Glossy vs Dull paint on engines and cars..... shouldn't new engines and cars be glossy and not semigloss at best?

I've don't think you can characterize the paint on any real engine or piece of rolling stock as a true glossy finish. It's more of a semi-gloss or satin when new, it appears to me. I don't know who the manufacturer is of the CN engine you've pictured, but that is more of semi-flat finish. Very dull in appearance. Lionel, MTH and Atlas don't normally paint their engines that way, to my knowledge. 

I think that when models are glossy they look too glossy. Gloss doesn't scale well to my eye. I think models look better when having no more than a slight sheen to them. Maybe it has something to do with the viewing distance being a scale two or three hundred feet at best.

I know I was not too happy on mth version of the Conrail OCS set. Now there was a set that needed a glossy finish and would still be prototypical.  

Nice John. May I ask where did you get that cn gp40-2 phase lll?

Williams used a super-glossy paint one year. 

All you saw was the gloss.

Rusty

breezinup posted:

I've don't think you can characterize the paint on any real engine or piece of rolling stock as a true glossy finish. It's more of a semi-gloss or satin when new, it appears to me. I don't know who the manufacturer is of the CN engine you've pictured, but that is more of semi-flat finish. Very dull in appearance. Lionel, MTH and Atlas don't normally paint their engines that way, to my knowledge. 

Locomotives are painted with a class-A automotive gloss coating.  They are as high in gloss as an automobile. So yes, when new, locomotives are high in gloss to the 60 degree observer. 

The reason for high gloss coatings is that coatings with high gloss levels are far more protective and durable than coatings with low gloss levels. Coatings with low gloss levels tend to be more porous than coatings with high gloss due to PVC (pigment volume concentration). The high volume of pigment relative to resin makes coatings generally more permeable and less durable two traits that are counterproductive in the protection of substrates. Depending on the photo-activity of the pigments used (rutile), higher pigment concentrations can render coatings susceptible to enhanced weathering rates and photodegradation. Because of all this, coatings used for outdoor exposure tend to be much higher in gloss and this extends to multi million dollar locomotives. You will not find a nice satin finish on a real locomotive. 

I see the clouds and sky reflected in these shots.  To my eye, thats "Gloss".  

In 1980, we shined up 1630 for the 1981 calendar photo (this wasn't it...)

I was wiping the old chooch down after every trip to keep that shine...

Rusty

Locomotives & rolling stock are glossy when they leave the paint shop but loose the shine once they been on the road.  I prefer the dull finish

I guess I prefer the in service look. I like them dull and boring 

John, I am with you on this.  I love engines that look new and shinny.  Some do not.   I have a few engines and they all look like they just rolled out of the paint shop.  Great hobby and each person can do what they want.

Depends on what YOU like. Fresh locomotives don't stay that way very long. Modern diesel engines maybe get washed two or three times a year.

Totally agree, John....and not just because you bought my caboose!

I guess it depends on the definition of gloss. High gloss looks like this door, and new engines I've seen don't seem to have that level of gloss.

However, up close, and in good light, I agree, they do have a glossy finish. I was wrong in thinking they had more of a semi-gloss. They're almost like a new car with the clearcoat finish.

This demo they really buffed out:

Fresh out of the paint shop Shiny; Definitely!

First of all, I think you guys should quote the pictures so we see them a few more times in this thread... 

Secondly, I know this isn't the answer most folks would want to hear... but I think some paint finishes look better glossy, and other paint finishes look better with a flat or at best satin finish.   This whole debate came to a head when Lionel and MTH offered their respective versions of the Norfolk Southern anniversary SD70ACe's and now even the ES44's... Lionel all shiny, and MTH all flat/satin.

I'm just glad we often have the choice. 

David

Rocky Mountaineer posted:

 

I'm just glad we often have the choice. 

David

It looks like Lionel has gone to a flat finish on their products. I know my Santa Fe ES44 is in a flat finish (I was hoping for something a bit higher in gloss), so there may not be a choice anymore. 

Rocky Mountaineer posted:

First of all, I think you guys should quote the pictures so we see them a few more times in this thread... 

 

Oops. Well, you know, excess is the American way.  Gotta have two or three of everything. 

breezinup posted:

Rocky Mountaineer posted:

First of all, I think you guys should quote the pictures so we see them a few more times in this thread... 

 

Oops. Well, you know, excess is the American way.  Gotta have two or three of everything. 

True enough. Both a reading copy and a shelf copy.

prrhorseshoecurve posted:

Nice John. May I ask where did you get that cn gp40-2 phase lll?

It is not mine.  It's just an image off of "images.google.com" that I found to compare the real CN to an O Gauge model.  

I agree that engines don't keep that gloss for long.... but I think it would be nice to have one or two GLOSSY black steam locomotives and maybe one or two new looking diesels.   

I would like to see locomotives, on the big Lionel set, kept all shiny and new.  Hell, I would like to have my truck washed every week.  But it isn't to be for both my truck and the real deal locos.  

Being a fan of the GG1, I used to watch them in action.  More times than not, the pinstripes were hidden behind road grime.  To me, unkempt equipment breeds vandalism.  

We model what we see in the real world.  It saddens me that now, we are even modeling graffiti.  Having traveled in Italy, the dastardly deed is out of control on the railway equipment.  I would have thought Europe the last place for railways to be the target of such filth.  

Just my opinion on these matters.  Others can disagree.  That's why chocolate and vanilla are made. 

Get yourself a can of this stuff and make whatever train you have as glossy as you want.

Dan Padova posted:

I would like to see locomotives, on the big Lionel set, kept all shiny and new.  Hell, I would like to have my truck washed every week.  But it isn't to be for both my truck and the real deal locos.  

Being a fan of the GG1, I used to watch them in action.  More times than not, the pinstripes were hidden behind road grime.  To me, unkempt equipment breeds vandalism.  

We model what we see in the real world.  It saddens me that now, we are even modeling graffiti.  Having traveled in Italy, the dastardly deed is out of control on the railway equipment.  I would have thought Europe the last place for railways to be the target of such filth.  

Just my opinion on these matters.  Others can disagree.  That's why chocolate and vanilla are made. 

I cannot bring myself to model graffiti.  My layout is more of "my happy place" than "real world".   I have REALLY aged some things because I do love the look of a "barely working" truck or such.... 

Bob posted:

Get yourself a can of this stuff and make whatever train you have as glossy as you want.

See Bob...... now your just going to get me into trouble because I'm going to get a can of this, take a steamer shell off, and mask and paint!   I'm pretty sure I'll be doing it.  

My only comment is that gloss paint in real life/prototype is much easier to keep clean that flat or semi gloss.

WOW, there is so much in the post that I agree with that I must be getting old and agreeable. I too like the engines and cars on the glossy side, but I never knew that they initially generally came that way because it protected the equipment better. Excellent. And those old black and white pictures with the reflections were great. To me, that shows a glossy finish. But I do think it is best if people can get what they want, and that's fine with me. Just give me the option and let me know what you're producing. Then I can order or not.

IMO, one of the best ever sets was the Texas Special F3 and cars Lionel produced in the late 1990's. Very shiny high gloss, beautiful set. And one of the worst was the Texas Special E8 set which was one of the first Legacy engines and sets. And when you contacted Lionel to find out if the E8 was glossy or not so you knew whether or not you wanted to order it, you couldn't get an answer. So I ordered and ended up selling it.

BTW, same thing with MTH with their plated Santa Fe F3 diesel.

So what I would really like to see, is more information in the catalog as to the type of finish.

BTW, no graffiti in my play world either.

Gerry 

I'm sure that it's been covered, but glossy does not scale well - it shows all the crudeness and overly-thick cross-sections that are the results of the molds. Brass (not molded) suffers from this less.

I really dislike shiny RR equipment; satin I can take, if it's on the dull end of the spectrum. Williams diesels from 20 years ago were just awful-looking until they were dulled. 

These "real pieces" may be shiny (at first), but, aside from simply liking matte finishes on most things in life in general, the "Christmas morning" shine on some of these things just makes me realize how thick that paint is, and how "thick" the detailing is compared to the real thing.

(None of the above applies to Pre-War and Reproduction Tinplate; the last thing it looked like was the Real Thing (especially Lionel's), and lived on its own shiny planet.)

Rusty, dull and dirty - that's what a RR is supposed to be. 

To repeat what a few others have already stated:  Gloss doesn't scale well. Even when I glosscote a locomotive before decaling it, it doesn't look right.

Nobody wanted those Shiny "toy like" engines from the 80's or 90's and that's why Williams stopped doing it.

hello guys and gals....

I LIKE mine small train collection shiny and new !!!!  Wished to have shiny new reasonable priced car would be very nice!!!

Tiffany

I go for semi gloss myself

Bob C.

Rusty Traque posted:

Williams used a super-glossy paint one year. 

All you saw was the gloss.

Rusty

Right as what I remember Williams had a hard time selling those loco's as nobody wanted shiny.

Locomotive paint such as Imron is a bit glossy but not like a automotive finish. Imron is a polyurethane epoxy coating whereas automobile manufacturers are using a basecoat/clearcoat finish. Watching those NS paint shop videos I don't see the paint crew spraying a clearcoat after the loco receives a color coat.

I personally like the MTH flat/satin look.   Although, I was at a train shop this weekend and the Lionel heritage diesels were looking very nice on the shelves!

Casey Jones2 posted:

 ....Watching those NS paint shop videos I don't see the paint crew spraying a clearcoat after the loco receives a color coat.

What's that at 5:13?