More Realism in Rolling Stock

Hello folks!

As my locomotive building projects are stalled for now, I've turned my attention to my freight car roster. My roster consists of 90% Atlas and MT cars, with a couple each of Bowser and Red Caboose cars - about 35 or so in total for now, so not a big fleet. That is good.

I have decided to tackle some of the issues with N scale cars, particularly ride height, couplers, and some grab iron/stirrup step details. Due to the Christmas deluge on the world's postal services, I am just now getting some bits I ordered weeks ago. The first to arrive was some BLMA / Atlas trucks... and to say the least, I am impressed!

The photo below shows a standard Atlas truck on the left, and a BLMA replacement on the right. Not only does it drop the ride height right down, but it has very nice metal wheels too! Now, hopefully, for some Z scale couplers, and then perhaps I'll tackle some of the molded on details, or at least those stirrup steps. At roughly 6 USD a pair, the BLMA trucks aren't cheap, but the difference they make is immense; do you folks think it's worth it?

 

In terms of 'realism', my opinion is that there's a bias on detail and not enough on finish. The first thing I see isn't any detail, it's that shiny plastic finish. I didn't even notice the height difference between trucks, to tell you the truth. The stirrups do scream N though.

Not that fixing some of the details isn't worth it, or the wheels, and particularly ride height for me, but if you want a realistic feel, the first focus is on getting some weathering techniques down. You can have some pretty poorly detailed cars that really become outstanding purely due to weathering after you focus on that.

Same exact MT car, same scheme, no details changed at all, just weathering and paint. And this is an OLD shot, I can tell because the siding and spur are still C80, long since replaced with C55.



I've got my entire fleet weathered, then zeroed in on ride height, starting with all gondolas, flatcars, and now tanks. Then stirrups on old cars, along with what plastic roofwalks remain that can be replaced with etched brass.

I do have a sprinkling of unweathered equipment, not a whole lot, and they tend to be 'new' cars per the era I'm modeling and stick out because of that. Most stuff becomes relatively common-looking and not competing much for attention. There's a real tendency to overload a layout with colorful and fresh stuff and the end result is a circus-train atmosphere despite some really nice detail work that doesn't get appreciated.

 

Hi Randgust!

This is indeed an unweathered car, and I've not weathered it yet simply because i plan to replace the stirrup steps and couplers, and will weather it once that bit is done. It will then be receiving an umber oil wash and a nice spray of pale grime at least. I think you're right that weathering (along with those stirrup steps) is of massive importance, but while I am swapping my fleet to body mounted couplers, I decided to try and address ride height too. To my eye the stirrup steps are by far the most jarring thing on this car (Micro trains do have much finer ones, usually, though some new Atlas cars also look amazing) but the stilt-like ride height is a close 2nd, tied perhaps with the lack of weathering. I will weather this one up and do a comparison perhaps (I have two of this car, just different road numbers) and see how we look when complete!

PS. What I can see of your layout is gorgeous! The weathered boxcar has brass etched stirrups on it?

 

Agree with Randgust 100%. Weathering is much more obvious than ride height, trucks, couplers etc. I come from a scale modeling background and about the worth thing I’ve seen in model RRing is lack of scale consistency throughout the layout and shiny plastic cars.

 

I think I agree! Nothing looks better (or worse) than unweathered things in places where they should be weathered. I also was a scale modeler long before a wargamer and then model railroader, and even a simple brown grungy wash can make all the difference.

That being said, building and detailing structures, rolling stock, and modifying locomotives is by far my favorite part of the hobby, and then seeing them run through a landscape equally populated with details. Once I have a car detailed to my desire, weathering for me is usually pretty simple, as I do not know how to do much beyond wash and powders, and grunge up the inside of gons and hoppers. I am in awe of what some people achieve with weathering.

My current goal is very much quality over quantity; after the usual new model RRer buying spree, I am focusing on getting perhaps 2 dozen cars and 3-4 locomotives all equipped with DCC, body mounted couplers, and weathered and detailed to a standard I can live with as we work at the layout. I'll get this one weathered up and post a pic tomorrow, when the sun is up; the light in our house here just is no good for nighttime photos.

 

Agreed, quality over quantity. Weathering is yet another skill to be learned and practiced. there's good and bad weathering. Pin washes, streaking, chipping etc. like many things though subtlety is key usually.

 

I respect your need for realism. However, I am concerned that by buying new trucks you will have other problems.Do the BLMA trucks have a coupler attached? If not your trains won't mate up with other cars as the coupler will be too low.
Body mount couplers are essential to add realism. It is a simple process, remove the couplers from the trucks, save for reuse on the body if possible. All MT truck mounted couplers can be body mounted. use a flat file to remove enough material from the spot the truck mounts on, I always fileda bit and measured a bit. You can have a short section of track on the workbench you can put new trucks on and just place the underframe on them and use the MT gauge. Be very careful to get the underframe filed down parallel to the track.
And of course, low profile wheels are needed for heightened realism. It is possible that groves may need to be machined unto ht underside of the bottom on some models.

And finally, for ultimate realism, search out DeLuxe innovations boxcars. They are the only one that have door tracks that are not hugely out of scale, and thanks to a clever design can still be modeled with doors closed or open. We all owe George Johnsen for this poorly recognised development. Thanks, George!
Bill

 

I hope to upgrade the whole fleet to Z scale MTs, though that will take some time. I've noticed that often when I body mount 1015s that the axles on the trucks will strike the mounting screws. The thinner Z scale box eliminates this, though I wish they came in bulk packs like 1015s do. More expensive too =(

 

Ever since I got into model rr back in the 70s my first thoughts were how to make this stuff look more real and not so toy like. My first attempts at weathering were useless as I had no idea what to do or use. There was no internet back then to see videos or ask questions. Fast forward to just a few years ago when I decided to make this weathering thing something I needed to do if I was to get any enjoyment out model rr the way I perceive it. As noted above weathering is somewhat of an art and most people don't want to get that much involved as it takes away time from running trains. And yes it can be overdone really easy or too many shortcuts can take away from the realism also. Every time I do a weathering job I learn something new as I'm always seeking perfection in something that looks messed up.

 

It really does depend upon the age of the car and the environment through which it has been run.
Here's an example of a prototype car that is still in relatively pristine condition:

 

My two cents. The first thing I noticed on the above gondola is the pizza cutter flanges. That observation is not meant to be a negative statement against Thomas, just an observation, no disrespect intended. Personally I dislike weathering and graffiti, why? As a railroad professional I work on this stuff and it gets to the point where even the simplest tasks find you covered in grim. I'm not even going to go into why these things are not washed. Also in my personal opinion, graffiti is vandalism and I'll not go any further on that subject. If you enjoy weathering, I'm not going to stop you, if that's what you enjoy in this hobby continue, but please don't knock my models because they look new and well maintained. This seems to be a growing problem in our hobby, it's almost like a check list.
1) You have to weather.
2) You have to use Micro-Trains or compatible couplers.
3) You have to operate using XXXX operating system.
...
If you like all of the above, I'm not going to tell you you're wrong, it's your hobby and everyone figures out their own way of having fun. For me, I'm currently having fun playing with my nice shiny N scale trains with the rule book in the garbage can. This is just my opinion, but remember the most important thing is to have fun.

 

Prototype railroads varied widely too. Some, like the Western Maryland and the Erie, were known for taking almost obsessive amounts of care to keep locomotives clean and serviced, and the WM even regularly washed their freight cars. Others, like the PRR/PC/Conrail, could not have cared less how filthy the equipment got. Clean to one road might have been completely unacceptable to others.

 

And here's the shell, with brass stirrup steps installed and some heavy weathering; as this car would be in steam-era service for about 10 years by the time of my layout, I decided to grunge it up a bit. I'll likely not weather anything heavier than this. Finished floor and couplers to follow once the oil washes dry completely!

 

Then there's the guy I spoke with at a hobby shop many years ago who argued that freight cars should be weathered by moving the airbrush from left to right, not up and down. This is because as the car rolls in a train, it gets weathered horizontally, not vertically. I just nodded and smiled, thinking that the prototype can only wish for levels of car utilization that keeps cars rolling more than standing still.

 

Here is an example of how I am weathering some of my fleet. (I will be weathering my entire fleet - at some point). I model the mid '50's. I like to watch as many movies as I can of this period. My observation is that the cars seem to be well maintained. Meaning, that they are not rolling rust buckets. They may be a bit dirty or grimy - but, not crazy rusty. I think this is due to the age of the cars. And, the state of the industry in the mid '50's. Freight cars were rolling bill boards for the railroads -- so, most railroads took pride in their fleet. (This is strictly my opinion -- and, I may be incorrect in that thinking)

Started with:


After some light weathering:


I also feel that weathering is subjective to the modeler -- to each their own. Enjoy "your" models as you see fit. I will not criticize anyone for their idea of weathering or no weathering.

Thanks
Wolf

 

Everybody has their thing, that's for sure. I've stayed with pizza cutters after experimenting with a lot of wheels, and discovering that if you correct ride height the wheel flange visibility on a lot of equipment is solved that way. So the time and energy went there instead. Not that I don't stop testing, but on my layout reliability holds the priority.

Oh, and those couldn't be more stock MT boxcars, except for the fade wash on the Grand Canyon one, and painted trip pins. Original stirrups. The trip pins are a personal gripe with N and MT, I have found magnetic uncoupling highly reliable, so they stay, but they all get painted.

When I'm weathering, I'm looking at photos that are also era-specific. On my ATSF stuff, those 40' cars date back to the late 1940's with the map plan. The handful that I photographed myself in the 70's were somewhat of a mess, meanwhile the ones getting rebuilt with pulled roofwalks, lowered ladders and the "Santa Fe" billboard scheme were less than six months since shopping, so they are very fresh. My SD24 and F9 fleet is heavily weathered as they were getting virtually no attention prior to the rebuild programs coming up, and my SD45-2, freshly delivered, actually is in glosscote and spotless. Most ATSF power was relatively clean although running as fast as they did always put up dust. I like that GE posting above, that's the way they look now, but they sure didn't look that way in 1996.

I've noticed that in '71-72, when Amtrak leased the F-units from Santa Fe, that one of the first casualties was that the customary spray repaint of the pilot and trucks in fresh silver at the terminal endpoints ceased. Units were still getting washed, but no more of that fresh paint, so the truck weathering went WAY up. If you notice that, you can almost date a photo as post- or pre- Amtrak just with that thing alone. Mine are grimy.

Hardest part for me was looking at the intermodal flats on the Super C, and realizing that running at 90mph kicked up so much dust that both the cars and the trailers were covered in a light brown haze that almost made everything indistinguishable. Weathering those gorgeous 89' flats from BLMA, MT, and Trainworx was necessary, but no rust or heavy grime need apply.
You'll never be unhappy on the realism pursuit if you just take the time to research your prototype and era and just 'do it' the way it really looked. There's just so much material now between the Morning Sun books and online that it's far easier to do.

One of my all-time favorites is the Santa Fe "Conditionaire" 100-ton refrigerated covered hoppers, a testimony to a failed experiment and the Styrofoam coating held dirt far better than paint. You can go anywhere you want with weathering there, from showroom new to complete utter butt-ugly, pick a year.

One idiosyncrasy of my era was that they gave up on ACI labels, but they were still there, and lube plates were the 'new thing'. With ACI unreliable, the reporting marks had to be legible, so it wasn't uncommon to have a freshly painted block with the reporting marks and car number on a car that was otherwise a weathered mess, also with a fresh lube plate on it. I've got a couple really old PFE reefers that would be close to retirement, heavily weathered except for the clean car reporting marks, because that's what I saw in the field.



PS that Erie box is spot-on, nice work.

 

I agree 100%. The 50s in particular became the era of huge billboard-like slogans and logos on freight cars and of brightly colored, intricately painted diesels, and the railroads wanted them to look as good as they reasonably could. Whereas a car like the PRR gon above would look perfectly normal in a train today, in the 40s and 50s, when most cars were also new due to the postwar car building boom, that would be rather uncommon.

 

Here is where I am the heretic, I do not worry so much about car or locomotive details because I can not see them when the trains are running......

 

Everyone has an itch to scratch. While I don't begrudge those who like to super detail cars and locomotives I think that is better done in HO or larger. Certainly there is better availability of cars and detail items in HO than in N Scale. But I, like Rich S. above, am not going to go through the effort of super detailing anything. I might, sometime in the future, give everything a light spray of Dullcote to more or less remove the shine. That will go a long way to setting the cars in any scenery. But there is also the other version of N scale where long trains running on broad curves through well done scenery showcase the benefits of N scale. My favorite in this regard is the NYS&A layout of Todd Treaster in Burnham, PA. Here is a link to a 13 minute video of the layout. There are other videos of the layout as well. The lay out is run by DC and the yard is over 50 feet long and holds over 2500 cars.

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?...77EC18F0BA52F95062B577EC18F0BA52F95&FORM=VIRE