Hello,
I've read here in the forums that many people seem to like using matte medium to apply ballast to track rather than a diluted white glue. Is the matte medium used full strength or diluted? If diluted, what proportion of medium to water should I use?
Thank you.
PDickens
I've read anywhere from 50/50 to 4 parts water to 1 matte medium. I have used the 4:1 with great success. Supposedly it sets with some flexibility over white glue and is therefore quieter.
Personally, I use matte medium diluted 1:4 with water. I have a water filtration system, so I use ordinary tap water. If you have very hard water, consider using distilled water instead, although a Brita or Pur will remove enough gunk to make your water usable. I also add two drops of dishwashing liquid per cup of solution.
As an additional step, since matte medium uses talc as a dulling agent, I let the solution settle, then decant the liquid and throw the sludge away.
Having used both this and dilute while glue, I find this works better for me.
If this thread stays active long enough, you will find lots of posters who will tell you that white glue works just as well and is much cheaper.
Connecticut Valley Railroad A Branch of the New York, New Haven, and Hartford
"If you think you can do a thing or think you can't do a thing, you're right." -- Henry Ford
Also, some brands of the Matte medium have talc as a filler/ flattener that can show as a light film/ haze once diluted and then dried on the ballast and tie tops. I have not experience this first hand, however, not to find out the hard way, I follow Dave Frary's recommenation of dilute to 50/50 and allow the filler to settle. I find that this took about 5-7 days and you will notice the material lying on the bottom of the container. Pour off slowly and decant into storage bottles. This now 50/50 mix can be used and diluted to an additional 3-4 parts of water. Alcohol can/ should be added to the mix for the batch used for the session.
Matte medium is suppost to be much quieter that white glue. It willnot readily disolve w/ water as white glue if you ever do need to remove the track/ ballast.
Edit: Ended up posting the same as *CT valley, An $8-10 quart of matte medium will produce 1-1 1/2 gallons of ballast/ scenery cement. Hmmm, doesn't a gallon of white glue go about $10-12 anyway. May be hard for some to use a cost factor in this one.
Modeling B&O- Chessie Bob K. www.ssmrc.org
Okay, this may come across as a very naive or dumb question, but as a person who has zero experience using matte medium as a ballast binding agent, only wood glue, if you let the talc settle and only use the medium, will you not be left with overly shiny ballast?
Crandell
eaglescout I've read anywhere from 50/50 to 4 parts water to 1 matte medium. I have used the 4:1 with great success. Supposedly it sets with some flexibility over white glue and is therefore quieter.
I couldn't have said it better myself. I, too, use a 4:1 water/matte medium mix and it is definitely quieter than white glue when it dries.
Rich
Alton Junction
selector Okay, this may come across as a very naive or dumb question, but as a person who has zero experience using matte medium as a ballast binding agent, only wood glue, if you let the talc settle and only use the medium, will you not be left with overly shiny ballast? Crandell
"Matte" means "flat" as in "not-shiny". It will look no different than using white glue, but as noted is rubbery when dry. White glue can be sort of brittle and when bumped, pieces of ballast can break off.
I normally apply a mix of water and alcohol over the ballast first and let that soak in and get in between all the pieces of ballast, then use matte medium at full strength over that.
Matte medium wasn't designed to use as a binder, per se. It's intended use is as an expander and diluting substance (or "medium" -- that is, carrier) for artists acrylic paints, which, unlike hobby acrylics, come as a thick paste which is very hard to apply without streaks and brush strokes. Since these acrylics are inherently neither matte nor gloss, the medium is designed to add that characteristic to the paint as well. Hence the talc. Matte medium's counterpart, BTW, is gloss medium, which works very well for water effects.
The solution that comes off after the talc has settled out is also "matte" and much more flexible and durable when dry than white glue.
As far as the cost math goes, the $8 quart of matte medium, diluted, will make 1.25 gallons of adhesive (at a 1:4 ratio). The $10 gallon of white glue, diluted to the same ratio, would yield 5 gallons of adhesive. That's pretty easy math, in my book, and gives a clear advantage to white glue, were cost the only factor.
Okay, thanks. I had thought the talc would have a more important role in flattening the product, or rendering it less shiny. Good to know. Carpenter glue is kind of hard and can turn ballast into a sound board.
CTValleyRR As far as the cost math goes, the $8 quart of matte medium, diluted, will make 1.25 gallons of adhesive (at a 1:4 ratio). The $10 gallon of white glue, diluted to the same ratio, would yield 5 gallons of adhesive. That's pretty easy math, in my book, and gives a clear advantage to white glue, were cost the only factor.
Of coarse this would be true if you diluted to that ratio. Who puts 4 parts water to 1 part glue. Most will use 50/50 and 1 gallon will yield 2 gal diluted.
CTValleyRR ......If this thread stays active long enough, you will find lots of posters who will tell you that white glue works just as well and is much cheaper.
......If this thread stays active long enough, you will find lots of posters who will tell you that white glue works just as well and is much cheaper.
Yep, and I'm one of 'em. I've used both on my current layout, but notice no difference in the sound-deadening qualities, shininess/dullness, or durability. However, in these parts, at about $1.00/ounce for matte medium vs. under $20.00 for a gallon of white glue (albeit a puny "American gallon"), white glue is my choice hands down. As an added bonus, it is removeable if you decide to make changes.
I've never had a problem with ballast chipping or breaking off, either: use lots of pre-wetting agent (I prefer "wet" water, but alcohol works well, too), and don't skimp on the glue/water mixture.
Wayne
doctorwayne CTValleyRR: ......If this thread stays active long enough, you will find lots of posters who will tell you that white glue works just as well and is much cheaper. Yep, and I'm one of 'em. I've used both on my current layout, but notice no difference in the sound-deadening qualities, shininess/dullness, or durability. However, in these parts, at about $1.00/ounce for matte medium vs. under $20.00 for a gallon of white glue (albeit a puny "American gallon"), white glue is my choice hands down. As an added bonus, it is removeable if you decide to make changes. I've never had a problem with ballast chipping or breaking off, either: use lots of pre-wetting agent (I prefer "wet" water, but alcohol works well, too), and don't skimp on the glue/water mixture. Wayne
CTValleyRR: ......If this thread stays active long enough, you will find lots of posters who will tell you that white glue works just as well and is much cheaper.
I am a matte medium guy but only because it was suggested to me at the outset by my LHS staff years ago and I went with the suggestion. The matte medium does cost a small fortune though.
I wonder whoever first came up with the matte medium question and why. I fear that Wayne is correct and that there is no difference and I am wasting my money.
Is matte medium any quieter than white glue? Dunno for sure but matte medium still transmits noise. Ballast without any glue is a real sound deadener. Too bad I cannot bring myself to leave the ballast unglued and just re-groom it once in a while.
Is white glue more brittle than matte medium? Dunno for sure but it takes some effort to remove matte medium from track before reuse so if white glue does not dry brittle, maybe that is the way to go.
Too bad nobody seems to know for sure.
I'm not sure what you mean by "brittle", Rich. I recently added some crossing tenders' shacks to my layout, and attempting to remove the ballast and ground cover without wetting it was next to impossible:
Even with help from a modified 0-5-0, it was very difficult to dislodge any of it. A fairly good soaking with "wet" water (tap water with a couple drops of liquid dish detergent added) did the trick, though.
When I decided to replace this turnout, just off the turntable (out of sight just below the frame), I simply removed all of the trains and loose details, unsoldered the rail joiners and feeder wires, then saturated the area with wet water. In 15 minutes or so, I used a scraper to remove some of the cinder ballast alongside the turnout , then slipped the blade below the ties and lifted it out, undamaged.
When ballasting, I usually do the lineside ground cover at the same time, as it helps to soak up the wet water and dilute glue mixture which inevitably runs off the elevated roadbed. It's important to thoroughly saturate the area when pre-wetting, and then not skimp when applying the white glue.
While this looks pretty disheartening, it eventually dries and disappears:
Some areas, where the track is on a "fill", the drying took up to a week:
richhotrain I wonder whoever first came up with the matte medium question and why. I fear that Wayne is correct and that there is no difference and I am wasting my money. Is matte medium any quieter than white glue? Dunno for sure but matte medium still transmits noise. ... Is white glue more brittle than matte medium? Dunno for sure but it takes some effort to remove matte medium from track before reuse so if white glue does not dry brittle, maybe that is the way to go.
Is matte medium any quieter than white glue? Dunno for sure but matte medium still transmits noise. ...
Rich:
I'm nore sure where the idea of using matte medium got its start, but I remember seeing it mentioned a lot during the 1980s. I seem to recall it first as a component of the Frary/Hayden "water soluble" scenery techniques that were becoming popular at the time. As far as I'm concerned there's since developed a Cult of Matte Medium that requires some serious deprogramming. It's not the "best" solution for everybody.
I use white glue and yellow glue exclusively after experimenting with matte medium and disliking it. I know plenty of other modelers who have done the same. As with Wayne and others here, I have no problems at all with the ballast being brittle. It's VERY solid. I also don't notice problems with sound transmission. My layouts stay quiet.
The advantages of white glue are important for me; 1) It remains water soluble forever, so I can recycle track easily, 2) No worries about the talcum powder/white film mess that can happen with Matte medium unless special precautions are followed, 3) Lower cost.
Here's a scene that used diluted white and yellow glue (I've used this photo before in this forum):
All of the track shown was successfully recycled and is currently in use on my new layout, including the notoriously fragile Micro Engineering code 55 that composed most of this yard. A soaking with water and all of this came up readily, but it was rock solid until I deliberately removed it. Nothing brittle at all.
I acquired some other track from a guy who ballasted with matte medium, and it was not possible to remove all the matte medium or ballast from that track, and it was a lot of work to remove what I could get off. There was a lot of damage to the ties from areas he couldn't remove readily due to the matte medium not being soluble in water after it dried.
Rob Spangler
OTOH, I consider the fact that matte medium is not water soluble after drying to be one of its primary advantages. That way, I don't have to worry about damaging scenery in one area while working on an adjacent area.
If I want to remove scenery, I'm generally hacking it off anyway.
However, as someone else said earlier: this is model railroading. There's no one solution (pardon the pun) that's perfect for everyone.
doctorwayne I'm not sure what you mean by "brittle", Rich. Wayne
I'm not sure what you mean by "brittle", Rich.
Wayne,
By "brittle", I mean that it hardens in such a fashion that it chips and breaks easily. When I apply matte medium and it dries, it has has slightly soft, pliable feel to it.
Whenever I have needed to remove ballasted track, I use a small putty knife to get under the ballasted track and lift it. With the putty knife, I can easily remove all of the ballast right down to the plywood. If I soak the ballasted track in warm soapy water for abut an hour, I can remove almost all of the glue and ballast from the track.
As far as sound deadening goes, the best sound deadening is unglued ballast.
Using matte medium to secure the ballast causes a drum like sound from passing trains. It is even worse with white glue.
At least that has been my experience.
CTValleyRR Matte medium wasn't designed to use as a binder, per se. It's intended use is as an expander and diluting substance (or "medium" -- that is, carrier) for artists acrylic paints, which, unlike hobby acrylics, come as a thick paste which is very hard to apply without streaks and brush strokes. Since these acrylics are inherently neither matte nor gloss, the medium is designed to add that characteristic to the paint as well. Hence the talc. Matte medium's counterpart, BTW, is gloss medium, which works very well for water effects. The solution that comes off after the talc has settled out is also "matte" and much more flexible and durable when dry than white glue. As far as the cost math goes, the $8 quart of matte medium, diluted, will make 1.25 gallons of adhesive (at a 1:4 ratio). The $10 gallon of white glue, diluted to the same ratio, would yield 5 gallons of adhesive. That's pretty easy math, in my book, and gives a clear advantage to white glue, were cost the only factor.
That assumes you are getting the quart of matte medium for $8. At all the craft stores around here, teh cheapest I could find it was more like $14 for a quart. I bought my first and only quart - when it's gone I'm going back to white glue. I used white glue before on a test layout and it wasn't shiny so the heck with the overpriced medium. Of course, all attempts to dilute with water and a few drops of dish soap fail completely around here, we have really hard water (no one drinks it). I use 70% isopropyl alcohol for dilution, and pre-spray some straight 70% to wet the area before dribbling on the medium/alcohol mix.
--Randy
Modeling the Reading Railroad in the 1950's
Visit my web site at www.readingeastpenn.com for construction updates, DCC Info, and more.
There's never time to do it right, but always time to do it over.....
Rich -- I agree about unglued ballast being better for sound deadening (that's kind of a basic principle of acoustics) so that the individual grains can shift without imparting sound energy tto the surrounding particles. But I would think that unglued ballast would be a maintenance nightmare, far offsetting any benefits of sound deadening.
Randy -- Can't really speak for the price os matte medium. I bought a gallon for $30 a couple of years ago, and haven't bought any since. So when someone quoted $8 a quart, that sounded like it was in the ballpark. Go back and read my initial response, though, about using distilled water, or at least filtered water to dilute it with. Our water around here is loaded with iron and would probably impart a reddish tint were it not filtered.
Take your 40% off coupon to Michaels or Hobby Lobby and get a $7 bottle for $4.20 plus the governments grab.
richhotrain As far as sound deadening goes, the best sound deadening is unglued ballast. Using matte medium to secure the ballast causes a drum like sound from passing trains. It is even worse with white glue. At least that has been my experience. Rich
Yep I noticed a lot more sound transition after I ballasted
51% share holder in the ME&O ( Wife owns the other 49% )
ME&O
I bought the prediluted mixture and then further diluted it with about 20% alcohol
I applied it using a small Elmers white glue bottle
CTValleyRR Rich -- I agree about unglued ballast being better for sound deadening (that's kind of a basic principle of acoustics) so that the individual grains can shift without imparting sound energy tto the surrounding particles. But I would think that unglued ballast would be a maintenance nightmare, far offsetting any benefits of sound deadening.
CTV, you may well be right about unglued ballast being a maintenance nightmare, but I am tempted to try it on my next layout. At worst, I would have to glue it later if it became a problem. It might be worth the effort to try it as an experiment.
eaglescout Take your 40% off coupon to Michaels or Hobby Lobby and get a $7 bottle for $4.20 plus the governments grab.
I never shop there without it!
70% iso alcohol will disolve matte medium just like water disolves white glue. I have had no problems removing, repositioning or cleaning track when using alcohol. Before the alcohol evaporates, rinse the track with water and it's ready to use again.
Jay
C-415 Build: https://imageshack.com/a/tShC/1
Other builds: https://imageshack.com/my/albums
modelmaker51 70% iso alcohol will disolve matte medium just like water disolves white glue. I have had no problems removing, repositioning or cleaning track when using alcohol. Before the alcohol evaporates, rinse the track with water and it's ready to use again.
I ignored this advice in July, but I just tried it and it works. Rubbing alcohol dissolves matte medium.
A belated thank you for the tip.
Is there any difference in how much either of these darken the ballast color? I tried using matte medium diluted but was surprised at how much the color changed from the original ballast before it was "glued" in place. I used Arizona Rock and Mineral NP Gray.
Keith
K. Holt Is there any difference in how much either of these darken the ballast color? I tried using matte medium diluted but was surprised at how much the color changed from the original ballast before it was "glued" in place. I used Arizona Rock and Mineral NP Gray. Keith
Keith, that is a good question. I went down to look at mine, so that I could answer your question.
I use a 50/50 mix of Woodland Scenics Light Gray and Dark Gray Medium Ballast.
On the layout, glued with a 4:1 water:matte medium mix, the tone remains unchanged, neither lighter nor darker. However, the appearance of the ballast is more distinct once glued, as opposed to a more muted appearance and tone in its unglued state.
In the photo below, all of the ground cover was put down using white glue, while some of the ballast used white glue, and some was done with matte medium. The division of bonding agents for the ballast isn't by track either, but I don't recall which areas used white glue and which used matte medium. Visually and audibly, there's no noticeable difference. I don't notice any difference in the colour of the ballast or foam (all from Woodland Scenics) either loose or glued in place, although it is darker when it's wet.