MoonMonkey

Hi Brassey, agreed... in future I'll stay away from weathering powders for locos, unless a foolproof way becomes apparent. It'll be paint for these kind of jobs in future. I'll keep the Dean Goods 'as is' though rather than stripping it back and rebooting. I'm intrigued to see how it fares with occasional application of loose dust when it needs tidying up.

I'd be grateful for thoughts about the 'more appropriate' choice of carriages for 1945 GWR Wiltshire mainline but with local traffic too.... I like the older Hornby Collet shirt button carriages - such as Hornby R4759 or R4760, because these seem more prototypical with connecting corridors and insignia. But I'm wary of the lack of the 'joined up' connectors with massive gaps between them which might look too much like 'model train'. I did see there are ways to make/buy those bellowed connectors though. As an alternative, I'm also wondering about the current Hornby range of 57' bow ended nine compartment ones, such as R4875A or R4874. These don't have the connecting gangways, so removes my concerns above. BUT these are all marked as Chester or Birmingham Division. It's 1945 so I could claim they've been relocated at short notice to plug a gap or something. I could even remove the 'B'ham/Chester Division writing at the ends to make the regional glitch less obvious. In time, I'll probably get some other types of carriage to 'mix up the rake'. I'd like to get Traintech lighting into them and passengers, and weather them a bit too. But I need somewhere to start. Any thoughts???

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 like the idea of white base and then washes, Devondynosoar118. This layers seems the way to go, indeed Mikkel.

Thanks for the observations about the fire irons. Now you point it out, they do look pretty thick diameter. I'll have a look a those etched ones. I imaging that brass wire would be easy enough for two of them if I fancied some DIY. The shovel though would take me right back to making 1:12th dolls house brass&copper miniatures when I was a kid. I had smaller fingers then (having grown up since) and the skill-of-hand was there. It's an interesting thought though. If I do go down that route (although time pressure from elsewhere will probably conspire against me) I'll post about it here in future.

That's great, thanks Blandford1969 for taking a look and confirming. I just need to get some coal sorted now. And keep on top of the pesky oil tidemark!

I love Modelu figures - he says boldly, based on one small batch of them! Truly brilliant (in my humble and beginner opinion). As such, I want to do them justice with the paint job. I got nice results using Humbrol paints for the first batch I got, these were ok in terms of my paint job. Specifically regarding the skin... I used Humbrol flesh colour but adjusted with white or light grey or leather brown for variation. I don't often go around staring at people intently, so it was my best judgement as to whether the flesh colour was ok... but I think it was fine. I did notice that for the boy of the Tony and Tommy pairing, it looked like a splodge of paint across his face. I think this was probably a combination of the very fine contouring of the face, and me using too thick paint. I did it on a hot day so I think the paint was probably drying on the palatte before I got it onto the face, and I hadn't adjusted by adding water to make it more of a wash. But the other figures seemed fine, as per the night time shots on my profile page. I then treated myself to a Lifecolor flesh paint set. If nothing else, it gave me confidence that I was using sensible flesh tones. I used plenty of water to thin them down. I couldn't get the Lifecolor thinner as there seems to be a shortage of this product. I applied one thinned coat for the base coat. All of them now have this. I then started to build up layers (thinking washed and dry brushing) and that's where I started to run into problems. The boy in the cap seemed fine, although he does seem to be wearing some rather goth-like eye makeup. The chap in the chinos and blazer seems ok. But the guy in the grey demob suit with the suitcase... oh my word!! If I need a back story for him... well he is an unfortunate warrior who got bad facial burns in battle. Either that or he is the layout's Freddy Kruger. So why the difference? How can the blazer guy look fine, and Freddy looks a nightmare? Well, it may be a function of using water rather then Lifecolor thinner, but it seemed ok for other figures I've got around to. So I think it's possibly a case of too many layers, applied too soon before the previous layer dried, and possibly using paint on a palate that had started to dry up and therefore go a bit gooey. If you are going to use this paint/figure combo... please do bear in mind that the paint seems to need thinning, and don't allow yourself to use paints which have started to congeal on the palette, and do let the layers dry before applying more. I may be talking guff, or be wrong in my estimation of my error, but these points must surely be worth considering for the newbies among us, Photos attached for illustration... not necessarily complete yet, and other figures have barely been started apart from undercoat. Also, these guys look fine from 3' away... the camera is cruel in picking up detail. But ideally, I'd love to produce something that can fool the eye even in close-up shots. If anyone has any further insight before I embark on facial painting for the other figures, please do pipe up... these products deserve a decent paint job, and if you can help a beginner, that would be great!

I then went away which involved the model going into a box for 3 weeks, noting that it was the right way up and not in sunlight or damp or anything like that. When I took the thing out of the box... guess what?... another tidemark. I shall try the same method again. Photos of the tidemark also included here. So, in summary, what a faff! The powder with acrylic spray varnish looks good, but the oil mark spoils it. It is fixable in the short term by using (an appropriately coloured) weathering powder like spillsorb, eg if you wanted to take some photos, but the oil stain is likely to come back. This may because I used the powder like spillsorb and may not have sprayed it again - if I didn't use varnish then it would be capillary heaven. I shall have another go at applying the powder again for this loco, and I shall use a varnish spray this time for sure. But who know's how many times this needs to happen before the oil reduces enough to prevent the splashing by the working parts and subsequent capillary action through the joins? It might be that a different kind of varnish - not acrylic - might fix the powder and seal it against ingress, but I doubt it, and presumably that would seal in the oil to the varnish even more. I see on threads like Little Muddle that powder is used along with the trusty Dullcote before and after... presumably this is less porous than the acrylic spray? I think I shall stick to washes in future. If I ever learn how to use an airbrush, that would seem a a sensible method for weathering too. But unless I learn the secret to successful loco weathering with powders, then I shall avoid it for expensive / precious locos like the plague. I'd rather gorge myself on bourbon biscuits for three weeks and then attempt a cross-channel swim while wearing a swimsuit made of fishfood. Photos of the current state attached to show the tidemark has returned!...

Hello, it has taken me a while to get back onto RMWEB in terms of actually logging in, although I have been following threads and looking things up for research... it really is a mine of useful information. Truly great! I thought I'd update on my findings about the oil marks, in case other people find this thread about weathering locos with powders. I've used weathering powders for wagons and they were fine and I shall continue to do that. But the loco weathering really is a faff and I think people should carefully think about powders (and how to use them) if they are trying this for the first time. Just to recap... I got the results I wanted from powders, but the 'Bachmann tide mark' as explained by Mike Bonwick emerged very quickly. As per previous posts I thought I'd cracked this by applying liberal coats of enamel varnish inside. Unfortunately this didn't prove to be the case. Not long after my previous post (29th June), the tidemark reemerged. I thought this might have been because I tipped the loco onto it's side when moving it or something, but no, it was running that seemed to be the problem. The tidemark emanates from the gaps and not not just the large open area between the boiler and the 'wheel arches' (splashers?). For example, the tender has a tidemark too. Granted, the tidemark didn't appear at the to around the cab roof this time, but it is still pretty bad elsewhere. I reverted to my previous approach of absorbing the oil with powder. I used this like spillsorb or the kind of powder or grit used for chemical spillages (or spilled petrol at the filling station). I brushed on a liberal amount over the affected areas and left for a while... about 1 hour. I then carefully hoovered it off using the extension nozzle and assisted with the brush to work off the powder that was a bit fixed. I was careful not to get powder into the motor and running mechanism if I could help it. This seemed to do the job, although the engine/loco was a little more dusty, but that probably happened with the prototypes... a progressive build up of dust and dirt. For those who are interested, I used the Humbrol smoke weathering powder, so any residual powder left wouldn't look too out of place. As far as I recall, I didn't apply spray varnish as (a) there was no real excess of dust left, and (b) it didn't seem to seal the powder against oil in the first place. Photos of before and after attached...

Hello - well that took a while for me to get back onto RMWEB. Thanks for the insights about footplate fire irons, From your description, presumably they should be more like this (noting the obvious lack of coal, still!)...

Hi Duncan and Jason, Thanks for your help with my query about fire irons. I had a go at repainting and placing them on the tender with the looped handle over the u-shaped bracket. Do these look about right? (Please excuse the one-handed driver, pretend it's a magic trick he is showing the fireman!).

So for my next loco to weather, I reckon I'll give this sequence a go... 1. Remove body from chassis. 2. Do any weathering to wheels/chassis as desired (being careful with powder in the motion) 3. Wash the body twice in mild fairy liquid tepid water, allowing to dry after each wash. 4. Apply Humbrol gloss enamel varnish liberally inside... two coats allowing to dry between each. 5.If gloss varnish seeps through, touch up with chosen colour to match base colour of matt acrylic Humbrol paint. 6. Apply a loose pile of weathering powder over the body to wick away any oil. Then blow away to remove, maybe finish removal using a cotton bud or something. 7. Do a simple coat of weathering powder and varnish... check for any wicking / tidemark and if necessary apply another coat of loose powder. Worst case would be to wash again and re-varnish the inside, and repeat with loose powder, until no oil stain appears. 8. Progress to doing the actual weathering using powder and spray varnish.

Hi Mick Bonwick, thanks for your help with the oily tidemark in the weathering powder, your info was most helpful. I wasn't able to find IPA but dd some experimentation of my own... I learned quite a bit so I've done a brain dump into this link It might be useful if anyone else has problems with weathering powders and oily residue/tidemark.

I then reattached the bodies to the engine and tender, applied more powder until I got the effect I was after (being careful to avoid getting it into the wheels and mechanism), cleaned the wheels with Humbrol enamel thinners, and bob's your uncle... one weathered loco with no moulding seam line, no oily tidemark and running nicely. I did try to clean the powder/varnish of the small windows, using a cotton bud and enamel thinners, but the cotton bud was too big and it started to mark/remove the weathering around the glass in a rather obvious way. I therefore decided I could live with grimy windows but I couldn't live with messy shabby marks around them, so touched up the powder and varnish, and hope the tiny model crew get their act together and clean them at some point in the future. I touched up the handles to the reversing lever and 2 brakes on the tender (or whatever they are) with Railmatch oily steel. I painted the buffers to include a a bit of a more worn metal centre patch. It was then ready for crew, fire irons and coal. Some photos of what I think is finished... I'm trying to depict a GWR wartime black Dean Goods in late war level of dirtiness, I've based the grey/dust colouring and level of obscuration of the markings on photos of black locos in the 1950s.

Of note, the weathering powder really highlighted the moulding seam along the length of the boiler. I therefore applied a fine emery wet and dry paper over the seam. Obviously this left patches along the boiler, but a couple of coats of powder and varnish and these were no visible, the powder covered it up. Photos show a before (angled shot, you need to zoom in!) and after shot (side-on shot)....

My approach... Step 5... After another coating of weathering powder and spray varnish....

My approach... Step 4... I also concluded that if the powder wicks the oil out of the cracks, maybe I could use that to my advantage like spillsorb or fullers earth for the remediation of liquid chemical contamination. I therefore applied a small pile of loose weathering powder (specifically Humbrol smoke weathering powder) and left it for a few hours. I then took it outside and blew off the excess, and helped the last bit with a cotton bud. The cotton bud left a tiny bit of scuffing to the weathering powder but not too bad, showing the slightly bumpy mark in the photo in front of the round cab windows. Importantly, the powder had wicked away the oil. The other place there was a oil tidemark remaining after round 2 was on the tender around one of the equipment lockers (or whatever it is) on the top I therefore applied a loose pile of weathering powder, left it an hour, blew it away, and the oil tidemark was gone completely. I then did more weathering using powder and spray varnish, and was relieved to see there was no more oil tidemark.

My approach... Step 3... I the reapplied weathering powder and varnish spray as before, not to any great degree as I didn't want to waste time if the same thing happened. Upon drying, there was still an oil tidemark in 2 places, notably between the windows of the cab, where it had been worst before. But it definitely wasn't as bad there, and it didn't reappear in the other places again I therefore concluded that washing in detersives, and a layer of varnish inside, was definitely useful.

My approach... Step 2... Once dry, I gave a good thick coating of Humbrol enamel gloss varnish to the inside of the body to seal it and any gaps, so if oil remained or built up due to being sprayed around by the motor, it hopefully wouldn't be able to penetrate through to the matt weathering and have the same capillary action effect to create a tide mark. Once dry, it was noticeable that a tiny bit of the gloss varnish had itself seeped through, in a few places. This was fixed with a quick light brush of Humbrol matt paint of a close colour over the gloss enamel varnish - there was no perceptible problem with the paint finish which I gather may occur when applying acrylic over enamel. Maybe that was due to the tiny area in question. Pics show inside although the gloss varnish doesn't show up.

My approach... Step 1... I therefore washed the entire loco body (after removing it from the chassis) in a mild solution of tepid water and fairy liquid. Transfers weren't a problem for me - there was no damage to these. They weren't the original Oxford Rail transfers, they were from Fox Transfers. I used an old toothbrush to scrub away at the body to remove the weathering and especially around the areas affected, and to scrub the inside of the body. 2 wheel arches (splashers) came away but were undamaged and easy to glue back on. The brass name plates came off too. I then let it all dry and glued the items back on.

A failure to find Isopropyl Alcohol... Mick Bonwick's suggestion was to deal with the Bachmann Tidemark and suggested Isopropyl Alcolhol, IPA, rubbing alcohol. It seems this chemical was tricky to find anyway but had become popular as cheap DIY sanitizer during the coronavirus lockdown. The chemists I tried didn't stock it, and I didn't fancy chancing my arm with dodgy chemicals (which may or not have been the real thing) on online market places.

Investigating the problem... RMWeb (Mick Bonwick) provided insight into the 'Bachmann Tidemark' which is when oil inside the body (and in joins within the construction of the body) is moved through the gap and into the matt powder weathering through capillary action, to form a tidemark.

Hi all, following kind advice from Mick Bonwick about oil showing through powder weathering, I had a look at this. I thought my findings might be useful if you have the same problem, or you are going to start weathering a loco with powders. These are not meant to be definitive instructions or a recipe success, just my thoughts about what I did and what I discovered, and what I'd do next time. If you cock it up yourself, using any of this material or anything else, then (in the nicest possible way) don't blame me. How the problem manifested itself... I applied powders to the loco, sealing with coats of Humbrol matt acrylic varnish as I went. As per what I'd read about online if using the powders method. I thought it looked ok, but then overnight (not sure how long the problem took) I ended up with a tidemark. This spread through the weathering, as per pics shown by the red lines.

Hi all, I did some research into coal - initially for tenders but then more about wagons. Now I never thought I'd write those words before I signed up to RMWeb. It seems to me that the sizes varied in wagons, and locos through the ages, so there is probably a prototype for many sizes/grades of modelled material. That ties in with the really helpful comments on this forum. I guess the look is more important than a specific grade of modelled coal. The Gaugemaster stuff is shiny and I gather that real coal is like that. The Javis stuff is, I believe, more matt and brown like coke. Personally, I'll give the Gaugemaster stuff a go and see how it looks. I did think the video in this link might be useful on some level, if only about how to start a domestic fire using paper splints. There are also some links to photos online that may be useful/inspirational. Great Pathe video: Other photos if you haven't seen them already https://www.warwickshirerailways.com/gwr/gwrw384a.htm https://www.pinterest.co.uk/pin/684265737107326430/ https://www.pinterest.co.uk/pin/434527064032743786/?amp_client_id=amp-HxZUPQmMq_ybKONESOtvWw&mweb_unauth_id=e4f09d13eff34660b1034f555ee50fc4 https://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/news-photo/coal-wagons-in-the-sidings-of-the-london-midland-and-news-photo/613476494

Thanks Johnster, that matches with some of the images I found online. I do remember my mother being over the moon when the coal fire (and therefore the dust) was taken out of the family home and replaced with some new-fangled electric thing. The coal outhouse (next to the bog outhouse) was then knocked down some years later for a concreted yard and a small raised veg bed. Progress indeed before computers turned up.