TMarsh The problem I have is most every picture of the "olden days" is in black and white giving it a faded somewhat dirty and worn look. Therefore a clean colorful 1930's or 40's just doesn't look right because I am comparing it to a faded colorless photo. We tend to want to model what we see and no matter how accurate it may be, it just doesn't seem right. If you think about it, the 1930's looked about like the world does now. A few more colors, newer designs but general condition and brightness, about like now. Not all faded and dingy.
The problem I have is most every picture of the "olden days" is in black and white giving it a faded somewhat dirty and worn look. Therefore a clean colorful 1930's or 40's just doesn't look right because I am comparing it to a faded colorless photo. We tend to want to model what we see and no matter how accurate it may be, it just doesn't seem right. If you think about it, the 1930's looked about like the world does now. A few more colors, newer designs but general condition and brightness, about like now. Not all faded and dingy.
Absolutely correct and that is why layouts done in the fashion of the F&SM and its ilk are a total fiction in regard to their appearance. It is simply an example of modeler's license, which I have no problem with, but it is not an accurate depiction of any reality and particularly not representative of eastern New England during the Depression Era.
I would add that anyone intent on modeling urban America as it appeared during that era take the time to view a selection of newsreels and even some early 1930's Hollywood films. In the former you may see bread lines and often old newspapers in the curbside gutters in the close-ups (I've often wondered if that wasn't stage dressing by the photographers), but all the buildings seem to look in the same condition as would today's in a street scene. Likewise, trains of the era seen on film (not PR films, but in general pictures) show surprisingly little weathering. These never seem to look anything like even moderately weathered models do. Sometimes the wood looks a bit weather beaten, but the reporting marks, lettering and heralds are alway relatively clean an crisp.
CNJ831
Buildings get run down sure. But not as quickly as we sometimes present on our layouts. If an era is say, the 20's or 30's, you are not going to have too many run down buildings unless they were built maybe 10, 15, 20 years earlier. We forget that a building built in the 20's was new in the twenties. Not run down and dirty. It's location also has a lot to do with the filth level. Near a railyard probably would subject the building to a lot of soot, or near a factory or some soot generating facility.
For the most part what we should see on a layout is a mixture of various levels from rundown to somewhat new if we want to capture the reality of larger areas. Of course there are always exceptions in every area of town or even some smaller towns that can be brought up.
Just my opinion, yours may vary.
Todd
Central Illinoyz
In order to keep my position as Master and Supreme Ruler of the House, I don't argue with my wife.
I'm a small town boy. A product of two people from even smaller towns. I don’t talk on topic….. I just talk.
Along that line..
Any argument carried far enough will end up in Semantics--Hartz's law of rhetoric Emerald. Leemer and Southern The route of the Sceptre Express Barry
I just started my blog site...more stuff to come...
http://modeltrainswithmusic.blogspot.ca/
Just a little dilapidated!
Sean
HO Scale CSX Modeler
blownout cylinder I did come across something like what you are referring to Sean...
I did come across something like what you are referring to Sean...
Yeah, that's the ticket. I used to live near there, but that's before my day. Long gone, now.
Ah, when I mentioned WWII, I wasn't clear. The railroad equipment is kind of worn out - they actually were making a ton of money but there wasn't anything to BUY due to material shortages. Also, they were putting money into moving the trains, and there wasn't as much labor to do non-revenue maintenance due to employees in the military.
However, other businesses and people were also making money hand over foot by 1944, and many were not quite so strained as the railroads. My town is going to look fairly prosperous, and I try to give the railroads a prosperous (yet very used) look.
Barry,
That looks just like the recession we are in now, late model cars clogging the roads, burning up gasoline no body has money for. People in clean new clothes going to movies and restaurants, businesses advertising their products.
Here were I live, you would never think the economy is slow, except maybe by how long real estate takes to sell.
Some of those cars look dirty, but not one looks rusted, or beat up, or falling apart. Same with the buildings.
I think another good point that should be made here is there is a big difference between the natural way things get DIRTY, as opposed to things being in disrepair.
I make most of my freight cars a little dirty, few are in disrepair, same with buildings.
Sheldon
Some depression era to WWII shots anyone?
Ulrich I see so many models that try to show dilapidated buildings..rolling stock..locomotives..track...is clean, modern looking not that interesitng?
I see so many models that try to show dilapidated buildings..rolling stock..locomotives..track...is clean, modern looking not that interesitng?
Actually a study of old photos will show just the opposite even during the "great depression" (that's a topic in its self) the buildings wasn't trashy or run down like many believe.
Larry
Conductor.
Summerset Ry.
"Stay Alert, Don't get hurt Safety First!"
Anything in the real world is under a set of destructive agent.
Except brand new items, buildings and vehicules, most thing have variable dilapidation degree according to their age, maintenance and usage.
Most things that look to be still in good shape to our eyes looks bad when compared to a similar brand new item. After a year of existence under normal condition, an object start to show signs of wearing. By exemple, a paint job can be well maintained on a house, but still the color will fade away under the weathering agents and UV. Railroad cars that looks shiny are always freshly painted. Take a picture of them and spot them a year later and that will be something else. The engine used on my local branchline were a prime exemple. In less than a few months, they turned up to be piece of oily junk (well, the company wasn't maintenance-oriented at all), but still, it was a good exemple.
Level of dilapidation varies greatly from era to era as many of us pointed out.
I have to work a lot on heritage building and I'm always surprised to see how fast buildings decayed in old time. Paint didn't lasted long and soon a building would get a dilapidated look if it wasn't repainted on a regular basis. For folks in the countryside using white lime washes it was worst if they neglected it for a year or two.
The era was dominated with inefficient wood, coal and oil burning. A nice stone building freshly built could turn black pitch in only 10-15 years in the first half of the 20th century.
This is still true in our modern era, even if many coatings and finishings are more durable and need less maintenance. It's healthy to have various degree of dilapidation to show that parts from the layout span different eras. And since rails were built prior to cities expansions, it's normal to find old buildings and under-funded borought along them still today.
Dilapidation is also a good way to enhance a model, bringing details to life and killing the "plastic" or "brand new" look. However, I must admit that overdoing it is sometimes as bad as not doing it. But on this, it's a matter of taste.
And remember that many great modellers always use subtle variation in their colors and finishes to make things more realist, even when depicting a brand new model.
Matt
Proudly modelling the Quebec Railway Light & Power Co since 1997.
http://www.hedley-junction.blogspot.com
http://www.harlem-station.blogspot.com
Graffen cedarwoodron: no business would allow it's capital properties to fall into such disrepair that one often sees on model railroads, to the point of total disrepair. Cedarwoodron I strongly disagree with you on that. I have seen MANY industries that have buildings that are being constantly "under repair", but still look like ****. It is a question of profitabilty of the company of course, but very often it is more important to have a production going than some ship-shape surrounding! I worked in my youth at a BIG Truck manufacturer, and some of the buildings had rusty roofs, leaks, some broken windows (double glass, and the outer pane broken...), and a LOT of other visual stuff. It is interesting on the other hand, that you could immediately spot wich buildings that had been built in the last 5-10 years.....
cedarwoodron: no business would allow it's capital properties to fall into such disrepair that one often sees on model railroads, to the point of total disrepair. Cedarwoodron
no business would allow it's capital properties to fall into such disrepair that one often sees on model railroads, to the point of total disrepair.
Cedarwoodron
I strongly disagree with you on that. I have seen MANY industries that have buildings that are being constantly "under repair", but still look like ****.
It is a question of profitabilty of the company of course, but very often it is more important to have a production going than some ship-shape surrounding!
I worked in my youth at a BIG Truck manufacturer, and some of the buildings had rusty roofs, leaks, some broken windows (double glass, and the outer pane broken...), and a LOT of other visual stuff. It is interesting on the other hand, that you could immediately spot wich buildings that had been built in the last 5-10 years.....
OK..well, you may have worked in an environment like that but...
Maybe SOME were dilapidated BUT NOT ALL were...
cedarwoodron In any artistic medium, that which elevates the visual interest of the observer (a dramatic pose by a human figure, backround enhancement- lightning in a stormy sky, etc.) gives more heft to the end result, whether a static medium, such as ours (in relation to scenes and structures), or in dynamic mediums, such as music and dance. The issue of weathering excessively does appear to contradict some images from earlier times, but I would think that that while the daily "grunginess" of a railroad was one thing, no business would allow it's capital properties to fall into such disrepair that one often sees on model railroads, to the point of total disrepair. Cedarwoodron
In any artistic medium, that which elevates the visual interest of the observer (a dramatic pose by a human figure, backround enhancement- lightning in a stormy sky, etc.) gives more heft to the end result, whether a static medium, such as ours (in relation to scenes and structures), or in dynamic mediums, such as music and dance.
The issue of weathering excessively does appear to contradict some images from earlier times, but I would think that that while the daily "grunginess" of a railroad was one thing, no business would allow it's capital properties to fall into such disrepair that one often sees on model railroads, to the point of total disrepair.
As I understand your point, I agree. But, throughout our history industries and companies have lifecycles from birth to death(or dieing and rebirth). So, in some cases if you're modeling some heavy industries in the rust belt during the late 1970s when avoiding bankruptcy was the order of the day--sometimes buildings as well as equipment was "held together with bailing wire"--for example, used plywood from the receiving department to quickly and cheaply replace a broken window.
But there was also a time when Ford's huge Rouge complex was new and relatively "shinny". If you are a more contemporary modeler with industries having a high sensitivity to the EPA and green industries of the 2000s, then weathering would likely not include a lot of waste which can lead to ground water contamination. I know the plants I work in today are a LOT cleaner then back in the 70s. Another example is erosion. Back in the first part of the 20th century, rural erosion was a much bigger problem then it is now.
BTW, if you were to model UPs 951 today after recently being repainted and glossy looking, it would look a lot newer then about 10 years ago. But it's actually 10 years older. Nothing wrong with nice shiny paint jobs. I've worked with the GE plant in Erie and have seen the new locos sitting on the sidings, they aren't dull. But as some have said your HO perspective of visual distance will have an effect on shine/color and should be taken into account to avoid toyness. However, a lot of times toyness is not so much a result of shineness as much as lack of detail and accurate color. When you consider this HO perspective of distance and some level of "blueness" it is important to take into account your lighting. Different lights can pick up different spectrums allowing for an overall difference of observed color/shine.
Richard
cedarwoodron no business would allow it's capital properties to fall into such disrepair that one often sees on model railroads, to the point of total disrepair. Cedarwoodron
Swedish Custom painter and model maker. My Website:
My Railroad
My Youtube:
Graff´s channel
jeffrey-wimberly I've been asked by many why I go for the weathered rusty look on my layout when what they see in their area looks much cleaner and newer while those who live here or have been here consider it to not be weathered enough. It's not unusual to see old dirty weathered buildings here and long lines of freight cars with obscene amounts of rust and graffiti on them. Sometimes the locomotives don't look much better.
I've been asked by many why I go for the weathered rusty look on my layout when what they see in their area looks much cleaner and newer while those who live here or have been here consider it to not be weathered enough. It's not unusual to see old dirty weathered buildings here and long lines of freight cars with obscene amounts of rust and graffiti on them. Sometimes the locomotives don't look much better.
It does depend on the locale you are trying to model and the era select. If I were to model the railroad my grandfather worked for in its final years, then dilapidated and crusty would be the key to everything...locomotives, coal cars, trackside buildings, cars, etc. Everything had a dilapidated look to it then. Heck, the turn table had a dilapidated look to it ever since I can remember!
If I were to backdate that same railroad to the mid 70's when they painted the locos in the bicentennial paint scheme, renumbered and named them; then everything would have a newer look to them.
Robert H. Shilling II
I have 2 covered Reading hoppers that were done with the 'repaired' panels...
edit: I have to retake the photos...they are TOO fuzzy!!
dehusman One thing to keep in mind is to weather in context with the era being modeled. I have seen many people weather rolling stock based on what it looks like now or how it was photographed in a later era. For example a modeler with an late 40's early 50's era modeling a PS1 boxcar very heavily, with large rust patches and dents. In the era of the layout, the car would have been fairly new and would have had only light to moderate weathering.
One thing to keep in mind is to weather in context with the era being modeled. I have seen many people weather rolling stock based on what it looks like now or how it was photographed in a later era. For example a modeler with an late 40's early 50's era modeling a PS1 boxcar very heavily, with large rust patches and dents. In the era of the layout, the car would have been fairly new and would have had only light to moderate weathering.
Another point well taken on this subject. In addition and I think perhaps already briefly cited, concerns weathering your models from prototype photographs. Do so with care! While perhaps not quite so true today as in the past, camera toting railfans of the past (particularly at the close of the steam era) were inclined to snap mostly pictures of the unusual, unique and severely weathered equipment, rather than mundane every-day cars and locos. Thus, it was the most heavily weathered and deteriorated rolling stock that got photographed, not the better maintained cars.
Likewise, most photos of steam locomotives we see come for the final years of steam. It was a period when railroads had known for some time that they would soon be replacing all their steamers with new diesels. So, companies deferred maintenance to an almost criminal degree, resulting in the rusting, rolling wrecks, hobbyists toil so hard nowadays to replicate. The reality is that this period was relative brief in terms railroading history. In their slightly earlier days these same steamers would have been very well maintained and the passenger equipment, in particular, nearly spotless. Image was everything to the railroads in gaining new business. In addition, through most of the steam era crews often had specific motive power assigned to them and made every effort to keep up the machine's appearance.
Further, in the era of mainly wooden freight cars and due to the nature of paint quality, cars were shopped and repainted on a regular, relatively short term, basis. Between shoppings they may have darkened to a degree from soot in service, but lettering and heralds were almost always very clear and obvious, not faded almost to invisibility due to excessive age, dirt, and grime.
Another overlooked modeling facet nowadays only rare seen on layouts, but often talked about in rolling stock modeling articles years back, is depicting replaced vertical boards on reefers. Many reefers could be found on the prototype with starkly contrasting, newly painted, replacement boards from recent shopping damage repairs. When was the last time you saw that modeled!
All further food for thought on the subject at hand.
Same thing with buildings. Weathering an "old brick building" but in the era of the layout it would be a "new brick building". For example I model 1900-1905. Most of the large brick buildings would be less than 10 years old on my layout.
In my era the engines, even the old ones, would be pretty well maintained with only road grime on the engines, even the ones that will be retired in the next 5-10 years.
Dave H. Painted side goes up. My website : wnbranch.com
Dr. Frankendiesel aka Scott Running BearSpace Mouse for president!15 year veteran fire fighterCollector of Apple //e'sRunning Bear EnterprisesHistory Channel Club life member.beatus homo qui invenit sapientiam
Now, THIS is even more dilapidated....
Medina1128 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.... No, THAT'S dilapidated!!
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....
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....
No, THAT'S dilapidated!!
Exactamundo!!!
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....
Marlon
See pictures of the Clinton-Golden Valley RR
CNJ831 Many times one hears from posters that they've never seen a modeled scene, even an urban one, that cannot immediately be recognized as not being real.
Part of this is that the viewer sees first the overall "model" environment, so the scene is already known to be part of a model before it's even looked at. You have a better chance at fooling people if they don't have any pre-conceptions as to whether it's real or not.
I use photos of my layout as "wallpaper" on my computer monitors at work and at home. Yes, these were carefully chosen and carefully framed pictures, but I have fooled at least two people. One was my sister, who knows I'm into model trains, and the layout could be seen from the computer desk. Yet, she was fooled by my "swans under the bridge" picture. The second viewer was a long-time resident of New York City, who was very puzzled by a scene from my Saint Anne Street subway station. He recognized the IRT and the oveall look of a New York subway station, but not the station name.
It takes an iron man to play with a toy iron horse.
CNJ831,
you are making an important point here. When we view our layouts or are focusing on a single object on it, we do not only have a different viewing angle, but a different perspective due to the miniaturization and a different color perception due to artificial lighting. All objects appear crisp and sharp, as opposed to reality, where objects get blurred and fuzzy in a distance.
All of this has to be considered when we select the coloring and weathering. I find that sometimes the prototype´s coloring looks so much different in our train room than outside.
In any case - subtleness is the name of the game!
Richard - I have to disagree to your point 3 statement. Weathering in most of the times will make bad paint jobs even more apparent.
Great responses everyone..and just to clear one point up...my initial question wasn't to disparage or make any negative comments ...some layouts that seem to emphasis dilapidation are quite impressive.
Personally I'm a big believer in weathering to make things look right...but I try to keep dilapidation to a minimum...same with graffitti and litter...and I appreciate that its really a question of personal preference alot of the time. In general I want my models to convey that the railroad is a well run and managed property, and that the towns it runs through are also reasonably prosperous and well managed..
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
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
The above is a very perceptive post, one to be heeded by all in regard to their weathering.
Many times one hears from posters that they've never seen a modeled scene, even an urban one, that cannot immediately be recognized as not being real. They'll say that there is just something about the appearance that screams,"Model!" However, when Hollywood works with miniatures as part of a background in a composite shot for a movie, viewers are not even aware that the entire scene is other than absolutely real. This is simply because studio artists paint/weather their models in such a way as to convey the effects/appearance of atmosphere between the viewer and the structures.
There is always a subtle degree of increasing softness and a slight shift of colors toward the blue end of the spectrum created by intervening atmosphere as distance from the viewer increases. We, in viewing the real world, are not normally conscious of this because it always surrounds us. But remove the effects of humidity, particulates and such that we see our world through and a scene immediately becomes surreal (ever look at photos taken by astronauts of the lunar surface?).
I saw a striking example of this while visiting Australia's outback some years ago. In the ultra dry, still, atmosphere I was aware of something being wrong with my surroundings, but I couldn't immediately put my finger on it. When I got the slides of the trip back, those showing distance terrain features looked exactly like photos of scale models! The distant terrain was much too sharp and clearly rendered to be believable. Subsequently, I've used some of those images in modeling clinics I've presented.
1. I think weathering began years ago as a way of making our models of everything look more realistic.
2. It is easier to paint to a dull finish vs gloss finish where imperfections are harder to cover up. Also, I think mfgs take advantage of this to our disadvantage
3. Weathering covers up our mistakes or difficulties with painting
4. I don't model the dilapidated world and quite frankly enjoy what I consider a more positive and balanced world where there are models and scenes from new to old.
I Agree fully with Sir Madog here.
Furthermore, there is one point I would like to make.
There is one thing that hasn´t really been discussed here regarding the weathering of buildings and trains.
I work as a prop builder for the movie industry, and when making a model in a less weathered state, the audience doesn´t buy it!
At a workshop, we learned that even ILM makes the CGI´s weathered and "delapidated" just to make it more plausible to the audience!
An example, the movie "Titanic", they first made the boat as delivered in a relatively pristine condition (it was her maiden voyage after all). On a test viewing, the audience said it looked like a CGI! So they had to make her look lika a ship that had some ageing on her.
The human mind doesn´t work logical, as the eyes have the greatest dominance of all the senses over the brain. And in the case of seeing a model that is meant to depict older things (nevermind that it should be new at the time!), we like to see some degree of weathering and decripitude, just to make it work with our inner image of it.
That is why a layout with clean areas and "new" buildings, will more often than not be seen as lacking "something"......
As an artist I like to view it from my point, as opposed to the nitpickers side. But I prefer soul over anal retention...
A thread I found on another forum actually has an incredible amount of photos as well to illustrate the above....
http://www.jalopyjournal.com/forum/showthread.php?t=428585&page=716
All 1,080 pages of it....