I'm not sure but I _think_ the appeal for heavily weathered equipment is the uniqueness. They stand out. As for "real"? I truly think that is relative to: Does the modeler care if it is real? Can anyone demonstrate that it is not prototypical for that railroad and that decade? What is more significant to the modeler - realty or visual / intellectual interests?
I think the difference is the atlas cars are a commercial product that happens to be ready to run, like any other material, but paying someone to make it into something else is buying a service? Isn't the point of a hobby to do something one enjoys with their own time instead of paying someone else to do it for them? I think if I had to pay someone else to "do" my hobby for me i'd take up another one that I could do myself? ....dave
Dave, model railroading is a very broad church as a hobby, people enjoy different aspects, got to be one of it's greatest strengths. I can't say I enjoy all aspects of this hobby, but then others I really love. I'd pay someone to do my benchwork because I'm awful at carpentry and hate doing woodwork, but I'd never pay someone to scratchbuild a piece of rolling stock for me, as that's the bit I enjoy. Paying someone to do the bits you don't like, gives you the effect you do want, and more time to do the bits you like. Simon
Folks - Though I can see where you are coming from I don't think PPIUNN meant it in a negative way. It was just a loose broad sweeping general statement.
Hi Simon, I totally agree with hiring someone to do the non modeling stuff like room prep and benchwork or even things like machining loco drivers that take specialized equipment. I just can't understand having someone do the basic modeling if the hobby is model railroading? Does the hobby then become collecting? or operating?? or spending money???...dave
Possibly Like I said it's a broad church and the hobby of model railroading covers all those things. Some people just like certain aspects with a railway theme. Anyway, I'm/we're probably taking the thread off topic so I'll shut up now.
I see lots of cars on the CPR that are so weathered that you can barley read the reporting marks on them! The ones that stand out the most are grain hoppers, gondolas and SOO LINE box cars. It is very hard to make a model look as good as the real weathered cars.
EXACTLY!!! It is so hard to get a car to look just like the real thing, what I do is pretty good but I am a rivit counter and I am always cimplaining to myself about the crap I wind up doing. If one gets a car to look like the real thing it is very rewarding. One thing I learned don't go for the "eh I think I'm gona go for al little more here" aproach that's how I wind up ruining things and I think many people feel that way.
One of the reasons I use pastel "chalks" for weathering - if you get too carried away you just brush it off or wash it off with water. I don't use Dullcote after I dust up a car - with carefull handling the pastel colors stay on - and I can always restore the car to almost new condition with a good washing...
The work that goes into weathering is beautiful. It's an art, of course. However, I like my cars to look sharp and clean and new. I'm not much of a "modeler" so I pay for my models to be built (the locos and cars and track). I like running them around; that's the part of the hobby I like. The history, too. I could go on and on about aspects of the hobby I like that has nothing to do with building a realistic layout. Weathering? Not on my cars! Besides, I can't do it. LOL.
Interesting topic. I'd like to see more examples if folks are willing to share. I have put up a couple here and there and I have many more cars to weather. I try (not saying I succeed!) to weather appropriate to the age of the car in 1963 (my layout's Approximate Time Period). I think some of my work is overdone and some is about right. This is only for my "Blue Dot" cars, the ones that get the body mount couplers and low profile wheels and would be used in an operating session. Most of my accumulation won't see any user-applied "dirt."
Excellent job! That is the kind of weathering I like. I especially like your last couple of lines; SO TRUE!
I agree with UMTRR's approach.......use what's appropriate. For example I still see an occasional GN, NP (or other fallen flag) car and they haven't seen the shop for a long time, so they're not too pretty anymore. Next up the list would be BN stuff.....when it gets repainted, it becomes BNSF, so a lot of it is pretty rough too, but better than the older stuff. A lot of the BNSF stuff looks like it just rolled out of the paint booth, or at worst might have a little "dust" on it. I model MRL, and a lot of the original MRL rolling stock was BN. The MRL paint went on over the BN paint, and a lot of that BN paint is showing through these days. There's a lot of shiny stuff too, but it's at least 50% old and weathered looking. I have to admit cringing every time I start to weather a shiny new car, but usually the results make me like the car even more. I recently bought a NP woodchip car that was factory patched to BN. I love the car, but it's still bright and shiny....obviously the original NP paint and lettering should be pretty faded by this time, so as much as I like the car, it looks "wrong" . Even the BN patches should be weathered by this time (or repatched to BNSF). And as far as the comment on "not making anything stand out" from pachyderm , that's a really valid point, although as modelers, don't we sort of want people to notice? At a recent NTRAK setup at the local mall , we put together a 62 car unit grain train.....mixed in were 2 cars that were weathered and had graffitti added, the others were all bright and shiny. Guess which 2 cars got all the comments? I talked to several people and the comments I got basically were that those 2 cars "looked like the real thing" and the other 60 shiny cars "just looked like toy trains".
It's so normal for the cars to be weathered and graffiti covered now days that a new car really stands out. I saw a shiney black mint tank car at west sac this weekend that looked more like a toy than a real car, how do you model that realistically? maybe a coat of future? (and some of those reflector strips)...dave
Valid point Dave.......so I guess we just need to have a little bit of everything, from heavy weathered to shiny and new, that way nothing stands out. But in the end it's really what YOU want to run. Some people like to model, some people like to run trains.......At our club you see everything.......UP dash9's pulling wooden boxcars with an MRL caboose on the end, SD70's MU'd with F7's, 4-8-4 Northerns pulling doublestacks, I even saw a Challenger pulling a long string of cars with an AC4400 pushing on the rear. Point is, everyone was having a good time!
I weather all over with PollyS "dirt", which isn't really a weathering but a fader. Most western cars are pretty clean, but the sun does horrible things to the paints. It also adds a fuzzy aspect, which simulates dust in the atmosphere. As for quality of scenery, picture taking on even the best layouts is very difficult, since you can't control the lighting very well. I get my best effects on small modules that I take outside into natural sunlight. You can super-detail these modules for camera work.
