I have seen just about every way to build a layout except a simple 2"x4" constructed bench. I thought i would try something different this time but every thing else just seems to be more to do whith no benafit unless it is to be portable. please help
2*4 works,but it is overkill. Model trains are not very heavy and benchwork based on 1*4 L girders is cheaper, easier, and plenty strong enough. In fact, plain old 1/2 inch plywood is strong enough for a 4*8 foot layout.
David Starr www.newsnorthwoods.blogspot.com
My S/O layout is made of 2"x4"s and 3/4" plywood. Heavy, sure, but it is strong.
So many scales, so many trains, so little time.....
I guess if you have a bunch of 2 x4s lying around and want to use them - go ahead. I wouldn't go out and buy 2 x4s to build a layout. Typically 1 x 4s are used and 1 x 3s even work well.
Chris
I agree. Construction of model RR benchwork from 2 x 4 lumber is gross overkill. When was the last time you saw a truly straight 2 x 4 that stayed that way? It's hard enough to find straight 1 x lumber. However, if you have a source of free good quality 2 x 4 lumber, it's not going to hurt to use them.
Bob
Another thing to consider is that stud-grade 2x4's can be very warped and twisted, which can make accuracy hard to achieve when you're building benchwork. This is a major problem for open-grid or L-girder style benchwork, with cookie-cutter plywood on risers. Make sure you get good quality 2x4's, which may mean spending more than you need to; good clear pine 1x2's would be adequate for most layouts.
dstarr 1*4 L girders is cheaper, easier, and plenty strong enough.
I respectfully disagree. What's easier than to set two 2x4 beams then lay a 2x4 stringer across them & drive home a screw? Is fabricating L-girders and connecting 1x's on edge to each other really easier? And are the two 1x3's or whatever it takes to make a single L-girder really cheaper than a single 2x4? Cost-wise it's basically a wash.
I built my benchwork out of 2x4's because I had several on hand and was able to scavenge most of the rest from the trash pile of a nearby home under construction, so the price was certainly right.
It's stout as all get-out. I can climb on it and sit on it to reach any spot with no concerns (try THAT with your foam base!). Sure it's heavy, but for a home layout that's going to stay in the basement, who cares? Light weight and portability are overrated.
Jim
"I am lapidary but not eristic when I use big words." - William F. Buckley
I haven't been sleeping. I'm afraid I'll dream I'm in a coma and then wake up unconscious. -Stephen Wright
thanks for the advise. my plan is for an around the wall layout with a solid top with 2" foam over plywood. could i make a simple square frame with supports using 1x4s instead of 2x4s and 1x4 legs
This is my original benchwork:
It's made with a 1x4 outer frame and 1x3 cross-rafters. The legs are 2x3, supported and stabilized with 1/2-inch triangular plywood gussets. There are a couple of long 1x2 pieces mounted diagonally to give the whole thing angular rigidity, too. Pink foam goes on top. The whole thing is 5x12 feet.
I had a specific design goal here. The layout had to move around easily on wheels. It shares the family room with the family, and I needed to tuck it under a 45-degree roofline when not in use. So, a rigid, light structure was important. This framework has served well for over 4 years, and I'm now building Phase 2. The next part will be fixed, but I've kept the same basic design. With light construction and a foam base, I can't climb on my layout. But, I can walk all the way around, and pull this section out to get better access if necessary, so I don't need a jungle gym.
The front edge is a nice piece of 1x4, which is stained and polyurethaned for a nice finish. When I get around to adding fascia above it to cover the foam edges, this will give a finished look to the layout. Again, that's important in a family room, while it might not be in a basement.
I, like many of us, bought a copy of Linn Wescott's benchwork book before I bought any lumber. In the end, though, I decided that the effort of building L-girders simply wasn't justified, and I was better off with a simple box frame.
It takes an iron man to play with a toy iron horse.
Portability maters when you have to move the layout, that's why I built mine modular as it has moved many times in the last few years, you never know what will happen tomorrow. If you own you can say I will never move but if the right offer comes along, trust me you'll move.
I used 2" x 4" 's because I had them. I used carriage bolts and wood screws. I lag bolted it to one wall, it's a solid beast. I also used 1/2" plywood and 1/2" foam. My intentions of the foam and plywood was to make it easier to install the tortoise machines because of depth. I was reading about thick foam and thin foam, basically using thin foam, you build up and thick foam you build down if that makes any sense, but it works for me. If we all built layouts exactly alike... how boring would that be. I could imagine Kalmbach Publishing putting out a book "Boring Layouts 2010".
I actually use 2-bys for my C-acts-like-L girder benchwork - but the 2-bys are steel, not wood. Specifically, I use steel studs.
One point missed in the, "Use those 2-bys," side of the discussion is the essential reason for using L girders in the first place - all the screws used for assembly should be driven upward or sideways, never down from the top. Kind of hard to do if there's 3.5 inches of wood in the way!
With steel, there's always just a thin layer of metal to go through (either side flange or the solid back of the stud.) Except for a few places assembled with bolts (short bolts, not lag screws) all of my benchwork is secured with those little cap screws usually used for steel stud construction. That includes screws driven up from below into the cookie-cut plywood subgrade.
Why don't I use wood? I'm building in a non-climate-controlled garage in the Dessicated Desert. After a few days exposure to the conditions in my layout space, perfectly straight wood turns into corkscrews and other oddly useless shapes. Steel doesn't do that.
Chuck (Modeling Central Japan in September, 1964)
tomikawaTT Why don't I use wood? I'm building in a non-climate-controlled garage in the Dessicated Desert. After a few days exposure to the conditions in my layout space, perfectly straight wood turns into corkscrews and other oddly useless shapes. Steel doesn't do that.
That is one way to define "masochism." Now if you lived on the central California coast like in Monterey, it wouldn't be.
Mark
My previous layout used several sections that were each essentially 4'x8' 3/4" plywood sheets supported by L-girders made of 1x2s with 1x3 risers and 2x2 legs. I used to test each section by getting up on the plywood and standing on it. At the time I was a touch over 300 lbs, had no problems at all. If you did something similar with 2x4s you could probably drive your car on it !!
tomikawaTT One point missed in the, "Use those 2-bys," side of the discussion is the essential reason for using L girders in the first place - all the screws used for assembly should be driven upward or sideways, never down from the top. Kind of hard to do if there's 3.5 inches of wood in the way!
Bingo.
I have enough trouble fitting under the table linkages and feeders around 1x4 benchwork and 1x2 risers. Having to drop them through a 2x4 laid flat and finagle switch linkages around them would be horrible. If the people who use 2x4's like them fine, but for me that is too much wood in the way.
Dave H. Painted side goes up. My website : wnbranch.com
rob.m thanks for the advise. my plan is for an around the wall layout with a solid top with 2" foam over plywood. could i make a simple square frame with supports using 1x4s instead of 2x4s and 1x4 legs
Hi Rob.
Consider the depth of your layout to determine how much support you'll need in the middle of your simple square frame for supporting the plywood. If it is shallower than 18 inches, you probably don't need any.
Yes, you could, and would be best, to use 1 x lumber for the simple square frame. 1 x is much easier to screw together and tends to untwist when screwed, unlike 2 x stuff. I would use 2 x 4 for the support legs, and make another 1 x simple square around the legs (inside the legs on the ends) about 1/3 the distance of the leg above the floor. This will keep the legs from shifting when kicked and will also provide you with support for another shelf below the layout that you could use for storage. No need for gussets or 45 degree leg support pieces with the other ribbon of 1x around the lower part of the legs. 2 x 4 for legs works well since you'll be screwing into them, rather than screwing them into something else.
I haven't built that many layouts, but I tend to agree with Jim. It sure does seem like a lot of work to make all of those little L-girders.
Doug
- Douglas
I built my first layout using 2 X 4 and 5/8" plywood as a surface, and it was a huge table...not two ways about it. AND HEAVY!!! but I could get up and reach all parts of that layout during construction. In fact, I spent as much time on the layout as off it by the time I was doing the foam carving and the eventual track laying and scenicking.
I have no regrets, but I elected to purchase 1 X 4's and rip them with a table saw this time around. The full 1 X 4's were great for one element of L-girders, and the ripped halves comprised either the other element in the L-girders or joists, risers, diagonal bracing....highly versatile and much lighter...less filling. I found that this lighter construction was just fine for getting up on it, and must say that it will be my preferred method....although Chuck's materials and method sounds intriguing. If you can modularize metal construction, you could move such a layout from place to place with relative ease.
-Crandell
Well this comment will defy logic but it is true. An L girder is much stronger than a 2 x 4. Similarly a 1 x 4 box beam is much stronger than a solid 4 x 4. The reason is the same prinicpal as an I beam. If you picture a weight in the middle of an I beam the maximum compression and stretching is where the flanges are. That's the reason for wide flange beams with very thin webs. the web is useless for anything other than alligning the flanges. You can span a much longer distance between legs with L girders than solid wood. If you don't believe this make up an L girder and 2 x 4 of the same length and support them at the ends. then have somebody measure the distortion when you stand in the center of each. I don't have a problem with using 2 x 4s just bad engineering information.
Photobucket Albums:NPBL - 2008 The BeginningNPBL - 2009 Phase INPBL - 2010 Downtown
Yup, minimizing deflection is the key when working with long thin spans of lumber. L-girders out of 1 x minimizes it better than simple 2 x. But deflection isn't the problem with legs. With 48 inch or taller vertical spans like legs, the key is to minimize the impact of blunt horizontal force along the bottom. Use L-girder, 2x2, or 2x4, for legs, it doesn't matter, the same problem exists. The ribbon of 1x about 18 inches off the ground works well and provides the additional shelf. I'm assuming Rob is planning on having several long, shallow table tops abutting the wall, unless he chooses to do the shelf bracket method.
I've seen articles on building a layout from the ground up, where the bench work is a web of L-girders, meticuously fashioned from ripping a 4x8 piece of plywood into 3 inch strips, then placing a table top on the whole thing. It doesn't need to be that complicated.
Don't forget, the table top itself provides great rigidity to the structure when it is finally attached.
DoughlessYup, minimizing deflection is the key when working with long thin spans of lumber. L-girders out of 1 x minimizes it better than simple 2 x.
Not necessarily. Deflection is minimized primarily (but not only) by depth of the structural member. A 2x4 will resist deflection better than a 1x4. If the L-girder is comprised of a 1x4 with, say, a 1x2 or 1x3 on top, it might be equal to or better than the 2x4 because of the extra depth (I haven't troubled to do the calculation). But I believe a 1x3 with a 1x2 or 1x3 on top will deflect more than a 2x4 (on edge, of course).
Doughless Yup, minimizing deflection is the key when working with long, thin spans of lumber. L-girders out of 1 x minimizes it better than simple 2 x. But deflection isn't the problem with legs. With 48 inch or taller vertical spans like legs, the key is to minimize the impact of blunt horizontal force along the bottom. Use L-girder, 2x2, or 2x4, for legs, it doesn't matter, the same problem exists. The ribbon of 1x about 18 inches off the ground works well and provides the additional shelf. I'm assuming Rob is planning on having several long, shallow table tops abutting the wall, unless he chooses to do the shelf bracket method.
Yup, minimizing deflection is the key when working with long, thin spans of lumber. L-girders out of 1 x minimizes it better than simple 2 x. But deflection isn't the problem with legs. With 48 inch or taller vertical spans like legs, the key is to minimize the impact of blunt horizontal force along the bottom. Use L-girder, 2x2, or 2x4, for legs, it doesn't matter, the same problem exists. The ribbon of 1x about 18 inches off the ground works well and provides the additional shelf. I'm assuming Rob is planning on having several long, shallow table tops abutting the wall, unless he chooses to do the shelf bracket method.
Long, thin spans of anything that's loaded laterally and not braced! Legs are loaded longitudinally, in compression.
The ribbon of 1-by doesn't help much in combatting side thrust, and makes the space under the benchwork useless for roll-out storage units. I personally prefer angled braces - less material, less wasted space and you can't distort a triangle unless the fasteners fail.
Unless there's some aesthetic objection to wall fastenings, narrow shelves are a lot easier to deal with if they're on shelf brackets. Mine are, even though they support multiple levels of track.
As a firm believer in the KISS principle, I cringe every time I hear that! One reason I like steel studs is that the screwing flanges are either built in or can be created in seconds with tin snips and vice grips.
Depends on how the table top is made, and how it's attached. Thin cookie-cut plywood, with lots of wide open spaces, won't win any prize for rigidity. On (under) my big peninsula, a diagonal lightweight stud screwed to the L-girders and the bottoms of the joists changed the stiffness coefficient from tofu to granite.
Aside to Crandell - Steel stud construction lends itself nicely to modular construction. In fact, the first MRR article I noticed on the subject was on assembling a group of small module frames. Studs retain the L-girder convenience of having lots of 'comes with the territory' screwing flanges even when assembled like a miniature stud wall.
ndbprrAn L girder is much stronger than a 2 x 4.
I have to disagree again. A beam's effectiveness is based on two things: strength and deflection.
Strength is a function of a beam's section modulus. The higher the S value, the lower the stress in the beam. So a beam with a higher value of S is stronger and can carry more weight.
Deflection is a function of a beam's moment of inertia. The higher the value of I, the lower the deflection.
Here's a comparison between An L-girder ripped from a 1x4, a 2x4 set on edge, and a 2x4 laid flat:
I S
L-Girder 1.42 .95
2x4 Vertical 5.36 1.42
2x4 Flat 0.99 1.31
So a 2x4 on edge is nearly twice as strong and four times stiffer than an L-girder. A 2x4 laid flat is a little less stiff but able to carry more weight than an L-girder.
And yes, I'm a structural engineer by trade. So I get pretty geeked up about this kind of stuff.
mononguy63 ndbprrAn L girder is much stronger than a 2 x 4. I have to disagree again. A beam's effectiveness is based on two things: strength and deflection. Strength is a function of a beam's section modulus. The higher the S value, the lower the stress in the beam. So a beam with a higher value of S is stronger and can carry more weight. Deflection is a function of a beam's moment of inertia. The higher the value of I, the lower the deflection. Here's a comparison between An L-girder ripped from a 1x4, a 2x4 set on edge, and a 2x4 laid flat: I S L-Girder 1.42 .95 2x4 Vertical 5.36 1.42 2x4 Flat 0.99 1.31 So a 2x4 on edge is nearly twice as strong and four times stiffer than an L-girder. A 2x4 laid flat is a little less stiff but able to carry more weight than an L-girder. And yes, I'm a structural engineer by trade. So I get pretty geeked up about this kind of stuff.
Doughless mononguy63 ndbprrAn L girder is much stronger than a 2 x 4. I have to disagree again. A beam's effectiveness is based on two things: strength and deflection. Strength is a function of a beam's section modulus. The higher the S value, the lower the stress in the beam. So a beam with a higher value of S is stronger and can carry more weight. Deflection is a function of a beam's moment of inertia. The higher the value of I, the lower the deflection. Here's a comparison between An L-girder ripped from a 1x4, a 2x4 set on edge, and a 2x4 laid flat: I S L-Girder 1.42 .95 2x4 Vertical 5.36 1.42 2x4 Flat 0.99 1.31 So a 2x4 on edge is nearly twice as strong and four times stiffer than an L-girder. A 2x4 laid flat is a little less stiff but able to carry more weight than an L-girder. And yes, I'm a structural engineer by trade. So I get pretty geeked up about this kind of stuff. That's interesting. Not to keep a dying thread on life-support, but would a girder made from a 1 x 4 and a 1 x 2 be stronger than a 2 x 4? I'm not sure the girder in your example is the same size as the 2 x 4.
As stated above, the strength is not a major factor because a framework of 1 x 4 will easily support most model railroads.
The reason for the development of the L-girder (yes, I'm old enough to remember that) was to take advantage of the strength of the grain pattern in the wood. For example, on a 1 x 4, it's easy to make it flex on the 1 inch thickness but difficult to make it flex on the 4 inch side. Plus, there is normally more tendency to warp on the 1 inch direction. By taking two pieces of 1 by lumber and forming an "L" with them, their strong directions will support the weak direction of the other piece. Plus, by opposing the grain by 90 degrees, they will minimize the chance of warping.
I used 2 x 4 framing on my layout, but it's built on top of a storage shelf, which is the reason for the heavier lumber in my case.
Rob,
Having built layouts since the mid-'50s, I have used a number of different benchwork construction methods. My large Chicago basement Lionel layout (8x20) was built with "begged, borrowed, & late night acquisitions" as there was little money for buying wood. I used 2x4s for legs.
My second larger HO layout (16x8), built in a Joliet Illinois basement in the early '70s used 2x4 legs & 1x4/6 for bracing. That layout was a "rock", and portions of the benchwork survived two moves and served as a workbench frame thru 2007!
My last two HO layouts (11x15) have been built with 2x2 legs and 1x2-4 bracing. These layouts were built in a spare climate controlled room here south Texas, and have worked out beautifully.
Ok, that's some of my layout history, and let me give some of the reasons for doing what I did. I used 2x4s on basement layouts because they were available, and I didn't have the "fancy" tools that I have now. By that I mean cordless drills for deck screw fasteners, various powered saws, clamps, and the like. The base was very strong and durable and seemed to be OK for a basement layout.
Here in a finished room, I considered 2x4s to be too heavy and gross overkill for the layout base. I used 2x2s, and have 52 of them for legs under my 11x15 layout which pretty much fills the room - except for the center. Note that straight 2x2s have to be hunted at the local lumber yards, but they are easier to handle, lighter, and if properly braced, they are very strong. I weigh 225 and can go anywhere on the layout without fear of breaking anything (including me).
Hey, use what works - or what you can get. Just make it sturdy and solid and ENJOY !!!!
Mobilman44
ENJOY !
Living in southeast Texas, formerly modeling the "postwar" Santa Fe and Illinois Central
It's sort of like using a sledgehammer when a tack hammer would do. I do however prefer 2X4's with a lap joint that will be flush with the L-girder horizontal members. This also makes for easy corner angle brace attachment. I guess I just didn't feel comfortable with 2X2, which would mean sawing a 2X4 lengthwise anyways as local lumberyards here don't carry 2X2's. My benchwork will more than support my 180 pound weight.
Verrrry interesting!
Would someone include a photo of their L girder and frame....and maybe why the wiring etc. is simpler with this lighter lumber. I am about to get to building another layout and, sorry, haven't done the research yet. And I am a iffy carpenter.
I do not subscribe or have access to train mags for ideas, but I will be searching for online info soon.
Thanks
mobilman44 I used 2x2s, and have 52 of them for legs under my 11x15 layout
By "legs," I envision the vertical pieces that hold the layout off the floor. Are you talking about the same things? Fifty-two legs for an 11x15? That's a forest! It would certainly hold the layout up, though. My layout is 9x17 and has two sides supported directly off of the wall and only seven other legs.
When the time came to assemble my mountain division, I needed a table eight feet wide by 36 feet long. To support it I fashioned two "T" girders 36 feet long using two 1X4's and supported them with five 2X4 legs seven feet apart. On top of this structure I laid 1X4 joists and screwed them to the T girder flanges on 24" centers and laid half inch plywood on top of that. My specifications would be considered underbuilt by most model railroaders but it supports my 200 lbs just fine. 2x4's and 2x3's in the form of reject studs can be had in the trash pile and/or dumpster at any building site so the price is right. Just make sure to go in daylight and ask the boss carpenter for permission to raid his trash pile.