Weavers closing, along with Scalecoat

[pjm20]

I was just reading this: http://model-railroad-hobbyist.com/node/22759

Getting paint is starting to get hard.

[C855B]

This is seriously bad news, for me at least. I was just starting to refresh my painting skills, and I use Scalecoat nearly exclusively.

Getting paint is starting to get hard.

Somebody can correct me on this... but getting solvent-based paints are what is becoming impossible. Tru-Color and Vallejo are currently reliable sources for acrylics.

This flat sucks, because - also subject to correction (please!) - there is brass in my paint shop queue, and I just picked-up one more over the weekend. My experience with acrylics on metals is not good. I had better pick-up a couple each of my key colors if I can, and hope the supply lasts.

EDIT: On second thought, since I'm only just starting to get back into painting, maybe this is the time to re-learn with the new paints. Too bad I didn't know this last Thursday, as I was standing in front of a rack of Tru-Color and wondering if maybe I should try it. That rack is now 500 miles away.

[Doug G.]

The goal of the rotten, stinking activists in this country is to eliminate paints for modeling by applying so many regulations and banning so many ingredients, a manufacturer cannot afford to make them.

Doug

[Scottl]

Sorry, that is BS.  You can still buy solvent paints, especially spray paints.  This particular case involves a business that can't find a buyer and the product (seemingly) going the wayside.  I'm sorry to see it go, even if I have not bought any of their products.

However, whether you like it or not, environmental regulations restricting solvent release, have improved your air quality and health.  The VOCs such as those found in paints are a notable photochemical catalyst for ozone production, particularly in urban areas.  Compared to fuels, they were a small part of the picture, but the improvements in peak ozone data due to VOC restrictions are clear.   Go take a deep breath of the clean(er) air thanks to those "activists".

[wcfn100]

Somebody can correct me on this... but getting solvent-based paints are what is becoming impossible. Tru-Color and Vallejo are currently reliable sources for acrylics.

Someone can correct me on this but aren't Tru-Color paints solvent based?

Jason

[Scottl]

Yes, acetone-based.

[C855B]

And, yes, in the meanwhile I did some research and now stand corrected - Tru-Color is solvent-based. Like you guys said, acetone. I think my solution is to adopt Tru-Color now and sell the two-dozen bottles of mostly unused Scalecoat.

Scott, there's middle ground on this, and Doug's reaction aside, the regulatory overreach has become pedantic. VOC, flourocarbon and hydrocarbon emissions reduction is a good thing. However, the EPA, CARB, etc., have been cranking down too much on micro sources, now having solved the 99.99% emitters.

These attempts to achieve some lofty (and impossible) perfection are costly. We're talking parts-per-trillion here. Very-small-scale users and producers of certain formulations suffer unnecessarily, a population that doesn't have the R&D resources of major corporations to research effective alternatives. Heck, even "the big boys" have their issues - you may recall the fleets of cars in the early '90s with peeling paint after the forced conversion to non-HC primers.

Isn't there an old Chinese curse to the effect of, "May you live in interesting times," or something like that?

[High Hood]

Looks like I gotta stock up soon.

[sizemore]

A good primer will solve almost all issues with acrylics on metal. Just allow the primer to dry for 48 hours before applying your color of choice.

The S.

[sirenwerks]

Scott, there's middle ground on this, and Doug's reaction aside, the regulatory overreach has become pedantic. VOC, flourocarbon and hydrocarbon emissions reduction is a good thing. However, the EPA, CARB, etc., have been cranking down too much on micro sources, now having solved the 99.99% emitters.

And yet it only takes one of those one-trillionth of a part to trigger onset of a single health problem in an individual.  Would you be the one willing to sacrifice yourself or a loved one to that?  Or it only takes a single small-scale producer to foul a single creek with mishandling, for an entire community.  Are you willing to sacrifice your community to that?

The point of the EPA and other federal regulatory agencies, and their state counterparts - and let's not forget the states, some of which have even harsher limits set than the federales - is to mitigate real problems, not target companies or individuals.  If a product (raw material or raw material-containing market vehicle) creates the problem, the product is a viable target.  It is up to the market to adjust through adaptation.  Let's not forget that many regulations have been on the books for decades and exceptions can be allowed.  Market players big and small have time to adjust and if they can't, well, perhaps it is not because of environmental regulation as much as it is they're not that good at business or interested in what they do.  In that case, best they check out now and make the world a better place.

[Puddington]

I respect the environmental and Health and Safety reasons for limiting or even banning solvent based paints however the ban on such small quantities seems a bit over reactive when looked at in isolation. Regardless; there are some good new alternatives out there - have people seen Toronto's famous Georges Trains line of railway colours?

https://georgestrains.com/proto-paint/

Mostly Canadian colours right now (including a killer Conrail blue) but they are willing to expand to other colours - give em a look see.....

[C855B]

And yet it only takes one of those one-trillionth of a part to trigger onset of a single health problem in an individual.  Would you be the one willing to sacrifice yourself or a loved one to that?  Or it only takes a single small-scale producer to foul a single creek with mishandling, for an entire community.  Are you willing to sacrifice your community to that?

The point of the EPA and other federal regulatory agencies, and their state counterparts - and let's not forget the states, some of which have even harsher limits set than the federales - is to mitigate real problems, not target companies or individuals.  If a product (raw material or raw material-containing market vehicle) creates the problem, the product is a viable target.  It is up to the market to adjust through adaptation.  Let's not forget that many regulations have been on the books for decades and exceptions can be allowed.  Market players big and small have time to adjust and if they can't, well, perhaps it is not because of environmental regulation as much as it is they're not that good at business or interested in what they do.  In that case, best they check out now and make the world a better place.

Your argument is "snail darter". This is protection of a nearly immeasurable population at very high cost, with the original concerns eventually debunked (threatened species population increased even after completion of impacting project).

Also... this brings up dihydrogen monoxide, which makes the point that everything is hazardous under the right set of conditions.

Then there's the China issue. Given their notoriously poor environmental oversight, was that RTR model molded and painted in an environmentally-sensitive manner? Unlikely. I would offer that there is substantially more impact from a manufactured model in a badly-regulated factory then there will ever be from 1000 or 10,000 model railroaders "rolling their own".

As a city architectural commissioner, I deal with similar balance issues frequently. We have lost many landmark structures in my jurisdiction because ADA compliance even under grandfathering accommodations renders preservation financially foolish, at least for public access. Again, it's an incredibly difficult task to find the balance point between impact to individuals and loss of resource(s), costs, or, in the case of model paints, product availability.

This discussion gets quite complicated once you start weighing the micro- and macroeconomic impacts. I understand both sides, obviously, and it is my particular assessment that we are into a period of regulatory overreach trying to solve <0.01% issues.


Back to topic... Tru-Color is pretty expensive at MSRP, soon to be over $10 per 2 oz. bottle. Any online shops carry it? My usual sources do not.

I made this point during the Floquil shutdown - given that the number of MRRs who paint is small and getting smaller due to the vast improvements in RTR selections, a project that really needs to be undertaken is "old school" color matching of RR colors with the paint lines available to the generic modeler community, such as Tamiya and Vallejo. There are good paints out there that are readily available, just not off-the-shelf in our gamut. Maybe it's time to break out the micro-pipettes and start mixing... and letting each other know our successes (and failures) in color matching. 

[towl1996]

Go take a deep breath of the clean(er) air thanks to those "activists".

No thanks. Not with all the chemicals that we're being sprayed with in the form of chem-trails. And any time someone mentions "activists" who are looking out for my well being, my BS meter goes off.

[MVW]

Wait a minute. "Activists" sets off your BS meter, but "chem-trails" does not?

 

Jim

[sirenwerks]

Your argument is "snail darter". This is protection of a nearly immeasurable population at very high cost, with the original concerns eventually debunked (threatened species population increased even after completion of impacting project).

Hmmm.... the snail darter issue would have never come about had the US not built the dam, and it's likely the dam wouldn't have been built had the USG honored its original agreement with the Cherokees, since the dam is squarely located in the original Cherokee Nation, and not relocated the tribe to Oklahoma.

I counter your snail darter with passenger pigeon.  On both counts... stupid, greedy, short-sighted Americans.