The best thing to do with those peanuts is bag them up and take them to the UPS store. They like to get them to reuse for packing.
Joe
Thanks to everybody for all the replies.
One material I was hoping somebody had a use for was those obnoxious styrafoam peanuts that all the model railroad suppliers seem to still use. Maybe mixing up a 5 gallon bucket of white glue and peanuts as a base for plaster cloth? -
I have the right to remain silent. By posting here I have given up that right and accept that anything I say can and will be used as evidence to critique me.
Bob is right. For open bench work, the cardboard strip lattice is very good and hard to beat. Using a hot glue gun makes it fast.
Plaster cloth on that is also fast. There are two ways that it can be applied. 1- cut lengths and dip each in water and apply. 2- cut lengths, apply, and then spray with water. You should use at least two layers of plaster cloth. Rock castings can be either cast in place or pre-cast and buttered to the plaster cloth.
For flat areas for towns etc., builders foam works well. You can stack it for a terraced look if you need to and carve it to shape. Plaster cloth will also blend it in to your other terrain.
Look on the Internet for cheap plaster cloth. I have found it as cheap as one dollar per roll at times, in quantity.
Elmer.
The above is my opinion, from an active and experienced Model Railroader in N scale and HO since 1961.
(Modeling Freelance, Eastern US, HO scale, in 1962, with NCE DCC for locomotive control and a stand alone LocoNet for block detection and signals.) http://waynes-trains.com/ at home, and N scale at the Club.
Plaster cloth over foam is great for tree planting.
On my new layout (last one was 30 years ago!) I used cardboard strips (about 1" wide) that I fasten at one end with my hot glue gun (dries/cools in a minute so you can work pretty fast) and then bend and shape the strip until it fits where and how I want, then glue the other end. As you work your way along you can change the terrain to suit. I use short strips on top of them going 90 degrees and hot glue them in place. As you develope your contours you can see what the terrain is going to look like. I then cover the cardboard structure (it is quite sturdy at this point) with plaster gauze which sets up in about 20-30 minutes, but I let it dry overnight before doing any further work. I then use Sculptamold, a paper mache/plaster type of material from the LHS, and build up the final surface. You have a fairly long time to work and sculpt the finished surface details. All my rock is just the Sculptamold with paint and washes. This turned out to be a very easy, fast and satisfying method. I usually do about 3-4 feet at a time. Another advantage of the cardboard strip method is that you can make changes very easily. I do use plywood 'ribs' or support spacers when I have very large area to cover.
-Bob
Life is what happens while you are making other plans!
Of course the best choice is the one that fits your situation, thats going to vary for each person, I can remember when zip-texturing was all the rage, now its just one item in the arsenal.
I use carved blue-foam and latex paint covering mixed with a sort-of zip texturing and more traditional technics with 50-50% glue spraying, It really depends on what you want to achieve, I cannot do granite as easily as I can do sandstone formations but the weight savings not using plaster more than make up for that for me.
Have fun with your trains
carl425So, given the criteria below, in this order of priority, what do you think is the best choice for scenery built on open grid or L-girder benchwork with standard riser supported subroadbed? 1. Quality of the end result 2. Time required 3. No/few "special skills" required 4. Ease of execution
1. Quality of the end result
2. Time required
3. No/few "special skills" required
4. Ease of execution
As has already been explained by others, the answer depends on the individual. I for one cannot achieve results with foam that I consider to be acceptable without investing much more work than I like. I find hardshell much easier and faster, and it seeminly requires little in the way of special skill beyond the ability to observe reality and copy it - but again that's just me.
Here's some hardshell in progress, using cardboard strips assembled with hot glue, and covered with fiberglass mesh drywall tape. I coat this with a few brush coats of plaster, and some more applied by hand to finish up.
This mostly finished scene uses real dirt and sand for base ground cover, static grass, Supertree and natural sagebrush armatures, "open cell" coarse foam from Scenic Express, and some smaller shrub armatures from synthetic steel wool material. Were I so inclined, I could have created the landforms using some other method and achieved an equivalent result. It's the finishing techniques that make far more of a difference than what's underneath.
Rob Spangler
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=4xo-sOe-wRk
model in O. the Western NY and Ontario Railroad
State-of-the-art on my layout may be in a state of arrested development. While much of my layout is devoted to small towns along the line, the rural scenery is Durabond patching plaster over aluminum window screen. It's not especially messy, though, as I apply it directly to the screen using a wide putty-knife-type scraper. It's mixed to a fairly stiff consistency, so not much in the way of drips or spatters. After spreading it around, I use a cheap 2" brush and liberal amounts of water to smooth-out the marks left by the scraper. The advantages of Durabond are that it will set in a specified time regardless of how thick or thin the mixture and regardless of how thick or thin the amount applied. It also bonds well to the plywood platforms on which many of the small town structures sit, allowing the building to sit "in" the ground rather than on it. It's also cheap and useful for casting concrete or masonry items, although if the latter requires carved-in detail, it should be done before the curing is complete, as the material becomes very hard once cured. I used cheap interior latex house paint, well-thinned with water and applied with a 2" or 3" cheap brush, to colour the surface, then apply appropriate ground cover using traditional methods.
The foreground in the photo below has been coloured, but no ground cover applied, as construction here is on-going. It's a good place to keep tools handy for work being done nearby, or a handy spot to place a beverage when running trains (Rule G is not in effect).
Here's a nearby area with ground cover in place:
The bridge pier and abutment shown below were cast in Durabond using simple moulds made from .060" sheet styrene, and the water is also Durabond:
Wayne
If you really want to go "old school," use good old paper mache. (Recycled newspapers ground up in a spare blender without any glue and strained to remove the excess water. Just used the natural adhesive properities.) I used it for the base of my rivers and lake. Of course, I used some aluminum window screen for any non-horizontal areas. I did use it for the hill that is divided by the river but I won't for any other hills. However, for the lake/river areas it seems to give the right kind of texture for the bottom (at least to me) and it's eco-friendly too.
I have also used recycled beadboard insulation and packing material for building the main hill structures (including a hill that is 2 1/2' by 5' [approx.]). This was covered with Scluptamold as well.
carl425 My last layout was built many years ago when the "correct" choice for scenery construction was the classic hard shell. There wasn't much debate at the time over what was best except for the real old timers that still promoted window screen and plaster.
My last layout was built many years ago when the "correct" choice for scenery construction was the classic hard shell. There wasn't much debate at the time over what was best except for the real old timers that still promoted window screen and plaster.
I don't necessarily agree that even in the '60s that hardshell was the "correct" choice for scenery construction. Model Railroader (Linn Westcott) pushed hard shell, and more importantly, zip texturing because of the predominance of Plywood Pacifics at the time. For many - and there's still a lot of truth to the idea - getting started with scenery is a huge psychological hurdle. Hard shell and zip texturing were intended as goof-proof, follow-the-recipe methods that would get the average Joe into some semblance of realistic scenery fairly quickly instead of yet another Plywood Pacific.
Reality is that hard shell and zip texturing still work quite well for rugged mountainous (or at least hilly) scenery on an open-top layout - but are not necessarily so great for other environments.
Another reality (based on sampling of forums I read) is that the popularity of shelf layouts, modular building, and closed top foam construction has considerably reduced the number of classic open-top grid (or L-girder) layouts being built. None of these 3 newer trends lend themselves as well to classic hard shell.
Also, in the '60s, there were only a few structure kits available, and everybody's layouts had the same structures. Like scenery, scratch-building structures is not inherently difficult. But scratch-building a structure is a physcological hurdle to get over if you have never done it before. Hence, the proliferation of ready-built structures these days at the LHS. In any case, there are magnitudes more structures available to buy than 50 years ago. Building a scene of buildings instead of landscape is quite practical, albeit on the expensive side. A layout filled with towns and industrial areas favors closed top rather than open top construction (which better suits open country-side).
Being a single step to a scenery base, hard shell is a relatively fast method to cover an open area. Carving foam is time-consuming in comparison to crumbling newspapers and laying Hydrocal-soaked paper towels over. Both are pretty messy, but in different ways.
Plaster cloth reduces the mess of dipping (and dripping) paper towels, but requires much more support than Hydrocal. Substituting Plaster of Paris (or other products) for the Hydrocal takes one back to building a support similar to screen wire - I came to like plastic window screen in the '70s since I couldn't get/afford Hydrocal.
Now that I am building modules, weight is a priority. And since I model coastal Oregon, being able to "plant" trees without drilling a hole for each one in the scenery base is also a priority. These priorities really reduce the otherwise attractive ease of use and understanding of plaster-based scenery. But if I need a coat of plaster over my foam to get the results I want, the old Gypsolite or Structolite over plastic screen is just as good weight-wise. Then the choice between foam or plastic screen base really becomes what kind of terrain does my module have? And is my module closed top or open top?
Bottom line: use/pick scenery (and layout construction) methods that make the most sense for your individual situation. Mixing and matching is allowed, too.
my thoughts and experiences, your choices
Fred W
I have been using plaster cloth over foam, too. I like to put Gypsolite over the plastercloth, just a skim coat, to give me a rough, gritty surface as a base.
To me, the "state of the art" things are what's on the surface. If you want a really high-quality rock face, take a look at the Bragdon foam products (www.bragdonent.com) for casting. It does cost more than traditional plaster casting methods, and it is more labor intensive, but the final product is worth the effort for those special scenes.
And then, there is static grass. Most of my layout is still covered with more standard turf and ground foam, but lately I've been adding static grass to the process, and it has a dramatic effect.
Finally, I like the use of Envirotex for water. I started with a relatively large harbor scene, but then discovered that I could mix small batches, so I now routinely add "water" to small ponds, streams and even ditches.
It takes an iron man to play with a toy iron horse.
Scupltamold over extruded foam, hands down. It's easy and quick, is versatile, and pretty light. Also very easy to modify. It also works well with embedments of cast rocks and blends well with RubberRocks I use when I need thin section lift outs.
I also stick with wood for the supporting structure, although I do have a few places where track continues onto foam. If you rely on foam for support, then it helps to have a good idea of exactly what you're doing. It's hard to retain full strength once you start hacking at the base layer, so that tends to restrict doing much with the lowest 2" to 4" of the foam after the initial pass.
I also stick with wood for the supporting structure, although I do have a few places where track continues onto foam.
If you rely on foam for support, then it helps to have a good idea of exactly what you're doing. It's hard to retain full strength once you start hacking at the base layer, so that tends to restrict doing much with the lowest 2" to 4" of the foam after the initial pass.
Mike Lehman
Urbana, IL
Truely a "no correct or incorrect answer" type question. As mentioned above, your setting makes a difference, fields or mountains. Also, if you plan to plant a lot of trees, I have put a wire in the trunk of my trees and stick them easily into foam, can move them just as easily. Planting trees in hardshell takes a little more, gluing and holding upright with a close pin, as I understand it, unless you are doing just pufffball trees, which will glue on to any surface, though you may need to pin a few until the glue dries, if you are on a steep slope.
I have and will continue to use a lot of foam insulation, but may use other methods in spots. Got some sheets very inexpensively from a fellow that overbought for a project. Also have gotten quite a bit of good size chunks from construction sites for free. It can be glued together with inexpensive latex caulk, can be adjusted for awhile after putting in place, if you don't use too much adhesive, yet it is a strong enough bond, immediately, so you can go ahead and keep adding. If you don't like the formation all it takes is a knife to change the shape. I have, but seldom use, hot foam cutting tools, as I am in a confined area with minimum ventilation this time of year. Prefer to use a box cutter, knife and Surfoam tools to shape, (Shaver 21-115 is my favorite). It does mean you also need a good Shop Vac or similar vaccuum. A can of anti-static spray helps too.
Another method often overlooked is glueshell. It is similar to hard shell made with plaster, except you use white glue. Use a cardboard or screen base and use glue soaked rags, paper towels or whatever for the cover. They say it is less messy than plaster, cleans up easily with water. A gallon of glue (usually the best price for the amount), slightly diluted, will go a long way. Besides it has many other uses. If I have a place I want to try a hardshell, I will try it with glue. You should be able to search for "glueshell" in the Search the Community box in the right hand column, it has been mentioned a couple of times.
My suggestion is, don't rule out anything, use what's available, use what's inexpensive and whichever works best for your situation is the one to use.
Good luck,
Richard
I use plaster cloth over foam, very cheap as long as you buy the plaster cloth in bulk. I don't know why someone would use plywood these days as a base when foam is so easy to get and not very expensive unless of course you hand lay track, them most of what I say about a base does not apply. I think most people are going to caulk now for adhering the track, I still use cork under that because I can sand it to what I need if I make an error.
Steven S Makes a big difference whether you're building the Rocky Mountains or Iowa farmland. A sheet of pink foam will work fine for Iowa. Not so much for the Rockies. Steve S
Makes a big difference whether you're building the Rocky Mountains or Iowa farmland. A sheet of pink foam will work fine for Iowa. Not so much for the Rockies.
Steve S
You are of course correct. I should have mentioned that I'm modeling Appalachian coal country
Scenery is like benchwork. Whatever works for a particular situation. I use them all. Here is foam rock and the rolling grass is plaster dipped sheets and old Tea towels. My wife is a Veteranarian and I have boxes of expired casting rap on the shelf but I find that very messy to use. I have broken lots of bones and have seen how messy the Hospital staff get plastering me up so I know it's not just me being messy.
I will be using many techniques on this layout as the terrain changes around the room. After all my mighty empire stretches from the Pacific to the Prairies.
Cardboard weave and plaster cloth and foam rock.
One thing I do differently is, instead of buying and using rubber molds, I slice off very thin slices of foam and glue those in a place where I may have used molded rock in the past. The advantage of this is how quickly it can be done and the slices can be very thin, which helps if the rock face has to fit between the track and something else.
Brent
"All of the world's problems are the result of the difference between how we think and how the world works."
I like two techniques based on the application-
1. Pathercloth over crumpled paper ... fast, a little messy and inexact
2. Sculptamold over foam- a lityle more patience for huilding the base foam structure but very accuratein terms of shape. Great for spot work where you are only modifying or adding in a 3" × 3" space.
My last layout was built many years ago when the "correct" choice for scenery construction was the classic hard shell. There wasn't much debate at the time over what was best except for the real old timers that still promoted window screen and plaster. Getting back into the hobby I now notice that many new and different techniques are available. I am curious as which is "best" (yeah, I know that may be a subjective and/or religious question).
So, given the criteria below, in this order of priority, what do you think is the best choice for scenery built on open grid or L-girder benchwork with standard riser supported subroadbed?
Cost is deliberately not on the list. (unless you get no value relative to the list) When a train of 3 DCC/sound equipped diesel locomotives, 20 cars and a caboose can easily cost over $1,000, it just doesn't make sense to me to skimp on scenery.