joe-daddy wrote: A bias is an unreasonable, unsupportable conclusion. From what I see, the overwhelming bias is for foam.
By this statement, you're saying that everyone who uses it to good effect is, what, wrong?
Just because you can't do something doesn't mean it can't be done, and done very well.
MTennent wrote: I haven't had to learn too many new scenery techniques for foam - I use it to build the basic land forms then cover it with plaster sheets and Sculptamold - a very similar technique to traditional methods.
I haven't had to learn too many new scenery techniques for foam - I use it to build the basic land forms then cover it with plaster sheets and Sculptamold - a very similar technique to traditional methods.
I thought about using foam in this manner but I am used to using chicken wire and I am pretty sure that it is less costly than foam. The article in MR by Pele shows him painting directly on the foam, no plaster or any type of filler to cover the joints in the foam. Yet it comes out looking perfect. Unless I am misreading something in the article.
If I was able to learn how to do the foam w/o plaster on top I would probably do it just for the dust factor alone.
Check out the Deming Sub by clicking on the pics:
el-capitan,
I do domething similar. All my show stock - enough to fill 3/4 of a 5 X 8 trailer, has to be stored under the layout and then moved in and out for each show - about twice a month. That's a lot of bumping and another reason I built mine sturdily.
I'm not trying to add any fuel to the fire here, just a few other things I just thought of.
Both of my sons play hockey and when they are not wearing their hockey equipment it is stored beneath my layout. When it's game time they need to pull this stuff out and the bags are rather large. An enormous amount of abuse goes on to my layout when they are pulling these bags out of the basement, especially through the narrower aisles. No major damage at this point but I am glad that the layout was built sturdily.
On the other side of the coin, I just got done doing general cleaning in my basement, about 2 hrs worth and holy crap the dust! This from 3 weeks of applying ultracal to my screen mountains. This whole foam thing seems pretty attractive to me right now. I'm not even 50% done with the cleaning.
Also, I am following some articles by Pele something that were in MR last year to do the mountains and Desert scenery. I am following this guys procedure step by step except for he uses foam and I am using ultracal on screen. The foam work that this guy does is remarkable. I just don't feel like learning a new skill at this point. But it can be done.
Oh and another pro for wood: Less toxic fumes when it burns!
Mike,
Running 24 gauge wire through 2 inch foam is not trivial.
Umm, well. Yes it is. Quite trivial compared to the many other skills necessary in building a layout. I'm not sure why you think it's a big deal.
Conduit would make it possible, but that is more of a hastle than drilling a hole in plywood.
C'mon, Joe. You can't seriously call something that takes, what, 10 seconds a hastle. If you're in that much of a hurry...
The main problem I find with foam is the ridiculous expectations that are set by those who hard sell it on the web and in the hobby shop.
It sounds like the only ridiculous expectations were yours.
I have tried it, expected it to save time, lower cost and improve quality. It did none of those for me.
Frankly, I've never seen anyone say it would save that much time or money. It isn't cheap and anything worth doing well takes time. As for quality, it sounds like you're blaming the tools, not the technique.
My views and words about foam were formed by my own experiences with the material, not some intellectual endeavor.
And mine are formed by having built three layouts with it and learning more each time I use it. No intellectual endeavor here, nor by others who post here about there ACTUAL EXPERIENCES with it.
I'm not going to do a blow by blow rebuttal, but the rest of your post sounds a bit like sour grapes over bad technique.
But I must add - you do realize that some "foamers" use WS Plaster cloth on top of foam, don't you? For several years I had a "how-to" posted on how to do it. Very nice results.
Foam has proved to be of no value to my modeling, and has resulted in unsatisfactory results every where I have used it.
And the fault lies with the foam, of course, not the technique...
The pictures I see on the web, well, I try to not be personal, but I don't see very many successes.
Others do see them, of course. And some get published in MRR...
Your milage may vary, I tell it like I see it.
As do I.
A bias is an unreasonable, unsupportable conclusion.
In a word, no. Most biases are entirely supported by experience and are quite reasonable. I'm biased towards Guiness Stout over Bud Light. I'm biased towards not speeding when I drive.
I'm biased towards using foam for scenery, but have no problems with other techniques that folks have sucessfully used and certainly don't go around criticizing them.
orsonroy wrote:Is foam ALWAYS the best option? Definitely not, as in the case of the O scaler who needs to handlay. But 90% of the hobby aren't handlaying O scalers, they're regular people ....
Is foam ALWAYS the best option? Definitely not, as in the case of the O scaler who needs to handlay. But 90% of the hobby aren't handlaying O scalers, they're regular people ....
Are you implying that I am irregular?
Crandall,
The strength and weakness of the English langauge is the diversity word meanings. In this case, bias is being used to engage in personal attack. If I were biased, as has been asserted, I'd never add a pro to the foam list. I am adding two.
My conclusions on foam are based upon personal experiences, observed experiences of others, and a reasonable and objective examination of the qualities of each material. These are rational, acceptable methods of assessing and valuing. A bias is typically an unreasonable, slanted or unsupportable influence. My views are not bias.
Back on point:
I've made some adjustments to my pro wood/foam list. The contrarian arguments to the points made in the list are thus far laughable, smoother and flatter excepted.
Pro Foam
Pro Plywood
Which is most flamable, foam or plywood?
To the tool argument, any serious debate there will ultimately cancel itself.
orsonroy wrote:And the quotes of mine that you used above illustrate the point that you have a deep bias against foam, as does your comment above. Foam does NOT serve as "poor benchwork", except in your own precdonceive notions. Is foam ALWAYS the best option? Definitely not, as in the case of the O scaler who needs to handlay. But 90% of the hobby aren't handlaying O scalers, they're regular people who model in HO and N scale, sizes that generally don't need the support involved with the larger scales.
And the quotes of mine that you used above illustrate the point that you have a deep bias against foam, as does your comment above. Foam does NOT serve as "poor benchwork", except in your own precdonceive notions. Is foam ALWAYS the best option? Definitely not, as in the case of the O scaler who needs to handlay. But 90% of the hobby aren't handlaying O scalers, they're regular people who model in HO and N scale, sizes that generally don't need the support involved with the larger scales.
Please, justify your assertion that neither HO nor N scale require well supported benchwork.
Bias is an unsuported assertion. You are unable to support your postion without continuing your personal attack on me.
Joe Daddy
Joe, I hope you don't mind me interjecting wanting to pick the fly poo out from the pepper, but a bias, semantically, can merely be a preference, and does not necessarily have to be either unreasonable or unsupportable. While some biases certainly are, such as those against homosexuality, say, many merely reflect experience and learning and are also innocuous. I think of a preference for white wine over red, for example. Surely a person can make his choice without having to agree that it must therefore be characterized as you say?
Also, a bias may take the form of involuntary action, such as the propensity to turn to the left side of obstacles. People who rely on dead-reckoning often get into trouble for this very reason; they preferentially, if unconsciously, will step to the side of intervening trees when attempting to re-orient themselves in the deep woods, and will often march in essentially large circles. Such involuntary acts are neither unreasonable or unsupportable since they are not reasoned at all.
In our discussion, we are using the term as if it pertains only to those who disagree with one's own "preferences", whether supportable or unreasonable. But by consigning only the foamers (ahem) to those characterizations, I feel that you are demonstrating what I would call a bias. It is possible for both sides of an issue to be legitimately tarred wi' the same brush, but I would not say that you are being unreasonable and unsupportable in your defense of your own preferential way of building a bench.
-Crandell
MTennent wrote:"It emphasized how difficult something as simple as running a wire through a hole quickly drilled in wood requires conduit when working with foam." Actually, that doesn't REQUIRE a conduit, he just did it that way on his layout. Like you, I drill a hole quickly - but through foam. No straw, no conduit, no problem.
"It emphasized how difficult something as simple as running a wire through a hole quickly drilled in wood requires conduit when working with foam."
Actually, that doesn't REQUIRE a conduit, he just did it that way on his layout. Like you, I drill a hole quickly - but through foam. No straw, no conduit, no problem.
Running 24 gauge wire through 2 inch foam is not trivial. The 24 gauge I have is just not stiff enough to push through a small hole without bucklilng and jaming. 20 is easy, 24 is hard. Every signal, sensor, led, and there are dozens of each one on my layout are connected with two or more 24 gauge wires. Conduit would make it possible, but that is more of a hastle than drilling a hole in plywood. But putting little wires through foam is only ONE of the long list of issues I have with foam.
The main problem I find with foam is the ridiculous expectations that are set by those who hard sell it on the web and in the hobby shop. I have tried it, expected it to save time, lower cost and improve quality. It did none of those for me. My views and words about foam were formed by my own experiences with the material, not some intellectual endeavor.
I built a yard on it, 18" x 96", you think I could slice that 2" think foam straight, ugly. The yard, mind you was noisy compared to the rest of the layout that was cork on wood. I used foam glue to attach the track (not latex caulk which I learned about later) and had one heck of a time getting it straight. That's where I got so frustrated trying to run 24 gauge feeders. Then I had to use duct tape to secure the wires and it was butt ugly when I got done. I scrapped that entire layout, salvaged every piece of track and board. I spent more time removing and cleaning up the track on the foam than the rest of the entire layout. All because foam don't hold no nail.
On my first layout, I needed a small mountain so I decided to make one out of scrap foampieces. What a mess, carving foam sounds so easy, the results, were, well awful. I still have it to remind me of how hard it was. I covered it with plaster cloth to see if it would help. now it has a good surface, but the shape is, well poorly shaped foam. I tried using foam to do some neat little work on a part of my new layout. Looks like crap. More work I'll have to redo.
So I thought, I am just not a good enough craftsman. So I started to look around; Denver has a lot of train shows and I go to most of them. There, I frequently get to see for myself the results others get from foam. And you would think that the work that gets to the train shows is the better work wouldn't you? To tell the truth, the results that I typically see are the kind I am diligently working to avoid.
Over the winter, I saw this nifty idea of using foam and glue on paper to build tunnel portals. I spent about 4 weeks of time and a lot of money on foam, special glue and software to print rocks and make the portals. Ugly is a good word. I ripped them out and have replaced them with plaster portals, even made a mold and cast a couple of my own. Really nice, in comparison the foam mess.
Trying to build with foam has left me been thoroughly disappointed, and seeing about the same quality at the train shows as I can do was equally discouraging. Then I received the first edition of the MRR video series and saw them using WS plaster cloth over cardboard. Looked so easy, I thought I'd try it. Then I tried some screen wire and hydrocal. Actally very easy and the results out of the chute much better than anything I have been able to do before. All I had ever heard or read about before was how messy plaster is, use foam instead.
Well I am here to tell you that plaster has been a blessing to me, the quality is such a huge improvement. I have found a good use for all that foam I paid big money for. It makes great form backing for mountains to attach screen wire. I'd rather use plywood than the foam but since I have it, I use it.
Foam has proved to be of no value to my modeling, and has resulted in unsatisfactory results every where I have used it. The pictures I see on the web, well, I try to not be personal, but I don't see very many successes. Your milage may vary, I tell it like I see it.
I wrote this to put my experiences and my 'percieved bias' in perspective. A bias is an unreasonable, unsupportable conclusion. From what I see, the overwhelming bias is for foam.
Peace to all who seek it.
Joe
joe-daddy wrote: orsonroy wrote: Joe seems to have a DEEP anti-foam layout construction bias, which tends to taint his initial post, which was an innocuous enough question. He also seems to have a LOT of misconceptions as to it's uses and techniques. I'll try to explain a few things below. orsonroy wrote:Joe seems to forget another popular construction method: foam by itself on shelf brackets, or with a sub-layer of thin plywood. No expensive doors required. orsonroy wrote:THIS post really illustrates the point that Joe's never even SEEN a foam-based layout in person. OrsonRoy,The topic is how poorly foam serves as benchwork, not about personal attacks on me.Joe Daddy
orsonroy wrote: Joe seems to have a DEEP anti-foam layout construction bias, which tends to taint his initial post, which was an innocuous enough question. He also seems to have a LOT of misconceptions as to it's uses and techniques. I'll try to explain a few things below.
Joe seems to have a DEEP anti-foam layout construction bias, which tends to taint his initial post, which was an innocuous enough question. He also seems to have a LOT of misconceptions as to it's uses and techniques. I'll try to explain a few things below.
orsonroy wrote:Joe seems to forget another popular construction method: foam by itself on shelf brackets, or with a sub-layer of thin plywood. No expensive doors required.
Joe seems to forget another popular construction method: foam by itself on shelf brackets, or with a sub-layer of thin plywood. No expensive doors required.
orsonroy wrote:THIS post really illustrates the point that Joe's never even SEEN a foam-based layout in person.
THIS post really illustrates the point that Joe's never even SEEN a foam-based layout in person.
OrsonRoy,
The topic is how poorly foam serves as benchwork, not about personal attacks on me.
That's right. And the quotes of mine that you used above illustrate the point that you have a deep bias against foam, as does your comment above. Foam does NOT serve as "poor benchwork", except in your own precdonceive notions. Is foam ALWAYS the best option? Definitely not, as in the case of the O scaler who needs to handlay. But 90% of the hobby aren't handlaying O scalers, they're regular people who model in HO and N scale, sizes that generally don't need the support involved with the larger scales.
Ray Breyer
Modeling the NKP's Peoria Division, circa 1943
The issue of attaching stuff below the layout (wires, Tortoises, etc) is legitimate if you don't use a little creativity. My foam construction method is a bit unique, I guess. I came up with it myself, but claim no originality.
My layout is an "E" in N scale in a 10 X 10 room. I use L girders for the benchwork, fastened to the walls, which lend it rigidity, and then two layers of foam on top of the girders. But the real secret is that between the foam and the girders is a layer of Home Depot's el cheapo wall paneling. It's laid out so it spans the benchwork joints and is fastened (screws) to the girders. Trust me, it doesn't move, even when I bump into it with boxes, etc. I can also climb on it anytime I want to.
The layer of paneling allows me to fasten anything I want underneath the layout - just like with plywood. My bus wires, etc are run just like a typical plywod base. The additional cost of the paneling was around $20. Worth every penny.
Joe has created in this post what he states in his closing, "...My words are intended to provoke thought...". To that end, congratulations Joe.
That's the great thing about this hobby. While there are many different ways of creating our version of railroads, there's no "wrong" way. Ok, there are some less "right" ways, but in the end, like an artist creating something on canvas from the image in their head, each of us will look at that painting and see something different.
Ok, enought deep thoughts....I'm going back to my layout.
orsonroy wrote:Joe seems to have a DEEP anti-foam layout construction bias, which tends to taint his initial post, which was an innocuous enough question. He also seems to have a LOT of misconceptions as to it's uses and techniques. I'll try to explain a few things below.
Keeping in mind that I am in O scale:
orsonroy wrote: Stronger: possibly, but how much strength do you NEED?
Stronger: possibly, but how much strength do you NEED?
I NEED to be a able to sit or lean on it to handlay track. I NEED it to support a 20 lb brass steam locomotive.
orsonroy wrote: Flatter/smoother: Untrue.
Flatter/smoother: Untrue.
I'll give you this one. But the ability to bend 3/4" plywood into a nice transition from flat to grade is handy.
orsonroy wrote: Quieter: true, but not an issue if you use foam properly (and don't run your trains at bullet train speeds)
Quieter: true, but not an issue if you use foam properly (and don't run your trains at bullet train speeds)
O scale is loud on 3/4" plywood and 1/4" updon board no mater what speed. I can't imagine what the foam would sound like.
orsonroy wrote: Easier to wire...: Not true. You just use duct tape to hold the wire in place, not staples. As for routing wires through, it's as easy IF you use a temporary conduit.
Easier to wire...: Not true. You just use duct tape to hold the wire in place, not staples. As for routing wires through, it's as easy IF you use a temporary conduit.
I need 12 gauge wire to accomodate the current and lengths that I am running. 12 ga wire is too thick and difficult to bend to use duct tape.
orsonroy wrote: Easier to mount switch motors: Not true. You just GLUE them into place instead of screwing. For those of us who don't USE switch motors, this is a non-issue.
Easier to mount switch motors: Not true. You just GLUE them into place instead of screwing. For those of us who don't USE switch motors, this is a non-issue.
I use tortoise and they need alot of initial adjustment to run correctly. Glueing is not even an option.
orsonroy wrote: Holds a track nail: True, but again a non-issue for those of us who use caulk to hold down track (which looks better than nails anyway)
Holds a track nail: True, but again a non-issue for those of us who use caulk to hold down track (which looks better than nails anyway)
I handlay my track. This is dependant on the ties being glued solidly to the upson board. Foam will not accomodate this type of secure connection with the ties.
orsonroy wrote: Looks better if not painted: Not true, or at least VERY subjective. NEITHER looks good to my eye, which is a HUGE benefit of foam: it's MANY times faster to get the scenery layer up and running with foam. And any scenery at all is MUCH better than none!
Looks better if not painted: Not true, or at least VERY subjective. NEITHER looks good to my eye, which is a HUGE benefit of foam: it's MANY times faster to get the scenery layer up and running with foam. And any scenery at all is MUCH better than none!
Maybe but I have always prefered the final look of plaster.
orsonroy wrote: More durable: again, VERY subjective. Who needs to walk on their benchwork? This contition is only a positive feature of wood if you intend on abusing your layout.
More durable: again, VERY subjective. Who needs to walk on their benchwork? This contition is only a positive feature of wood if you intend on abusing your layout.
I walk on my layout. A 12" wide shelf layout will not fit what I want to do. I am not abusing the layout. Your assuming that anybody that needs a layout capable of supporting the weight of a human is going to abuse it. Some of us need to walk and sit on it to put in track and scenery.
Or are we better served by using hollow core doors and planks of foam on #2 or #3 1X2 frames
Based upon looking a lots of pictures of layouts under construction on the web, I cannot recall seeing many or any for that matter that I thought were over built, underbuilt is another story.
Maybe not on the web, but how about in person? I've personally seen such oddities as 2x6 L-girders, 3/4" plywood I-beams, and CONCRETE hardshell scenery. You want to talk about OVERkill?
Pro FoamLighter Pro PlywoodStronger Flatter/SmootherQuieter Easier to wire Staples etc easier to feed 24 gauge wire through Easier to mount tortoise or Peco switch motors Holds a track nail Looks better if not painted More durable
THIS post really illustrates the point that Joe's never even SEEN a foam-based layout in person. Withouth going too deeply into the points I made in my last post, I'll just counter hos pro-wood bias by saying:
work easily and quickly in wood, but require the right kind of glue, muss and fuss with foam.
One could counter that having access to a table, chop and jig saw, as well as having to work with lots of heavy and expensive dimensional lumber is a lot of "muss and fuss".
Doing sub trackwork scenery with plywood is everybit as simple as foam. Cookie cutter
Simpler? Not in terms of time expended, tools needed, or labor involved. Once my shelf brackets are in place, the only tool I need to work foam is a snap-blade boxcutter (I do use other simple hand tools as well, but that's a preference issue. I can't use any of my foam tools for woodworking)
And, with foam just try to do simple cookie cutter raising of tracks. With foam you have to purchase WS foam risers or shape the foam yourself, a non-trivial task.
Well, no you don't. You can either hand cut or carve your own risers, or cookie cutter the foam itself (or the foam and the plywood underlayment) and add riser blocks. There's no "necessity" to buy anything from Woodland Scenics when building with foam.
And cleaning up sawdust is much easier than cleaning up electronically charged foam flummers.
Actually, they're exactly the same: broom, dustbuster and shop vac.
Yes, it IS lighter until you get enough wood or steel around it to provide the necessary support.
The only wood I "need" for a foam based layout is the wood in the studwalls. The only steel that I "need" for a foam based layout is the steel shelf brackets ($0.89 apiece at Menards).
I've been thinking about this thread for a couple of days. While Joe does bring up a good point about benchwork needing to be "strong", what does that actually MEAN? Does it mean strong to the point of being able to clog dance on top of it, or does it mean just strong enough to not warp, and to be able to handle the weight of our toy trains?
I'm in the camp of "just strong enough". Our lives are expensive enough, so there's no real reason to make our wallets shrink more by building expensive benchwork out of 3/4" birch plywood and clear cherry dimensional lumber. And these days, our TIME is possibly the single most expensive thing we have to work with, so the added costs of dado joints and complex fabrication of plywood I-beans usually doesn't fly (Let me say right now that if you're into woodworking, or have a need to make the layout fit into the decor of the rest of theohouse, have at it. But you're really not building "benchwork" per se; you're building a piece of FURNITURE, that will incidentally hold a layout).
One thing I haven't seen discussed in any cohesive way is that "benchwork" is really several schools of thought. Building a 4x8 beginner's pike, building a mid- or large-sixed spaghetti bowl, and building any sort of linear shelf layout are VERY different creations and usually require a different plan of attack. Some methods may be the "best" for some of these types of layout, while others may be the "best" for the other types of layout. Moreover, each type of layout can involve different designs (a multilevel 4x8 versus a flat 4x8, for example) which will influence what's deemed "best". Finally, some people really DO want to walk on their layouts (God knows why), so they'll NEED a overly strong benchwork system.
So what is "strong" benchwork? From a purely structural standpoint, nothing less than house-grade construction will do. That means 2x4s and 3/4" plywood, which seems to be the favored construction method in this hobby (don't believe me? Start looking at lone wolf 4x8 layouts, which outnumber the rest of the hobby 10 to 1. Chances are that's how they're built). But do we really have to follow local zoning laws when building a support framework for itty-bitty toy trains? Well, no...
Unless you're building a G scale, indoor live steam layout, there's NO reason to EVER use a 2x4 on your layout, period. Our trains don't weigh enough to need that sort of support. I'm sure that lots of us can get 2x4s for free, which might make them attractive to use. I can get my hands on all the FULL DIMENSION, seasoned oak 2x4s and 2x6s I can ever handle, and indeed did use them to frame out my basement. But I'd NEVER consider using them for benchwork. Why? Because they're a pain to use, especially if, like most of us, I'm building the benchwork by myself. Ever try to straight-arm a 16 foot long chunk of oak, AND try to keep it from shifting long enough to screw into place? It's not fun, and it takes forever to do. There are simpler, faster, lass stressful, and cheaper ways of doing things (remember: I'm including our TIME in all of these price points)
Next up is plywood thickness. Do we really NEED 3/4" ply on a layout? Not really. 1/2" and 5/8" do the job just as well for most applications, and cost less. Do we need to use clear or cabinet grade plywood? Not unless it's cheaper (not likely) or unless you need t0o build a piece of furniture. Again, handling thinner (and thus lighter) material is easier for a solo builder to do, won't wear out saw blades as fast, and, if braced "properly" will be just as strong as the thicker stuff.
I'm a biased layout construction type. I prefer shelf layouts, and I prefer using minimalist construction based around a foam top layer. I've built all of the other types of layouts in the past, and will NECER go back to anything else. Partially, this is because I prefer building layouts set in central Illinois, but it's partially because foam-based layouts are "strong enough", cheaper than any other type of layout construction (IF you have to buy everything else, and IF you factor in the scenery layer), and are amazingly fast to work with.
This is the bulk of my last layout, an 8x25 triple decker. The lowest level was built as a 2x2 box frame with 24" centers, as it was to also support shelving. The rest of the layout was supported by 10"x12" U-channel shelf brackets on 16" centers. The entire top of the layout was 1/4" Lauan plywood and 2" extruded foam insulation. The layout lasted three years, from the fall of 2002 to the summer of 2005. In that time I did indeed walk on the lower level (just not while wearing cowboy boots!), and the layout didn't shift at ALL. It easily handled the heaviest HO scale trains imaginable: three engine lashups of Mantua 2-8-2s (which weigh about a pound and a half each). The thing that amazes most people who saw the layout was how FAST the thing went up. I went from a bare basement to ALL of the benchwork being assembled in a month of weekends, and from there to a fully-operational mainline (no sidings) in another two months. That's 225 feet of benchwork AND mainline up and running in a single season. By the time I had to dismantle the layout in 2005 I had all the track laid except for my large, lower level yard, had 90% of the basic scenery roughed in, and about 25% of the scenery finished (And I'm NOT retired, have a full time job, a family, AND had a three hour round trip commute every day).
Foam layout construction is THE way to go, for both shelf layouts and 4x8s. It's fast, cheap, simple, and can be banged out in no time by a single builder. I estimate that it would have cost me another 40% to build the benchwork AND scenery using L-girder and hardshell, and almost three times as much time. Foam isn't just "lighter", it's actually pretty strong, dimensionally stable, and gives you both a good benchwork base and the beginning layer of scenery (which may be the ONLY layer you'll need, if like me you're building a flatlands layout). It's also very forgiving for people who have to build by themselves: the only limitations I have on carrying full 4x8 sheets is how many I can grab on to!
Now, there ARE some benefits to traditional, wood heavy benchwork. The layouts tend to resist abuse better (which is more of a user's clumsiness issure more than a negative for foam), tend to amplify train noise less, and are better if you're building multi-tier layouts (those with multiple track levels on the same "deck"). But unless you're constructing a layout with one or more of those conditions, or are building a piece of furniture, you really don't need to use wood at all. So take a good, hard, objective look at foam, and you'll tend to realize that you can better spend your time and money on better things: like running trains!
My grandpa designs all of the benchwork for my layout, and for this one he decided to simply adapt another design he had made for supporting all of his heavy equipment. We simply made another table like that, and removed the Homasote finish and decorative side wood. And as a bonus....yes, I can stand on my layout tables, and so can he (at the same time, probably!) Just so long as we step on the support braces, that's all it is, an open frame with insulation foam secured on top.
-Chris (tm)
cwn3 wrote:TAKE PRECAUTIONS!Benchwork is the foundation, and it should be solidly constructed, period. Far better to be safe here and over build a little than to suffer the consequences of the alternative... Oh, and Joe, foam is lighter.And it's, ummmm, lighter.Well it's definitely lighter... Did I mention it was lighter?
Benchwork is the foundation, and it should be solidly constructed, period. Far better to be safe here and over build a little than to suffer the consequences of the alternative...
Oh, and Joe, foam is lighter.
And it's, ummmm, lighter.
Well it's definitely lighter...
Did I mention it was lighter?
Charlie,
jktrains wrote: Midnight Railroader wrote: joe-daddy wrote: The issue here, IMHO is not L-Girder vs ?? but a solid, stable platform vs one that shakes, rattles and sags, shimmys or wiggles.Joe Is there someone here advocating shaking, sagging benchwork?If I didn't know better I'd say that Joe-Daddy was based on his original post that started this thread. Read the question posed at the end. "Is the emphasis on high quality benchwork necessary?"
Midnight Railroader wrote: joe-daddy wrote: The issue here, IMHO is not L-Girder vs ?? but a solid, stable platform vs one that shakes, rattles and sags, shimmys or wiggles.Joe Is there someone here advocating shaking, sagging benchwork?
joe-daddy wrote: The issue here, IMHO is not L-Girder vs ?? but a solid, stable platform vs one that shakes, rattles and sags, shimmys or wiggles.Joe
The issue here, IMHO is not L-Girder vs ?? but a solid, stable platform vs one that shakes, rattles and sags, shimmys or wiggles.
If I didn't know better I'd say that Joe-Daddy was based on his original post that started this thread. Read the question posed at the end. "Is the emphasis on high quality benchwork necessary?"
JK,
Biased? Perhaps, I'd say I was already convinced excellent benchwork is essential to long term layout success. I have enjoyed the responses and discussion. Nor has my mind been swayed.
I think a Newb might find this discussion of value too.
Hi Medina, thanks for your thoughtful response.
Medina1128 wrote:SNIP . .You listed an advantage of plywood as being easier to wire through. I use foam for my scenery base and subroadbed. I found that the little straws that are used to stir coffee make a great "conduit" to pass 24 gauge wire through. Once the acrylic caulk I use to fasten down my track has dried, I poke a hole in the foam with straight piece of wire hanger. I then push the stirring straw into the hole. I feed the wire down through the straw and solder it to the rail.SNIP . .
Your method is a good one, however it is not an advantage of foam. It emphasized how difficult something as simple as running a wire through a hole quickly drilled in wood requires conduit when working with foam. And you did not address securing wires to foam, clamps, staples all work easily and quickly in wood, but require the right kind of glue, muss and fuss with foam.
Medina1128 wrote:SNIP . .Another advantage of foam is that it's much easier to create scenery that is lower than the track, which if you in notice the prototype, most of the scenery, except for yards, is below track level.SNIP . .
Doing sub trackwork scenery with plywood is everybit as simple as foam. Cookie cutter. . . My sabre saw quickly provides access to the lower recesses of the layout.
Foam is lighter. And cleaning up sawdust is much easier than cleaning up electronically charged foam flummers.
My 2 cents
cwn3 wrote: el-capitan wrote:... However, open frame and L-girder can be made equally strong.I would have to disagree with this statement. Open grid is considerably stronger than L-Girder benchwork if for no other reason than that the joists are only fastened at the bottom and at only two points on L-Girder. This makes the joists much more subject to failure from lateral forces.
el-capitan wrote:... However, open frame and L-girder can be made equally strong.
... However, open frame and L-girder can be made equally strong.
I would have to disagree with this statement. Open grid is considerably stronger than L-Girder benchwork if for no other reason than that the joists are only fastened at the bottom and at only two points on L-Girder. This makes the joists much more subject to failure from lateral forces.
I will just say that for a stationary basement layout lateral forces are negligable. Without getting into stress/strain diagrams and finite element analysis, the fact that there are only 2 screws holding in the lateral pieces will not make any difference. For vertical forces (the greater of the forcres on my layout, especially when my tubby butt is on it) both types CAN be equally strong, if done correctly. L girder has a distinct advantage because it supports the laterals closer to the middle. Open frame supports the laterals from the ends. However, if the openframe grid is designed properly (enough cross members etc.) it can be just as strong. However, you won't get as much strength if you are fastening your cross members by putting screws into the ends of the boards, screws need to go against the grain for max strength in the joint.
For a modular that is constantly being set up and taken down..... maybe open grid is stronger. But the thickness of the structure of L-girder benchwork gives it a disadvantage when doing modular layouts anyway. So open frame would be the way to go regardless of strength.
The only way benchwork can be a waste of money is if it's done badly. If your benchwork is so badly constructed that it shakes and wobbles from side to side when you push on it a little, you need to do more work on it.
My benchwork is bolted to the wall on three sides and has three 2x4 llegs across the front and heavy framing underneath that can support my weight easily (and many times has to) while I work on the layout.
Dr. Frankendiesel aka Scott Running BearSpace Mouse for president!15 year veteran fire fighterCollector of Apple //e'sRunning Bear EnterprisesHistory Channel Club life member.beatus homo qui invenit sapientiam
joe-daddy wrote: selector wrote:If all you have is room for 18" shelves around most of two walls, why plywood when 1" foam will do nicely with brackets every 14" below them? As for stand-alond layouts that require more extensive framing, I do believe that the foam should be nested, or contained, so that its periphery is protected from gouges. Other than that, except for some support below it, 2" foam is quite rigid and will be more than adequate for model trains.Hi Crandall,If 3/4 5 layer plywood and 2" foam are about the same price (and they are if you watch for specials on plywood), then why would you ever use foam? Portability is the only reason I can see. Pro FoamLighter Pro PlywoodStrongerFlatter/SmootherQuieterEasier to wire Staples etc easier to feed 24 gauge wire through Easier to mount tortoise or Peco switch motorsHolds a track nailLooks better if not painted More durable Just curious Joe
selector wrote:If all you have is room for 18" shelves around most of two walls, why plywood when 1" foam will do nicely with brackets every 14" below them? As for stand-alond layouts that require more extensive framing, I do believe that the foam should be nested, or contained, so that its periphery is protected from gouges. Other than that, except for some support below it, 2" foam is quite rigid and will be more than adequate for model trains.
Hi Crandall,
If 3/4 5 layer plywood and 2" foam are about the same price (and they are if you watch for specials on plywood), then why would you ever use foam?
Portability is the only reason I can see.
Just curious
You listed an advantage of plywood as being easier to wire through. I use foam for my scenery base and subroadbed. I found that the little straws that are used to stir coffee make a great "conduit" to pass 24 gauge wire through. Once the acrylic caulk I use to fasten down my track has dried, I poke a hole in the foam with straight piece of wire hanger. I then push the stirring straw into the hole. I feed the wire down through the straw and solder it to the rail.
Another advantage of foam is that it's much easier to create scenery that is lower than the track, which if you in notice the prototype, most of the scenery, except for yards, is below track level.
Marlon
See pictures of the Clinton-Golden Valley RR
I always seem to show up late to the party...
I would have to disagree with this statement. Open grid is considerably stronger than L-Girder benchwork if for no other reason than that the joists are only fastened at the bottom and at only two points on L-Girder. This makes the joists much more subject to failure from lateral forces. (And lets not even talk about the inherent lack of structural integrity the design has when it comes to portability.) Even still L-Girder is a more than sufficient design for a stationary MRR.
While I agree there must be a 1001 different ways to build benchwork, there may only be 101 ways that are, in the long term at least, truly adequate. I thought what Joe was inferring was when does it become wasted money & effort. (Like using 2x4's for joists, for instance. Or using legs with gussets, etc. when brackets on the wall could just as satisfactorily support the deck.)
I'm sure there are many poor practices used and these people aren't even aware they've laid the groundwork for disaster. Someone's suggested using nails, yea, and why not just make a box frame out of old pallets and use finishing nails into the end-grain of the cross members? Or lets put shelf brackets on every other, or every 3rd wall stud and throw some foam on top. C'mon it's only N scale, it won't sag...
mononguy63 wrote:This whole discussion runs the risk or slipping down the "DCC vs. DC" tastes-great-less-filling argument slope. We build according to our tastes, objectives, and comfort levels. And you know what? Most everything ends up doing basically what it needs to in the end. And if it doesn't measure up, we either tweak and correct it or try something different. That's the fun of it all.
This whole discussion runs the risk or slipping down the "DCC vs. DC" tastes-great-less-filling argument slope. We build according to our tastes, objectives, and comfort levels. And you know what? Most everything ends up doing basically what it needs to in the end. And if it doesn't measure up, we either tweak and correct it or try something different. That's the fun of it all.
I could be wrong here, but I'm thinking that not too many people who had to rip out most of their layout to re-build their benchwork thought it was fun...
Well, sort of...
mononguy63 wrote:... whereas someone else might try to bypass the whole step by glueing 4 legs to a sheet of insulation and have at it.
... whereas someone else might try to bypass the whole step by glueing 4 legs to a sheet of insulation and have at it.
Everyone remember, Murphy lives. You may say no now, but you WILL lean on your layout. You most probably at some point will even climb on it for one reason or another. And you WILL most definitely bang into that unprotected edge of foam with something, and do damage. Don't be slipshod, TAKE PRECAUTIONS!
How would you interpret Mr. Beasley's statement here:
Mister Beasley wrote:This is NOT strong enough to climb on. With foam, you can't climb on the layout anyway, so what's the point? But, it is solid and forms a steady, even base for the foam. That's the real point of benchwork. I'd agree that a lot of people really over-build this stuff.
And my comment:
Joe-Daddy wrote:Based upon looking a lots of pictures of layouts under construction on the web, I cannot recall seeing many or any for that matter that I thought were over built, underbuilt is another story.
One can make the argument that benchwork is one of the more critical aspects of building and maintaining a long lasting, reliable model railroad.
mononguy63 wrote: Snip One who enjoys woodworking might want furniture-quality benchwork framing, We all have different things we like to do, and also have different standards of what's sufficient.Jim
Snip One who enjoys woodworking might want furniture-quality benchwork framing, We all have different things we like to do, and also have different standards of what's sufficient.
Jim
As a hobbyist woodworker, I wholeheartedly agree with the above statement.
Notice the turned maple legs and cherry stretcher on the table......sure, I could have used a 4x4 or some pine; I just couldn't bring myself to do so.
Don Z.
Research; it's not just for geeks.
Ease in wiring is another advantage of L-girder construction along with the flexibility in topography and the ease to change or disassemble. (But screw and not glue or you destroy some of its pluses).
Hal