I built my layout this way, I cut 4 foot wide 2 inch thick pink foam so I had a table 6 feet wide by 8 feet long. Made three of these tables then joined them with clamps, so I have a layout that is 6 feet wide by 24 feet long at the moment.
These tables can easily be moved by two guys, lightweight, but also strong.
So if I ever move, just detach the clamps, and unscrew the legs and take them up the basement stairway.
Hi Bob,
Thanx for the input.
bogp40 Not sure if the 4 legs will give the continued support required for the finished layout. It may seem rigid now, however a single 1x4 spanning 9-11ft (not sure of cantaliver) will sag over time. Additional angle bracing may help, but w/o a horizontal tie to the legs, they will spread as it sags.
Not sure if the 4 legs will give the continued support required for the finished layout. It may seem rigid now, however a single 1x4 spanning 9-11ft (not sure of cantaliver) will sag over time. Additional angle bracing may help, but w/o a horizontal tie to the legs, they will spread as it sags.
Modeling B&O- Chessie Bob K. www.ssmrc.org
Thanx again to all who replied. I found all the information useful. I ended up building a 5'x11' butt joint frame with 1x4 sides and ends and 1x3 joists except for two joists that were T girders built from a 1x2 a 1x3. The T girders supported seams between plywood tabletop. To get a 5'x11" table I will have two sheets of 1/2" plywood ripped to make an 18" section and a 30" section. The two 30" sections will form the middle of the table, with the 18" sections (cut down from 8' to 5') cover each end. The plywood will sit on 1x3 joists that are set 1/2" below the top of the perimeter 1x4's, similar to MisterBeasley's 5x12 layout. I opted for plywood rather than insulation board because I wasn't sure how to mount switch motors under the insulation board (I like using screws so I can move things around and adjust them). There are four legs built as described in the MR VIRGINIAN article (with castors). If I had it to do over, I might just use 2x4's for the legs. The table is done except for adding gusset plates to the leg supports and installing the plywood. I am sure there will be issues when I try to "drop the plywood in" to the frame because(although I made every effort to keep things square) I am sure the frame is not perfectly square. I tried to build the frame 1/8" too long and too wide to allow some "slop", but I didn't end up with much "slop" room. We shall see. I'll post photos when I finish. Thanx again. I would have not used castors had Paul not told me they work on carpet. Glad i asked. The frame moves around fine, and is pretty rigid. I know the plywood will add considerable weight, but i am confident it will work. Mike
MikeyChrisdoctorwayne, Does the tongue and groove underlayment need bracing at the t & g joints? If I can find some t & g here that isn't too rough/warped, that may work fine. Thanx.
No, this stuff is intended for sub-floors, and is put in place with the 8' t&g joint at 90° to the joists. The 4' t&g joint, though, should occur atop a joist.
When you cut the two sheets to make the 4.5'x10' table top, remember that to make the joints, you'll be using the tongue of the long side of the first sheet and the groove of the short side of the same sheet - I'd simply take 1' off the width of the sheet on its long grooved-side and position that cut edge at one edge of the table. Also, remove the tongue from the 4' side of this sheet, and position this edge at the edge of the table's end.Cut a full-length 1.5' wide piece off the second sheet, making sure that it includes the grooved edge, and, after removing the tongue from the 1.5' end, join it to the piece already installed.Finally, from the remainder of the second sheet, cut a piece 2' wide from the side with the tongue, then trim its length to 4.5'. Insert the tongue into the grooves at the ends of the already installed sheets and fasten it in place. This joint should have a joist beneath it.
If you want a smooth surface, get it in firply rather than the more usually-used spruce.
Wayne
MikeyChrisAre the castors cylindrical rather than circular? Sounds like it from the dimensions. I didn't think castors would work, but may try it. I have short weave carpet with a foam underlayment over concrete. Castors would be a bit better than the "movers' because they are easy to attach to the legs. Thanx again.
I should have clarified that my casters are about 7/8" width and 1-7/8" diameter.
The legs on my layout are made per the Virginian example (thanks to David Popp); see MR Feb 2012, pg 35 if you have it. The legs are an "L" made with "select" pine 1x3 combined with a 1x2. Near the bottom you can see in the photos below that a piece of 2x2 is put in the inside of the "L", and a piece of 1x3 is also added on one side. It all provides a large enough square to accommodate the caster plate, which is screwed in. It's all glued and finish nailed (love the air gun). You can also see 1x4 cross pieces between the legs, near the bottom on the sides and back, to tie them together and reduce strain when moved. The 4th 1x4 is, higher, at the bottom of the fascia, to make getting underneath the table easier (for fossils) from the front. And the legs also have 45-degree braces near the top. It all is fairly well unitized.
I imagine I would have chosen somewhat wider casters but those would have required a wider base wood plate for them, which would not be hard to do, plus it would tie the caster to a single unit of wood instead of the 4 pieces as I have it. But if doing it again for this size layout I'd probably do the same again as it works fine.
A tangent...if you're making this size layout, and have any possibilty of moving it (e.g., to another house), one hindsight I have is not making mine modular (2-3 pieces). As it is, it's gotten fairly heavy and I'm not sure it could be managed over the handrail to get it down the stairs. If I ever have to move it, and not start on a whole new layout (depends on the next house) I may have to cut it in half and figure out how to reassemble it and get the joints "level". Easier to address at the start. Might slow you down a tad to figure it out or add a bit more support and/or two more legs.
Good luck and have fun!
Paul
Modeling HO with a transition era UP bent
Open grid can be structurally sound. However, if you are really looking at a single tabletop, you don't need to worry about splicig the ply, except possibly at a couple locations (that is, assuming you frame it and aren't intending just to drop a sheet of ply across a couple of sawhorses) because the frame provides the structural integrity. For access just build in a couple of hatches (straightforward with foam).
Before you dive too far in, I suggest looking at the Virginian as well as last year's and this year's project layouts for construction ideas, even if you aren't looking at those track plans. Several good options on benchwork there.
I've had no trouble using 1/4 ply on framed table benchwork (2x4 modules) since the frame provides the structural support but would probably go with 1/2 or 3/4 if I were doing cookie cutter style. But if you do a 1x2 or 1x4 frame, 16"OC, you can probably just use the foam without any ply beneath it at all.
jim
You may indeed have trouble with Tortoises if you follow their directions. If, on the other hand, you follow the LION's instructions you will have no problems whatsoever.
The Route of the Broadway Lion The Largest Subway Layout in North Dakota.
Here there be cats. LIONS with CAMERAS
ndbprrYou are not going to affect the structural strength of a door to cut a h ole in the bottom with rounded corners. Then you can glue a mounting block to the bottom of the top skin for switch machines.
I was concerned about ease of mounting the switch motors, and how well they would stay mounted to the thin doorskin, as well as the stability of the mount - i.e. if the pivot point would move due to flexing in the skin. Thanx for the reply.
peahrens On the casters question, I have casters on carpet, each about 7/8" x 1-7/8" and they roll nicely and don't seem to be cutting into the carpet. I do provide a little "lift" to an end of the layout as I move it. Perhaps a tad wider roller would be nice. I could only guess at the weight of my layout but 5/8" plywood, plus scenery mostly installed. Just suggesting casters might work fine, but I'm not familiar with the furniture movers. I just followed the suggested Virginian layout approach to legs and rollers even though my size is a bit more.
On the casters question, I have casters on carpet, each about 7/8" x 1-7/8" and they roll nicely and don't seem to be cutting into the carpet. I do provide a little "lift" to an end of the layout as I move it. Perhaps a tad wider roller would be nice. I could only guess at the weight of my layout but 5/8" plywood, plus scenery mostly installed.
Just suggesting casters might work fine, but I'm not familiar with the furniture movers. I just followed the suggested Virginian layout approach to legs and rollers even though my size is a bit more.
Good info. Are the castors cylindrical rather than circular? Sounds like it from the dimensions. I didn't think castors would work, but may try it. I have short weave carpet with a foam underlayment over concrete. Castors would be a bit better than the "movers' because they are easy to attach to the legs. Thanx again.
BroadwayLion Heed yea well! LION built some 3' wide tables for the last layout of him, and could not reach the other side, not to mention that the other side had hidden tracks below the mountain. I thought I could reach those trains from under the table. (Stoopid me!) I finally had to get about 30 guys to come up to the train room to move the whole layout about 18" north and 18" west, which left access isles that were still too small. Make WIDE isles and narrow tables, you cannot go wrong with that.
Heed yea well! LION built some 3' wide tables for the last layout of him, and could not reach the other side, not to mention that the other side had hidden tracks below the mountain. I thought I could reach those trains from under the table. (Stoopid me!) I finally had to get about 30 guys to come up to the train room to move the whole layout about 18" north and 18" west, which left access isles that were still too small.
Make WIDE isles and narrow tables, you cannot go wrong with that.
I have learned that lesson well. My last layout (3 levels) had a hidden reverse loop/staging tracks that was about 5" below the uooer deck (totally hidden - the only access was from below). I had the reverse loop wired for complete automatic operation - approaching train was detected, turouts aligned for entry to appropriate track, polarity reverse when train was in loop, etc. but still need access a few times. It was very uncomfortable. These days my bad knees/neck/lumber would pretty much not allow me to do that at all.
Once I get all the boxesa out of the floor, I will have about 36" to 40" clear all the way around the layout. Even with boxes, I have a minimum of 24" (most places over 30").
ndbprrYou could also consider hollow core door blanks that are relatively cheap and quite strong when laid horizontal. They come in 2" increments through at least 18-36". I would then glue laminate floor foam underlayment for sound deadening. This could be very easy to disassemble if it needs to be moved. Two 30" blanks would be 8' by 5' and one 2' cut off to 5' and perpendicular on one end would give your 10' length
Thanx for the reply. I had considered hollow core doors (MR's current series on an N scale layout jogged my memory on that). But I was concerned about how to mount switch machines/motors since the door skin is too this to use wood screws. Any ideas? I guess we will see how MR handles that soon.
Doughless Please consider your ability to reach all portions of a 4.5 foot wide layout. You mentioned having the ability to move the layout. If that allows for access to the "other side" of the layout when operating, great. But if you think that you will need to rest an arm on the layout as you step on a stool to reach derailed cars that are 54 inches from the front edge, you may want to build the table top pretty stoutly.
Please consider your ability to reach all portions of a 4.5 foot wide layout. You mentioned having the ability to move the layout. If that allows for access to the "other side" of the layout when operating, great.
But if you think that you will need to rest an arm on the layout as you step on a stool to reach derailed cars that are 54 inches from the front edge, you may want to build the table top pretty stoutly.
brisweed, Thanx for the caveat re: 1/4" ply. Duly noted.
tomikawaTT,
I'm not a metal worker-guy and bleed easily, so will stick to sticks :-)
gmpullman Rather than using the "table-top" approach you might want to consider open benchwork and cutting your plywood roadbed to fit the track plan.
Rather than using the "table-top" approach you might want to consider open benchwork and cutting your plywood roadbed to fit the track plan.
I eliminated open benchwork for a few reasons:
1) to make it sturdy enough to move would make it too heavy
2) can't play with track arrangements
3) takes too long to get trains running
4) have to do wood working outside (room is finished and carpeted)
If I was building a "permanent" layout, I would use open benchwork (I did in my last layout).
gmpullman Call me old fashioned, but personally, I would skip the half-inch foam layer. Homasote, yes—foam, no.
Call me old fashioned, but personally, I would skip the half-inch foam layer. Homasote, yes—foam, no.
I agree. I was only using the insulation board to make up for using 1/4" ply (with more bracing than 1/2"). I am now leaning towards 1/2" ply with no other subroadbed (and use cork or roadbed). Homasote has gotten very expensive here, and needs to be sealed (in Louisiana). Since I am going for "simple" I am not going to have grades.
gmpullman Keep accessability in mind, too. As you get over 48" it is a pretty far reach to the center. With open grid you can design a "pop-out" or lift out section toward the center where you can stick your body up through the layout to access inner areas.
Keep accessability in mind, too. As you get over 48" it is a pretty far reach to the center. With open grid you can design a "pop-out" or lift out section toward the center where you can stick your body up through the layout to access inner areas.
Yes, that is why the size of the layout is limited - so I can have access to all 4 sides.
gmpullman Try not to be in too big of a rush without looking at all the options. Ed
Try not to be in too big of a rush without looking at all the options. Ed
peahrens I apologize if I don't clearly understand the concern about splicing but I'll add some thoughts.
I apologize if I don't clearly understand the concern about splicing but I'll add some thoughts.
No apology needed. I didn't clearly state my concerns becuase I was trying to keep the length of the message down. The concerns about splicing the ply are:
1) the number of reinforcing splice plates would add a bit to the weight
2) Murphy's Law will make sure turnouts will fall midway over the reinforced and not-reinforced wood, making life difficult installing switch motors
3) Just the inconvenience and risk that thicknesses of plywood will mismatch
peahrens Firstly, I'd encourage developing a track plan for your space and then build what's needed to support it.
Firstly, I'd encourage developing a track plan for your space and then build what's needed to support it.
I know that is the best way. I did that on my last layout. However, I enjoy experimenting with diferent track arrangements. I am going to purchase 3rd PlanIt, but still want to play with the track. And I am really wanting to get this project started. I started an historical society in 1989 and have not been an active modeler since. I need to get my feet wet and get this going - also I am 68 y/o and have grand kids wanting to see trains run. I expect this to be an interim layout, mainly to get familiar with current methods & materials. Also, this layout will not be "permanent" like the last one -i.e. the last one was anchored to walls and floor, this one will be (of neccessity) free standing.
peahrens I built a 5+ by 10+ ft HO layout, much wider than recommended for reach purposes. I could have installed an access hole in the middle but put a yard there instead. Do consider having the layout legs on wheeled rollers. I mimicked a layout frame described in the 4x8 Virginian project. With 1x4 framing, you can have legs inside the cantilevered legs such that the span between legs is about 8'. I used 5/8" plywood since I planned cookie cutter elevation changes and wanted some good stiffness between risers.
I built a 5+ by 10+ ft HO layout, much wider than recommended for reach purposes. I could have installed an access hole in the middle but put a yard there instead. Do consider having the layout legs on wheeled rollers. I mimicked a layout frame described in the 4x8 Virginian project. With 1x4 framing, you can have legs inside the cantilevered legs such that the span between legs is about 8'. I used 5/8" plywood since I planned cookie cutter elevation changes and wanted some good stiffness between risers.
I would like to use rollers (castors) but the floor is carpeted and I doubt the castors would work well. I have some furniture movers (foam pads on spherical shaped slippery plastic or nylon) that have served me well, and I am hoping the benchwork will be light weight enough, yet sturdy enough to allow me to move it with these "movers".
I like your layout!
Roger,
I may end up using 1/2" plywood without the insulation board. I was trying to keep the weight down because I am planning on using furniture movers (carpet on floor, so casters not an option). All of my prior layouts used 3/4" or 5/8" plywood, and the last one (18' x 13') used 3/4" ply with 1/2" Homasote glued to it. That layout did have some issues with track buckling. I assume because I did not seal the plywood nor the homasote, and soldered many rail joints. Thanx for the reply.
ROAR
- Douglas
LION used 1/2" Celotex as the base/table top. Stud centers are 16" so that I can get a power drill in between the studs. The Celotex is very dimensionally stable, lighter than Homasote, and easier to cut.
The down side of Celotex sheets such as I have is that they have not been available in the last 50 years or so due to the adoption of fire codes. The Celotex Company is quite alive and well, but this signature product is no longer made.
LION has some remarkable spans using this stuff and very little else. Modern ceiling tiles (the 4x8 variety) could work too, they are stable, easy to cut light weight, but are far more fragile. You may need some good plywood support for them, so why bother?
A word of caution- I used 1/4" plywood for my tabletop layout, and five years later I am experiencing some track problems as the plywood has started to sag between the bench supports. Next time I will be using 3/4" plywood, even at the expense of some extra weight.