With all the talk of foam over mdf/plywood/ 1x3’s, or guys using spline roadbed, does anyone still use the cookie cutter method that was introduced mid sixties and almost every MR project railroad was built with it through the 70’s. You know homosote over plywood or mdf and using hardshell scenery? I’'m thinking that way you can have a high or low profile without cutting and still use some foam for flatter areas(towns and industrial areas.Or does it seem like to much work?Any pros or cons?
I used a lot of cookie cutter construction. I find it the easiest to get lots of elevation changes. I got all the track in and running. For scenery I used plaster cloth over newspaper and foam. Much of the foam is removible and with the open fram work it is easy. The foam mountains are hollow as well and sit on stilts that sit on the framework. That way I can do the carving and scenicing on the bench and sit them in place when finished. This also alows me to get into the canyon for further work. I am too impatient to not have any scenery until it all is done. The high falls and curved trestle may be a year away from completion.
I use hardshell, wire screen tweeked to the contour I want, then spray an adheasive spray on the back of the screen, staple and or hot glue in place, brush on some soupy mud (like a milkshake) and brush on. Its not as messy as it sounds, is a cheep way to go, also use a lot of Bragadons geodesic scenery for the rocky areas.
I too remember cookie cutter and all the jig saw blades I needed to replace!!! My current thought is to use no wood in the benchwork, I work on a Air Force base that is in the course of being remodeled, I have several thousand feet of 2x2 idustrial shelving L channel torn out from a condemmed hanger, purchased for the going scrap rate… No doubt some form of spline roadbed will have to be designed ( my prefered method for the last twenty years) to work with the heavy guage steel, but I will have the ability to work elevation changes as I need… Dave
Have been using a combination depending on the use of that particular area of the layout.
I still use the cookie cutter style. I like it best. Just layout your plywood, draw out your track runs and cut away. Then raise or lower your track bed using 1X4’s as you see fit. Its fast and easy. I then use foam for the scenery. Its easy to cut (with a hot wire) and glue into place.
I use homasote over plywood for the yard area’s, and then homabed or cork over the raised plwood portions.
Cookie cutter for me too! As a matter of fact I spent 5 hours working on my layout this past Sunday and installed my first section of cookie cutter plywood on the main line run, it is a 2% grade. You can see updated photos of the layout construction on my Piedmont link in my signature area below.
That is what is used for my entire layout. Its my favorite way to do my layout. With the current materials I have, I have made three different layouts from the same pieces of stuff.
Heres a pic of my cookie cutting
http://i63.photobucket.com/albums/h122/jwey71/Picture002.jpg
http://i63.photobucket.com/albums/h122/jwey71/Picture001-1.jpg
What mine looks like after a year.
I have laid track on all this but you get the idea. I like this method as it seems very fexible.
When building with Westcott-pure L girder framework, the only practical options on a pike with heavy grades and multiple levels are cookie-cutter and spline. Since I am no threat to a serious woodworker and most of my roadbed supports multiple tracks, cookie cut roadbed is my method of choice.
I don’t claim that it is best for everyone, but it is the best for my skills and needs.
Chuck
I use a combination of cookie-cutter plywood and foam. My track is primarily on plywood, with scenery on foam. The transition from level to grade is far easier to construct with cookie-cutter ply; the commercial risers gave me problems at the very top and bottom of grades.
Hello: I guess that I’m probably the only one who doesn’t know but I have to ask: What is the “cookie cutter method” that is being talked about? Many thanks.
The cookie cutter method of sub roadbed is taking a piece of your preferred material, typically plywood, making your track plan markings on the top, and then cutting out the shapes of the track plan from the sub-roadbed material. Typically the cutouts are 3" wide for HO single track, or 1 1/2" wide for N single track or 6" wide for HO double track, 3" for double N scale track. Also, if areas near the track plan are to have structures you would want to keep those areas included as well. These cut outs or “cookie cutter” pieces are then attached to the benchwork joists and/or risers per the layout plan.
I used the cookie cutter on L girder construction.
Want a river? Just cut the ply where you want it and lower it to river bottom height.
It’s that simple. It’s great if you want scenery at diferent levels.
[:D]
THANK YOU. I learn something every day!
Greetings,
I have mistakes on my benchwork for my new N scale layout. So, I am taking it apart and going back to the drawing board. I was looking in some old layout books when Cookie Cutter became easy because of the electric saber saw. This started me thinking about my layout.
I had started the build of the lower deck with a spline subroad bed and the upper deck was to be just foam but I am now thinking that the cookie cutter set up would be better for the whole thing. What would be the best material and thickness for this construction? I know good plywood will be strong but I know people complain that it is noisy.
If there are any good sites for construction details or tricks they would be good to know too.
Suggestions? Comments?
I have a couple of cookie cutters in the works, very small layouts. I am surprised how structurally stout they are. As far as using the foam with them, I am using extruded and “Great Stuff” spray foam together to make transitions in terrain. I found out that not only does Great Stuff not melt the foam, but it provides a super glue type bond. It’s a little tricky because it expands so much. I need to be very careful around the risers to not bended them upwards with excess foam directly under. I am still learning the process, but so far I’m pleased with the construction and especially the weight.
For the record, I laid the cork roadbed down with contact cement, which went lightning quick, but I lost some time having to predrill holes for fastening the track, as the spikes were not easy to set in the plywood.
I have built a series of small cookie cutter layouts in HO and O, none bigger than 4x8 ft. My preferred materials are 1/2" plywood with Homasote on top for roadbed. I used joists at 16-18" intervals with no sag problems.
The only unexpected hurdle I ran into was grades (about 4%) on my 18" radius curves. At first, I didn’t install enough risers so the plywood did not twist. Going counter-clock-wise, I had negative superelevation for the first half of the 180 degree curve, level at the 90 degree point, and positive superelevation at the top half of the grade. The cure was to install more risers and cleats, forcing the necessary twist into the plwood where there were grades on curves. I don’t think generating this twist would be possible with 3/4" plywood.
I plan on trying cookie-cuttered 1/4" plywood with 1" foam laminated on top, with Homasote for the roadbed on my pending shelf layout. Supports will be every 16" (closer in critical places). Reason for the change is weight reduction. I’m not sure how the ply-foam laminate will bend in comparison to the 1/2" plywood; some experimentation on my part will be needed.
One of the flaws (to me) of stacked foam construction is lack of accessibility to the underside of the layout. The cookie cutter/hard shell scenery yielded open access to everything from underneath. This includes wiring, switch machines and/or turnout linkages, under-the-track uncoupling ramps, and of course, hidden track. With stacked foam, you must strategically plan lift-off scenery sections or fascia holes for access to hidden track.
To get around this issue on my shelf layout, I plan to use a thin “foam shell” of 1/4" or 1/2" foam, rather than horizontal stacks. Another concept needing testing.
my thoughts, your choices
Fred W
I had the same problem. My solution was to super elevate the lower portion with double shims, and it solved the problem just fine.