I am planning benchwork construction for a multi-deck layout without a helix. I like the idea of using sectional benchwork (a.k.a.-"Dominoes") due to reasons of portability in the event it becomes necessary to move, flexibility of design, future expansion and ease of working on small sections at the workbench, etc. The benchwork sections will be constructed with 1'x4" wood, and covered with 2" extruded foam. The connected sections will spiral around the perimeter of the room, and may also utilize a penninsula. In order to gain elevation, a grade of about 1% to 1.5% would be ideal. It seems that there are two ways to accomplish this. One way would be to slope the Domino frames upward with the desired grade. In other words, for a four-foot section, one side of the frame would be elevated about a half-inch higher than the other side, giving approximately a 1% grade. Since I am planning on using Domino construction, each section of the lower deck will have four legs, which would then need to be carefully mounted using appropriately angled shims in order to insure that the legs remain vertical. This approach seems like it might be a bit complicated to construct. An alternate approach might be to keep each Domino section level, and increase the height of each successive section by 1/2-inch, in stair-step fashion, by using legs of successively increased length. Of course, this method would then require constructing the GRADED roadbed for each individual section. I thought about using Woodland Scenic's graded foam roadbed system, but it only offers grades of 2% and higher. Trying to get a 1% grade from that also seems a bit arduous. Creating roadbed from other materials, such as homasote or plywood is possible, but may partially defeat the advantage of using light-weight materials for portability.
A related question concerns the fascia. Since either of the above methods will produce benchwork with successively increasing heights from the floor, I am wondering if the bottom edge of the fascia should also slope upwards at the same grade, thereby maintaining about the same average fascia height (referring to the distance between the bottom edge and the top edge of the fascia), or should the bottom edge of the fascia remain horizontal, which would then cause the height of the top edge of the fascia to increase progressively as the benchwork spirals upward around the room. In other words, the average height of the fascia itself would increase from approximately six inches, to perhaps eighteen inches, assuming a twelve-inch difference between decks. This seems awkward, and obviously, as the benchwork comes back around to become the second deck, the fascia height would have to be adjusted so as not to block the view of the lower deck. I think I may have just answered my own question regarding the fascia, but I would greatly appreciate any sage advice, especially concerning the issue of benchwork slope (or lack thereof).
Thanks in advance for your time and consideration!
If you are planning to have industries or yards where cars will sit uncoupled from an engine which would hold them in place, you might consider one section at 2% grade (Then you can use the WS products) followed by a flat section where your yard/industry might reside. The overall net would be 1%, if both sections were of equal length. I am using hollow core doors that are all 80" long so to match increasing grades between sections, I have kept the leg length the same for 2 or 3 modules and built up the Foam layers, starting at 1/2 inch going up to 2 1/2 inches of foam, then lengthened the legs to match the next section and started with 1/2" foam again. I was fortunate that the breaks in leg height came at corners in the room so the difference in the fascia height at the bottom was barely noticeable. I cut use 1/8" masonite for the fascia and cut the top edge with a jig saw to follow the contours of the layout scenery level (plus 1/2-3/4 inches to provide a little barrier wall to keep any derailments from crashing to the floor). Your eye follows the top edge and your mind ignores the bottom edge where the elevation break takes place unless you are really looking for it. Just plan for grade easments when changing from inlclined grade to flat grade, 12" of 1% grade before going to 2% usually is enough unless you are running long passenger or modern 90' flat cars/auto racks, then I would go to 18" if transition between grade changes.
I once caught a train in my pajama's. How it got in my pajama's I'll never know... (sorry, Groucho)
Welcome to the forums.
With the two choices you have given (really the ONLY choices), I would lean towards a level deck on odd sections and incline the track, then incline the framework on even sections. Instead of using 4 legs per section, I would use 4 on all odd numbered sections, with the even numbered sections resting on a lip, still secured through each end though. That should help eliminate some of the cluttered look and help battle expansion/contraction of some of the wood. I would also consider wrapping the 1x4s around the perimeter of the foam and use some luan on the bottomside. That would reduce the thickness of the deck by 3 1/2inches. You might even try using luan for the edges as well, using it as fascia. The luan is much more stable than 1x4s when it comes to expansion/contraction, is much lighter, will not crown, cup, or twist. It will require that it be glued to the foam though with some construction adhesive. The sections would definately be lightweight then.
You either have lots of room or are not taking into consideration the height you're going to need. 12in is not much room between decks, and you would need better than 100' at a continuous 1%gr to get that. If the benchwork is 6in thick, add another 50ft. You didn't say what scale you were working in, or how deep the sections were to be. If the sections were to be deep, you might need to consider lighting and the ability to reach in without damaging anything. Most rail served industry buildings are going to be a minimum of 4in tall (small depot) and go up from there. I would put an average of 10-12in in height for most structures, with some getting much bigger than that (HO scale). I'm shooting for 20" between decks with a general depth of 24".
These suggestions might give you some more thoughts on how you want to proceed.
RJ-Santa FeI am planning benchwork construction for a multi-deck layout without a helix. I like the idea of using sectional benchwork (a.k.a.-"Dominoes") due to reasons of portability in the event it becomes necessary to move, flexibility of design, future expansion and ease of working on small sections at the workbench, etc. The benchwork sections will be constructed with 1'x4" wood, and covered with 2" extruded foam.
A potential concern here is that you have a benchwork that is now nominally 6" thick. If you want 12-14 inches of clearance above the lower deck, then that means you need 18-20" of vertical separation, railhead to railhead, which is a lot. One complete "revolution" (where you would have one complete laup double decked) would end up with the lowermost level separated from the uppermost level by 36-40 inches. Normal desk height is 30 inches, adding 36-40 inches to that puts the uppermost level at or above eyelevel for most people, they will need to stand on a stool to reach in for uncoupling, seeing over buildings, standing cuts of cars etc.
I would reconsider the benchwork style. I would consider 2" foam as the base, with 1/8 to 1/4 inch ply wood glued to the edges as both fascia and as a structural "skin" That will decrease the thickness by 2/3 and reduce the railhead to railhead spacing from 18-20" of spacing to 14-16" inches of spacing.
Or put the 2" foam inside the 1x4 grid, making the thickness only 3 1/2" plus track, etc.
The connected sections will spiral around the perimeter of the room, and may also utilize a penninsula. In order to gain elevation, a grade of about 1% to 1.5% would be ideal. It seems that there are two ways to accomplish this. One way would be to slope the Domino frames upward with the desired grade. In other words, for a four-foot section, one side of the frame would be elevated about a half-inch higher than the other side, giving approximately a 1% grade. Since I am planning on using Domino construction, each section of the lower deck will have four legs, which would then need to be carefully mounted using appropriately angled shims in order to insure that the legs remain vertical.
Go back and reread the ORIGINAL domino concept. The original concept had a box grid as a base section and then every domino was an additiona box grid that was elevated above the base on risers.
My question would be what kind of support will you be using to hold the second level above the first? Are you planning to use legs? Are you planning to cantilever them from the wall? Will you be using brackets or will you attach the grid of the domino to the wall and cantilever the grid? How will you reinforce the grid joints to support the weight? What kind of wall will you be anchoring the grids to? Concrete, studs, furring strips, risers from the lower level?
Why aren't you going to use the same method on the lower level you are going to use on the upper level.?
Creating roadbed from other materials, such as homasote or plywood is possible, but may partially defeat the advantage of using light-weight materials for portability.
Portability isn't the problem. Once you break it down into small, regularly shaped sections, weight isn't as big an issue. Your more pressing weight issue is how much weight can you support with what method off the upper level. I would say having standard grid/dominoe sizes is more important to portability than weight (within limits).
Dave H. Painted side goes up. My website : wnbranch.com
Tom,
Thanks so much for your great suggestions! Your idea of alternately using both level and inclined decks, while eliminating half of the legs is quite interesting!!! I will definitely give this hybridized idea some serious thought. I will be working in N scale, so I think that a deck width (or depth of scene) of 18 inches, or even as little as 12 inches in some places, should be more than adequate. Of course, certain areas could even be widened to 24 inches, where necessary, but 18 inches will probably be the average. In keeping with the Domino design philosophy of flexibility, portability and alternative useage, I have thought about using 2"x4" studs oriented sideways, to support the upper decks. The studs could either be designed as free-standing units, or screwed to the wood frames of the lower deck, or both. The upper deck could be supported by the studs using either shelf brackets or simply cantilevered with pieces of wood. This system would allow me to move the sections around any way I want. One reason I am working with Dominos is that I do anticipate having to move the layout at some time in the future. I am planning on using under-counter flourescent light fixtures beneath the upper-deck to illuminate the lower deck. That is one reason why I chose to use 1"x4"s for the frame-work. I figured it would allow enough room to mount the fixtures, as well as any other devices that might need to be hidden below deck. I might be able to switch over to 1"x3"s for the upper deck sections to save an inch, but I am also concerned about maintaining maximum flexibility of alternate usage in the future. If I start creating too many different design variations, then future compatibility becomes an issue. It also seems that I might have to accept a grade of 2%, at least in certain places, to give the additional height necessary to compensate for the thicker benchwork. That is probably one compromise I could live with, especially if I need to increase the between-deck viewing distance.
Regards,
Rob
RJ-Santa Fe
Rob,
I am in the same boat as you. I am also working on a layout that can be taken apart and moved if needed. Aswell as being a fellow N scaler. I have had a idea and maybe you can try it out for your self, granted, I have not build it, but you are welcome to try it. I was planing on using heavy duty shelf brakets that can be moved up and down, like workshop shelfs to support a around the wall layout. Sence they can moved up and down, all you would have to do is set them to get the grade you want.
Again, I have not tryed this and if anyone else has, I would love to know if my idea has worked for them.
RJ-Santa Fe [snip] I have thought about using 2"x4" studs oriented sideways, to support the upper decks. The studs could either be designed as free-standing units, or screwed to the wood frames of the lower deck, or both. The upper deck could be supported by the studs using either shelf brackets or simply cantilevered with pieces of wood. This system would allow me to move the sections around any way I want. [snip]
[snip] I have thought about using 2"x4" studs oriented sideways, to support the upper decks. The studs could either be designed as free-standing units, or screwed to the wood frames of the lower deck, or both. The upper deck could be supported by the studs using either shelf brackets or simply cantilevered with pieces of wood. This system would allow me to move the sections around any way I want. [snip]
Like you, I have a 2-level layout planned (and under construction). I am using 1x4 lumber for basic support with 1" extruded foam as sub-roadbed. For the lower deck, I built simple box frames with crosspieces (ladder-style) and I'll be simply glueing the foam on top. To support it, the frames are screwed to wall studs with 3" screws; and supported by legs only along the aisle. For the upper deck, I am using 1/4" plywood with 1x4's on the flat, to increase stiffness, with foam on top. Simple shelf brackets support the "shelf." On both decks, every "segment" is glued-and-screwed together, then screwed (no glue) to the next segment.
Linking the two levels is an around-the-room single track "no-lix" with a passing siding about 2/3 the way up. For this, I'm going dead simple : a 1x4 on the flat attached at a a 2% grade to the wall by small angle brackets, then cork roadbed and Atlas code 55 N-scale flex-track. In the corners, a triangular plywood horizontal shelf with Woodland Scenics 2% Foam Incline to form an 18" radius curve.
So far, I have 98% of both decks built (only a small 18" long section of the upper deck remains to be built). I have not yet tackled the no-lix as I am waiting for some supplies on order at my LTS to arrive.
I would suggest that you go with simple 1x4's and not 2x4's for your upper deck. If you go with plywood (as I have done), you don't need the larger dimension lumber's heftier weight. Shelf brackets offer the simplest solution to supporting the upper deck -- just be sure to screw them into the wall studs for maximum strength. Put a bracket at each stud (every 16") which should be more than adequate since it is very unlikely that anyone will need to stand on the upper deck.
My layout is designed to be a partial two-level style, with access to the upper level via a no-lix (which is already in place).
I think that your desire to use extruded foam as a roadbed base is limiting your possibilities. My upper level will be an open grid of 1"x2" select pine (no knots to weaken the structure), cross members 16" oc, topped with 3/8" sheathing plywood. Support will be via custom-made angle iron brackets, bolted to the walls of the room, with underslung 4' double fluorescent fixtures bolted to the underside of the support brackets. While the premium grade lumber elevates the price somewhat, the sheathing plywood is cheap and capable of supporting any trains that you would care to run - I used it, with 2"x4" framing, for a continuous shelf beneath the lower level of the layout - power, tools, household items, all sorts of stuff, is stored here, with no sagging.
On a 4' section, the increase in weight over foam is of no consequence. By using plywood, your "dominoes" would be much stronger, and the plywood would allow you to use the "cookie cutter" method for your roadbed. You could then introduce the grade wherever you wanted it, using risers, and interspacing level areas, also on risers, as required. If you still want to use foam as a scenery base, glue it atop the plywood on either side of the roadbed. You can also use risers (or not) to elevate the trackside plywood - either to the height of the roadbed, or higher or lower, which would allow you to use foam of a thickness appropriate to whatever scenic effects you wish to accomplish in any given section. This means that you could construct a number of dominoes all to the same height, gaining "altitude" by use of the risers only. When you feel that the risers are as high as you wish to use, construct the next set of dominoes with longer legs, then repeat the "increasing riser" scenario. The lower profile of the structural part of the domino will now be under 2", with foam only of the thickness required for your desired scenic effects.
The advantages are that all of the 4' grid sections can be exactly the same, with only the height of the risers differing from section to section, and many of the sections can also use legs of the same length. The plywood road bed allows you to vary the grade, as required, is easy to use, even on curves, and also gives you the opportunity to introduce superelevation, if you so desire.
chateauricherRJ-Santa Fe [snip] I have thought about using 2"x4" studs oriented sideways, to support the upper decks. The studs could either be designed as free-standing units, or screwed to the wood frames of the lower deck, or both. The upper deck could be supported by the studs using either shelf brackets or simply cantilevered with pieces of wood. This system would allow me to move the sections around any way I want. [snip] Like you, I have a 2-level layout planned (and under construction). I am using 1x4 lumber for basic support with 1" extruded foam as sub-roadbed. For the lower deck, I built simple box frames with crosspieces (ladder-style) and I'll be simply glueing the foam on top. To support it, the frames are screwed to wall studs with 3" screws; and supported by legs only along the aisle. For the upper deck, I am using 1/4" plywood with 1x4's on the flat, to increase stiffness, with foam on top. Simple shelf brackets support the "shelf." On both decks, every "segment" is glued-and-screwed together, then screwed (no glue) to the next segment.
Any lumber used as a support structure is only as strong vertically as its vertical dimension: that is, a 1"x4" with the 4" dimension vertical has the full strength of the 4" dimension, whereas, when used on its flat, the vertical strength is determined by the 1" dimension. A 1"x2" used on its flat is just as strong as a 1"x4" on its flat - the extra material of the 4" dimension adds only to the horizontal strength, which isn't a consideration for our purposes.
chateauricher[snip] I would suggest that you go with simple 1x4's and not 2x4's for your upper deck. If you go with plywood (as I have done), you don't need the larger dimension lumber's heftier weight. Shelf brackets offer the simplest solution to supporting the upper deck -- just be sure to screw them into the wall studs for maximum strength. Put a bracket at each stud (every 16") which should be more than adequate since it is very unlikely that anyone will need to stand on the upper deck.
[snip] I would suggest that you go with simple 1x4's and not 2x4's for your upper deck. If you go with plywood (as I have done), you don't need the larger dimension lumber's heftier weight. Shelf brackets offer the simplest solution to supporting the upper deck -- just be sure to screw them into the wall studs for maximum strength. Put a bracket at each stud (every 16") which should be more than adequate since it is very unlikely that anyone will need to stand on the upper deck.
rtprimus I was planing on using heavy duty shelf brakets that can be moved up and down, like workshop shelfs to support a around the wall layout. Sence they can moved up and down, all you would have to do is set them to get the grade you want.
I was planing on using heavy duty shelf brakets that can be moved up and down, like workshop shelfs to support a around the wall layout. Sence they can moved up and down, all you would have to do is set them to get the grade you want.
Shelf brackets work great, but the adjusments of the levels are not fine enough to create appropriate grades, IMHO. Not to mention, most of them angle back toward the wall, so you need a bit of shimming. Better to build a light grid framework to rest on the shelf brackets, then use short risers to create the actual grade.
ByronModel RR Blog Layout Design Gallery
Layout Design GalleryLayout Design Special Interest Group
ya, guess I left that little part out. But, I belive he said he was wanting to be able to move it and this would be a very ease way to pack up and move.
doctorwayneAny lumber used as a support structure is only as strong vertically as its vertical dimension: that is, a 1"x4" with the 4" dimension vertical has the full strength of the 4" dimension, whereas, when used on its flat, the vertical strength is determined by the 1" dimension. A 1"x2" used on its flat is just as strong as a 1"x4" on its flat - the extra material of the 4" dimension adds only to the horizontal strength, which isn't a consideration for our purposes.
As a practical guide to live by, that is true in that it is much more effective to increase depth vs. width; however, technically, extra width does increase strength in the vertical plane, also, because both the moment of inertia and section modulus of the member increase.
Dante
danteAs a practical guide to live by, that is true in that it is much more effective to increase depth vs. width; however, technically, extra width does increase strength in the vertical plane, also, because both the moment of inertia and section modulus of the member increase.Dante
Technically, yes, you are correct. The point which I was trying to make is that greater strength was achievable within a thinner structure simply by altering the orientation of the (smaller) supports and changing the materials (foam replaced by plywood). I'm sure that the methods mentioned would support the layout, but part of the problem was the thickness of the original structure impinging upon the separation between the levels of the layout. I don't recall the O.P.'s reason for using the 2" foam.
Wayne
doctorwayne [snip] I think that your desire to use extruded foam as a roadbed base is limiting your possibilities.
[snip] I think that your desire to use extruded foam as a roadbed base is limiting your possibilities.
BTW, I'm using extruded foam as a sub-roadbed. I am using cork for the roadbed.
How, may I ask, does using extruded foam as a subroadbed limit possibilities ? It is light-weight; it won't warp, twist or rot; it is easy to cut/carve/shape; it doesn't require drying time like plaster; it is easily painted; planting trees in it is a breeze; etc. Yes, it does need a framework to support it; but so does plywood.
doctorwayne On a 4' section, the increase in weight over foam is of no consequence. By using plywood, your "dominoes" would be much stronger, and the plywood would allow you to use the "cookie cutter" method for your roadbed. You could then introduce the grade wherever you wanted it, using risers, and interspacing level areas, also on risers, as required.
Using Woodland Scenics Inclines makes building inclines at constant grades a snap. Yes, they do add to the cost; but it is not impossible to make your own foam inclines. WS Risers (or layers of foam) make it easy to add elevated areas. All that without the more complicated use of wood risers and the "cookie-cutter" method.
doctorwayne If you still want to use foam as a scenery base, glue it atop the plywood on either side of the roadbed. You can also use risers (or not) to elevate the trackside plywood - either to the height of the roadbed, or higher or lower, which would allow you to use foam of a thickness appropriate to whatever scenic effects you wish to accomplish in any given section. This means that you could construct a number of dominoes all to the same height, gaining "altitude" by use of the risers only. When you feel that the risers are as high as you wish to use, construct the next set of dominoes with longer legs, then repeat the "increasing riser" scenario. The lower profile of the structural part of the domino will now be under 2", with foam only of the thickness required for your desired scenic effects. The advantages are that all of the 4' grid sections can be exactly the same, with only the height of the risers differing from section to section, and many of the sections can also use legs of the same length. The plywood road bed allows you to vary the grade, as required, is easy to use, even on curves, and also gives you the opportunity to introduce superelevation, if you so desire.
What you describe can just as easily be done using extruded foam construction.
Yes, I'll grant you, if you use WS Inclines for your grades, you are limited to the percentages WS makes. But since foam is easy to carve and shape, you can make your own grades.
As for superelevating curves, there are many methods available that do not require the "cookie-cutter" method. Personally, I use layers of masking tape to build up the superelevation under the outside rail.
While I have nothing against the "cookie-cutter" method per se, it is not the only way to build a layout. It is just one of a panopoly of construction methods available to today's model railroader. Every method will suit some, even many; but not all circumstances.
Personally, I choose to use a wooden support frame with extruded foam sub-roadbed because I feel it is a far simpler method, and one that I can use without resorting to the help of others. Also, due to a physical disability, I am not easily able to work under the layout clamping wooden risers in place and constantly adjusting them to achieve the correct grade (as you must do with the "cookie-cutter" method). That is just not possible for me. Doing the wiring is going to be enough of a challenge for me.
One suggestion I would have is to use what I call "centipede" benchwork for the layout. I can't take credit for the ideam, the first person I know that used this benchwork was a very inovative modeler from Minnesota, Jeff Otto. Another modeler in my area built a layout with this benchwork and I helped him constuct it. Rather than use conventional L girder or open grid construction, the benchwork consists of a series of legs (hence the term 'centipede"), each leg support is shaped like a lower case "b". The entire leg is built from 1x4's with 1x2 bracing (either quality wood or cut from 3/4 plywood). The tall back is as high as the backdrop on the upper level. The horizontal joist is as wide as the lower level is deep. There is a front leg and bracing between the back and front leg, both horizontal and diagonal. The upper level is supported on "brackets" (pieces of 1x4 either straight or tapered to about 2" deep at the end) that are screwed to the side of the tall back and cantilever out from the back. the leg assemblies are placed about every 16-24". The lower level is supported on risers from the horizontal joist or rests on the horizontal joist. The uper level either rests on the brackets or on risers from the brackets. That allows you to vary the grade. The backdrops are screwed to the tall backs and become the stiffeners that hold up the legs in the back. A fascia piece is screwed to the ends of the joists and brackets to stiffen the front. The result is an extremely flexible system that can easily support multiple levels and is very sturdy. The layout sections can just "lay" on the joists and brackets. Zero need to worry about legs and angles etc. Think of a slinky, at each point the metal is essentially flat but you can pull it up into a spiral. Same thing. You just build layout sections and then just let them flow around the benchwork. Since the benchwork is independent of the layout sections, where joints fall is immaterial. Since the legs provide all the support, you can build the layout sections of very light materials, 2" foam, light 1x2 grids, etc. al the lights hang from the brackets, NOT from the layout sections so they don't have to support the weight. The down side of this method is it puts a lot of legs on the footprint so using the under layout area for storage is a little more challenging. An alternative method is to put a 2x4 stud wall attached to your extisting wall around the room. Then screw a 2x4 flat to the wall at the level of the bottom of the layout section and one about 24" below that. Set the layout sections on the top of the upper 2x4, screw the layout sections into the 2x4 studs and run a 1x4 knee brace down to the lower 2x4 where ever needed and as frequently as needed. By running a 2x4 as the lower anchor point you can put the knee brace where ever you need it and aren't tied to the stud locations. For the upper level you can put in a bracket cantilevered off the stud similar to the centipede method. Once again, the layout sections don't have to be structural and can be made much lighter to ease moving. the down side of this method is you have to have a stud wall to attach things to and it has to be sturdy enough to support the weight of the layout. the up side is that the under layout area has virtually zero footprint and has virtually unrestricted access and storage capacity.
chateauricherdoctorwayne [snip] I think that your desire to use extruded foam as a roadbed base is limiting your possibilities. BTW, I'm using extruded foam as a sub-roadbed. I am using cork for the roadbed.
I thought that that was what I said, the base generally being at the bottom.
chateauricher How, may I ask, does using extruded foam as a subroadbed limit possibilities ? It is light-weight; it won't warp, twist or rot; it is easy to cut/carve/shape; it doesn't require drying time like plaster; it is easily painted; planting trees in it is a breeze; etc. Yes, it does need a framework to support it; but so does plywood.
It's not so much the fact that you're using foam as it is the 2" thickness - you were worried about the separation between levels of the layout - decreasing the thickness of the layout would address that concern. You could use foam or plywood almost interchangeably, but, in my opinion, plywood on a wood framework would address all of your issues better than the thick foam. I'll wager that my plaster on screen is dry long before the glue which holds your foam in place, and it's extremely easy to paint, too. Yeah, I need a drill to plant trees, but that hasn't really been a hardship.
chateauricher Using Woodland Scenics Inclines makes building inclines at constant grades a snap. Yes, they do add to the cost; but it is not impossible to make your own foam inclines. WS Risers (or layers of foam) make it easy to add elevated areas. All that without the more complicated use of wood risers and the "cookie-cutter" method.
Actually, the fact that risers have an almost infinite adjustment built right into them makes them far easier to use than shimming or carving foam. My suggesting the use of "cookie cutter" plywood with risers should in no way be interpreted as the best way or the only way, merely as an attempt to offer what you requested in your original post: chateauricher "I would greatly appreciate any sage advice, especially concerning the issue of benchwork slope (or lack thereof)."
chateauricher "I would greatly appreciate any sage advice, especially concerning the issue of benchwork slope (or lack thereof)."
If you still want to use foam as a scenery base, glue it atop the plywood on either side of the roadbed. You can also use risers (or not) to elevate the trackside plywood - either to the height of the roadbed, or higher or lower, which would allow you to use foam of a thickness appropriate to whatever scenic effects you wish to accomplish in any given section. This means that you could construct a number of dominoes all to the same height, gaining "altitude" by use of the risers only. When you feel that the risers are as high as you wish to use, construct the next set of dominoes with longer legs, then repeat the "increasing riser" scenario. The lower profile of the structural part of the domino will now be under 2", with foam only of the thickness required for your desired scenic effects. The advantages are that all of the 4' grid sections can be exactly the same, with only the height of the risers differing from section to section, and many of the sections can also use legs of the same length. The plywood road bed allows you to vary the grade, as required, is easy to use, even on curves, and also gives you the opportunity to introduce superelevation, if you so desire.
chateauricherWhat you describe can just as easily be done using extruded foam construction. Yes, I'll grant you, if you use WS Inclines for your grades, you are limited to the percentages WS makes. But since foam is easy to carve and shape, you can make your own grades. As for superelevating curves, there are many methods available that do not require the "cookie-cutter" method. Personally, I use layers of masking tape to build up the superelevation under the outside rail. While I have nothing against the "cookie-cutter" method per se, it is not the only way to build a layout. It is just one of a panopoly of construction methods available to today's model railroader. Every method will suit some, even many; but not all circumstances.
My point exactly. That's why I suggested an alternative to what seems to have become the de facto standard. I've read of lots of layouts here where foam was used even though other methods made much more sense. If you don't like the alternative, that's up to you, but wouldn't you rather at least be aware that alternatives exist?
chateauricher Personally, I choose to use a wooden support frame with extruded foam sub-roadbed because I feel it is a far simpler method, and one that I can use without resorting to the help of others. Also, due to a physical disability, I am not easily able to work under the layout clamping wooden risers in place and constantly adjusting them to achieve the correct grade (as you must do with the "cookie-cutter" method). That is just not possible for me. Doing the wiring is going to be enough of a challenge for me.
Naturally, I was unaware of your physical limitations. However, surely you're aware of the fact that, while you may have been the one requesting the "sage advice", others with similar layout dilemmas may also be reading this thread. Perhaps an alternative to the ubiquitous foam will be of interest to them.
doctorwayne Actually, the fact that risers have an almost infinite adjustment built right into them makes them far easier to use than shimming or carving foam.
Actually, the fact that risers have an almost infinite adjustment built right into them makes them far easier to use than shimming or carving foam.
Yes, I understand that. However, it is precisely that infinite adjustability that can make this a difficult and time-consuming method.
doctorwayne My suggesting the use of "cookie cutter" plywood with risers should in no way be interpreted as the best way or the only way, merely as an attempt to offer what you requested in your original post: chateauricher "I would greatly appreciate any sage advice, especially concerning the issue of benchwork slope (or lack thereof)."
I did not say that in any of my posts in this tread. In fact, it was the OP, RJ-Santa Fe who said that.
doctorwayne Naturally, I was unaware of your physical limitations. However, surely you're aware of the fact that, while you may have been the one requesting the "sage advice", others with similar layout dilemmas may also be reading this thread. Perhaps an alternative to the ubiquitous foam will be of interest to them.
Wayne,
To clarify, it was not me who was asking for "sage advice". RJ-Santa Fe is the OP.
I will agree with you that it never hurts to know that there are many ways to "skin a cat," and each method being just as "correct" (depending on the person, and the circumstances) as any other.
chateauricherTo clarify, it was not me who was asking for "sage advice". RJ-Santa Fe is the OP. I will agree with you that it never hurts to know that there are many ways to "skin a cat," and each method being just as "correct" (depending on the person, and the circumstances) as any other.
Doh!! Of course you are correct. I'm guessing that the fact that your name was shown in red at the top of the page as "Last post" is what caught my eye, and I erroneously attributed the quote to you. My apologies. I must admit, too, to being confused by all the quotes within quotes as I was attempting to compose my reply - I think I had three windows open on this thread, trying to sort out who said what to whom - and I still got it wrong! Let's hope, at least, that the OP gleans some useful information from this exchange.
doctorwayne Doh!! Of course you are correct. I'm guessing that the fact that your name was shown in red at the top of the page as "Last post" is what caught my eye, and I erroneously attributed the quote to you. My apologies. I must admit, too, to being confused by all the quotes within quotes as I was attempting to compose my reply - I think I had three windows open on this thread, trying to sort out who said what to whom - and I still got it wrong! Let's hope, at least, that the OP gleans some useful information from this exchange.
Not a problem. Quotes within quotes within quotes can trip anyone up, which is why I went back and edited my previous posts to clarify who said what.
I am sure the OP's questions were amply answered.