I’m planning on building Five 3’ x 8’ sections to complete my new layout. There are also two 3x7 and one 3x6’ section.
Ideally I would like to put the roadbed down, install the switches and then turn the section on it’s side so I’m facoing the underside of the layout. I can sit and install the switch machines, install wiring and other electronics.
any problem with that?
I don't think so. That's how we re-did the wiring on our club's portable layout. The scenery was still in place too (I won't tell you how much scenery we discovered that was no longer attached to the layout!). Just remember that you might have to be able to get at both the top and bottom of the modules, especially if you are mounting Tortoises.
Dave
I'm just a dude with a bad back having a lot of fun with model trains, and finally building a layout!
Your call. I posted some progress photos. I got mine up and on legs and worked on the in that configuration.
Rio Grande. The Action Road - Focus 1977-1983
Pretty much OK, but you could have an issue with Atlas switch machines, snap relays and maybe other similar devices. They need to be horizontal to operate, so be careful when mounting them sideways. Make sure they are horizontal when you test them.
It takes an iron man to play with a toy iron horse.
My layout is built at a height which allows me to use an office chair, with the locking pin that allows it to lean back. I can then roll around under the layout. If I had wired most of it BEFORE adding scenery, it would have that much easier. When I built my last expansion (20x25'), I wired it before adding scenery... Much easier!
Marlon
See pictures of the Clinton-Golden Valley RR
google TOMA - The One Module Approach being advocated by Joe Fusate
the idea is to build a layout by completing each module one at a time
each module is the same length and is held in a frame allowing the module to be flipped around while working on it, making it easy to work on the underside as needed.
greg - Philadelphia & Reading / Reading
I wire track busses, DCC control busses and accessory power busses before the layout goes upright, but not much more. I don't put down track until the sections are in place and joined, so the track gets positioned properly on the subroadbed.
At that point, I have only a rough idea of where structures and signals will go, so not much else can be wired yet.
As a Free-mo guy, my modules end up in just about every orientation. And that was ESPECIALLY true during the early construction and wiring phase.
Right now, both are on end, for storage. They can be on their sides for under-work. They COULD be upside down, with a bit of work.
I've never had a problem with that.
I expect the biggest risk is ding-ing something while you flip it. And heavier is worser. One of my modules has, unfortunately, excess scenery glup. And it's un-fun to swing about. But still doable.
Ed
Your approach makes sense. I did my current U-shapped layout with peninsula in sections. They were much stronger when bound together with bolts.
Yes, definately test, test, test everything before putting down scenery. I too made the mistake of putting scenery first. It was a royal pain lifting it for addressing wiring/track issues.
gregc google TOMA - The One Module Approach being advocated by Joe Fugate the idea is to build a layout by completing each module one at a time each module is the same length and is held in a frame allowing the module to be flipped around while working on it, making it easy to work on the underside as needed.
google TOMA - The One Module Approach being advocated by Joe Fugate
TOMA is a good idea but I don't see how it can work for the two-deck parts of a layout. If I need to build my staging yard, which I expect will consist around 5 or 6 sections of benchwork, I would have to finish them all first before adding the second level, at least ideally. I understand the reasoning behind TOMA, but it seems to be practical mainly for single level modules.
riogrande5761I understand the reasoning behind TOMA, but it seems to be practical mainly for single level modules.
wouldn't you build one level at a time? wouldn't the sections above/below one another be built separately.
i mentioned TOMA primarily because of the use of a frame making it easy to work on both the top and bottom of section.
gregc riogrande5761 I understand the reasoning behind TOMA, but it seems to be practical mainly for single level modules. wouldn't you build one level at a time? wouldn't the sections above/below one another be built separately.
riogrande5761 I understand the reasoning behind TOMA, but it seems to be practical mainly for single level modules.
Yes, but doesn't TOMA specify you "complete" a section or module of benchwork or module one at a time? However, if you have staging that has long stretches of track meant to hold 25-30 car trains, it will stretch across mulitple sections or "modules" if yo9u will, as a large as 5 or 6 sections of benchwork/modules required to complete the lower level first, before doing the upper level afterward.
I would think it depends on access partly.
My last layout had a minimal clearance over staging so I tried to make it as complete as possible before builting the next level over the top. So my "TOMA" was to complete a large section of lower level first and then go to the upper level, rather than complete a module fully before moving to the next module.
Here is what I am talking about in-action on my last layout:
5 modules or sections had to be bolted together and all track fully laid before the upper level could be added and completed. Doing this prevented me from completing each section/module fully before moving onto the next.
Or am I misunderstanding the basic concept of TOMA?
TOMA does look like a good concept for spuring progress. I discussed my last layout in a topic "TOMA, sort of?"
i thought with the TOMA approach, the Module is built separate from the layout in the frame allowing it to be flipped around and completed before installing it in the layout.
seems like your approach is build a section of the layout at a time in place.
I don't see any other way to build when two decks are involved. Can't be TOMA by definition. Single level. Sure.
Check out Joe's article a couple issues ago on his use of TOMA for his new Siskyou Line - double decked. He worked out a frame structure that allows for a double decked module section. So it is coompletely doable. It's mainly a matter of cuttin E shaped sections of plywood and arranging them like ribs in a ship oor airplane. That gives a place for the bottom level, a space for the upper level (with room underneath for lower deck lighting), and a top valance to hid lighting for the upper deck.
Yoou can pretty much modularize anything, really.But I won;t be doing that this time. Given that last time I did so, and I even took it all apart and moved it to my new house - 4 years later I ripped off the electronics and junked the whole darn thing, track and all, other than the legs which had already been removed for moving. I don't want a row of legs like the last layout, at least along the front edge, so long spans with L girders will be the order of the day. If I move from here after I built it, it's just an excuse to buy a Sawzall. My thought is, the likelihood of rebuilding the old layout ina new space is practically nil. It's one thing if you are building modules to participate in a modular club like nTrack or FreeMo, and it's a good way to get a jump on contructioon and do something knowing a move is pending. I figure if I move from here it will be one of two things - a more favorably shaped and arranged space, meaning a new layout, or a compact place that won;t fit a large layout so once again, new layout which might end up being a small 2x8 switchign layout or something. Either way, a layout designed to fit the space and shape of this basement is not likely to be usable in any other basement.
--Randy
Modeling the Reading Railroad in the 1950's
Visit my web site at www.readingeastpenn.com for construction updates, DCC Info, and more.
rrinker Check out Joe's article a couple issues ago on his use of TOMA for his new Siskyou Line - double decked. He worked out a frame structure that allows for a double decked module section. So it is coompletely doable.
I have quasi followed the TOMA saga, and I'm sure it is doable, but I've already built benchwork sections which I will be re-using. I don't see any reason to discard them in order to follow another benchwork method which doesn't make sense for me.
I'm sure Joes method is doable but it sounds like extra work and honestly defeats the purpose of TOMA in the first place, which is to encourage hobbyists to not procrastinate and to make progress on a layout.
I like to work on one deck to lay the track while there are no obstructions from above and once that is complete, then add the next level above it. To me, that is just common sense.
But I won;t be doing that this time. Given that last time I did so, and I even took it all apart and moved it to my new house - 4 years later I ripped off the electronics and junked the whole darn thing, track and all, other than the legs which had already been removed for moving. I don't want a row of legs like the last layout, at least along the front edge, so long spans with L girders will be the order of the day.
Thats a good point about the legs, but why can't you just attach the front legs in-set about 4 inches or a bit more so they are not in a position to be a bother? That can still be done on basic open grid benchwork saving me the need to go with something which is to me, a bit exotic and extra work to build (L-girder). My carpentry skills are fairly basic so I can avoid L-girder and spline and things like that and get good results still.
If I move from here after I built it, it's just an excuse to buy a Sawzall. My thought is, the likelihood of rebuilding the old layout ina new space is practically nil. ... Either way, a layout designed to fit the space and shape of this basement is not likely to be usable in any other basement. --Randy
I agree 100%. So here is what I did. I built my last layout in sections so they could be easily broken down. I never had any intention of re-assembling my last 10x18' layout in a new home. I've moved more times than I can remember and know that every home is different and is unlikely to house a previous layout. Add to that, you can usually custom design a layout to fit the new space which will be more satisifying than if you shoehorned the old layout into it.
Guess what? Lumber isn't getting any cheaper. All that stuff you used to build the last layout cost hard cold cash. I saved everything of use except for the subroadbed and the cardboard/plaster scenery.
Now chances are a few sections of basic open grid benchwork can be incorporated "somewhere" into a future layout. Worst case scenario is you back out the drywall screws and take the 1x4 and 1x3 lumber to the miter saw and cut it to fit a different size rectangle to fit a new track plan.
I have already found a spot in my new track plan to re-use essentially two complete sections 2x8' in shape (marked in red on the track plan below):
I saved all the others and will either re-use them where I can fit them in, or will re-use the lumber to build new frames for benchwork. That is money saved on construction of the next layout.
I don't know, money doesn't grow on trees as they say, and whatever I save on unneeded expenses can be used for other things.
I will probably have plywood ripped to make dimensional lumber this time. Also no extruded foam flat surface - I'll still use foam to build up hills and so forth, not not as a flat top deck like I did on the last two. So thoose old frames were mostly useless anyway - also new oone will be double decked.
The point of L girder was that it was EASIER for someoone who is not great at woodwooking - I've usually rejected it as overly complex since I am quite capable of cutting reasonably accurate lengths with nice square cuts (and on most of the last layout - using hand tools, not a power saw, since I lived in an apartment and didn;t want to make tha tmuch noise). However, spanning a 20 foot or so run with just two legs (also set back - the front girder generally does not go along the front edhe of the benchwork, the joists stick out firther which is where you cna have a nice curving fascia) is very appealing. Not only for access while building, but the end goal is to use all that under layout space to containerize storage items (not just railroad stuff) in uniform plastic totes with labels. Hidden behind some sort of curtain. With all that linear space, and things actually organized, I will be able to actually store even more stuff in far less space without it accumulating on the layout or in the aisles. And since most of it will run along walls - the rear girder will be screwed right to the wall studs, no legs there, either.
The upper deck will of necessity need to be made using some other method. Plywood brackets is the way I'm leaning at the moment. L-girder is far too thick for anything beyond the lowest level.
i thought an advantage of L-girders as opposed to a boxed frame is that a joist could be moved if it was in the way because of trackwork above (e.g. turnout linkage).
In his multi-deck book, Tony Koester talks about keeping at least the upper deck thickness thin and suggested using metal shelf brakets.
rrinker The point of L girder was that it was EASIER for someoone who is not great at woodwooking - I've usually rejected it as overly complex
To me L-girder seems overly complex as well, which is antithetical to the reported advantages if it is supposed to be easier. For me it's easier to get a frame jig and screw together a rectangular frame and add the cross members as 1x3's. Building L's out of wood is an extra step I don't see any advantage too and then attaching them to long frame members - how do you keep them square while doing that? It seems you would need some sort of funky special jig to get it altogether square... seems like a"faff-on", as my British wife would say.
Not only for access while building, but the end goal is to use all that under layout space to containerize storage items (not just railroad stuff) in uniform plastic totes with labels. Hidden behind some sort of curtain. With all that linear space, and things actually organized, I will be able to actually store even more stuff in far less space without it accumulating on the layout or in the aisles. And since most of it will run along walls - the rear girder will be screwed right to the wall studs, no legs there, either. The upper deck will of necessity need to be made using some other method. Plywood brackets is the way I'm leaning at the moment. L-girder is far too thick for anything beyond the lowest level. --Randy
I did lose maybe 2 inches of space in a few spots to store crap under the layout by using legs, but I didn't consider that enough of a loss to not use legs.
Also, in my last basement, I was concerned that if I attached everything to the walls to eliminate legs, then I might have to cosmetically restore the wall when I was preparing to move out as it would likely be visibly marred from the process. Add to that, the way I built my 2 deck layout (not meant to be moved as it was built) was very heavy and I would have had to have very stout supports, very stout indeed where there were 2 levels. It would have to be very strong supports if I was to get up on the layout, which I have a few times.
I would guess (with future sales of the house in mind) that some mudding/skimming and repainting may be needed if it was all mounted on the wall under those circumstances.
So for me having legs is a low tech but very effective support system for my layout. The legs never took up enough room to take up a significant amount of storage space and by setting them back a few inches shouldn't be a problem in terms of feet hitting them.
I'm not philosophically against shelf or bracket mounting - in some cases it's a good idea. Most of my planned layout will not be against a wall so legs are the only way, barring Star Trek repulser technology. If I decide to expand my current plan beyond what I have now, by adding a 3rd level above the yard, it would a have to be shelf mounted - that is a possibility.
Why couldn't you just unscrew a cross member and move it over and screw it back in place on an open grid frame do achieve the same result? To me it seems you can do most of the things with open grid that you can do with L-girder so I've never been convinced of the advantages of L-girder.
Yes, moving the joist is one of the purported advantages of L-girder. I've had an interference issue exactly once with grid benchwork, and that mainly because of the modular construction of my benchwork - it was double thick at the module joints since each module had and end plate. here was only one cross brace, in the middle of each 4 foot long section, so only once did it end up that the turnout throwbar location was too close for even a tiny servo to fit. That helps too - using small servos as the switch motors, they are WAY smaller than a Tortoise and even smaller than most any of the old twin-coil switch machines from back in the day. Making the chance of their being interference with the benchwork even less likely. Had I been paying better attention, I coul dhave shifted the turnout maybe 1/2" and would have had no issue.
The one thing you do get with L girder and not with open grid is a free flowing fascia. Sure, you can attach spacers of varying length along the front of open grid to connect the fascia to, but it comes naturally with l girder - just don;t cut off each joist in a perfect straight line, and the facia will naturally curve in and out along the benchwork.
It always did seem way overkill to make l girder - especially for a layout that was othersise a flat sheet of plywood. Not even cookie cutter - just your basic 4x8 sheet of plywood flat layout - why in the world would you build L girder and add joists when a simple box frame will work just fine? However, in looking for long spans, free form fascia, and vertical scenery variation, I am revisiting l girder construction. I will purchase a nail gun to use with my compressor if I do so - you cna stamp out the girders in minuts with something liek that, instead of having to drill all those holes and then screw the two pieces together. I've already made my legs that way for the last layout, a 1x3 with a 1x2 L. Since I can;t find straight 2x2's anywhere, and without a table saw I wasn't going to rip 2x4s.
gary233 I’m planning on building Five 3’ x 8’ sections to complete my new layout. There are also two 3x7 and one 3x6’ section. Ideally I would like to put the roadbed down, install the switches and then turn the section on it’s side so I’m facoing the underside of the layout. I can sit and install the switch machines, install wiring and other electronics. any problem with that?
If you kept things aligned like building separate modules, I can see it working. Although, 3 x 8 sheets of 3/4 plywood would be a bit heavy to heft up and down a lot.
If you built it the traditional way of building the grid on the table support, then only attach the ply to the grid at the end, I would think you would have problems. Wiring has to fit through the holes in the grid, so you would need enough slack to raise the ply on its side.
If you attach the grid to the ply first, all of the wiring would be contained to the bottom of the plywood as you raised the whole assembly.
I'm a few weeks away from building my new layout. 2 x 8 and 2 x 4 sections placed on shelf brackets (with 1x extenders). Brackets will be about 4 feet apart.
My plan is to glue and finish nail 1 x 3 or 4 stock to the underside of the 2 x 8 ply, providing rigidity from sagging. Then screw the 1 x "ribs" to the shelf brackets when finished, or even just the ply to the brackets since the supporting ribs don't have to run the entire length to keep the ply from sagging in the middle.
It seems there might be a problem if you keep the plywood subroadbed separate from the supporting grid, like if you were to build the traditional way of building the legs and grid as a unit then putting the table top on later. JMO.
- Douglas
rrinker Yes, moving the joist is one of the purported advantages of L-girder. I've had an interference issue exactly once with grid benchwork, and that mainly because of the modular construction of my benchwork
Yes, moving the joist is one of the purported advantages of L-girder. I've had an interference issue exactly once with grid benchwork, and that mainly because of the modular construction of my benchwork
I had an interference issue once as well; I was able work around that issue however IIRC. So I guess one has to weight the advantages against disadvantages of both types of benchwork.
That throught has crossed my mind, and as you mentioned, you just add some spacers to open grid to get the fascia you want.
It always did seem way overkill to make l girder - especially for a layout that was othersise a flat sheet of plywood. Not even cookie cutter - just your basic 4x8 sheet of plywood flat layout - why in the world would you build L girder and add joists when a simple box frame will work just fine?
For sure.
However, in looking for long spans, free form fascia, and vertical scenery variation, I am revisiting l girder construction. I will purchase a nail gun to use with my compressor if I do so - you cna stamp out the girders in minuts with something liek that, instead of having to drill all those holes and then screw the two pieces together. I've already made my legs that way for the last layout, a 1x3 with a 1x2 L. Since I can;t find straight 2x2's anywhere, and without a table saw I wasn't going to rip 2x4s. --Randy
I am still in planning stages so I can revisit if it seems a good idea. I'm going to use my saved benchwork or rebuild it to different dimensions before I build anything new.
The only place I can think of where L-girder may make sense is the lobe in the upper middle (slightly left in the photo) where it is free-standing.
Against the left wall in the photo, I'm re-using old open grid benchwork.
riogrande5761The only place I can think of where L-girder may make sense is the lobe in the upper middle (slightly left in the photo) where it is free-standing.
That's what I'm doing. Around the walls is good old box grid and the part of the G that is a freestanding peninsula is L girder. The parts against the wall have staging underneath and the L-girder section is where I'm doing scenery with a lot of vertical variance.
I have the right to remain silent. By posting here I have given up that right and accept that anything I say can and will be used as evidence to critique me.
I was hoping to use 1/2 in ply. Is that not sufficient?
Basically I would build all the modules flat to start. I would drop the frame where I want water for the ferry or a gorge for a bridge.
There are 2 mainlines. One will saty on the flat, the other will rise out ot the yard on a 2% grade to 7 or 8” then level off and go back down by the time it reaches the other end of the yard. That second main will be made on 2” ply using teh cookie cutter method and risers attached to the base plywood.
What do you think?
In HO 1/2 plywood is totally sufficient. Some who want to build a layout to double as a dance floor use 3/4 inch plywood but truly that is overkill and add to that, it's going to be much more cumbersome and heavy to work with, and more expensive.
If you go with open grid, in the photo's I posted earlier, you can put a 1/2 sheet of plywood on it (I use OSB which has worked well for me and is cheaper).
Open grid also works fine where you have scenery which is below and above the mainline. Just build the mainline on risers like this:
Here is the same scene with cardboard strip installed with hot glue:
... then plaster cloth for scenery - a river to the left:
I covered that with a layer of plaster of paris, then base color and the sanded grout for texture - same scene with track masked off to protect it during that process:
On the part behind the camera, vegetation was going in before the layout was taken down to move, but here is the above scene again with the river partly done:
As it happens, the subroadbed on risers is on a 2.9% grade here, but depending on how you build your benchwork, you can just set the open grid at a lower elevation if you don't want to have a grade take the line up off so it is on risers.
What you propose is totally possible.
Thanks Riogrande5731. Can’t wit to start. The closing on the house was yesterday. We are only down for short periods until the Spring because we re clearing out the current house and need to sell it.
Gary,
I know exactly where you are at! Just last fall (2017) my wife and I were getting our town home ready to sell and working on closing on our current home. The home we were in previously we closed on in Dec 2013 after looking at many many homes and of course layout space was a major check box. Where we live west of Washington DC cost of living is very high so we had to settle for a town house in a semi ok area. The layout room was only 10x18' feet which was the most space I had had in many years - the photo's above was from that build.
After moving into the townhome Dec 14, 2013 I was already looking forward to building a layout. Within a couple months of getting settled in, I was preparing the layout room in the finished baseement, by painting it a sky blue. Benchwork was starting to go up in Feb/March of 2014 and had all the benchwork up within about 6 months or so.
I chronicled progress in a blog-topic here (due to photobucket issues, I had to repost many photo's and some are out of date and sequence):
http://atlasrescueforum.proboards.com/thread/3737/jims-layout-progress?page=1
Unfortunately we had a sump pump fail during a big rain storm in 2015 and progress was put on hold for several 2-3 month periods to rip out flooring and drywall to remediate and also fix some slow seeps in the walls.
As you probably know, there are a lot of house tasks that do when in a new home that may delay hobby things. My wife and I moved out of the home with the above layout about four years later and closed on our current home on Nov 22, 2014. The previous home was move-in ready, but this one was bank owned, and while it had new carpet and paint throughout, the kitchen was in poor shape and there are other things needing work to bring it up to good standard.
Specific to the layout, the basement is unfinished but at least it has been framed in. Among the other home projects, I am moving slowly forward toward finishing which I hope will be making major progess in the next few months and ready for the layout this winter sometime. I also can't wait to get started!