Wow. There wouldn't happen to be any pictures showing this in framework stages by any chance? It sounds like one sweet piece of work.
tony22 Chuck, that's a lot of great info. I've been thinking about this very thing for my new layout. In my case I'd like to make it comprised of three sections/modules. This will make it easier to move if that day ever comes, without having to destroy a whole lot. In this case I figured frame would be better. But I intended to have a "sublevel" of staging, a main level, and then an upper level branch. It sounds like you believe L-girder is better suited to that kind of pike. But can it be done using L and still be sectional?
Chuck, that's a lot of great info. I've been thinking about this very thing for my new layout. In my case I'd like to make it comprised of three sections/modules. This will make it easier to move if that day ever comes, without having to destroy a whole lot. In this case I figured frame would be better. But I intended to have a "sublevel" of staging, a main level, and then an upper level branch. It sounds like you believe L-girder is better suited to that kind of pike. But can it be done using L and still be sectional?
My layout is a 16 by 19+ foot double garage filler, built not so much in sections as in chunks:
The whole assembles into a well-folded dogbone shape, with aisleways ranging from 24 to 32 inches wide. Each major chunk has at least two levels of track. One of the big tables has four.
This is actually my 'last in this lifetime' layout, since my next move (decades hence, I hope) will be to a National Cemetary. The disassembly points are identified in my benchwork folder, which will be available to the executor of my estate.
Chuck (Modeling Central Japan in September, 1964 - for the forseeable future)
Both L girder and rectangular (or rhomboid) grid have legitimate places, as does a flat plank on shelf brackets (my now-29 year old 'end of the railroad' module resembles that!) I think the choice should be driven by what the track and scenery plan require.
Connecting different framing systems is simply a matter of arranging suitable splice or gusset plates. If the new L girders don't line up with the old end joist or header of the existing grid, the cure is as simple as a couple of vertical pieces of angle iron and some quarter-inch bolts. If the new L girder tops are at the level of the grid's bottom, all that is needed is a couple of vertical screws through the L-girder caps from underneath.
One thing that I am doing with L girder that standard grid won't allow - I have hidden thoroughfare trackage below the joists, between the girders, three quarters of the way around my layout space.
Chuck (Modeling Central Japan in September, 1964 - on steel stud C- acts like L-girder benchwork)
Hi!
L girder is fine, but IMHO, not for all circumstances. My 15 year old layout (I just took down) used a combination of a grid of 2x2 legs and 1x2 and 1x4 lateral and horizontal supports, with a 1/2 inch ply surface. It was extremely strong, and the new layout will use the same construction method.
As long as you can attach both types of construction securely, and they "do the job", then you are doing just fine. Frankly - and this will probably rub some folks the wrong way - there is just no method of doing almost anything in our hobby that works for all situations or is "second to none". Model railroaders are innovators, and again, IMHO, the end justifies the means.
ENJOY,
Mobilman44
ENJOY !
Living in southeast Texas, formerly modeling the "postwar" Santa Fe and Illinois Central
I used L-girder because I felt it was more suited to my layout: grid might be better for others. L-girder more easily allows for a irregular front of the layout merely by using different sized joists. In my case that was important to widen the isle in spots of anticipated operator locations. I also liked the strength and use of fewer legs but mine is tied to the wall which helps. If you have (or get the demo of) 3dPlanIt you can see the benchwork layer of my layout: http://home.comcast.net/~jerryglow/files/MP_NeelySub.3pi
Cal
http://home.comcast.net/~jerryglow/
L girder is designed for fairly easy construction by people with few woodworking tools and skills. It's not necessarily better or worse than other techniques. An advantage is being able to easily put the girders at angles and add more or move them. Some disadvantages are less usable space under the layout for storage, workbench, etc and less portability. As long as you have a solid connection between them, joining L girder to other bench work requires no special section.
I would use whichever method best suits your needs. Personally, I use a grid because I need the space under the layout.
Enjoy
Paul
I don't know that the two are mutually exclusive. The L girders don't have to be parallel, nor do they have to be the same length. As for "free", the joists atop L-girders are meant to be placed, and oriented, relative to the girders as one needs them to be. If you feel like experimenting, you could try the L-girders this time and see how it goes, even if just for the experience. Chances are that, with the girders fastened to an end main joist, and the joist fastened with lag bolts to an adjoining old frame member, from the existing layout, you can add on quite easily.
My thoughts.
-Crandell
Along with completly rebuilding my whole layout, I thought that I would add on a section of track. I built my original section on free grid, but since then, I have been told that L girder is better. Should I keep it free grid to match the other section, or change it to L girder over the add on.
If I go with the L girder, is there anything that I would have to do special to join them? Do I just bolt them together, or do I have to run a transition bench? Sound off
Peace