I've built cookiecutter plywood, L-girder with Homasote and foam layouts and I agree with the folks who say, "It depends on what you're trying to do." I've seen poorly done plywood, foam and cookiecutters just as I've seen very well done ones. (And yes, some of the bad ones were my own!)
For me now, it's around the walls on a shelf and 2-inch foam is quite sufficient with shelf brackets. I have neither switch machines nor turntables by choice. It's 18 to 24 inches deep, so I don't have to climb on it. And my foam will likely survive any future moves unlike my old L-girder layout.
But to each his own...
I think this discussion has gone places not completely relevant to whether or not the benchwork is sound. If you construct on an open grid or L-girder frame, and provide joists at 16" or so, I don't think the superior structural rigidity of plywood (as compared to foam) is really a factor over these distances.
This really is an area that is somewhat scale specific, however. (At least where the larger scales are concerned.) I am a firm believer that for all but narrow shelf style layouts, the benchwork should be built robust enough to hold your own weight. Sooner or later you'll have to put your weight on it to do scenery, change light bulbs, etc. I also believe that a little common sense is in order here; 2x6 L-girders are, of course, absurd. If you're in doubt as to your carpentry or structural design abilities, there are plenty of published works available detailing construction techniques for adequate benchwork.
I think that maybe we're not seeing the forest through the trees. Ever examine the construction of an aquarium stand? They're made of 1x lumber, usually Oak or Pine, but also even Particle Board. In addition, they're often only stapled together. Now seawater weighs 8-1/2 lbs/gal, so imagine what even a 50-gallon tank weighs with sand, gravel, rocks, etc.
My point is that it's not necessarily the gauge, or even the structural integrity of the materials we use, but how we use them that counts when constructing a solid foundation.
As to the use of foam:
orsonroy wrote:It's a sort of copout to use all this great foam base material roughed into almost the proper profile, and then slap on some plaster. Why not just save the time and expense that goes into the plaster and instead keep carving the foam until it's right?
It's a sort of copout to use all this great foam base material roughed into almost the proper profile, and then slap on some plaster. Why not just save the time and expense that goes into the plaster and instead keep carving the foam until it's right?
Or... you could save the expense that goes into the foam...
I can completely see where foam has disticent advantages when modeling flat areas and it's ease of achieving sub-track level terrain. I don't however see any advantage to using it to build up massive areas for hills, mountains, etc. (Except for tree planting.) It seems cost prohibitive, especially if you're going to go over it with plaster/sculptamold anyway. (Newspaper, cardboard strips, etc. are virtually free, why spend the money on foam...)
About the only other consideration would be the noise...
joe-daddy wrote: Guys we are close to agreement here. Whether we like it or not! Surely we could agree that ALL foam based scenery should not look like foam based scenery. It should look like scenery. And we agree that it takes some mighty fine skill to build foam based scenery
Guys we are close to agreement here. Whether we like it or not!
Surely we could agree that ALL foam based scenery should not look like foam based scenery. It should look like scenery.
And we agree that it takes some mighty fine skill to build foam based scenery
Of course we all agree that it takes skill and talent to make effective scenery, no matter if we're using plaster or mashed potatos. I never thought that this was the issue.
but that is hardly the impression I get from the pro foam team.
Nor from the pro hardshell team. Reading their posts, it seems that all you have to do is staple on some screen wire, slap down a few plaster-soaked towels and walk away happy. Sadly, sculpting scenery in that way is just as ineffective as carving up some foam.
Regarding benchwork, I'd probably agree with you on not needing solid stable bench work if I had chosen code 100 instead of code 83. But that is another hot potato!
??? My foam-based layout features all code 75, 70 and 55:
Ray Breyer
Modeling the NKP's Peoria Division, circa 1943
MTennent wrote: I'm not sure what you're saying, Ray. Are you talking about shaping the foam to a smooth contour and then painting and adding grass, trees, etc? But not using plaster/Scultamold/whatever as a top coating first?
I'm not sure what you're saying, Ray.
Are you talking about shaping the foam to a smooth contour and then painting and adding grass, trees, etc? But not using plaster/Scultamold/whatever as a top coating first?
Yes I am. In most cases, basic foam scenery doesn't need any top layer of plaster, so long as you carve or sand the foam layer well enough to eliminate the hard lines and unnatural "wedding cake" effect that comes with stacking foam layers.
Personally, I can only think of four reasons to add ANY plaster to the top of foam:
I consider plaster to be a "cheat" when using foam. It's a sort of copout to use all this great foam base material roughed into almost the proper profile, and then slap on some plaster. Why not just save the time and expense that goes into the plaster and instead keep carving the foam until it's right?
Of course, I'm cheating too, by modeling the Midwest, where I don't need to add many rock faces or even vertical scenery in general! The few cuts I intend to have will be through sandstone, which is about the easiest thing to replicate with foam (all you need is a wire brush!).
And we agree that it takes some mighty fine skill to build foam based scenery, but that is hardly the impression I get from the pro foam team.
<sigh> It takes no more skill to do good foam based scenery than it does to do any other. It takes some different skills and it takes some identical skills. But it takes no more skill.
The foundation (foam, wire screen, chicken bones, whatever) is almost irrelevant outside of weight (for modules.) What goes on top (grass, trees, roads, buildings, landscapes) is what counts and the skills to do those are basically identical no matter the foundation.
No Mike, that looks like the Good Foam stuff. Nice work, and to my previous point, if you cannot tell it is foam, that is a good thing! Scenery should look real, like this layout does!
congratulations to the Piedmont Division's work!
Joe
MTennent wrote:Joe,Just found these pics from the last show I did. This is the Piedmont Division's "raffle" layout they do each year at their show. They used that terrible foam stuff.Is this bad scenery you're talking about?
Joe,
Just found these pics from the last show I did. This is the Piedmont Division's "raffle" layout they do each year at their show. They used that terrible foam stuff.
Is this bad scenery you're talking about?
orsonroy wrote: MTennent wrote: My results with foam were typical and predictable based upon most the results I see from others.Joe, you're seeing what you want to see. I see lots of good foam scenery and lots of good chicken-wire scenery. I see lots of bad foam scenery and lots of bad chicken-wire scenery. Guess what? It isn't the material to blame for the bad scenery, it's the skill of the builder with the materials used.EXACTLY right. I've seen lots of good scenery and lots of bad scenery. Once the scenery layer's down, it's sometimes hard to tell what's underneath, but it's easy to tell if the end result is good or bad. And that's the whole point: you can use just about ANYTHING for benchwork and scenery: wood, foam, wire, paper, plaster, even cast bronze. But if you don't know how to properly use the material you're working with, your results are going to be lousy.The same can be said with benchwork construction: you can use ANYTHING and build good, solid benchwork. But how much do you really NEED to build good, solid benchwork? My experiences with over a dozen layouts in both HO and N tell me that you really don't need a whole lot.
MTennent wrote: My results with foam were typical and predictable based upon most the results I see from others.Joe, you're seeing what you want to see. I see lots of good foam scenery and lots of good chicken-wire scenery. I see lots of bad foam scenery and lots of bad chicken-wire scenery. Guess what? It isn't the material to blame for the bad scenery, it's the skill of the builder with the materials used.
My results with foam were typical and predictable based upon most the results I see from others.
Joe, you're seeing what you want to see. I see lots of good foam scenery and lots of good chicken-wire scenery. I see lots of bad foam scenery and lots of bad chicken-wire scenery. Guess what? It isn't the material to blame for the bad scenery, it's the skill of the builder with the materials used.
EXACTLY right. I've seen lots of good scenery and lots of bad scenery. Once the scenery layer's down, it's sometimes hard to tell what's underneath, but it's easy to tell if the end result is good or bad. And that's the whole point: you can use just about ANYTHING for benchwork and scenery: wood, foam, wire, paper, plaster, even cast bronze. But if you don't know how to properly use the material you're working with, your results are going to be lousy.
The same can be said with benchwork construction: you can use ANYTHING and build good, solid benchwork. But how much do you really NEED to build good, solid benchwork? My experiences with over a dozen layouts in both HO and N tell me that you really don't need a whole lot.
Best regards,
I've lurked long enough, I'll throw my few experiences around -
Most of my previous layouts were built as L girder base with cookie cutter 1/2" plywood and Homasote for roadbed. The first was a 4x8 plywood central on a 1x4 grid. Points to take away:
- my skills at the time (teenager) with cutting wood accurately weren't good enough for the 1x4 grid frame. The joists (cross pieces) did very little good because they weren't cut accurately enough.- 4x8 layouts (or similar size sections) built in this manner are HEAVY to move - and I moved a lot. Even after cookie cutting the plywood, they are still fairly heavy. Add any form of plaster scenery, and they are heavier yet.- the L-girder was very successful for building a layout on for me. L-girder does not require the same precision of carpentry that the box grid does. The only place precision is required is in setting riser height, and that's a matter of adjusting the thing with clamps before I put the screws in.- the extra height of the L-girder frame - an extra 4-6" when risers are accounted for - makes for surprising extra difficulty in moving.- extra risers are needed to maintain 1/2" plywood in the correct position on turnback curves. Strictly parallel joists on 16"-18" centers don't provide enough places to mount risers when dealing with 18" radius curves. Also, closer spacing of risers is generally needed to bend the correct grade transitions into place. And if the curves are on grades, the plywood must be "twisted" with extra risers to prevent unwanted superelevation or reverse superelevation. The latter is much more critical with steep grades and sharp curves.- I could not have easily bent 3/4" plywood enough for the grades and curves of my layout. 1/2" was a good choice for me.- I was afraid the L-girder/joist construction would be susceptible to racking and twisting during the moves. These fears prove groundless. There was less racking at any given point than with the box grid construction.- having the legs inset from the layout edge - a natural mounting with L-girder - was much easier on my feet. I usually am bare foot in the house, so stubbed toes are common.- non-solid top construction makes for great access for wiring, switch throw linkages, uncoupling ramps, and hidden track. To maintain that access after scenery, the scenery must be of reasonably thin shell construction.
- my skills at the time (teenager) with cutting wood accurately weren't good enough for the 1x4 grid frame. The joists (cross pieces) did very little good because they weren't cut accurately enough.
- 4x8 layouts (or similar size sections) built in this manner are HEAVY to move - and I moved a lot. Even after cookie cutting the plywood, they are still fairly heavy. Add any form of plaster scenery, and they are heavier yet.
- the L-girder was very successful for building a layout on for me. L-girder does not require the same precision of carpentry that the box grid does. The only place precision is required is in setting riser height, and that's a matter of adjusting the thing with clamps before I put the screws in.
- the extra height of the L-girder frame - an extra 4-6" when risers are accounted for - makes for surprising extra difficulty in moving.
- extra risers are needed to maintain 1/2" plywood in the correct position on turnback curves. Strictly parallel joists on 16"-18" centers don't provide enough places to mount risers when dealing with 18" radius curves. Also, closer spacing of risers is generally needed to bend the correct grade transitions into place. And if the curves are on grades, the plywood must be "twisted" with extra risers to prevent unwanted superelevation or reverse superelevation. The latter is much more critical with steep grades and sharp curves.
- I could not have easily bent 3/4" plywood enough for the grades and curves of my layout. 1/2" was a good choice for me.
- I was afraid the L-girder/joist construction would be susceptible to racking and twisting during the moves. These fears prove groundless. There was less racking at any given point than with the box grid construction.
- having the legs inset from the layout edge - a natural mounting with L-girder - was much easier on my feet. I usually am bare foot in the house, so stubbed toes are common.
- non-solid top construction makes for great access for wiring, switch throw linkages, uncoupling ramps, and hidden track. To maintain that access after scenery, the scenery must be of reasonably thin shell construction.
I have only used hard shell (club layout), Plaster of Paris over window screen, and plaster cloth scenery to date. My learning points from these experiences:
- using Plaster of Paris with some sort of reinforcement (screen wire in my case) as a substitute for Hydrocal works quite well.- plaster scenery makes a heavy layout even heavier.- plaster on screen scenery is not fun to plant forests (I model coastal Oregon) into, nor is it easy to cut to modify for things like placing structures- plaster scenery does give a nice self-supporting shell with good access to the underside of the layout- Hard shell (paper towels dipped in Hydrocal) naturally gives the roughest base terrain. Plaster on screen is inherently somewhat smoother, and plaster cloth is naturally quite smooth. Changing these characteristics can be done, but requires planning and forethought.- you have to have good drop clothes on the carpet and protection for the track when using any plaster product. It always ends up place I didn't expect. And don't wash out the bowls, tools, and buckets in the sink. Must be done outside with the garden hose. Plaster cloth is significantly less messy than the other techniques, though.
- using Plaster of Paris with some sort of reinforcement (screen wire in my case) as a substitute for Hydrocal works quite well.
- plaster scenery makes a heavy layout even heavier.
- plaster on screen scenery is not fun to plant forests (I model coastal Oregon) into, nor is it easy to cut to modify for things like placing structures
- plaster scenery does give a nice self-supporting shell with good access to the underside of the layout
- Hard shell (paper towels dipped in Hydrocal) naturally gives the roughest base terrain. Plaster on screen is inherently somewhat smoother, and plaster cloth is naturally quite smooth. Changing these characteristics can be done, but requires planning and forethought.
- you have to have good drop clothes on the carpet and protection for the track when using any plaster product. It always ends up place I didn't expect. And don't wash out the bowls, tools, and buckets in the sink. Must be done outside with the garden hose. Plaster cloth is significantly less messy than the other techniques, though.
At least parts of my next layout will be a shelf layout mounted on the walls, as I've realized the importance of conducting my hobby within conversation distance of the rest of the family while they are doing other activities. I also want to keep things portable for several reasons, and want to build a lighting system into the layout (most ambient room lighting is the pits for decent model railroading). I have experimented with 1.5" foam on 1/4" plywood for a table top Christmas layout, and am satisfied the technique will work well for a shelf layout, even with grades. The issue now is whether to use foam or plaster for the scenery base. Things I have personally discovered or noticed about foam from the reading of various reports:
- using stacked foam slabs requires a different way of thinking compared to plaster shell. You remove foam until you arrive at the desired topography instead of adding.- using a glue that is easily carved along with the foam is critical when using multiple layers of foam- stacking solid slabs takes away underneath access. Access or hollows must be carefully planned.- using foam without a plaster (or similar) topcoat must take some skill because the number who do so successfully is quite small.- a plaster topcoat brings the weight right back. Using Structolite or other light material for the topcoat becomes important. A rubbery (or no) topcoat is critical to making forest planting reasonable.- can't tell whether (until I try) carving foam is more difficult and/or time-consuming than forming plaster shell. Both are certainly messy. Vacuuming the foam scraps and pieces is probably easier than containing plaster drips in a finished room in the house.- foam is more expensive and more difficult to find than plywood in the Southwest.- very few have tried making foam "shell" scenery, rather than just carving stacked slabs. This would regain the hollow feature of plaster shell, but what are the drawbacks?
- using stacked foam slabs requires a different way of thinking compared to plaster shell. You remove foam until you arrive at the desired topography instead of adding.
- using a glue that is easily carved along with the foam is critical when using multiple layers of foam
- stacking solid slabs takes away underneath access. Access or hollows must be carefully planned.
- using foam without a plaster (or similar) topcoat must take some skill because the number who do so successfully is quite small.
- a plaster topcoat brings the weight right back. Using Structolite or other light material for the topcoat becomes important. A rubbery (or no) topcoat is critical to making forest planting reasonable.
- can't tell whether (until I try) carving foam is more difficult and/or time-consuming than forming plaster shell. Both are certainly messy. Vacuuming the foam scraps and pieces is probably easier than containing plaster drips in a finished room in the house.
- foam is more expensive and more difficult to find than plywood in the Southwest.
- very few have tried making foam "shell" scenery, rather than just carving stacked slabs. This would regain the hollow feature of plaster shell, but what are the drawbacks?
I welcome corrections, differing experiences, and other thoughts.
Fred W
MTennent wrote: If one is happy with painted foam instead of realism, their expectations are very different from mine. Good lord, who's talking about painted foam as completed scenery?!?
If one is happy with painted foam instead of realism, their expectations are very different from mine.
Good lord, who's talking about painted foam as completed scenery?!?
Actually, I haven't mentioned it yet, but I certainly DO advocate plasterless foam layouts, especially on layouts that don't need a lot of large rockwork. Foam withstands shock impact better than plaster, and it's an unnecessary added expense (both time and money) in most instances.
Most Hollwood Si-Fi sets these days are made from painted foam.
MTennent wrote: Umm, Joe. Would you care to go back and see which of us used the term bias first?
Midnight Railroader wrote: joe-daddy wrote: The issue here, IMHO is not L-Girder vs ?? but a solid, stable platform vs one that shakes, rattles and sags, shimmys or wiggles.Joe Is there someone here advocating shaking, sagging benchwork?
joe-daddy wrote: The issue here, IMHO is not L-Girder vs ?? but a solid, stable platform vs one that shakes, rattles and sags, shimmys or wiggles.Joe
The issue here, IMHO is not L-Girder vs ?? but a solid, stable platform vs one that shakes, rattles and sags, shimmys or wiggles.
If I didn't know better I'd say that Joe-Daddy was based on his original post that started this thread. Read the question posed at the end. "Is the emphasis on high quality benchwork necessary?"
JK,
Biased? Perhaps, I'd say I was already convinced excellent benchwork is essential to long term layout success. I have enjoyed the responses and discussion. Nor has my mind been swayed.
I think a Newb might find this discussion of value too.
Actually it was JKtrain who used the word based, in a sentence, which made little sense until I assumed it was a typo and he meant biased. I responded with the word Biased?
Thems the facts
Joe Daddy
joe-daddy wrote: orsonroy wrote: Ever drive a Model T? Yep, about 15,000 miles, owned it too, how about you?
orsonroy wrote: Ever drive a Model T?
Ever drive a Model T?
Yep, about 15,000 miles, owned it too, how about you?
Never owned one, but I have had a few dozen hours behind one. Just enough to make me want to own a stock Model A instead! Currently, the only "toy" vehicle I own is a '44 Willys in various stages of disassembly.
orsonroy wrote: Saying that you tried foam and it sucks because YOU didn't get it to work is like saying, "I've driven motorcycles for years; how come I got bucked off the first time I tried to ride a horse?"Also owned and ridden motocycles and horses. My horse never bucked me off. Too bad yours did.
orsonroy wrote: Saying that you tried foam and it sucks because YOU didn't get it to work is like saying, "I've driven motorcycles for years; how come I got bucked off the first time I tried to ride a horse?"
Saying that you tried foam and it sucks because YOU didn't get it to work is like saying, "I've driven motorcycles for years; how come I got bucked off the first time I tried to ride a horse?"
Also owned and ridden motocycles and horses. My horse never bucked me off. Too bad yours did.
I haven't owned a 'cycle in decades, but that's mostly because I never had a real use for one (living in the snow belt does that). Horses are another topic entirely, and one that I've pursued PROFESSIONALLY for better than 20 years. I don't train, show and ride professionally any more (there are easier ways to earn a living!), but I've probably got more time on horses than I do behind the wheel of vehicles.
And I've never been bucked off, even when breaking green stock. Not that they haven't tried...
How much hard shell plaster without foam have you done?
I've built two hardshell and L-girder layouts, one mixed-media layout (L-girder with foam scenery), two all-foam layouts, and about 30 foam and wood box frame Ntrak modules. I've also helped design and build five foam-based layouts, three of which are still standing.
Building with foam has a learning curve, as does everything else in life. It takes a while before you learn how to ride a horse WELL, as does it take a while to learn how to ride a motorcycle WELL. Anyone can jump onto a livery hack or a quad and "ride" it, or slap some foam down and "build" a layout. But to do anything WELL requires practice, research, possibly some apprenticeship, and most important of all, TIME.
joe-daddy wrote:I respect those who obtain excellent results from foam. That is about 25 -30% of the foam work I see, much of which has been carefully concealed under drywall mud, sculptamold and rock castings. In effect not foam at all.
There's nothing wrong with using a variety of approaches, products, and techniques for building terrain for your layout. I don't think that Ray nor Mike are saying or advocating that you MUST build EVERYTHING from foam in order to use it for your layout. So what if you choose to use Scultamold over foam vs. gauze and cardboard mesh. Both require different techniques but still can achieve similar results.
And please this is about foam and the results people get from it. Not me or my skills.
Joe, I think it's sorta difficult to separate the two because your own conclusions about foam are based upon both of them: Your own perceptions and your success and/or failures with working with the medium.
My personal results with foam are consistent with the majority of foam scenery I see. It is not good enough for me. If one is happy with painted foam instead of realism, their expectations are very different from mine. That should be ok for them and for me.
I'm sorry, that's an unfair statement. The "results" of the medium, therefore, are tied to the skills of the hobbist, NOT the medium itself. There is just as much potential for lack of "realism" using the tried-and-true techniques for scenery that you've mentioned previoiusly as there is using foam. I think the point that Ray is making is that you have to make sure that you are using the proper technique for the medium in order to achieve the optimal results of that medium.
Therefore your argument seems more based on the "majority" of foam scenery that's "not good enough". Well, what about the scenery that IS "good enough" - e.g. Pelle Soeborg - whom you sited earlier as an good example? If you could achieve those results using foam, would you argue that it's still an inferior medium to use?
Joe, if your preference is to use wood over foam, that's fine. Both have their advantages and their disadvantages. No one says you HAVE to use one or the other. You can enjoy the advantages that both bring to the layout/scenery building process. If foam doesn't float your boat and you can achieve the results that you desire from other methods and products, by all means go with what you are comfortable using.
I think that the sore point here is that - in your eyes - the "majority" of those who choose to use foam on their layout are destined somehow to have layouts that inferior and will never be "good enough" unless the tried-and-true methods are applied. That has nothing to do with the medium and all to do with the skills of the modeler.
Tom
https://tstage9.wixsite.com/nyc-modeling
Time...It marches on...without ever turning around to see if anyone is even keeping in step.
joe-daddy wrote: Which is most flamable, foam or plywood?
Which is most flamable, foam or plywood?
Actually, wood is more flammable. Foam SUPPORTS an open flame, but extinguished itself once the flame source has been removed. Wood, on the other hand, keeps on burning.
Looking through the MSDS safety sheets and research documents can be a daunting task, as they're mostly written in technobabble and sometimes contradict each other, but one thing does appear apparent: extruded foam, when laid horizontally (as on a layout) is not a significant source of fire danger, and has a better fire rating under that condition than does drywall.
Does foam feed a fire? Yes. Does foam emit deadly fumes? Yes. Is foam a deadly danger that should be kept away from all wires and potential flame sources at all costs? No; if that were true, then we'd be barred from having carpeting and couches in our houses, which are much larger fire hazards than extruded foam sheets. EVERYTHING except stone and steel is a potential fire hazard; take conventional precautions (no campfires on top of the layout) and foam is as safe as wood.
A few sources:
Is bare chicken-wire and plaster completed scenery? Gah.
You want to see foam scenery? Take a look at this May's MRR, the article starting on pg 46. Look at the picture on pg 48. The module won Best of Show at the 2006 NMRA convention in Philadelphia. It's foam construction.
It's not the material, it's the skill of the person.
Midnight Railroader wrote:One of each. My current one is shaping up with a combination of foam, screen wire, cardboard, plaster cloth, and paper-towel hardshell, depending on what I'm doing.
One of each.
My current one is shaping up with a combination of foam, screen wire, cardboard, plaster cloth, and paper-towel hardshell, depending on what I'm doing.
Laughing out loud! (a good thing by the way)
This post explains everything about you, you are an engineer, you are using what you believe is the best technique for the situation. Way impressed!
Best regards!
Midnight Railroader wrote: joe-daddy wrote:My personal results with foam are consistent with the majority of foam scenery I see. It is not good enough for me. If one is happy with painted foam instead of realism, their expectations are very different from mine. That should be ok for them and for me. I'd be willing to bet there are layouts using foam for scenery that you don't even realize were done that way.
joe-daddy wrote:My personal results with foam are consistent with the majority of foam scenery I see. It is not good enough for me. If one is happy with painted foam instead of realism, their expectations are very different from mine. That should be ok for them and for me.
I would hope so! Surely we could agree that ALL foam based scenery should not look like foam based scenery. It should look like scenery.
How many layouts have you built using plaster and hard shell without foam?
Your use of words like bias personalize an argument, focusing off the topic. Lets talk about foam, not your bias towards my conculsions, which is where the real bias is.
Umm, Joe. Would you care to go back and see which of us used the term bias first?
And throwing plaster cloth or sculptamold and plaster rock castings on foam? Well that about sums it up.
Sums up what? That I use a variety of established techniques to finish my scenery? Thank you. Bare plywood doesn't make good scenery and neither does bare foam. It's the foundation, not the end.
I use foam to create a giant "topo map" on my layout. That way I can actually see what the major land forms are going to look like, where buildings will fit, rough cut in rivers, etc. I can do this easily and quickly with foam, changing things that don't look right before committing them to permanency.
It also gives me something three dimensional to run through that's more fun until I can get to the actual scenery.
I went to your website, http://www.ironpeng.com I liked the cear pictures of the electronic signs, the best pictures of those products I've seen. Looked for pictures of your layout, must have missed the link.
Thank you. I thought I was going to change web servers last month and took down all the mrr stuff in preparation. Now it looks like I'm not going to change so I'll have to put it back up. In fact, I'll go do that right now...
Later...
OK here's two links, one to my old layout with the WS plaster how-to:
http://www.ironpeng.com/scenery/srr_Nscale.htm
The other to my new layout in a different house. I've done more work on it, but haven't posted any new pics for a while.
http://www.ironpeng.com/Nscale/nscalemain.html
orsonroy wrote:Ever drive a Model T?
(My son's motorcycle, I had a Suzy.) I did fall off my motorcycle a couple of times, once when I stopped and put my foot down and there was a hole where ground was suppose to be. . .
I must be accustomed to things working as they are represented.
Sharing my views is relevant, as I have done both foam and plaster hard shell. Hard shell has given me much better results, why should I not accurately represent it and the reasons why?
Midnight Railroader wrote: joe-daddy wrote: A bias is an unreasonable, unsupportable conclusion. From what I see, the overwhelming bias is for foam.By this statement, you're saying that everyone who uses it to good effect is, what, wrong?Just because you can't do something doesn't mean it can't be done, and done very well.
joe-daddy wrote: A bias is an unreasonable, unsupportable conclusion. From what I see, the overwhelming bias is for foam.
By this statement, you're saying that everyone who uses it to good effect is, what, wrong?
Just because you can't do something doesn't mean it can't be done, and done very well.
No, I respect those who obtain excellent results from foam. That is about 25 -30% of the foam work I see, much of which has been carefully concealed under drywall mud, sculptamold and rock castings. In effect not foam at all.
That I am willing to talk about it is well, sometimes I think I am like the fellow telling the king about his new clothes.
Best regards to all
joe-daddy wrote:Running 24 gauge wire through 2 inch foam is not trivial. The 24 gauge I have is just not stiff enough to push through a small hole without bucklilng and jaming. 20 is easy, 24 is hard. The main problem I find with foam is the ridiculous expectations that are set by those who hard sell it on the web and in the hobby shop. I have tried it, expected it to save time, lower cost and improve quality. It did none of those for me. My views and words about foam were formed by my own experiences with the material, not some intellectual endeavor. I built a yard on it, 18" x 96", you think I could slice that 2" think foam straight, ugly. The yard, mind you was noisy compared to the rest of the layout that was cork on wood. I used foam glue to attach the track (not latex caulk which I learned about later) and had one heck of a time getting it straight. That's where I got so frustrated trying to run 24 gauge feeders. Then I had to use duct tape to secure the wires and it was butt ugly when I got done. I scrapped that entire layout, salvaged every piece of track and board. I spent more time removing and cleaning up the track on the foam than the rest of the entire layout. All because foam don't hold no nail. On my first layout, I needed a small mountain so I decided to make one out of scrap foampieces. What a mess, carving foam sounds so easy, the results, were, well awful. I still have it to remind me of how hard it was. I covered it with plaster cloth to see if it would help. now it has a good surface, but the shape is, well poorly shaped foam. I tried using foam to do some neat little work on a part of my new layout. Looks like crap. More work I'll have to redo. So I thought, I am just not a good enough craftsman. So I started to look around; Denver has a lot of train shows and I go to most of them. There, I frequently get to see for myself the results others get from foam. And you would think that the work that gets to the train shows is the better work wouldn't you? To tell the truth, the results that I typically see are the kind I am diligently working to avoid. Over the winter, I saw this nifty idea of using foam and glue on paper to build tunnel portals. I spent about 4 weeks of time and a lot of money on foam, special glue and software to print rocks and make the portals. Ugly is a good word. I ripped them out and have replaced them with plaster portals, even made a mold and cast a couple of my own. Really nice, in comparison the foam mess. Trying to build with foam has left me been thoroughly disappointed, and seeing about the same quality at the train shows as I can do was equally discouraging. Then I received the first edition of the MRR video series and saw them using WS plaster cloth over cardboard. Looked so easy, I thought I'd try it. Then I tried some screen wire and hydrocal. Actally very easy and the results out of the chute much better than anything I have been able to do before. All I had ever heard or read about before was how messy plaster is, use foam instead. Foam has proved to be of no value to my modeling, and has resulted in unsatisfactory results every where I have used it. The pictures I see on the web, well, I try to not be personal, but I don't see very many successes. Your milage may vary, I tell it like I see it.
The main problem I find with foam is the ridiculous expectations that are set by those who hard sell it on the web and in the hobby shop. I have tried it, expected it to save time, lower cost and improve quality. It did none of those for me. My views and words about foam were formed by my own experiences with the material, not some intellectual endeavor.
I built a yard on it, 18" x 96", you think I could slice that 2" think foam straight, ugly. The yard, mind you was noisy compared to the rest of the layout that was cork on wood. I used foam glue to attach the track (not latex caulk which I learned about later) and had one heck of a time getting it straight. That's where I got so frustrated trying to run 24 gauge feeders. Then I had to use duct tape to secure the wires and it was butt ugly when I got done. I scrapped that entire layout, salvaged every piece of track and board. I spent more time removing and cleaning up the track on the foam than the rest of the entire layout. All because foam don't hold no nail.
On my first layout, I needed a small mountain so I decided to make one out of scrap foampieces. What a mess, carving foam sounds so easy, the results, were, well awful. I still have it to remind me of how hard it was. I covered it with plaster cloth to see if it would help. now it has a good surface, but the shape is, well poorly shaped foam. I tried using foam to do some neat little work on a part of my new layout. Looks like crap. More work I'll have to redo.
So I thought, I am just not a good enough craftsman. So I started to look around; Denver has a lot of train shows and I go to most of them. There, I frequently get to see for myself the results others get from foam. And you would think that the work that gets to the train shows is the better work wouldn't you? To tell the truth, the results that I typically see are the kind I am diligently working to avoid.
Over the winter, I saw this nifty idea of using foam and glue on paper to build tunnel portals. I spent about 4 weeks of time and a lot of money on foam, special glue and software to print rocks and make the portals. Ugly is a good word. I ripped them out and have replaced them with plaster portals, even made a mold and cast a couple of my own. Really nice, in comparison the foam mess.
Trying to build with foam has left me been thoroughly disappointed, and seeing about the same quality at the train shows as I can do was equally discouraging. Then I received the first edition of the MRR video series and saw them using WS plaster cloth over cardboard. Looked so easy, I thought I'd try it. Then I tried some screen wire and hydrocal. Actally very easy and the results out of the chute much better than anything I have been able to do before. All I had ever heard or read about before was how messy plaster is, use foam instead.
Foam has proved to be of no value to my modeling, and has resulted in unsatisfactory results every where I have used it. The pictures I see on the web, well, I try to not be personal, but I don't see very many successes. Your milage may vary, I tell it like I see it.
Using foam on a layout uses a different skills set and set of techniques than does using more traditional wood and hardshell. It sounds like you didn't give the material enough of an opportunity to show it's potential, and dove into using it before fuly researching how to use it properly.
Ever drive a Model T? All the controls are in different places as compared to modern cars, but they DO drive and work well (remember, the Model T revolutionized driving). The same can be said of foam: that you have to completely relearn what you know to use it effectively. How long did it take you to learn how to use a hammer, saw, drill or level? Learning how to use woodworking tools PROPERLY takes YEARS of use and learning techniques; it's no different than working with foam in that regard.
joe-daddy wrote: orsonroy wrote: And the quotes of mine that you used above illustrate the point that you have a deep bias against foam, as does your comment above. Foam does NOT serve as "poor benchwork", except in your own precdonceive notions. Is foam ALWAYS the best option? Definitely not, as in the case of the O scaler who needs to handlay. But 90% of the hobby aren't handlaying O scalers, they're regular people who model in HO and N scale, sizes that generally don't need the support involved with the larger scales.Please, justify your assertion that neither HO nor N scale require well supported benchwork. Joe Daddy
orsonroy wrote: And the quotes of mine that you used above illustrate the point that you have a deep bias against foam, as does your comment above. Foam does NOT serve as "poor benchwork", except in your own precdonceive notions. Is foam ALWAYS the best option? Definitely not, as in the case of the O scaler who needs to handlay. But 90% of the hobby aren't handlaying O scalers, they're regular people who model in HO and N scale, sizes that generally don't need the support involved with the larger scales.
And the quotes of mine that you used above illustrate the point that you have a deep bias against foam, as does your comment above. Foam does NOT serve as "poor benchwork", except in your own precdonceive notions. Is foam ALWAYS the best option? Definitely not, as in the case of the O scaler who needs to handlay. But 90% of the hobby aren't handlaying O scalers, they're regular people who model in HO and N scale, sizes that generally don't need the support involved with the larger scales.
Please, justify your assertion that neither HO nor N scale require well supported benchwork.
When have I said that building a model railroad requires shoddy benchwork? What I HAVE said is that benchwork doesn't need to be OVERbuilt to be successful.
Building minimalist, foam-based benchwork doesn't make it "not wel supported". Steel shelf brackets have loading ratings of 300 pounds. Drywall screws have shear strength ratings in excess of 1000 pounds. 2" foam has a crush rating of 100 pounds. Nothing any HO or N scaler will run will weigh anywhere NEAR these limiting ratings.
Moreover, foam is dimensionally stable. While it MAY sag if improperly supported, it will NOT swell or contract with atmospheric changes. Wood does change dimension, sometimes dramatically. Properly supporting 2" foam sheets only involves a bracket every 16", which is coincidentally the same spacing of the studs in the walls that are holding most foam layouts up.
Foam definitely IS a mature, successful and viable layout AND scenery base construction technique. Do a search in MR for articles by Bill Darnaby. His Maumee Route layout is a 10 scale mile long linear shelf layout that is even more mimimally built than mine. His preferred construction technique is 2" foam supported by 1x3 wood shelf brackets, with NO underlaying plywood. In the 10+ years that the benchwork has been up, he's experienced NO sagging, warping, major breaks or other problems with the foam. Bil runs op sessions every weekend in the fall and winter, and all of his trains are run behind large brass steam. His layout, as shown by the hundreds of photos MR has published, is among the most realistically sceniced anywhere. There are many other modelers out there who DO successfully use foam to this high degree.
Ever wonder WHY foam is being used successfully by so many modelers? Perhaps it's because it DOES work?
Joe Daddy wrote: "A bias is an unreasonable, unsupportable conclusion. "
"A bias is an unreasonable, unsupportable conclusion. "
MTennent wrote:In a word, no. Most biases are entirely supported by experience and are quite reasonable. I'm biased towards Guiness Stout over Bud Light. I'm biased towards not speeding when I drive. I'm biased towards using foam for scenery, but have no problems with other techniques that folks have sucessfully used and certainly don't go around criticizing them.
I'm biased towards using foam for scenery, but have no problems with other techniques that folks have sucessfully used and certainly don't go around criticizing them.
Mike
Look up the meaning of bias, you'll find it means what I said it is. An unfair, unreasonable conclusion intended to misrepresent, based upon slanted or tainted facts.
My results with foam were typical and predictable based upon most the results I see from others. I want better quality and realism on my layout that I was able to get with foam product. There are alternative approaches that produce superior results. Interestingly, those approaches are among the very oldest and most proven model railroading techniques out there. To me, using a foam centric scenery approach is akin to using aluminum wiring in a house; sounded good, the results were less than satisfying and ultimately cost many people thousands of hard earned dollars.
That the masses have been deluded into buying foam as the quickest, cheapest and best way to do scenery is sad. Perhaps 30% of the foam based scenery looks like scenery, the majority I see, with my own 20-20's is painted foam, not scenery, effective at 50 feet, subjective, yes, but I use the same scale on my self. For example, you can paint a 57 Chevy with brush, latex paint and spackling and it will look great at 100 feet, but you'll have people ridiculing your work up close, and behind your back.
Few people have results like Pele with Foam. That is why he is published, great work.
And throwing plaster cloth or sculptamold and plaster rock castings on foam? Well that about sums it up. Using aluminum window screen, chicken wire, cardboard srips, crumpled newspapers, are all alternative techniques that, from my experience produce quicker and more satisfying results than what I have obtained using foam. Viewing the results in train shows and on the web prove to me that my experience was not unique. There are a lot of 50 or 75 foot foam layouts out there.
el-capitan wrote: orsonroy wrote:Is foam ALWAYS the best option? Definitely not, as in the case of the O scaler who needs to handlay. But 90% of the hobby aren't handlaying O scalers, they're regular people ....Are you implying that I am irregular?
orsonroy wrote:Is foam ALWAYS the best option? Definitely not, as in the case of the O scaler who needs to handlay. But 90% of the hobby aren't handlaying O scalers, they're regular people ....
Is foam ALWAYS the best option? Definitely not, as in the case of the O scaler who needs to handlay. But 90% of the hobby aren't handlaying O scalers, they're regular people ....
Are you implying that I am irregular?
Not at all; Im calling you EXCEPTIONAL . There aren't many these days who build O scale basement empires. I'm actually a big fan of O scale, and if I could get what I needed in O two rail (USRA light Mikes and detail parts, mostly) I'd seriously think about switching scales. Of course, I'd need a bigger basement while I was at it!
This was my first attempt at benchwork and falls in the category of wasted money .
Thanks to many inputs from the many forum members here, and especially Mr. Don Z, I ended up with something more like this. I can admire and respect anyone who, given any task be it benchwork, track work, scenry or any other aspect of this great hobby, takes the time and effort to do the very best job possible. I've learned a lot.
Regards,