Jump to content
 

Please use M,M&M only for topics that do not fit within other forum areas. All topics posted here await admin team approval to ensure they don't belong elsewhere.

The slow death of renumbering/repainting?


Recommended Posts

I have renumbered locos to fit visually as opposed to accurately. I.e. I find the correct number roughly for the loco to suit pre-tops era. I may well get the region, allocation, with/without boiler wrong but as long as there are no tops numbered locos I am content. 

 

Wagons, coaches etc well I have to admit to applying numbers in a devil may care way. I know my wagons have been way off and had this pointed out on RMWEB. 

 

The fact is the numbers were wrong. I wasnt particularly hurt by this being pointed out and it was done in a straighforward way. My getting it wrong and not particularly caring does not preclude someone pointing out my "error". It doesnt make them a bad person and did not discourage me. 

 

I have kind of accepted buying a new RTR loco is not a thing I can ever do. When I was a spotty student I could afford a brand new Lima 47 from hattons. Now I have a career, the equivalent is so far out of reach it doesnt do to dwell too long on it. BUT, If I did have a new loco, yes, perhaps I would think twice about changing or weathering it due to the (sorry) crazy rrp. Perhaps if I had the means I could outsource the tinkering. Would this, for me, still be my hobby? I just dont know. 

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Interesting/Thought-provoking 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting thread. Many of you will know I started my repainting/weathering business about 7 years ago, and has been documented via this forum ever since. I started off working in all of the major scales, along with a wee bit of layout building. I had to drop 2mm as it just wasn't for me, and the last couple of years, as well as a personal modelling choice, have seen me move pretty much exclusively to 7mm. I agree with all of the discussion about less personal time, a perceived reluctance to work on increasingly expensive models, and all of the other reasons.  What I do know is that regardless of market shifts, price rises, covid, the weather, every year sees a huge increase in business. As an example, the latest Heljan class 31 release has seen no fewer than 20 examples arrive, all requiring numbers, sound fitting, and weathering. I don't know what the answer is, but my shelves are straining, and 'full works' jobs which involve modifications and repaints have a turnaround time of 1.5-2 years due to the sheer volume of work. 

FB_IMG_1629013013103.jpg

FB_IMG_1629012956253.jpg

  • Like 7
Link to post
Share on other sites

That's good to hear business is booming .

I guess if I had a £600 O gauge loco I'd be more reluctant to renumber it / weather it - I gave up aspirations in the scale due cost and that fact my skills would be under more strain due to the size .

 

I don't really get the whole " traditional skills are dying out ". This is a hobby not a critical set of skills for the economy like ship building or making steel or medical school .

 

It'll be a shame but not critical .

  • Like 2
  • Interesting/Thought-provoking 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Only just picked this up thanks to Lee. Very interesting, as this is really 'where we are at' If you know Scottish Diesel and Electric Group and layouts in OO HO and O gauge you will know that we would have 95% of all locos renumbered, detailed and generally not out of the box. Have a look at threads on Airthrey Park, Wellpark, Dalnottar Riverside, Hazelbank etc This is where the interest in the hobby lies for me, the minutiae, differences between lamp iron positions, data panels missing etc etc. I really don't want 'what everyone else has got' by and large, and will continue to renumber, detail and weather stock regardless of what it costs. I actually take a perverse pleasure in removing numbers from what is essentially a £300+ sound fitted loco to make it unique and suit our chosen location and time period. Big shout out here for the late and irreplaceable Andy Elliot and to the the thankfully still active Andrew Donnelly for being my inspiration for years..... 

  • Like 2
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

On 06/08/2021 at 15:44, D9020 Nimbus said:

Given that the OP seems to model (mostly) fictitious locations, I can't help wondering why he's so concerned about the numbers of the locomotives …

 

Would anybody class Tony Wright as being "not a real modeller"? Yet I seem to recall that he didn't paint the many locos he built, but instead had them painted by Stephen Barnfield. It's not uncommon for modellers to avoid parts of the job that they don't like and outsource them to friends or to people who specialise in doing them.

How many people accurately model a real location? It’s not about that, the vast majority will create a fictional location or facsimile of a real location based on memories but will run stock as they remember it. I’m building a layout that is very loosely based on Wolverhampton. It will have the feel of 80’s West Midlands and people will be able to identify with certain aspects, but the stock will be renumbered to be accurate for the location and time period. People are more likely to spot an incorrect train formation or loco number before they will say the building is in the wrong place. 

Edited by Wolf27
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Wolf27 said:

How many people accurately model a real location? It’s not about that, the vast majority will create a fictional location or facsimile of a real location based on memories but will run stock as they remember it. I’m building a layout that is very loosely based on Wolverhampton. It will have the feel of 80 West Midlands and people will be able to identify with certain aspects, but the stock will be renumbered to be accurate for the location and time period. People are more likely to spot an incorrect train formation or loco number before they will say the building is in the wrong place. 

It’s true - of course , we make the bits we are most interested in the most accurate and therefore the bits with most time and money expended on them. How many layouts have model cars unweathered, wrong number plates, no mirrors etc....it’s because they are merely bit players in the overall show 

  • Like 1
  • Agree 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, rob D2 said:

That's good to hear business is booming .

I guess if I had a £600 O gauge loco I'd be more reluctant to renumber it / weather it - I gave up aspirations in the scale due cost and that fact my skills would be under more strain due to the size .

 

I don't really get the whole " traditional skills are dying out ". This is a hobby not a critical set of skills for the economy like ship building or making steel or medical school .

 

It'll be a shame but not critical .

 

I don't think they are. Look at plastic kit building, it's thriving. New kits are being released all the time and many are vastly more sophisticated than the old Airfix "shake the box and they are built" kits. Even those have had a massive resurgence since the start of the Airfix Classics range.

 

Look at the kids painting Warhammer and similar figures. Your local branch of Games Workshop is probably packed.

 

Are railway modellers becoming spoilt by the manufacturers doing everything for them? Quite possibly.

 

 

Jason

  • Like 1
  • Agree 2
  • Friendly/supportive 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

On 12/08/2021 at 20:42, westernviscount said:

 

Wagons, coaches etc well I have to admit to applying numbers in a devil may care way. I know my wagons have been way off and had this pointed out on RMWEB. 

 

I often don't bother numbering my wagons. They're going to be heavily weathered, there are lots of them, they aren't really the "main event," most of the time the numbers won't be legible anyway. I take a fine brush and paint something that looks from a distance like it might be writing and once there's a coat of dirt, you'd be hard pressed to tell the difference. In real life, I don't pay any attention to wagon numbers, so they're not a priority for my models.

 

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

One of the joys of relatively small, albeit plausibly busy in the case of mine, BLTs, is the ability to cope with the logistics;  a large main line steam era layout may have several hundred mineral wagons, and individually numbering them would be onerous to say the least.  I have a total of 22 minerals, a mixture of Bachmann and Oxford 9' wheelbase, a few Hornby or Airfix long wheelbase, and Parkside kits to stir the variety pot a bit with French doors and so on.  They run in two 10 wagon trains, with 2 wagons spare for use delivering coal to my factories and workshops, a loaded train and an empty one.  I toyed with the idea of identical trains to represent loaded and empty, but decided against it in order to have the option of the two trains on the scenic part of the layout at the same time.

 

Over the 22 wagons, there is no number duplication and a good variety of types and diagrams within types are represented.  CCT transfers, designed to suit BR period RTR or kit stock, which has the advantage of being made by a forum contributor as well as being very good quality, would extend the range of available numbers further; one can build a fleet of minerals that would probably consist of a couple of  hundred wagons before one runs into duplication and having to fiddle about with numbers of a size which is unsettlingy close to the limit of what I can manage these days.  Same goes for most RTR wagons, coaches, and locos; there is very little excuse for not renumbering to prototypes correct for your layout if you have ever, for example, built an Airfix Spitfire and put the transfers on, which I reckon most of us have, even today's kids. 

 

Honest Tom is not bothered by wagon numbers, but I am, perhaps because of my background working on the real railway as a freight guard, and it is almost second nature for me to look at the numbers.

 

Repainting and lining is another matter, and I can fully understand why some people find this outside their comfort zone.  Steam loco lining is fiddly, and panelled coach lining is hellish, and I am glad that most of my repaintings are into plain liveries, black for locos and unlined carmine for coaches.  I can just about manage carmine or chocolate & cream...  But repainting in plain liveries, suitable for much coaching, NPCCS, and freight stock is not difficult.  'But I'll never manage the quality of the RTR finish'; yes, you will, and might improve on some of it, especially older Hornby and LIma stuff, but you will need to practice technique on different surfaces and learn the use of different varnishes, and how to clean and care for you brushes or air spraying kit, and the pros and cons of different types and makes of paint.  There is only one way to do this, which is to do it, and not worry about the mistakes.

 

'But I don't want to ruin my expensive models'; fine, a bad paint job is one of the easiest ways to ruin a model, so don't, not yet anyway.  Practice on cheapo items that you can pick up for quite small numbers of beer vouchers secondhand or even at jumble sales, boot sales, and such.  They don't even have to be railway related, as most of them are going to be given the exciting opportunity of a new career in the landfill business anyway.  Use these to learn how to prepare, prime, paint, and how to strip paint from, your models; you will be able to judge for yourself when you feel comfortable having a go at a full fat brand new £300 all singing all dancing pacific...

 

'But I'll lower the resale value'; yes, you will.  Can't offer much advice here, but unless you bought the model specifially as an investment, you will have to come to your own decision regarding the best compromise for you between the desire to have an accurate model on your layout and the need to preserve resale value.  My view is that my models are mine, property as opposed to chattels,, and not for sale under any circumstances (though I do sometimes give them away) which frees me to mess around with them to suit my own purposes.  I will not attempt to impose this view on others, you must make up your own mind.

 

But altering models, which may involve weathering renumbering, repainting, attacking them with power tools, adding detail, improving the running, replacing couplings, and so on is something I very much enjoy, and nothing on my layout is in exactly the same condition (some of it isn't even the same shape) as it was when it first came out of the box, a matter of some pride to me!  I offer this post as a sort of general advice to those modellers who are not comfortable with altering models and try to keep them in the same condition as they were when they were first unboxed; there is absolutely nothing wrong with this approach and if investment is the primary goal it is essential, but for 'working' models there are major improvements that you can easily manage yourself, and they are not difficult.  I can prove this; I can do them, and I am about as bodge handed as they come!  You can learn how to do this, but it is up to you if you think you should.  I though I should, and I did.

Edited by The Johnster
  • Like 8
  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes @HonestTom personal priorities are the key definitely and satisfying oneself is the aim . What satisfies me is achieveing a "unifying aesthetic" where the stock matches the scene. Perfection is thankfully low on my agenda! 

20170329_214811.jpg.043239f066f6c0c3ec5b22dcb53522b7.jpg

Although shot when the layout was unfinished, the loco stands out like a sore thumb against the surroundings. First and foremost because it looks too shiny and new!

20170520_092320.jpg.db55605399da8e64b3b664d4a135719a.jpg

The addition of pre tops numbers and weathering (and more thoughtful photography admittedly) brings things together a bit better. The pre tops numbers match the visuals of all other motive power and the late 60s early 70s setting of the layout. This satisfies me. 

 

What will not satisfy some are the widely accepted draw backs of the Bachmann 24 in terms of shape, possibly the disc codes and amongst other things, a class 24  does not belong on a western region layout. I like them though.

 

No one has ever questioned me "robustly" and I have found through personal experience that it is those modellers who appear to set the very highest standards (the EM/P4/S7 brigade) who demonstrate the more "live and let live" attitude towards others. It is often their envy inducing standards which are interpreted as an attack on us lesser mortals, not what they say about our models. They are annoyingly good though! I have never met the mythical chief Inspector of rivets. 

 

I enjoy renumbering as a process and find the satisfaction levels rise as a kit built item reaches the decal stage. 

 

Strangely I take a certain pride that the reduction in monetary value of my models is inversely proportional to my satisfaction levels! 

 

Edited by westernviscount
  • Like 10
Link to post
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, westernviscount said:

Yes @HonestTom personal priorities are the key definitely and satisfying oneself is the aim . What satisfies me is achieveing a "unifying aesthetic" where the stock matches the scene. Perfection is thankfully low on my agenda! 

 


I've always considered the "sense of place" more important than rivet-perfection, possibly the retired Town Planner in me.  I prefer to model the "plausible" and have always described my modelling as "impressionist" rather than "Dutch Master".

That said, there have been times it's gone more "Picasso" or even "Jack the Splash" but eventually, if you are happy with what you achieve, that's all that matters, really.

  • Like 6
Link to post
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, wombatofludham said:


I've always considered the "sense of place" more important than rivet-perfection, possibly the retired Town Planner in me.  I prefer to model the "plausible" and have always described my modelling as "impressionist" rather than "Dutch Master".

That said, there have been times it's gone more "Picasso" or even "Jack the Splash" but eventually, if you are happy with what you achieve, that's all that matters, really.

Thats an interesting anology. I feel my modelling is the reverse of how artists (particularly modern) seem to work. As I progress, the greater the desire for verisilimitude not less. 

 

I just wish I could match the standard of an artist other than my modelling bench looking like Tracy Emin's unmade bed!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, wombatofludham said:


I've always considered the "sense of place" more important than rivet-perfection, possibly the retired Town Planner in me.  I prefer to model the "plausible" and have always described my modelling as "impressionist" rather than "Dutch Master".

That said, there have been times it's gone more "Picasso" or even "Jack the Splash" but eventually, if you are happy with what you achieve, that's all that matters, really.

 

I think that's a pretty decent description of my modelling. I don't mind if the loco has the wrong number or even if the wagons have no numbers, but it bothers me if a building is obviously wrong for the area, or if the liveries on the stock are significantly out of period. When I think of the eras/regions I model, I tend to work almost from a mental picture.

 

My trains are representative rather than fully accurate - my banana van train consists of four vans, my passenger trains are two or three coaches, and the unusual is far better represented than the ordinary. 

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

For a hobby that is obsessed with numbers and facts I do find that very strange.

 

Diff'rent Strokes I suppose. 

 

But I couldn't have a loco with even the wrong shedplate on it, or a wagon with the wrong number. If I wanted a King that was blue then I would find one that was blue and model that rather than just paint a random one blue. These things are known and set in stone as far as I'm concerned.

 

Research is probably one of the most interesting parts of the hobby.

 

It's not that we haven't got millions of photographs of the things and thousands of books. Or about a dozen manufacturers making transfers and plates.

 

 

 

Jason

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
  • Interesting/Thought-provoking 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
On 15/08/2021 at 10:06, Wolf27 said:

How many people accurately model a real location? It’s not about that, the vast majority will create a fictional location or facsimile of a real location based on memories but will run stock as they remember it. I’m building a layout that is very loosely based on Wolverhampton. It will have the feel of 80’s West Midlands and people will be able to identify with certain aspects, but the stock will be renumbered to be accurate for the location and time period. People are more likely to spot an incorrect train formation or loco number before they will say the building is in the wrong place. 


An ethos shared on Abbotswood Junction. Although we were once told that a tree was in the wrong place ….:lol:

  • Like 1
  • Funny 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a most-interesting thread.

 

However, I don't think I can contribute a great deal to it since I rarely renumber RTR locos, though I do with rolling stock from time to time. 

 

The subject of wagon numbers has come up, and here I must admit a rather cavalier approach to the matter. 

 

I'll explain, if I may?

 

336802487_AusterityonDownempties.jpg.2fd93e1ddffc694dafdc7708174f946e.jpg

 

This shot appeared in the Railway Modeller some little time ago (before I'd finished all the point rodding on Little Bytham). It's based on a Gavin Morrison picture of the real thing, taken in 1958 (the year depicted in the model). 

 

The empty mineral train (for which I claim little 'responsibility') is formed of over 40 modified RTR/kit-built wagons. Do they all have the correct numbers? I don't know. Are there any duplicate numbers? Again, I don't know. All I can say is none of them has tension-lock couplings (not that one can see) and all have been weathered.

 

Is there a point to this? Only that on a largish layout, where real-length trains can be run, with hundreds of wagons in use, whether all have the right numbers, or are duplicated, is not of the greatest importance.

 

On a small layout, with only a handful of items of rolling stock, accuracy in such matters is paramount in my view, but on a bigger scale? I'm not advocating being sloppy, more my being pragmatic (I hope). 

 

To conclude, the great Roy Jackson once told me that several of his modified Bachmann Mk.1s on Retford (scores?) still had their original numbers, which could well be duplicated. Some (tell it not in Gath) were even WR-allocated! When I asked if anyone had noticed (I hadn't), his answer was a resounding 'No'! 

Edited by Tony Wright
typo error
  • Like 10
  • Round of applause 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

When I asked if anyone had noticed (I hadn't), his answer was a resounding 'No'! 

 

"Does it look right to me" and "will anyone notice at an exhibition" were the two 'tests' i put in place when it came to numbering, particulary wagons and coaches...if it's good enough for Roy Jackson! 

 

The only problem I have encountered here are close up photographs which have been fairly and politely ctriticised.

20200516_103620.jpg.587b1859789d08ba601ebe1dabf41378.jpg

The number is most definitely wrong, fair cop, but it meets my personal tests. 

 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

6 hours ago, Steamport Southport said:

For a hobby that is obsessed with numbers and facts I do find that very strange.

 

Diff'rent Strokes I suppose. 

 

But I couldn't have a loco with even the wrong shedplate on it, or a wagon with the wrong number. If I wanted a King that was blue then I would find one that was blue and model that rather than just paint a random one blue. These things are known and set in stone as far as I'm concerned.

 

Research is probably one of the most interesting parts of the hobby.

 

It's not that we haven't got millions of photographs of the things and thousands of books. Or about a dozen manufacturers making transfers and plates.

 

 

 

Jason

 

That is just one facet of a very multi-faceted hobby!

 

For some people, it's the research; for some it's getting it 'right'; for some it's timetable precision operation, for some, it's just being in control of the layout! The list is endless!

 

I'm a firm believer in "Rule 1"!

 

Look at the weathering on this:

https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.railcolor.net%2Findex.php%3Fnav%3D1410936%26lang%3D1&psig=AOvVaw1grwjo_XUfr3qil8efA3nf&ust=1629394898959000&source=images&cd=vfe&ved=0CAoQjRxqFwoTCJDBjpyPu_ICFQAAAAAdAAAAABAV

Edited by JohnDMJ
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

This is a most-interesting thread.

 

However, I don't think I can contribute a great deal to it since I rarely renumber RTR locos, though I do with rolling stock from time to time. 

 

The subject of wagon numbers has come up, and here I must admit a rather cavalier approach to the matter. 

 

I'll explain, if I may?

 

336802487_AusterityonDownempties.jpg.2fd93e1ddffc694dafdc7708174f946e.jpg

 

This shot appeared in the Railway Modeller some little time ago (before I'd finished all the point rodding on Little Bytham). It's based on a Gavin Morrison picture of the real thing, taken in 1958 (the year depicted in the model). 

 

The empty mineral train (for which I claim little 'responsibility) is formed of over 40 modified RTR/kit-built wagons. Do they all have the correct numbers? I don't know. Are there any duplicate numbers? Again, I don't know. All I can say is none of them has tension-lock couplings (not that one can see) and all have been weathered.

 

Is there a point to this? Only that on a largish layout, where real-length trains can be run, with hundreds of wagons in use, whether all have the right numbers, or are duplicated, is not of the greatest importance.

 

On a small layout, with only a handful of items of rolling stock, accuracy in such matters is paramount in my view, but on a bigger scale? I'm not advocating being sloppy, more my being pragmatic (I hope). 

 

To conclude, the great Roy Jackson once told me that several of his modified Bachmann Mk.1s on Retford (scores?) still had their original numbers, which could well be duplicated. Some (tell it not in Gath) were even WR-allocated! When I asked if anyone had noticed (I hadn't), his answer was a resounding 'No'! 

Tony,

 

What you say is a perfectly reasonable and pragmatic point of view, but it is the position of a modeller whose principal interests are locomotives and correct passenger train formations. It would seem that Roy Jackson shared that position.

 

However, for those many modellers who have a special interest in freight wagons, the correct number, together with numerous other details of brakegear, buffers, suspension, etc., etc. are just as important as the locomotive at the head of the train, or the composition of the passing express.

 

My freight stock will ultimately number something approaching six hundred and, as far as my knowledge and skill permit, each one will be correct in detail and have a unique, authentic number.

 

We all have our priorities; none are 'correct' - just those aspects of the prototype that we cannot overlook.

 

John Isherwood.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep. I remember when I first started out all you had was the transfers in the kit or what was available from PC Models. The RTR models usually had the same numbers for years.

 

Like most people I have probably still got a few old Ratio and Airfix kits that used the transfers provided. Some of which were chopped about so they probably are wrong. Found a few the other day that still had plastic wheels which I thought I had got rid of years ago.

 

Now if I wanted numbers for something like BR 16 Ton mineral wagons then they are available from numerous sources. If you used CCT, Modelmaster, Fox, etc then you will probably find enough of them for dozens of wagons without repetition.

 

I also don't buy the idea that there is a lack of knowledge. There is a marvellous invention called the internet. Just Google it! You might be surprised by the amount of information out there.   :D

 

 

 

Jason

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Comes down to time again and priorities .

 

I’d like all duplicate types of wagon to have individual numbers....I have neither the finances , motivation or patience to do so.

 

If more than one comes past I’ll just squint .

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

If there's one thing some of the manufacturers are doing now, it's releasing runs of wagons with more than one number.

e.g. Dapol's recent releases tend to be four different running numbers and the next batch have four more.

Accurascale released 18 different numbered Castle Cement PCAs in the original production run!

 

There are many other examples of the above multi-number releases.

 

At the end of the day - tampo decoration represents a small proportion of the production cost, so multiple numbers within a production batch doesn't add much to the cost. And offering different numbers will generate extra sales.

Whilst this can apply to locos (Hattons 66 is the most recent example), there are only so many locos you can do with different numbers with the correct details (for those numbers) that we all crave these days.

 

Regarding individual wagon numbers - I think it only really comes into play when there are multiples of the same vehicle together - block trains are the "worst case". I did once read an article on block train modelling that advocated detailing/numbering the first few and then the last couple as the vast majority of people didn't actually watch the train in between!

 

I've only ever uniquely numbered three full sets of RTR wagons so far - and they have prominent numbers, so would be easily be seen as duplicates. If I have a set of say 16 wagons - with four numbers between them, I'll try and make sure that two identical numbers aren't next to each other - until I get around to renumbering.

I did individually number about 40 wagons for my Tontine Street goods - that covered about 35 different types - of which only a dozen or so were on the layout at any one time and quite a few were kitbuilt, which needed painting and numbering anyway.

 

 

Whilst the above comments may seem a contradiction to my OP, that was originally aimed at RTR loco repainting/renumbering/detailing.

After all - there are more loco-centric modellers than not.

 

I have my thoughts regarding the overall posts since my OP and I'll summarise them later.

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...