All,

The WW&F Ry Museum is nearing completion of its restoration of No 9, a two foot gauge Portland (Maine) Company product of 1891. Among the many fine details we are attending to is the finish on the exterior of its Oak/Ash cab. Our group has two schools of thought and we'd appreciate feedback from the rail preservation community on the subject.

One is to use a modern, poly-urethane based marine coating, in this case Epifane, to achieve color (black) and gloss in one round of application (1 primer, two top coats, sanded between each layer).

The other is to reproduce, as well as we are able, the cab painting scheme we believe to be period appropriate: varnish over flat black oil based paint. The 1930 Locomotive Cyclopedia- a little off era but the closest we have- specifies one coat flat black, one coat "engine black" (??), one coat rubbing varnish, one coat finishing varnish.

We surmised the varnish approach would produce a depth which may effect the final look which would differ substantially from the modern coating. Not wanting to skip primer, and not knowing what engine black was, we produced a sample on an oak board consisting of one coat rusty metal primer (as an oil based primer), one coat flat black, one coat matte black, two coats spar varnish. No sanding was done between coats.

We also prepared a similar sample using the Epifane approach.

Sure enough the two samples are quite different. The varnished piece does appear to have substantially more depth, the varnish apparently acting to scatter the light and affect the color that your eye sees. We were all favorably impressed- including the Epifane proponents.

Now comes the great unknown: longevity. Everyone is fairly certain the Epifane would last a lot longer, and the varnish will degrade. No one knows how much. We are prepared to recoat the varnish regularly, but is that enough? 2 year lifespan? 5?

Is there a modern painting system that would allow a flat color to be top coated with a clear coat, thereby simulating the effect of the original method?

It occurred to us that others in the preservation field may have run into this concern previously, so we thought to ask here. Thank you in advance for any advice you may provide!

Hello Stephen,

I am all for the "traditional" varnish approach .... but that may just be romanticism on my part.

The only comparison I can make to your application is the finish on my wood kayaks which obviously live and play in a far different environment. The finish on those is epoxy impregnated wood with a varnish finish. Mind you other than smoke and heat your finish wont be exposed to U.V. and moisture to the extent my kayak application is.

If you go the varnish route I would suggest using a high grade spar varnish. I find that every few years I just need to wet sand and recoat - mostly to take care of scratches etc.

That's my two cents

Since you will be maintaining the finish to a much more intensive standard than would have been dreamed of in historic service, I don't think sweating this decision is worth the trouble. I'm always a bit amused at the pristine, better than new appearance of even restored freight cars which is certainly impressive, but looking nothing like a freight car looked in service.... no patina, dirt, wear, and far smoother than historically appropriate. Whatever the original factory appearance might have been, it didn't last long enough to be truly representative of the in-service appearance it wore for the majority of its working life.

Do what would have been done after a decade in service - whatever is the easiest and least costly way to keep it presentable, not pristine.

dave

Which of the Epifanes products did you use in the test? And what 'period-correct' varnish?

If I remember correctly, isn't the anticipated life of period-correct varnish about 4 years in the weather? Are the funds and the 'political will' in place to keep the period-correct finish up to snuff indefinitely over the period that the UV-resistant Epifanes would have lasted in reasonable condition?

As part of my education: What's the reason a single finish coat of period-correct varnish could not be applied over a prepped base coat of an appropriate Epifanes product (or equivalent)? And what is the effect of using a commercial UV-resistant additive to the period-correct varnish -- does it have the right effect on the internal chemistry?

I agree with Dave that you'll want to make the decision about 'pristine-looking' vs representative of how the locomotive would have appeared in normal service. I suspect that a high degree of gloos on the cab will also imply maintaining gloss on the paint, brightwork, etc., combined with a high level of cleanliness in general regarding wiping and cleaning ... but I suspect that's already a WW&F tendency...

As a member of the committee of a thousand, I have personally inspected the samples.
As in automobile restorations, is it "over restored" or a ten footer?

I agree the varnish has more depth and a greenish tint. (PRR Brunswick green)

It comes down to a manpower issue and my vote(which does not count) is for the longer lasting finish.

I will now yield to the historic purists.

Ira Schreiber
Life member
WW&F Railway

Absolutely historic. WW&F is renown for its workmanship, reproduction and the committed work forces which descend upon projects. Given the railroad stores the locomotives indoors, I would think the historic finish would last longer than predicted. Your #9 is the only remaining example of a Portland Loco Works engine, iirc. Why wouldn't you do it as originally turned out?

The performance of today's paints and varnishes cannot be compared with that of yesteryear. Back at the turn of the 20th century almost all paint was linseed oil based. Linseed oil paints could be (and WERE) formulated to have a gloss when dried, but that gloss would weather away in just a couple of years. Varnishes of the era were more complex "cooked" polymers that had much better weathering properties but were too expensive to make into paint. So, the railroads used a "two part system" of gloss varnish over flat paint. The opaque paint protected the wood and the glossy varnish stayed glossy for a reasonable time. And when the varnish began to fail, all that was needed was a new coat of varnish. The railroads knew what the service life of these coatings was and had the infrastructure to regularly maintain their passenger car fleets.

Today's high gloss paints use binders that will retain their gloss for an order of magnitude longer than the varnish of years ago. Today there is no reason to duplicate the labor intensive two part system of the old days. Using an antiquated coatings system just for the sake of historical accuracy is a poor way to utilize your resources, especially for your operating fleet.

... And, if you want the depth of a varnish over paint combination, add a coat of clear over your modern color coat. I've been away from painting for a while now, so can't recommend specific products, but for a while a big thing for auto body shops was to shoot a coat of clear Imron over the factory finish on new autos for added depth. It seems these days most auto finishes are a clear top coat over the color, so there should be some good choices in the auto refinishing lines.

Given WW&F's overall focus on the historic, I'd vote for the traditional method. I believe that weather protection is far more important than the type of paint used.

In 1982, one of my first RR volunteer efforts was prepping - with only putty knife and wire brush -- a narrow gauge flatcar for painting. The original paint and lettering on still on the car and reasonably attractive, as the car was only outside for ten years or less and it's been inside at all times since, when not in use... and we use the car, the wood deck has been replaced although that 1982 paint is all that's on the steel frame.

Nick

I haven't seen the samples, but my vote would be for the historic method, regardless of durability. (If it needs to be redone in a few years then so be it.)

Doing things "the old-fashioned way" is something for which the WW&F is well known, and part of what makes the railroad so much fun to be involved with..

-Philip Marshall
WW&F Life Member

I would use the modern method.

I apply the same logic to seeing old steam loco boilers having their rivets replaced with welds. They are not elements of the original machine, but they don't take hardly anything away from the original experience. Plus, it will last longer+require less maintenance (and less money). Not very many people except the really hardcore railfans are going to notice it much anyway.

Yes, but we'll know ;-)

Several of the folks here who saw the samples described the epifane sample as looking 'modern' or 'plastic.' I say that not meaning any offense to any readers here who have chosen to use it; it still provides a sharp appearance and is admittedly longer lasting.

With regard to the in service look- a little food for thought. The "10 years in service" look developed from the factory varnish over flat paint look, not a modern poly-infused coating. It seems that a varnished finish, either clean and kept or dirty from service, may be a better representation than the modern coating, again whether clean or after a period of service.

What would a railroad have done with a varnish over paint surface once they didn't feel like re-varnishing?

For our "period" sample we used modern products across the board- for 3 reasons.
One- we don't know the formulations of the period coatings; two- we're not into this so much that we're going to start making our own coatings anyway; and three- we figured using modern products and the period clear-over-flat approach might still be a better representation than the modern approach of having the gloss included in the marine coating.

Specifically, for the sample, we used Krylon Rust Protector rusty metal primer, Krylon Rust Protector flat black, Tractor Supply Majic alkyd matte black, and two coats of McClosky Man O'War Marine Spar Varnish. If we do this for real we were interested in stepping up from the hardware store brand oil based paints, but in reality we're thinking it may not matter that much.

The Epifane products are apparently glossy by nature- it's part of their formulation as the poly-urethane contained therein gives it some of its longevity. So clear coat over epifane would appear to make little sense.

Application time was about equal- epifane 3 layers, sanding between each for a total of 5 steps. Varnish approach 5 layers, no sanding, total of 5 steps.

Our biggest unknown, and the reason we reached out here, is just how long the varnish will last, and are there better products to achieve this layered look?

We are prepared to re-varnish one layer every so often, as our ship captain volunteer JB Smith does on the cabin of his boat every year or two. We're also prepared to experiment and change our mind, strip and apply Epifane, if the varnish fails too quickly or severely (ie orange peel).

So, some of our bias is clear. However, as experience here has shown, varnish, even modern varnish, will orange peel in 2 years no matter what, then we'll not bother.

Thank you for all the responses thus far!

First some thoughts on your “period appropriate” finish… You are describing what the Master Car Painters Association was calling a 4 coat or “Enamel system” (c. 1897-1899) to differentiate it from the previous 12 plus coat systems…

The paints would most likely have been linseed oil based. By 1900 they were adding more hardners (aka Japan hardner or other resins) and the paint was sometimes called enamel.
In general linseed oil based paints are naturally glossy… originally you flattened a paint by over thinning, frequently with benzene or gasoline, but by 1915 or so there were resins that could be added to flatten the finish…

I suspect you flat black is a thinned down black, to better soak into the wood, and therefore act as a primer…

Engine black is just a glossy black. You will sometimes get references to Ivory black or bone black. These refer to what was burned to make the carbon pigment… Ivory black is more blue/black, bone black more true black. Enamel black (with hardners) allowed a heavier coat than previously used. Without hardners lots of thin coats were used.

In the 19th century there were a number of varnishes used… Valentines carried something like 12 different varnishes for specific applications. Each harder that the other… In general rubbing varnish was softer, while wearing varnish was harder. They would frequently apply a coat of rubbing varnish, then rub it out, then letter the equipment, then another coat of rubbing varnish, then a coat of hard wearing varnish.

Varnishing over paint gives a prismatic effect which cannot be duplicated by glossy paints.
I would suggest first painting the cab with a good primer and glossy black, then lettering then varnishing with a good spar varnish (spar varnish is less sensitive to UV)… probably 2 coats… when it looks worn sand the varnish and re-varnish… Take the time to make a good test board to check for compatibility. You will be outside of what the paint manufacturer recommends.

Randy

Randy,

Care to opine if the gloss level of the paint under the varnish really makes any difference? I suspect not, and the effect should be able to be reproduced with one or more coats of modern clear coat over a gloss black base coat. I don't think there is any reason to specifically matte the color coat before the clear is applied.

One thing to consider is varnishes have color, typically golden brown, that may make a subtle difference in the apparent color of the finished job, although I'm not sure it would make all that much difference over black. Back when I painted the North Shore "silverliner" at IRM years ago, I shot the silver area with a Ditzler clear coat to help fix the shading and keep the thin feathered edge from weathering off. The clear looked gold in the can; I didn't think it would make much difference in the thickness of one coat, but it did.

Live and learn.

Fascinating and informative, thank you!

Here is what we have so far. Test pieces -traditional flat black and varnish on the left, Epifane on the right.