Standard or same width benchwork lends itself to open grid.
Dave H.
Dave H. Painted side goes up. My website : wnbranch.com
If you are going with hard, straight-line layout edges, are good at carpentry, want a dead-level surface and will never, ever have to move a crossmember that interferes with installing a switch machine or turntable pit, by all means use open grid - inaccessible rear fasteners and all.
If your carpentry is suspect, you would like to use whatever comes to hand for joists, you want the freedom to relocate supports that get in the way or you would like to build a flowing, free-form layout fascia line, then go L girder. If built with all screws driven upward from below (the classic Linn Westcott design) you can make major modifications to the substructure with little or no impact on the scenic surface of the layout.
I personally use C-girders, AKA steel studs. I want the edge of the layout to follow the shoreline of a virtual river, so the hard side of conventional open grid framing is a non-starter.
One other possibility, if your layout is against structural walls, would be to screw shelf brackets into the wall studs and mount stringers across them.
The nice thing is, there is no single right way. After looking at the options, pick the one that makes you most comfortable.
Chuck (modeling Central Japan in September, 1964 - on steel stud 'C acts like L' girder benchwork, and shelf brackets)
tomikawaTT wrote:If you are going with hard, straight-line layout edges, are good at carpentry, want a dead-level surface and will never, ever have to move a crossmember that interferes with installing a switch machine or turntable pit, by all means use open grid - inaccessible rear fasteners and all.If your carpentry is suspect, you would like to use whatever comes to hand for joists, you want the freedom to relocate supports that get in the way or you would like to build a flowing, free-form layout fascia line, then go L girder. If built with all screws driven upward from below (the classic Linn Westcott design) you can make major modifications to the substructure with little or no impact on the scenic surface of the layout.
Valid points - especially when considering who was asking - TL12 seems to change his layout vision and plans (theme, focus, scale, layout shape etc) more frequently than most people change their underwear - flexibility to make changes easily might be at a premium here.
Grin, Stein
AFWIW, I don't think it is an either/or question. You can merge the two to build benchwork that suits you to a T.
-Crandell
I think that the shelf bracket idea works the best for that layout, with open grid benchwork on top. You'd need a couple of legs on the front edge of the two 4' deep sections. You can use Masonite to get a free-flowing layout facia, even when using open grid.
Wayne
doctorwayne wrote: I think that the shelf bracket idea works the best for that layout, with open grid benchwork on top. You'd need a couple of legs on the front edge of the two 4' deep sections. You can use Masonite to get a free-flowing layout facia, even when using open grid.Wayne
the two thick sections arent 4' theyre 2' the grid is 6" not 12" although I might widen them to 2.5' to accomodate 12" R curves.
I think i will go with L-girder design for the changeability and and because you can make freeform shapes
How do you make a fold up with L-girders?
any way
I think you are jumping ahead of yourself here. Gather all the features you would like included into your plan and design the benchwork around the plan. Don't restrict yourself so much on benchwork, this will cause you to use substandard radiis and make other adjustments that you may not be satisfied with.
In terms of which benchwork is better, ita matter of choice and application. The L-girder does give more flexability and the scenery can go above or below track level easily. The open grid lends itself to flat layout sections with few to no reasons for below track scenery and turnout motors. Some say the L-girder does not make it easy to move a layout but what does? My 17'x15' L-shaped layout will need one cut along 2 tracks and the long L-girders will act as handles when moving.
Its all a personal choice but you need to come up with your own set of restrictions and standards first. Settle on a trackplan and stick with it for the most part or you may be sitting there on this website all the time and call it a hobby.
John
train lover12 wrote:for the turn Radii of the turnback loops could i use 13" curves or is that too tight?
This depends on the locos and cars you intend to run. I chose 17" rdius on my N scale layout as the six axle desiels look better and the 4-8-4 steam loco I have does not climb up on that radius. I did add easements so the turn arounds are closer to 18".
http://www.nscale.org/photos/showgallery.php?cat=616&ppuser=
spidge wrote: I think you are jumping ahead of yourself here. Gather all the features you would like included into your plan and design the benchwork around the plan. Don't restrict yourself so much on benchwork, this will cause you to use substandard radiis and make other adjustments that you may not be satisfied with.In terms of which benchwork is better, ita matter of choice and application. The L-girder does give more flexability and the scenery can go above or below track level easily. The open grid lends itself to flat layout sections with few to no reasons for below track scenery and turnout motors. Some say the L-girder does not make it easy to move a layout but what does? My 17'x15' L-shaped layout will need one cut along 2 tracks and the long L-girders will act as handles when moving.Its all a personal choice but you need to come up with your own set of restrictions and standards first. Settle on a trackplan and stick with it for the most part or you may be sitting there on this website all the time and call it a hobby.
I have the plan but i just havent conferred with you guys on it.
tomikawaTT wrote:If you are going with hard, straight-line layout edges, are good at carpentry, want a dead-level surface and will never, ever have to move a crossmember that interferes with installing a switch machine or turntable pit, by all means use open grid - inaccessible rear fasteners and all....The nice thing is, there is no single right way. After looking at the options, pick the one that makes you most comfortable. Chuck (modeling Central Japan in September, 1964 - on steel stud 'C acts like L' girder benchwork, and shelf brackets)
...
Personally, I like open grid and haven't had any of these problems. Admittedly I'm an amateur, but I do enjoy working with wood and building stuff with it. Open grid also has better portability and has more clearance underneath.
Enjoy
Paul
IRONROOSTER wrote: tomikawaTT wrote: If you are going with hard, straight-line layout edges, are good at carpentry, want a dead-level surface and will never, ever have to move a crossmember that interferes with installing a switch machine or turntable pit, by all means use open grid - inaccessible rear fasteners and all....The nice thing is, there is no single right way. After looking at the options, pick the one that makes you most comfortable. Chuck (modeling Central Japan in September, 1964 - on steel stud 'C acts like L' girder benchwork, and shelf brackets)Personally, I like open grid and haven't had any of these problems. Admittedly I'm an amateur, but I do enjoy working with wood and building stuff with it. Open grid also has better portability and has more clearance underneath.EnjoyPaul
tomikawaTT wrote: If you are going with hard, straight-line layout edges, are good at carpentry, want a dead-level surface and will never, ever have to move a crossmember that interferes with installing a switch machine or turntable pit, by all means use open grid - inaccessible rear fasteners and all....The nice thing is, there is no single right way. After looking at the options, pick the one that makes you most comfortable. Chuck (modeling Central Japan in September, 1964 - on steel stud 'C acts like L' girder benchwork, and shelf brackets)
I rather like the way you edited my original post to reinforce your 'my way is the best way' opinion...
Open grid may have better portability if you are moving modules to train shows and NMRA conventions. It loses that advantage in a hurry as the sections get larger. As for clearance underneath, if I had built open-grid to the usual dimensions (4" thick) I would have gained a whole 2.5" of additional clearance.
To re-state what you edited out, L girder fastened from below is very forgiving of imperfect carpentry, lends itself to easy modification and can make use of odd sized and mismatched joists under cookie-cut plywood supported on risers. I consider it much more user-friendly than open grid (suitable for a backyard deck) construction.
I also mentioned shelf brackets as an option - with or without open-grid or L-girder superstructure. For a foot wide layout along a structural wall that has to be the easiest way to fly.
In the final analysis, the original poster will have to examine the choices, weigh the options and choose which of several methods will work for him. One size does NOT fit all.
Chuck (modeling Central Japan in September, 1964)
spidge wrote: The L-girder does give more flexability and the scenery can go above or below track level easily. The open grid lends itself to flat layout sections with few to no reasons for below track scenery and turnout motors.
Not so. You are confusing open grid benchwork with table top designs. Once you get above the framework open grid and L-girder can use identical construction. My last 2 layouts and the layout I am building/rebuilding will be open grid and except for where the joists are attached to the "frame" will be indistinguishable from an L Girder layout.
The irony is that the "domino" concept proposed by David Barrow was oriented towards maximizing flexibility was basically a variation of open grid benchwork.
Some say the L-girder does not make it easy to move a layout but what does?
Open grid. Take two grids and lay them on the floor facing each other. Put a piece of 1/4 in ply on the ends and old chunks of backdrop on the sides and you have a shipping crate. You can stacke them on end or stack them two or three high for moving. Moved my layout I built about 20 years ago 3 times (two of the grids in my current layout are from that layout.)
Its all a personal choice but you need to come up with your own set of restrictions and standards first.
Correcto mundo.
dehusman wrote: spidge wrote: The L-girder does give more flexability and the scenery can go above or below track level easily. The open grid lends itself to flat layout sections with few to no reasons for below track scenery and turnout motors.Not so. You are confusing open grid benchwork with table top designs. Once you get above the framework open grid and L-girder can use identical construction. My last 2 layouts and the layout I am building/rebuilding will be open grid and except for where the joists are attached to the "frame" will be indistinguishable from an L Girder layout.The irony is that the "domino" concept proposed by David Barrow was oriented towards maximizing flexibility was basically a variation of open grid benchwork. Some say the L-girder does not make it easy to move a layout but what does? Open grid. Take two grids and lay them on the floor facing each other. Put a piece of 1/4 in ply on the ends and old chunks of backdrop on the sides and you have a shipping crate. You can stacke them on end or stack them two or three high for moving. Moved my layout I built about 20 years ago 3 times (two of the grids in my current layout are from that layout.)Its all a personal choice but you need to come up with your own set of restrictions and standards first. Correcto mundo.Dave H.
I am not going to argue with you as long as you have actually built a layout using both methods. Then there will be some wieght behind your opinions, and they will still remain opinions.
P.S. Next time you decide to quote someone use the entire paragraph and adjoining sentence and not play on selectively picking out my words to support your opinions. If you read my post clearly there are many references to personal choices and personal standards.
spidge wrote:I am not going to argue with you as long as you have actually built a layout using both methods. Then there will be some wieght behind your opinions, and they will still remain opinions.
I've built L girder, open grid, table top, modular, cantilevered from the wall, "centipede" benchwork, threaded rod supported and other types of benchwok.
PS. No. One thing I HATE on these forums is somebody quotes an entire two page thread to add two sentences of their own information. A HUGE waste of bandwidth. I will edit them down to a reasonable quote that maintains the context.
And I have no problem posting my opinions if you are posting your opinions. Opinions are like rear ends, everybody has one.
spidge wrote:Becomming more and more narrow here.
On the contrary. You said that open grid was suited for layouts were there wasn't much below the tabletop. That's not true. I've built, them I know.
Want regular benchwork sections that can be reused easily, choose open grid.
Want benchwork that flows with the trackwork, choose L girder.
Want an open floor with no legs, choose L girder or open grid cantilevered from the wall.
Want a very flexible system with spline roadbed, choose "centipede" benchwork.
Want an easy starter layout with minimal benchwork, choose a tabletop.
Want a modular system that is easy to assemble and build, choose open grid with table top.
Nothing narrow on my part. The options are endless.
And if I was concerned about having to move an intermediate cross piece in open grid, that is easily engineered around. Take a 3 1/2" piece of 1x2, screw and glue the 1" side to the cross piece. Then screw (but not glue) it to the side rails of the grid. If you need to move the cross brace, just back out the screws, slide the cross brace to the new position and screw it in place.
Since the proposed layout looks to be only a foot wide for most of the long side, that would lend itself to a cantilever or shelf bracket type construction. The trick there is geeting sturdy brackets that are consistently 90 degr and keeping them level. Another option is to mount those channel style shelf bracket hangers to the wall and use the metal shelf brackets that hook into the channels to support the layout. makes it easy to add storage shelves above or below the layout and keeps the floor entirely open for furniture.
dehusman wrote: And if I was concerned about having to move an intermediate cross piece in open grid, that is easily engineered around. Take a 3 1/2" piece of 1x2, screw and glue the 1" side to the cross piece. Then screw (but not glue) it to the side rails of the grid. If you need to move the cross brace, just back out the screws, slide the cross brace to the new position and screw it in place.Since the proposed layout looks to be only a foot wide for most of the long side, that would lend itself to a cantilever or shelf bracket type construction. The trick there is geeting sturdy brackets that are consistently 90 degr and keeping them level. Another option is to mount those channel style shelf bracket hangers to the wall and use the metal shelf brackets that hook into the channels to support the layout. makes it easy to add storage shelves above or below the layout and keeps the floor entirely open for furniture.Dave H.
Shelf brackets - BINGO!!! That's the method I use for my along-the-wall sections (wider than a foot, but I model in twice-N scale, 1:80 aka HOj.)
If I have to move an L-girder joist (except for the few that are the crosspieces for leg assemblies) I back out two screws, shove it over (possibly at some angle other than 90 degrees) and reinsert the screws. Since the screws are driven vertically from below, access to horizontal screws through a cleat isn't an issue.
I also have plans for a strip of along-the-wall railroad which will have steep gorges plunging well below the bottoms of the L girders at the fascia line. How would a hard front header (conventional open frame) contend with that requirement?
As far as editing someone else's text to delete everything that doesn't support your position, I contend that, One of the best ways to present a false premise is to state a carefully edited quote out of context, and then shut up. If you don't want to use the full meaning of a whole quote, don't use any of it. (Note that this does not rule out editing for brevity, as long as ALL of the original meaning is preserved.)
Chuck (modeling Central Japan in September, 1964 - on, among other things, shelf brackets)
tomikawaTT wrote: I also have plans for a strip of along-the-wall railroad which will have steep gorges plunging well below the bottoms of the L girders at the fascia line. How would a hard front header (conventional open frame) contend with that requirement?
Put the grid frame below the gorge or do exactly what you are doing on the L girder, put the frame behind the gorge. Not a problem.
Since the layout in question is only 12" wide I would think that deep plunging ravines in the foreground isn't really an issue.
I used 11/2" framework then laminated 2 layers of foam. Attached it to steel brackets from the local big box store to the wall studs. The width varies from 8" to 21/2'. no problems up here in Wisconsin with sagging.The layout is an around the wall in a 42'x30' basement with 3 pennisulas.This is one of the "blobs" at the end of a pennisula, about a 30" radius.
This is a shot of the smaller width sections.
this shows the support system(sort of) .
I've posted this pic before.For scenery lower than the framework, I delete the wood and lower the whole thing.
hope this helps!
Terry
Terry in NW Wisconsin
Queenbogey715 is my Youtube channel
Lloyd2 wrote:Has anyone tried screwing (bolting) an open grid framework directly to the wall studs, without using any legs? This, of course, would be for an around the walls, narrow (no more than 2 feet deep) layout, much like the one currently under discussion. Perhaps the board up against the wall would have to be a 1x6 or 1x8 so more screws could be used in order to increase stability. The rest could be 1x4s?
The weakest link would be the fasteners driven into end grain of the cross-joists - and deepening the rear header wouldn't do a thing for that. What would be needed is something that would provide lift to the front header.
Possible ways to do this:
An easier way would be to put the whole business on shelf brackets. The rear header could be screwed to the wall to stabilize it laterally, but the screws wouldn't carry the stress of the grid's weight. Neither would the end-grain joist fasteners.
As others have posted that is a fairly weak system.
Another system I have seen that is very simple is to determine wher the bottom of the grids will be off the floor and then screw a piece of wood (1x4, 2x2, 2x4) around the walls at that level with a second one about 2 ft below it.
You set the grids on the top board and screw them into the wall, then run a brace from the grid down to the bottom board. That way your braces can be anywhere, and don't have to just be at studs. One or two diagonal braces per grid is all that is needed, depending on the width of the grid and what you have on them.
I would never nail or screw into the end grain of a crossmember; that is one of the weakest type of joints possible. That type of construction calls for pocket hole joinery. The screw bites into the cross grain of the outside piece instead of into the end grain of the crossmember. Gluing a butt joint that is then screwed or nailed into the end grain doesn't yield you much strength; the end grain of the crossmember will act like a straw and suck the glue out of the joint, starving the glue joint.
I used open grid attached to the walls, but instead of legs going to the floor, they are attached at the wall below the layout. All of my crossmembers are removable from below thanks to the pocket hole screws.
The leg in the foreground and the triangular piece of bench work it is supporting are no longer there, so disregard that item in the photo. You can see the legs against the far wall. I have been on top of my bench work and I weigh about 235 or so....
Don Z.
Research; it's not just for geeks.
Don Z wrote:I would never nail or screw into the end grain of a crossmember; that is one of the weakest type of joints possible. That type of construction calls for pocket hole joinery. The screw bites into the cross grain of the outside piece instead of into the end grain of the crossmember. Gluing a butt joint that is then screwed or nailed into the end grain doesn't yield you much strength; the end grain of the crossmember will act like a straw and suck the glue out of the joint, starving the glue joint.I used open grid attached to the walls, but instead of legs going to the floor, they are attached at the wall below the layout. All of my crossmembers are removable from below thanks to the pocket hole screws. The leg in the foreground and the triangular piece of bench work it is supporting are no longer there, so disregard that item in the photo. You can see the legs against the far wall. I have been on top of my bench work and I weigh about 235 or so....Don Z.