Why model brake gear?

When I was modeling in HO, a friend of mine super detailed his C&O H8.  When I asked him why he detailed the tender underside, he said, “I know it’s there.”  Once you get hooked on detail, a plain box car just doesn’t look right.

If it gives you any hope for some of us 3 rail folks Sarah, when I’m swapping stuff for 3 rail operation, I try to preserve as much as the detail as possible!…😁

Pat

I think the "I know it's there" says it all.

I can answer that - first, I rarely do brake rigging beyond a tank, a triple valve, a cylinder, some levers and wires.  I almost never put brake beams on steamers (when I do, they are plastic or Bakelite).

But the real answer is why model at all?

We do only the amount of modeling that makes us happy.  Any more is drudgery - exactly what we are trying to escape.

@LLKJR posted:

When I was modeling in HO, a friend of mine super detailed his C&O H8.  When I asked him why he detailed the tender underside, he said, “I know it’s there.”  Once you get hooked on detail, a plain box car just doesn’t look right.

This^^^^^
I’ve built maybe a 100 Intermountain and similar HO kits. They have the same detail as their O scale models. Nothing gets left in the box.

Pete

@Sarah  What happened to your wheel flanges? Just a 3 railer kidding around .  Like many said earlier - we do it because we know its there. Always impressed by your modeling skills. Thanks for sharing.  Jeff

Sarah, my upper lever is just at eye level when sitting in my swivel chair.  So some detail matters  to me.  I don't usually stand to run trains.

I think it all depends on what type of modeler you are. If you are an operator type of person, then you want to run trains and usually fine detail is a lost cause both in terms of time and in terms of broken off bits from when you handle stuff. If you are a model builder type person, then everything you build is itself a "model" of the original, so you detail it up to whatever point satisfies your need for realism. As the two extremes overlap, you get folks who model anywhere in between. Making the details sturdy enough to hold up while not making them so far out of scale that they look odd is the key I guess for most.

@oscaletrains posted:

Making the details sturdy enough to hold up while not making them so far out of scale that they look odd is the key I guess for most.

I add a substantial portion of the brake gear as otherwise the car is naked; not hard to do, not hard to make study, not hard to keep in scale.

One of several cars currently being built in my shop; ongoing as I have yet to lift the trussrods up on to the queenposts, but it is coming along and with good weather the rest of the week, maybe will be painted.

There would be an air tank and a multi-purpose valve.   I never completed the linkage.  Mullet River, (no longer in business) had different brake kits, depending on what you wished to model.   

@oscaletrains posted:

I think it all depends on what type of modeler you are.

Absolutely. This discussion often comes up regarding the level of "reasonable" detail (usually on steam locomotives). How much is "enough" but still be able to withstand normal handling?

Like everything else in this hobby, it's a compromise...🙂

Mark in Oregon

Mullet River Caboose with all kit parts installed.

Pere

I'm modeling CSX Crazy 8s, AKA "Runaway", so if the brakes were not connected, does it really matter if they were there?

Kinda adds to the drama, it's a runaway      aaaand          the cars have no brakes.

I have say that much of the hobby is a tradeoff. Is it better to have a few highly detailed cars that are somewhat fragile, or say a big long train of cars slightly less detailed, and yet more impressive as what it visually represents rolling down the line?

There are people out there, where a Visionline item is not detailed enough and they modify it or go to brass and custom builds.

The pictures in this topic, I love the detail level some of you go to and can appreciate that level of craftsmanship. At the same time, that is not where I'm at in the hobby. It doesn't mean I don't appreciate the level of detail, it just means I have to finish my layout, win the lottery, and then have the time and money to begin scratch building.

Again, hats off to some of the detailed pictures in this topic. True works of art and labor of love.

When I build or bash a model, I’m  not happy unless every detail is added. Including the underbody.

Obsessive? Probably.

Satisfying? Definitely!

Go for it Sarah.

Hi Sarah, I like the trucks/wheels on that SSW boxcar, what brand? Thanks, Scott.

Since Sarah is doing P48, I'm gonna guess Protocraft...(?)

Mark in Oregon

Fwiw, I use piano wire or phosphorous broze wire instead of brass. Brass is too maleable and it would be a shame one does all that fantasic work...only to do it again shoukd the car have a major detailment or out of nowhere the 5 fingered crane comes along!

“I know it’s there” is definitely not an adequate reason for me.  I still operate certain older Lionel cars such as the 6464 boxcars that don't have much in the way of underbody details.  I have never had the urge to add any.  Yet I have destroyed at least three Intermountain hopper kits in a vain attempt to get the brake gear and other underbody details right.  My best guess as to why:  If the kit designer has gone to the trouble of attempting to design that underbody detail, then the least I can do is attempt to build it.

If I ever take on another IM kit though, I think I will go the same route as Sarah and replace the plastic piping with metal wires.

@Sarah posted:

These parts are always in the shadow and of darker colors, too. So why the hack do we spend hours to detail the **** out of our cars?

For the same reason I like modeling complete interiors when I scratch build a structure. But in my case, I can light one it up and you can look inside. And normal people know what the inside of a structure should look like. Not so with the underside of a railroad car.

That said, I don't take the time to model anything you cannot see nor would anyone be looking for it. So, I don't waste much time on rolling stock underside details.

But if anyone else wants to, more power to them and I'll compliment them if it comes up!

@scott5011 posted:

Hi Sarah, I like the trucks/wheels on that SSW boxcar, what brand? Thanks, Scott.

Hi Scott, these are Protocraft trucks but I'll use the spring loaded Athearn Bettendorfs on the car. I model in Proto:48 so I had to reduce the gaging by replacing the bolster with a Right 'O' Way cast truck bolster. You can buy some of the Protocraft trucks in standard O, also.

Here is a picture of the actual truck.

Regarding converting Athearn trucks to P48, an experienced O-scale modeler pointed out to me long ago that the Athearn designers made their trucks accurate scale width, and made room for the Ow5 wheels by removing the inner portion of the axle boxes, making them flush with the inner face of the sideframe.  To make them correct for P48, you could add rectangular pieces of styrene 2mm(0.080") thick to the inside of each axle box.  Whether this would be easier than swapping bolsters is open for debate because you have to provide new bearings, but if you are adding new bearings anyway, then this might be less cost - who doesn't have some 0.080" styrene in their scrap box?

Watch your model train cross a trestle with cars featuring full underbody detail.  Then throw one car into that train without all the detail and see how it breaks the spell.  If your into detail it will rack your nerves.  By some quirk of faith my little brother ended up with my model RR in his basement over time we took it apart and build an around the wall layout fairly detailed though not quite up to the layout I left in his basement in 1986. Tommy can run a train with a mixed consist of post war and three rail scale cars and it does not bother him one bit though it bugs be more than a little bit.  However I still love Post War layouts with less detail and a lot of action.                    j

For me it's therapeutic. Ya, I'm weird...

I don't go back and add detail to ready to run cars however when I build cars I always fully detail them. The ready to run cars have enough detail to pass in a train while the others just add to the look.

Where detailed brake rigging truly shows up on a model is under tank cars.

This is an old one, with a steel tank and a few Walthers parts. in 'before' appearance when I first got it, and 'after' as it awaits paint and lettering.

Below, it has arrived at the Baltimore & New York Ry Edgewater Car Shop for repair work to become roadworthy again. It sits on a Westbrook flat car I found  as a $3.00 junker with no trucks or couplers, but it had all of its stamped brass stake pockets!     

The tank scales close to an 11,000-gallon capacity.  An All Nation plastic 3 piece AB set was used in detailing the brake system.

S. Islander

@Sarah posted:

Dear friends!

Why do we detail the underframe of our rolling stock?

Just imagine a slow train rolling by just above eye level - spectacular! What do you think?

Kind regards
Sarah

Greetings Sarah,
You've somewhat answered your own question. I really LIKE the look of it, and even if I can't see it, like someone already mentioned, I know it's there.

Simply said, it's all what you like and enjoy.

Regards,

ECI

exactly

I'm always impressed by my PSC troop sleeper under frame detailing... makes any Lionel current offering look like something from the 1910's!