Hi guys
Now that I have all the track removed from the old layout and the new room that will be the expansion onto the old layout is ready to go. I’ve also removed any grades of track that went around the rear of the bench work so there are no inclines on the layout now. I need a bit of help understanding what are the benefits of benchwork with a solid top on an open grid style top framing and a totally open grid.
Fact is with woodland scenic risers for instance a rail can be raised where ever you like.
With an open grid you can make the same track rise where ever you like by simply attaching 1x2 pine to the cross members at the height you want.
Having a hard time understanding, if I already have crossmembers in my top framing but it has a plywood top showing only the holes where dioramas were in place and removed , I just don’t see the difference and really don’t understand the difference between using foam risers on solid top and rising the rails using 1x2 pine screwed to cross members on an open grid with a solid top bench.
Also if you wanted to add a river I usually just cut out the table top for the river and for the diaramas. How would this compare to an open grid?
Whats the advantage and disadvantage of each style? Keep in mind I’d prefer not to tear down my old benchwork as I have scenery around the perimeter that I would prefer not to destroy.
Thanks
Lynn
Any and all methods are a means to an end. You know what you want the end result to be and depending on what that is you choose the method that is right for you. I think I have used all methods over the years and on my current layout I used more than one method depending on the terrain I wanted to install on the layout. On the part that runs across my fireplace I have welded iron framing supporting cement board and concrete mountains for obvious reasons. I use open grid and have spline roadbed on risers and a 2" foam top on another part. On another part I have a canyon to the floor planed. That part looks like upside down open grid.
There is no best. There is what works for me in that particular situation.
I went to a lecture once on bench work and the guy giving it said that “L Girder” was the best way to construct a layout back in the day when most homes didn’t have the vast array of tools that we have today. With garages full of power tools we can now be more creative in our construction. That being said “L girder” may be the way to go in certain circumstances.[C):-)]
With the so-called open grid style of construction, if you ever decide to change your trackplan to add, delete, or move a line, it could turn out to be a major rebuilding project. A solid deck would be much easier in this regard. But if you’re absolutely sure no changes will ever be made, open grid uses less materials.
Thanks guys this is some very good information. In my desperation and frustration I decided to pull the mountains off the walls and I’m now set to go in a few directions. I was actually surprised how the mountains came off in only a few large pieces. Id post some pics of how the bench now looks but I’ve forgotten how to do it.
Echoing Cacole, you have to be certain that what you’ve designed is what you really want if you go for all cookie cut plywood on risers of varying lengths. If you like to rearrange the world on a regular basis, a solid tabletop is much more user friendly.
OTOH, if you ARE sure that tracks will end up where you’ve planned them, the flexibility of cookie cut on risers can make construction a lot easier. It’s hard to reach through a tabletop to adjust something under a turnout while watching what’s going on at the points.
The decision of exactly where to put your tracks doesn’t have to be made until you’re just about ready to lay ties. The part that’s done is pretty well set in cement, but things that haven’t been built out are negotiable, right up to the moment that roadbed is fastened to the subgrade. I have one peninsula where all of the locations have been surveyed and established, and another where the main thoroughfare track is, approximately, here. Here may move a couple (or a couple of hundred) millimeters before the rails come. It doesn’t have to be decided before then.
My layout is cookie cut roadbed supported by risers above L-girder benchwork fabricated from steel studs. This is driven by two basic facts:
- The terrain in the area I model stands on edge, and a LOT of it is below track level. No problem with cookie-cut subgrade, a major PITA to model on a solid tabletop.
- The only level track on any of my five railroads can be found between the home signals of stations - and no two of those stations are at the same level.
The main driving force should be the kind of terrain you want. Mine resembles West Virginia, not the Great Plains.
Chuck (Modeling the Central Japan Alps in September, 1964)
LION has tables, and risers and open grids and closed grids and anything else that one might want to put on a railroad layout. An older layout had a beautiful up grade done in cookie cutter fashion, and when I built this layout I simply removed the risers and returned the grand to the table level.
If you are using a table top, you can set risers of wood or foam on top of that. The foam risers would not work so well on an open grid.
The LION built several “mini Tables”. The have a 4" hig frame, a flat top, usually Celotex (think Homasote), that is 100% stable in its own right. This is simply held in place with a few legs from the open frame bench work. This is great for yards, industries etc., and if you take things apart, they come out in units.
So I have several mini-tables connected with cookie cuttler like homasote held up on risers. Light weight, efficiant, and CHEAP.
ROAR
You can mix and match all the types as needed. You can also build a section of tabletop or whatever that is lower than the rest for scenic effect. I did this 2 layouts ago for a river. If you put foam on top you can cut away the foam for below track scenic features.
In truth, there is no best way - use whatever works best for you.
Good luck
Paul
Some really great input, some I’m familar with by trying it like cookie cutter and some I’m itching to try on this next adventure. I have a good feel for what I want the outcome to be it’s just which path I take to get there. Sounds like open grid would be best for the track whether it’s at the lowest point of the layout or rising up a bit. I like the idea of bringing the terrain and Industry areas upto the track or even below the track, rivers with waterfall and bridges although I don’t think I will include bridges crossing over lower rails. I know it’s bit on topic but I want to gear this layout to more of an operational standpoint , myself being the only operator and Loop to loop. Looking forward to more input from this site. Thanks Lyn
Most of my layout is open grid, with sub-roadbed cut from 3/4" plywood. Because part of it will eventually be double-decked, I built the support structure separate from the grid, and made it all the same 31" height as required by the lowest part. Those portions were constructed from 2"x4"s, and support plywood shelves for storage of tools, hardware, toys, and assorted household junk, not to mention some train stuff. The open grid is 1"x4", screwed together and also screwed to the support structure (which is lag-bolted to the studs).
Here’s some of that area, with the track about 36" above the floor - even here, the roadbed is atop risers to allow for terrain below track level. The lower edge of the fascia is about 30" above the floor, and that remains constant for all of the levels currently in service, while the upper edge of the fascia follows the terrain.
As the track wends around the room, it rises, starting just beyond the bridge at right in the distance. Both rivers are on plywood screwed directly atop the open grid, while the track and structures (mostly) are supported by risers. The landforms, for the most part, are plaster over screen, and are self-supporting.
This area is quite a bit higher than the area in the previous picture (which is reached via the lower bridge leading to the right) and everything is on risers:
This view shows some of the same general area, but better reveals the grade heading to the not-yet-built second level. The bottom edge of the fascia is still at 30" above floor level, while
Thanks Wayne for taking the time to post some really great photos of your layout and the technique you used with the open grid. This was a real eye opener with what can be accomplished. Thanks Lynn