How much is too much?


Philip Lord <plord@...>
 

Hi all,

I am about to weather a combine to match a photo of the same one in the late 1940s on the branchline I am modeling and near my prototype area. The combine also served as the "caboose" on the end of a short mixed train, and the photo shows one window converted with weather guards and a rain deflector to serve as the crew observation area.

Given all this, I am assuming it is pretty dirty and worn, yet some people are saying passenger cars should not be weathered much since they went through the washers all the time and stayed pretty clean. True no doubt on the mainline. But I am thinking in this peripheral service, on the low-end route, and late in the game, it was pretty much a "poor relation" and not serviced that often.

Any thoughts? (Email me off list and I can send you a good sized scan, or look in David Marcham, LEHIGH VALLEY MEMORIES, page 59.

Phil Lord


Richard Hendrickson
 

On Nov 7, 2007, at 7:06 AM, Philip Lord wrote:

Hi all,

I am about to weather a combine to match a photo of the same one in
the late 1940s on the branchline I am modeling and near my prototype
area. The combine also served as the "caboose" on the end of a short
mixed train, and the photo shows one window converted with weather
guards and a rain deflector to serve as the crew observation area.

Given all this, I am assuming it is pretty dirty and worn, yet some
people are saying passenger cars should not be weathered much since
they went through the washers all the time and stayed pretty clean.
True no doubt on the mainline. But I am thinking in this peripheral
service, on the low-end route, and late in the game, it was pretty
much a "poor relation" and not serviced that often.
Phil, you're right that ex-passenger cars used in mixed train service
or as cabooses weren't maintained to the same standards as main line
passenger equipment, and certainly were seldom run through the car
washers. I still remember a similar Santa Fe car I rode on when it was
used on branch line locals in Southern Calif. and it was both weathered
and dirty, though perhaps not as much as if had been used in LV "coal
country."  I'd model your LV car with faded and weathered paint and a
fair amount of dirt and grime, but I'd avoid overdoing it.

Richard Hendrickson


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


Charlie Vlk
 

Richard is probably right, but if you are modeling a particular railroad and branch
you never know what the local crews did. I've seen photos of wood or steel passenger equipment on the CB&Q
used in branchline service that were rather well kept and some that you couldn't read the lettering on.....
You have at least one photo...what does it show???
Charlie Vlk

----- Original Message -----
From: Richard Hendrickson
To: STMFC@...
Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2007 11:09 AM
Subject: Re: [STMFC] How much is too much?


On Nov 7, 2007, at 7:06 AM, Philip Lord wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> I am about to weather a combine to match a photo of the same one in
> the late 1940s on the branchline I am modeling and near my prototype
> area. The combine also served as the "caboose" on the end of a short
> mixed train, and the photo shows one window converted with weather
> guards and a rain deflector to serve as the crew observation area.
>
> Given all this, I am assuming it is pretty dirty and worn, yet some
> people are saying passenger cars should not be weathered much since
> they went through the washers all the time and stayed pretty clean.
> True no doubt on the mainline. But I am thinking in this peripheral
> service, on the low-end route, and late in the game, it was pretty
> much a "poor relation" and not serviced that often.

Phil, you're right that ex-passenger cars used in mixed train service
or as cabooses weren't maintained to the same standards as main line
passenger equipment, and certainly were seldom run through the car
washers. I still remember a similar Santa Fe car I rode on when it was
used on branch line locals in Southern Calif. and it was both weathered
and dirty, though perhaps not as much as if had been used in LV "coal
country." I'd model your LV car with faded and weathered paint and a
fair amount of dirt and grime, but I'd avoid overdoing it.

Richard Hendrickson


Tim O'Connor
 

Even mainline, lightweight passenger cars roofs got dirty and were only
rarely washed -- mechanical car washers usually washed the lower edge
of the roof. And trucks and underbodies got dirty fast and were rarely as
clean as the sides. Car ends were rarely given a good wash. If it were
my combine I'd grunge up those areas and leave the sides relatively
clean. Windows in particular were often the cleanest part of the car.

Tim O'Connor

-------------- Original message ----------------------
From: "Charlie Vlk" <cvlk@...>
Richard is probably right, but if you are modeling a particular railroad and
branch
you never know what the local crews did. I've seen photos of wood or steel
passenger equipment on the CB&Q
used in branchline service that were rather well kept and some that you couldn't
read the lettering on.....
You have at least one photo...what does it show???
Charlie Vlk

----- Original Message -----
From: Richard Hendrickson
To: STMFC@...
Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2007 11:09 AM
Subject: Re: [STMFC] How much is too much?


On Nov 7, 2007, at 7:06 AM, Philip Lord wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> I am about to weather a combine to match a photo of the same one in
> the late 1940s on the branchline I am modeling and near my prototype
> area. The combine also served as the "caboose" on the end of a short
> mixed train, and the photo shows one window converted with weather
> guards and a rain deflector to serve as the crew observation area.
>
> Given all this, I am assuming it is pretty dirty and worn, yet some
> people are saying passenger cars should not be weathered much since
> they went through the washers all the time and stayed pretty clean.
> True no doubt on the mainline. But I am thinking in this peripheral
> service, on the low-end route, and late in the game, it was pretty
> much a "poor relation" and not serviced that often.

Phil, you're right that ex-passenger cars used in mixed train service
or as cabooses weren't maintained to the same standards as main line
passenger equipment, and certainly were seldom run through the car
washers. I still remember a similar Santa Fe car I rode on when it was
used on branch line locals in Southern Calif. and it was both weathered
and dirty, though perhaps not as much as if had been used in LV "coal
country." I'd model your LV car with faded and weathered paint and a
fair amount of dirt and grime, but I'd avoid overdoing it.

Richard Hendrickson


branchline@...
 

Phil,

Don't always go by what "some people say", particularly since you have a photo! Use that to make your judgments.

The O&W also used wood combines on the back of some milk and local freight trains. Typically these were hand-me-downs from revenue service, so had not been freshly painted, but were not that bad off either. The paint was typically faded, often with evidence of patch repairs, but still serviceable. I suspect that, given the locale, the LV cars would have weathered similarly. I would certainly try to avoid the John Allen Syndrome of making it look too far gone.

FWIW, here's one that I did some time ago from a photo of an O&W car in similar service. http://home.comcast.net/~oandw/images/123.jpg

Bill Schneider
http://home.comcast.net/~oandw/

----- Original Message -----
From: Philip Lord
To: STMFC@...
Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2007 10:06 AM
Subject: [STMFC] How much is too much?


Hi all,

I am about to weather a combine to match a photo of the same one in the late 1940s on the branchline I am modeling and near my prototype area. The combine also served as the "caboose" on the end of a short mixed train, and the photo shows one window converted with weather guards and a rain deflector to serve as the crew observation area.

Given all this, I am assuming it is pretty dirty and worn, yet some people are saying passenger cars should not be weathered much since they went through the washers all the time and stayed pretty clean. True no doubt on the mainline. But I am thinking in this peripheral service, on the low-end route, and late in the game, it was pretty much a "poor relation" and not serviced that often.

Any thoughts? (Email me off list and I can send you a good sized scan, or look in David Marcham, LEHIGH VALLEY MEMORIES, page 59.

Phil Lord


plord@...
 

Bill,

That is exactly the same combine I am doing, except mine is metal-
sided. Any weathering hints you want to share? I plan to use alcohol
after Dullcote to fade the roof. Not sure about the sides yet. I would
post the old photo but the list warns against photos we did not take.
I can email it to you off line?

Phil

----- Original Message -----
From: branchline@...
Date: Wednesday, November 7, 2007 2:11 pm
Subject: Re: [STMFC] How much is too much?
To: STMFC@...

Phil,

Don't always go by what "some people say", particularly since you
have a photo! Use that to make your judgments.

The O&W also used wood combines on the back of some milk and local
freight trains. Typically these were hand-me-downs from revenue
service, so had not been freshly painted, but were not that bad
off either. The paint was typically faded, often with evidence of
patch repairs, but still serviceable. I suspect that, given the
locale, the LV cars would have weathered similarly. I would
certainly try to avoid the John Allen Syndrome of making it look
too far gone.

FWIW, here's one that I did some time ago from a photo of an O&W
car in similar service. http://home.comcast.net/~oandw/images/123.jpg

Bill Schneider
http://home.comcast.net/~oandw/

----- Original Message -----
From: Philip Lord
To: STMFC@...
Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2007 10:06 AM
Subject: [STMFC] How much is too much?


Hi all,

I am about to weather a combine to match a photo of the same one
in the late 1940s on the branchline I am modeling and near my
prototype area. The combine also served as the "caboose" on the
end of a short mixed train, and the photo shows one window
converted with weather guards and a rain deflector to serve as the
crew observation area.

Given all this, I am assuming it is pretty dirty and worn, yet
some people are saying passenger cars should not be weathered much
since they went through the washers all the time and stayed pretty
clean. True no doubt on the mainline. But I am thinking in this
peripheral service, on the low-end route, and late in the game, it
was pretty much a "poor relation" and not serviced that often.

Any thoughts? (Email me off list and I can send you a good sized
scan, or look in David Marcham, LEHIGH VALLEY MEMORIES, page 59.

Phil Lord










plord@...
 

Charlie,

What does it show? With old B&W amateur shots it is often open to
interpretation. I cannot see any lettering at all, and was even
thinking it had none, but perhas just faded out and dirty. I would
post the photo but it seems like I will get 20 to life if the photos
are not mine.

Phil Lord

----- Original Message -----
From: Charlie Vlk <cvlk@...>
Date: Wednesday, November 7, 2007 12:34 pm
Subject: Re: [STMFC] How much is too much?
To: STMFC@...

Richard is probably right, but if you are modeling a particular
railroad and branch
you never know what the local crews did. I've seen photos of
wood or steel passenger equipment on the CB&Q
used in branchline service that were rather well kept and some
that you couldn't read the lettering on.....
You have at least one photo...what does it show???
Charlie Vlk

----- Original Message -----
From: Richard Hendrickson
To: STMFC@...
Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2007 11:09 AM
Subject: Re: [STMFC] How much is too much?


On Nov 7, 2007, at 7:06 AM, Philip Lord wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> I am about to weather a combine to match a photo of the same
one in
> the late 1940s on the branchline I am modeling and near my
prototype
> area. The combine also served as the "caboose" on the end of a
short
> mixed train, and the photo shows one window converted with
weather
> guards and a rain deflector to serve as the crew observation area.
>
> Given all this, I am assuming it is pretty dirty and worn, yet
some
> people are saying passenger cars should not be weathered much
since
> they went through the washers all the time and stayed pretty
clean.
> True no doubt on the mainline. But I am thinking in this
peripheral
> service, on the low-end route, and late in the game, it was
pretty
> much a "poor relation" and not serviced that often.

Phil, you're right that ex-passenger cars used in mixed train
service
or as cabooses weren't maintained to the same standards as main
line
passenger equipment, and certainly were seldom run through the
car
washers. I still remember a similar Santa Fe car I rode on when
it was
used on branch line locals in Southern Calif. and it was both
weathered
and dirty, though perhaps not as much as if had been used in LV
"coal
country." I'd model your LV car with faded and weathered paint
and a
fair amount of dirt and grime, but I'd avoid overdoing it.

Richard Hendrickson










Charlie Vlk
 

A sweeping statement, maybe generally true, but certainly not for CB&Q, GN & NP equipment that cycled through Chicago
(and CZ, DZ cars to Denver and beyond), where all lightweight cars ran through the extensive mechanical brush car washer
at Halsted Street (rr name for location???).
True enough, though, for Heavyweight equipment, which did not go through mechanical car washers, at least on the CB&Q in Chicago.
Topic probably should go over to the Passenger Car List.
Charlie Vlk

Even mainline, lightweight passenger cars roofs got dirty and were only
rarely washed -- mechanical car washers usually washed the lower edge
of the roof. And trucks and underbodies got dirty fast and were rarely as
clean as the sides. Car ends were rarely given a good wash. If it were
my combine I'd grunge up those areas and leave the sides relatively
clean. Windows in particular were often the cleanest part of the car.


.


Charlie Vlk
 

Sounds like it is more a question of paint fading vs. dirt.
"Weathering" doesn't just mean making things dirty.....the lack of visible lettering might be due to the car not having been relettered/repainted for
some time. If the car was filthy it would likely show up somehow (especially around the doors/vestibules where people rub up against the car getting
on and off) and on the ends where the wheels kick up road grime. Even a layer of soot / coal dust would have some variation to tip off that it is dirty.
My guess would be fading vs. dirt if you don't see any evidence that the car is filthy or has grime in some areas....
Charlie Vlk


Anthony Thompson <thompson@...>
 

Phil Lord wrote:
I would post the photo but it seems like I will get 20 to life if the photos are not mine.
No, only if you don't have permission. If you know the source, just ask. And BTW, it's a whopping fine, not jail time. <g>

Tony Thompson Editor, Signature Press, Berkeley, CA
2906 Forest Ave., Berkeley, CA 94705 www.signaturepress.com
(510) 540-6538; fax, (510) 540-1937; e-mail, thompson@...
Publishers of books on railroad history


Malcolm H. Houck
 

Bill's right...........the O&W combines (mostly) that wound up on branch
lines were at or near the end of service lives, and most were quite antique and
still had gas lighting right through to the end. However, be careful since
some supposedly wretched cars were in better condition than others, as
replacements were often rotated through the roster; -- old, but newer cars replacing
the hand me downs that'd been in service a while and were worn out and ready
for scrap.

In some instances if branchline cars were kept in a yard for service only a
couple of days a week, on an extra "as needed." the local employees might have
undertaken their own maintenance. I've heard firsthand of a sympathetic
yardmaster (Norwich, on the O&W) in an outlying location, when there was no work
out on the main line or off on a connecting branch, rather than sending the
extra (or regular) crews home, would draw some cash, send the boys to a local
hardware store, have them buy some paint and set to painting the work outfit
and one or two of the combines regularly stationed in the yard. O&W combine
No. 247 always looked pretty good, when it was run and scheduled out of
Norwich.

Mal Houck



************************************** See what's new at http://www.aol.com


Gene Deimling <losgatos48@...>
 

Phil
It is easy to generalize on the relative cleanliness of a passenger
equipment assigned to mixed train service. We have all seen
pictures of dirty and worn combines trailing a string of freight
cars. Not all railroads follow this model. The Northern Pacific
ran a mixed train (#597-591) to South Bend, WA from Centralia. The
rebuilt combine #1195 was kept clean fitting mainline service.
You really need to use photos to accurately represent the condition
of the equipment.

Gene Deimling
El Dorado Hills, CA



--- In STMFC@..., "Philip Lord" <plord@...> wrote:

Hi all,

I am about to weather a combine to match a photo of the same one
in the late 1940s on the branchline I am modeling and near my
prototype area. The combine also served as the "caboose" on the end
of a short mixed train, and the photo shows one window converted
with weather guards and a rain deflector to serve as the crew
observation area.

Given all this, I am assuming it is pretty dirty and worn, yet
some people are saying passenger cars should not be weathered much
since they went through the washers all the time and stayed pretty
clean. True no doubt on the mainline. But I am thinking in this
peripheral service, on the low-end route, and late in the game, it
was pretty much a "poor relation" and not serviced that often.

Any thoughts? (Email me off list and I can send you a good sized
scan, or look in David Marcham, LEHIGH VALLEY MEMORIES, page 59.

Phil Lord



hummerdaves
 

--- In STMFC@..., plord@... wrote:

-
''I plan to use alcohol
after Dullcote'' to fade the roof. ?
This technique will give you a frost white haze.

May I suggest that you start with a wash of a Tan color.
Not seeing the car or knowing what colors it is this could be
a bent arrow.
Dave S.