Why so much focus on dilapidation?

[Ulrich]

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

[dknelson]

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

[Jamis]

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. 

[cowman]

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

[blownout cylinder]

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....

[Colorado_Mac]

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.

[jmbjmb]

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.   

[blownout cylinder]

I guess it depended on where one was....

[blownout cylinder]

[Medina1128]

blownout cylinder

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....

 

 

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

[blownout cylinder]

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....

[Rabid]

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.

[AltonFan]

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.

[blownout cylinder]

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...

[citylimits]

[ATLANTIC CENTRAL]

Jamis

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. 

Not everywhere and everything, the historical records and photos do not show that. The world does not "fall apart" in 3 years or 5 years.

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. 

Yes, railroading is a dirty business, but the degree of that varies from era to era and place to palce as well. 

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 of its condition. Than go look at it up close and look for flaws. You will find a lot more flaws up close than at 260'. But in HO our common viewing distance is 3' or 260 scale feet away. That's what I model.

Sheldon

[tstage]

Jamis

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.

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 they did have or could do.  Just look at pictures of MLB games in the first half of the 20th century.  Folks came to the games in suits, ties, and hats!

While I wouldn't realistically expect a RR or town to be completely pristine, I also wouldn't expect it to be completely dilapidated and rundown-looking - i.e. unless it was defunct or in bankruptcy.  The only areas that I can think of that might have that kind of widespread poverty would be the Dust Bowl of OK or the Appalachians of WV.

Some weathering - no matter what era you model - is realistic and plausible.  However, having EVERY house with a sagging roof , yards with tons of clutter, debris and/or rusting cars in it, or rows and rows of vacant or rundown buildings is just overkill.  The key is balance.

Too pristine or too weathered makes a layout less believable - at least in my eyes.  Either version would be a "stylized" rendering of reality, which is fine - if that is how you want to depict something.  However, to say that's how things were in reality back then?  Sorry, I can't agree with that at all.

Tom

[Forty Niner]

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

[ATLANTIC CENTRAL]

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. ALL this was new, and it did not all get rusty, dirty and run down again over night. Detroit resumed auto production, people bought new cars, with shinny paint and lots of chrome - Have you ever seen a 58 Chevy?

Highways were being expanded, houses built for GI's to live in. All those old run down buildings you see today on US 1, or US 40, or US 66, or whatever old US highway is in your town, were all new and vibrant businesses in the 50's and 60's.

The 50's was also the real "birth" of suburbia, and it was just as clean, fresh, new, bright, trendy and such as any new mall, shopping area or housing developement built today. Barry's pictures are some great examples.

Some railroads had it really tough in the depression, but many, like the C&O did very well. So by the 50's, with their war money, they bought lots of fancy new stuff. The C&O, WM, N&W were all known for keeping their equipment clean and in good repair - the PRR, not so much. The B&O, somewhere in between.

I have restored old houses for a good portion of my life, NEVER, have I been able to see a nail hole in a piece of wood siding from 100 feet away - yet we have modelers who think that looks realistic. I realize that wood siding is not so common any more, but in its day, it was smooth and flat with no visable grain and no visable nail holes. EVEN if it had not been painted in ten years. In that case it might be faded or dirty, a few spots might be peeling or cracked, but that would be about all.

I have pictures of SP GS4's sitting in stations that look as clean as HO model fresh out of the box.

Look around at your world - you will see old, new and in between. It has always been that way - even in 1900, or 1925, or 1933, or 1944, or 1957.

Sheldon

[hon30critter]

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

[ATLANTIC CENTRAL]

hon30critter

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. Ulrich has chosen to post his disagreement with other's choices in a rather negative way. If he was offering constructive criticsm then that would be great. Put downs have no place here.

Sorry if I am causing friction.

Dave

Dave, I don't think you are causing any friction, but I don't see anything wrong with the way Ulrich posed his obersvation either. He asked a simple question, others will rspond. He did not say anything negative about a specific person? And even if he did, if it was a simple "I don't like excessive weathering like the F&SM" (my words not his), so what, that's just an opinion of personal preference.

I do think "PC" has run amuck if you think a simple statement of opinion like that is a put down?

Sheldon

[CNJ831]

Ulrich - This is largely representative of a modeling style initiated by John Allen and to a degree carried far beyond any reality simply for the purpose of effect, particularly in regard to his ads for Varney in MR. However, not only did others quickly take a liking to this appearance and copy this modeling style, but they came to (wrongly) believe that it actually was commonplace and truly representative of the prototype during the Great Depression era.

The mistake made, as always, was as a result of not knowing, or researching, the actual historical situation. In fact, just prior to the onset of the Depression, America had gone through the most prosperous period it had ever seen and structures were, for the most part, in excellent condition. Somehow the naive believe that the utter dilapidate seen rendered in so many craftsman models arose over night in the prototype.

In fact, many industries of the period kept on a small maintenance crew at reduced salaries. These folks, who would otherwise have been laid off, maintained the buildings and property, painting and repairing as needed. As astute business men in a tough economy, the bosses knew very well that if their plants looked run down that they were unlikely to be approached to do any new jobs.

There is also the situation of the WPA photographers. Hired by the government, just to maintain some degree of employment in this area, they were sent out with ill-defined assignments of more-or-less documenting the human condition. If one peruses the result, they find that the work can be separated into two distinct, opposing, groups. Since many of these photographers considered themselves photo-journalists, they wanted to tell a story AS THEY SAW IT. One group chose to depict utter ruin and hardship, while the other centered their work around the bright promise of tomorrow. The photos illustrate two diametrically opposing worlds. Unfortunately, today we almost exclusively see just the work of the former group. The real world was somewhere between these extremes.

Now, the more modern usage of rundown buildings and dilapidation on a vast, layout-filling scale, is pretty much just imaginary, except perhaps for certain areas of major cities in the late 1960's. But again, the modeling choice has been heavily influenced by the modeling of John Allen, Malcolm Furlow, and George Selios. While I certainly admire the last named individual's work, it is almost post apocalyptic in some respects and looks absolutely nothing like eastern New England of the period. But then, George fully admits that his modeling has been heavily influenced by John Allen.

CNJ831

 

[pastorbob]

My Santa Fe in Oklahoma, 1989 sets the tone for the layout.  New grain cars, old weathered grain cars, certain large elevators on their last legs before being sold/remodeled/destroyed.  Also the traffic flow in that era comes in to play.  In fact, I limit my era to June 1989, the month of big time harvest in Oklahoma, the year of transistion.  So any equipment that won't fit the era doesn't get purchased.

Another advantage, by adhering to a certain date and time keeps me nearly honest in buying new equipment, ie. if it didn't exist in 1989, then it won't be on the layout (knowingly).

Bob

[ATLANTIC CENTRAL]

CNJ831,

Thanks for adding your comments, most of that was on my mind as well but my post was getting long and my fingers tired.

Sheldon

[hon30critter]

Sheldon:

You are right. I over reacted for reasons outside of this post. I apologize to everyone including Ulrich.

Dave

[Howard Zane]

Sometimes we do over weather and over dilapidate. The many wonderful photos posted on this thread sort of gives a clue...Whether a structure is dilapidated or "lapidated" doesn't really matter...the issue is scale. Otherwise everything on your layout has scale....color, texture, scenery,.etc, but mainly color. Ever put a new black factory painted loco on your pike next to a nicely weathered counterpart? The is difference is extroadinary. Instead of using the term "weathering", try focusing on graying down the colors on everything. This may be achieved in several ways, but mainly by either adding complimentary colors to your paint and overpraying with a very light and very flat black/gray  mist in addition to an ultra flat finish.

Again, this is what works for me and certainly not gospel. I have however scaled to as close as I can get to 1/87 just about everything on my layout including water. You may check out photos and video on zanestrains.com. But in all fairness, what I don't know about this hobby will fill volumes. That is the fun for me.....always learning.

HZ

[Cat]

It's not just a Depression era ambiance.

Growing up in the 60's, which was overall a fairly prosperous time -- here in the metro Boston area the buildings and neighborhoods along the tracks were fairly rundown.  Houses along the tracks , owned or rental units, were not kept up.  Those are all lower class neighborhoods, not upper end ones..  The light industries that were still being served by rail were aging, and the buildings showed it; or they were newer but cheap construction and didn't stay pristine for very long.  

Where the tracks crossed Main St., those buildings were in good shape, but a block away along the tracks, they were pretty scruffy (see above).  Railroad bridges were pretty rusty and worn.  The stations were in pretty bad repair.  While the general economy was booming, the railroads were not.

Road bridges over the tracks also tended to be in pretty bad shape and topped the list of the most dangerous bridges in the state -- because the railroads, the public transit, and the towns argued over who was responsible for upkeep and in the end none of them would pay for it, each claiming it was somebody else's fiscal responsibility.  Some of those bridges have just been repaired in the last 10 years or so!  Same thing with access roadways along the tracks and reaching those light industries -- full of the worst potholes and never repaired.

And train operations are dirty!  The Boston subway system is the oldest in the US.  The stations were painted glossy white when they first opened in 1897.  Within a few years they were dingy and soot covered!  And that was just with trolleys running through them, no steam.

 

 

[PRR_in_AZ]

Howard hit the nail right on the head as far as I'm concerned.  It's not necessarily adding more rust or grime to make your structures or locomotives and rolling stock look less like toys and more like models.  It's adding that atmosphere in between your eye and that 260 some odd feet that HO scale is that makes the models believable.  Graying out colors adds that believability. 

Chris

[Anonymous]

Can´t remember having answered to this thread yet - oh, I see the OP´s nick is Ulrich

I would not call weathering dilapidation. Weathering is a method of capturing the look of objects stored or operated outside, being subjected to the elements. It is the attempt to add realism to our layouts. Of course, there are many different stages of weathering - from "as good as new" down to beaten up or dilapidated.

If you model a branch line operating on a shoestring budget, you´ll hardly find a freshly painted loco or car - most of the equipment will look heavily used, if not abused. If you model a class A road during the heydays of railroading, running a famous name train, than this train will most likely look like being just out of the shops yesterday.

Weathering in my view is an art, but it is easily overdone. Sometimes "breaking" the glossy finish of a new loco or car by giving it a coat of dull clear paint would do the job perfectly.

[ATLANTIC CENTRAL]

PRR_in_AZ

Howard hit the nail right on the head as far as I'm concerned.  It's not necessarily adding more rust or grime to make your structures or locomotives and rolling stock look less like toys and more like models.  It's adding that atmosphere in between your eye and that 260 some odd feet that HO scale is that makes the models believable.  Graying out colors adds that believability. 

Chris

I do find it interesting that Howard Zane's "newest" take on weathering is what I have been doing for about 40 years now.

Ulrich,

You are right on in my mind, some things should look new, some things dirty, some things a little worn, and JUST few things should look worn out.

Sheldon