Prototype modeling - how far can you take it?

[nachoman]

I had one guy here arguing about the color of P&LE cabooses. Said they were never red. He was quite wrong, and I had color pictures to show him. Even found some red under the green and yellow paint on our 2 P&LE cabooses. He still didn't admit he was wrong.
Charlie

Even those in the black and white era could research how paints were made in their era, what kind of pigments were available, and what colors were typically used. Perhaps they could learn the durability of certain colors or paints, and that could influence their weathering techniques. The rivet counters usually stop at the railroad right of way - beyond that into the real world is fair game. But how embarrassing would it be for a car enthusiast to visit a rivet counter's August 1964 C&O layout only to spot the candyapple red 1964.5 mustang in the dealer's lot. The car enthusiast would of course point out that candyapple red was not offered on Mustangs until 1966!!

[nkp_174]

But they weren't red...they were brown! Yep yep! A very reddish brown!

I've heard a story of Harry Brunk giving a nice anecdote about exact colors. At a clinic, he put a slide up with a string of SG Tiffany Reefers. Despite the contractual requirement that they all be painted the same color, ever single car was noticeably different due to the lack of computer mixed paints (they were mixed by hand/feel) and they effects of weathering. Personally, I strive for my models to vary in color just like the prototype. Recently, I've decided that the price disparity between Floquil ($4 per ounce) and craft acrylics ($0.25) dictates a move in that direction. I'm still scared of using them with my airbrush (I ruined an old airbrush in a similar manner) with them, but I plan on using red, yellow, blue, black, and white to experiment until I've found an appropriate base of freight or passenger cars.

[nachoman]

but I plan on using red, yellow, blue, black, and white to experiment until I've found an appropriate base of freight or passenger cars.

i wish you good luck with that - and guarantee you will learn something about paint pigments in the process.When it comes to paints - mixing yellow and blue does not make green. Instead, you will come up with something that looks more like vomit green or greenish brown, or something that looks more like a dirty yellow or a dirty blue. If there was such thing as a true primary color paint pigment, the mixing station in your paint department would only need to stock 4 colors (the primaries plus black to add to a white base) and artists would only need 5 colors on their palette (they also need white to uses as a tint). Unfortunately, the pigments are typically natural materials derived from metal oxides or salts and biologic substances (titanium white is titanium dioxide, white in color, and cobalt blue is cobalt salt -blue in color)

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.webexhibits.org/pigments/intro/early.html">http://www.webexhibits.org/pigments/intro/early.html</a><!-- m -->
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pigment">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pigment</a><!-- m -->

In reality, the available paint colors is no where close to infinite. Any historical color would have to be recreated by mixing the various pigments that were available at that time. For mixing color for a pre-1900 freight car, it would be wise to start with paints that uses the same pigments that were available at that time. It may turn out the pigment used in your modern yellow, red, or blue paint is a modern pigment and impossible to mix in such a way as to create a historical color. My guess is the paint for a freight car or industrial building was one particular pigment mixed with one particular binder (that binder may also influence the color), thus the prevalence of red and black freight cars. Those websites I posted came as a result of a very quick google search, but a little more research should give you a timeline as to when certain pigments became available. Artist colors typically are sold by their pigment name for the most basic colors, and the paint line also includes blended colors of two or more pigments, or tints or hues of various pigments. Many painters are very conscious of what pigments are in their paints because they need to know how those pigments will interact. For that reason, manufacturers of the higher end artist colors often advertise the pigments they use:

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.winsornewton.com/products/oil-colours/artists-oil-colour/further-information/">http://www.winsornewton.com/products/oi ... formation/</a><!-- m -->

For craft paints, the colors are usually names with some kind of cutesy or descriptive name, like "barn red". The recipe for the pigments that went into that color is much more cloudy, giving the potential that mixing that color could lead to unexpected results.

[Brakie]

Just out of curiousity, how far do you have to go to become a "rivet counter", and when does it stop being a hobby and become an obsession? :?

Actually you can be a "rivet counter" while using good enough/close enough modeling..


Say what Willis???!!!!

That's right..

If you keep your freight cars,vehicles,billboards etc in your model era then you are counting rivets not like 110% modeling but,still you are since you allowing nothing that doesn't fit your era..

See how it really works?

As far as extreme rivet counting that is more of a obsessional way of enjoying one's hobby.

Remember:

Knowledge doesn't equal rivet counting..

Knowledge increases our awareness.

And that awareness increases our modeling style based on our personal hobby goals.

You see one can be highly knowledgeable and still model good enough/close enough or model to the Nth degree if that's his/her hobby goal.

[doctorwayne]

But they weren't red...they were brown! Yep yep! A very reddish brown!

I've heard a story of Harry Brunk giving a nice anecdote about exact colors. At a clinic, he put a slide up with a string of SG Tiffany Reefers. Despite the contractual requirement that they all be painted the same color, ever single car was noticeably different due to the lack of computer mixed paints (they were mixed by hand/feel) and they effects of weathering. Personally, I strive for my models to vary in color just like the prototype.

Michael, I think that a lot of modellers use paint colours "as they come", so all boxcars are the same shade of "boxcar red". I usually paint freight cars in batches - as few as two or three, but more often eight or twelve or twenty, and almost never use the paint "as it comes". A few cars may get a coat of "Boxcar Red", but I also make-up variations of the base colour: for instance, add some black to one batch, some brown, or yellow, or orange to another. As I work my way through the cars and some of the tinted colours become depleted, I dump that bottle's contents into that of another, yielding yet another variation. Admittedly, some of the variations are very subtle, but they are there.
The same goes for weathering colours - while all prototype cars are subject to weathering, not all have been in service for the same length of time, nor have they all run in the same environment, so there's lots of room for variations in weathering colours.

Some cars, of course, require a "signature" colour - NYC's "Jade Green", for instance, or B&O's boxcar red, which was quite different from that of most other roads. The catch here is that many of us never saw one of those cars in person, so we're almost forced to accept the paint manufacturer's rendition of such a unique colour. Old colour photos can only hint at what the colour truly looked like. A further complication is that colour perception varies widely between individuals - many manufacturers offer CNR Green #11, used on CNR passenger equipment, some steam locomotives, and almost all pre-'60s diesels. I've seen the original prototypes in person and have my own opinion of which model paint best duplicates that shade - most of the others come close, and one of them may actually be the right colour, but for me, my choice is the "right" colour.

Recently, I've decided that the price disparity between Floquil ($4 per ounce) and craft acrylics ($0.25) dictates a move in that direction. I'm still scared of using them with my airbrush (I ruined an old airbrush in a similar manner) with them, but I plan on using red, yellow, blue, black, and white to experiment until I've found an appropriate base of freight or passenger cars.

Floquil or Pollyscale are both around $5.00 per bottle here, but I've found that you can paint quite a few cars for that five bucks. Of course, I have to also buy a bottle of each of all those other colours which I add to the base colour, so it does add up.
I just did an inventory of paint on hand, and discovered the following:

Floquil - 38 bottles
PollyScale - 26
Polly S - 9
SMP Accupaint - 13
Scalecoat - 3
Humbrol - 13
Tamiya - 16
Testors - 7
Modelflex - 3

...plus 22 bottles of thinned (ready-to-spray) paint, mostly Floquil and PollyScale. The first two on the list are used most frequently and also account for most of the 22 thinned bottles. Some colours were purchased for a single project, usually for someone else, so the expense wasn't mine, but still, a lot of money tied-up in paint.

Airbrush maintenance, especially cleaning, is critical for good performance - after painting, clean your airbrush immediately and the task will be much easier than if you wait to "do it later". Even for water- or alcohol-based paints, lacquer thinner is a very effective cleaning solution. For long-neglected airbrushes, you can soak the entire airbrush in it (use a closed container, such as an empty pickle jar, as the fumes are toxic), but be sure to first remove all plastic parts and all rubber or neoprene seals and gaskets.

Wayne

[MountainMan]

On the contrary, you completely miss the point. I only build models for the pleasure of it.

Here's a basic scale as to how much enjoyment I get out of watching a train run...scale of 0-100.

A string of B-man On30 freight cars lettered for C&S with an HO locomotive "converted" to On30 at the lead...rolling on EZ-track.
Enjoyment factor: 1. At least it's a train...

A string of B-man On30 freight cars lettered for a ficticious railroad and pulled by any old On30 locomotive...on a rudimentary layout with HO track.
Enjoyment factor: 10. I wouldn't spend my money on it, but I'll enjoy it. (-1 point is deducted if a drovers caboose is part of the train)

A string of Wiseman/Grandt Line/San Juan C&S freight cars converted to On30 behind an On30 locomotive on a decent layout with On30 track.
Enjoyment factor: 20. Getting much better

The same but On3 and kit built.
Enjoyment factor: 35...I'm enjoying myself now and wouldn't mind doing this sort of thing

The same but with an accurate C&S engine..
Enjoyment factor: 50.

A prototypically correct C&S freight or passenger train with at least some scratch built equipment and the rest either kitbashed or redetailed...no RTR.
Enjoyment factor: 100.

I enjoy the South Park's variety of freight cars. I enjoy the history of railroad brakes in the US. I enjoy the look of rough hewn ties with 35lb rail. I enjoy the distinctive style that sat Barney and Smith apart from Carter and Carter from Kimball and Kimball from J&S. I find that "rivet counting" when I build my models makes it far more enjoyable than opening a box and running stuff that I've built is far more enjoyable than stuff that was built in Guangzhou Provence or by someone else. It is for the very same reason that I appreciate the 1878 Litchfield boxcar sitting in the Como Roundhouse that I enjoy seeing a faithfully constructed On3 Litchfield boxcar. What is the threshold for it to be or not be a Litchfield boxcar? The brake rigging? The number of roof boards? The poling pockets? It's more fun for me to do it myself than assemble a resin kit...and if I'm doing the work, why not do it correct?

I do care what other people do. I greatly enjoy other people's quality modeling. But, manners and common sense dictate that I never criticize someone else's work unless they are a close friend and really want my opinion. I did come close to puking over the B-man mogul conversions in the current Gazette. The mogul looks nice, the ten wheeler is subpar, and the 2-8-0 is just plain terrible...but I'm not going to go out of my way to either criticize him nor to send him insults. I'm sure he enjoyed it...and he pocked a nice sum from Bob Brown. I suspect that some of the people whom enjoyed that article didn't care for the one I really liked: Boone Morrison's western photographers piece.

Prototypical modeling does not mean that your equipment is 100% specific to your prototype nor does it mean that you operate it exactly like the prototype nor does it mean that guest equipment isn't allowed. Building up a 100% DSP&P layout is for the satisfaction of recreating it. If people want to come over and operate it, then it will be 100% South Park. But the rest of the time it will also have: Oahu Railway passenger trains, Carson & Colorado freight trains, SPng freights, RGS passenger trains, EBT coal drags, D&RG 4-wheel cars, and various other trains that I'd like to build. I've thought about regauging a Thomas for when little kids come over to see my layout.

Sorry...I don't see how this relates to my post, although the Thomas the Tank Engine statement does reinforce my point enormously.

I've been hanging around forums like this for years, and the constant complaint of modelers, including virtually all of them on this forum, is that the hobby is fun except for the rivet counters.

Now we have a branch of the hobby which is composed, if you will, of rivet counters with OCD. No problem; to each his own. But I know couple of these guys in my area, and they happily run Christmas trains and Thomas the Tank engines for their kids, while obsessing about the faults on the layouts of others. And here we have a problem. We now have schizophrenic, disassociated and hypocritical rivet counters.

Count 'em all you want, but either be consistent in your philosophy and leave the rest of us alone or take up knitting or something. We share this hobby, and that's as far as it goes.

[Sumpter250]

We share this hobby, and that's as far as it goes.

We share life, and that doesn't make us identical either. Thank what ever power you believe in, that there is variety in the world of Human kind. What a boring place it would be, if such were not the case.

"And all the old romance,
Retold exactly in the ancient way,
Can please, as me, they pleased of old,
The wiser youngsters of today,
So be it - and Fall on." - Robert Louis Stevenson

[doctorwayne]

Sorry...I don't see how this relates to my post, although the Thomas the Tank Engine statement does reinforce my point enormously.

I've been hanging around forums like this for years, and the constant complaint of modelers, including virtually all of them on this forum, is that the hobby is fun except for the rivet counters.

I think that the problem is not the rivet counters as a segment of the hobby who enjoy doing their modelling to the nth degree but the rivet counters whose secondary (or perhaps in some instances, primary) purpose is to attempt to find fault with others. Some of these types don't actually model anything themselves!

Now we have a branch of the hobby which is composed, if you will, of rivet counters with OCD. No problem; to each his own. But I know couple of these guys in my area, and they happily run Christmas trains and Thomas the Tank engines for their kids, while obsessing about the faults on the layouts of others. And here we have a problem. We now have schizophrenic, disassociated and hypocritical rivet counters.

Count 'em all you want, but either be consistent in your philosophy and leave the rest of us alone or take up knitting or something. We share this hobby, and that's as far as it goes.

I agree with you on these people having some sort of a psychological disorder, but their brand of "rivet counting" is merely the manifestation of the disorder that's presented to us. Can you imagine what it must be like living with such a person? Perhaps the only consistency which we can expect from them is inconsistency, and for my part, I refuse to let them suck the enjoyment out of my way of modelling. As General Anthony McAuliffe wrote: "Nuts".

Wayne

[nkp_174]

Wayne, I agree that most (myself frequently included) use the paints straight from the bottle. Like you've done with subtle variations, I plan on doing the same since boxcar 632 was in a rainstorm while 633 was coated in soot...and now they look different. It seems that variation on a single wooden car is very important as well, and hence the weathering techniques relating to it. I've done this some...especially with exposed wood. It is amazing how much effort goes into thin, non-uniform coats of paint!

Previously, I have had mixed results with pre-thinned paints. The worst results were with my "russian iron" blend. I've also made the mistake of failing to label which ones were or were not thinned! I plan on still using Floquil and such for specific colors. I'm ordering Scalecoat's NYC grays since they are matched to the original NYC paints (I can't recall if they are straight or adjusted for indoor lighting...oh well)...but I plan on experimenting with shades of boxcar red since I use so much of it. Anything that requires mixing, I'd like to experiment with alternatives using craft paint.

Good to know that the pigments can't always get close to what is expected. I wouldn't be surprised if that is why artist acrylics are so much more expensive (along with the fineness of the pigment, purity, and quality of the binder) I have a few other shades, and I've previously experienced non-true blacks (especially with dyes). Historically, boxcar red was made with rust as the pigment...I don't recall the binder. Brown-Red, white, and black were dirt cheap while yellow, orange, and greens were very expensive (hence their application to reefers in the 19th century). I know that one of the major problems with color identification is finding an accurate paint chip (one that has layers undisturbed by UV)...or knowing the exact technique used to develop the negative...and knowledge of the pigments/binders in use at that time. My mind spins a bit on such details...especially since yellow, mint green, and white have the exact same ID on many types of black & white photos...and so I perform the same sort of best guess that the person used whom drew the plans from photos. It never ceases to amaze me the fights that D&RGW people get in over "green" boiler jackets...or 1960s modelers as to what is CB&Q red. Perhaps the coolest thing ever found for identifying colors is a paint chip index included in Bruce MacGregor's incredible Birth of California Narrow Gauge...it is a reproduction of exact colors used by Carter Brothers...from paint chips by Carter's paint supplier. I don't know if they are faded, or if they are accurately reproduced in the book (I'd guess they are the nearest pantone equivalents), but it is really cool and the original dates from the Carter era.

I'll give lacquer thinner a try with my old airbrush. If it works, I'll use it with the acrylics until I trust them. Recently, my VL locked up and I discovered another place I never knew could get gummed up. My previous experience ruining the H caused me to be militant about cleaning the $80 VL.


Mountain Man, have I ever complained about or insulted your modeling? Have I ever complained about or insulted anyone on here's modeling? No. And I don't think that many "rivet counters" whom actually partake in the hobby do complain...there are a number of us on here. Like Brakie says, I always make some concessions when building a model (everyone does)...and I am aware of most of them. We all make concessions to maximize the fun. It is always upsetting when new info comes to light which shows that mistakes were made, but it is better to build and enjoyed than to never build at all.

[nachoman]

It is also futile for men to dispute variations in color, especially since 5-10% of men are somewhat colorblind, and most of them will live their entire life without ever knowing it

[MountainMan]

Wayne, I agree that most (myself frequently included) use the paints straight from the bottle. Like you've done with subtle variations, I plan on doing the same since boxcar 632 was in a rainstorm while 633 was coated in soot...and now they look different. It seems that variation on a single wooden car is very important as well, and hence the weathering techniques relating to it. I've done this some...especially with exposed wood. It is amazing how much effort goes into thin, non-uniform coats of paint!

Previously, I have had mixed results with pre-thinned paints. The worst results were with my "russian iron" blend. I've also made the mistake of failing to label which ones were or were not thinned! I plan on still using Floquil and such for specific colors. I'm ordering Scalecoat's NYC grays since they are matched to the original NYC paints (I can't recall if they are straight or adjusted for indoor lighting...oh well)...but I plan on experimenting with shades of boxcar red since I use so much of it. Anything that requires mixing, I'd like to experiment with alternatives using craft paint.

Good to know that the pigments can't always get close to what is expected. I wouldn't be surprised if that is why artist acrylics are so much more expensive (along with the fineness of the pigment, purity, and quality of the binder) I have a few other shades, and I've previously experienced non-true blacks (especially with dyes). Historically, boxcar red was made with rust as the pigment...I don't recall the binder. Brown-Red, white, and black were dirt cheap while yellow, orange, and greens were very expensive (hence their application to reefers in the 19th century). I know that one of the major problems with color identification is finding an accurate paint chip (one that has layers undisturbed by UV)...or knowing the exact technique used to develop the negative...and knowledge of the pigments/binders in use at that time. My mind spins a bit on such details...especially since yellow, mint green, and white have the exact same ID on many types of black & white photos...and so I perform the same sort of best guess that the person used whom drew the plans from photos. It never ceases to amaze me the fights that D&RGW people get in over "green" boiler jackets...or 1960s modelers as to what is CB&Q red. Perhaps the coolest thing ever found for identifying colors is a paint chip index included in Bruce MacGregor's incredible Birth of California Narrow Gauge...it is a reproduction of exact colors used by Carter Brothers...from paint chips by Carter's paint supplier. I don't know if they are faded, or if they are accurately reproduced in the book (I'd guess they are the nearest pantone equivalents), but it is really cool and the original dates from the Carter era.

I'll give lacquer thinner a try with my old airbrush. If it works, I'll use it with the acrylics until I trust them. Recently, my VL locked up and I discovered another place I never knew could get gummed up. My previous experience ruining the H caused me to be militant about cleaning the $80 VL.


Mountain Man, have I ever complained about or insulted your modeling? Have I ever complained about or insulted anyone on here's modeling? No. And I don't think that many "rivet counters" whom actually partake in the hobby do complain...there are a number of us on here. Like Brakie says, I always make some concessions when building a model (everyone does)...and I am aware of most of them. We all make concessions to maximize the fun. It is always upsetting when new info comes to light which shows that mistakes were made, but it is better to build and enjoyed than to never build at all.

I wasn't aware that I personally attacked you. I was under the mistaken impression that this was friendly forum discussion.

As I have stated before, I don't post any of my modeling work here, because I don't believe this to be the kind of forum that is receptive to non-standard ideas. The rapidity with which people here take offensive confirms that.

[Charlie B]

[quote="nkp_174"]But they weren't red...they were brown! Yep yep! A very reddish brown!

Funny, the red under all of the yellow and green on our P&LE caboose is almost a Regal red. My old boss, who happened to be a trainmaster on the P&LE told me the Steel cabs were red. I once saw a color photo taken at an event in station square in 1959 and the Caboose was Red, not Brown. The only color pictures of P&LE cabs that I have are paintings by railroad artists so I won't go farther with this, but the paint evidence on our caboose is enough to convince me.
Charlie

[2-8-2]

...I don't believe this to be the kind of forum that is receptive to non-standard ideas. The rapidity with which people here take offensive confirms that.

I've been around here since 2005, and this is hardly the case. The folks at The Gauge are among the most well-informed, receptive, non-judgmental and helpful group of people I've ever come across in over 18 years on the internet.

[nkp_174]

But they weren't red...they were brown! Yep yep! A very reddish brown!

Funny, the red under all of the yellow and green on our P&LE caboose is almost a Regal red. My old boss, who happened to be a trainmaster on the P&LE told me the Steel cabs were red. I once saw a color photo taken at an event in station square in 1959 and the Caboose was Red, not Brown. The only color pictures of P&LE cabs that I have are paintings by railroad artists so I won't go farther with this, but the paint evidence on our caboose is enough to convince me.
Charlie

Charlie, I know nothing about P&LE cabooses. I had no doubt from your first post they are red...I meant it in a facetious way.

Mountain Man, in the context of a reply quoting me, I interpreted these as being towards me:
"the Thomas the Tank Engine statement does reinforce my point enormously."
"I've been hanging around forums like this for years, and the constant complaint of modelers, including virtually all of them on this forum, is that the hobby is fun except for the rivet counters."
"Count 'em all you want, but either be consistent in your philosophy and leave the rest of us alone or take up knitting or something."
It is fine whether it was directed at me or not...I doesn't bother me.

There's nothing wrong with non-standard ideas. I think most of us would prefer seeing them. If they are innovative and unique, all the more so! Besides, you have expressed much interest in both the F&CC and Silverton...two awesome railroads. I'm sure that plenty of the diesel era guys have little interest in us steam guys' locomotives, and vice-a-versa, but can still either learn from each other or ignore threads. You might be surprised at the positive reaction you might find that you receive. I think that everyone on this forum understands how awful it is for someone to flame someone's hard work...and hence none of us will...if someone is willing to share.

Michael

[nachoman]

As I have stated before, I don't post any of my modeling work here, because I don't believe this to be the kind of forum that is receptive to non-standard ideas. The rapidity with which people here take offensive confirms that.

That is a disappointing comment. While sometimes this forum can feel a little clique-ish with more veteran members receiving more feedback than newer members, that is really no different than any other small social group whose members have known each other for a long time. Really, this forum is one of the best I have found for being positive. Sure, a newcomer may not receive the same attention as someone who has been here from the beginning, but that should not be interpreted as negative. One solution to "break the ice" is to participate and show your work. On other forums, I have flat out seen where one member tells another his/her work is terrible, or looks like crap, or that their philosophy towards the hobby is wrong. The former "model trains weathered forum" got so critical they decided to become an exclusive club that requires you PAY to use the forum, and you must be recommended by a current member in order to join! Go over to the Narrow Gauge discussion forum and people get their undewear bound so tight that I have seen direct threats against each other. While that forum is filled with useful information, the hostile attitude displayed there keeps me from participating.

In the 4 years or so I have been a member on this forum and its predecessor, I can only remember 4-5 snide comments directed at someone's modeling efforts or philosophy.