# A Thought on Painting



## DKRickman (Mar 25, 2008)

For no real reason, other than wanting to express my opinion somewhere..

I've always been taught that the "correct" way to paint a model is to use high gloss (or at least gloss clear coat) followed by decals followed by a flat sealer coat. The logic for the preliminary gloss makes sense, being that decals adhere better to a glossy surface. The logic for the flat coat is that it represents the atmospheric haze due to the (scale) distance from which we observe our models. For that reason, or perhaps for others of which I am unaware, it seems that almost all models in all scales are painted flat. It may also be that flat paint hides imperfections better than gloss.


However, I started to notice that the models which really caught my eye were not flat, after all. Almost without exception, at least when referring to rolling stock, the most realistic models were the ones with a satin finish. The more I thought about it, the more sense it made. 1:1 rolling stock is painted with gloss paint, varnish, enamel, etc. Even at a distance, it shines, it reflects light from various surfaces, and it's obviously not flat. While you can't see any specific reflections in it, you can tell that it's shiny. A satin finish helps replicate that. The general exception to the "real trains are shiny" rule is that dirt and paint fading or chalking will cause it to look dull. However, if you rub a surface, the original gloss usually shows through. A good example would be grab irons, or the sides of a diesel locomotive, where the crew members' gloves rub against the body. So to me, it still makes sense to give the model a satin finish. Then use flat paint for weathering.


Speaking of weathering, I seem to see a lot of extreme cases. Maye it's just that they catch my eye more than more moderate examples, but I've noticed a number of models at both ends of the weathering extreme. On one hand, there are a lot of them out there that look like they just came out of the box. I'm not knocking anybody that just wants to run trains, but I've seen some beautiful, carefully detailed models running on gorgeous railroads, looking like they were just painted that morning. At the other extreme, I've seen some that look like they've been left out in the sun until they bleached. It seems more prevalent on older models, but I've seen a number of steamers that were outright grey instead of black. At some point, the weathering takes over the model. Personally, I feel that locomotives should generally be weathered only lightly, to indicate regular use but not neglect, steam less so than diesels. Passenger equipment should receive a little less than locomotives, and freight cars a bit more. Individual cases will vary, of course, but that's my general rule.


One of these days, maybe I'll take a couple identical toy trains, and give one a decent paint job, or maybe even just a clear coat and weathering, just to showcase the difference a little attention to the finish can make.


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

Can I get an AMEN from the congregation!? 

Later, 

K


----------



## Rod Hayward (Jan 2, 2008)

I'm inclined to agree. I only have one really tatty, heavy weathered loco, one lightly and the others a "newish" satin. Variety is the spice of life it is said. 

The "new" ones are like so. 










And the lightly weathered (read bankruptcy dirt) the old K, which I know you seen before. I put the two togther here as a contrast. Its a matter of personal taste, but I am a great believer in less is more. A bit of dirt is ok, but the application of tons of rust in some instances just looks OTT IMO. 










My pax cars all satin also.


----------



## Torby (Jan 2, 2008)

I have a couple cars I've dulled a little with mat clear. Otherwise, mine are all unweathered due to FUD.


----------



## Dan_D_Sparks (Feb 8, 2008)

Amen! 
You know the expression "have you cake and eat it too". I found myself wanting a shiny trolley but weathered too! So I had to find a nice balance between gloss and weathered. 
 From dav http://dan-d-sparks.blogspot.com/2009/05/birney-project-weathering.html


----------



## DKRickman (Mar 25, 2008)

Dan, 

That trolley is beautiful! And I have to say, that's exactly what I was saying about a little gloss under the weathering - sure makes it look more realistic to my eye.


----------



## Jack - Freshwater Models (Feb 17, 2008)

I agree that paint should be gloss (or semi-gloss), then decal, then dull or semi gloss coat. Old oil based paint was gloss or semi-gloss. It was the dirt and grime and deterioration of the paint that made it dull over time. In the case of locos they were serviced often and it was the soot and grime that dulled the finish. I think modelers sometimes over do the dull rust and weathering thing. 

J


----------



## RimfireJim (Mar 25, 2009)

Posted By DKRickman on 04/30/2009 9:05 PM
Personally, I feel that locomotives should generally be weathered only lightly, to indicate regular use but not neglect, steam less so than diesels. Passenger equipment should receive a little less than locomotives, and freight cars a bit more. Individual cases will vary, of course, but that's my general rule.


As a general rule, I think you are on track, but it's not hard to find cases that depart from that. I'm sitting here looking at my official 2009 Union Pacific calendar and the three locos in the photo are clean and semi-shiney (as one would expect on a company publication), but just last Sunday I saw a westbound UP freight east of Las Vegas being pulled by 3 or 4 of the dirtiest (sooty black) diesels I've seen. So bad, that I had to stop and take a picture. The eastbound we saw go through Caliente earlier in the morning didn't look much better. I would put them in the category of "neglected". And most of the cars had graffiti all along the lower side, a reality that many modelers understandably have a hard time bringing themselves to replicate.

In the B&W photos in my books on logging railroads (my large-scale interest), there's not a glossy, semi-glossy or satin surface on equipment to be seen, except for places that got wet with condensate and/or oil or worn by contact, e.g. grab irons. Cleaning equipment was not on the "to do" list of loggers, and most of the equipment had been in use for years. So, would it make just as much sense to apply a flat finish to everything, then go back and "gloss up" those small areas, rather than start with satin and weather down?


----------



## Torby (Jan 2, 2008)

And you touch it up with a sharpie marker


----------

