Subscriber & Member Login

Login, or register today to interact in our online community, comment on articles, receive our newsletter, manage your account online and more!

New layout

9681 views
130 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    January 2010
  • From: Denver, CO
  • 3,481 posts
Posted by Motley on Tuesday, January 28, 2020 5:46 PM

I'm taking a break from track laying. I just finished this Coors building. Its Walthers Wasington Salvage Yard. Gonna use it as a Coors maintence building.

Michael


Director -
Mile-HI-Railroad
Prototype: D&RGW Moffat, UP, GN. BNSF 

  • Member since
    July 2006
  • From: Bradford, Ontario
  • 10,715 posts
Posted by hon30critter on Wednesday, January 15, 2020 2:56 PM

Michael,

I like the backdrop!

Dave

  • Member since
    January 2010
  • From: Denver, CO
  • 3,481 posts
Posted by Motley on Wednesday, January 15, 2020 1:31 PM

Just getting more trackwork done. Left side (where the power plant)  is almost finished. And the two mainlines on the top side are almost complete as well.

Michael


Director -
Mile-HI-Railroad
Prototype: D&RGW Moffat, UP, GN. BNSF 

  • Member since
    January 2010
  • From: Denver, CO
  • 3,481 posts
Posted by Motley on Sunday, December 29, 2019 7:01 PM

You don't service selenoid switch machines. They just work for ever and ever. I have never heard of a peco switch machine failing. On my last layout I had 35 Peco switch machines and never had a problem in 7 years I had that layout.

The switch will fail before the machine fails.

 

Michael


Director -
Mile-HI-Railroad
Prototype: D&RGW Moffat, UP, GN. BNSF 

  • Member since
    May 2010
  • 6,414 posts
Posted by mbinsewi on Saturday, December 28, 2019 2:02 PM

Maybe he could make a removable hatch in the plywood underneath, to gain access to the machine, without picking up track.

Mike.

  • Member since
    April 2018
  • From: 53° 33′ N, 10° 0′ E
  • 1,917 posts
Posted by Tinplate Toddler on Saturday, December 28, 2019 2:00 PM

maxman
I really don't care for any system that requires something mechanical/electrical be buried under something else.

Sorry, but this is a rather silly statement. Any switch machine will somehow be buried under something, unless you go for those primitive attached thingies Atlas and others still sell.

Sometimes I find your humor not very humorous.

The Peco track system, including their switches and switch "motores" are highly reliable. The switch motors have one big drawback, though - they draw an awful lot of current!

Happy times!

Ulrich (aka The Tin Man)

"You´re never too old for a happy childhood!"

  • Member since
    January 2017
  • From: Southern Florida Gulf Coast
  • 6,494 posts
Posted by SeeYou190 on Saturday, December 28, 2019 1:52 PM

maxman
I really don't care for any system that requires something mechanical/electrical be buried under something else.

.

Is there a perfect system where everything is always accessable?

.

It seems that on every layout I have built, something always winds up under something else.

.

The Peco system is very reliable. I know of two large layouts that use Peco components on all trackage with no problems.

.

-Kevin

.

Wink Happily modeling my STRATTON & GILLETTE RAILROAD. A Class A line located in a personal fantasy world of semi-plausible nonsense on Tuesday, August 3rd, 1954.

  • Member since
    February 2008
  • 6,828 posts
Posted by maxman on Saturday, December 28, 2019 1:16 PM

Motley
Another reason I like using foam, is the abilty to easily cut out the peices for the Peco switch machines to drop into.

I really don't care for any system that requires something mechanical/electrical be buried under something else.

  • Member since
    January 2009
  • From: Maryland
  • 8,774 posts
Posted by ATLANTIC CENTRAL on Friday, December 27, 2019 9:02 PM

That is a good system if you use the PECO track and switch motors, no question.

While very high quality, in my case PECO is not a product that suits my needs.

Looks like you are continuing to make good progress.

Sheldon

    

  • Member since
    January 2010
  • From: Denver, CO
  • 3,481 posts
Posted by Motley on Friday, December 27, 2019 8:37 PM

Another reason I like using foam, is the abilty to easily cut out the peices for the Peco switch machines to drop into. Much easier than having to cut out these from plywood.

Michael


Director -
Mile-HI-Railroad
Prototype: D&RGW Moffat, UP, GN. BNSF 

  • Member since
    January 2009
  • From: Maryland
  • 8,774 posts
Posted by ATLANTIC CENTRAL on Sunday, December 22, 2019 12:42 PM

rrinker

 I throw away nothing - I still have a box full of small foam chunks. The bits you carve out for below track level scenery, you glue back on to form the bits that go above track level.

 As for spike holding - I last used spikes on a layout more than 20 years ago (ok, there was a long time in there I had NO layout...). The last two used adhesive caulk, and the next one will too. The ability of the base material to hold spikes is a non issue. In fact, the ability of the foam to take a push pin to hold track in place while the caulk set up was actually a benefit. They push in easily and they do hold with plenty of force to keep the track in place. If I used plywood, I would have to use the soup can express to hold the track in place. Push pins are quicker and I don't have to raid the pantry to weight things down.

 I may use less foam base this time, but not through any dissatisfaction with how it worked on the last two layouts. I will be using a lot for the scenery, cutting and stacking it  and then carving. 

                                  --Randy

 

 

Homasote and Homasote roadbed remain my "go to" base for track and flat scenery. 

And rolling scenery/hills/mountains will likely be plaster products over screen once again.

Sheldon

    

  • Member since
    December 2008
  • From: In the heart of Georgia
  • 3,476 posts
Posted by Doughless on Sunday, December 22, 2019 12:07 PM

Motley

 

 
Doughless

 Motley

Douglas, you know exactly my vision for the layout.

What I plan on doing is using the foam hills to seperate the two mainline tracks.

I was thinking about adding a tunnel. But I don't have enough room there because I want to make a river scene. For the river the foam is only 1.5", and I want to make the river about 6-8" deep. I can cut out a small section for that.

 

That's how I'm approaching my under track scenery.  Except I'm building a small section that's below the prevailing sections ahead of time instead of cutting it out later.  The small section will be 48 inches high off the floor while the rest of the layout will be 52 inches high.

 

 

 

Douglas do you have a build thread? I'd sure like to see some photos of your new layout!

 

Thanks for the comment.  I don't have a photo hosting site yet, so that is a hurdle.  I'm slow, so that's another. And I've gotten distacted by doing some actual modeling like weathering trains.

I've thought about taking some photos at significant portions of the build.  Currently I've built the sky blue backdrop and the benchwork, just have to attach the plywood table top and trim out everything to give it a finished look. 

Nothing exciting about how I built a generic table top, so the finished benchwork with the plain sky blue backdrop might be the first photo. 

- Douglas

  • Member since
    February 2002
  • From: Reading, PA
  • 27,331 posts
Posted by rrinker on Sunday, December 22, 2019 11:25 AM

 I throw away nothing - I still have a box full of small foam chunks. The bits you carve out for below track level scenery, you glue back on to form the bits that go above track level.

 As for spike holding - I last used spikes on a layout more than 20 years ago (ok, there was a long time in there I had NO layout...). The last two used adhesive caulk, and the next one will too. The ability of the base material to hold spikes is a non issue. In fact, the ability of the foam to take a push pin to hold track in place while the caulk set up was actually a benefit. They push in easily and they do hold with plenty of force to keep the track in place. If I used plywood, I would have to use the soup can express to hold the track in place. Push pins are quicker and I don't have to raid the pantry to weight things down.

 I may use less foam base this time, but not through any dissatisfaction with how it worked on the last two layouts. I will be using a lot for the scenery, cutting and stacking it  and then carving. 

                                  --Randy

 


Modeling the Reading Railroad in the 1950's

 

Visit my web site at www.readingeastpenn.com for construction updates, DCC Info, and more.

  • Member since
    January 2010
  • From: Denver, CO
  • 3,481 posts
Posted by Motley on Sunday, December 22, 2019 9:51 AM

Doughless

 Motley

Douglas, you know exactly my vision for the layout.

What I plan on doing is using the foam hills to seperate the two mainline tracks.

I was thinking about adding a tunnel. But I don't have enough room there because I want to make a river scene. For the river the foam is only 1.5", and I want to make the river about 6-8" deep. I can cut out a small section for that.

 

That's how I'm approaching my under track scenery.  Except I'm building a small section that's below the prevailing sections ahead of time instead of cutting it out later.  The small section will be 48 inches high off the floor while the rest of the layout will be 52 inches high.

 

Douglas do you have a build thread? I'd sure like to see some photos of your new layout!

Michael


Director -
Mile-HI-Railroad
Prototype: D&RGW Moffat, UP, GN. BNSF 

  • Member since
    December 2008
  • From: In the heart of Georgia
  • 3,476 posts
Posted by Doughless on Friday, December 20, 2019 8:50 PM

Motley

Douglas, you know exactly my vision for the layout.

What I plan on doing is using the foam hills to seperate the two mainline tracks.

I was thinking about adding a tunnel. But I don't have enough room there because I want to make a river scene. For the river the foam is only 1.5", and I want to make the river about 6-8" deep. I can cut out a small section for that.

 

 

 

That's how I'm approaching my under track scenery.  Except I'm building a small section that's below the prevailing sections ahead of time instead of cutting it out later.  The small section will be 48 inches high off the floor while the rest of the layout will be 52 inches high.

- Douglas

  • Member since
    January 2010
  • From: Denver, CO
  • 3,481 posts
Posted by Motley on Friday, December 20, 2019 8:22 PM

Douglas, you know exactly my vision for the layout.

What I plan on doing is using the foam hills to seperate the two mainline tracks.

I was thinking about adding a tunnel. But I don't have enough room there because I want to make a river scene. For the river the foam is only 1.5", and I want to make the river about 6-8" deep. I can cut out a small section for that.

 

 

Michael


Director -
Mile-HI-Railroad
Prototype: D&RGW Moffat, UP, GN. BNSF 

  • Member since
    December 2008
  • From: In the heart of Georgia
  • 3,476 posts
Posted by Doughless on Friday, December 20, 2019 7:49 PM

ATLANTIC CENTRAL

 

 
Doughless

Michael, you're not doing any grade changes or crossovers.  Foam is fine for scenery on a flat grade like you're doing.  Carve out a little gully here, build up some hills around it.  No need to do much else on a shelf layout where you're not planning a lot of verticality.  You've also planned for large buildings on each of the 4 sides, which require a big flat footprint.

 

 

 

I was not suggesting there is anything wrong with that approach. I use my share of flat areas for structures, urban areas, industries, etc.

And previously I built a multi deck layout and keeping benchwork thin was important, even on the lower level which had a staging level below that.

On that layout I simply padded the roadbed up some so that gently rolling terrain could be built on top the plywood base.

My primary dislike for foam comes from the fact that I am use to climbing/supporting myself on the benchwork........my weight will dent foam.......

Sheldon

 

I understand that neither you or anybody else was criticizing. 

I stepped in because I have a vision that Michael's layout is going to look a lot like his last one scenically.  It photographed very well, IMO.  I just wanted to illustrate the differences in scenick approaches between very open western terrain and others with narrower ROWs.  More vistas rather than trains snaking through mountains and valleys.  Rivers were the gulley type tributaries that are seen in drier parts, not so much gorges and stuff.  

The foam lends itself to those more shallow carvings.  I think RioGrande's layout was more vertical with fewer industries, so the traditional approach would work better than flat foam, IMO.

I think if somebody is looking at it from strictly building hills, stacking up foam pieces works as well as traditional hardshell and its matter of preference,  or why bother to learn something different for real no gain.

- Douglas

  • Member since
    January 2009
  • From: Maryland
  • 8,774 posts
Posted by ATLANTIC CENTRAL on Friday, December 20, 2019 6:55 PM

Doughless

Michael, you're not doing any grade changes or crossovers.  Foam is fine for scenery on a flat grade like you're doing.  Carve out a little gully here, build up some hills around it.  No need to do much else on a shelf layout where you're not planning a lot of verticality.  You've also planned for large buildings on each of the 4 sides, which require a big flat footprint.

 

I was not suggesting there is anything wrong with that approach. I use my share of flat areas for structures, urban areas, industries, etc.

And previously I built a multi deck layout and keeping benchwork thin was important, even on the lower level which had a staging level below that.

On that layout I simply padded the roadbed up some so that gently rolling terrain could be built on top the plywood base.

My primary dislike for foam comes from the fact that I am use to climbing/supporting myself on the benchwork........my weight will dent foam.......

Sheldon

    

  • Member since
    December 2008
  • From: In the heart of Georgia
  • 3,476 posts
Posted by Doughless on Friday, December 20, 2019 6:35 PM

Michael, you're not doing any grade changes or crossovers.  Foam is fine for scenery on a flat grade like you're doing.  Carve out a little gully here, build up some hills around it.  No need to do much else on a shelf layout where you're not planning a lot of verticality.  You've also planned for large buildings on each of the 4 sides, which require a big flat footprint.

- Douglas

  • Member since
    January 2010
  • From: Denver, CO
  • 3,481 posts
Posted by Motley on Friday, December 20, 2019 6:17 PM

riogrande5761

 Motley

The advantages of using foam is, you can dig down into the foam to make rivers and ditches, overall just to make the landscape look hilly.

 

It's one way of doing it.  Another way is to support the subroadbed on risers high enough the benchwork that there is ample room for the landscape to fall below or rise above the RR grade.  That way you don't have to carve away possible half or more of the foam to get the morphology of the land scape, potentially throwing away a lot of paid for foam.

Like Sheldon, I have never understood the attraction to foam.  It won't hold spike and you have to carve and throw away a good deal of material you paid for to get land scape.  With old school subroadbed on risers, you throw almost nothing away, and only build landscape that is needed using wire mesh or cardboard strip (free) and a bit of hot glue.  Over that you can use plaster cloth or paper machet or whatever.

 

That looks great and all. But sure seems like a lot of work just to make hills, I have no experience doing stuff like that, and frankly scares me a bit. I need easy solutions. This includes benchwork, which I am not very good with either.

With foam it is very easy to carve out, and build it up for mountains. You can put the plaster over the foam.

Michael


Director -
Mile-HI-Railroad
Prototype: D&RGW Moffat, UP, GN. BNSF 

  • Member since
    January 2009
  • From: Maryland
  • 8,774 posts
Posted by ATLANTIC CENTRAL on Friday, December 20, 2019 4:31 PM

riogrande5761

 

 
Motley
The advantages of using foam is, you can dig down into the foam to make rivers and ditches, overall just to make the landscape look hilly.

 

It's one way of doing it.  Another way is to support the subroadbed on risers high enough the benchwork that there is ample room for the landscape to fall below or rise above the RR grade.  That way you don't have to carve away possible half or more of the foam to get the morphology of the land scape, potentially throwing away a lot of paid for foam.

Like Sheldon, I have never understood the attraction to foam.  It won't hold spike and you have to carve and throw away a good deal of material you paid for to get land scape.  With old school subroadbed on risers, you throw almost nothing away, and only build landscape that is needed using wire mesh or cardboard strip (free) and a bit of hot glue.  Over that you can use plaster cloth or paper machet or whatever.

 

Yes, I have always used open grid methods similar to riogrande's picture.

In fact I still tend to be a "hard shell" or plaster on wire screen kind of guy....

Sheldon  

    

  • Member since
    June 2007
  • From: Grew up in Calif, left in 84, now in Virginia
  • 7,320 posts
Posted by riogrande5761 on Friday, December 20, 2019 3:52 PM

Motley
The advantages of using foam is, you can dig down into the foam to make rivers and ditches, overall just to make the landscape look hilly.

It's one way of doing it.  Another way is to support the subroadbed on risers high enough the benchwork that there is ample room for the landscape to fall below or rise above the RR grade.  That way you don't have to carve away possible half or more of the foam to get the morphology of the land scape, potentially throwing away a lot of paid for foam.

Like Sheldon, I have never understood the attraction to foam.  It won't hold spike and you have to carve and throw away a good deal of material you paid for to get land scape.  With old school subroadbed on risers, you throw almost nothing away, and only build landscape that is needed using wire mesh or cardboard strip (free) and a bit of hot glue.  Over that you can use plaster cloth or paper machet or whatever.

Rio Grande.  The Action Road  - Focus 1977-1983

  • Member since
    January 2010
  • From: Denver, CO
  • 3,481 posts
Posted by Motley on Friday, December 20, 2019 1:13 PM

SeeYou190

Wow... you sure are making progress.

.

Way to go.

.

-Kevin

 

 
Thanks Kevin I appreciate the feedback. My goal was to get trains running by Christmas, and I might not have the mainline loop finished, but will be able to run trains back and forth on the mountain scene.

Michael


Director -
Mile-HI-Railroad
Prototype: D&RGW Moffat, UP, GN. BNSF 

  • Member since
    January 2010
  • From: Denver, CO
  • 3,481 posts
Posted by Motley on Friday, December 20, 2019 1:05 PM

BigDaddy

The mountains look good.  I intially thought the eye level of the was too high but the more I think of it, the more I like that is at the height of the smaller buildings.

I am interested in how you work the scenery next to it, because the lack of foreground in the city scene seems odd to me, but I previously admitted a lack of knowledge in working with photo backgrounds.  So don't take it as a criticism.

 

 
I see what you are saying about the eye level with the city buildings. But most of the city backdrops are like that with little foreground.
 
I am confident it will look good after I get the passenger station, yard facilities in that location which should cover some of that. I can also add a line of trees in there.

Michael


Director -
Mile-HI-Railroad
Prototype: D&RGW Moffat, UP, GN. BNSF 

  • Member since
    January 2010
  • From: Denver, CO
  • 3,481 posts
Posted by Motley on Friday, December 20, 2019 12:57 PM

ATLANTIC CENTRAL

Michael,

Your progress is great and the backdrops look very nice. I may have to consider that for some areas of my new layout.

I have a question, please forgive if this has already been explained. I struggle to understand the attraction to foam board, so my question is this.

I see you are laying cork right on the foam and it appears most trackage will be level at that elevation. So what is the advantage of the foam? What purpose does it serve different from plywood or homasote?

I see it looks like you have osb board under the foam, cost and effort it seems to me homasote or simply better plywood would do the same job?

Just trying to understand?

Sheldon

 

Hello Sheldon thanks for your comments. The advantages of using foam is, you can dig down into the foam to make rivers and ditches, overall just to make the landscape look hilly.

I am using OSB because its cheaper and easier to work with cutting. and provides a flatter surface than plywood.

Michael


Director -
Mile-HI-Railroad
Prototype: D&RGW Moffat, UP, GN. BNSF 

  • Member since
    January 2009
  • From: Maryland
  • 8,774 posts
Posted by ATLANTIC CENTRAL on Friday, December 20, 2019 11:25 AM

Michael,

Your progress is great and the backdrops look very nice. I may have to consider that for some areas of my new layout.

I have a question, please forgive if this has already been explained. I struggle to understand the attraction to foam board, so my question is this.

I see you are laying cork right on the foam and it appears most trackage will be level at that elevation. So what is the advantage of the foam? What purpose does it serve different from plywood or homasote?

I see it looks like you have osb board under the foam, cost and effort it seems to me homasote or simply better plywood would do the same job?

Just trying to understand?

Sheldon

    

  • Member since
    January 2017
  • From: Southern Florida Gulf Coast
  • 6,494 posts
Posted by SeeYou190 on Thursday, December 19, 2019 1:43 PM

Wow... you sure are making progress.

.

Way to go.

.

-Kevin

.

Wink Happily modeling my STRATTON & GILLETTE RAILROAD. A Class A line located in a personal fantasy world of semi-plausible nonsense on Tuesday, August 3rd, 1954.

  • Member since
    December 2015
  • 6,373 posts
Posted by BigDaddy on Thursday, December 19, 2019 12:33 PM

The mountains look good.  I intially thought the eye level of the was too high but the more I think of it, the more I like that is at the height of the smaller buildings.

I am interested in how you work the scenery next to it, because the lack of foreground in the city scene seems odd to me, but I previously admitted a lack of knowledge in working with photo backgrounds.  So don't take it as a criticism.

Henry

COB Potomac & Northern

By the Chesapeake Bay

  • Member since
    January 2010
  • From: Denver, CO
  • 3,481 posts
Posted by Motley on Thursday, December 19, 2019 12:20 PM

Got the new Denver downtown backdrop installed. And steadily making progress on the trackwork.

Michael


Director -
Mile-HI-Railroad
Prototype: D&RGW Moffat, UP, GN. BNSF 

Subscriber & Member Login

Login, or register today to interact in our online community, comment on articles, receive our newsletter, manage your account online and more!

Search the Community

ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
Model Railroader Newsletter See all
Sign up for our FREE e-newsletter and get model railroad news in your inbox!