jjackso8 wrote: I agree that the benchwork needs to be sturdy but is not meant to be bombproof or for me to stand on.
I agree that the benchwork needs to be sturdy but is not meant to be bombproof or for me to stand on.
There was a guy in san francisco that built his layout during WWII. There was no basement in his house so he dug it out himself. Because of wartime, wood and other building materials were expensive so he went about building a layout with as little wood as possible. The areas where the layout was to be he just left the dirt and covered it with concrete. Wood was used on top of this just for the roadbed. Ties and track went on top of the wood. But the wood was only used for a level surface, not structural members. The walkways were actually dug out to what he determined floor level would be and then capped with concrete.
So he basically had a layout that had concrete benchwork and concrete scenery. I still wonder how he wired this monstrosity.
I got to visit the layout in '87 and remember it being very unique. He said that his neighbors all thought he was building a bomb shelter. I think calling this overkill would be a huge understatement but you have to give him credit for using what he had to get the job done.
Check out the Deming Sub by clicking on the pics:
Joe-Daddy:
I agree wholeheartedly with everything you said. My point is it comes down to what aspects of the hobby you enjoy. One who enjoys woodworking might want furniture-quality benchwork framing, whereas someone else might try to bypass the whole step by glueing 4 legs to a sheet of insulation and have at it. Now of course the latter of those two will soon discover something about benchwork that doesn't work (which is the point you were making), but that realization should lead that individual down a path of experimentation and discovery of what does work that could be quite rewarding on its own merit. We all have different things we like to do, and also have different standards of what's sufficient.
Jim
"I am lapidary but not eristic when I use big words." - William F. Buckley
I haven't been sleeping. I'm afraid I'll dream I'm in a coma and then wake up unconscious. -Stephen Wright
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.
The issue here, IMHO is not L-Girder vs ?? but a solid, stable platform vs one that shakes, rattles and sags, shimmys or wiggles.
Well, if you put it that way, there's not much discussion, I hope!
The point to remember is that are are probably a million six ways to get a good foundation, and what is right for one person's layout and situation might not be right for another.
Jeff But it's a dry heat!
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.
Mononguy,
Done well, either DC or DCC, will run trains reliably. Here we are talking about whether the investment in a stable foundation for the railroad is of value, or even necessary. Inadequately supported trackwork is inherently unreliable, adequately supported trackwork can be reliable, all other things being satisfactory.
Joe
selector wrote: el-capitan wrote: ..."Why use plywood at all. Foam does a good enough job. Plywood is overkill. I have also been told that screws are overkilll and I should be using nails. There will never be a nail in my layout.Here, we agree. I also hear that glue, by itself, is plenty strong and that screws are a waste of money. Oh, well...I like 'em.
el-capitan wrote: ..."Why use plywood at all. Foam does a good enough job. Plywood is overkill. I have also been told that screws are overkilll and I should be using nails. There will never be a nail in my layout.
..."Why use plywood at all. Foam does a good enough job. Plywood is overkill. I have also been told that screws are overkilll and I should be using nails. There will never be a nail in my layout.
Here, we agree. I also hear that glue, by itself, is plenty strong and that screws are a waste of money. Oh, well...I like 'em.
Nails aren't overkill - but hammers are! My construction method has me assembling benchwork at site A, laying track (and wiring it) at site B and running trains from wherever to the end of track, often while the rails are still warm from soldering the feeders! Even if you build benchwork like an outdoor deck, hammer blows will cause vibration severe enough to derail small scale trains. I've never had that problem with a power screwdriver.
The other big reason for using screws is removability. I have never been so confident that my idea of the moment is so perfect that I'd want to glue benchwork. Foam to (<1/2 inch) plywood, yes. Flex track to foam, yes. Joists to rim joists or L girders - NO WAY, JOSE!!!
Of course, since I use thin-section steel my choices of fasteners are limited to screws and bolts (with nuts and washers.) That could hurt my feelings, but it doesn't.
Chuck (modeling Central Japan in September, 1964)
Chuck
I like your idea of using the steel 2x4's for the layout. I am in the planning stages now and have planned to use the steel "girders", faster, easier, cleaner. Say what do you use to brace the steel arms sticking out from the 'studs'. I was thinking about using luan ply gussets. Or short pieces of scraps from trimming the studs. What do you think?
I agree that the benchwork needs to be sturdy but is not meant to be bombproof or for me to stand on. that is why my benchwork will be 54" off the ground to the bottom of the bench. I can then sit in a chair and work under the layout. the knees and back will thank me I hope.
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.
Pro Foam
Pro Plywood
Just curious
As always, Joe, superb question. My answer, only mine, is that the foam, while indeed lighter, is also more easily shaped. Plywood, if also 2" thick, could be shaped to provide contours, ditches, dips, rivers, rises, etc, but carving plywood for that purpose seems to be a daunting task to me. Also, I'm not so sure about quieter....for the foam, I mean. My experience is that it is noisy, and benefits considerably from the juxtaposition of another density, such as wood or homasote. Sound attentuating foam is not, so as in many applications where sound attenuation is desired, mate one surface to another material to help with sound deadening. Foam, also, is easily "planted." Your trees can be added to quickly awled holes as you select their locations.
-Crandell
I was taught to "glue and screw" every joint. The idea being that the screw holds the joint together until the glue dries. Now I know that the glue is 1) unessessary and 2) makes it more difficult to make changes in the future. I can never seem to get away from making changes.
Not to mention the fact that I have always called this layout my "first" layout, meaning I have always had the intention of building another in a larger basement. I want this one to be as easily disassembled as possible.
It's funny how my wife takes offense when I refer to her as my first wife, even though it is true.
While some say that you do not need good benchwork, I have seen quite a few layouts that will barely support the trackwork let alone any scenery (if and when they ever decide to do any).
And then they stand around spending more time rerailing the trains than they do actually watching them run! Now why is that?
I use just about every type of benchwork there is (L-girder – Open grid – foam) and use it because of the various ways the trackwork is being put down in different areas of my layout. With 2000 sq ft of layout to build and quite a bit of it double deck I am not building all of the benchwork at the same time. So as I learn about new methods I try them out on the layout. When I get visitors they usually look over the various types of benchwork and ask how good or bad it is to work with.
It seems that my layout is a place to come to see if new ideas will work as I am game to try anything within reason.
The basic frame is made out of 1x2 lumber with 7/16” OSB sub-base. I usually use Homasote over the OSB and then cork for the roadbed.
But I do have some 2” foam in sections and this is the noisiest point on the whole layout, so I doubt that I will use much more of the open foal benchwork. It will have a wood sub-base from now on.
BOB H – Clarion, PA
But the first statement above of yours could indeed be correct for many modellers. 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.
I wouldn't say L-girder is overkill. L girder is just a different concept that makes the benchwork more "flexible" as to what you can accomplish on your layout. When I say flexible it just gives you more options for your terrain. However, open frame and L-girder can be made equally strong.
I use open frame because I wanted maximum space beneath the layout. And I too use 1X3 for the framework. But with all the holes I have drilled through them I am wondering if I should have gone 1x4. And I use 3/4" plywood.
In the end, what you call overkill others call standard. There is somebody right now looking at this thread saying "Why use plywood at all. Foam does a good enough job. Plywood is overkill. I have also been told that screws are overkilll and I should be using nails. There will never be a nail in my layout.
Overbuilt benchwork has been a bit of a pet peeve of mine since I started lurking around this forum. I'm not even a fan of L-girder - why double your material quantities and expend time and effort building L-shaped supports when a single 1x is plenty strong for the weights we're looking to support? 3/4" high-grade plywood, besides being prohibitively expensive, is WAY overkill from a load-carrying and stability perspective - decent 1/2" is plenty for our purposes. There's no advantage having benchwork that's more robustly built that the building that houses it.
That having been said, I'd say there are advantages to having something that one can lean on and even climb on in a pinch. I've been laying track and soldering feeder wires lately and there's been a time or two (or three or more) where I was sitting on the layout in order to get a better angle at the track. Even so, 1x3's will support even my ever-expanding frame quite nicely.
Good benchwork is a very important component of a good layout, but we need to maintain perspective and keep the overall objective of how our layout will be used in mind.
MisterBeasley 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.
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.
Mr. Beasley, your table looks great, getting to the center might be a challenge, but you do nice work. Oh, how I wish I would have painted or stained mine when it was at the same stage as yours.
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.
el-capitan wrote: Can you define "cookie-cutter sections"? i have seen this phrase used alot on here and have never figured out what it means.BTW, I use 3/4" plywood because 1/2" bends when I sit on it. Just my preference.
Can you define "cookie-cutter sections"? i have seen this phrase used alot on here and have never figured out what it means.
BTW, I use 3/4" plywood because 1/2" bends when I sit on it. Just my preference.
Bill
Layout benches/frames don't have to be so well built as functional. We don't need cabinet grade material, craftsman-like expertise, and the best tools to make something that is quite strong and rigid enough to keep things in alignment when it counts most.
If you never intend to get up on it and do some work, whether initial construction and scenery, or in the eventual repairs, then it may not have to have robust engineering. On the other hand, it will need some thought, and then some sound construction if it is to be moved often and intended to be balanced and aligned when next restored to its full configuration. In that sense, modular construction that is meant for mobility will have to have serious work.
I think the waste comes in over engineering, and in the subsequent and consequent excess in materials. In most cases, 2 X 4 construction is not indicated, nor 3/4" plywood as some will insist is the minimum for their cookie-cutter sections...!!! Bottom line, your choice and your dollar.
Would you build a house without a foundation?
Sturdy, strong benchwork is a neccesity, not a waste of money. Money skimped on building benchwork will come back to haunt you when it sags over time and under the weight of roadbed, track, buildings, scenery etc. and starts causing derailments and operating troubles. How good will a turntable work with a poor support structure? Eventually it will bind and the tracks won't line-up vertically.
You also don't want the railroad shaking and derailing everything every time someone bumps into it. Good support is a must, even on a modular layout.
jktrains
Short of laying the track on the floor or directly on an existing table, something has to serve as support...so in general, no, it is not wasted money. Having said that, anything taken to unnecessary extremes is a waste. So, as with most things, it's a matter of finding the appropriate balance.
For me, at least what I'm planning on now, is going to be an unconventional balance. My layout has to be portable...all "dirty work" will be done outside on a picnic table. When in use or during less messy and/or oooopps-likely work, it will sit on our dining room table. The table might even be strong enough to hold me, so it's an extremely solid base. What's going to go on top of the table is still being debated...either a pair of shortened and joined interior doors, or my own built-from-scratch single torsion box (hollow core interior doors are torsion boxes). No matter which I choose, it will be topped with layered foam, and have short adjustable feet to raise it up off the table top. When not in it's position on the table, it will be hinge mounted on a cart that will hold it vertical and allow it to be moved around the house as needed. My 74" length limit is based on the vertical cart mounted height that will clear our shortest doorway. In the vertical position on the cart, I will also have access to the bottom for wiring and such.
Reality...an interesting concept with no successful applications, that should always be accompanied by a "Do not try this at home" warning.
Hundreds of years from now, it will not matter what my bank account was, the sort of house I lived in, or the kind of car I drove...But the world may be different because I did something so bafflingly crazy that my ruins become a tourist attraction.
"Oooh...ahhhh...that's how this all starts...but then there's running...and screaming..."
If you're modeling Central Kansas in N scale, a hollow-core door is probably adequate.
If, OTOH, you're modeling a place where the scenery stood on edge in HO or larger scale, benchwork suitable to the task is absolutely necessary.
Note that I wrote, "Suitable to the task." I define that as, "Strong enough to support 300% of the expected load. The expected load in my case is scenery (hard shell,) railroad infrastructure (foam - fan-fold underlayment - over thin plywood,) tracks and a loaded 1:80 scale unit coal train; NOT a 220# human male! My benchwork isn't built like a loading dock or an upstairs floor. The material is steel, in the form of studs - adequate, but not overstrong.
So, what happens when I have to get to the top of things? That's what ladders are for.
Chuck [modeling Central Japan in September, 1964 - on C- (acts like L-) girder benchwork)
Yes, eventually you (or someone else) will lean against, bump, etc. the layout. Second, you don't want it to develop sags or warp over time. A little extra work up front prevents lots of correction and frustration later.
Enjoy
Paul
I built this standalone table benchwork, 5x12 feet with casters for rolling it around the room, in a weekend.
The diagonal bracing and triangular gussets make it stiff and rigid enough to move around on carpet without even knocking over unglued figures like a Preiser moose. The layout base is 2-inch foam, no plywood, so the whole thing is light.
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. I looked at this open grid design vs. L-girder, and decided this would meet my needs and was easier to build. Others may feel differently, of course, but so far I haven't seen any reason to change my mind.
It takes an iron man to play with a toy iron horse.
Without a proper foundation, the castle will crumble.
Bench work is a means to an end. L-girders are the easiest way to get elvation changes and mulileveled roadbeds. Plywood is the easiest for a flat layout with maybe one piece of incline. Foam works like plywood and WS risers are nice for a smaller area. For large mulit-leveled layouts, L-girder is easier than foam or plywood, especially if there are a lot of over passes. I have never tried a large layout with WS risers, but I assume they would work well, but cost a lot more than L-girder construction.
The place that needs attention is the smooth flow of the benchwork, or the track will be derailment central.
Is benchwork worth a lot of our attention? Should we be building L-Girders, open grids, spline roadbeds, homosote lined, and strong enough for us to lean, or fall against and not crumble?
Or are we better served by using hollow core doors and planks of foam on #2 or #3 1X2 frames, or better yet, using wire mesh shelving? After all, it is the trains and scenery that we are after.
Is all the emphasis on high quality benchwork necessary?