# My future build begins



## swimmer_spe (May 3, 2016)

I have not disappeared. I have been preparing my basement for my future build.

It is time to begin.

I have HO scale tracks, so for now, that is the gauge I will be working with.

I am going to use a 4x8 sheet of plywood as my base. How thick is needed? Can I just use 2x4ss and make a base for it?

... it begins.....


----------



## time warp (Apr 28, 2016)

3/4 would be best, you can frame it with 1 x 2 or 1x3 and be fine. 2x4 isn't necessary but would work fine.


----------



## MtRR75 (Nov 27, 2013)

3 suggestions.

Put some 1x2 diagonal braces at each corner (in both directions) to keep the table from wobbling when bumped. They only need to go about half way down the legs. That leaves you lots of access room.

Put 1x4 joists about 16"apart across the frame to support the plywood. Drill some holes in the jousts for wiring to go through.

Install screw-in feet on the bottoms of the legs. That will make it easy for you to level your table.


----------



## CTValleyRR (Jul 26, 2014)

Sorry if I didn't notice your absence... it's not uncommon for people to join, make a post or two, and disappear forever.

My question to you is, do you need your layout to be proof against earthquakes, clumsy visitors, or anything? How are your carpentry skills? Do you ever see yourself moving this layout, even across the room?

Many people construct a layout that is suitable to shelter under in the event of a tornado or earthquake. It's not necessary to go with 3/4" ply and 2x4 construction unless you have some reason to make it really strong and don't mind it being really heavy. Your layout won't be very heavy, proportionally, and it isn't necessary to use plywood at all, unless you really feel you need somewhere to screw things into (and even then, you can always attach cleats to joists to support things under the layout if you need to).

I would say 1x dimensional lumber and no thicker than 1/2" ply is fine. If you're worried about sagging of 1/2" plywood, adding a joist or two is cheaper and lighter than using thicker plywood.


----------



## DonR (Oct 18, 2012)

It's OK to think heavy duty construction...but for a
typical model railroad it's way overkill.

My room size layout is built in modular form using
1"X4" lumber topped with 3/8" plywood, but even 1/4"
would be sufficient. On several occasions I had to
crawl around atop the benchwork to do ballasting
and other model chores. Not a problem.

Use screws and bolts, not nails in your construction.
L shaped legs of 1X4s bolted in corners provide a very stable
table. As suggested, do use cross members for added
strength and stability.

Before you attach the top, bore a number of holes
through the cross members that will hold your
eventual wiring.

One other thought, if you have the space, add another
foot to the width of your benchwork. That will make
possible curve radii that can handle most of the
larger locos on the market today.
\
Don


----------



## Lemonhawk (Sep 24, 2013)

Consider a dog-bone style layout rather than a large rectangle. The middle of the rectangle is virtually wasted and difficult to get access to. The rectangle has t sit in the middle of the room to gain access while a dog-bone can be made against a wall. Make it light an open frame with lots of foam.


----------



## swimmer_spe (May 3, 2016)

A few answers...

1) I live in a relatively seismic quiet part of the world. Therefore, I will not be using it to duck for cover. I will store bins and such under it, but that is about it.

2) I plan to have tunnels and bridges, so track will cross all over the place. Having the width means I can get a good layout.

The adjustable legs sounds like a great idea. No wobbling.


----------



## Gramps (Feb 28, 2016)

If you can pick up a used ping pong table at a yard sale it would give you a 5x9 platform and a surprisingly larger layout. I have seen it done.


----------



## swimmer_spe (May 3, 2016)

Gramps said:


> If you can pick up a used ping pong table at a yard sale it would give you a 5x9 platform and a surprisingly larger layout. I have seen it done.


That is a pretty good idea.


----------



## CTValleyRR (Jul 26, 2014)

swimmer_spe said:


> A few answers...
> 
> 1) I live in a relatively seismic quiet part of the world. Therefore, I will not be using it to duck for cover. I will store bins and such under it, but that is about it.
> 
> ...


Most people don't need an earthquake shelter. That's why we usually say less is more. Go with the lightest construction that you feel comfortable with.

Track crossing every which way is what we typically refer to as a "bowl of spaghetti". Maybe this is what you want, and if so, that's fine. But no matter how visually complex the layout is, if all you are doing is watching trains chase their tails around in a circle (or complex series of helical shapes), you will most likely get bored with it eventually.

Before you start building, think about what you really want from your layout. Real railroads go from place to place, without crossing over themselves (except in very rare instances), and they do things on the way -- drop cars, pick them up, pass other trains, wait in sidings, swap crews, etc. They think long and hard before building a bridge or a tunnel. And the amount of track relative to scenery is usually very small outside of yards and stations. So a narrow, more linear layout is much more conducive to realism.

Only you can say which is right for you.


----------



## swimmer_spe (May 3, 2016)

CTValleyRR said:


> Most people don't need an earthquake shelter. That's why we usually say less is more. Go with the lightest construction that you feel comfortable with.
> 
> Track crossing every which way is what we typically refer to as a "bowl of spaghetti". Maybe this is what you want, and if so, that's fine. But no matter how visually complex the layout is, if all you are doing is watching trains chase their tails around in a circle (or complex series of helical shapes), you will most likely get bored with it eventually.
> 
> ...


I look at this as more to do with building and adding to the scenery. At first, the tracks will be laid out and block put under them for me to get the right heights I want. Then comes the land. Then comes the major structures for the trains (tunnels and bridges) Then comes Stations and major building structures. This alone will take me a few years. I love tinkering. The more I can tinker with something, the more I will. I know I want several features on my layout, including a rail yard and a shipping dock. Aside from that, the trains will go wherever. Many tracks will just go under the landscape to get to a whole other part of the layout. It may pop out enough to go by something interesting, and then disappear. One eventual part I will layout is a massive rail yard _under the main board_ This will mean that all trains will be stored out of sight until I want them elsewhere.

In short, this first layout will become much larger as time goes on, and it will become more advanced as time goes on.


----------



## Bwells (Mar 30, 2014)

It sounds like you will have one layout on top of another. If so, at 2% grade and figuring 1X3 crossmembers you will need to drop the train 6" to get to your staging area. That will take 24 feet to go down and 24 feet to go up, assuming 1/2" ply on 1x3 with 3 inches of headroom in the staging area. That is alot! 1/4"per foot is close to 2%, a shade over.


----------



## swimmer_spe (May 3, 2016)

Bwells said:


> It sounds like you will have one layout on top of another. If so, at 2% grade and figuring 1X3 crossmembers you will need to drop the train 6" to get to your staging area. That will take 24 feet to go down and 24 feet to go up, assuming 1/2" ply on 1x3 with 3 inches of headroom in the staging area. That is alot! 1/4"per foot is close to 2%, a shade over.


Wow! I did not know the gradient for these are so little.

How do people have tracks that are higher than others if there is such a gradient?


----------



## Bwells (Mar 30, 2014)

They have big layouts and a lot of room or run steeper grades. You can increase the grade some as long as you run diesels, maybe 4%. Something like 1/4" in 6".


----------



## CTValleyRR (Jul 26, 2014)

swimmer_spe said:


> Wow! I did not know the gradient for these are so little.
> 
> How do people have tracks that are higher than others if there is such a gradient?


A 2% grade strikes terror into the hearts of real railroaders (grades approaching 10% are not uncommon on highways, though). Our models are a little more forgiving, but still, the best practice is to keep them to 3-4% or less, and if you're above 2%, use an easement to gradually transition on and off of your slopes. 

As bwells said, the grades necessary for significant elevation changes consume huge amounts of space (consider that a 1% slope means you only gain or lose 1' of elevation for every 100' of horizontal distance). Packing these elevation changes into smaller spaces can result in unreasonable grades and therefore a layout that doesn't run well, which will forever be a source of frustration. 

If you're contemplating something like that, get a layout planning software program that handles grades and try laying out what you envision. My personal favorite is AnyRail, which is a commercial program that costs about $60, but has great support, a huge track library, and is very easy to use if you have some basic familiarity with CAD concepts. There are other tools out there, including some free ones, that will also work fine. I think SCARM is probably the best of the freebies as far as user-friendliness goes.

Not that were trying to shatter your dreams, but often times the laws of physics mean that layouts that are visually amazing run very poorly if at all.


----------



## swimmer_spe (May 3, 2016)

CTValleyRR said:


> A 2% grade strikes terror into the hearts of real railroaders (grades approaching 10% are not uncommon on highways, though). Our models are a little more forgiving, but still, the best practice is to keep them to 3-4% or less, and if you're above 2%, use an easement to gradually transition on and off of your slopes.
> 
> As bwells said, the grades necessary for significant elevation changes consume huge amounts of space (consider that a 1% slope means you only gain or lose 1' of elevation for every 100' of horizontal distance). Packing these elevation changes into smaller spaces can result in unreasonable grades and therefore a layout that doesn't run well, which will forever be a source of frustration.
> 
> ...


Damn you Laws of Physics!

I have tried some of the free ones, but I do not know what track I actually have int he first place.

So, if I want to raise the rail up 2 inches(about the height of locos), how far back must the start of the gradient be?


----------



## Bwells (Mar 30, 2014)

For 2%, 8 feet, for 3%, about 6 feet, for 4%, about 4 feet.
, BUT this does not take into consideration of an easement at the top and bottom! Also your 2 inches is a little low for a loco to pass under and it also does not take into account the roadbed thickness nor the height of the track. You confused yet?


----------



## CTValleyRR (Jul 26, 2014)

The NMRA's standard for vertical clearance is just under 3", not 2". Slope is a mathematical ratio, as I stated above (expressed as rise over run). At a 1% grade, you need 100 inches to rise one inch, so 200 inches to rise 2. 2% is twice as steep, so 50" to rise one inch, 100" to rise 2". At 3% you can do it in 67", at 4% in 50"... sort of, because with grades that steep, you need an easement, or a short segment of less steep slope at each end to help transition from the flat to the incline (otherwise the train can dig in it's nose, derail, or uncouple at the ends of the slope).

So even at 4%, which is pretty steep and may affect how well your locos pull (and note that curves on a grade further reduce the pulling ability), you need 75", over 6 feet, to gain that measly 3" vertical separation, and as much going back down on the other side. It is possible to split the difference, IOW have one track go up and the other go down, but you need that 6 feet in there somewhere.


----------



## CTValleyRR (Jul 26, 2014)

As far as the track plannjng software, it doesn't really matter what track you have. A 9" straight is a 9" straight; a 22" radius curve is a 22" radius curve, no matter who makes it. 

The only place you have to get it exactly right is turnouts, because every manufacturer's turnouts have a slightly different geometry, mostly in the length of the legs. If you plan with Atlas #6 turnouts and buy Pecos, you may find yourself with things that don't line up. The real problem are the so called "snap switches" from Atlas. They actually have a curved diverging leg to facilitate their use in a trainset style loop and have a completely different shape to a true numbered turnout (#4, #6, etc), which have straight diverging legs like real turnouts do.

And now, I suspect , you are REALLY confused...


----------



## swimmer_spe (May 3, 2016)

I am not confused, just realizing just how big my layout will end up.

Still don't get how I see HO scale track layouts and I know they are less than 20 feet long, yet the trains are on 3 or 4 levels higher than the lowest track.


----------



## CTValleyRR (Jul 26, 2014)

The tracks don't connect. You can build several independent levels, then you don't need to worrry about grades at all.

It is also possible to use steeper grades than 4%, and you MIGHT be able to coax the trains into climbing or descending without issues IF you run very short equipment and very short trains and very good easements.

There is also a technique called a helix, a large spiral, that can be used to go to different levels, although a helix with 18" radius curves is over 3' in diameter.


----------



## CTValleyRR (Jul 26, 2014)

Also, don't forget reach. The farthest most of us can reach into a layout unassisted is about 30" from an accessable edge.


----------

