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.
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)
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
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!
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
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
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.
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.
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
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.
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."
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.
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.
The real reason to use cork is you can sand it, not so important on flat stuff but on transition on inclines, very.
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 -- I have been trying to get in touch with Steve Cox for months through his presumably now defunct Cacasde email and phone number. I opted for he to complete my order but I cannot get a respone now for several months. Does anyone have current contact infor him? -- Thanks much. -- Bob R
New member here, first time poster (I've always wanted to say that). I'm involved in other forums (non-railroad-oriented), but none in this industry. I decided to join, in particular because of this thread, which I happen to come upon rather randomly when doing a search for Homabed. I was very saddened to see that Cascade closed up, as I was, along with many others, looking forward to using the product when I started my layout (a retirement endeavor in the forthcoming future).
Lamenting aside, I'm looking for more information into the viability of picking up the torch and perhaps making a run of a product that would be very similar to the Homabed. I currently have two pallets of the Homasote at my disposal and the facilities to process it. If my calculations are correct, that's enough to make around 15,000 lf of roadbed in HO, not counting TO's. That's certainly more than I would need. I would need a sample and any information that anyone would care to share with me. I currently and certainly do not have all of the answers, but possibly an opportunity to help further not just my own plans, but others, as well.
If I'm stepping over the bounds of the forum rules, then please let the Moderators contact me. I'm not exactly trying to sell anything at this point, but certainly trying to give folks a new prospect of obtaining a product that is no longer available.
Russell Chilton
cwhomaroad.com
cwhomaroad@gmail.com
Hi, RL. Forum admin here. While it's OK to discuss the viability and logistics of starting such an endeavor, by the time you get to actually forming a company and offering product, that will be the time to take it off the Forums.
, by the way.
--Steven Otte, Model Railroader senior associate editorsotte@kalmbach.com
rrinkerI 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
My experience is similar with NittanyLion. I've used Homasote now on 3 previous layouts (one in Indiana, one in New York state, one in my previous house and now on my current (under construction layout - below).
Whatever Randy was using "It does NOT hold spike, or nails, or anything" must have been a different material than what I bought and used on those 3 previous layouts and the current one.
I've used Homabed too and it worked similar to the sheet Homasote I bought at some big box hardware stores.
The track laid recently in the staging yard photo's above is held firmly in place using Atlas track nails and ME medium spikes. In some cases I put spikes or track nails on the sides of ties. Some of this is Homasote I recovered from the last layout and gave it a new coat of paint and some was purchased new at Home Depot in my area.
Rio Grande. The Action Road - Focus 1977-1983
I don't understand Randy's experiance either.
I have used homasote as a base for handlayed track, and for flex track since the 70's. Both as milled roadbed and as whole sheets for yards, etc.
I have nailed track and glued track to it, it holds VERY well with nails.
On my last layout I installed the Homabed/Cascade roadbed with a brad nailer, worked great. Track was glued with adhesive caulk (not painters caulk), turnouts were nailed, not caulked.
Hopefully someone will bring this product back to market.
I have decided on using Peco's long thin track pins going into Homasote on my next layout. Experiments with this had very good results. Homasote held the track pins well.
-Kevin
Living the dream.
Russell:
Email sent.
SeeYou190 I have decided on using Peco's long thin track pins going into Homasote on my next layout. Experiments with this had very good results. Homasote held the track pins well. -Kevin
I've only ever used Atlas track nails or MicroEngineering medium spikes.
The ME spikes tend to work very nicely on Shinohara and Walthers track which has spike holds on the outsides of the ties. Peco has a few holes molded in like that too on the points end of the turnout.
Are Peco's long thin track pins used in a similar manner as the Atlas track nails?
tin can-
Emailed you back. Thanks for the response.
Russell
I would buy milled Homasote roadbed.
Steve you need to think Big Picture, you could sell it at www.kalmbachhobbystore.com along with Midwest Cork and Woodland Scenics roadbed and everyone would be happy.
Henry
COB Potomac & Northern
Shenandoah Valley
Bayfield Transfer Railway I would buy milled Homasote roadbed.
That is one of the factors to determine. That is, if there is still a need or enough demand for the product. I know I want to utilize milled homasote when the time comes, so I am going to make X amount, regardless. I also don't want to sit on 10,000 LF if it only sits on the shelf and no one wants it.
Here is a question for everyone: I remember that Cascade had two different slopes available for at least HO and N. One was 45-degrees and the other 30-degrees. Was this a choice of Era, Location, Specific Prototype or something else? Are both options still needed or was there one slope that was vastly used over the other?
[quote user="BigDaddy"]
Based on every rail standard book I've ever looked at, the correct ballast slope is 22 to 30 degrees.I don't know where the 45 degree slope came from; I suspect it was easy to do.Both the CNW Historical Society and the Soo Line Historical Society sell copies of the standards books that include information on roadbed and subroadbed.
Bayfield Transfer RailwayBased on every rail standard book I've ever looked at, the correct ballast slope is 22 to 30 degrees. I don't know where the 45 degree slope came from; I suspect it was easy to do.Both the CNW Historical Society and the Soo Line Historical Society sell copies of the standards books that include information on roadbed and subroadbed.
I don't know where the 45 degree slope came from; I suspect it was easy to do.Both the CNW Historical Society and the Soo Line Historical Society sell copies of the standards books that include information on roadbed and subroadbed.
I always assumed the 45 degrees was either to minimize waste in making straight pieces or to match the profile of the straight pieces so cut.