I’m in the design phase for my next N scale layout. I’m planning three sections, two 3-4 ft and one 3-6 forming an ell measuring 11x6 sitting into a corner of the living room. This should be a fairly light layout; not planning multilevel or anything real fancy. Mostly a double loop with some switching.
Previously, I’ve built framework with L beam and 1x2 Box frame on top. I’m not sure I want to continue with the L beam this time. Maybe just long stringers (1x3?) with cross joists and outer framing.
Looking for suggestions.
greg - Philadelphia & Reading / Reading
Every layout I have built used a different construction method for the benchwork.
.
They all worked, all lasted the life of the layout, and I never have experienced any benchwork problems.
My point is that it seems all ideas for benchwork are good ones, and the debate over which type to use is really a personal decision.
I would suggest choosing a type of benchwork that can be built using power tools you are comfortable with.
-Kevin
Living the dream.
after reviving my copy of the Riven Myst game, it occurs to me that a model railroad could be constructed with several detailed modules (riven islands) connected with spindly bridges possibly using splines supported on the floor or attached to walls if needed.
i think this approach supports an evolutionary approach to building a complete layout that can be composed of just a few modules in a small space that can grow into a larger space with more modules. And as suggested by my post above, temporary.
Modules can be arbitrary size and shape. The layout would at least start out as point-to-point but could grow into a loop. Bridges can branch, connecting more than two modules together. Modules could be rearranged in a difference order and occupy multiple rooms.
you can get started without the comittment of a complete layout.
MacTromPreviously, I’ve built framework with L beam and 1x2 Box frame on top. I’m not sure I want to continue with the L beam this time. Maybe just long stringers (1x3?) with cross joists and outer framing.
IMO, L-girder is unnecessarily complicated to build. I've found good-old open grid works quite well.
Nothing fancy but does the job.
I built sectional which made it easy to build and easy to break down. Section sizes were what 2 people could carry and ranged from 2x8 to 3x6, whatever size was needed to complete the layout.
When I moved, I saved all the basic benchwork sections for re-use, some can be used as-is and other will probably need to be re-sized.
Rio Grande. The Action Road - Focus 1977-1983
If your previous layout was open grid boxes on top of L girder - the L girder was a waste. I've built all my layouts with grid construction - 1x2's are a little too small, even for N scale, but as shown above, you just attach legs right to the grid to raise it off the floor, no extra layer of support structure needed. If you want it to come apart for potential moving, the sections of grid can just bolt to one another, and the legs can be attached with bolts as well. If you do that, the first section needs the usual 4 legs on the corners, but the next section only needs 2 legs for the end away from where it attaches to the first section, and so on. A pair of 1/4" bolts through the frames will hold one section to the previous one and support it just fine without an extra set of legs.
--Randy
Modeling the Reading Railroad in the 1950's
Visit my web site at www.readingeastpenn.com for construction updates, DCC Info, and more.
My previous layouts were grid construction, but I decided to try L girder on my current one. My personal opinion is that L girder is unnecessary. It slows down construction time for the potential added benefit of being able to move joists to clear things like turnout motors. Without planning my layout of the joists in relation to the tracki, I haven't yet needed to move a joist. Building the grid and then setting it in place (trapping one set of screws against a wall) makes it difficult to move a board if needed. Just counter that by cutting it out, and toeing in a new one.
Mike
A box/open grid frame, 1x2 or 1x3, 16 to 24 in spaceing, topped with 2in foam. Will be more then enought to support a layout.
Cheap,light,easy to build,can use hand tools,cutting can be done off site,no mess
Water Level RouteBuilding the grid and then setting it in place (trapping one set of screws against a wall) makes it difficult to move a board if needed.
My standard grid sections are built in place. The edge against the wall is attached to the wall with 3-1/2" #10's, the cross members are attached with pocket hole screws, then the outer edge is attached with standard screws (2-1/2" since they're going into the endgrain). Support for the outer edge is diagonal braces attached to the wall. No "trapped" screws, no legs to bang my knees against.
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.
L-girders are meant for longer spans where you want the layout suspended above something and to have to support whats atop them without intermediate structure or supporting members below them. They weren't meant for shorter spans, say 6' or less, especially where you don't need flexibility with spacers, risers, riser supports, cleats, and the like. And, especially where you won't be supporting much weight...say me needing to get to the back of the bench to do something.
Box frame construction should be good for spans less than 6', with good legs and braces, and you should still be able to get up on them.
When preparing the room for my current layout, I removed a couple of closets and salvaged eight 18"x80" hollow core bi-fold doors. One benefit of bi-fold doors is that there are no holes for any doorknobs. As interior doors, they are in pretty much pristine condition.
Mine are only 18" wide, and that is perfect for the lower level of my layout which is essentially a 50' long by 18" deep shelf layout. But the point is that hollow core doors (available up to 36" wide) are straight and light and dimensionally stable. A string of two or even three of these doors could form your proposed layout and they could rest on sawhorses until you figure out what sort of permanent support you'd need.
Hope this helps.
Robert
LINK to SNSR Blog
riogrande5761IMO, L-girder is unnecessarily complicated to build. I've found good-old open grid works quite well.
I agree (and also applaud your use of photos to illustrate the point ).My partially double-decked layout is all built on open grid framework, although the upper level is covered with 5/8" plywood, mainly to protect the portion below.Most of the track on the main level is supported on risers, along with many of the structures, as a lot of grades were required to allow the addition of the upper level. All grades were calculated when the main level was built many years ago, while the upper portion was added only a couple of years ago.The support structure for the main level is mostly done with 2"x4"s although there are some larger sizes in a couple of places. While they're likely overkill for layout support, most of it also includes storage shelving under the layout - some of it for train stuff, of course, but also tools and seasonal household items, etc. It was easier to order excess lumber of that size, rather than lighter material, while self-building the house...sorta a, "Gee, lookit the lumber that's left over, dear...might as well use it to start the new layout.".
Here's a couple of partial views of the upper level...
...and some of the train stuff storage...
...and some of the storage for other stuff...
...and some of the open grid used on the peninsula which takes the track from the main level to that on the upper level...
Wayne
L girder was born back in the day out of the desire for free form layout shapes, curved fascias, and dramatic mountain elevations above and below track level. Short of those needs, it is a waste of lumber and time..........except for those of you who lack planning skills or change your mind and want to change stuff later.......
Table top and open grid, depending on the scenery, are simple, easy, and strong.
I build benchwork I can climb on, I don't use foam............I am a trim carpenter/cabinet maker by trade..........and I've been building train layouts since 1970, I was 13........
Sheldon
ATLANTIC CENTRAL it is a waste of lumber and time
I don't understand why you say that. I have built both, even on the same layout, and I don't believe L-girder takes more of either.
Despite the bashing, L-girder still works great for curved benchwork edges, long spans, and major elevation changes, as others have noted (and it’s still often employed by experienced custom builders).
Open-grid is more achievable for the average modeler now with the advent of affordable miter saws. And also works fine.
And there are other choices, all of which work, and which may be mixed-and matched according to the specific situation. Tried-and-true methods are tried and true for a reason: they have been used successfully again and again.
Often it seems that more time is spent ruminating on benchwork approach than it would take to build it.
Byron
Layout Design GalleryLayout Design Special Interest Group
I started my first layout last year after I retired. After reading quite a bit, I decided to use L-girders. I wanted a nine foot span that is not attached to walls, and the entire layout is on wheels.
It is strong enough for me to sit on.
I don't believe I used any more wood or time than if I had used some other method.
York1 John
Agree with purpose of L-girder. Last layout I spanned a 21 foot run with support legs at the 15 foot mark. Above I used a 21 foot T-beam to support lighting - no support between end points.
Tom
Our club used both open grid (box frame) and 'L' girder methods and they have both suited our purposes nicely.
We used 1" x 4" open grid around the walls where the benchwork could be easily attached to the walls. Most of the layout that runs around the north and west walls is flat so the grid was simply covered with 3/4" plywood, but there were places where we had to install risers. Those areas were not covered with plywood so the risers were easy to install.
We used 1" x 4" 'L' girder construction for the peninsula. The "L" girders worked great! The peninsula is 16' long and there is only one leg in the middle of each of the three parallel 16' girder spans. It is very solid. There is a distinct advantage to having very few legs under the peninsula. In order to work on the peninsula various members frequently have to crawl under it. The fewer legs, the fewer obstructions to working under the layout.
We could have eliminated the 'L' girders from the peninsula but building the box grids would have been considerably more difficult without the 'L' griders to work on. With the L girders in place, we could place cross members wherever we needed them and they were always properly supported. Ultimately what we ended up with once all the cross members were in place was a box frame on top of the 'L' girders, but building the box frame on top of the 'L' girders was much easier than building a free standing box frame would have been. A free standing box frame would definitely have required more legs. At least, that's the way I see it.
Here is a picture of the peninsula. You can see the center 'L' girders in the middle of the picture. There are two girders back to back, and they are upside down from the perspective of normal positioning. That gave us good support for the crossmembers:
Dave
I'm just a dude with a bad back having a lot of fun with model trains, and finally building a layout!
Ok, very interesting reflections on both box and L girder construction. I’m avoiding the folding door concept, and bolting to the wall is frowned upon (apartment living). But I like the box in module ideas and appreciate the comments given. Thanks, everyone.
MacTrombolting to the wall is frowned upon (apartment living)
I put a few bolts to the wall on my last around the room layout, but just to help hold the layout firm and jiggle. It only took one here and one there and when I dismantled the layout, it was a simple matter to patch with some spackle or drywall mud and paint and you never knew there was a hole there.
I don't think just simply strengthening a long board with another long board to make an L or a T is necessarily the same thing as L girder construction. That's simply a way to eliminate the number of legs.
I believe, but I am no expert, that L girder benchwork is designed to be able to take an imprecise lenght of board and attach it to a horizontal board at whatever level is needed to have a grade for the subroadbed. Also, making free formed subroadbed by sliding the risers along various points of the girders.
- Douglas
Doughless....L girder benchwork is designed to be able to take an imprecise lenght of board and attach it to a horizontal board at whatever level is needed to have a grade for the subroadbed. Also, making free formed subroadbed by sliding the risers along various points of the girders.
That's also easily done on an open grid layout, too...
The L-girder method does eliminate the need for as many support legs as would be required for open grid of the same length, but that's one reason why I didn't use it: the storage shelves under my layout hold many heavy items, so the shelves need that additional support.L-girder allows free-flowing fascia along the aisles, but I accomplished the same with open grid by staggering the grid's width, as evidenced in the photo above.
The other benefit of L-girder is the ability to easily move crossmembers after installation (to accommodate switch machines, etc.). It's not all that more difficult to do the same with open grid, though.I used L-girders on a previous layout to accommodate a long span which bisected the layout room, but the layout surface on it was open grid. Risers attached to it were for two different levels of track, both of which included curves.
On my 2nd layout, and find the L-girder very sturdy and actually easy to assemble. I'm far from an engineer and have very few mechanical tools, so the L-girder design is super sturdy. Maintaining a strong foundation on the layout is critical and why chance it? There's plenty of areas to go cheap, but not here!
Can we pls stop the L-girder bashing? Is the DC/DCC debate next? Do what works and have fun.
The type of benchwork depends on what your goals are and the footprint of the railroad.
If you want a flowing or curved edge to the layout then open grid isn't necessarily the best design. If you want to break the layout apart, move it and reassemble it, open grid is one of the best designs.
I like to recess my controls into the facia, so I eliminated the open grid design from my current layout, the front board was just in the way.
Another consideration is whether the layout will be attached to the walls. If it is, it opens way more possibilities. For example, the benchwork agains the walls on my layout is a series of wooden brakets attached to the wall studs. I have no linear girder or board across the ends of the joists. Don't need it. The roadbed and fascia provide the linear stiffness.
One advantage open grid can have is reduced benchwork "thickness". Using 1x4's for L girder, the benchwork is nominally 7-8" thick. With open grid its only 3.5" thick. Might be important if under layout clearance or storage is an issue.
One advantage that L-girder has is that the joists don't have to be at right angles or evenly spaced, they can even be moved. With L-girder the joists can even be radial at corners or the ends of a peninsula.
In any of the benchworks, using risers to raise the roadbed means that underlying benchwork isn't required to be flat or level. All the leveling can be done with the risers.
Dave H. Painted side goes up. My website : wnbranch.com
My take is L-girder was designed for people who were challenged as far as carpentry skills (and maybe planning skills too). I include myself in that category.
Someone who can build an open grid, and get the angles all true 90 degrees and without gaps at joints has more skill than the target audience for L-girder. Someone who can do a dado joint is light-years ahead of the L-girder target audience. (I only know what a dado is, I've never done one).
To do L-girder you can use a handsaw on slightly twisty lumber and don't need to get anything perfectly square and you'll still have a solid base to lift risers from.
One downside of L-girder is that it adds vertical thickness to your benchwork. If you're trying to do multiple decks, you can't really afford an L-girder (1x4 and 1x3 horizontal) with a tall 1x4 cross member on top of that and then risers coming up from there. That's almost 8" of deck thickness when a lot of other techniques can get the job done with decks only a couple inches thick.
L-girder was also invented in a time when dimensional lumber (1x4's) of adequate quality were much more available and affordable. Today it makes a lot more sense to figure out how to build as much as possible using plywood - including your open grid.
Well that's my two cents. Don't expect everyone to agree.
Here is a construction pic of my current layout. Legs are 2x2, horizontals are 1x4s, and the top is good 1/2 inch ply. This was taken in 2008 or 9 and ten years later the layout is solid as the provervial rock. Also, notice the holes in the horizontals, made for wiring. Gotta say it has proven to be very helpful!
ENJOY !
Mobilman44
Living in southeast Texas, formerly modeling the "postwar" Santa Fe and Illinois Central
Open grid predates L girder.
L-girder was an attempt to move away from a flat tabletop layout with rigid edges. It can give a very free flowing layout edge. It also allows the legs to be set in from the edge of the layout so you aren't kicking legs while you switch.
One thing I found frustrating about open grid was the front frame was always in the way, blocking controls, access, etc. If you raised the layout above the grid, in order to recess controls or if you put the controls bleow the frame, it increased the depth of the layout as much or more than an L girder. So I changed to wall brackets and L girder.
dehusman Open grid predates L girder. L-girder was an attempt to move away from a flat tabletop layout with rigid edges. It can give a very free flowing layout edge. It also allows the legs to be set in from the edge of the layout so you aren't kicking legs while you switch. One thing I found frustrating about open grid was the front frame was always in the way, blocking controls, access, etc. If you raised the layout above the grid, in order to recess controls or if you put the controls bleow the frame, it increased the depth of the layout as much or more than an L girder. So I changed to wall brackets and L girder.
No question there is a time and place for both.
But open grid legs can, and should be set back from the front edge.
Controls - there are lots of approaches, every user has different tastes.......
While I do like the front edge to rise and fall with the scenery, I never really got into the free form aisle/layout shape thing.
You can curve the fascia at corners just as easily with either method.
But again, I am a carpenter by trade, none of this is challenging to me.
My last layout was open grid with a 2" foam top, super light. Sure I ran into limitations with design but learned I could just slap on some more open grid or sometimes a board if I wanted an extra siding. If I wanted alot of extra real estate, I might have to add another leg (which were made out of 1x4's sliced and screwed together to form an L and just screws to the inside corners of the open grid.
no one's mentioined using shelf brackets to support plywood for a narrow (< 2') shelf layout a la Tony Koester
(even this thought is kinda stale)