TheRailwire
General Discussion => Scenery Techniques => Topic started by: daniel_leavitt2000 on October 09, 2020, 06:27:12 AM
-
OK hear me out...
Starting on bench work for the Boston line. The area of focus will be Framingham to Grafton, about 20 miles away. This will let me model three yards, a short line interchange and a few branch-lines. I will also be able to model my beloved Saxonville branch, with it's Wonder Bread factory. That branch, set to one end of the layout, will be very close to zero compression.
But I have two issues. First, I am much better at visualizing the layout than planning in software. I plan to build out the bench work, then lay the track as I see fit. I know this is a bit backwards from what is normally done, but I can see this in my head than I could ever put to paper.
But this means that I won't be doing a wood sub-board for the track. It will be placed on cork roadbed mounted directly to the foam core.
The area I model is pretty damn flat. There are a few small hills and lakes, but the elevation difference from one end to the other is less than 300' in real life.
So my concern is - do I try and make extremely gentle grade differences in the track? Or should I just keep it level and sculpt the scenery around it? And if I do add a very slight grade, how would I go about doing that on foam board? We are talking something less than a .5% grade here.
Also, how are you guys adding switch machines to switches mounted over foam core? Any ideas for low cost slow motion machines? I will need about 100 of them.
-
The rai line may be pretty flat but the terrain is not. I also do not think there is any straight track. Gluing wood blocks to the bottom of the foam to mount the switch machines is what most people do.
If you're in the area stop by the new G&U shop in N Grafton, we like to show off our new work area.
-
Seems like keeping the track level and building up and carving down the surrounding terrain would be the most simple way to go unless an undulating right of way is a defining characteristic of the line your modeling.
Looking forward to following your progress.
Michel
-
I think it depends. Would undulation of the track improve or degrade the experience of operating the layout?
Improvements could mean additional challenges to train handling (ie, having to implement hand brakes when making pickups or set outs and leaving a train on the main).
The flip side is that the same "play value improvement" could also mean "frustration increase" if it's not subtle enough or doesn't work consistently.
-
Personally, I wouldn’t bother with <.5% grade; it’s barely distinguishable. As for the terrain, the only truly flat ground is at the bottom of a dry lake. Elsewhere, there are undulations, however gentle, and multiple drainage courses. I find it challenging to model this effectively on a flat board because the roadbed needs to be slightly elevated above the natural grade, and most of the board surface should be sculpted to be either lower or higher. That’s a lot of carving. Also important I believe is the front edge.... it shouldn’t be a straight horizontal line but follow the land contours.
Pic below is from the “flat” part of my layout.
Just my two cents, have fun!
Otto
-
Personally, I wouldn’t bother with <.5% grade; it’s barely distinguishable.
Otto
^ This, because most model trains don't have brakes and rolling stock is mostly free-rolling in this day and age. You won't be able to see the <0.5% grade, but it will quickly become very irritating every time you attempt to couple up to a car and it rolls away. Or, you will be annoyed while switching and cuts not staying in place. Go level on the track and create undulations in the scenery.
DFF
-
Personally, I wouldn’t bother with <.5% grade; it’s barely distinguishable. As for the terrain, the only truly flat ground is at the bottom of a dry lake. Elsewhere, there are undulations, however gentle, and multiple drainage courses. I find it challenging to model this effectively on a flat board because the roadbed needs to be slightly elevated above the natural grade, and most of the board surface should be sculpted to be either lower or higher. That’s a lot of carving. Also important I believe is the front edge.... it shouldn’t be a straight horizontal line but follow the land contours.
Pic below is from the “flat” part of my layout.
Just my two cents, have fun!
Otto
Yep... this.
-
The only think I want to mention is that I would try to sway you away from using just foam as the layouts base. It needs to be more substantial. Friend of mine build a layout like the one you are planning and he regretted that later. I worked on it and later operated some trains and it was really flimsy.
-
I would go plywood spline, cut it to your roadbed width once happy with track layout. Fill in around with foam or wire grid and make the terrain undulate as you see fit. Personally I would go for level track work if not modeling a mountain railroad or something where grade is a key feature like Claremont concord old street trackage
-
The rai line may be pretty flat but the terrain is not. I also do not think there is any straight track. Gluing wood blocks to the bottom of the foam to mount the switch machines is what most people do.
If you're in the are stop by the new G&U shop in N Grafton, we like to show off our new work area.
Do y'all still have the F7 and CF7? Last time I was there in 2016. I still have some photos of the old work area.
-
I use foam base to provide contours above my track level. Gives the allusion of depth that works for me. I have never been happy with my layout when I have had elevation changes to my track level.
-
The only think I want to mention is that I would try to sway you away from using just foam as the layouts base. It needs to be more substantial. Friend of mine build a layout like the one you are planning and he regretted that later. I worked on it and later operated some trains and it was really flimsy.
I used 2" foam over a 1x3-ish plywood frame. It's plenty sturdy. It's important to glue the foam to the frame. In my case I was careful to make sure that the foam was supported about every 18" or less. That said, I did run into a problem that will make me think twice next time - the foam is not dimensionally consistent - there are small but significant variations in the thickness of the foam that mean the surface is not flat. I've had to shim my roadbed in quite a few places.
-
The only think I want to mention is that I would try to sway you away from using just foam as the layouts base. It needs to be more substantial. Friend of mine build a layout like the one you are planning and he regretted that later. I worked on it and later operated some trains and it was really flimsy.
Talk to Ed K about that...
Starting on bench work for the Boston line. The area of focus will be Framingham to Grafton, about 20 miles away. This will let me model three yards, a short line interchange and a few branch-lines. I will also be able to model my beloved Saxonville branch, with it's Wonder Bread factory. That branch, set to one end of the layout, will be very close to zero compression.
But I have two issues. First, I am much better at visualizing the layout than planning in software. I plan to build out the bench work, then lay the track as I see fit. I know this is a bit backwards from what is normally done, but I can see this in my head than I could ever put to paper.
But this means that I won't be doing a wood sub-board for the track. It will be placed on cork roadbed mounted directly to the foam core.
The area I model is pretty damn flat. There are a few small hills and lakes, but the elevation difference from one end to the other is less than 300' in real life.
So my concern is - do I try and make extremely gentle grade differences in the track? Or should I just keep it level and sculpt the scenery around it? And if I do add a very slight grade, how would I go about doing that on foam board? We are talking something less than a .5% grade here.
Also, how are you guys adding switch machines to switches mounted over foam core? Any ideas for low cost slow motion machines? I will need about 100 of them.
I dealt with "flat terrain" (which is a very rare thing, especially in the Northeast) by using 2" foam insulation sheet as the layout base resting on a 1x4 framework. The foam and frame were not bonded, so as to allow the wooden frame to expand and contract without causing issues with the foam. I made the very gentle grades I needed by sawing foam edgewise to create roadbed vaguely similar to the prefab stuff, but much gentler grades. Then I filled in the spaces between and around the roadbed with more 2" foam panels, carved with a homemade hot-wire carving tool to create the gentle undulations in the scenery.
As for mounting switch machines, I simply chopped holes in the foam under the turnouts, mounted the Tortoise machines to squares of thick sheet styrene, and bonded that to the foam roadbed with ordinary caulk (Liquid Nails for Foam would also work, along with a bunch of other products).
-
Not far from my house is the Portland & Western, which operates old SP trackage. It's got plenty of grade on it. as well as cuts and fills, as it heads into the Coast Range. That being said, it's funny that the straightest runs in the Willamette Valley are where I notice grades in the line the most, because the highway and rail line rise and fall in different waves, largely depending on how old or new the road is - older road building stuck to the land with sharper grades and turns, newer road sections are more flat and eased. My plan has been to, on relatively straight shots, include some grade dip next to road sections to represent this, though it won't be much, just enough for effect. and roll the scenery around the track too.
-
Do y'all still have the F7 and CF7? Last time I was there in 2016. I still have some photos of the old work area.
Yes, those engines are still there. The F-7 is on the project list, the CF-7 is not.
-
The only think I want to mention is that I would try to sway you away from using just foam as the layouts base. It needs to be more substantial. Friend of mine build a layout like the one you are planning and he regretted that later. I worked on it and later operated some trains and it was really flimsy.
I will agree with this.
I tried doing this on a multi-part layout and it just was not reliable enough.
When I build Windsor St it was foam on top of dimensional lumber frames (think NTRAK module style). That worked great.
The issue with a complete lack of a wood structure is that you don't have anything to use to attach things to (like DCC panels) or to use to attach sections together rigidly.
-
I will agree with this.
I tried doing this on a multi-part layout and it just was not reliable enough.
When I build Windsor St it was foam on top of dimensional lumber frames (think NTRAK module style). That worked great.
The issue with a complete lack of a wood structure is that you don't have anything to use to attach things to (like DCC panels) or to use to attach sections together rigidly.
Good point. My foam is on top of a wood frame, with strategic reinforcement of aluminum structural shapes for long spans.
Gluing the foam to the frame made the entire structure a good deal sturdier.
Wires, DCC boards, etc. are all fastened to the wood frame. Tortoises are screwed to 1/8 plywood plates that are glued to the foam. The trickiest thing is that invariably the ideal placement of some of the Tortoises is right where a part of the wood frame is in the way. In one case I actually ran the Tortoise actuating wire vertically through a wood brace.
-
Good point. My foam is on top of a wood frame, with strategic reinforcement of aluminum structural shapes for long spans.
....... The trickiest thing is that invariably the ideal placement of some of the Tortoises is right where a part of the wood frame is in the way. In one case I actually ran the Tortoise actuating wire vertically through a wood brace.
...
Yep, been there and done that too 🤨. Next time I build I will leave the cross braces out until after the track is down and then put them in glued to the foam and screwed to the side frame. I too find foam (blue or pink) glued to a wood frame with suitable cross braces is pretty darn solid. I actually prefer to use plywood strips rather than dimensional lumber though.
-
The only think I want to mention is that I would try to sway you away from using just foam as the layouts base. It needs to be more substantial. Friend of mine build a layout like the one you are planning and he regretted that later. I worked on it and later operated some trains and it was really flimsy.
I'm really not comfortable with the generalizations that all foam is bad. There are pronounced differences in XPS quality. In our use, pink foam (Owens Corning Foamular) is superior to blue foam (Dow), which is better than green-blue foam (Lowes-labeled, and others). Also, 25 psi XPS (Foamular 250) has better structural characteristics than 15 psi XPS. White beaded foam, which I have seen some MRRers use, is a total non-starter. White foam = "What were you thinking?!?"
OK, so some foam paneling is inappropriate as MRR construction base, but not all, you simply have to know what you are using. Bear in mind that the industry manufactures XPS foam as insulation and not as a structural medium, except in the higher grades for use as insulating underlayment under floors, including poured concrete, starting with the 25 psi cited above. So "just any" foam may not be ideal, or even minimally structural.
That said...
My layout is 2" Foamular 250 on riveted steel framing, benchwork panels glued to the frame with foam-compatible construction adhesive. No wood anywhere. In most locations there is no more than 2' between supporting frame members. I am pleased/astounded/elated that this is the most stable foundation I have ever experienced in 50 years of MRR construction. Zero track pops due to expansion, contraction or shrinkage. The 2"/25psi is plenty strong, I could walk on it. But I don't because, yes, it is still foam and just the momentary angled contact would indent the foam.
As to dimensional consistency through the panel, again this is a factor of product quality. Foamular is best in this regard, as well; the blue stuff... well... sucks. The only problem I have observed is occasional thickness variation at the edge, and there is no way to tell if this is due to manufacturing, or shipping and storage. A little lightweight spackle and a few swipes with a sanding block and it's done.
One thing I have found is using the 2" grade is very important. In one area with level changes I used laminations of 1" and 1-1/2" material to create 2", 2-1/2" and 3" thicknesses. That was a slight mistake. 1" + 1" ≠ 2", at least structurally, I get more deflection than I would prefer when I lean on it. It's still dimensionally stable, I just have to be mindful it's going to bend 1/8" or so if I press hard on it.
Executive summary: a high-quality foam makes a difference.
-
As for the scenery vs. track work, Yes, there are modest grades everywhere. Track crossing a culvert or a bridge probably dropped almost imperceptibly to get there. I've seen plenty of pics where that undulation makes for a really cool picture.
In this view, courtesy of the Borg, you can see the track on the left is in a slight cut in the foreground, then is elevated, then it bends away from the road. It definitely has some up and down to it, I've followed that line many times. Meanwhile, the road follows the terrain up and down more completely.
(https://www.therailwire.net/forum/gallery/20/9-141020135732.jpeg) (https://www.therailwire.net/forum/index.php?action=gallery;sa=view&id=20650)
So it's not hard to trick the eye with the surrounding scenery to make the railroad look a little uppy downy. But if that's the shot you're looking for, you'll need to have some actual uppy downy...
(https://www.therailwire.net/forum/gallery/20/9-141020140402.jpeg) (https://www.therailwire.net/forum/index.php?action=gallery;sa=view&id=20651)
Lee
-
I'm really not comfortable with the generalizations that all foam is bad. There are pronounced differences in XPS quality. In our use, pink foam (Owens Corning Foamular) is superior to blue foam (Dow), which is better than green-blue foam (Lowes-labeled, and others). Also, 25 psi XPS (Foamular 250) has better structural characteristics than 15 psi XPS. White beaded foam, which I have seen some MRRers use, is a total non-starter. White foam = "What were you thinking?!?"
OK, so some foam paneling is inappropriate as MRR construction base, but not all, you simply have to know what you are using. Bear in mind that the industry manufactures XPS foam as insulation and not as a structural medium, except in the higher grades for use as insulating underlayment under floors, including poured concrete, starting with the 25 psi cited above. So "just any" foam may not be ideal, or even minimally structural.
That said...
My layout is 2" Foamular 250 on riveted steel framing, benchwork panels glued to the frame with foam-compatible construction adhesive. No wood anywhere. In most locations there is no more than 2' between supporting frame members. I am pleased/astounded/elated that this is the most stable foundation I have ever experienced in 50 years of MRR construction. Zero track pops due to expansion, contraction or shrinkage. The 2"/25psi is plenty strong, I could walk on it. But I don't because, yes, it is still foam and just the momentary angled contact would indent the foam.
As to dimensional consistency through the panel, again this is a factor of product quality. Foamular is best in this regard, as well; the blue stuff... well... sucks. The only problem I have observed is occasional thickness variation at the edge, and there is no way to tell if this is due to manufacturing, or shipping and storage. A little lightweight spackle and a few swipes with a sanding block and it's done.
One thing I have found is using the 2" grade is very important. In one area with level changes I used laminations of 1" and 1-1/2" material to create 2", 2-1/2" and 3" thicknesses. That was a slight mistake. 1" + 1" ≠ 2", at least structurally, I get more deflection than I would prefer when I lean on it. It's still dimensionally stable, I just have to be mindful it's going to bend 1/8" or so if I press hard on it.
Executive summary: a high-quality foam makes a difference.
I’ve built layouts with a wood ladder frame with a plywood top as the structural base, with white styrofoam beadboard on top the plywood, with the track glued directly to the beadboard. Very stable and no problems. I’ve also used the blue foam on top of plywood base with the track glued to the blue foam. I’ve had no problems with this approach either. However, in my experience, the white beadboard is much easier to carve for scenery, so it’s my preference... but NOT without a structural baseboard of plywood, Masonite or a “structural” (blue or pink) foam. If total thickness isn’t an issue, using a structural foam baseboard allows you to use Mr Icepick as a drill for wire drops. But if a thinner total foundation thickness is needed, use plywood.
One issue I’ve had is what glue or adhesive to use when layering foam... water based adhesive takes a LONG time to dry if more than a couple of inches from the “edge” exposed to the air. I think there are some foam compatible contact type spray adhesives I intend to investigate. Hot glue also works, but sets up very fast on “low heat” setting, or may melt the foam on a “high heat” setting. It’s good for small pieces, but not for bigger pieces.
-
Sure, you can carve the white beadboard stuff, but you better have the vac handy. Those little staticky devils get everywhere. I much prefer extruded foam. more rigid, less crumbly, much easier clean up.
Lee
-
I will agree with this.
I tried doing this on a multi-part layout and it just was not reliable enough.
When I build Windsor St it was foam on top of dimensional lumber frames (think NTRAK module style). That worked great.
The issue with a complete lack of a wood structure is that you don't have anything to use to attach things to (like DCC panels) or to use to attach sections together rigidly.
I've got 2" foam over 1/4" lauan over 1" x 2" framing over L-girders. That plywood does make it strong enough to lean on, and I have, as evidenced by the elbow dents in the scenery. :P That plywood also, as Ed pointed out, gives me structure to mount under-table switch machines.
DFF
-
(https://i.imgflip.com/4iivs4.jpg)
-
Sure, you can carve the white beadboard stuff, but you better have the vac handy. Those little staticky devils get everywhere. I much prefer extruded foam. more rigid, less crumbly, much easier clean up.
Lee
In my experience, you need a vac with both types of foam. Both the white beadboard and the blue or pink foam produce the same amount of foam waste/dust. The beadboard just carves so much faster & easier using a small wire brush that it seems you’re producing more waste. You have to use a sure form plane or rasp to carve the blue/pink foams, and that dust is just as bad as the beadboard... it just takes so much longer.
In order to look good, you still need to cover the styrofoam with some type of goop to form ground cover.
-
I use my band saw to cut the main shapes out of 2" foam... granted, not everyone has a band saw... or a workshop that's separate from the living areas. But for fine trim work, I use a sharp serrated filet knife. Cuts through the blue foam like butter, and hardly leaves a scrap.
I also like 2" blue foam because my customers who are builders always seem to have a lot of big scraps in their dumpsters... :D
48" panels, 32" deep crawl spaces... do the math! 16" makes a nice shelf layout!
Lee
-
I used to be a fan of the 2" stuff but I've recently changed my mind and prefer the 1". That's because it's a lot easier to stack and get plateaus at different elevations AND it's easier to carve. It's a lot easier to do gentle slopes through two sheets of one inch (individually) than one sheet of 2".
-
Anyone besides me old enough to remember the must have Christmas gift a long time ago - the GE Electric Carving knife. A two bladed instrument that was OK for its designed purpose (carving the bird I suppose) , but also wonderful for carving foam of any kind.
Clean cutting and very little of the flinging excess.
Probably available at your local thrift shop .....
-
Anyone besides me old enough to remember the must have Christmas gift a long time ago - the GE Electric Carving knife. A two bladed instrument that was OK for its designed purpose (carving the bird I suppose) , but also wonderful for carving foam of any kind.
Clean cutting and very little of the flinging excess.
Probably available at your local thrift shop .....
Electric knives are still being made. If you look hard enough, you might even find a cordless electric version (but I think all of those are vintage).
(https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/71pJpsRPfaL._SL1500_.jpg)
-
Yes, I rough cut foam with a knife, but it leaves an unrealistic flat shape. For final shaping I use small painters wire brushes. These work wonderfully on white beadboard foam because the wire brush will break open the beads and leave a fuzzy surface that is perfect for accepting the Celluclay & Latex Paint goop I use for ground cover base texture. If you leave unbroken beads on the surface, you’ll get little white boulders peaking through your ground cover. Dust with dirt or ground foam while it’s still wet, then spray with wet water solution until the paint color starts leaching through the zip texture cover. The Celluclay will accept “soft” detail like dirt contours, but if you want hard detail like rock ledges, use a plaster product like Sculptamold or rock molds.
I’ve seen some very nice eroded rock detail accomplished by carving blue or pink foam and some precise application of solvents to erode the foam, finished with color washes, but the finished surface is easily damaged & gouged. The Celluclay/Latex Paint surface is very tough & remains flexible if the zip texture layer remains thin. Overall, I’ve been underwhelmed carving blue/pink foams.
-
Yes, I rough cut foam with a knife, but it leaves an unrealistic flat shape.
I'd say to keep trying.
Most of my scenery work is done with a knife, but I then follow that up with a Stanley Surform rasp to round everything off.
My point is that thinner material makes this all much easier because the knife blade doesn't have to cut through as much material, especially when you're shooting for an angle.
One of the issues I often see in model railroad scenery is overly exaggerated verticality in scenery. I'm betting that the difficulty in cutting through thicker material at a realistic angle contributes to this.
I guess these might show what I mean:
http://conrail1285.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/2016-05-10-21.59.02.jpg
http://conrail1285.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/2016-06-06-22.46.24.jpg
-
Good ole Ken Patterson uses a rasp to shape side ditches of the road bed. It makes a hell of a mess but it looks really natural.
-
... One of the issues I often see in model railroad scenery is overly exaggerated verticality in scenery. I'm betting that the difficulty in cutting through thicker material at a realistic angle contributes to this. ...
Like this?:
(http://www.everywherewest.com/steep.jpg)
:P :ashat: :D
EDIT: http://edslaw.org/
-
Or this...
https://jimrharris.smugmug.com/Other/Sixteen-Mile-Creek/i-wBpT9VG/A (https://jimrharris.smugmug.com/Other/Sixteen-Mile-Creek/i-wBpT9VG/A)
-
@Ed Kapuscinski clued me in to the snap-blade knife, which can just about cut all of the way through a 2" piece of foam. Since I discovered that, I don't use the sander and wet vac anymore to terraform. No more foam dust, and lightweight spackling hides the sins.
DFF
-
The trickiest thing is that invariably the ideal placement of some of the Tortoises is right where a part of the wood frame is in the way. In one case I actually ran the Tortoise actuating wire vertically through a wood brace.
This is why I use the Kreg jig/pocket hole screws for cross members. If that ends up being the case, I can just unscrew the 2 from each end and move it slightly,
Phil
-
This is why I use the Kreg jig/pocket hole screws for cross members. If that ends up being the case, I can just unscrew the 2 from each end and move it slightly,
Phil
That's nifty!
-
This is why I use the Kreg jig/pocket hole screws for cross members. If that ends up being the case, I can just unscrew the 2 from each end and move it slightly,
Phil
...or nailing plates work just as well for repositioning cross members. Actually easier to use than Kreg jig when dealing with odd angle joints or in tight quarters. They do consume a lot of #6 panhead screws.
[attachimg=1]
-
I'd say to keep trying.
Most of my scenery work is done with a knife, but I then follow that up with a Stanley Surform rasp to round everything off.
My point is that thinner material makes this all much easier because the knife blade doesn't have to cut through as much material, especially when you're shooting for an angle.
One of the issues I often see in model railroad scenery is overly exaggerated verticality in scenery. I'm betting that the difficulty in cutting through thicker material at a realistic angle contributes to this.
I guess these might show what I mean:
http://conrail1285.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/2016-05-10-21.59.02.jpg
http://conrail1285.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/2016-06-06-22.46.24.jpg
I agree with using thinner material for some terrain shapes, but it’s critical to avoid the layer cake look. Unless, of course, you’re modeling terrain that looks like a layer cake like some mining scenes.
I’m kind of partial to using 1-1/2” think material since it’s about scale 20’ in n-scale.
-
... I’m kind of partial to using 1-1/2” think material since it’s about scale 20’ in n-scale.
There's some magic to that. USGS topo maps at the highest resolution (1:24,000) typically express contour lines in 20' elevation increments. If you have the space to do a scene directly scaled down, printing it to scale either tiled or on a large-format printer gives you exact templates for each layer of the wedding cake. I did it as a test a while back, which failed only because I had to compress one axis to get it to fit, and doing so blew the proportions. It would have been great otherwise.
-
There's some magic to that. USGS topo maps at the highest resolution (1:24,000) typically express contour lines in 20' elevation increments. If you have the space to do a scene directly scaled down, printing it to scale either tiled or on a large-format printer gives you exact templates for each layer of the wedding cake. I did it as a test a while back, which failed only because I had to compress one axis to get it to fit, and doing so blew the proportions. It would have been great otherwise.
I used my survey to create an exact scale model of my home property using this very technique...
(http://davidksmith.com/home/images/IMG_6498.jpg)
-
I used my survey to create an exact scale model of my home property using this very technique...
(http://davidksmith.com/home/images/IMG_6498.jpg)
How about adding some animated :ashat:'s?
Sitting around a campfire eating bacon bombs with some Blazing Saddles sound effects...
-
Blazing Saddles... one of the funniest and greatest movies ever made.
-
Blazing Saddles... one of the funniest and greatest movies ever made.
Sure is! And no way this movie would ever get made today.
-
Blazing Saddles... one of the funniest and greatest movies ever made.
Hated it. Cannot stand Mel Brooks or anything he made. Hemorrhoids are pleasurable by comparison.
Getting back on topic, my preference for carving foam insulation board is a packing knife for the rough pass, and a homemade hot wire carving tool for finer control.
-
I agree with using thinner material for some terrain shapes, but it’s critical to avoid the layer cake look.
Oh yeah, absolutely.
But that's what Mr. BFK and Mr. Surform are for.
-
Just don’t use a drill with a disk sander. A buddy of mine used one to contour the blue foam on his NTrak module. About 10 minutes later he looked like a Smurf.
-
Just don’t use a drill with a disk sander. A buddy of mine used one to contour the blue foam on hid NTrak module. About 10 minutes later he looked like a Smurf.
That's a hoot. Yep, static-charged blue dust. Everywhere. But power sanding XPS isn't always a big mess, don't forget this:
Not a valid vimeo URL
Covered here: https://www.therailwire.net/forum/index.php?topic=43583.msg556357#msg556357
-
I've often used a palm orbital sander to shape profiles with good luck.
-
https://olfa.com/professional/product/stainless-steel-precision-knife-svr-2/
-
@daniel_leavitt2000 , you might find this interesting: http://www.modelcarsmag.com/forums/topic/156540-general-motors-plant-framingham-mass-brochure/ (http://www.modelcarsmag.com/forums/topic/156540-general-motors-plant-framingham-mass-brochure/)
-
@daniel_leavitt2000 , you might find this interesting: http://www.modelcarsmag.com/forums/topic/156540-general-motors-plant-framingham-mass-brochure/ (http://www.modelcarsmag.com/forums/topic/156540-general-motors-plant-framingham-mass-brochure/)
Thanks man!
This is a great example of what I mean by flat. That overhead shot shows the factory (unused by 1990) and the rail to road transfer pad for the factory later used by GM for distribution to New England states. This was referred to by locals as South Yard though I don't know if it ever had an official name. Framingham had three yards: Nevins was to the west and situated on the B&A mainline. North Yard was a former New Haven yard that brought up stuff up from Walpole and down from Sudbury to connect to the B&M. Until Conrail, I believe there was single interchange point between the trackage and everything else were diamonds rather than switches. South Yard was built after the PC merger I believe for this factory specifically. There was a sister yard in Westboro which also handled vehicle distribution, though I do not know for certainty that it was GM. I'm pretty sure GM used all Boston Line trackage to New England where Ford used B&M/Guilford in Ayer. I'm not sure where Chrysler got their product from. Maybe one of the P&W rail-to-road transfer points?
-
One thing to remind you, and I'm sure you're already aware, so really I'm saying this to remind everyone reading: flat isn't flat.
For a facility like that, I am SURE there are drainage ditches, gentle undulations around the perimeter, etc...
That's one of the reasons I like building everything on 1" foam.
-
Thanks man!
. . .
I'm pretty sure GM used all Boston Line trackage to New England where Ford used B&M/Guilford in Ayer. I'm not sure where Chrysler got their product from. Maybe one of the P&W rail-to-road transfer points?
While I'm not automotive history buff I know that the Assembly Square Mall building in Somerville, MA was originally a Ford assembly plant (thus the name). With B&M going through Somerville it would make sense that they serviced that plant.
-
The way I see it is there are 2 ways you can approach this. One is to leave the track flat and sculpt the terrain in the foam around the track. Two is to raise the track up slightly on another piece of foam making a foam ramp to the different height. Overall I like the idea of sculpting the terrain around your track. It allows you to keep the track flat and even but will still look like it is changing grades based on the sculped scenery around it. There are some good Youtube videos of sculpting scenery out there to watch. Ken Patterson does some nice sculpted foam scenery in my opinion.
-
Unless you’re modeling the Bonneville Salt Flats, there is no flat terrain. I grew up on the coastal plain of Texas, and while the overall look of the terrain is flat, there are obvious man made drainage features that lead to regular natural creeks & rivers. Those natural drainage features deviate from flat by 10’ to 20’ or even more for a larger river crossings.
[attachimg=1]
[attachimg=2]
-
But 20' in N scale is only 1-1/2",
So, putting a flat track plan on 2" of foam would handle the drainage parts of the landscape with a bit of foam carving. And adding some thinner pieces of foam could handle the elevations above the roadbed.
I think that some subtle changes in the terrain would get rid of the "plywood prairie" effect.
-
Exactly! That illustrates that even a 1” layer of foam gives enough relief to model the common bar ditches found in so called “flat” country, and also demonstrates how unrealistic a flat plywood sheet is for any area that doesn’t contemplate underground storm sewers.
-
Quite true. If terrain were completely flat, water would be standing everywhere, including surrounding the track. Imagine if the water in a lake was evenly distributed to a uniform depth over the surrounding terrain, instead of being confined to a low spot in the ground. There'd be water everywhere.