I seen a post on Facebook earlier this week about if you like your trains weathered or not. I would like to know everybody’s thoughts. I weather my trains. So yay or nay?
If your trains are weathered I would love to see pictures!
Original Post
Replies sorted oldest to newest
Yay!
No not really, I like mine fresh from the factory.
Lol!! Hotwater saying yay, that's gotta be a first.
Currently none of my trains are weathered. If I did, I would like to find a professional to do it "right".
There are some well known forum members (like hotwater) that have amazingly realistic looking weathered trains.
However, there's a well known painter that weathers items for a certain manufacturer, and those trains always come out looking like zebras.
Mostly Nay, but when I've weathered a few train cars in the past, I've used chalk dust that can be removed easily.
I'm fine with trains bring naturally weathered with little nicks and scuffs.
Like Arnold, I have no problem with the nicks and scratches my locomotives/cars have picked up over their operating lives...yes natural weathering, sometimes even dust is allowed.
Tom
Nay. I have always felt that you need to be all-in or all-out regarding weathering, as I think it would look very strange to run both weathered and unweathered engines and cars. I don't have the time or the inclination to weather my substantial train collection, so I'm all out. But for the guys who weather their trains, good for you, as they look great!
Looking forward to weathering everything I've got !
I think you can mix weathered and unweathered equipment. I drive past the UP Davidson yard here in Fort Worth and there are clean locos and cars as well as filthy ones. In the steam era I suspect that was true too. I am more likely to weather stuff I have painted. Anything really high value I am not going to do that with.
I was a “nay” for a long time but; over the past year or two have morphed into a “yay”; at least where rolling stock is concerned. Still can’t bring myself to weather an engine but; I suspect my resolve in that regard may be weakening too.
A buddy custom painted, weathered and detailed a pair of WBB Southern F3’s for me including adding a Kadee coupler on the front of the powered unit. When I see those engines alongside my pristine set of MTH Southern F3’s; I prefer the set that is weathered.
Curt
Depends on what I want to achieve.
IF I were doing 3-rail again, it would be with traditional-sized equipment, and there would be SOME weathered railroading equipment. For sure, all structures/etc would be weathered/etc... in other words, I would try to make the scenery realistic.
However, in such a 3-rail approach, I would be okay with SOME of the equipment looking relatively new.
Now, since I've decided to return to HO scale and am doing an early-mid 1960s theme, then...
ABSOLUTELY: At least 99% of all layout elements (railroad items, supporting cast/etc) will get weathered. My back-story for my theme will require it for the equipment. Besides, weathering engines is one of my favorite things to do in the hobby.
SO... I guess I'm a yay, and also sort of nay?
Andre
Yay, for sure. And the mix is fine. I like the look of my older "period & scale" pieces best with weathering; I like the look of my "runs on O27" stuff clean. When my O27-ready North Coast Limited pulls its passenger cars past my hand-built NP Work Train, all I see is two treasured toys in motion, each works of art, chuffing among the artwork of the layout.
Weathering is not something you can "learn by doing" on your first piece or two. But once you're weathering your scenery, you're already building the skills to weather your trains. I've put time into learning on scrap materials, then into practicing on buildings, rock faces, and other scenery, before taking on rolling stock. Buying a couple boxes of old shells and half-built kits gave me good practice material, too.
No, not for me. I played around with weathering in my HO days, but even then I couldn't stay interested in it. Now that I'm in O, I want everything to look like it just came out of the carbuilder factory.
I used to but have gotten away from it. I like seeing it but not on mine right now, that may change.
Dave
To answer the question posed in the title of this thread:
Weathering realistically, yay. Weathering to the extreme, nay.
Yay …. well, now I am.
When I had a larger layout, I didn't. Everything was prototypical for era/locale, but fresh out of the carton.
As I downsized, I started to just simply dull down the sheen.
Now, with a narrow industrial layout, with all the equipment close to my face … I'm learning to do realistic weathering. Varying degrees of rust/grease/dirt …. as it is in the real world.
Reading and viewing as many tutorials as I can. Have a small, dedicated space for weathering. I now see it is a fun part of the hobby for me.
Of Course Yay!
Attachments
Images (2)
For me it’s difficult to describe a good weathering job. I know one when I see one. I’ve seen a lot of really good weathering and some that look overdone, to me. But I guess in the real world that’s how it is.
So for me, I prefer the fresh out of the paint shop look. But then, I’ve never seen a train I didn’t like.
Ray Marion posted:Of Course Yay!
Ray:
Really like the faded effect on the "SPENCER" insignia. Was that insignia originally a tampo print? Decal?
Whatever the insignia's medium, how did you accomplish that?
Andre
Weathering yes, but not heavy for my era, the 50s. railroads still took care of their rolling stock. It wasn't till the late 70s and 80s I started seeing heavy weathering and heavy rust in the Chicago and Joliet yards and mainlines by our town as freight went through. One thing I see, over weathering of private, company owned rolling stock, especially covered Hopper cars. Even into the 90s, early 2000, I know the company I worked for Amoco/BP and neighboring company Rexene, Dow, etc. would never have their private owned covered hopper cars leave our Plant Site loaded with product in heavy weathered and rust as I've seen weathered.
I see a lot of good weathering done and very realistic done what I now see, heavy on old rolling stock. But I also see too much over done weathering for the era, or private owned rolling stock
I think it looks really cool, but for my own layout, it has to be Nay. I’m not a model railroader, I am a toy train guy. The brighter the colors, the better.
I am another proponent of the Chalk and Charcoal dust weathering approach. I powder the chalk and charcoal sticks on a piece of sandpaper. I then use a woman's make up brush to weather the rolling stock. If you put too much on you just wipe it off and start over. This way if my trains ever find new hands, they will at least have the option of just washing them off with a damp rag and they canl look new again.
My layout is my "perfect world"...no dirt or graffiti allowed. Most important...all residents wash their cars every day, including the whitewall tires.
What NUMBER 90 said.
For me Yay. However that's up to the preference and modeling style of the forum member. If you want or have a prototypical layout, many will probably say Yay. If your a post war person interested in collecting collectibles, or not concerned with prototypical appearance, will probably say nay. Then others either like the brand new look, or are concerned with affecting resale value.
I’m on the fence on this subject. I mostly like a very light weathering to calm the subject down a bit but there’s some Engines, rail cars and vehicles you don’t want to touch.
I have a 2 Rail friend who has a weathered Big Boy... nearly all in service ones look right nasty in old photos. I too favor light weathering and will not do it on new or high value equipment.
For a time I did backyard G gauge. I did very careful weathering of LGB US prototype cars, also converted everything to Kadees. Example: I masked off -airbrushed individual roofwalk boards... had a great deal of trouble selling this stuff the guy who bought it was going to convert it all back to LGB couplers. He is a friend... the stuff has sat around unused for years.
Real is my deal! And between me and Steve P. I think we got it right!😊
Attachments
Images (1)
For me weathering is essential. I enjoy the procedure and the scale reality it imparts on the layout as a whole.
I started out early aiming for a more realistic layout and equipment but then gravitated over the years to a more colorful, toy-like, postwar theme, so no weathering for me.
I don't have the patience or the eye to weather. But i do appreciate the talents of those who can weather their models.
Addendum to my above post.
(DISCLAIMER: This is only MY approach to modeling. It is NOT expected nor insinuated that you adapt MY approach. Your approach is... well... yours. Enjoy your approach!)
Over the decades, my eye began to be drawn to the way diesels weather. (And how QUICKLY they start weathering.) From early on in my entrance to model railroading, evolution in my tastes began, and very soon I wanted to reflect weathering. (I remember when in my early teens using talcum powder to represent the white streaking I would see on boxcars spotted at the big grain complex the Wabash served in North KC.)
So, once I got an airbrush and started painting/decaling my own engines (this would have been 1974-5?), weathering naturally followed. Of course, my first attempts on older models were "less than satisfactory", but I was learning with each attempt.
I can't explain why I'm drawn to the ways of nature on railroad equipment, but it certainly appeals to me. Yes, I appreciate the pristine look of a newly manufactured or newly painted unit... but the fact is they don't stay that way for long... like within weeks Ma Nature begins extracting her toll. So, for me, it's the engines that reflect heavy use that capture my modeling attention. For example, I find engines such as this example of a Mop RS-3 (circa 1962) FAR more appealing to my "model interest" than a similar unit fresh out of the paint shop:
Thus, when I was developing my "Kansas City & Gulf" theme, I intentionally created a scenario in the KC&G's "back story" (fictional history) that swung the door wide open to reflect the above level of use and wear 'n tear. Here's an example of a model that I hoped to portray the above that I built/painted/decaled/weathered back in the late 1990s:
So, yes, when it comes to my HO modeling, I want to reflect the grimy side of a railroad. However, (curiously) I don't have such tendencies the times I've modeled via "traditional" 3-rail.
Go figure!
Andre
Attachments
My roster includes a number of old two rail kit built freight cars, one of them labelled by the builder in 1944. The natural patina those cars have acquired over the years looks just right to me.
Traindiesel posted:For me it’s difficult to describe a good weathering job. I know one when I see one. I’ve seen a lot of really good weathering and some that look overdone, to me. But I guess in the real world that’s how it is.
So for me, I prefer the fresh out of the paint shop look. But then, I’ve never seen a train I didn’t like.
Brian I love your perspective on things. Your observations mimic mine.
On layout structures, roads, sidewalks, stone walls - yes.
On expensive model locomotives and automobiles - no.
On track - I've never tried it - but I may.
MELGAR
RoyBoy posted:My roster includes a number of old two rail kit built freight cars, one of them labelled by the builder in 1944. The natural patina those cars have acquired over the years looks just right to me.
That's for sure.
On the subject of weathering:
If you model the diesel era, a bit of road grime should be enough. A light wash of a diluted light acrylic to tone down the bright colors of R-T-R models should be about right.
Steam, OTOH, is a different matter. Here are a couple of pics taken by Jack Delano (LOC/Shorpy) in Chicago, ca 1943. Notice how dirty the reefers are; maybe the yellow is sun-faded, overlaid with soot.
Attachments
Images (2)
Nasty looking stock....
