TrainzLuvr See, if I had built a shelf layout we would've never left that apartment. In retrospect, we got out just in time and bought this house we are living in now. The trains inadvertently gave me a kick in the butt to move out, although there were other factors, too. In the layout plan I posted in the other thread, staging yard allows for ~100" long trains - it fits a Dash-9 with about 8 x 89' autoracks, if I was going modern; or a 4-8-4 road steamy+tender and 10 x 50' box (or 15 x 40' box) cars with a caboose, for a transition era. I think either are more than representative of a decent train. Personally, more of the same cars (unit trains) does not really entice me. About the layout in your previous place, you said you used Bing Maps to trace track and build the branch track plan. How did you choose that specific portion of the railroad, what was the criteria?
See, if I had built a shelf layout we would've never left that apartment. In retrospect, we got out just in time and bought this house we are living in now. The trains inadvertently gave me a kick in the butt to move out, although there were other factors, too.
In the layout plan I posted in the other thread, staging yard allows for ~100" long trains - it fits a Dash-9 with about 8 x 89' autoracks, if I was going modern; or a 4-8-4 road steamy+tender and 10 x 50' box (or 15 x 40' box) cars with a caboose, for a transition era. I think either are more than representative of a decent train. Personally, more of the same cars (unit trains) does not really entice me.
About the layout in your previous place, you said you used Bing Maps to trace track and build the branch track plan. How did you choose that specific portion of the railroad, what was the criteria?
Didn't keep me in place - after building the shelf layout, I wanted more - a bigger layout. Wasn't going to happen in the apartment.
My first thought is your train lengths are tooo long for the space you have, since that's about the length I am shooting for and I have a much larger space. That doesn't mean it can't be done, but the requirements for the longer cars and locos also eats up a lot of space in wider radius requirements.
Choice of line, well, that was probably an advantage of having/modeling a favorite prototype. I've done a LOT of research. I have a shelf full of boooks - a very comprehensice 2 volume history of the Reading, books on stations along the line, one book dedicated specifically to one station, books on locomotives, both steam and diesel, freight car color guide, photo books from various areas the Reading served, actual publications the railroad put out back in the day as PR material, employee magazines, timetables, rulebooks (though both of those are newer than my era). I belong to the Reading Company technical and Historical Society, which is a wonderful source of information. We have actual locomotives and rolling stock as well as plenty of paper and smaller items, much on display at our museum. And I've worked and lived in an around Reading for about 20 years now, for a while just 2 blocks from where the main shops and yard used to be. So when I realized a 10x13 bedroom layout would not be able to depict a larger branch (despite that it is the main east-west line used by NS these days in this area, it's always been referred to as a branch because like many railroads, the Reading grew by aquiring other railroads and as the East penn railroad was not the main line of the Reading, it was therefore a branch - even though as coal traffic dwindled on the main line, crossline traffic on the branch increased). So I had to pick something smaller to fit in my space. It was easy to pick the C&F branch since a) it diverged off the East penn, b) it was short and pretty simple, and c) I used to live near it and still drive by it on a regular basis. Even so, I only was modeling a short part of it, between the junction with the East Penn and the first yard. A large water filled quarry is all that is left today, but there used to be a cement plant not far from the yard, servved by a long siding that might well be a branch itself, and that's what I was doing on that plan. My track arrangement within the cement plant was more to fit the space than the actual track arrangement (and never would have fit on a penninsula, it could have filled the whole room. So more selective compression), but indeed the track to it branched out of the yard. I never did build the penninsula though. So through the use of Bing maps (the bird's eye view makes it easy to follow rail lines, they are usually taken at a lower altitude than the straight down views you find on Google), historical maps (there are collections of aerial photos from the 30's to the 70's for PA available online - there are similar for other states - as many as 3 different sets for the same area, 30's, 50's and 70's so you can see how things changed), and my reference books, I was able to come up with a plan. Notice the plan is very simple, I resisted the temptation to throw in all sorts of extra sidings for more places to switch.
--Randy
Modeling the Reading Railroad in the 1950's
Visit my web site at www.readingeastpenn.com for construction updates, DCC Info, and more.
Don't get too wrapped up in all the analysis. Sometimes I think we get so focused on just the right prototype and just the right operations that we get bogged down in detail, can't see the forest for the trees kind of thing.
A reality for many of us is we don't have space for the basement empire. Which is why 4x8s and self switching layouts come in. Most/none of them really answer the question of which prototype and which year and so forth because they can't fit all that in. But they can be fun.
Just to take an example that is one of my favorites (actually built it at one time a few years ago). The Jefferson, Memphis, & Northern from the Oct 79 MR if you can get it is a great first model railroad. It's doesn't neccessarily have all the goodies, or full length trains (at only 5x9) but has enough going on to be a great learning layout. Big enough to get a feel for operations, scenary, structures, controls, etc, but not so big to be overwhelming.
Which is something I think we sometimes do a bit is overwhelm the newcomer with all the "stuff" that is really the result of years.
Another great one (esp if you can find the book) by John Olson is the Jerome and Southwesten. He takes you through step by step building a simple railroad.
The questions you ask about industries, train lengths, etc can take entire books to answer (there are books on them), but honestly you don't need to get that deep for a first layout. You can get paralysis by analysis trying to get everything just right. Just as an example, you could stick in an oil or propane dealer, a lumber yard, a factory, and a team track (which would be called a transload today, but still the same thing) and pretty much be good to go no matter where or what era you're in.
Another good source is the Virginian series here on MR or if you want the entire logic of from picking a prototype to building, operation, and train car choices, the Winston Salem Southbound and Beer Line videos cover the entire process and many of the questions you're asking.
jim
YouTube Channel
Website
When you are in an apartment for almost 6 years, you BECOME a shelf layout guy. It actually worked out well - and really wasn't the first time I had tried it, either. Way back, the palce I lived had a room big enough to be a bedroom, off the main bedroom. They called it a walk-in closet, but there were no provisions for hanging clothes. I had a table with my computer in there, and then I got the itch to have a layout, not just the club layout which was an hour away. I used two of the shelf plans from 101 Track Plans and connected them with a section I designed. Only ever built the one plus the one I designed before things happened and I didn't live there any more. One piece I donated to the club, with the one condition that when scenery got put on it, I wanted to be there and learn. Of course, I go back one week and the whole thing is done - someone got the itch to do scenery and just did it. Fast forward to my previous place, I was there almost 6 years, and so I came up with that layout. I couldn;t model the branch I wanted, iot was too big, but I picked a different branch (that partially still exists) and using Bing Maps in the bird's eye view I was able to trace the rails. Most of that plan is made up of actual track layouts, just with lengths shrunk (and the yard has a few fewer tracks), as individual scenes, connected by whatever was needed (mostly the curves in the corners). Long trains took a hike, too. If you are set on 30-50 car freights, reconsider. In my bedroom layout, 5 cars was about tops. ANd it was still fun. With my larger space, I'm still looking at 12 car trains or so. And these are shorter cars - 40 foot and shorter cars with a random 50 foot box car thrown in for variety. And smaller locos - GP7's and RS-3's are not nearly as big as AC4400W's and the like. Offset somewhat by having an actual caboose on all trains.
cuyama,
What are you saying, that I have a problem with committment? Makes one wonder how I ended up with my spouse. :)
Joking aside, everyone has written very encouraging and inspirational thoughts, thank you!
It also resonates with me some of what rrinker wrote above. We lived in a 2 bdrm. apartment for over a decade and I never had room for a real layout (I'm not the shelf layout kinda person). Last two or so years being there I spent a lot of thought dreaming about having a house and a basement layout.
Then we ended up with a house, and it took another two years before we could come to a point to be able to start a layout. Yet, it turns out the space is not that big after all (to me at least). My SO says that everyone I talked have said I could build a H0 layout in there, but I say to her everyone is different.
So now I'm faced with those internal compromises that rrinker mentioned. I think I need additional 2-3 ft in depth to be able to fit my vision for that space (around the walls with a peninsula and 3 ft aisles). Have not found a way to warp space yet (I'll let you know when I do, so we can all have basement empires in our closets)
Thus the N scale keeps creeping back as a solution to fill the space, which is what got cuyama to start his post above with:
A lot of it is just deciding.
most likely in reference to my flip-flopping of scales. :)
But I digress...
You have all spent many years building model railroads, and determined what went right and what went wrong. Looking at the big picture, it does not make sense to me to repeat those same wrongs just to find out what the rights are. Not trying to be snotty here but practical.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that we all learn in a different manner. Perhaps building a chaisaw layout worked for some, but I know it would not work for me. It won't scratch that itch and I would be spending (limited) resources on it.
Besides, I could hire Byron, or another layout designer, to make a plan for me, but then I would not learn much. The reasoning and logic behind creating and placing yards, industries, towns and scenery where they are, or setting an operational scheme for the trains. That is part of the big picture to me.
cuyama Paraphrasing Voltaire and others, "The perfect is the enemy of the good." And I might add: rumination is the enemy of actually building a layout. Good luck.
Paraphrasing Voltaire and others, "The perfect is the enemy of the good."
And I might add: rumination is the enemy of actually building a layout.
Good luck.
Ain't it the truth!
I've changed my mind MANY times before settling on something. In my adult life, I had originally started planning for a freelanced sort of thing with the idea that I would build moore than one layout over the years but all on the same theme. Later on I switched to a specific prototype.
And even within those constraints, I've changed my mind several times. Much of that was a stubbornness to want to built something I had been thinking about for years, while working to aquire a house to do it in. Now that I do, I don't have quite the space to do what I dreamed about, and it took some soul searching and time to come to the conclusion to do a more or less freelance track plan but with the details and design in keeping with my chosen prototype. These internal compromises are probably the hardest ones to make.
I can;t agree more on the idea of building a practice layout. Lately the term has come up "chainsaw layout" although I think that may be a tad excessive for tearing it down, especially an indoor layout . Yes, I am now designing a basement size layout. But looking back, this will be the 9th or 10th layout I have built on my own, not to mention 2 clubs I've belonged to and helped plus helping my Dad when I was even younger. Certainly not my first. Think of the first one as a test bed for the ideas you have, to see what works and what doesn't. Much can be salvaged so what you put into it isn't all wasted money, nor is it wasted time because the lessons learned can be priceless.
I'm on hold right now awaiting the basement refinishing. I PROBABLY could do this myself but it would take forever, whereas the professionals can have it done in a couple of weeks. But I expect that on the first day off I have after they are done, I will be taking my truck for the first load of lumber. My problem is not really one of excessive rumination, more like once I get enough track down to run trains, I start running trains and building less.
TrainzLuvris it some kind of a thought that cannot be passed along due to its nature; or something else I'm not aware of?
TrainzLuvrIs the only way to achieve zen in model railroading through selecting a specific prototype and recreating it rail for rail?
Of course not, and no one has suggested that to you. Successful freelanced layouts abound.
But if you can't make at least some decisions for yourself on era, locale, theme, etc., then there are too many degrees-of-freedom for anyone to decide and move forward. And it’s true, saying “yes” to some things means saying “no” (or at least, “not now”) to others. Model railroading is full of trade-offs.
Months ago I and others suggested building a smaller practice layout in only a portion of your space to get some experience and a practical feeling for the various trade-offs. Pick a quality published plan and have at it. In the end, you’ll have some fun, learn a lot, and be better-informed to make the decisions for the long-term layout.
Layout Design GalleryLayout Design Special Interest Group
Not sure where you got the impression that even pros like Byron design a plan and start building in the same day. It's never that fast, except maybe a trivial table top layout.
I've been working on my plan for over 3 years, since I first moved into this house. Though in truth I've done little over the last year and a half. But there was a month oor more of back and forth here and some offline discussion just to come up with a basic shape to maximize the railroad in my space without having duckunders. I spent another several months trying different options for the mainline and staging - cool thing about using CAD, I use a different layer for each element, like staging, main, yards, branch, etc. ANd I don;t start a new file for ever new idea - I start a new layer. So if I like the staging concept but start t not like where th emain is going, I start a new mainline layer and hide the old one. THen I can easily flip back and forth between versions without opening and closing files. I have 4 versions of the main and 3 different staging ideas in my current file, but I THINK I've settled on one of each. And that's JUST the main, no industry sidings. And I have the yard pretty much figured out. ANd this is still all just the lower deck, haven't even started the main line for the upper deck yet, after all this time. Only now do I feel a little pressure, because soon the demo on the basement will start and then it will be rebuilt into a train room and ready to go, at which point I'll want to get building. So I do need to get back to the plan and get cracking. I also don;t drive myself crazy - if I hit a design block I'll save the file and go review the relevant info in Armstrong or another book, and sleep on it, or, now that's it's summer, go float around in the pool and meditate on the problem. Eventually a solution will come to me and I add it to the drawing and move on.
I don;t build fast, either. I'm like a Yugo to Michael Rose's F1. My previous layout was about 5 years inthe making, from starting the plan to construction, and while I had allt he track down, the only 'scenery' I had was all the pink foam was painted with an earth brown color, about half the rails were painted, and maybe 1/4 of it has ballast. That's it. In 5 years.This next layout will be significantly larger (the old one was only 10x13), so I will have to definitely work faster if I expect to have it anywhere near 'complete' in my lifetime.
TrainzLuvr You guys talk about designing and building layouts as if it's a matter of getting up in the morning, drawing a track plan over breakfast, then heading downstairs to cut and glue some wood, lay track, and run trains in the evening with the crew.
You guys talk about designing and building layouts as if it's a matter of getting up in the morning, drawing a track plan over breakfast, then heading downstairs to cut and glue some wood, lay track, and run trains in the evening with the crew.
Your kidding me right? For many of us, model trains has been a life long passion. I was once a noob in my 20's and didnt have a clue, nor even a place to build a layout. I moved around a lot and had a lot of time to dream and wear out my copy of John Armstrongs book Track Planning For Realistic Operation, which I highly recommend. What I'm trying to communicate is it took years before I had the knowledge and skills I have now. So as they say, Rome wasn't built in a day.
Also, the information here is good advise. Its up to you to if you take it to heart or go your own way.
It feels pretty intimidating to me and I wish I had your confidence, knowledge and experience to just whip up a track plan like that.
Confidence comes from doing, from trial and error, which is true for all kinds of things, not just a train hobby. You have to start out with baby steps putting one foot in front of another and work your way from small to large.
Right now, I'm struggling to figure out what industries should there be, how and what kind of trains should run, how long should the trains be, where should they come and go, where the cities/towns and scenic elements need to be placed, etc. I could be wrong, but I've scoured the web, and none of these actual things are written anywhere. To me, Armstrong wrote in general terms, and the modern gurus are of little help.
I could be wrong, but I've scoured the web, and none of these actual things are written anywhere. To me, Armstrong wrote in general terms, and the modern gurus are of little help.
Sounds like you are trying to bite off too much and getting overwhelmed. There is a reason old heads recommend building a smaller layout first before tackling a big layout. Reading your comments it seems youve now found out first hand why maybe?
Does this kind of mastery come after decades of model railroading and cannot be really put into words of a book or a web page; is it some kind of a thought that cannot be passed along due to its nature; or something else I'm not aware of? I'm asking because I want to understand and learn the principles. I'm looking for the logic behind it, the train of thought (no pun intended) as they say.
I'm asking because I want to understand and learn the principles. I'm looking for the logic behind it, the train of thought (no pun intended) as they say.
Yes, for many its a life long passion and not a "just add water and instant dream layout". For many it does take time to build the experience to build a layout and really know what you want to focus on. Heck, my wifes son grew up poor in England and wasnt exposed to much of anything so has no clue what he is interested in or what to do with his life and at 23 we are trying to catch him up. In fact we are having ro decide for him.
Model trains can be like that. You may have to look at many layout designs and many trains etc. before you figure out what it is you specifically like or have a passion about. Then you may settle on something you can focus on and sink your teeth into. I had a fairly broad range of a 30 year time frame for two favorite railroads and only in the last few years narrowed that down to approx 5 years, which is MUCH more managable, believe me.
Almost everywhere I asked people would say the same thing, as if it's a mantra: what is your prototype, what time period/era, what scale/gauge, ops or scenic layout, followed by go read Armstrong. A few people out there I spoke to expect me to actually give them a date I'm modelling (ie. 19 September, 1959, 3:24pm) before they can dispense some advice. I truly do not undestand that at all. Is it impossible to think out of the box in abstract terms without specifics? I love trains, I grew up watching trains, even had relatives work on the railroad. But, I do not have a "prototype" in mind, nor am I emotionally connected to some place and time in the past (or present) that I wish to recreate. Is the only way to achieve zen in model railroading through selecting a specific prototype and recreating it rail for rail? /rant
A few people out there I spoke to expect me to actually give them a date I'm modelling (ie. 19 September, 1959, 3:24pm) before they can dispense some advice.
I truly do not undestand that at all. Is it impossible to think out of the box in abstract terms without specifics?
I love trains, I grew up watching trains, even had relatives work on the railroad. But, I do not have a "prototype" in mind, nor am I emotionally connected to some place and time in the past (or present) that I wish to recreate.
Is the only way to achieve zen in model railroading through selecting a specific prototype and recreating it rail for rail?
/rant
Well, dont let people intimidate you or try to pin you down. Youll find a lot of hobbyists can be pretty pushy, or have their own agenda. Looks like you already found that out by the sounds of it. Forget the pushy people and try to have fun and dont forget, its the journey you should enjoy, don't try to focus too much on the destination. Also dont be afraid to postpone an overly ambitious layout and may try something more modest. Better that than give up entirely out of frustration.
Rio Grande. The Action Road - Focus 1977-1983
TrainzLuvr You guys talk about designing and building layouts as if it's a matter of getting up in the morning, drawing a track plan over breakfast, then heading downstairs to cut and glue some wood, lay track, and run trains in the evening with the crew. ... Almost everywhere I asked people would say the same thing, as if it's a mantra: what is your prototype, what time period/era, what scale/gauge, ops or scenic layout, followed by go read Armstrong.
...
Almost everywhere I asked people would say the same thing, as if it's a mantra: what is your prototype, what time period/era, what scale/gauge, ops or scenic layout, followed by go read Armstrong.
For a lifelong modeler it may very well be that simple. It's called experience. With experience comes proficiency. For the rest of us it means countless hours researching, reading, sketching, testing, and trying to determine the pros and cons of each and every decision. It is a complex engineering problem that must be solved bit by bit.
I returned to the hobby after a 40 year absence. What I knew about trains then is obsolete and all but worthless now. I was again a noob for all practical purposes. I wondered about many of the same things you are asking about now.
With seven years under my belt and a large layout well on its way to being operational I can tell you the problem is solvable if you persevere. I can also tell you the prototype, time, scale, ops/scenic questions do need to be asked and answered. The answers set the parameters affecting your decision making as you work towards solving the engineering challenge of building a satisfying, reliable, functional model railroad. The advice you are being given and the questions you are being asked are good. They need answers or you run the risk of investing a lot of time and effort only to be disappointed in your results.
It would take a book, a very thick book, to explain in detail everything experience will eventually teach you. Reading Armstrong can be thought of as one of the more informative and valuable chapters in that thick book. I did and it has served me well.
Alan
Freelancing the LK&O Railroad
This is not meant to offend anyone - please forgive me if it might sound that way.
It feels pretty intimidating to me and I wish I had your confidence, knowledge and experience to just whip up a track plan like that. Right now, I'm struggling to figure out what industries should there be, how and what kind of trains should run, how long should the trains be, where should they come and go, where the cities/towns and scenic elements need to be placed, etc.
Does this kind of mastery come after decades of model railroading and cannot be really put into words of a book or a web page; is it some kind of a thought that cannot be passed along due to its nature; or something else I'm not aware of?
cuyama My personal opinion is that benchwork methods should follow the needs of the track plan.
My personal opinion is that benchwork methods should follow the needs of the track plan.
This exactly ^ is how I approach layout design, the track plan is designed to fit the space and then the benchwork follows the needs of the track plan. I've designed my last to 3 layouts that way.
I follow this basic order:
- create a scale drawing of the space on a scale grid, including all walls, doors, obstacles like supports or utililtys etc.
- draw in a track plan to fit that space with special consideration to curves or track turn-backs, isle ways, choke points, yards, passing sidings, staging etc.
- draw in benchwork to fit the track design.
- build benchwork in modular stages.
- build sub-roadbed and lay track
- add in electrical bus and drops to track
- layer in scenery
Thinking about them in the abstract may not be very productive -- again, just my view.
Agree'd.
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.
The above is logical advise. My current layout which is being dis-mantled this month, was built in modular section, which I plan to preserve and incorporate into a future layout where possible. Any sections that won't fit the new design can be taken apart by removing the dry-wall screws and the lumber can be cut if necessary and re-used.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Choops Is there a link to a plan somewhere? I see lots of ideas but nothing close to being a solid plan.
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.
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.
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.
Steve
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.
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.
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.
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.
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)
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.
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.
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:
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?
... 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
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.
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.
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?