This is largely designed for newbies… and, maybe, people starting over…
Several times recently threads have looked at different aspects of baseboard design.
I am very aware that on the British side of the pond we have a different approach to construction. I have never seen L girder used here and we tend to use far less material. The material is usually a lot smaller in section.
Many UK layouts (especially club layouts) get taken apart and stored between sessions. They frequently also get transported between storage and venue(s). This greatly encourages lightness, mostly in the form of minimum materials, but also the most robust design possible.
Basically (probably) the majority of UK layouts have baseboards that resemble module system boards. That is, they have a single piece sheet top supported by a rectangular frame all round the edges. This frame may have a number of cross members, a number of diagonal braces and strengthening blocks between some or all of the pieces set at angles to each other.
Without the sheet in place the frame resembles a truss girder. The two long sides are usually parallel (but don’t have to be) and the ends may be perpendicular to the long sides. In fact the outline can be a rectangle or an irregular four sided figure with no parallel sides. If you really want to get complicated you can get more than four sides. (See later).
BOARD STRENGTH,
Most of the threads and a lot of pictures I see suggest to me that many layouts are not only massively engineered but wasteful and, worse, inefficient.
You can take this as a criticism. It is meant to lead on to positive, constructive ideas.
First positive, constructive idea… Less material in your baseboard means less cost.
Second positive, constructive, idea… Less cost on baseboard means more money for models!
David, I’ve noticed that this topic hasn’t gotten many looks, and no responses. The problem might be the word “baseboard”. In North America, baseboard is the wood trim that goes around the bottom of the wall. We call the platform you build a train layout on “benchwork”.
We really are two countries separated by a common language. Try editing the title to “American” (benchwork) and see what happens.[swg]
Help insomniacs??? Now I’m going to lay awake all night trying to figure all this out!! [(-D][(-D] My layout is being build in a spare bedroom of my home. If I have to move the layout, my home has wheels under it. [:D][:D][:o)] David, don,t take offense here. Just a bit of humor intended. You do have great ideas here. Ken
Based on my experience, I would say that COST is another significant factor involved in the difference between construction methods in the U.S. and Europe.
I was station in Munich, Germany with the U.S. Army between 1975-78, and in Frankfurt from 1980-83. I built a small HO scale layout when I was in Munich. The only affordable lumber available from a German lumber yard was pressed particle board.
It cost me almost as much there to build a basic 10-foot long, 3-foot wide layout structure than it did to build a 20 x 40 foot club layout here in Arizona using a 2x4 framework suporting hollow-core doors.
Building materials are far more expensive in Europe than here in the U.S.
Great tutorial, David. Very thought-provoking. Thanks for posting it. My design is similar. My layout is sectional, with 1X4 perimeter frames, 3/4" plywood tops and no cross-bracing–don’t need it with 3/4" plywood. I have 2X2 blocks reinforcing the corners. It’s light enough that I can easily pick up a 16 sq. ft. section and carry it by myself. I plan to go to thinner plywood and foam sheets for future sections.
Yes, do change the title to “benchwork.” The only reason I read your post was to see what the heck baseboards had to do with model railroading.
Many good words indeed. Whilst I have been involved peripherally in modelling railroads for about 35 years, I have only moved to North America in 2000 and started building a layout last year. I have now built a number of small layouts.
When I started reading books on building baseboards (or benchwork for the Americans), I started doing some calculations on strength, rigididty and weight. The classic North American approaches to benchwork are very big on weight and strength but generally lack significantly in stability and rigidity.
The use of low cost softwood lumber leads to several comnpromises. Generally the material is all kiln dried and any resemblance to something straight is replaced by a resemblance to something bitter, warped and twisted. I have 8ft lengths of 2x1 softwood here that deviate from straight by over an inch and warp twists of 30-40 degrees when stored as the top layer on a flat storage rack! As structural lumber it makes good firewood. Same goes for things as big as 2x4 - especially if you can find some without splits in it. But it is cheap. VERY VERY cheap! So people use it and overbuild to compensate.
And why, in the name of all that is good, would you want to put 3/4" plywood on top? Well, I suppose you do need something to keep the frame straight don’t you! But then you look at it, and you find that 5/8" and 3/4" ply here is also cheap. They use it for lining walls and floors - so it had better be cheap - we are going to live in it.
A few months back I helped an older gentleman to move his layout form teh basement to the garage. It was built in 4x8 sections and we could easilly get them up the stairs which were nice and wide. But heavy! We need four full grown men to move each section. There was no way he could even move a section on his own. That layout has now been sold. In its place is one built on the more British style of layout which is in fact based on a torsion box. The framing and bracing are all done with