Leaderboard

Nice work as always. It's nice to see the Timber Tracks range getting a bit of exposure through your posts. I wonder if anyone will take over the range. It would be a shame otherwise.

One other thing... I decided that the Humbrol matt acrylic spray varnish is probably useful for making the figures a bit more robust (given that mine are likely to be moved around a bit). But the spray does leave a bit of a haze when you then take a close-up photo. So I decided to give the figure a brush with a make-up brush. That actually works... it turns out a better figure. HOWEVER... don't use the same brushes that you've used to add dust and soot and roof dirt. The lady in the red dress with plunging neckline was due to be my next unhealthy obsession after Anchovy relish and Death In Paradise. The paint job was, I felt, seductive. Then with one fell brush swoop, she looked like those makeup adverts when the mascara runs, but all over her, like a coal mining nymph. Dirty, but in the wrong way. So I ended up applying more paint and the definition and features were lost, and now she is a shadowless waif of her former self. I didn't want to apply more and more paint though in case she morphed into an elephant woman. Which would be bad. From a distance, she'll do. Platform, not coach.

Hi, just to followup on this thread, in case anyone is wondering about lifecolor flesh paints on figures... I tried with another batch of Modelu figures, plus some figures from Hardys Hobbies, and PMMStudio on ebay. It seems that increasing the chance of success is improved by watered down paint, and allowing it to dry a bit between new coats. But a real key seems to be not applying too many coats, and not getting tempted to apply new washes/layers over wet coats that haven't dried yet. It as bit like when you find yourself in a Balkan casino and you keep chasing that lucky 17 and then next thing you know - boom - you've lost your Euros and you are left wondering how you are going to afford a kebab before meandering back to your little apartment. So don't do it. Make a brew and think about what's next! BUT - if you have a bit of self-discipline, nice results are apparently possible. And that goes for any brand that I've tried. Some have more or less facial feature distinction, but I think Modelu and PMMStudio are great for allowing build of washes and highlights. There does unfortunately, with all figures, seem to be a bit of luck involved... probably for me due to a lack of experience... and some figures just happen nicely, and some turn out like the elephant man. So I reckon there are class A figures for the platform, and then Class B, the kind of people you see in a Colchester nightclub who can stay in the dimly lit coaches.

Yes, I've lost track of how we got onto that! However, one final point: The Midland's loco stock and train mileage increased much more than its rout mileage, giving that high route mile utilisation figure. What this obscures is the increase in capacity through quadrupling of tracks etc. that went on steadily through the 1880s and 1890s. A better measure to look at would be miles of running lines rather than miles of route.

From what I've been told, due to the popularity of the range, they've put off retirement for now.

Another platform shot with the new figures, this time at dusk. Red dress still present.

Those figures really look great, your painting has done them great justice.

The big difference between the LNWR and MR in the 1872 - 1900 period is that the LNWR was, with exceptions in the West Riding, largely complete, whereas the Midland was still vigorously expanding. The same could be said of the LSWR and certainly the MSLR / GCR. The SER increase is a bit spurious, one should compare the combined SER and LCDR total in 1872, 357, with the SECR 1900 total, 697, giving an increase of 340, 95%. Some data, comparing 1870 and 1900, extracted from R.J. Essery & D. Jenkinson, An Illustrated Review of Midland Locomotives Vol. 3 (Wild Swan, 1988) Ch. 6: Total route mileage: 1870 1900 growth LNWR 1,507 1,937 28% GWR 1,387 2,627 89% Midland 972 1,437 48% Total train mileage (millions): 1870 1900 growth LNWR 25.0 49.2 97% GWR 16.1 46.4 188% Midland 17.9 48.0 168% Reported loco stock: 1870 1900 growth LNWR 1,591 2,984 88% GWR 929 1,988 114% Midland 850 2,615 208% Locomotives per million train miles: 1870 1900 LNWR 63.6 60.7 GWR 57.7 42.8 Midland 47.5 54.5 Train mileage (millions) per route mile: 1870 1900 growth LNWR 0.017 0.025 47% GWR 0.012 0.018 50% Midland 0.018 0.033 83% The biggest mileage growth for both the GWR and the Midland was between 1870 and 1880, the GWR expanding by absorption of the B&E &c., the Midland by the opening of new lines, notably the S&C. It's interesting that only on the Midland was the growth in locomotive stock greater than the growth in train mileage: dividing one by the other we have: LNWR: 0.91; GWR: 0.60; Midland: 1.24. This is reflected in the increase in the number of locomotives per million train miles, though that utilisation measure remained better than the LNWR. In 1870 the Midland was desperately short of locomotives. By 1900 the LNWR and GWR were both working their systems 50% more intensively whereas the Midland was working its system 83% more intensively - no wonder Train Control was just around the corner! The trade should not have been complaining about the Midland at least, since over 70% of the locomotives built for it in the period came from the trade.

I did have another bash at the remaining figures I got from Modelu. The guard seems to have the same issue... quite a bit of texture at extreme close-up. I think this was trying to apply too many coats again. I did try to blow the paint away if it looked ropey, but some remains even then... it all builds up. I've come to the conclusion that possible areas for improvement are: 1. Once the paint pot has been shaken, leave it a while to settle... I think the aeration from shaking can lead to micro-textures forming from the tiny bubbles... this has happened on clothes as well as faces. It also seemed to happen if I mixed shades or with water too quickly. 2. Use a proper brush. I've been using a really old '1' brush I had from painting as a kid, plus the sole bristle on another old brush for 'detail'. I think my efforts to compensate for the lack of precision from the '1' brush have led to unusual application of the paint. I've ordered some new brushes including an '0' and a '5/0' (assuming that's a tiny brush head but I'll find out when it arrives). 3. Perhaps too watered down is as bad as too thick. Most interesting... as far as I'm thinking... the chino chap and the train crew seem to have come out best. All of these figures had a coat of base flesh colour, not too thin, not too thick. It was then left to dry. I then applied, I think, a single wash of a lighter shade, and left it there. So not too much paint on, and not too much of the 'applying more before the previous lot dried'. Also, because I was content with these guys after just that basic application, I didn't go chasing the details like on the other faces. Maybe that's it... allow yourself 2 coats with drying time, and accept what it turns up. If it's a but ropey, be prepared for an iffy paint finish if you do more, maybe these are the ones to consign to a carriage or building interior. I have to say though... I do like them from a distance, even at just a foot away. They'll be going on the layout. I'd just love to be able to take close up shots and it look 'real' rather than a dodgily painted model. Hopefully these thoughts might come in useful for someone else in future. Right, I need to get more Modelu people to do...

I forgot about this Modelu chap, the guard (with Tommy and Tony in the background)... The guard was about the first one I tried to do a face. And the boy figure is a classic 'fugly' character. They also were about the first I tried. Too much paint (which was a mix of Humbrol acrylic paints, not actually lifecolor), too thick, and not letting layers dry.

Also, I was going for a more 'summer tan' look as the layout is loosely set in summer, so I think I was probably going for a browner rather than a winter pale face. Still a good point though, thanks, I'll have a go with the next lot

Hi, thanks for the hint. I ended up using the various shades of 'flesh colour' in the Lifecolor set, some of which are definitely pale pink. The results are really a pretty experimental effort. I did have a go at trying to do highlights of lighter pink on noses/cheeks/foreheads, as I've read about online/in books, but in some cases they looked like really obvious brush work rather than an actual person, so I tried to reach a compromise finish. I now have some more figures to do, to help with improving and learning further. I also now have a 'OOOOO' brush for the detail, rather than the O and OO brushes I was limited to before. Hopefully the finer brush will work well. PMMStudio also do some figures 'in the buff' or close to a birthday suit, so I got a few of those to practice the flesh tones on a wider surface area. I might hide these in a coach compartment or something as a comedy interlude. When I get around to them (currently working on a platform though) I'll post images up here too.

Many thanks, very kind!

PMMStudio do dogs as well which came out nicely, they can be seen in the long platform shot. Here they are unpainted...

And then after a bit of a repaint, but not wishing to chase the effect for fear of overdoing the paint and it just going to a splodge!

And after using the wrong brush to try and take off some of the varnish-induced haze (which had been used for weathering)

I started this blog thread about lifecolor paints on Modelu figures. I thought it might be useful to add a few images of other figures I got, from Hardys Models and PMMStudio (on ebay). Before I add pics, it's interesting to compare the size of the people. Within each range, there is a degree of consistency of height, but there does seem to be some variation in body size/height within the Modelu and PMMStudio ranges. I would say that the Hardys people are generally shorter on average. And I would say that the PMMStudio people are taller on average. These comments are compared to the Modelu figures, and I have to admit I haven't done an actual line-up to compare properly, it's just my impression at the moment. That said, the PMMStudio ones are modern folk, and the Modelu ones I have are all 1940s/50s era when people were apparently somewhat shorted on average.

The image is just on an iphone, although I did play with the 'edit image' settings a little to try to get it to have more of an 'aged' look.

Mick Sorry I couldn't join you 'live' but as you know I could not have attended Missenden anyway this year. I have started to watch the recording and I see that all the 'usual suspects' were present! I shall watch the whole thing as a suitable refresher - despite attending your excellent course twice already, I know that there is always room to learn more and to improve. Thanks for sharing this and I hope that we can all get back to face to face sessions at Missenden in the not too distant future. Tony

I think your figures for the LCDR are way off, Mikel. (SECR was a joint management committee, but legally they were still separate railway companies.)

That does create a special atmosphere! Also conveniently filters out the background. I calculated the percentage increase in loco numbers up to the end of Victorian times. Interesting differences between e.g. LNWR and MR.

Please excuse the revival following my last comment on atmospheric scenes, I've now found the video I made some reference to... G

Thanks for the kind words!