BWsTrains

Coachmann, brilliant responses, thank you. Exactly what I'd expected to hear about, see my emphasis above. Now it's been made absolutely clear in this place that the path to good sound is anything but trivial in time and complexity, Loksound hint at this themselves and my post was in part to hear some real experiences of what's involved get a decent sound result. Nothing stands still for ever and maybe a future generation of chips + some form of external monitoring might reduce the sync process to an automated fine tuning, at a price. Meanwhile I'm happy in my space as I trust you will be in yours.

To Clarify, my point was that prototypical chuff rates in general do not sound realistic, particularly at higher speeds. If you doubt this, LokSpeed say in their manual (p72) "Quite small driving wheel diameters are likely to make the steam chuffs sound very good at small and medium speeds; however during high speed it sounds strangely distorted and ticked off." The video I'd watched illustrated that point rather well. It was just that it was done with a 3 Cylinder loco, that's all. Probably equally applicable in same context for a King but I can't test that point.

I picked up a cheap TTS King as well. The King TTS FWIW this is my take; firstly, some thoughts on sound quality in general. I enjoy good music, have a decent hi-fi and the weakest link in any system are the Speakers. I’m lucky that despite the years slowly pilling up, my high frequency sensitivity is excellent, as it is usual for hearing to decline from the top end with age and then for sounds to tend to become muffled. What this has to do with DCC Sound (of any sort) is You can’t expect full range sound out of a 28mm speaker, however expensive. Small speakers cannot reproduce low frequencies effectively. Speaker location will be important. If a user’s hearing has lost high frequency sensitivity, they will be a poor judge of any sound source. Would you ask someone who couldn’t hear sounds above 8Khz what they think of your Hi-fi? So, if your DCC Sound loco sounds terrible to you, replace the speaker with a better one before anything else then perhaps consider point 3. King TTS Sound I find the sound quality quite acceptable for the purpose; clear and crisp and the various whistles, scrapes chuffs and steam wooshes all seem realistic. Compared to archival films I have for 6024, the weak element of the TTS King sound is in the Bass area, something a tiny speaker has no hope to emulate anyway. I’ve no intention of buying a more hi Spec Sound DCC so to offer comment must make do with what’s on line. This review of the 6009 with a Loksound chip https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pCXpqknvFyw&t=251s (running from 2’50”) sounds positively tinny (i.e. awful) when compared to the TSS and hence even further from the real thing. I much prefer the TTS. Just possibly, someone with reduced high frequency sensitivity might find the Loksound better. Where the Loksound has a clear edge is in the flexibility to upload sounds and change many settings e.g. Chuff rate. On this last point, in the video referred to, loco does not have Chuffs set to synchronise with piston strokes. Easy to count as it slowly accelerates. The Loksound manual provides the CVs to tweak and helpfully adds tips on the steps required, it’s not a trivial task by the sound of it. One final comment on Chuffs. If in doubt, watch a few online videos, I’m happy with the non-prototypical approximation that TTS delivers and in the end that’s what matters to me. Purists will want it perfect but one thing I’ve noted on line watching a 3-cylinder loco was that prototypical chuff rates just sounded bizarre and unrealistic. Some compromise is probably required and Loksound cover this issue as well. Bass woofer and sub-amp in carriage #1 anyone?

I had an electrical problem with my first purchase, R3332 British Railways 'King Edward VIII' - internal short. The retailer replaced it and all was fine. He later told me it was a very simple "fix" for him. My suspicion is that Hornby raced out the first releases with indecent haste (facing the DJM threat) given how many problems have been reported here. The replacement ran very smoothly from day 1 and has been a strong and reliable performer. I took a minor precaution when ordering my 2nd King, 6006 King George I (TTS) and asked the on-line Retailer ("YKW") to do a test before they dispatched it around the world. This they did willingly for the modest "cost" of a 1 day delay. The "unboxing" revealed the King with minor "rub mark on boiler" which according to here is common. I'm the sort that is philosophical about these things; like the first dint on your new car, you get over it!, I just wish /feel they could do better but will not loose sleep, it's forgotten already. Running. To my surprise after its having been tested, the loco took off with a VERY SLIGHT coggy stutter that I'd never experienced in any earlier Hornby purchase. Otherwise it ran fine. After my initial reaction, a bit of Internet research showed 1) I was not alone 2) All was not lost Following useful help on the Hornby Forum and elsewhere I did the following: 1) lubricated all the recommended spots 2) Ran the loco in properly, 30 min half speed, 30 min 3/4 full speed, then added my own variant, 15 min very low crawling speed All this worked a treat and it now takes off seamlessly. At the price these models sell at, a proper full running in at factory just is not on the cards so a good workout after purchase loosens up any stiff spots. With hindsight, expecting perfect "out of Box" running seems unreasonable. My last Bachmann came with recommendation of a good run-in so why no do so likewise with Hornby locos? If you pay a Ford price don't expect RR performance! TTS works very well also but will feedback on that later.

Thanks to Peter McSweeney ("wildlifewanderings" Blog and http://www.whentowatchwildlife.org/)I've access to some excellent Hawthorn hedgerow photos to share as these are my primary target in my Hedgerow Project First a full row of mature plants and views of mature mixed hedgerow (N Somerset, May)

Hi, Sorry for the delay with a new posting, it's summer here and so progress has been slow. As I mentioned previously, I was keen to have some Spring Hawthorn in full flower on my layout as hedgerow areas of the farm and track-side. IMO it’s hard to beat the sight of a long line of these beautiful plants. It does seem I’m in relatively uncharted territory, at least on this site, as a search turned up only 3 hits for “Hawthorn Hedge” or “bush”. None related to modelling, one simply pointing out what a fine security feature they are surrounding the house! Following on from earlier feedback I’ve been keenly searching out useful local plant materials for various plant modelling projects and will have some progress to report later. But first to research on the Hawthorn itself. I’m still keen to receive any photos that any of you can capture for me of Hawthorn hedge in winter and again in flower (April / May in Southern England). All I have as a lead are some limited on-line images and my memory. Groundwork. Hawthorn is multi-stemmed and when in full flower, the most common variant has long semi weeping branches covered on all sides by flowers in clusters. The overall effect is one of massed flower but the branch structure can be clearly seen as these photos show (BTW I’m restricted in what I can post directly for copyright reasons so please follow the links while I try for permissions elsewhere). Links at: http://www.bbc.co.uk/nature/habitats/hedge (my favourite inspirational photo) https://goo.gl/images/Yq4rSQ https://goo.gl/images/IsVL03 and in Winter https://www.dreamstime.com/stock-photo-hawthorn-hedge-winter-spikes-buds-form-image58974847 I’ve been experimenting with some trial runs and thought I’d start there with a couple of photos, with some early test pieces in situ. The idea is to have mixed hedge including Hawthorn along the farm boundary fences so all the gaps will in time be filled in.

Regarding shelf life, Wikipedia has a section devoted to it so I'll refer you there, it includes what a manufacturer recommends: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyanoacrylate#Shelf_life Drawing on my time as an Organic Chemist the monomer Methyl-2-cyanoacrylate looks like it'll be a very reactive molecule. Hence short shelf life seems perfectly reasonable. Variances in what people find with products in real life reflect a whole range of factors including time between manufacture and purchase. A very high tech CA product might have sat on the shelves for years, especially if no date of manufacture or "use by" is offered. If you want cheap CA, look for a store with high turnover, Daiso are a good bet.

Jonny, In your part of the world, temperatures are such that any breakdown will be much slower than here. Its a chemist's rule of thumb that "typical" reactions run at least twice as fast for every rise in temperature of 10 degrees C (18F) above ambient. Here today our max was 40C and overnight it will get down to around 28C! so careful storage is more of an issue than in the temperate UK. (I'm being kind, I know your climate as I come from W-s-M!). This might well help explain some reports of long lasting CA products in earlier replies.

Re Kylestrome and Mike's comments, I need to make it clear that I'm not saying Branded cyanoacrylate (CA) products are no better than generic CA glue. My point is that generic CA glue does it's job in most situations and if carefully stored can be used to the end of the tube. Cyanoacrylate was invented in 1942 and is a family of products, not just 1 chemical. Adhesives manufacturers faced with their chemicals going out of patent find all sorts of ways to improve and promote their products. Think Asprin. Asprin has been around forever and is generic and will work on headaches whoever's you take. Branded may act faster or cause less gastro upset but the basic job gets done whatever you take. If you have a favorite CA product, don't let me disuade you from using it. If new to using CA then try the cheapie stuff first and see how it works. On my point 2 about when CA might not work, some of the more expensive proprietary CAs like Gels may do a better job. I don't have any experience to cite. Over and out!

Hi, Sounds good. Can't argue with something that works and if the product has a true airtight nozzle that you keep clean then fridge storage is a good idea. Did the product as purchased have a "best By date" by any chance? BTW I think my "trick" of expressing all the gas from the cheap metal tube then keeping it upright works well as there is no head space to fill. The liquid visible in the nozzle during use only retracts slightly afterwards so water ingress is minimal. Sure the nozzle exterior gets some build up, I normally wipe that off with a paper towel but acetone would be good if it gets too heavy.

Hi everyone. I appreciate there are many old blogs on this topic; I've perused several and want to pull together key points combined with my own experiences and practices. BTW my professional life was spent as a chemist. Which glue? I've tried many sources from the 6 for $2 from our local Dollar shop right up to the big name brands. IMO there is very little difference in the underlying chemical involved as far as adhesion is concerned. The cheapest superglue will meet your average modeller's and handyman's needs. How should I store my superglue? This is actually 2 questions, 1) How should I store unopened glue? (i.e. those 5 other tubes from the 2 Dollar shop). Answer - Superglue has a relatively limited shelf life even unopened, so I store all my unopened tubes upright in a small airtight glass jar in the freezer. This way I've seen no deterioration in quality in later tubes. Also probably best to avoid buying "run out" discounted bargains. 2) How should I store opened glue? Issues: as widely noted on RMWeb, Superglue setting is catalysed by water (i.e. water starts its reaction) so storage should be planned with this in mind Storage in a fridge or freezer would be the worst thing to do because chilling and warming the opened tube would increase the rate of water vapour ingress . Ultimately, however careful one is, opening and reclosing a tube is bound to allow water in sooner or later - hence good reason to go for cheapest Superglue and be prepared to throw. In the mini "toothpaste type" tubes that my glue comes in, an apparently very full tube actually has a much smaller amount of liquid in it with an inert gas making up the balance. Once opened, this protective gas is dissipated Answer - Given all these issues, once I've broken the seal, with the tube upright I express out all the gas, carefully folding the tube over as I go, (much as one used to fold aluminium toothpaste tubes - showing my age!). I keep doing this until liquid appears in the nozzle (or at the tip if opaque). Now recap; stand upright until needed. Immediately after use, recap tightly without sucking any air back in and store at room temperature in an upright position. Using this technique I get through almost an entire tube before its adhesion qualities deteriorate. What if my superglue doesn't (glue)? Answer - Now I'm speculating a little, but my guess is if the glue comes out as thin as when it was first opened, very little can have happened chemically to deteriorate its performance. In this case there are 4 possible reasons for lack of adhesion: 1) The surface is not suitable for Superglue - polythene, polypropylene and the like are not glued effectively. 2) The surfaces don't match closely, Superglue needs to set in a very fine film so a bad match = a bad or no join 3) The air is too dry - often a problem here in Summer with very low relative humidity. Breathe "Haaaa" on the applied glue then join (taking great care to keep lips at a very safe distance) 4) I'm wrong! - and your runny glue has gone off. If you're buying the cheapie stuff, there is a very simple solution when a tube fails. Other issues In my browsing here I came across at least one reference to blowing into a tube before storage to preserve it! This is an absolute NO, your lips will be glued shut. I repeat this alert in case some poor reader comes across such terrible advice by chance.

Re Seafoam, I'd not heard of this material as you don't see it in modelling shops here in Aus. Now having looked at the Gaugemaster product on-line, the appearance and cost are both impressive! It explains why devotees are keen to "grow their own". I'd not be a buyer at GBP 19 + postage for some modest pieces even if available. I agree with kandc_au on the risks associated with using wire wool but on theme, I'm wondering if my garden has some suitably fibrous plant I might deploy after drying? Scope for some interesting exploration here.

Many thanks for the various feedback, it has been good to have so many visits made to the Blog since my last post. @ Shadow, Kiwi. On Seafoam / Tumbleweed, Kiwi you are spot on - for us antipodeans, quarantine rules it out. Even Lichen has to be bought here from a local Importer rather than via overseas online supplier. @Vistiaen – thanks. As others have noted, there are many resources available and my intention here was to share my own approach and the learning gained along the way. Kiwi earlier (#12) raised an excellent point about tree density that I’ve been thinking about. The problem with using lichen as the base for applied foliage is that it tends to produce a dense clumped non-see thru effect. Oaks can have a very dense canopy (when seen without back-light) but the Elms I have as reference (see #7, #19) have much thinner canopies with lots of foliage on short laterals and I’m not sure how to best capture this. For a smaller tree, the wire structure might well work well with individual branches slowly opening out to give the required short laterals that can have foliage added directly. For my larger tree that seems like a daunting amount of detailed work, whether built as one large structure or with extensions to several main leaders. So, for now I’m still at the planning stage. On Kiwi’s point about the “look” of my finished Oak, we had several visitors here including a couple of Architects and it was gratifying to receive some very favourable (unprompted, I promise) feedback on the appearance and effect of my large trees set in the layout. The eye is much more forgiving than the camera it seems.

A new challenge is born. Yesterday I was back on Victoria Parade, one of our main routes into Melbourne and took this iPhone 4 photo (so apologies for quality) of an Elm in full leaf, another of which was shown here (post #7) leafless in winter. BTW Rail lines are for the famous Trams of our City. Now with both views on hand I'll start on a new project but it will be at a slower pace than my pre-Christmas effort. Regards, BW

Hayfield, Thanks for the feedback, One goal I have is to add some Hawthorn to the hedgrows in my layout but I have no idea what it looks like in winter to get the skeleton right. To be honest haven't even done the internet reasearch either. If you (or others) happened to pass some now bare, in your wanderings, would you please remember me and snap a pic or 2? Here, it's turning warm enough that many other things are competing for my attention. May be a gap before much else of interest appears. Thanks, BW

Kiwi, your comments prompted a few outdoor photos. Below compares 2 shots (ground level and approx 20 degree elevation) both taken from roughly the same POV as the earlier posted photo of in situ. Move slight higher still and all the gaps totally vanish because now you're viewing the canopy from above. To the eye which is rather more forgiving than the lens, the tree does look good in situ to me. My particular layout issue is that it's been designed for young (4-9) and old to see, use and enjoy. Hence baseboard height off ground less than ideal unless you're sitting down along with the grandchildren having fun together. Can't have everything

Hi Kiwi. no problem re the criticism it is good to get constructive feedback. A couple of points. 1) When you see a normal tree in isolation against the sky, the gaps tend to stand out because the tree is backlit. That effect is very hard to emulate on a layout because of the direction of the lighting and your viewing angle (which tends to be from above ground looking slightly down) So to a certain degree what you see is due to its setting, the way it's viewed and how I've photographed it . The photos were taken either with indirect (i.e. bounced from above) flash or in the last case with front day lighting. In both these cases the interior gaps in the tree just disappear being dark relative to the rest. I just tested that by rear illuminating the finished tree and plenty of spaces reappear! They are there but can't be seen. I don't have a solution for this as layout lighting is a given as is the angle you view it from. 2) Oaks are very dense trees, I'm looking at one from my study and very little sky is visible thru it even backlit. I erred on the side of well-filled in my design. Your point remains valid. A balance is needed between the extremes, perhaps I should try to tease out the lichen, use less and add very little / no foliage to the inner sections. This may help. Thanks again for your feedback

In Place. This shot using natural light and a deliberately narrow depth of field, shows the Oak placed in the top paddock where it and its sibling to the left help create an effective block of the views through to the townscape behind (Upper Left side)

Foliage. I'm following standard techniques to fill out the tree using materials listed earlier. I’m looking for a result something like this: I’m still finding my way with this phase, trusting that a good underlying skeleton will help deliver what I’m after. On a tree this large I completed the foliage in 3 stages: Lichen to the lower laterals, a light spray glue and then some dark leaf, more will be added later but this way I can get leaves to all sides of the lower canopy Rest of the Canopy with lichen, a light spring colour for the top so that any view through the foliage will give a lighter look. More dark green lichen at sides and down Three treatments of spray then foliage, first dark leaves from all sides, second light leaves from above then a final lighter dose of dark leaves again After each application of leaves, the tree is inverted and excess shaken off (can be reused after sieving). This typically turns up some lichen that is less than perfectly attached so I have my glue gun hot and ready for repairs. The last photo is almost there. It needs a haircut to remove loose and misplaced lichen, any stray glue strings and the lower trunk needs a tidy and painting. Minor issues of no great import. Looking at my almost finished tree I’m happy with the overall effect and its perfect for its role on my layout but what I can see is that I could have done with a little more lateral wood lower down below the lowest main limbs. The overall effect is just a shade too upright. I may still try to fix that later as an add-on.

Final stage of assembling the tree structure. I've now added laterals to flesh out the top canopy and the lower reaches and am happy with the shape I've achieved. To fix up the undersized lower trunk I took a single paper towel folded it along one edge repeatedly to produce a thick strip some 25mm wide, choosing my folds so it became thicker along one edge. I soaked this in 1:1 PVA water mix and wrapped it around the trunk. Standard technique I guess. Next I blended some of my 3 Acrylic gap fillers white: brown: grey 3:1:1 which gave what I thought was a fair colour match. The tinted gap fillers tend to dry to a different shade from the wet but "no worries" - I'll just touch up with Acrylic paint to blend in with the raw bark later. Before it dried, I ran a fork (of the disposable kind) thru the applied filler to give an uneven ridged effect - trying to simulate the bark. To look at my finished bare tree, this angle best shows the shape of the tree. While it's not seen from its "best" side, this sequence of photos from earlier posts may help visualise how I've built up the framework I wanted. Some trial and error was involved along the way but the step-wise approach, combined with having a reasonable mental image of what I wanted works for me. Next up will be adding the foliage.

Hi, Great Blog, I can see there'll be lots of interest for me here amongst your scratch builds. Your wire trees really work well in the setting you have them, most atmospheric and amazing stuff. Colin

Building my 15m Tree Skeleton Tree Support One lesson I learnt the hard way was to install the tree support early on. My layout rural areas have some modest contouring 10-20mm deep, built up variously from hardboard off-cuts topped by excess Plasterer’s mix. Hence, it’s not that robust a base so I drill 6mm holes and insert a length of 6mm polyethylene tubing as a socket. The tube acts as a stable support for a 4mm diameter aluminium rod that I’ll insert into the base of my tree. Do this first as the finished tree will be far too fragile to withstand the rigors of end-grain drilling. Lavender is a very hard wood to drill so I cut the base dead square and hold in a vice to drill the 4mm hole. Drilling in stages, 2mm first then 4mm is easier to control. The rod of suitable length is glued in place with epoxy. Shaping the tree core structure However helpful Nature has been, the shape selected is going to need some alteration and additions to meet requirements. In this photo the tree core is shown on its installed support and with side branches shortened back. As one arm was just being shortened with its top end to be reattached I’m using a simple pin dowel and glue approach. Additional branches will come from other cuttings. Didn't quite get that alignment right but after gluing it will be OK. Next I needed to get the full structure set up. The tree will have a central leader and 4 main limbs around the trunk. From these come the main leaders that form the canopy. Two new Limbs will be added, one fits neatly into the “V” shaped gap at bottom left, the other will be cut into the other side of the trunk. Both additions will be shorter prunings from higher up the source plant that take advantage of the natural size scaling. Glued in place with epoxy and some overlaid hot-melt glue but ensure bark is removed first and you glue to solid wood . One issue arising is that the main trunk is now too small for its limbs and eventually will need to be broadened. Oh! I did need that PVA for the paper towel after all! The next 2 photos show progress after the 1st new limb is installed then the final core structure from front and above. The thicker main leaders visible from above will be split to laterals using wire extensions.

Thanks to everyone for the useful feedback, it was rewarding to get so many visits on day 1. As Hayfield has kindly pointed out, there are many excellent resources already available and my modest goal here is to share what has worked for me. Not being very artistically gifted, (I leave that aspect to my 4-year-old granddaughter, of which more later) I found using nature’s work perfectly suited my specific needs. Groundwork. I knew exactly what I wanted having seen the large Oak, Beech, Elm and Chestnut dotted around traditional farm fields on our travels around West Country lanes last Spring. It’s important to view these leafless to see all the structural elements but fortunately we have many fine Deciduous trees here in Melbourne – it’s not all Gum Trees and Koalas. So much photography of bare trees was done over Winter. Photo – Elm on Victoria Parade, East Melbourne shows that side branches tend to be semi-weeping even while the main tree is upright in character. Resourcing OK research done, I moved on to the materials. I’ve found that small perennial plants provide an excellent source of mini skeletons. Lavender, both French (FL) and English(EL) have a hard, shapely wood that works for the smallest (2m) Apple Tree (EL) right up to 20m giants (FL). I think FL would work well up to O Gauge Scale; my stockpile of prunings is shown (the bricks are 29cm /11in long to give scale) Here is freshly cut EL with its mini-tree shape clearly visible. Other bonuses of Lavender are it grows here like a weed (FL anyway), has a bark that looks like tree bark in miniature and even freshly cut the wood is very dry. Further drying is a good idea before gluing, I remove the top green wood and leave the skeletons out in the sun for a while. Another good plant for smaller skeletons is Golden Diosma (correct name “Coleonema”). This has great skeletal shape but takes a while to dry. However, there are often useful dead branches to harvest underneath the canopy. My other materials are routine but listed for completeness. Glues: I use epoxy (5min), hot melt glue, superglue and spray adhesive, solvent based. I’ve found the modeller’s ubiquitous PVA to be troublesome and of little value as Lichen is treated to retain moisture and PVA doesn’t set well on it. It’s also too heavy and causes sagging. Is handy though for bulking up undersized trunks with paper towel Acrylic Gap filler: I use three colours, white, mid grey and dark brown that can be blended to the required shade of tree trunk Wire: Salix Associates - Black coloured copper (0.3mm) very fine – almost invisible and can be wrapped around upper branches and attached Lichen to hold bigger clumps in place before adding leaves. Also useful to add semi weeping extensions to main branches. Plain copper I found hard to paint with acrlyic and bright reflective spots were annoyingly visible. Foliage – all standard stuff. Lichen, 2 green shades, lighter for canopy top, darker for lower down. Leaves, Noch leaf (07142, 07144) that tend to stick to the outside of Lichen and if I want more opacity, Noch Field balk 08421 applied before leaves Miscellaneous recycled items 4mm soft aluminium rod, conveniently obtained when someone throws out an old UHF TV antenna Polyethylene tubing (OD 6mm, ID 4mm), of the sort grandchildrens handheld windmills are made of that break and are discarded. We seem to have more than our fair share of these but I'm sure like material is easily found elsewhere.

The Tree Modeller This is my first RMWeb Blog so please bear with me. Any constructive feedback regarding style / content will be greatly appreciated. A key element of my rural GWR layout was to have great trees. Apart from the fact that I love trees and had the obvious need in my chosen setting, I wanted to separate the rural and town sections of my small layout and felt that good tree placement would do the job. From searching various internet resources, it was clear there are many choices and after much dabbling, I’ve come to something that works very well for me. Firstly, what didn’t work for me: Commercial trees – expensive, look alike and not that lifelike. The ones I bought, now are consigned to the background. Commercial Tree Skeletons – this seemed a promising path until I settled on something better and lower cost – see below. Potential limitation of the commercial variety is availability of size / shape to meet ones’ requirements. An Elm is not an Oak or a Beech. Copper Wire framework. This is popular and produces stunning results in skilful hands. For me the challenge was artistic, I just couldn’t make a progressively unwinding web of wires end up looking treelike. Since others can do it, don’t let me deter you but I found it a demanding route. In one case, needing to make a weeping willow shape this was best managed with a wired structure otherwise I needed something better suited to my skills. Then there is the plant framework – why ignore what nature provides us? The beauty of finding a plant source is not just the “renewables” argument; it’s that plants do scale; a broccoli head is a mini tree in structure as my granddaughter reminds me while she eats her mini-trees. “a tree is approximately self-similar. That is, a small piece of the tree looks somewhat like an entire tree. Secondly, while a tree is a large, complex object, it is formed by repeating a simple process over and over again.” (fractalfoundation.org/OFC/OFC-1-1.html) Looking around my garden I’ve found a wealth of plant substrates that work when scaled down simply because of the Fractals factor. In this Blog I’ll share my path to making what is for me a very satisfying end product. In following posts, I’ll follow the construction of a 15m (50 foot) Oak tree from scratch with the learning gained along the way.

Hi, I'm a bit late coming into this topic but your experience with old foam underlay was no surprise. I once had a superb (and expensive) pair of Koss headphones with uncovered foam pads and these just turned to powder after a few years, rendering the phones useless. It's a question of chemistry, polyurethane foam will degrade due to exposure to moisture, oxidation, even microbial action and there was plenty of chance to be exposed once in use. Light is generally accepted not to be a problem (Wikipedia) other than thru causing yellowing. If underlay is a necessity on a project, cork would make much better sense. Personally I'm happy with no underlay.