Anyone know of a published plan for building benchwork that incorporates a work space underneath, hopefully a continuous workspace. I’m planning and around the walls design in a 10’ x 11’ spare bedroom and would like to also have an around the room workbench under the layout, I understand this means an eye level height for the layout.
Instead of reinventing the wheel I was hoping someone knew of a published plan for the carpentry involved.
I plan to do just that, here’s how.
Although it is not in any published articles as far as I know, but the easyest way to incorperate a workbench unnder your benchwork is to buy a secondhand office desk and put it under an appropriately high portion of benchwork. I’ve done this and it gives good results.
I don’t recall ever seeing a plan for benchwork and workbench combined. I have used a dining room table under 58" (54" underneath) high benchwork. That worked very well.
Enjoy
Paul
While I’ve never seen either photos or detailed drawings, the published track plan of John Armstrong’s Canandaigua Southern indicates that he had, not one, but five workbenches under the layout.
For most people, that might be overkill.
Chuck (modeling Central Japan in September, 1964)
My benchwork is built in 2x8 foot segments which are bolted together at the ends.
For a workspace I have a 6 foot folding table purchased at BJ’s that just slides out to use and slides under one segment when not in use.
Simple and convenient.
That is exactly what I do. I found the 6’ plastic folding tables on sale for like 20 bucks. Picked up 4. I keep two aside for other uses… But two I keep under the layout and slide them out when I need them. They are short enough I can keep them up and they stand underneath. I just have to sit at the table because its a bit too short to stand at. I’m 6’2", that doesn’t help.
mike
I put my entire workshop ‘under’ my layout. The workbench is standard commercial furniture 30" to the top of the table. The layout is 52" -54". The layout is sectional and designed to be relocated, with some amount of trama to the layout. seated at my work area, I can only see the outer edge of the layout. I’ve installed a huge mirror 3’ X 12’ adjacent to where I work, this gives me a good easy way to see my layout in operation.
As you can see, I have band, table and miter saws all stored below the layout as well as drill press, sanders, vacuums etc. plus lots of storage.
NICE fascia color. What color is that?
I"ve done exactly what you’ve described. The only advice I can give u is plan on putting the desk or bench (mine is just 2 cabinets with a formica table top between them commercially built by a friend of mine) underneath the layout where it does NOT extend more than 12-14" over the bench. That way its not claustropohbic and you have plenty of room to move your head around without banging it on the layout.
A picture is worth a thousand words…
And here’s a before picture…
Re Fascia color,
I’ll check the paint can when I get home and let you know.
My plan calls for replacing black plastic with wooden doors, I imagine a framework of hinged doors or panels like Dolkos did on his layout featured in MRR a number of times. MRR planning a few years back I think.
Joe
Hmmmmmm…
4 days and the original poster is nowhere to be found.
He’s probably busy implementing all the great suggestions.
I find 21st Century Limited’s posting just a little confusing; I think I understand what he wants but I’m just a little confused about why he wants it.
His posting implies that he is planning a shelf layout and that is going to be approximately 24" in depth. His statement about a
and an
implies that he wishes to avoid any kind of benchwork-to-floor support under the lip of his layout platform. I can see only one possible way to achieve this.
The only way I can see that he is going to support a 24" wide shelf without benefit of any kind of benchwark-to-floor support is through the use of triangular gussets bolted to two bys which will have to be FIRMLY lag-screwed to his basement wall studding. These two bys will also be used to support that
but to facilitate under benchwork maintenance that
is going to have to be sectional and foldable either up or down to get it out of the way. Believe it or not folding upward is preferable to folding downward.
Lets do some arithmetic. If eyelevel implies about 54 inch track heighth and allowing 12 inches for roadbed-subroadbed-belowtracklevel scenery-benchwork then the underside of our lay
I did something similar with a 2x8 shelf above the workbench on an n-scale layout a few years ago. In the work area, the thickness of the layout dropped down to just 10 inches, enough for 2 tracks and a little scenery. I mounted the layout using wood cleats along a side and back wall, and turned wooden legs at four points along the front.
The workbench was a solid wood block atop some standard kitchen cabinets, so I used a stool to work there. The layout was about 13" above that. That put it about eye level when working there.
The workbench provided the necessary workspace to build the scenery, provided a soldering station, etc. The arrangement also provided fairly straightforward access for electrical work.
There was a photo of it a few years ago in MR.
Now its being moved to the garage loft due to remodeling, where I anticipate beginning an expansion of the layout soon.
I’m nowhere to be found?? Where exactly have you been looking? Seriously though, I did respond several days ago but fumbled when posting it and just turned off the computer frustrated in having to rewrite the whole thing.
I have read everyone’s responses and considered them with interest. I’ve given up on the idea of an integrated workbench/benchwork based on the points shared here. I’ve decided on a more conventional benchwork with a 58" rail height, and the workbench and storage units mounted on casters to allow easy access to the underside of the layout.
I want to thank everyone who took the time to respond and even to includes so many informative photos. I hope my slowness to post a follow up response was not perceived as a lack of gratitude for the time you all spent responding. I am very appreciative of all the responses and for how fortunate we are to have this great forum.
Thanks again everyone…
Well…you could have at least called. Dinner has been sitting on the table and it was starting to get cold. After 4 days it could have WALKED off the plate!
There is a quotation by Thucydides that says
In this vein you have discovered one of the hard facts of model railroading: every model railroad is a compromise between what we would like to do and what we can do!
Now, I am confused. Unless you are more than 6’4, a 58" benchwork will allow for more than adequate head room under the layout for a work bench. I’m 6’2" and my benchwork is 52" and I make it work without issue. At 58" my situation would be ideal. Afterall, I don’t sit under the bench work, the work bench does, I sit at the edge of the work bench in the isle.
I have a work table on casters but my work bench does not move. Too many cords, cables and wires for the computers, soldering irons, lights etc.
Joe
joe-daddy, I suppose what we are dealing with here is a matter of our adopted standards for our layouts. Your standard calls for a top-of-head to track heighth of twenty-two inches; my standard is fourteen. Surprisingly that 14:22 ratio is not too far off of the N-Scale:HO-Scale ratio.
Nevertheless, I could never live with your twenty-two inch standard and perhaps 21st Century Limited may have the same problem. Allowing seven inches for top-of-head to eyeball level leaves me with another seven inches eyeball level to (lowest) track heighth, a scale ninety-three feet four inches; I don’t like that elevation but I have to allow four inches for track elevation above mark-zero brings my track heighth to (scale) forty feet below eyeball level. This high-view can be disguised behind structures, foilage, in rock-cuts, etc to give an illusion of depth. If I went at your twenty-two inch top-of-head to (lowest) track heighth and allowing for that four inch track elevation above mark-zero would put my observation level at one-hundred seventy-three feet and four inches above track; that, pardon me!, is too toylike for my taste.