Do we over weather our locos and rolling stock?

[BATMAN]

I think it all boils down to personal preference. (please disregard first sentence)

 One thing I do know is everthing looks different in a photo. I find lot's of things that need tweaking when I look at a photo of a scene or a car and for that reason a scene is never done.

The more talented among us can make it difficult to tell if it is a model we are looking at or the real thing, weathering is a part of that combination of things we do to try to achieve this. A photo of the car/loco in any given scene will determine whether or not the right balance was achieved.

In the photo below there is a new car and a high mileage unit sitting together. I think the new car does not look like it belongs. Sure cars have to be new at some time but I dare say that most will only look new for a matter of minutes after they are rolled out of the factory in a dirty industrial part of town and so even a light coat of dust will make a brand new car look real.

[Doughless]

A few thoughts:

I think weathering of models looks heavier in photos than in the flesh.  The camera seems to bring out the weathering, but maybe that has something to do with the photography than the model.

I agree with the post that talks about NOT creating a uniform dull sheen over the entire model.  Paint fades differently and some places might have worn paint, even rust spots, where other places still have plenty of sheen.

I like to weather by first blending paint in an attempt to match the body color.  It will never be a perfect match. I then apply that paint with a fine brush to the rivet points , doors, creases, etc.  The difference in sheen and slight color variation brings out the details and gives a hint of a weathered look without giving that "paint over paint" look that is common with our models.

I like to use a curved bladed hobby knife to gently scrape the lettering.  If done gently, it will scrape just enough paint to look like faded lettering (because the body color is starting to poke through), then a wash over the lettering with the blended paint color (see above) adds more to the faded lettering look.  Trying to represent faded lettering by simply painting or airbrushing over it does not look good, IMO.  You have to remove some of the paint.  Its harder to do if the lettering is a decal.  

Edit:  The weathering of the boxcars in the links provided above is very good.  I think the StMary's boxcar looks better than the D&H.  JMO, but the D&H looks like brown paint was applied over the white lettering, but not much if any of the lettering itself was removed or thinned.  OTOH, the faded lettering of the STM car looks more realistic.  I don't know the technique used, but I suspect he airbrushed a very thin coat of white paint over the lettering to give it that faded look.  Its very helpful that the car body is white itself so the spray does not stand out, which it would if it was applied to a dark colored car.  But I could be wrong.

[ATLANTIC CENTRAL]

Graffen

I don't know if these are overdone, but this is the way I like them:

 

 

 

They may be a little heavier than my taste, but they are very well done. The point I have been trying to make is about viewing distance and "softness" of weathering effects as opposed to harsh rust and decay - which often look realistic up close but look over done at layout viewing distances.

The locos all look great, the two box cars are a little too much for my taste, but again, very skillfully done.

Sheldon

[Anonymous]

I believe most modelers will find that weathering is much like other components in the hobby.

That is, it has to look realistic in the environment we have available.

Here's an example.

Years ago, I saw pictures of the Auto-Max cars and thought they'd look great on my layout.

I bought a couple and put them in the yard. This yard was about 25 feet long, with 5 tracks each for the eastbound and westbound sides, so it wasn't that the yard was too small for large cars.

They looked ridiculous, like O scale cars on an HO layout.

I thought I'd get used to how they looked. I didn't, and traded them in shortly after for something else.

You might say, "What's all this got to do with weathering?"

In the same way that those cars just didn't look right compared to the rest of the layout, a car that's weatherd heavily, even if it's prototypical, may not look realistic in comparison to the rest of your rolling stock.

I'd suggest starting slowly, with a light coat. Put the car on the layout and stand back.

Take a look at it in comparison to other cars, buildings and even the scenery.

It's all a package and seeing the car in it's full environment will give you a better idea than viewing the car on it's own.

You may very well find that the car looks dirty enough long before you'd have thought it would.

Also, it's a lot easier to add a little more than to try cleaning everything off and starting again.

[JWhite]

It all depends on what you are trying to model.  I model 1955 and I've done a lot of research on my prototype.  One conclusion that I've come to, is that the steam and transition era were incredibly dirty compared to how things are today.  But that doesn't necessarily mean that every car and locomotive should be modeled so that they look like you can write your name with a finger tip in the grime.  The railroads washed and repainted their equipment. 

You can see an example of how dirty a steam engine (IC 2550 a big 4-8-2) could get about 10 minutes into this video where a locomotive is washed. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JEdoxdnHwRY&nohtml5=False

Coal burning locomotives, coal burning power plants and coal heat in most homes and businesses in the northern parts of North America left a dark film on everything.

I think there is a place for everything from factory new paint jobs to the cruddiest, dirtiest, rustiest equipment you can imagine on most layouts.  One can certainly find photo evidence that shows all of these things.

There are certain industries that we model, coal mines come to mind, that are very dirty and I think equipment that spends most of it's life in these places needs to be pretty dirty to look right.

[SLC RR]

I purchased my first air brush and have been trying to get that "faded" look.  I mixed some grey and a couple drops of brown acrylics and apply them in several very fine coats.

 

I think it turned out ok but it is easy to get carried away.  Here is a new Bachmann northern pacific flat car, I faded the sides and used some clay (real pulverized fine dirt particles) and airbrush on the top.  The bluegreen GN box also got faded down, I plan on leaving that one just the way it is.

 

[Graffen]

I don't know if these are overdone, but this is the way I like them:

 

 

[Catt]

Personaly I don't feel there are that many overdone weathering jobs.The problem I see is someone weathering their rolling stock and locos with out a clue as to how weathering actually happens.

There is rhyme and reason to weathering patterns and rusting.You really need to study the prototype to get it right.

By the way my weathering starts with the trucks and couplers and works it's way up.

[jecorbett]

My first few attempts at weathering I badly over did it until I learned to moderate the weathering. I'm much happier with the results but those early efforts are still on the roster and they stick out like sore thumbs. Subtlety goes a long way.

[Guy Papillon]

I agree with those who say ""Less is better". When I will decide it is time to weather my fleet, I will follow Waine's recipe. Although I am not sure I will get such results as what he is doing.

 

[riogrande5761]

I agree with the "less is more" comment when it comes to weathering.  I have a fellow D&RGW modeler friend out west who does amazing weathering and most of the time his freight cars are lightly but appropriately weathered, some a fair amount more.

Sure, many will present photo's of severely weathered cars and of course they are out there, but I'd rather have a train of mostly lightly weathered cars with a few more heavily mixed in.

Also, I've seen a lot of badly weathered cars which were "over weathered" and not in a good way.  Some of them are displayed on forums where people present their work and make me cringe, altough I try to just keep my mouth shut as all the compliments flow in reminding me of how we compliment our sons and daughters when the drew something we didn't quite know what it was, but told them what a great job they did.

Less is better.

[carl425]

I agree with the "less is more" folks, but that's based more on my ability than my preference.  There was a picture of a heavily weathered Soo Line car posted a few days ago that was awesome.  If I could weather like that, I'd change my opinion.

[PRR8259]

The cars shown in the pictures above all look really really good.

[Bayfield Transfer Railway]

Well, as the saying goes, "it depends."  I took a lot of pictures in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan in the late 80s and early 90s, the period I model.  A LOT of both the cars and the locomotives were weathered almost to the point of decreptitude.

Photos for your era and region should be your guide.

 

[ATLANTIC CENTRAL]

Steven S

 

 

doctorwayne

While I'm "Forbidden" from viewing your first link, most, if not all, of the others are wartime photos, which generally support Sheldon's statement:

 

 

 

I'm not sure why the pic didn't show.  Here's the one I was trying to link to (second photo down.)

http://www.carrtracks.com/nmtcndx.htm

I don't know what the war has to do with it, given that the OP talked about old B&W photos of steam engines.  The war and depression eras were a big chunk of steam's history. 

IMO, the problem isn't the amount of weathering, it's just that much of it isn't done very well.  Too many look as though the person spent 60 seconds on them.  Dip a brush in powdered chalks or paint and scrub it on.  Done.  But look at the cars below.  Most people here would say they're overdone, but they're beautifully executed and very realistic.  I gaurantee you they spent a lot longer than a few minutes on them.

http://theweatheringshop.com/stmary.html

http://theweatheringshop.com/jerdh.html

 

Steve S

 

I'm not remotely interested in arguing the merits of various levels of weathering, but I will take just a minute to explain my statement and what Wayne was commenting on.

Historicly, the teens and the twenties were big growth periods for the railroads, they had lots of money and were very image conscious - paint schemes were fancy and well maintained.

The depression, despite the modeling of some, did not really take hold of the whole economy until about 1933, so fact is, people still painted their houses, repaired their buildings, washed their cars, and railroads maintained their infrastructures and equipment.

Railroading has always been a dirty business, I said that above. But allowing equipment to become dangeriously rusty and damaged was not really that common.

Just as the country might have been coming out of the depression, war broke out. All the young men went overseas, railroads were called on to move men and machine, they were forced to make do with limited staff and limited resources - maintenance was defered.

The war ends - railroads get the last of big payments due them from the government. A new type of suburban economy blossums as GI's return home. Railroads invest billions in updated equipment, repairs, last efforts at fancy passenger trains, and shinny new diesels in colorful paint schemes - for a while, just like the the early part of the century, the railroads look pretty clean and well cared for. Some steam hangs on while ALCO and EMD try to build enough diesels.

Some in particular are noted for this - the N&W and the WM in particular - and both kept steam longer than others and kept them in good repair and always clean.

Highways and airlines end any real hopes of rail passenger serice, outdated regulated tariffs choke railroads trying to compete with trucks, piggyback growth is slowed by bad government policy. Government begins cutting back postal service by rail.

Railroads begin to look to merger and consolidation to remain competitive. The economy slows in the late 60's and the railroads fall into some disrepair, begining what is likely the worst period in thier history regarding the condition of their equipment and infrastructure.

So, time period, locale, type of railroad, type and age of equipment, and much more play a role in how equipment might appear.

But there has always been equipment in every "stage" of wear and tear - you model the ones you want, I will model the ones I want.

Those dirty, coal dust covered cars in those urban freight yards likely looked very different just days or weeks later as they traveled through the open country side and got a good bath from a heavy rain - away from the dirty city. And yes, they would get dirty again in some coal dust filled freight yard, and would at some point make it back to their home shops for paint and service, just like several of the cars in those photos. Cars that look to be 10-20 years old, but are freashly painted.......

The two cars you linked to are very artfully weathered, however, as I pointed out in my original post, that sort of weathering looks very real up close, but looks very overdone as you stand and view a train moving past you from three feet away.

Dr. Wayne's cars look much better than those from a normal viewing distance..... 

Sheldon

[Steven S]

doctorwayne

While I'm "Forbidden" from viewing your first link, most, if not all, of the others are wartime photos, which generally support Sheldon's statement:

 

I'm not sure why the pic didn't show.  Here's the one I was trying to link to (second photo down.)

http://www.carrtracks.com/nmtcndx.htm

I don't know what the war has to do with it, given that the OP talked about old B&W photos of steam engines.  The war and depression eras were a big chunk of steam's history. 

IMO, the problem isn't the amount of weathering, it's just that much of it isn't done very well.  Too many look as though the person spent 60 seconds on them.  Dip a brush in powdered chalks or paint and scrub it on.  Done.  But look at the cars below.  Most people here would say they're overdone, but they're beautifully executed and very realistic.  I gaurantee you they spent a lot longer than a few minutes on them.

http://theweatheringshop.com/stmary.html

http://theweatheringshop.com/jerdh.html

 

Steve S

[Graham Line]

Stephen F wins the internet today. Weathering is most believable when based on photos of the real thing, and using a picture of a DRGW K-36 to weather a New York Central Mohawk doesn't count.   The rustbucket boxcars seen in the Northeast US in the 1990s don't look much like western cars that ran out most of their miles in dry and sunny climates.

[kasskaboose]

My wife reminds me that 'less is more' when it comes to certain things including weathering.  I used to weather cars a lot partly because I got too excited and was just learning.  The cars were probably over-weathered but I justified that partly because of their build date. Yes, I still proudly run the cars.

My technique is after applying dull coat, I use powered chalks to further dull the cars before combining artist paints to create rust spots applied with tooth picks.  Sometimes, I use mineral spirits to create rust streaks.  None of the cars get weathered the same.  This is intentional and quite real.  The tops and trucks get weathered a bit differently.

Some love to weather cars to look like rust buckets and others refuse to do anything.  I get it.  For me, weathering is not only creative but also fun because you can mimic real life.  Also, weathering not only replicates real life but distinguishes your cars/locos/buildings from toys.

[AntonioFP45]

DocWayne, outstanding work as usual and excellent advice!

IMHO, Tatans sums it up well.

Only tidbit I'm adding is for modelers (newbs or long-timers) that are curious but hesitant to give weathering a shot: Go light!

Back in the 90s my first weathering job, a bluebox PFE reefer, was a disaster! Made the mistake of trying to achieve a "Penn Central" effect. Didn't attempt weathering again for a stretch until I eventually realized that I was trying too hard. Weathering should be a relaxing, enjoyable activity.

A very safe route to take is to lightly weather your locomotive's or rolling stock's underframe. I was amazed at how much more a unit stands out by lightly applying thin coats of earth tone colors on the truck sideframes, brake gear, tanks, stirrups, and couplers. Only takes a few minutes. Cool factor with using acrylics for weathering is that if you go overboard, it's easy to wash off on the spot (but don't wait too long).

Here are two identical units. Walthers Budd Baggage-Dorm cars. The top unit's underframe was weathered, the bottom was not. You can clearly see which underframe stands out.

 

 

tatans

The key word in weathering is MODERATION, the true test of weathering is when you enjoy looking at a locomotive or car and you don't really notice that it is weathered, thats when it's done correctly.

 

[rrebell]

In the 30's which I model, neglect and dirt was the norm on most railroads, trackside was very dirty also. As far as shiny paint, the farther you are from the subject, the less shiny things appear in general.

[doctorwayne]

Steven S

These look pretty weathered to me....

While I'm "Forbidden" from viewing your first link, most, if not all, of the others are wartime photos, which generally support Sheldon's statement:

ATLANTIC CENTRAL

...From what I have been able to figure out, steam looked its worst during WWII and right before it all went to the scrap line. Other than those times in history, they were generally kept clean and painted within reason....

Each modeller has their own preferences for weathering, from none to "way too much" for all but the ones who like it that way.

I paint and letter all of my locomotives and almost all of my freight and passenger equipment, and everything gets some weathering.
 
I prefer my locos well-maintained but weathered (the initial weathering done within the paints chosen for the "new" paint job, then supplemented with additional road dirt and grime applied over the paint job).
This one's still got a sheen on its boiler and, viewed from the right angle, the cab and tender have a definite gloss, but there's soot along the top of the boiler and cab, and road dust and grime on the pilot, running gear, and flanks of the tender:

Similarly, freight cars' "new" paint colours are altered as I paint to suggest wear and fading, even if all of the cars are from the same road and same builder's order.  Most such cars then get similar weathering added, but in varying degrees, and then some of those get additional different weathering.Here are a few home road boxcars, all supposedly built between March and July of 1924:

...and the 7780, brand new (not yet weighed), but already somewhat weathered:

...here it is again, in a photo taken just minutes ago:

I also weather my passenger equipment, but usually just a bit of road dust and grime on the underbody and a bit on the lower portion of the sides, below the beltrail.  The paint still has a semi-gloss not always apparent in photos:

My weathering will seem too heavy to some, and too light for others, but it's pretty much how I like it.

I do have some more heavily weathered cars, too, like this Santa Fe reefer due for re-building into a steel car:

...or this NYC car, also destined for re-building as a single door steel car:

Both of those cars were built based on prototype photos.

This one got a little more weathering than intended, but was brought back, somewhat, with additional paint.  Gotta have a few bad apples in the barrel, eh?

Far from home, this one likely wouldn't see much of the car washers:

Wayne

[Steven S]

These look pretty weathered to me....

http://www.carrtracks.com/CArgentineKS.jpg

http://s147.photobucket.com/user/VIEWLINER/media/0805/2-Delano.jpg.html

http://railfan.com/photoline/photoline_apr2013/apr2013-02.jpg

http://webapp1.dlib.indiana.edu/collections/cushman/screen/P02955.jpg

http://ogrforum.ogaugerr.com/fileSendAction/fcType/0/fcOid/35076991777140895/filePointer/35076991777141011/fodoid/35076991777141001/imageType/LARGE/inlineImage/true/1yard%20%283%29.jpg

http://webapp1.dlib.indiana.edu/collections/cushman/screen/P06833.jpg

 

Steve S

[ATLANTIC CENTRAL]

A few thoughts:

The farther away from the real train you are, the less obvious its weathered condition is - unless of course it is just a pile of rust.

At three feet, in HO, you are 261 scale feet from the model. That is my guide for how stuff should look. I don't spend much time with my eyes 12" from the model.....

Much of today's detailed weathering is based on up close viewing of the prototype - 20, 30 feet away. My feeling is that always leads to an over weathered model when viewed from layout operating distances.

Railroading is dirty business, more important to me to add some of the dirt, not so much the deterioration.........

Some stuff should look nearly new - the railroads do have car washers, steam clearners, paint shops, etc.

I've seen color photos from the 50's, a lot of stuff was in very good condition.....

From what I have been able to figure out, steam looked its worst during WWII and right before it all went to the scrap line. Other than those times in history, they were generally kept clean and painted within reason.

Even right after WWII, steam was cleaned, painted, repaired as soon as war traffic levels slowed down - but then maybe not much else done as diesels started to take over.

I like very light generic "dust and dirt" weathering, with just a few hints of rust here and there, very subtle. 

A lot of my stuff is unweathered right now, simply because of time being spent elsewhere.

I do like passenger trains and some locos to be nearly perfectly clean......

Sheldon

[Old Thumper]

If I'm not mistaken (famous last words), this is a hobby.  For me a hobby is a relaxing pastime that gives me satisfaction and enjoyment.  What is good for me may not be good for others, but that is just fine and dandy.  If someone wants to weather their locos and rolling stock to look like the grungiest train that ever rolled through their neighborhood, and they enjoy doing that, then that is exactly what they should be doing.  I am currently building a Roundhouse locomotive kit and I am building it to look like it just rolled out of the factory and doesn't have a scratch or spot of grease on it because that is what appeals to me.  If I was building a model of a corvette, I would make it look brand new, not like it just drove through a New England snowstorm - covered with salt and road sand.  That doesn't make it right or wrong, it's just what gives me pleasure as a modeler.

What's right - what's wrong ???   Don't worry about it.  Build your model railroad in a way that is pleasing to you, and don't worry about how others build theirs, or what they think of yours.

 

[gregc]

jecorbett

It has been weathered to a dull gray.

i had asked why weathered locos are gray and i recall someone saying they looked better when photographed.

but the image below shows a locomotive that still has bright shiny black paint that hasn't been dulled to flat black or possibly flacked off in areas of high heat.    While I think it definetly shows signs of heavy use, it doesn't show signs of neglect, rust.

[PRR8259]

Absolutely yes, most people dramatically over-weather.

It is supposed to be subtle.

The thing that drives me crazy about many contemporary modelers is they want a dead flat finish on their motive power, which just is not typical of what is actually out there on the rails.

Even on most relatively boring black NS diesels in service today, there are quite a few areas of shiny black paint, in addition to the sooty streaks, etc.

Especially for those engines in captive yard-transfer service in and around Harrisburg, PA--they may be older high nose GP38's and the like, but NS keeps them gleaming clean, so clean one could almost eat off them.  They are so image conscious that I can't really name a time that I saw dead flat engines in service...maybe perhaps in storage?

 

John

[dknelson]

This has been an ongoing debate ever since John Allen made weathering a standard practice.  The late Paul Jansen's photos of brass steam locomotives that used to grace the Pacific Fast Mail catalogs often showed engines painted gray, in part because the details tend to disappear when things are painted black, particularly gloss black. 

That is why prototype steam locomotives and rolling stock were often painted a special shade of gray for original builders' photographs. 

The late John Gascoyne used to use various shades of black and gray to highlight details on the steam locomotives he custom painted or scratch built.  When he was accused of over-weathering he pointed out that it depended on what he was modeling -- if it was a C&O 4-6-4 for the FFV passenger train it was dark and glossy.  If it was a C&O 0-6-0 that never was sent through a wash rack in its career, it looked pretty rough.

But I have seen photos of steam locomotives, such as SP, MoPac, NYC and Pennsy, where the engines did indeed appear gray or at least not very dark, due to the paint being aged, or perhaps for SP, due to sandy terrain or salty air.  By contrast for whatever reason Milwaukee Road steam locomotives, even when shown on a dead line or meeting a scrapper's torch, look very black indeed. 

Locally, when Wisconsin Central boxcars were new, or newly painted, the paint was not only shiny like a new car, but was a beautiful deep rich red.  As the cars aged the paint first got chalky and lost all gloss, then lightened in color more and more.  Some eventually looked nearly pink.  The C&NW had some covered hoppers in a beautiful dark green - as they aged not only did the gloss go away but the paint faded in such a way as to turn the cars a shade of blue! 

And I have seen gondolas get loaded with scrap where the railroad crane with a magnet drops the scrap from quite a height - and the gons have side panels that bulge out between the side ribs and top chord.  One also sees boxcars with bulging sides (and roofs) where various fork-lift jockies have done damage - not enough to send the car to the RIP track but enough to alter its appearance.  This kind of weathering is rarely modeled.

Some weathering is grossly overdone I agree but on balance I suspect the majority of model railroaders do not weather at all.  I was talking about this just today at an NMRA divisional meet and the guy I was talking to said he would never weather a freight car -- all his cars are MicroTrains N scale collectors cars and he was afraid weathering would ruin the value!

Dave Nelson

 

[CAZEPHYR]

Weathering starts the first day a new unit is released and most diesels get really dirty in a few years after climbing over mountain via tunnels.  Flat land units are normally cleaner, but the amount of weathering is varied from one unit to another.  The amount of weathering is a choice for each person and using a prototype picture for your particular model is a good idea. 

[BRAKIE]

Yes,most modelers over weather simply because its been taught over the years. In truth a shipper can refuse a freight car if he feels its unsafe to load. Gons are not beaten by dropping scrap-its a safety hazard to drop steel or flatten vehicles. A shipper can be charged for damaging a freight car.

I prefer a wash of grimy black or India Ink wash with old silver paint for some bare metal spots and a light rust wash along the ribs... I use a Testors wide brush and a detailing (micro brush) for this.

[tatans]

The key word in weathering is MODERATION, the true test of weathering is when you enjoy looking at a locomotive or car and you don't really notice that it is weathered, thats when it's done correctly.