To those that are skeptical about whether locomotive works would paint engines grey for builder's photos, shipyards in the early to mid 1900s would paint entire ocean liners grey for builder's photos that took place just after a launch, then would start repainting them black the next day.

Tim, thanks for the pic! I think I'm going to like 26 that way!

Judging by the way they don't at all follow the curve of the tank, I believe it's much more likely that they represent some type of fading/damage to the print or negative.

My question is this: Will the jacketing be planished iron (commonly referred to as Russian Iron)? I think #26 would look STUNNING in that scheme.

(Does anyone even manufacture planished iron anymore?)

I remain skeptical. Many locomotives such as Baldwin 26 were not delivered in glossy black paint. Green paint and planished iron were much more common than people accustomed to the way steam looked at the end. I am not saying that these stories of grey paint are wrong, but until I have evidence, I can's say they aren't just stories.

Clearly the print this image of No. 4 is taken from is damaged. The damage is probably from that part of the image being exposed too long to sunlight.

Also clearly this locomotive is not in shiny paint nor is it in direct sunlight.

After my career on the camera crews of hundreds of commercials and corporate videos, I have seen the lengths and expense gone to by companies to make absolutely sure their products look the absolutely best they can. And a little bit more if possible. :-)

And if anyone thinks companies were less competitive and less concerned 100 years ago, they would be mistaken.

Also, I did not say this:

"What are those strange diagonal stripes on the tank? Could they be reflections in glossy paint?"

Please pull out your February 1977 Trains Magazine, and look at page 22.
The article is "Super Power Specialist, Don Jardine, the Karsh of Lima." It is an article about the Lima company staff photographer during the last of the great steam years.

On page 22 you will find a small front end shot of Virginian No. 900. The larger photo of the same locomotive on page 23 will show you how the front end is actually flat black while the rest of the left side of the locomotive is shiny black. You can dramatically see the difference and how shiny would be difficult for anyone to clearly see the details of the brand new 900.

So it would seem the locomotives maybe were not painted grey but flat black. But then it could be argued that black is a shade of grey depending on exposure.

I would say the point of whether they painted the locomotives specially for builder photos is moot.

From the book "Lima- The History" by Eric Hirsimaki, Chapter 16, "Portraits of Power", page 307:

"To prepare the engine and tender, the paint shop was told to paint the engine's photographed side with a kalsomine solution that would be washed off after the photographic session. It was a flat, water-based grey wash that brought out detail in the shadow areas, improved the picture's contrast, and eliminated any reflections caused by 'dings or dents' in the sheet metal.

After the kalsomine was applied, the painters would go over all the engine and tender lettering, running boards, tires, rods and other details with a flat white paint. It recorded better on film than the gold, yellow, and silver used by many railroads. Instructions were so specific that orders were to paint slab rods with only the edges of the "I" section rods white, leaving the center grey."

According to wikipedia, "kalsomine" is a variation of whitewash: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whitewash

Now this is Lima's process, but I'd imagine Baldwin (and ALCO) did the same thing. They didn't paint half the locomotive grey, they painted it normally, then sprayed it with this stuff prior to the builder's photo, took the photo, then washed it off.

Thanks for this information. This process sounds very plausible, and would explain the apparent lack of glossiness.

I'd still suggest that many times when locomotives look more grey than black in their builder's photos, that it may be because the locomotive was not black when delivered.

Interesting thread. What a neat solution to the problem of shooting a photo of a black subject where you need to see all the detail.

You can also assume the photographer would expose for the shadows... in other words purposefully over expose the photo. The back ground, which would be over exposed and very dense (on the negative) would be masked out using rubylith. I'm guessing almost all of these photos were taken with large format cameras. A few I've seen from a freight car manufacturer are 8x10 glass plates with the back ground (and foreground) hand painted out. What is rubylithed out appears white on the final print.

With the photo of the tank engine above, the stains on the tank look to me to be developer or fixer streaks created during the printing process. This happened when the paper wasn't properly placed in either the fixer or the wash post fixer. It is interesting that we see today was likely a "reject" that was taken home to give a family member or taken from the trash. There is also a chance the streaks appeared some time later if the print wasn't washed properly.

The art form is getting the exposure just right to show the shadow details but have it not look like it is back lit. That tank engine has that look to me... it was over exposed too much. Again, one guesses the company photographer, or the guy they had on contract had a favorite location and favorite time of day, and even month.

While I'm no expert on builder's photos, they are often wonderful pieces of art. I'm also no expert on the world of railroad books, but I wonder if there has ever been a coffee table book of builders photos... large, on great paper and quality printing.

Bob

Having collected locomotive builder's photographs for almost my entire life I wanted to add my two cents.
There were many sizes of negatives used back then and they were contact printed; not enlarged. In other words; if you wanted an 8 X 10 print then you took an 8 X 10 camera and made an 8 X 10 negative. From there you processed the negative and using a Contact Printer you laid the negative onto the glass of the printer with a sheet of unexposed printing paper on top, closed the lid, turned on the light OR lights in the contact printer and counted the seconds for exposure. Too light, longer exposure, to dark, shorter exposure. If you ever bought Baldwin prints from Herb Broadbelt then that's how they were made.
Lima used the following sizes of film: 4 X 5, 8 X 10, 7 X 17, and 8 X 20. Those last two sizes were for the OFFICIAL builder's photo which was framed and given to rail excutives.
Baldwin used 4 X 5, 7 X 11, 8 X 10, and 12 X 20". Yes, that negative really measured 12 X 20". That was for their OFFICIAL builder's portraits. They were also early to use Kodakrome in 8 X 10" sheets.
Alco used 4 X 5, 8 X 10, and large glass negatives that measured about 10 X 30 for their OFFICIAL portraits.
And YES, they ALL used the washable GREY paint to bring out the details. It was applied with a paint brush.
I often hear how WONDERFULL modern photography is compared to the old days. I have some sepia toned prints from BLW that are over 120 years old and I can take a magnifying glass and read the casting numbers !
Those negatives that have a white background was a process called OPAQUING. It was done by hand and you painted out all the unwanted background using a RED or BLACK solution called Opaque. That is why in some LIMA builder's photos you see those white boards behind the locomotive. It was to aid the photographer when he got to the HARD details like the handrails and under the boiler/running gear. It was a process that took hours, so please appreciate those WHITE BACKGROUND builder's photos, they were works of art !!!!

Kevin Kohls

And the latest on BLW #26 - as of late April, 2013:

Pics below -

Boiler still needs to be attached to the frame.

The frame, wheels and cab have been painted.

The tender has a beautiful paint job with lettering
though it will sadly have to be repainted from black
to the newly elected olive green scheme - per
factory spec.

The park hopes the engine will be ready for July
though admits that would be an ambitious goal,
as is the goal to have her ready for September's
Railfest. Maybe, maybe not, but definitely on
the home stretch - maybe.

Now - how about a little back detail? I've raveled
back a ball of yarn:

The restoration of Steamtown's Baldwin Locomotive Works 0-6-0 #26 nears completion after a frame up restoration began over a decade ago. The engine was previously owned by Jerry Jacobson of the famed Ohio Central. He had restored it to operation on site in 1981, a mere two years after purchasing the locomotive from the owners of the former Jackson Iron and Steel Co. In the Spring of 1983, the engine was moved to the Mad River and NKP Museum in Belleview, OH as the current site was to be demolished. Looking for a larger locomotive, Jerry traded the locomotive for CNR #1551 in 1986 with Steamtown (before it was a national park). BLW #26 ran at Steamtown along side with CP #2317 and CN #3254 until it went down for a rebuild. Ironically, #26 has been under restoration at Steamtown longer then it has ran for the park in service but will be in "like new" condition when it returns! CNR #1551 was brought back to life in 1989.

BTW - When did #26 officially go out of service at Steamtown - and why?

/Mitch

I visited Steamtown for the first time in April 1999 (probably April 5, 1999.) At that time they had just pulled #26 from service. In fact, it was still warm when I saw it on the backshop tour. I don't recall what the park ranger indicated that the issue was. However, I do recall that it wasn't supposed to be too big of a deal. That is when the rebuild started.

If I recall correctly I was on the crew that dropped the last fire in mid December 1999. The season was almost over and the engine was "out of time" as it were. We had a few Polar Express trains left the following week, which we ran with the 2317.

The early season troubles with the 26 in April of 1999 (are we sure it wasn't 98?) involved something with either a cylinder or piston. It was repaired and running by the summer.

Dave

The April 2009 date comes from my recollection that I saw "The Matrix" in a theater on the same trip.

I *thought* that it hasn't ran since - but I may be wrong about that.