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!

Cascade Rail Supply is now closed

2143 views
42 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    February 2002
  • From: Reading, PA
  • 27,722 posts
Posted by rrinker on Wednesday, February 19, 2020 8:51 AM

 Steve Cox posted here a few times in answer to questions. ANd I will say, he is handling the shutdown well. I finally decided to take the refund offer since I don;t want to start my layout with the hope that the product will reappear in a few months, and replied as such to the email he sent out. I literanlly got the refund notice from PayPal not 5 minutes after I sent my email.

 Sad to see the product go, even more so when the business owner was doing things the way they should be done. A great product at a fair price, with reasonable expectations on delivery up front, and taking care of the business side in a prompt (more than prompt) manner. I certainly wasn't expecting the refund to be generated any earlier than normal hours today, and wouldn't have cared if it took a few days. 

                              --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
    March 2002
  • From: Milwaukee WI (Fox Point)
  • 10,316 posts
Posted by dknelson on Thursday, February 20, 2020 10:34 AM

Bayfield Transfer Railway

Unfortunately, they don't have a 1/8" thickness, which is actually proper for HO mainline track.  (Per CNW and SOO track standards, there should be 12" of ballast under the ties on mainline track)

 

Yes but there should be elevation of track beyond the ballast, and cork roadbed and homabed are intended to at least mimic that elevation, but there should be even more.  There is ballast, below which there is roadbed and below that subroadbed.  Then culverts, then ditches.  The PRR's 1917 standards called for a least a one foot base of cinders below the ballast; they also called for 2 feet 1 and 3/8 inches of stone ballast for single track and 2 feet 3 and 1/2 inches of stone ballast for double track.  I wonder whose job it was to measure the 3/8" of ballast!

Those same 1917 standards dictated that there be no less than 3 feet, 7 and 3/4 inches from the bottom of a drainage ditch to the top of the ties for single track; 3 feet 9 3/8 inches from the bottom of a drainage ditch to the top of the ties for double track.  The 1925 standards for the Chicago & North Western required that the top of a pipe (sewer, water, etc.) under a grade crossing be a minimum of 4 feet 6 inches below the tops of the ties, and 4 feet minimum from the bottom of any drainage ditches.  All of this indicates that a "normal" elevation of right of way needs to be considerably greater than that provided by a single layer, or even a double layer, of commercial roadbed material.  

Dave Nelson

  • Member since
    April 2012
  • From: Huron, SD
  • 794 posts
Posted by Bayfield Transfer Railway on Thursday, February 20, 2020 10:21 PM

Yes, but the subroadbed is wider than the ballast bed (again per SOO and C&NW standards).  I was able to match the standards by using O scale Homabed with a 1/2 inch gap between the halves, and the HO homabed on top of that.  Matched the standards diagram to within a scale inch or two.

 

Disclaimer:  This post may contain humor, sarcasm, and/or flatulence.

Michael Mornard

Bringing the North Woods to South Dakota!

  • Member since
    December 2008
  • From: In the heart of Georgia
  • 3,521 posts
Posted by Doughless on Friday, February 21, 2020 11:05 AM

Doughless

I bought some of this.  Not homasote, but supposedly denser than WS foam.  Seems inexpensive enough to experiment.

https://www.ebay.com/sch/sparks00033/m.html?item=190871065031&hash=item2c70cd51c7%3Ag%3A2DsAAMXQTgZQ%7Em4X&rt=nc&_trksid=p2047675.l2562

 

Received my order.  Quick turn around and delivery.  Easy to buy.

The product itself doesn't seem to be much different than WS, but I'm not greatly experienced with WS.  The thumb test can make a suppression in the roadbed.  

I tested a 5 ft section. Placing tracks on it spreads out the pressure, and I notice no movement in the foam, so it seems dense enough.  If someone were to run heavy brass steamers and 50 car trains, that might be different than my lone plastic diesel pulling a 10 car train.  For my needs, it seems dense enough.

I tried curving it as advertised.  I'm using a minimum 36 inch curve, and the foam wants to buckle along the inside while making that sharp of a curve.  Seems like I will need to cut some relief slices if I wanted it to lie flat without stress on anything sharper.

Like most track and track laying products, I don't see a clear advantage of using this over another, or any reason to not use it.  I'll lay down the entire 60 ft in the staging/interchange area and see if I want to buy more for the rest of the layout or go with cork.

I caulk the roadbed to the subroadbed, and caulk the track to the roadbed.  Not sure how this product would work with nails.

The price is good, IMO.

- Douglas

  • Member since
    February 2002
  • From: Reading, PA
  • 27,722 posts
Posted by rrinker on Friday, February 21, 2020 2:33 PM

 That's good, I ordered some and it is waiting for me at home right now. I have on hand some WS, homasote, cork, and now this. SO I cna compare them all.

 I gave up nailing track two layouts ago and never looked back. I also found a good video on YouTube of a guy doing some hand laying which finally has visual evidence of what I've said all along based on my experience using homasote. It does NOT hold spike, or nails, or anything. It's just easy to push in to. The holding is the spike going through the wooden tie. Maybe my idea of 'holding' is different than other people - I thinkof a fasterner holding in material like a screw or nail into wood - it usually takes tools to remove and somethign will be damaged. I once built an N scale layout with a layer of homasote. I used cork roadbed, and track nails to attach the cork to homasote and track to the cork. The cork had more gripping power on the nails than the homasote, but even then, when I demolished that layout, I simply lifted all the nailed-down track off by hand, the nails just easily pulled off the homasote and usually pulled a section of cork with it. The only thing remotely 'held' in the homasote was in the corner where I had my Atlas control boxes screwed in place. ANd those screws might have been long enough to reach the underlying plywood, I don't remember. Laouts I made after that with just cork on plywood, still nailed - lot more work to drive track nails in to the plywood, and none of it was coming up without careful prying while trying to not break the tie with the nail through it. 

                                 --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
    February 2008
  • From: Potomac Yard
  • 2,086 posts
Posted by NittanyLion on Friday, February 21, 2020 2:56 PM

That is a vastly different experience than I've ever had with Homasote.

Any time I've pulled up cork off Homasote, the nail tears right through the cork and I have to fight with a pair of plyers to get the nail out of the Homasote. 

  • Member since
    January 2009
  • From: Maryland
  • 8,984 posts
Posted by ATLANTIC CENTRAL on Friday, February 21, 2020 2:58 PM

NittanyLion

That is a vastly different experience than I've ever had with Homasote.

Any time I've pulled up cork off Homasote, the nail tears right through the cork and I have to fight with a pair of plyers to get the nail out of the Homasote. 

 

Same here. I had just a few nails holding un-ballasted turnouts in place on homasote, it was hard to getthe nails out.

A lot of the guys I knew back in the day did not even spike thru the ties, they spiked next to the tie, directly into the homasote. That's what I did on the 1973 layout, worked great.

On the old layout I just took down, I had one scratch built curved turnout, same thing, I spiked next to the ties with no issues. I built that tunout with the points and frog from an Atlas #8.

Sheldon 

    

  • Member since
    February 2002
  • From: Reading, PA
  • 27,722 posts
Posted by rrinker on Friday, February 21, 2020 4:04 PM

 This does seem pretty similar to WS. Just not quite as squishy.

I was able to curve WS without cutting it to 30" and even slightly less when I used it. Curving it by just pulling the two ends towards you buckeles it, but if you actually hold it down along the curve line, it can easily do a 30" or wider curve without needing to be cut.

 One thing is the WS roadbed has a cut line sliced in it if you DO have to cut through, this does not.

 Price is right though.

                --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
    April 2012
  • From: Huron, SD
  • 794 posts
Posted by Bayfield Transfer Railway on Friday, February 21, 2020 4:39 PM

Homasote holds flextrack fine because all you need is a bit of strength to keep the track aligned.  The amount of upwards force on model railroad track is virtually nil.

"Sufficient unto the day."

 

Disclaimer:  This post may contain humor, sarcasm, and/or flatulence.

Michael Mornard

Bringing the North Woods to South Dakota!

  • Member since
    December 2008
  • From: In the heart of Georgia
  • 3,521 posts
Posted by Doughless on Friday, February 21, 2020 5:21 PM

rrinker

 This does seem pretty similar to WS. Just not quite as squishy.

I was able to curve WS without cutting it to 30" and even slightly less when I used it. Curving it by just pulling the two ends towards you buckeles it, but if you actually hold it down along the curve line, it can easily do a 30" or wider curve without needing to be cut.

 One thing is the WS roadbed has a cut line sliced in it if you DO have to cut through, this does not.

 Price is right though.

                --Randy

 

 

Yes, its advertised as being denser than WS and it probably is.  This would account for it not forming as sharp of curves as WS.

Also, I did not work that long at curving this product into a 36 inch radius curve.  I did notice that it wasn't so dense as to prevent me from stretching the outer side and compacting the inner side when making curves.  So with some effort and some adhesion as a work along, I can probably shape it into 36 inch radius without making any relief cuts.  

Less squishy than WS is a good thing, and the price is a good thing too.

- Douglas

  • Member since
    February 2002
  • From: Reading, PA
  • 27,722 posts
Posted by rrinker on Friday, February 21, 2020 7:53 PM

 Amazingly the piece of WS roadbed I had was right on top of the pile in the garage, so I was able to closely compare the two. Just looking at the edges, you can see the stuff from eBay is denser. Pushing on both sitting on my desk, the WS is definitely softer and squishier. Only thing they DON'T have in this stuff is any different thicknesses for sidings. Though I suppose you could stack the HO size on top of one of the larger ones for the full mainline ballast prpfile and drop down to just a single layer of the HO stuff for a siding.

 I never had an issue on the layout with WS, even runnign brass and some really heavy locos - like some AThearns with the Cary bodies. The squishiness is a complete non-issue, it still takes more force than any HO loco weights to actually squash it - maybe if bare rails were run on the foam and not with any ties, but why would you ever do that? This stuff, being stiffer, but still softer than cork, seems about ideal. And being foam it will never dry out and crumble like cork.

                                     --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
    July 2006
  • From: west coast
  • 4,988 posts
Posted by rrebell on Sunday, February 23, 2020 11:07 AM

The real reason to use cork is you can sand it, not so important on flat stuff but on transition on inclines, very.

  • Member since
    February 2002
  • From: Reading, PA
  • 27,722 posts
Posted by rrinker on Sunday, February 23, 2020 3:48 PM

 I was able to sand WS, and this stuff should sand as well - you just can't go at it with 100 grit or a Surform, it will tear it up. Lacking a thinner version, I may have to do this, or use WS N scale, which is thinner than their HO scale, as I did in the past. 

                                     --Randy

 


Modeling the Reading Railroad in the 1950's

 

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

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!