Over the past couple of days I have been mocking up my benchwork in preparation for the real thing. One thing I have have found is the L-girder construction won't work as I have staging below the main level. So I mocked up an open grid section with all levels present. Why I think L-girder won't work is the layout is an around the room so it requires a duckunder. With the bottom of the bench work high enough to make it reasonably comfortable, the upper level branch ends up too high....as well as the staging problem Now, my staging will be 4 - 5 1/2" below the main level (base 0") and will cover half of the 12x8 room. I have in 6 tracks plus a mainline in staging. Each end of the visible mainline connects with staging effectively giving twice around the room. The branchline climbs from base 0", around the room to end up 12" above the base. With a height from the floor of 43" at staging that effectively puts the top of the branch at 60 1/2"-ish. Oh, construction will be risers/masonite splines/luan ply/cork for open roadbed, MDF/luan ply/cork for yard and larger industry areas. Now here is the question. The base benchwork looks like it is going to be open grid. (Pity really as I like the flexibility of L-grider) With that said which option would be preferable: 1. Base level open grid has staging, everything else sits on risers from that base. Some risers will be nearly 18" long. 2. The main level is the open base and staging is slung under it on "negative" risers. 3. Have 2 levels of open grid (one for staging, one for main level), one above the other in the areas where the majority of staging/main level track is. Maximum riser length would then be 12". If you have lasted this long then I hope you can throw a few suggestions in. A picture of the upper level stuff (over staging) can be seen at my railimages account: http://www.railimages.com/gallery/brucenordstrand - the track plan has changed a little from this pic as I do not have the door to worry me anymore. BTW, this is HO scale.... Ok, long winded enough, I'll go now.... Cheers Bruce
Bruce, I checked out you layout plan and it looks great! With regards to your open grid -vs- L-girder question, all I can say is that I have L-girder (above) with lower staging yards below, and it works well. However, I don't use a duckunder. If you use option #2 above, and keep the staging yards away from your duckunder, it seems you could have the best of both worlds. I can see one little problem with the 6 tracks plus mainline you plan in the staging area, and that is only 4-5 1/2" clearance between the staging and the bottom of the layout mainline. I have 20" between the two, and I can tell you even with that amount of space, when there's trouble with a train on the farthest inside track, it's a real effort to correct it. I think it would be almost impossible to correct any problems with only 4-5 1/2 inches, without having to remove everything from the yards first. Just a thought. Hope this helps. Bill
Thanks for that Bill. My real preference is for L-girder but with the position of the turnouts in staging I am concerned with the grade to and from staging, that is if I lower them any further. I will do some rethinking on the subject of staging location and how to get down there in a reasonable grade. Cheers Bruce
I have long (tall) risers on my railroad and they have not been a problem. I know a guy that has the tallest risers I have ever see, some I would say are almost 30". As long as you screw and glue them they should not be a problem. I have a town on my layout that is over my staging yard and I had to come up with some interesting looking risers to hold it up and clear the staging tracks. I used 3/4" plywood to cut some strange looking arched risers to support the town over the staging tracks. BTW, I would use 3/4" plywood for the sub roadbed, it should not need any other supporting structure under it. For another idea on risers, check out Model Railroad Planning 2004, page 34 and 35. There is a guy using threaded rods as risers. The cool thing about the rods is that he has some between tracks in his staging yard. There is always the chance that you will have trouble with a train in your staging yard (and it will happen when you are showing someone your layout), but there are some things you can do to minimize it. First, put in Atlas rerailers in front on the turnouts that start your staging yards so if there is a wheel that is off the track the rerailer will get it back on track before it enters the first turnout. You won't need a rerailer on every yard track because when you leave the yard the turnouts will act as rerailers most of the time. Second, if a train is bound for the staging yard don't even move it until all of the turnouts routing in the staging yard are set for the correct route and the track has been checked to make sure no other train in on it. Third, as the train is entering the tunnels to the staging yard have the operator watch every wheel set to make sure they are all on the track. Fourth, don’t let questionable equipment go into staging. I test every locomotive and car, forward and backwards, to make sure it has no trouble going into and out of the staging yard. I had a few locomotives that would not work well and I never used those until I had them fixed. If your equipment is up to snuff, and you checked your track for gauge, and you tested your stuff so you know it can go into the staging yard, and you make sure your route is clear, and you have "walked" the train to check for derailed equipment before it left the visible part of the layout, you should have very little trouble with your staging yard. Knock-on-wood, I have been running mine for three years and I have not had troubles with mine because I follow the above rules. I'm sure my day is coming, but I've had some much good luck with it that I won't be able to complain, but I'm sure I will.
Thanks Jeff Good advise there. All my staging will be handlaid to get it as good as I can. Masochist? Yup, that's me I just got MRR planning 2004 and saw that about the rods. That has got me thinking about the slinging staging below the benchwork. Then maybe I could also integrate a system where I could lower the staging tracks if there was trouble....oops, there I go getting carried away again!!! Really though, the steel rods look like a good idea. I have seen that done somewhere else (just can't remember where) and it looks like a real good way of doing things - minimal area to interfere with access. I think I'll do some more mocking up in the next couple of days and try it out... Cheers
I was reading an old MRR today (Jan '88) and found the article on the Carbondale Central. They used a real interesting concept on benchwork for a "movable" layout - they called it "wall units" with the verticals running all the way to the roof to support the benchwork. Saved drilling into the wall or stabilising free standing stuff. I might just try that
Let me suggest one word of caution when you go to get supplies to build the bench-work for your layout. Try to balance the load, and remember, binder twine is NOT a good substitute for 3/8" line (rope) to tie down any heavy wood. Here is a link to an example of what I mean: http://www.sunbelt-software.com/stu/ (After you study that awhile, try this link and explore some of the world we never see.) http://www.arseiam.com/index2.htm [ 26. May 2004, 10:39: Message edited by: watash ]
