Woodland Scenic’s roadbed is too wide.
For the past year I’ve been staring at the rails on the NES, and now the WGR, trying to figure out why the track seems so crude and toy like. Originally I presumed it was because of rail size – having used code 80 on the NES. I changed rail for the WGR and the code 55 rail does make a difference, however the track still seemed to stick out like a sore thumb.
It wasn’t until I starting asking others for their opinion that someone finally pulled out a ruler and rendered a verdict. Woodland Scenic’s roadbed is between 2 and 4 scale feet too wide!
Next time you are near a level crossing, take a look at the rail, ties and roadbed and what you’ll likely notice is that the ballast falls away on a 2:1 slope just after the edge of the ties. If you compare that to the WS offering, it becomes apparent that the roadbed makes for a better 2 lane highway then track bed.
I want to make it very clear that I’m NOT trying to get too hung up on frivolous details. The WGR is not a mainline railroad, so the track should look less maintained. The same was true of the NES, however despite my best efforts, the track looked heavily traveled – due in part to the over sized roadbed.
I decided to trim the roadbed, drawing a large utility knife along the edge of the ties on a slight angle. I wasn’t too worried about getting the angle ‘just right’ as I assumed that the ballast would fall naturally and create the appropriate grading.
I trimmed a few inches of roadbed on one of the siding and added some ballast. I’m happy with the result. What do you think? Worth the effort?
[poll:1]
0 thoughts on “A Closer Look at Woodland Scenic’s Roadbed”
Mike G says:
I think it’s probably up to each person as to what they think is best but as you seem to have the same eye for insignificant details as I do, I completely agree. I have always used Midwest cork roadbed and never found that it was too wide.
Charles says:
It does give one pause to wonder why WS made the roadbed so wide, I just have not reached that point yet…
Charles
Jean says:
I liked the result of a narrow roadbed.
Kashirigi says:
I’ve noticed that roadbed is very wide, too. It’s much wider than the integrated roadbed on Unitrack, and because I have a mixed layout, I had to trim it as well.
Cutting it bevelled was not particularly easy, but it’s possible if you have a sharp enough knife.
WillyStylez says:
I personally like the narow profile of the trimmed roadbed. the mainlines around my neightborhood seem to have that more narros profile, and the cork I am using has a little too much width for my liking. I think I am going to use this as a tip for my cork that I am in the process of laying down. thanks fo the tip!
Steve says:
I think you hit the nail on the head when you narrowed the road bed but I also think that the road bed is too high for my liking as well, as far as modelling the protype track in the yard. It might be perfect for the causeway road bed but in the yard, she’s almost ground level.
If you’re also interested in running some back dated DAR equipment we’ve had some great prototype photos added recently to the wiki that are worthy of your consideration.
Check out the old gondolas:
http://www.dardpi.ca/wiki/index.php?title=DAR351091
And we have a section just on the plaster trains as the old school used to call them:
http://www.dardpi.ca/wiki/index.php?title=Gypsum_Trains
This is a very cool layout and I’m just waiting to see how it finishes up!
Steve
———-
Hi Steve! Thanks for the comments and the links. With regards to the roadbed height, I think this will be considerably easier to change when I apply the ground cover. Thanks again!
shaun says:
I like the narrower roadbed you did.
Matthew Johnson says:
Ive always had an appreciation for real trains and their flattery of miniature reproductions of all kinds and sorts. I can say that if I were to be responsible for building an accurate model of anything I would want it to be right, perhaps the people at woodland scenics wanted the roadbed this way for a reason. I agree that accuracy is necissary which is why we look around and try new things, why not trim it.
Edward Traxler says:
Old thread but .. hey .. that’s the purpose of re-posting, right?
I agree with all that was said prior. I would like to add this from (Google Books) “Elements of railroad track and construction” published 1915 on page 11 there is a diagram/cross-section of track and roadbed. It very plainly shows a six-inch ‘ledge’ from the outer edge of the ties to where the slope starts. In N Scale .. six inches is only about .040″ so .. YES .. the WS roadbed is too wide! 🙂