@jmbjmb,
Thanks for the idea, I made a quick sketch so everyone can see it (hopefully this is what you meant by it?).
I like this but I have couple of gotchas...my verticals are 2x3s deliberately, not to take as much real-estate because the railroad space I have available is only 12' deep so putting a 2x6 takes half a foot from the peninsula/benchwork depth.
Also, the benchwork on each side might be at different heights, depending whether I decide to put staging on this peninsula, or not. I would probably have a turnaround put on risers then just going around the outer edge of the peninsula. But that's just an idea hanging at the back of my head at the moment.
And because of the L-girderders, benchwork is pretty thick affecting the upper deck spacing perhaps.
Question: How would I balance the benchwork front-to-back in this configuration, as one side affects the other?
On another note, I expanded my search to include other materials, so wandered into the decking section of the local big box store and found all kinds of interesting angles, braces and brackets.
Not sure if they can actually be used or not, most are meant for 2x4 or bigger.
YouTube Channel
Website
If I couldn't attach to the ceiling, I would do it like this:
This is what the end support that holds up your blobs would look like. Intermediate supports could be narrowed as required. IMO, since your view of the lower level is restricted anyway, you really don't lose much by making it only 18" deep. If you want a backdrop for the upper lever, it could easily be attached to the center of the horizontal joists for each level.
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.
Clients and friends have found that studwall-like techniques work well for multi-deck and multi-tier portions of layouts that aren't against a wall. These studwalls can curve or angle relative to the room if the plates are cut from plywood.
This can tie to the ceiling, but that often isn't necessary.
Byron
Layout Design GalleryLayout Design Special Interest Group
Thanks for the drawings guys!
How would I level the benchwork front-to-back?
My floor is pretty uneven, even though it is fully finished, I have severe differences in ceiling height over short spans of space, as the floor drops down couple of inches.
In both examples, each side of the benchwork shares the same joist, and levelling one side might cause the other side to be out of level (dip down or rise up)...
TrainzLuvrHow would I level the benchwork front-to-back?
Risers. Strictly speaking, neither the floor nor joists need be level, risers can make the subroadbed level (or graded, as desired)
Hmph, didn't think of that, ok. :)
What about if there are no risers, but a flat tabletop surface (plywood and/or foam)?
cuyamaRisers. Strictly speaking, neither the floor nor joists need be level, risers can make the subroadbed level (or graded, as desired)
TrainzLuvrWhat about if there are no risers, but a flat tabletop surface (plywood and/or foam)?
Still risers. I personally wouldn't try to build a flat solid tabletop in your situation with sloping floors, et al. Or in almost any situation, except maybe for small portable switching layouts. (Which I have done.)
As a wise man once said, "Build bridges, not tables, for model railroad benchwork."
There are now 70+ years of experience in building model railroad benchwork. There can always be new ideas, but the classic concepts (like risers) still work great in most situations.
cuyamaStill risers. I personally wouldn't try to build a flat solid tabletop in your situation with sloping floors, et al. Or in almost any situation, except maybe for small portable switching layouts. (Which I have done.) As a wise man once said, "Build bridges, not tables, for model railroad benchwork." There are now 70+ years of experience in building model railroad benchwork. There can always be new ideas, but the classic concepts (like risers) still work great in most situations.
To better understand what you meant, for any flat areas, I shouldn't go with the standard open-frame benchwork with a plywood sheet ontop, but instead put the plywood sheet on risers?
How do I secure the plywood to the risers and level it in that case? How many risers do I need to use and in what kind of an arrangement?
Thanks.
Yes, the drawing is what i was trying to describe. I don't think you lose that much using 2x6 vs 2x4 since it's at the extent of reach anyway. If you consider max reach is about 30" or much less at eye level, 30 inches on each side + the roughly 6" depth is only 6 and 1/2 feet which actually works better for minimum radius.
As mentioned above, I would use risers to set the track height rather than plywood directly on the benchwork, even in large yard areas.
Have you picked up a book on benchwork yet? Those would have a good illutration of putting the yard on risers and making the connections.
jim
I would probably have to make the combined benchwork depth narrower by 5.5" to account for that 2x6, if I want to maintain some usable aisle space though. Which in turn would lower my radius on the turnaround/blob...
I do have Jeff Wilson's book "Basic Model Railroad Benchwork", which basically covers all the (non-exotic) benchwork types.
I'll have to look thought it again to see whether there's any mention of yards on the risers, but I've never seen that being done traditionally. Most people put the plywood/foam ontop of their framework, for the yards.
TrainzLuvrI'll have to look thought it again to see whether there's any mention of yards on the risers, but I've never seen that being done traditionally. Most people put the plywood/foam ontop of their framework, for the yards.
Actually, quite a few builders I know have used risers with open-grid in yards. Especially when dealing with uneven floors, not sure why you wouldn't do the same.
Oops, I hit reply too soon -- I had more too add.
Of course you're free to engineer it as you like -- these are just suggestions for how similar problems have been solved in the past.
TrainzLuvrHow do I secure the plywood to the risers and level it in that case? How many risers do I need to use and in what kind of an arrangement?
It's probably shown in the book you have, but many folks use a wooden cleat -- maybe a small chunk of 1X1 -- so that they can drive all the screws from below. Small steel L-angle could probably be used just as well. Note that the weight of the plywood holds the subroadbed down pretty well, but you are protecting against bumps (and earthquakes, where I live).
One nice thing about using risers is that it's flexible and you can place them as needed depending on the track plan -- location and number depends on the width of the benchwork.
Good luck with your layout.
I just never thought about using risers in the yards. :)
All I kept seeing is people making open frame benchwork, slapping a plywood top and start laying track.
I would have to account for that height of the risers then and make the holding benchwork lower, whether it was an open frame or L-girders, correct?
How many risers are typically used for a tabletop surface, 4?
Would I not still have to level the benchwork first (using the adjustable feet) before putting the risers on and the tabletop?
Is the process basically: construct the holding benchwork, level it, then clamp the risers on, put the table top and level again?
Looking at either drawing, if the vertical portion tilts left or right because of the floor being uneven, it just means the joists won;t be attached at a true 90 degree angle. Level front to back, which is side to side int he drawing since we are looking in on an end, is level. You can shim the center wall so it is level, and then anything attached to it will come out level, or you can attach the joists so that they are level regardless of how the vertical tilts. The horizontals on both sides of the vertical will come out level, despite (or rather because) it's all the same piece of wood.
Bottom line, the surface the track attaches to needs to be level. How you get that level doesn;t matter a whole lot - shim the vertical wall, adjust the attachment of the horizontal members, or use risers attached so that the tops are all level.
--Randy
Modeling the Reading Railroad in the 1950's
Visit my web site at www.readingeastpenn.com for construction updates, DCC Info, and more.
Whether you use L-girders or an open grid you want them to be level. As construction progresses you will be setting things at different elevations. The only way to make sure they are right is to have a level base as your zero point to measure from. The grid or the joists that sit on level L-girders provides this base.
In the end, only the subroadbed need be level (or graded, as desired). A laser level can be used to set a "0" datum on the studwall (or legs, or whatever). For layouts with a lot of grades, not all of the joists are at the same elevation anyway, so they're not necessarily useful as a reference.
I have usually tried to get the joists more-or-less level, but it's not critical if using risers. But it also doesn't hurt. Where the floor slopes a lot or has dips, the risers are handy to finalize subroadbed elevation.
I typically have used risers about every 16" in each direction or so with quality plywood, but I have no scientific basis for that.
Yes, joists must be below the desired subroadbed elevation if using risers.
If one is using the studwall method of suport, there is neither L-girder nor grid. Joists are suported by the studwall.
By the way, in asnwer to your earlier question:
... I think that you may find information on risers and cleats in the Wilson benchwork book (the older one I have is Basic Model Railroad Benchwork). The same photos and descriptions are possibly in the newer version as well. In the first edition copy of the older book, the description with photos is in Chapter 7 on pages 57-59
cuyamanot all of the joists are at the same elevation anyway
Mine are - except in the case of a canyon or something, and then only one or two are out of level with the rest of them.
cuyamaIf one is using the studwall method of suport, there is neither L-girder nor grid. Joists are suported by the studwall.
In this case my joists would be level and level with each other.
Thank you everyone. It seems I keep overthinking this, and as all of you point out, I think I have been trying to figure out how to level the floor instead of just caring that my track is levelled.
Are there drawbacks in using 1x3s instead of 1x4s for the grid framework, unrelated to spans, as most sections will be 6' long?
Also, when it comes to tabletop surfaces, I was considering either a plain 1/2" plywood surface; a 1/2" plywood + 1" foam, or even 0.2" lauan with 1" foam for really light weight and thin levels.
TrainzLuvrAre there drawbacks in using 1x3s instead of 1x4s for the grid framework, unrelated to spans, as most sections will be 6' long?
Here's a table from Lin Westcott that will help: (maximums in inches)
1x3 should be fine for normal spans. As for leveling, put a Tee-nut in each foot and insert a hex head bolt. Depending on the length of the bolt, that will give an inch or two of leveling adjustent at each leg. Then adjust each bolt to make the basic benchwork level. Just be sure to put a rubber furniture floor guard between the floor and bolt head to protect the floor.
Unless it's well supported, I wouldn't go less than 1/2 inch on the ply. I've used 1/4 inch and it works ok when supported on all sides, but tends to sag if only supported by risers every couple of feet.
I was going to do the benchwork in 6' sections so it's easier to disassemble and move out of the basement, if necessary.
In my sample I built from this thread, I did use T-nuts and plastic feet with bolts which proved a pretty decent solution for levelling.
I just couldn't believe how much difference end to end there was between the feet height (due to an uneven floor). With that in mind, I will try to hang as much benchwork on the walls as possible.
I really want to have the simplest, most utilitarian benchwork I can make. Something that will be sturdy but not an overkill in complexity or construction.
superbeT L, By trying to build an unconventional layout and make it work you were swimming against the current so to speak and you literally exhausted yourself mentally. Trying something so different on your first layout wasn’t the best decision. In addition of giving up the advantages of the legs, depending on what you did on top the center support could give you major problems when working under the layout, which is never pleasant. Bob
By trying to build an unconventional layout and make it work you were swimming against the current so to speak and you literally exhausted yourself mentally. Trying something so different on your first layout wasn’t the best decision.
In addition of giving up the advantages of the legs, depending on what you did on top the center support could give you major problems when working under the layout, which is never pleasant.
Bob
I'm going to have to agree with Bob here.
Even in H0, I'm having doubts that any light benchwork that's not tied to the walls would prevent cars from toppling, when hip-checked or its legs kicked.
I'm sure you can come up with a conventional 4 leg system what gives you some stability and just in-set the legs at least 6 inches or more to keep them out of way of being kicked.
Now as for the benchwork being prone to shaking if kicked or bumped and worry of knocking trains over, my solution, at least for the benchwork sections against the wall (which my current layout is around the walls) was to simply locate studs and take 3-inch long #8 dry wall screw and, making a pilot hole first, run it through the benchwork frame and into the stud in several places. Then benchwork is rock solid and won't budge. Yeah, I was worried about bumping the benchwork and knocking trains over too. Easy to fix using the above method.
So I am not mounting my benchwork to the wall, but I am fastening it against the wall minimally to hold it solid in place and it works well. If your SO is concerned, well, explain if you remove the benchwork, it's a simple matter of spackling the small hole left by the dry wall screw, which is not much different from patching holes from where you've hung a mirror or a picture on the wall. No biggie.
Rio Grande. The Action Road - Focus 1977-1983
You can deal with uneven floor in different ways. You still could build an open grid frame for a table top area for yards or staging yards and have it come out even elevation wise. Simply mount the legs so that they take up the floor variation in where they attach to the benchwork. One leg may be low than another but as long as the surface of the open grid benchwork is even on the bubble level, you are good. Always check the bubble level in both axies on the horizontal and check legs both ways on the vertical.
I prefer to build my yards on a flat area and use homasote to mount the track, but paint it on both sides first before screwing it down. Any track outside the yard is built on risers.
Is there a link to a plan somewhere? I see lots of ideas but nothing close to being a solid plan.
Steve
My personal opinion is that benchwork methods should follow the needs of the track plan. Thinking about them in the abstract may not be very productive -- again, just my view.
Building a layout in sections in case of a future move is often a good idea, but I would suggest doing that only for a portion of the layout. Other portions, such as "run through" areas and/or narrow shelves on an upper deck, may be purpose-built with lower cost (and benchwork thickness). These temporary segments aren't planned to move, so can be planned simply and built expeditiously.
Choops Is there a link to a plan somewhere? I see lots of ideas but nothing close to being a solid plan.
"The comittee" is working on the layout shape and track plan here:
http://cs.trains.com/mrr/f/11/t/260185.aspx
It seems that the OP hasn't made up his mind on HO vs N yet either so there is more than one cart before this horse.
That free standing part is going to be attahed to fixed sections, at one, maybe both ends, right? If properly secured (in this case, being two-sides, I'de go with 4 carriage bolts, 2 on each side of the center support) to the fixed part - it's not going anywhere. Even lightweight construction, especially if two decks (and if 2 decks - EIGHT carriage bolts - two on each side, top and bottom levels), will still have weight to keep the legs pressed to the floor. If you look at my last layout, the side at the bottom of the plans, or tot eh right of the door in the photos, was much narrower than the part on the left side fo the room, top of plans. When I built those sections - I did more than once knock the whole thing over. It was too narrow to be independently stable. But bolted up to the existing part, it became a solid whole. None of it other than one small standalone piece had a bracket to the wall. The far end from the door, right side of the plans - none of that was attached to anything, it was 2' wide benchwork, legs were L shaped out at the corners with a diagonal cross brace plus diagonals up to the long side of the base. Only on the back side, of most of them, so nothing to bash your knee into. It barely moved if you deliberately tried rocking it. Yes, a full on body slam would certainly jar rolling stock off the rails - but it's my model railroad, not a tackling dummy. Randomly brush against it, and cars barely rocked. Not worth worrying about.
Thank you all again, I really appreciate your patience.
Yes, the plan is discussed at http://cs.trains.com/mrr/f/11/t/260185.aspx
If I seem reluctant about the scale it is because I was hoping to achieve a few things:
- build double deck layout for an extended run,
- have a peninsula so that space in the middle is used up, and
- have decent aisles.
My SO kindly let me have this prime space in the basement, and I'll be damned if I leave a gigantic empty area in the middle of it (~7'x17') by only putting the layout around the perimiter.
H0 needs pretty large curves to look decent, and to just turn around even. The aisle space is directly proportionate to the benchwork depth and height and the number of levels. Deeper benchwork or multiple levels equals wider aisles. And, for safety reasons, multiple levels also means wider aisles, where shorter people will need to use step stools unimpeded.
I suppose I'm looking at this as an engineering project/problem, while it is supposed to be a fun hobby.
And occasionally another part of me sneaks up and tells me I would regret it for not trying N Scale instead...
Good news part is that my SO agreed to let me hang the benchwork to the walls, if that helps.
Now I need to figure out do I frame the walls on the open part, or find another way to resolve the problem of having only 2.5 real walls. I'm really trying to keep the area somehow open and not box it in. But I realize that might not be possible with multi deck or not, as ceiling is low and valance is at the top, etc.
Are you referring to the area on the bottom of the plan where there are columns with open spaces between them? If so, if you put legs 3/4 of the way out fromt he wall (so they are set back from the aisle space a bit), plus attach the rear at the places there are walls, it will be plenty sturdy. Or 4 legs to support it with small 90 degree metal angles to attach it to the wall where there is something to attach it to, which will lock the whole thing in place and keep it from wobbling. This can be seen on the part right to the left of the door on my layout. It was a narrow sectioon, only 12" wide, and about 3' long. Witht he legs that close together it was VERY wobbly. It firmed up some when I connected it to the next section along the side wall, the side where the yard was. I had intended to make that a liftoout but I just ducked under all the time and that piece was wedged in there and firmly screwed to both the bigger yard part and the small section. However, the OTHER end of that narrow piece, by the door, was still wobbly. And at the door i DID make the section lift out. Wobbly attachment point plus lift out = absolutely no stability. So i got one of those 90 degree angles and screwed one end into a stud on the wall, the other to the frame of the section. NOW it was very solid and never moved. And this was a rental - when I took it out, a little spackle in the screw hole and it was good as new.
That is correct, the area where the two columns are at the bottom, and the area to the left diagonally towards the left wall.
Those are actually brick columns that support the main house beam. There is a 2x4 frame around each column and drywall over it, so it looks fully finished. I was considering to screw whatever benchwork into the 2x4s for support.
Next question is how best to make the benchwork in that area that will support two levels? Frame the wall with studs on the 16" all the way; build a table-like benchwork, studs at the back and legs at the front, and mount the upper deck on those studs; or something else?
I think with table-like benchwork I might still need to have studs on the 16" to provide more mounting support for the upper deck. It will all depend on how deep the upper deck is there.