Over-weathering

[orsonroy]

QUOTE: Originally posted by robmik

QUOTE: Originally posted by orsonroy

..but generally it's a layout-wide disease that's been with us for ages. John Olson's G&D was an example of weathering gone amock in the good old days, as is George Sellios' layout today...

"John Olson's G & D" ????...." weathering gone amock" ????....is a fine example of a poster having absolutely NO CLUE what he is talking about. [xx(]

Anyone who doesn't know the difference between John Allen and John Olsen should consider not commenting on "the good old days".[:o)]

One might well consider this....on virtually any "Top-10" list of the greatest and/or most influential model railroads of all time, those of John Allen and George Sellios will certainly appear.
The author of the post I have quoted above, is unlikely to appear on any list of this type, unless they come up with a "least influential" summary.[:(]

Mike

Speaking of posters without a clue...

Actually, I was thinking about BOTH John Allen and John Olson. Both were infulential modelers who nevertheless had no desire to model reality and tended to weather WAY too much. Just because someone's influential in the hobby and has good artistic abilities doesn't mean that what they're doing is any good, or has any basis in reality. Irv Athearn was possibly the single most influential person in this hobby, but that doesn't excuse him for stagnating the hobby with his line of bad kits (are ANY blue box cars actually correct for anything?).

As for me not being influential, who cares? And I don't really think you should spout off so soon. I just had my first two hobby articles published, and I'm working on several more. And your name is...?

Please keep to debating the question at hand, and leave the personal attacks to yourself. Otherwise, forums like these tend to fall apart.

[jfugate]

While I have certainly seen over-weathered cars and structures now and then, generally, the weathering that I see -- especially if done with an airbrush -- looks pretty good.

But how about just following the prototype closely? I model the SP and it often seems like they never washed anything, especially in the decade of the 1980s that I model. So the locomotives are weathered from photographs ... which leads to some results that without the photograph would look way overdone. Like this pealing paint tunnel motor, for example.



But certainly not every tunnel motor on my Siskiyou Line looks like that ...



But as they say, sometimes truth is stranger than fiction!

[dharmon]

This whole argument is a bit silly.....A person's interpretation based on their skills or desires is just that..theirs..I look at some of my attempts at weathering when I started and they were pretty bad compared to what I do now, but not up to speed of others. To make blanket statements like stuff is cleaner now or dirtier in the west is bull. Maine winters can be just as brutal on equipment as Arizona summers. It has to do with the environment as well as the owner's dedication to cleanliness..which these days is a costly luxury. My personal taste is to weather as required ...new cars, less weathering....old cars, abuse-prone cars (gons, flats) more weathering. And stuff in pre-merger paints.....anyone's guess as to the material condition. Then add it in grafitti.....doesn't matter how clean it is anymore....it's gonna get tagged.

[Roadtrp]

The point for me is not whether or not Allen and Sellios are great model railroaders, because without a doubt they are. But I still find it rather incongruous that a hobby which demands such realism in equipment (rivet counting) also accepts an "artistic interpretation" of reality when it comes to weathering, rather than demanding realism there also. How is over-weathering ANY MORE REALISTIC than not weathering at all? Either of those options varies substantially from reality. Yet one is widely accepted in the hobby and the other is abhorred.

Go figure. [%-)][%-)]

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by orsonroy

..but generally it's a layout-wide disease that's been with us for ages. John Olson's G&D was an example of weathering gone amock in the good old days, as is George Sellios' layout today...

"John Olson's G & D" ????...." weathering gone amock" ????....is a fine example of a poster having absolutely NO CLUE what he is talking about. [xx(]

Anyone who doesn't know the difference between John Allen and John Olsen should consider not commenting on "the good old days".[:o)]

One might well consider this....on virtually any "Top-10" list of the greatest and/or most influential model railroads of all time, those of John Allen and George Sellios will certainly appear.
The author of the post I have quoted above, is unlikely to appear on any list of this type, unless they come up with a "least influential" summary.[:(]

Mike

[orsonroy]

I agree that there's a trend to over weather, but generally it's a layout-wide disease that's been with us for ages. John Olson's G&D was an example of weathering gone amock in the good old days, as is George Sellios' layout today. There's no denying that these individuals are great modelers, artists and craftsmen, but their layoutsin no way say "reality" to me. Weathering is a lot different out in the real world, where things remain shiny longer, and in stranger ways than we modelers ever really try to model.

That said, I do think that modelers of the 1940-1979 periods should get their airbrushes out and weather MORE. The steam era was dirtier than most modelers really realize. Look at color photos by Don Ball of the houses around the Pennsy's Harrisburg yards. The sides of the houses that face the yards are BLACK. ALL freight cars that spend a majority of their time behind steam should have a nice, even coat of soot on them, as well as lots of grease on the trucks and miscellaneous crud on the underframes. Paint technology before the 1960s was so primitive that freight cars only went 5-7 years before they HAD to be repainted. When railroads started deferring maintenance in the 1960s to cut costs, things went downhill fast. The general impression I have of growing up in the 1970s and railfanning with my dad is that everything rail-related was ONLY dirt.

Weathering really is an art form. Some things should be showroom fresh, while others should be falling apart. Most things should be somewhere in between. Finding a believable or historically accurate balance is the trick.

[DSchmitt]

Unless a freight car has been sitting lor a long time there probably should be relatively little actual dirt on it. Faded paint, scraped paint, and rust are another matter. Also the color of paint may change due to chemicals in the cars environment. I used to see, several times a month, two or three RailBox cars that were pink . They had apparently been hit by some chemical. I got a look at the other side of one of them once. It was still yellow.

[AggroJones]

You always must over weather to emphasize it is there. Even stuff that's relatively clean lookin needs to be more intense. If you weather things exactly like real life, then it is hardly visible on a model a few feet away. Some times you've go to over do it to make it more visible. Plus exaggerated weather is awsome. It helps with that "excellent modelly" look. Have you thought about the reason some of the hobby greats are so famous is their over weathering. The first thing you notice about George Sellios' layout is the extreme aging of everything. I love it. Over weathering can look horrible if not done correctly. Some of us are skilled at it.

Peace. "The Weather Master"

[CNJ831]

Roger's point is well taken. I'd have to say that general weathering is overdone by a great many modelers - perhaps strongly influenced by scenes from the large layouts appearing in MR they take to be realistic depictions. Except perhaps for the first decade of the 20th century, cities were never as grimy and depressing looking as depicted on many layouts, particularly those urban examples supposedly representing the Depression era.

Likewise, as I believe was already discussed here recently, pre 1950 locomotives and rolling stock rarely, if ever, looked like rolling wrecks. Steam locomotives were well maintained and rolling stock was typically repainted when brought in for any repairs or at relatively short intervals (at least as compared to today). It was only during the latter half of the century, as the country's railroads began failing that one saw the rise of apparent neglect, rust, and filth on their equipment.

So I second Roger's call for the modelers to lighten up a little on their weathering unless they are working from actual photos current to the era they are modeling . What is so often done in an attempt to depict what once might have existed, at least in the minds of modelers, can result in erroneous and highly misleading caricatures of reality.

CNJ831

[simon1966]

If you want to see over weathering, just see what my 4 year old can do with a wash of ink and a box of Doc O'Brians powders[:)]

[Anonymous]

A good example of over-weathering is in the latest MR trackside photos section. Just look at that ATSF Dash-840W! (I didn't know that Dash-8s came in 4 wheeled axeled versions, as the picture shows)

[AntonioFP45]

Hey fellas,

A balance can be struck. For those of us that like our trains to look "reasonably clean", just have one or two cars in your fleet with "severe weathering" and the rest very lightly.

While I like realism I lightly weather my locomotives and freight car bodies while I apply a small amount of rust on trucks, KD couplers and underframes. I have one orange PFE reefer that I "overweathered" in the "EXTREME" category! When coupled to a batch of other freight cars, it actually makes a nice contrast with the lightly weathered cars and adds to the realism.

[tomwatkins]

I agree that there is a tendency to over-weather models. The amount and the type of weathering will depend on the road being modeled, the area being modeled, the time being modeled, how long it's been since the item being modeled was painted and a whole lot of other variables. Another thing which can be figured in is scale distance. An HO scale model viewed from 1 foot away appears to our eyes as if it were 87 feet away. That makes a difference in how much dirt and paint fade is apparent. For weathering on a model to be effective it has to be more heavily done than would be seen on the prototype than would be seen from 87 feet away ( or 160 or 48 or whatever) but it is very easy to overdo. This is the main reason I like to use pastels and weathering powders. If I get them on too heavy it's easy to fix.
I also think that weathering is one of the most subjective aspects of modeling and everybody has to find a level that suits them and that looks good to them.
Have Fun,
Tom Watkins

[Roadtrp]

I agree that weathering is overdone at times. I see this most frequently with structures. Locos and rolling stock may take a beating in certain parts of the country, but I don't think I've EVER seen towns as uniformly grungy looking as I've seen in some layouts. Even the run down areas of Minneapolis generally look better than much of what I see in the pages of MR.

[rogerhensley]

I firmly agree with knowing your subject when it comes to weathering. Yes, I am aware of the desert effects, but I wouldn't expect to see that on a home road car on the East Coast. :-)

Yes, weathering is really up to the modeler. I just wanted to comment on the trend to over-weathering.

Good comments guys.

[Anonymous]

I think weathering is a personal choice and a modeler should do what he/she feels is right for themselves.

I was born in 1950, when I started to notice trains, I remember them being pretty dirty up here in Minnesota where we get plenty of weather! What gets termed weathering is also fading from exposure and corrosion. So even if it rains a lot, these two effects are occuring.

[mondotrains]

Hey Roger,
I get your drift about over-weathering. I've been preparing to weather my roster and have been looking at pictures in books such as the "New Haven Guide to Freight and Passenger Equipment" to determine how stuff should look. I'd like to share some ideas that recently occured to me.

Cars need to be weathered based on where they came from AND the period in which you're modeling. Let me explain about the period first. I'm modeling the New Haven in 1959 and therefore need to be aware that some boxcars, like the orange ones recently released by Branchline, were freshly painted orange just a couple of years before 1959. Therefore, I wouln't want to weather them too heavily. On the other hand, those boxcar red cars the New Haven had which were built back in the forties would have been very faded and weathered by 1959. Sure, in that New Haven book I mentioned, there are pictures of the orange boxcars looking terribly weathered but looking at the captions in the book, I've noticed that the photos were taken in the late 1960's. It's not going to be very realistic to weather a car to look like those photos, again, not when you're modeling 1959.

As far as where they came from, I mean the particular road and where it was run. Like you already mentioned, some roads didn't get as dusty and dirty. I'm sure most of the Floriada East Coast cars didn't get as weathered as some of the New Haven's. With all this said, I guess it's up to the modeler. I plan to hold true to some of the photos but all in all, some weathering will be applied to every car and I will probably over-weather some. It's time for me to get out all those MR articles I've cut out and saved in notebooks and look at the ones behind the tab labeled "Weathering".

Good Luck!
Mondo

[cacole]

Seeing as how you're writing from Indiana where it obviously rains more than in the desert southwest, I understand your point of view about the rain keeping rolling stock somewhat washed. If you ever have an opportunity to see what trains look like as they pass through southern Arizona on the former SP Sunset Route between California and El Paso, Texas, you'd see that there's practically no such thing as an overly weathered item. For as long as the UP has now owned the former SP, they are still running unpainted Cotton Belt and SP locomotives that are so weathered they don't have road numbers on them any more, and a lot of the rolling stock is equally dirty from the dust and grime picked up as they pass through the desert. Paint doesn't last very long out here, so the grungier you can make it, the more realistic it becomes if you're modeling the desert southwest. Weathering, I guess you could say, is regional according to what you see running on your local prototype railroad.

[rogerhensley]

I thought about sending this to Model Railroader's RPO, but decided against it. So, I'll make a brief comment here.

I have become very weary of over-weathered models. Years ago, our railroads were populated with bright shinny cars, locos and buildings. This changed gradually as we realized that weathering was better making our layouts more realistic. But now we have terribly overdone weathering. There are two primary examples in the latest MR including one by a MR staffer. To me this promotes a very inaccurate vision of railroading and model railroading.

You say you have a picture of a badly weathered prototype car? I bet you do, and I'll show you 10 that are not. You say your structures need a lot of dirt because they are old? And I ask, is this by the ocean? Doesn't it ever rain there? Maybe in a desert, yes, but even where coal was used as fuel for homes and factories, it rained and washed off much of the coal residue. I think that a boxcar or locomotive that should be fairly new is weathered to look like it had been around and uncared for 50 years, it is overdone.

Yes, I do weather my cars and buildings to make them more realistic and I have a few heavily weathered cars because they represent older cars that are on their last legs and will soon be scrapped, but they are a minority on my railroad and not the usual. In my estimation, realism does not mean over-weathering.

Just thought I'd share this with you. Thank you for reading.