Here's my problem: I am trying to get parts in order to kitbash (eventually) a base for a structure that will be the midpoint of a tourist dinner train. I should mention this is in HO scale.
The structure will be a restaurant (eBay find that looks like a passenger station) with modified Atlas station platforms to echo an existing extension on the station. Unfortunately the restaurant doesn't have a base. My plan is to make the surface similar to the tile look that the Atlas station and platforms have. (Evergreen 1/2" tile sheets). The "middle" of the sandwhich will be .100 square strips.
My question is this: What is the proper thickness for the base of a passenger station? The two options I think would be either use .030", which would make the base the same thickness (roughly) as the Atlas platform base (.170"), or else use .060", which would make the thickness of the base (again roughly) the same thickness as the roadbed. (5 mm ≅ .200")
Any suggestions that anyone can provide would be welcomed.
The Atlas platforms are .140" thick, with the top surface divided into scale 3'9" squares. I used .060" styrene sheet (bought as 4'x8' sheets) for the top surface of platform extensions, scribing the pattern using a square and a #11 blade in an X-Acto knife. After the pattern has been scored, flip the knife over and use the back edge of the blade to widen the grooves, then rub it over a sheet of medium sandpaper to remove the raised edges around the scored lines.If you want to make the platform extension the same thickness as the Atlas ones, use .080" strip styrene as support around the edges and wherever intermediate support is required.I'm not sure that I understand the situation, but if your station is alongside track which is on raised roadbed, raise the ground on which the station and its platforms will sit - in most cases, the top of the platforms would be level with the top of the rails.You can use thin plywood, foam, or cork roadbed to raise the ground level, and plaster will work well, too.
Here's an add-on platform at South Cayuga on my layout. I only roughly matched the size of the top pattern of the station platform and also painted it a slightly different colour, as it's meant to look like a later addition:
The main reason for having the platforms and rails at the same height is to facilitate cross-overs to platforms serving adjacent tracks. This one, at Lowbanks, is wood (strip styrene, actually) but the idea is the same: a level surface for walking or moving baggage wagons:
Wayne
While it may not sound like you answered my question, you actually have. The Atlas bases are only used as an inpiration as I have an Atlas station and platforms on a different part of the layout.
As there will only be a single track for this station, I don't have to worry about crossovers but I still think that having the platforms close to the same level as the track is probably a good idea.
For my purpose, I think I will build the third layer on the sandwhich to the .060" thickness. Given the odd shape of the station, the best idea (and easier to cut) for me will be to get a pack of Evergreen 8x21 .030" styrene (4 sheets per pack). I can piece the base as needed from the 4 sheets easier than with the 2 sheets per pack of 8x21 .060". (As well as to have extra in case of knife slip or some other problem.) The 21" length isn't enough to go halfway on the platforms and the station. (Overall it is 43" long, which long enough to serve an entire tourist train at once. No moving the train and the passengers can stay out of the weather as much as possible.) Now just to wait for a tax refund to come in to pay for it.
Thank you for your assistance.
Agree with doctorwayne that the "platform" height should be at least the height of the railhead. As you can see from these images of Union Station in Springfield MA, the platform can be at rail height for the asphault one or raised up a bit. You could use the proportions from the NMRA template.
Co-owner of the proposed CT River Valley RR (HO scale) http://home.comcast.net/~docinct/CTRiverValleyRR/
Building foundations and railway platforms are all different for each individual building and platform. So there is no way you can go wrong. LION has used cardboard faced with bookbinder's paper, he has used corrugated cardboard, fiber board, ceiling tiles, fiberglass inuslation, 2x4s. You know, what ever a LION can find. All can be correct. If you are modeling say the 50s or earlier, platforms may only be rail high. Later low level platforms might be a foot or so above the rails. High level platforms ala LIRR, AMTK, MNCR etc are one thing, high level platforms of the NYCT are yet another. IRT platforms are taller and closer to the running rail than are the BMT and IND platforms which must accommodate wider cars.
LION started building layout of him with regular pax cars in mind and the platforms were designed accordingly. When LL put out the R-15 (IRT type) Subway cars the platforms grew taller and closer to the tracks. Now full size equipment cannot pass all of my stations. Not to matter, this is a subway layout, and I have no problem with midifying equipment to fit it. NYCT does the same.
ROAR
The Route of the Broadway Lion The Largest Subway Layout in North Dakota.
Here there be cats. LIONS with CAMERAS
FRRYKid....For my purpose, I think I will build the third layer on the sandwhich to the .060" thickness. Given the odd shape of the station, the best idea (and easier to cut) for me will be to get a pack of Evergreen 8x21 .030" styrene (4 sheets per pack). I can piece the base as needed from the 4 sheets easier than with the 2 sheets per pack of 8x21 .060". (As well as to have extra in case of knife slip or some other problem.) The 21" length isn't enough to go halfway on the platforms and the station. (Overall it is 43" long, which long enough to serve an entire tourist train at once. No moving the train and the passengers can stay out of the weather as much as possible.)....
The .060" material isn't really any harder to cut than thinner stock, as you need only score it two or three times, then snap along the lines. I do use a utility knife for this though, and guide the blade with either a carpenter's square, or, for longer cuts on the 4'x8' sheets, a 1/4"x1" strip of aluminum. The utility knife seems to be easier to control for long cuts, and the blades are a lot cheaper than X-Acto blades.For your long platform, the 4'x8' sheets would be a lot more economical if you have use for the leftover portions. They're great for making roofs, foundations, or unseen walls and structural bracing.Look for plastic suppliers - I've gone through about four sheets, and will soon need to buy another. The last time (about 2 years ago - I've been in a bit of a structure-building lull ) a 4'x8' sheet was about $26.00 - probably cheaper in the U.S., even now.
This station was built using .060" sheet, with windows and most doors left-overs from a couple of Walthers kits:
This kitbashed freight house used quite a bit of material, too:
...including a fair-size roof:
Unfortunately, I don't really know of any close plastic suppliers to my neck of the woods. For that purpose, I am somewhat in the middle of nowhere. The biggest town in Montana is only about 100,000 people which is about 2 hours from me. That I know of, it doesn't even have a plastic supplier. Shipping on one of those, even if I find a supplier, is probably rather expensive. The other problem is I don't know where I would store it until I get it to my layout. (My layout and I are not in the same place.) My apartment is a little small for that purpose.
FRRYkid
Doctorwayne can correct me if I am wrong on this, but I believe that the 4' x 8' styrene sheets can be rolled up into a reasonably sized cylinder for shipping purposes. If so, shipping shouldn't be too terrible. It really doesn't weigh much. You might be able to get the supplier to cut it in two length wise which would make it easier for you to handle in your apartment and might make the shipping even cheaper.
I wish I had known about the 4' x 8' sheets 10 years ago. I spent a relative fortune ordering the smaller sheets from Walthers.
EDIT: I will also add that the supplier doesn't have to be in Montana, or even close. Shipping costs don't seem to change much whether it is going 10 miles or 1000.
Try googling 'plastic suppliers'. I got several promising hits immediately.
Dave
I'm just a dude with a bad back having a lot of fun with model trains, and finally building a layout!
Dave's right: the material can be rolled, perhaps down to a foot-or-so in diameter. I used to carry mine in the cab of my pick-up, standing it on the floor and leaning on the passenger seat. It's available in various thicknesses, but I've found .060" the most useful for large projects. Almost all of my large structures use all the kit walls on the visible (aisle side) of the layout, while the backs and roofs are plain .060" sheet styrene. It also makes good bracing: a 1" wide strip can be edge-glued to the interior of a wall, imparting more rigidity than a strip of .250" square styrene, and do it at a lower cost per foot, too.Up until very recently, I used lacquer thinner as solvent cement for styrene, but the most recently purchased gallon appears to be the "improved" version, and is no longer suitable as a solvent for styrene. Instead, I had to buy MEK - works like lacquer thinner used to, but costs $38.00/gallon around here - more than double the price of the original lacquer thinner. Still cheaper than the hobby stuff, though.
doctorwayneUp until very recently, I used lacquer thinner as solvent cement for styrene, but the most recently purchased gallon appears to be the "improved" version, and is no longer suitable as a solvent for styrene. Instead, I had to buy MEK - works like lacquer thinner used to, but costs $38.00/gallon around here - more than double the price of the original lacquer thinner. Still cheaper than the hobby stuff, though. Wayne
A trip to the local Ace Hardware store and I found MEK and Artificial MEK. I didn't like the sound of "artificial" in the name, so I opted for the "real thing". Do you know if there IS any actual difference as far as the bonding ability between the two?
Marlon
See pictures of the Clinton-Golden Valley RR
Sorry Marlon, but this is my first experience using MEK. Since the original lacquer thinner is no more (it still seems to work okay as a paint thinner, but I may try MEK in that role if there are further changes), I'd guess that the artificial stuff is a bastardised version of the original, and may perform okay for some useage but not so well for others. As a solvent cement, MEK's most useful characteristics are the ability to react with styrene and the fact that it evapourates quickly - sometimes too quickly, in my opinion, but it does produce a strong bond when used properly.I decant mine into an old Testors brush-in-cap bottle, so it's easy to keep the lid on, if not screwed down, while working.