The benchwork for my first layout was butt joint tables and I found it fairly simple to build because my layout was flat and a single level. I'm starting my second layout. This will be a shelf/around the room layout with track elevation changes and a lower level staging yard accessible via a 2.5% grade. I'm open to butt joint or L-girder benchwork but I am struggling with the benchwork design to accommodate the the 2.5% grade to lower staging. For example, much of the layout is relatively flat with industries at either 38 1/2" or 41" track height. Common sense would tell me that I would build my joists coming out from the wall to accommodate these heights. However, the 2.5% grade leading down to lower staging would essentially be going "through" these joists as the track makes its decent down a few inches. It doesn't feel natural to build the joists at a level that would support the lower staging, and then hoist 75% of the first level on risers to bring it up to 38 1/2" or 41" track height but I can do that if that's the right thing to do. The diagram below is an example and is not the actual track plan. For anyone with access to back issues of Model Railroader magazine, I'm building the N&W branch featured in the September 2010 issue so you'd be able to see exactly what I'm going after there. Thank you in advance for any help or ideas.
I don't really think there is a right way for benchwork. If you go through old model railroad literature it changes over time. At first it's all open, but heavy, frame layouts. After that you see L girder construction being the be all and end all. It seems like the best approach would be to have some kind of framework all at the same level for the entire layout. You can put in risers from that base to create your grades. Your best bet is to get on a search engine and search or images of model railroad benchwork.
Risers are a common feature. You might only need them to build a ramp down to that staging area. The rest could sit on a modified L girder type of support.
I'd put the actual layout shelf on brackets tied to the wall studs. This will free up the area underneath for staging, and minimize interference with the down grade portion. Most modern homes are 16 inch centered studs - and thats a sufficient distance for brackets if you are using light weight foam and minimal wood for your shelves. done right you should be able to start down grade just before one bracket and be below the next one enough to get trains by. ten do the staging on hollow core closet doors also on brackets. easy peasy.
Thank you guys! I've been following Linn Wescott's bench work book which seems sturdy enough to support a tank in comparison to the L brackets many people seem to be using with success. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
there's a ton of stuff out there now that stronger and weighs less. Pelle Sjoberg's recent layout benchwork article in MR shows one more modern and light weight interpretation of Westcott's system. And many of the N Trak guys are into light weight, as are FreeMO folks in N and HO.
The ultimate in lightweight construction is the NC Sipping and Switching. Their website is kind of out of date, but they have a Facebook page and a Yahoo group. Don
The lower level staging is still giving me fits. Rail head to rail head, the lower level staging is only 5" from the rails above it in Damascus. What that essentially means to me is that the benchwork supporting Damascus cannot use 1x4 or 1x3 joists or box framing because that would obstruct clearance for the trains below on the staging tracks. The diagram below from the author shows there are no joists of any type supporting Damascus. It visually looks like plywood only supporting the lateral distance from wall to edge of the layout. Support from the layout edge could be from the L bracket coming from the wall or legs going down to the floor. Support from the interior edge along the wall could be from a narrow profile L bracket or a cleat running along the wall as shown. Without framing to support Damascus, will plywood hold up without warping? I can paint it, run a dehumidifier in the train room, and use 5 ply if that would help, it just seems like benchwork of plywood only without some kind of support framing is unconventional and rarely seen. The cross section width of Damascus is about 18" out from the wall so it's not a great distance width wise but it would be length wise, 9 feet, meaning I also need to splice plywood together with no framing available.I'd have to rely on firmly tying into the 1x4 running along the back wall.
I am facing the same issue. I intend to use cleats between abutting bench modules to anchor them, but to build the modules at different heights. I anticipate having to use cross-members that are only 1X2 and not 1X4 joists in one or two cases as the roadbed descends toward my staging. In at least one instance, I'll have to use a jig saw to either cut out from the top of a frame member or to cut the top part of a 'tunnel portal' into another. Essentially, you are building the same frames with joists, but your risers will be higher in the ones that are closer to the ground to support the real railwork on the surface of your layout, even if they are on grades and elevated. Below it all, you craft a descending path making cut-outs or using half-width cross-members where you must. Just take your time and don't fudge the grades and curves down there...it's largely hidden and you need this to work like a Swiss watch.
Looking at the article I see the staging tracks have generous centers for rerailing the as originally designed HO cars. Perhaps you can use that same spacing to your advantage and just drill tunnels through cantilever support girders that hold up Damascus. Make them out of atleast 5 ply plywood. You shouldn't need too many depending on what thickness ply and or foam you use up top. I'm sure in the article they're implying more support, but for a literal translation of the diagrams... There is no way the physical properties of plywood (or any plain wood for that matter) would let you support 9'x18" with only a narrow wall cleat. Just about anything short of a one piece metal shelf will eventually sag in front, unless you bother with legs, which aren't shown. By using the staging as part of the cantilever bracketry, you should in theory be able to get away without legs, and also box the supports against any lateral skewing with the roadbed of the staging tracks. Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk
I've done a lot of studying and thinking about what my research has turned up as well as all of the helpful comments here. This will be a challenge compared to my last layout but where I once briefly thought constructing this layout was impossible and bent too many sound construction rules (such as placing turnouts on a grade - I won't do it), I think I can build what the author of this layout designed. I've looked at several hundred track plans and none really come close to utilizing the 11x10 spare bedroom space I have available to it's fullest potential like the N&W branch/Virginia Creeper track plan does. It has a modest continuous mainline for my kids and when I want trains to loop. It has staging. I'm a freight guy but this layout serves passengers as well which should satisfy visitors. Best of all it has a point to point branch line (and a cleverly placed wye) with more operations potential in half the space of my last layout with plenty of industries, team tracks, and opportunity for interchange. My last layout was built for ops and I implemented car cards and waybills so I'll be able to dig those out again. I've never built a helix or a multi deck layout before but it's time to tackle it like so many before me have and succeeded. Speaking of the helix, there is no wiggle room there that I can see. The author designed a 21" radius helix with a 3% grade. Because of that radius and trying to adhere to NMRA HO scale clearance standards for modern trains (3 5/32" height), I think I'm going to have to use the thinnest subroadbed I can build - two offset plys of laminated 1/8" hardboard/masonite. If that doesn't work, I'll have to sacrifice the modern 3 5/32" clearance for one of the other two more conservative heights NMRA identifies with. The author designed this layout to run steam or 1st generation diesel era trains (GP9) which have a shorter clearance profile but the article I'm following doesn't specify which of the three NMRA height standards he's abiding by in his helix design. I started the benchwork tonight. The corner for Damascus is done minus the legs. At this point I'm taking it over to the HO scale forum but I may return if I have a design question. Thanks again for the help!
Regardless of whether you use L-girder benchwork or frame, you should probably work out a way that you can descend 5 inches to the lower level at the front of the shelf instead of at the back, because both original construction and future maintenance will be MUCH easier, and in addition to being better able to "fiddle" cars on the staging tracks, descending at the front of the shelf will leave the train visible longer than descending at the back, meaning less hidden track (that is...more track that is easy to see, clean, or repair), you will add interesting variation to your terrain, and the varying levels will make the layout seem bigger. If you drop 6.5 inch risers (maybe I should call them "droppers"??) from the stringers or framing pieces of the 41" deck (one at the back of the shelf and the other about 3 tracks' width from the front of the shelf), you could secure a 1x2 running from the aisle to the wall that supports your 3 staging tracks at 36". Although railheads will be 5 inches apart, you will probably have only 4 inches or less clearance to the underside of the 41" level shelf, so I would encourage you to cut back the shelf at the 41" level, so you have convenient access to the staging tracks at 36". Could the tracks at Damascus be configured in a way that the visible staging tracks could be interpreted as a 3-track satellite yard for your RR or a two-track interchange with a foreign RR?
