Re: Jack Delano color photos

Tim O'Connor


Didn't Pullman cover most paint with "varnish" as a clear coat? So
not only is the paint important, but perhaps the finish clear coats also
changed and would that affect how frequently passenger cars were
repainted? In addition passenger cars were washed frequently (while
freight cars were almost never washed) and so the effects of brushes,
detergents and abrasion would be significant for passenger cars. On
the other hand, passenger cars probably didn't have standing piles of
crud on their roofs with acidic compounds that ran down the car sides
for days and weeks on end. (Coal smoke was full of sulfur componds
for example.)

Tim O'Connor

-------------- Original message ----------------------
From: "Tom Madden" <>
Wouldn't the roughness of the painted surfaces have a lot to do with
how "weathered" a car looked? Pullman, in its glory days, repainted its
cars every couple of years. That tells me the glossy surface finishes
of the steam era broke down relatively quickly. Having done a few
(well, more than a few) bad airbrush jobs where the paint went on too
dry, I can certainly see how a rough painted surface would hold soot
and general grime much more readily than a smooth finish. The phasing
out of steam locomotives and the phasing in of synthetic paints (were
they concurrent?) would certainly have changed weathering patterns.

Just a random thought.

Tom Madden

Join to automatically receive all group messages.