Has anyone ever used steel studs for benchwork?

[jwse30]

I just read a post here on Christmas layouts, and a disabled gentleman was looking for a lightweight material to use for his benchwork. The first thing to come to my mind was steel studs (and their "tracks", the top and bottom plates of a wall).

What I'm picturing (I'll use a 4 x 8 table for example, though I'll guess the layout in question would be smaller) is 2 - 8' sections of "track" with a steel stud every 24" that would be 4' long ( the studs fit into the track). Then a sheet of 1/4" plywood (luann?) is screwed to the frame. I think this is necessary to stiffen up the frame. On top of that, a thin piece of styrofoam (1/2" or less; perhaps the "fanboard" they use for installing vinyl siding over wood siding?) would be glued to the wood to cover the screw holes and deaden the noise, if that's an issue.

While I wouldn't stand on this, I would think this setup would be plenty strong enough for running trains on. But I do have a few questions to anyone who has ever used these materials for model railroading.

First is that steel studs and "track" are made of thin razor sharp steel. Any ideas to limit the loss of blood, especially to visitors? My only idea is to wrap the whole area in a heavy fabric (burlap, canvas, ?), but I would think the vibration of running trains, moving and setting up the layout, etc. would wear that out rather quickly. That's not to mention how would one attach the fabric to a super thin piece of steel? Glue?

Second, what would be a good way to attach legs to this tabletop. I know how I would do it, but it's difficult to explain, and the tools I'd use to make the neccessary bends and cuts are not likely to be in most homes' tool boxes. My other idea would be to screw a block of 2 x 4 inside the track, and attach a leg to it with a pair of through bolts (possibly with wingnuts for ease of use).

So if anyone has any ideas on this, or better yet, if anyone has made a layout with steel studs, please post what would work or wouldn't.

Thanks,

J White

P.S. I ike the idea of bing able to crawl on the layout if needed. I don't think I'd ever build something like this for myself. But an advantage to this framing method is that it would give you a ground grid for wiring all those lights and accessories.

[underworld]

I haven't used them but I have seen some places online where people have. I think there was an article in one of the magazines earlier this year about that.

[:D][:D][:D][:D][:D]

underworld

[cnw1995]

There was such an article - I can't recall whether in Model Railroader or CTT. I'll have to go browsing. They used the steel to frame a 4 x 8 foam board. I think they even cantilevered the layout out from the wall studs.

[palallin]

The MR article was in late spring-early summer of this year. Very good article and very tempting.

[Anonymous]

I am glad that someone posted this and got this discussion going. I am planning to use steel wall studs for my layout. I built benchwork out of 2x4's and 3/4" plywood, with homasote on top of the plywood. BUT, I need to add a second level of track that will go around the outer edge of the layout, at a level of about 10 inches above the main level. I will "dress up" the steel studs so that they look like bridges, but the strength to keep the spans from sagging will be coming from the metal studs. Then, I will add "legs" to the studs so that it looks like bridges that are supported at a reasonable interval as the track goes across the upper level, but I don't have to worry about the legs actually being able to hold any weight, since it will be carried by the stud itself, attached at each end to a "mountain" in that corner of the layout. I will be running the upper level over top of a set of tracks on the main level. This way, I don't have to try to fit the trestle legs around the lower tracks and have to worry about trains brushing up against the legs supporting the upper level. I can space the legs out and place them wherever I want for scenic effect, and not worry about needing to "support" the upper level tracks.

Questions: How does one cut this steel stud stuff?

Will they be too noisy? I have thought of getting carpet padding foam and putting it in the grooves between the "walls" of the studs, and then wrapping plaster cloth around the whole thing, and then adding a layer of homasote glued over that, and screwing the track to the homasote.

I have a piece of metal stud that I got at Lowe's to see how this is going to go, and I've already cut myself a bunch of times. It is sharp!

[daan]

To cover up the metal studs you could use isolation for heating pipes. We have foam tubes in the d.i.y. shops over here, with a hole in the middle and a cut along one side of the tube. You can fold it around pipes to isolate them from the outside world. They can also be used over other pipes or sharp objects.
The metal strips are cut with a grinder and a cutting disk in it. You'll need goggles and ear protection, and both of them are no added luxury.
If the metal sharpness is a concern, you could also use metal heating pipes for constructing. they have all kinds of connectors and with the fasteners type, you even don't have to solder anything. It's however not as strong as metal profile, since the height is less. (Height is equal to the force it can take before bending.)

[csxt30]

R & PA. RR : I can't remember what trains you have ,now, but if you are going to have Lionel TMCC, or MTH DCS, you may want to see if there is any possible problems with the signals from these types of controlling. I know some guys have said they have had problems with just a metal bridge. I'm not to knowledgeable on this bit just thought you might want to check. Also, I guess the most inexpensive way to cut the studs would be just a hack saw. I know they make an electric one & now I forgot the name of it. Hope this helps, thanks, John

[Anonymous]

Steel studs may have some merit when building a small layout, or for bracing on a large layout, but I would not use them entirely to build a large O-gauge layout.

In my opinion their only merits are that they are lightweight and less expensive, when compared to lumber.

The steel's density would definately amplify any noise and vibration. Especially if you were to use steel studs in place of nominal size lumber for benchwork legs. A suitable sound reducing product would have be placed between the table top, metal studs and the floor to reduce any potential noise or vibration.

Tin snips are used to cut the metal studs. Often leaving sharp edges that are unforgiving to your arms and hands. Pros know how to cut the studs at the proper angles, bend the studs, and make tabs, when they make corners or supports.

And unlike dimensional lumber that is drilled and joined with machine screws, washers and nuts; metal studs are joined together using self-drilling screws.

The last time I moved, I dismantled my layout's benchwork and didn't want to take it with me to the new house. So I placed a notice on one of the forums. Two local guys responded. I gave them a truck load of 2x4s, 2x3s, plywood and all the hardware.

If I had built that layout out of steel studs, I would have had to hire a dumpster to get rid of the old benchwork, because once the steel studs are cut assembled and disassembled, they have no value.

Unless you have some prior construction skills and a working knowledge of hand tools, I would be hesitant to use steel studs.

BillFromWayne
www.modeltrainjournal.com

[Buckeye Riveter]

Better - Cheaper - Faster

When we evaluate materials from a engineering standpoint, the above items always seem to be a rudimentary guide. So.....
Are Steel Studs better? Will it be cheaper? Or can we construct the benchwork faster?

I would propose that if the steel studs, when compared to wood were better, cheaper, or faster that the majority of those who have built layouts would be using them for construction. Of course having said that, sometimes a goal of a project is met using a material that is not cheaper or faster.

In the photo below, the PVC pipe would not normally pass the Better - Cheaper - Faster test, but in this case the builders were interested in making the layout portable with legs that could be removed and interchanged.

[daan]

Well, seen from the point buckeye makes, the answer on all questions is NO. Metal is not faster, since cutting, drilling holes and tightening bolts etc takes more time. It's not better, since it has the problem of rust so it must be treated, or galvanized. That makes is probably also more expensive than wood.
Wood is easy to cut and easy to work with. If using metal strips and edges, as they are sold prefab with the holes already in it in the D.I.Y. shops, constructing a benchwork with wood is fast and easy. If you want to mount cable guides, electronics or whatever to the benchwork, just screw them on. Its also easy to reuse if the layout is going to be changed.

[Anonymous]

Hi everyone!
thanks for the replies. My layout is a "U" shaped layout. It is like a folded dog bone. I have a duck-under at the open end of the "U".
I did not really explain the appeal of the steel studs for what I am going to do. I am building an O gauge layout. I will be running conventional, for a variety of reasons that make it unlikely I'd ever want to go with command control, so I am not worried about the command control signal being a problem with metal on the layout. Most of the layout is going to be made of wood. I will have two parallel main lines running in broad loops around the outer edge of the main level. There will also be a train yard, and a third loop of track on the main level to go through a "coal mine" that will be built into a mountain. At each corner of the layout, I will have a mountain or a platform of plywood. I want to build a set of two tracks that are about 10 inches up from the main level. These tracks will also go around the outer edge of the layout, parallel to the two lower track main lines, over top of the two lower tracks. The upper level tracks will connect the mountains and platforms that will be in each of the four corners. I need to span that space, from platform to mountain to mountain, etc, with something that will not sag. I need to go 13 feet on two sides, and 8 feet on two sides. Bridges would work, but the legs of the bridges need to be wide enough to allow trains to run on the lower set of tracks without the trains brushing up against the legs for the bridges. The outer most loop of track is going to be close enough to the walls that I can't really have bridge legs on that side if I want them to be wide enough and far enough away from the track to prevent the trains from touching the legs on that far side. So, I thought that if I run a piece of metal stud along each of the four lengths that I need to run those upper tracks, I could then lay the track on top. The ends of the studs would be supported by either a mountain or a platform. Then, I could "dress up" the metal studs to look like they are bridges, and even go so far as to put the "supporting legs" along the inner edge of the "bridges" and just forget about the outer edge legs since the spans will be supported in reality by the strength of the metal stud. Incidentally, on one platofrm I will put the Power Plant, and on the other one I will put the train station. At the other two corners there will be mountains. The trains will run through tunnels in the mountains. The metal studs seem like a good way to do all of this, if I can avoid getting myself all cut up! If I ever have to take this apart, I will have four pieces of metal stud that need to be disposed of, but most of the layout will be wood that can be unscrewed and re-assembled, or recycled to other projects, etc.

[daan]

If you want to see bridges, got to Northlandz!! On www.northlandz.com you can see where it is and they also have a few bridges to look at. They span several feet across a huge h0 layout.

(I borrowed this picture from their site!) and that are all wooden bridges.

[lionelsoni]

My impression of steel studs is that they are fairly insubstantial channels. The ones I have seen were used to make non-load-bearing partitions in office buildings, which walls got most of their stiffness from the gypsum board screwed to them. That is, the steel studs formed the web of a sort of two-dimensional beam of which the drywall was the flanges. Corrugated cardboard probably works the same way.

The deflection of a uniformly loaded beam increases as the fourth power of its length; and as the cube for a point load. So I am skeptical that a 13-foot span is practical. I did a 10-foot span with two perforated steel angles, I think about 2.5 inches deep, from Lowes and then supported it in the middle because I was unhappy with how limber it was.

[Jumijo]

Forget about the metal studs for a minute and consider this; Hollow core doors are very lightweight and need no assembly. A set of folding or stationary legs can be attached to each door "module" to increase the size of the layout. Handles or casters can be attached to one side for easy transportation, should the need ever arise.

Jim

[Buckeye Riveter]

QUOTE: Originally posted by lionelsoni

My impression of steel studs is that they are fairly insubstantial channels. The ones I have seen were used to make non-load-bearing partitions in office buildings, which walls got most of their stiffness from the gypsum board screwed to them. That is, the steel studs formed the web of a sort of two-dimensional beam of which the drywall was the flanges. Corrugated cardboard probably works the same way.

The deflection of a uniformly loaded beam increases as the fourth power of its length; and as the cube for a point load. So I am skeptical that a 13-foot span is practical. I did a 10-foot span with two perforated steel angles, I think about 2.5 inches deep, from Lowes and then supported it in the middle because I was unhappy with how limber it was.

Bob, you are almost there. The American Institure for Steel Construction has a restriction on the L/R ration. That is, the unsuported lenghth of the member to it's radius of gyration about the appropriate X, Y, or Z axis. If you look closely at steel bar joists that are commonly used in roof and floor construction, you sometimes will see a small piece welded to the top angles between the webs. This connection reduces the unsupported length and increases the load carrying capacity and improves deflection.

There are all sorts of ways to increase the load carrying capacity of a steel member including composite design. Normally shear and moment govern the sizing of a beam and deflection is checked. If deflection is not within the prescribed boundaries, one can do several things to "beef" up the section and increase the moment of intertia. A typical L -Girder constructed from wood follows this theory by putting the material on compression side of the beam increasing the load carrying capacity

Another thing, I doubt if the span is really 13 feet. The legs can be located at least 3 feet from the ends decreasing the span to 7 feet.

I use a 16 foot long L-Girder beneath my layout. See photo below.

[lionelsoni]

Buckeye, as I understood Reading's description, the table is already there and he wants to put bridges from mountain to mountain, above the table, with no intermediate support. So I took his numbers of 13 and 8 feet to be the free spans. I don't really know what the dimensions and orientation of his studs are; but my feeling is that one of the sort that I have seen could not support its own weight across 13 feet without buckling. We might be able to say more if we knew the details of the structure he envisions.

[Big_Boy_4005]

I've been watching this topic for a few days now. My response to the original question would have to be no.

Unless you have the proper tools to work with steel studs, they are a hassle, much more so than wood. While they may be lightweight, straighter, and not susceptible to moisture, they are sharp and more difficult to fasten things to. Also, in a horizontal application, they are rather flimsey unless they have some kind of stiffener like plywood. There is the option of using heavier gauge steel, but that only makes things more difficult.

As for building large layouts with steel benchwork, it has been done. It was not my choice to use this construction method, the building inspector made me do it.







That plywood, in the third photo, is a different color from normal, because it is FRT (Fire Retardant Treated). Once construction got above the main deck, traditional one-by construction resumed.

As for TMCC and DCS in a steel stud environment, if grounded to an earth ground, it could be very beneficial for TMCC signal strength. I doubt it would have any effect on DCS, as the signal transmission method is totally different.

[Anonymous]

I hate the fact that I have to pre-load pictures to some other site in order to post them here. I could just post a pic or two of the layout that I am building and you could see what I am doing. The piece of steel stud that I got from Lowe's to work with is about 10 feet long, about a tiny bit wider than a section of Lionel tubular track, with "walls" that stiffen the stud. I put it between two chairs, added track and ran a train over it. It sags just a wee bit when the train is at mid point of the span. Not enough to matter.

The 8 foot and 13 foot dimensions of the layout are not quite what I'd need to span. I will have two plywood platforms that will each be about 2 feet long. Then there will be "mountains" that will themselves have tunnels with floors made of plywood which will be maybe 1 1/2 feet long. So, the most I'd need to span is about 7 or 8 feet (there are some other design elements that will offer some support near the ends of the studs in addition to the platforms and the mountains). I kind of think this will work. Remember, most of the layout is plywood and 2x4's.

NEW QUESTION: I've seen that perforated angle steel at Lowe's and it would be stronger and less likely to sag compared to the steel wall studs. But, someone told me that to cut that stuff, one needs a plasma cutter. Since "plasma cutter" sounds to me like something that the Soviets were working on before the fall of the Soviet Union (I think it's a cousin to the hunter-killer satelites...) I am not sure where i'd get one or how much of my town I'd inadvertantly burn down trying to learn to use the thing. Any other way to cut those steel angle irons?

[fwright]

Looking at Buckeye Riveter's 16ft L girder and jaabat's suggestion of hollow core doors - I think I see a possible solution there.

I don't think steel is going to work because unless the thickness gets serious - a 1 inch or greater girder web of 1/4 in thick steel plate would be the very minimum (and very heavy), and then you would still need a flange welded on for stability in the horizontal axis. No other common material fastens well to steel so that adding strength with anything but steel is going to very difficult. The thin guage stuff, as others have said, is going to buckle easily with a long unsupported span.

Couldn't tell in the picture for sure but it looks like Buckeye Riveter is using 1x6 for the web in his 16ft L girder. I realize 1x6 plus flange is too deep (6.25 in) for your situation but it's a workable starting point.

I haven't seen any deflection tables for hollow core doors -and I'm not a civil engineer - but I know they have almost no deflection over their 80 inch length. The same for framed 2 inch extruded foam over an 8ft length.

So I suggest a foam-core box girder built as follows: bottom and top are 1/4 in plywood with 2 in thick extruded foam inbetween, width to suit your track. Sides are 1x3 dimensional lumber. All components are glued together (critical) and the sides should be notched (1/4 in square rabbet along each inside corner) for a stronger joint to the plywood. The resulting box girder contains 2 1x3 web L girders combined with a 2.5 in thick plywood foam sandwich. I believe the result would be sufficiently rigid for your span, reasonable and manageable weight (one person can lift), and cheap enough to experiment with (about $50 with enough foam and plywood for about 4 more girders). The trick will be finding sufficiently long dimensional lumber straight enough to be either ripped down to size or used as is. 3/4 in plywood (might possibly go lighter, but I don't know how much) could be substituted, but you would still have to join 2 side pieces. A 2ft overlapping side piece applied on the outside should be sufficient.

[Buckeye Riveter]

QUOTE: Originally posted by fwright


Couldn't tell in the picture for sure but it looks like Buckeye Riveter is using 1x6 for the web in his 16ft L girder. I realize 1x6 plus flange is too deep (6.25 in) for your situation but it's a workable starting point.
I

The L-Girders on my layout are constructed of 1x4s for the webs and 1x2s for the top flanges. According to the book, How to Build Railroad Benchwork, by Linn Westcott, 2nd Edition an L-Girder constructed with a 1x4 web and a 1x2 flange will work a maximum span length of 13'-0". See chart below taken from Mr. Westcott's book.
My top flange is glued to the web, a very important aspect that Mr. Westcott does not really discuss.

Please note that the left side of this table has been cut off as it comes out of Shutterfly. If anyone would like a copy of the table it can be found on page 35 of the Westcott Book.

[Anonymous]

Hello All: Great Topic, First there has been some excellent input here. As a construction worker for 30 years, I've been around it alot. I am presently using steel for my basement walls & partitions. I cut it with a chop saw, ( I also am fortunate to have a great selection of tools) A good set of tinsnips will work well. I plan on using steel for my layout. My main reason for using it is, it will not rot or cause a mould or mildew problem if you ever have water in the basement, I like it for strength, & it is easy to re-enforce once you learn how to work with it. Word of caution wear gloves if you have never worked with it. Once you use it , you will probably not use wood again. Regards Steve

[FJ and G]

excellent thread.

I'm going to Lowe's and Home Depot to look for steel framework for a layout I'm building. I already got the foundation done.

Why steel?

--It's thinner than 2x4s

--It won't warp like wood

How to limit noise?

I'm planning to use rubber washers (grommets)

[lionelsoni]

You can cut the perforated angles easily with a hacksaw.

If you don't get too much deflection with a 10-foot stud, go for it. At that length, it has about 1/3 the deflection of a 13-foot span. You could consider putting more steel inside the stud. You might be able to hide two 1 1/4 x 1 1/4-inch angles in there. A neat trick for using the 8-foot lengths that they come in is to stagger them, so that you have one for 2 feet at each end, but 6 feet of overlap in the middle, where it wlll by far help the most with the stiffness. (I did this once to stretch 40-foot rebar to fit a 48-foot slab-on-grade without splicing. Even though it was #12, the inspector made me sister the 8-foot ends with #4 to satisfy the letter of the law!)

I wouldn't worry about the rubber washers. The steel is very well damped if it is fastened to a plywood layout top; and the plywood is a much greater sound radiator than the steel would be.

For Buckeye's beams, I figured the moment of inertia, which is proportional to the beam's stiffness. With no flanges, the 1x4 has 2.680 cubic inches. The flange (I assume it is applied to the edge of the 1x4 web, not the side) more than doubles this to 6.288. Adding another flange on the other edge would more than double it again, to 12.945. This could be a consideration for someone not sure whether the beam would be stiff enough for his purpose, since the bottom flange could easily be added as an afterthought.

[FJ and G]

thx Bob,

One thing forgot to mention. When working with tin and other metals with sharp edges, it's a good idea to use a file or tin snips to round out the corners.

I still have a scar from high school shop class