint alone! " This argument has aways been a furphy, IMO. Not everybody in the hobby feels the need to model the entire US railroad system in a 15x25 foot room. I've always followed the UK concept of choosing one, specific, compact location and modelling it in it's entirety, without compression or editing. So don't say it's impossible - it isn't. Cheers, Mark.
‘Furphy’?? Had to look that one up.
Okay, I’ll concede that it’s not truly impossible, but seldom attempted. Compression is a fact of life for a vast majority – assuming they are into your strict interpretation of model railroading to begin with. And I was not suggesting that anyone had to recreate the whole rail system either.
What really strikes me as odd is a prototype modeler who preaches strict realism, but doesn’t really apply it to all aspects of their modeling. They usually fall short on their need to compress. To me, if someone is going to pick other peoples work apart because it’s not exactly true to prototype, then they had better be prepared to show the world that their layout is 100 percent accurate down to the blades of grass. Sounds silly? Sure! But to me so is the idea of not considering freelance (or fantasy/caricature) as 'true' model railroading. It all sounds hoity-toity to me.
MAbruce wrote: [What really strikes me as odd is a prototype modeler who preaches strict realism, but doesn’t really apply it to all aspects of their modeling. They usually fall short on their need to compress. To me, if someone is going to pick other peoples work apart because it’s not exactly true to prototype, then they had better be prepared to show the world that their layout is 100 percent accurate down to the blades of grass. Sounds silly? Sure! But to me so is the idea of not considering freelance (or fantasy/caricature) as 'true' model railroading. It all sounds hoity-toity to me.
[What really strikes me as odd is a prototype modeler who preaches strict realism, but doesn’t really apply it to all aspects of their modeling. They usually fall short on their need to compress. To me, if someone is going to pick other peoples work apart because it’s not exactly true to prototype, then they had better be prepared to show the world that their layout is 100 percent accurate down to the blades of grass. Sounds silly? Sure! But to me so is the idea of not considering freelance (or fantasy/caricature) as 'true' model railroading. It all sounds hoity-toity to me.
Bruce, there's honestly a wide gulf between attempting to be as accurate as possible and downright throwing reality and historical reference to the wind. Likewise, freelance model railroading is a world appart from fantasy modeling. The name of the hobby, alone, implies the modeler's efforts are directed toward recreating a slice of reality, not some strange, cartoonish, aberation of it.
The discussion here has centered around extreme and unrealistic degrees of weathering and I don't believe one need have a "perfect" layout to recognize or to criticize that such a modeling style or concept is flawed. It's not typically a mistake but done largely on purpose by it's adherents because, through lack of knowledge, their failure to research the facts, or more often by blindly following someone's eccentric example, they think they are indeed representing reality...particularly with regard to past eras. Sadly, what they have accomplished is only to diminish the reality and accuracy of their modeling efforts.
As I said in my previous post, model railroading is the only serious modeling domain that I'm aware of where this is a common and (by many) accepted practice. Strange indeed.