Fire and the Consequences of using Styrofoam

I am a fairly regular viewer of Ken Patterson's YouTube channel "What's Neat". While I tend to gloss over some of the segments of each broadcast, I usually pay attention to any discussion concerning scenic techniques that Ken includes.

However, one of Ken's You Tube clips in late March came as a bit of surprise when he announced that there had been a fire on his layout ( Description of fire and immediate aftermath ). Ken had gone upstairs to make cup of coffee with locomotive still operating on his layout. The locomotive shorted on a point and after a short time the short turned into a fire. The fire burnt vigorously until Ken returned and was able to extinguish it. By then, a fair amount of damage had been done. 

Like me, Ken has used foam products extensively to create his land forms as well as a base upon which the track had been laid. This foam ignited quickly creating a thick black smoke which spread throughout much of his home. It was this aspect of the incident that has caused me to reflect on the potential for a similar situation at Philip's Creek. 

I have used styrofoam on Philip's Creek since its inception in 1996. Initially, with the prospect of future moves, the primary motivation was weight saving but surprisingly, it proved to robust, easy to create landforms, albeit very messy, and very stable in various climatic conditions. As the prospect of frequent moves receded, the other factors assumed a greater significance and I have continued to use it as the primary construction medium for the layout. 

Even with Ken's recent experience in mind, after 30 years of layout construction, I have no desire to undertake the extensive rebuild that would be required to remove the styrofoam from the layout. So I need to look at ways to mitigate the potential fire risk. For me, this comes down to four elements, operating the layout, circuit breakers, fire detection and fire suppression. 

There is always a temptation to duck away from the layout while a train is running to attend to something, whether that be to grab a cup of coffee, as Ken did, or answer a call of nature. As Philip's Creek is a point to point layout, it's impossible to absent oneself for too long otherwise there would be a cataclysmic crash in one of the staging yards which is almost guaranteed to create a short circuit and the situation that Ken encountered. However, the helix does offer a period of two to three minutes, where one duck out. It is a temptation that must be resisted. Note to self:  Leave the garage - power off!!

Like Ken, I have not installed any circuit breakers on Philip's Creek and it is a task that I need to address. I should probably install three one of each on the bus wires heading to the lower and upper level and helix. However, there seem to be several options and I need to do a bit more research. It's on the 'to do' list.

The third lesson relates to smoke detection. I already have one detector in the garage but I'm contemplating whether a second one might be of use. The current detector sits on the other side of the garage and conceivably, a fire could start to take hold before it is activated. Another, in closer proximity to the layout, may be appropriate.

The ability to suppress the fire quickly is the final factor to consider. Ken was able to put his fire out quickly using a hand held extinguisher.  Although the fire brigade had been called, it was only required to check that the fire had been completely extinguished. With that experience in mind, I have now purchased and installed two 2.5 kg powder extinguishers. Hopefully, they will never be required!

 

 

With all this going on, to some extent, it has overshadowed the practical completion (never completely finished) of the Mount Windeatt refurbishment. A few photos below show the module as it now is.

 

  

 

 

What Happens When One Gets Some Spare Time

One makes more mess!!

I have always said that there are two constant threats to our hobby, time and space. Other challenges may come and go depending on an individual's personal circumstance but insufficient time and limits to space seem to be an ongoing issue for all modellers. However, unexpectedly, over the last two months,  the corona virus has reduced the impact of the time constraint.  Like many others, my plans for the next few months have been disrupted. We had expected to be in another part of the world at this time but cancelled plans meant that there is a bit more time to do things on Philip's Creek. The upgrading of the repair pool ( Create a Repair Pool ) was a simple job quickly completed, and the mind soon turned to more substantial projects.

The need to downsize the family home continues to drive long term planning and the prospect of having to translate Philip's Creek into a multilevel layout has dominated my thinking over the past few months. Access to the lower level tracks for cleaning and maintenance has lead me to review any higher topographical features that could impede that access, which brings me to the sidings in the first photo.

In Philip's Creek's original and shorter oval form, the siding was actually the main line leading to the staging area. The high features on either side to the track were intended to conceal the transition between the sceniced areas and the staging area. I continue to use this device elsewhere but as the layout was extended, it was no longer needed here. The original mainline became a siding, initially for the coalmine and then the very basic locomotive facilities shown in the photo. The justification for a significant cutting was gone and the major cutting here looked a bit artificial. However, there were other things to do and this job slipped to the bottom of the pile. Gradually, that pile has diminished and the time has come to rectify that artificiality.

So out came the excavation tools to get stuck into more terraforming! Well sort of. My usual tools for this activity are a long bladed knife and the rasp shaping tool. However, for the 'bulk earthworks' contemplated, I found it easier to remove one or two layers at a time using a cross cut saw, basically the reverse process to the way the styrofoam was installed initially. Once the approximate level was achieved the final shaping with the usual tools came into play.

To finish the scenery, I'll use similar processes as those I detailed in my 2014 post
( Terra Forming ) but even now, the area has been opened up considerably as these 'before and after' photos show.

And when the final scenicing is done -  what's next?

Terraforming aka "making a mess"

Just before Christmas, I posted a short summary of the first significant expansion of Philip's Creek for about eight years (http://philipscreek.blogspot.com.au/2013/12/moving-forward-at-last.html). Since then, the track has been laid and, over the past few weeks, I have started to work on the terrain adjacent to the line.

As it has been quite a while since I last did some serious landscaping, it was time to relearn some old techniques and try a few new ones. However, one thing that remains constant is the use of Styrofoam both as a base for the track and a landscaping medium. I have used it successfully for every module of Philip's Creek. It has proved to be stable, lightweight, and, when managed properly, has stood the test of numerous moves without any damage. In my experience to date, there are only two things to be wary of when using Styrofoam, any exposure to petrochemical products which can see your creation disappear before one's eyes, and the mess as the final landform is created. Of these, the first can easily be avoided or managed, the second cannot.

My general approach to building the landforms is fairly conventional, build up layers of Styrofoam, carve them to a final level, apply some form of coating to the Styrofoam and then add various scatter material to finish. The adjacent photo provides an overview of the progress to date.

I mentioned the impossibility to avoid making a mess as the Styrofoam is shaped. My objective has been to contain this mess to the immediate area of the construction and avoid, like the plague, any activity that sees the Styrofoam pellets migrating into the house and the consequent wrath of  'higher authorities'. At one stage, I had two battery power vacuum cleaners working in tandem, with a normal vacuum cleaner as backup.

In shaping the Styrofoam, I have preferred to shave it with a large knife rather than hot wire. I then used the hand rasp shown the photo to achieve the final shape. While it gives a great outcome, it is the tool that creates the greatest mess and requires regular cleaning.

Previously once the shape had been finalised, I either coated it with a coat of plaster or paper towels impregnated with plaster. However, over time, I found instances of flaking or lamination. This time, I decided to try absorbent wipes sprayed with a 50/50 mix of PVA and water and allowed to cure. They are very inexpensive, a pack of 10 cost about $1 from Woolworths. To date, the results have been very positive and the wipes, after the glue has dried, provide a firm hard shell.



I use a mix of earth coloured tile grouts to provide the basic ground cover. This was sprinkled onto good coating of the PVA/water mix and allowed to set. A second coating of the PVA/water was applied just to make sure everything was glued down. One of the unexpected benefits of this was that it highlighted low points in the creek line. The still drying glue can be seen as the white shape at the rear of the adjacent photo. These will become stagnant ponds in an otherwise dry creek line. The preliminary painting for these started, and since the photo was taken, a couple of layers of clear vanish have been added. This was time to be cautious about the interplay between Styrofoam and mineral based paints. Fortunately, no adverse effects have been noted and I suspect that the earlier work has provided an effective seal.

 However, there is still a lot more landscaping to do and the other new technique for me is the use of static grass. I have recently invested in an applicator together with a few different coloured grasses. There appears to be a lot of instructional material available on You Tube and other places but there is no replacement for personal experience, so a few more lessons to learn.

Evolution or a Lack of Planning?

One of the non railway projects that I have been undertaking over the past few weeks  is to digitise a number of old family VHS from the mid 90s. It was certainly a trip down memory lane, and one of the segments that I uncovered was some video that I had taken of Philip's Creek in its earliest iteration in our garage in Missouri.

It highlighted how much Philip's Creek has evolved since 1996 reflecting changes in space availability and operations. For example, when the original video was taken, Philip's Creek was a continuous layout; it is now a point of point operation. Then, it occupied a space of 3.6m x 1.8m. Now it is 1.8m longer and is now a 'L+' shape. It has also moved from the original DC control to DCC.

However, some things haven't changed. The modular arrangement has withstood the test of time and  many moves. The concept of a complete styrofoam base has made it light enough to move, but has also proved to be very stable. The prototype and time era has not changed although as I mentioned a while ago, an element of elasticity has crept into the time period.

To illustrate the changes, I have attached three photos, all of which show the same location on the layout but each separated by about 8 to 9 years. The first photo shows one section of the layout as it was originally constructed at the end of 1996 as part of the continuous track plan. The second photo shows the same area as it was around 2005. The section of through track had now become the coal mine siding. Finally, the third photo show it in its current iteration as a locomotive siding.  

Philip's Creek 1996

Philip's Creek 2013

Philip's Creek 2005

While some changes have been possible because of extra space, some have been the result of changes in the way the layout is operated.  I would like to say that these reflect an evolution of my modelling but when I look at the detailed planning done by others, combined with the time they commit to get it right, I'm not so sure. I know my own eagerness to get something running, and the reality is probably more a lack of planning, or perhaps, a lack of adherence to the plan on my part. The only thing I can say in my own defence is the old cliché about 'change being a constant' on the prototype and therefore, I am modelling that change - well at least, that's my story and I'm sticking to it!