The first layout I built was a flat one, the second one was a cookie cutter plywood. I have the cork pinned on this current layout when I saw some Woodland Scenic riser sets at my local hobby store.
Has anyone used this stuff, and was it better/easier than other methods?
The WS riser sets work very well they are easy to use but do require some extra steps compared to cookie cutter construction. The risers are easier to install and get in
The Woodland Scenic risers certainly have their place, I’ve used them on a couple of occasions while building layouts at the Club, but I do prefer the cookie cutter method using risers for the following reasons.
I am not limited to the grade set by the Woodland Scenic risers.
I can alter the grade through its run, if required.
I find that I can better transition into and out of the grade.
I can make a grade as long or as short as I require.
I am a cheapskate.
¼ [2c] Cheers, the Bear.[:)]
JaBear is certainly correct with his comments. On this forum, as with most others, if you pose a question to five folks you will probably get seven opinions [:)]
Charlie - Northern Colorado
And that is a real issue. The thing about the Woodland Scenics risers – let’s assume 2% grade – is that you go from dead flat to that 2% grade. That is a vertical lurch or can be. Cookie cutter presumably w/plywood creates its own natural vertical transition or easement curve, because it doesn’t bend like say sheet metal can bend.
Now I DO use the WS risers but I usually find I need some modest shims before the WS riser starts to, um, rise, to avoid that lurching moment. It isn’t a problem, it is just something that needs to be thought about at an early stage, rather than to try retro-fit something later when the regrets come to the fore.
Dave Nelson
They are the only thing I used but their instructions are not the greatest. If you strech them out you can get other inclines than just those listed. I f you top it with cork roadbed, you can steach out the bottom to get a smoother transition and on the top you can trim both the foam and the cork to get a good transition there, I used a rasp and a sander on my top transition on the cork to get a very smooth and even and gradual transition.
While I have helped a friend build a layout, I was surprised that he had used the WS risers, as the incline seemed rather steep to me.
However, the layout has morphed into a photo layout, rather than an operational one, and since he’s enjoying sharing his staged photos, I’d consider the WS risers good enough.
For my own layout, most of the track roadbed, both straight and curved, is on risers. although when I added the partial upper level (with a lot of risers to get there) all of that portion of the layout is on plywood, usually including cork roadbed, although there are several areas of staging tracks that are directly atop plywood…no roadbed and no ballast, as they’re considered to be “elsewhere”.
Here’s the start (at far left) of the climb from the sorta-mid-level…
…I can’t imagine the cost if I had to use the WS risers for this 45’ long, and 17" height change.
Wayne
me… big cheapskate too, which is why I use card stock buildings, with a little enhancement to make them look better!
WS is definitely expensive.
I’ve never used the WS risers - they’re too expensive to even consider, and plywood gives you natural vertical curves as you install risers.
I di use some WS static grass and a few of their other scenery items, but their Rolls Royce prices for Chevrolet (and in some cases Model T) products make them a last-resort supplier for me.
[quote user=“DonRicardo”]
The first layout I built was a flat one, the second one was a cookie cutter plywood. I have the cork pinned on this current layout when I saw some Woodland Scenic riser sets at my local hobby store.
Has anyone used this stuff, and was it better/easier than other methods?
The layout I am building now is out of the old Atlas “Nine N Scale Railroad"s, circa 2011, N-17 “Scenic and Relaxed”, modified to a certain extent. The original calls for a 36"x72” platform, which to my thinking is too small. I originally thought about an 40"x88" platform, but took that one off the boards last week and am now using a 48"x96" platform.
This gives me a little more running room, and gets away from those tight radii, My radii are now 19", 17" and 15". Since I am going to be running GP-40s (2) and a RS-3 (1), with Atlas 60’ passenger cars and 50’ box cars, this should be fine.
The setting is New Hamshire, the main line is B&M, with a Maine Central switcher. I like this plan, with alterations of course, because the added room give the luxury of adding the Saco River, better mountains and a trestle along the mountains on the way to Crawford Notch.
Thes old Atlas plans are geared to selling turnouts and track. I am going to combine cookie cutter and also try the WS risers to see how those work out.
Reducing the number ot turnoute and using card stockbuildings, modified for a little better realism, cuts down the costs quite a bit.
Flex track all the way!
Plywood is very expencive compared to foam.
One huge advantage to the WS risers is that they keep you from fudging on the 2% grade. That can save headaches.
-Kevin
You can get a lot of miles of roadbed out of a sheet of hardboard cut into 1" strips. But you need a saw to cut them.
I’ve used both methods. Cookie cutter would be cheaper but WS risers are definitely easier. They come in 2, 3, and 4% grades and are flexible enough to bend to any curve.