Layout Substructure ("Baseboard") Techniques and Materials

[Joseph_Pestell]

I may have missed it. But so far as I can see we don't have a sub-forum on RMWeb about making baseboards. Yet it is such a basic element in creating a successful layout and one that so many beginners get wrong.

 

The main spur to writing this though is a somewhat heated debate going on between various protagonists/contributors on the KL2 thread where Jeff (Physicsman) is building L-girder baseboards. His concern, as for so many modellers who have had a layout go banana-shaped, is that softwood has such a tendency to twist. His solution is to use bigger section material but it has been pointed out by Mike (Stationmaster) that this might actually increase the likelihood of the L-girder twisting.

 

So why do most of us still use softwood? 60 years ago, when CJ Freezer was advocating a framework of 2x1 supporting softboard, I rather think that softwood may have been of better quality than it is now. And most towns had a proper timber merchant, a rarity these days. Even so, I believe that sort of baseboard design was always flawed and likely to sag. And these days, timber has become eye-wateringly expensive.

 

A lot of us, myself included, use plywood for baseboard frames, particularly for portable layouts. Used correctly, it works well.

 

But what other ideas might be out there now? Polystyrene foam, foamboard, plastic extrusions...... For permanent layouts, engineered joists could be an option for the main bearers, eliminating the need for legs.

 

I am just about to use a modified form of L-girder for a friend's layout but that is because there is already some framework to start from and a lot of free, well-seasoned batten available. If I was starting from scratch (like Jeff), I don't think that I would make the L-girders from softwood but from some sort of engineered timber (probably ply) or metal.

[Mallard60022]

Some of your 'past' comments have actually made me think twice about my build. I'm going on a mix of Barry Norman and also L Girder, but I hadn't thought too much about materials other than the possible use of Foam in some parts despite this being a never goes out layout plan and weight isn't really a concern.

I think that one of the difficulties is that there tends to be a fear of 'warpy bendy' and so we over build. For exhibition layouts there has been some advance in portability but they need to be bomb proof. However with one I inherited it was almost impossible to carry alone.  

Slightly OT but I have a local merchants Trade card and it has a discount for materials and goods.

Great idea for a thread though. I have picked up some amazing stuff from the 'layout thread' but by accident rather than design (excuse feeble puns).

There is one layout in Aus and the standard of woodwork is A*.

Phil 

[Oakydoke]

I may have missed it. But so far as I can see we don't have a sub-forum on RMWeb about making baseboards. Yet it is such a basic element in creating a successful layout and one that so many beginners get wrong.

 

Usually such discussion on this topic would appear in the "Layout & Track Design" section of the "Skills & Knowledge Centre" part of the forum.

However, I agree that a subsection of that particular forum area could be set up for discussion on layout construction, as distinct from layout & track design.

 

Personally I'd prefer not to refer to "baseboards", as I find that term to be an anachronism when various construction methods do not use "boards" as such.

The North American term "benchwork" may not to everyone's taste either.

"Layout", "Layout construction", "Layout constructed/built using...."etc, etc, seems to me to be more appropriate terminology in many cases. YMMV.

[Andy Hayter]

Well having been a plywood man for 30 years (the wife prefers softwood framing because it "seems more solid"), I am now making a bit of a switch using plywood framing and extruded PS top.

 

This is a flat earth layout so anything open frame would not be an advantage.  I had previously used the PS sheets (30mm) for a construction job on the house and was impressed by the rigidity, so picked up some more for the layout.  Unfortunately in my haste I picked up 20mm which I think may just be a little too flexible.  So back to the DIY shed for the right stuff later this week.

 

I will let you know how I get on.

[Joseph_Pestell]

Well having been a plywood man for 30 years (the wife prefers softwood framing because it "seems more solid"), I am now making a bit of a switch using plywood framing and extruded PS top.

 

This is a flat earth layout so anything open frame would not be an advantage.  I had previously used the PS sheets (30mm) for a construction job on the house and was impressed by the rigidity, so picked up some more for the layout.  Unfortunately in my haste I picked up 20mm which I think may just be a little too flexible.  So back to the DIY shed for the right stuff later this week.

 

I will let you know how I get on.

 

Even 30mm seems quite thin for a rigid polystyrene. Must be one that I have not come across.

 

Quite a few RMWeb members live overseas and may have access to materials that we don't see in the UK (where builders and building regs inspectors are amazingly conservative). For instance, all studwork in France is now all supposed to be metal rather than timber. That influences availability and price of the materials. Builders seem very anti metal studwork in UK housebuilding even though it is commonplace in industrial/commercial buildings.

[Joseph_Pestell]

Usually such discussion on this topic would appear in the "Layout & Track Design" section of the "Skills & Knowledge Centre" part of the forum.

However, I agree that a subsection of that particular forum area could be set up for discussion on layout construction, as distinct from layout & track design.

 

Personally I'd prefer not refer to "baseboards", as I find that term to be an anachronism when various construction methods do not use "boards" as such.

The North American term "benchwork" may not to everyone's taste either.

"Layout", "Layout construction", "Layout constructed/built using...."etc, etc, seems to me to be more appropriate terminology in many cases. YMMV.

 

I wondered about "layout and track design" but that seems focused more on arrangement of track etc., itself a big discussion area.

 

I think that you make a good point about not using the word "baseboard". That implies the flat-earth approach. I will perhaps edit the title.

[Joseph_Pestell]

Some of your 'past' comments have actually made me think twice about my build. I'm going on a mix of Barry Norman and also L Girder, but I hadn't thought too much about materials other than the possible use of Foam in some parts despite this being a never goes out layout plan and weight isn't really a concern.

I think that one of the difficulties is that there tends to be a fear of 'warpy bendy' and so we over build. For exhibition layouts there has been some advance in portability but they need to be bomb proof. However with one I inherited it was almost impossible to carry alone.  

Slightly OT but I have a local merchants Trade card and it has a discount for materials and goods.

Great idea for a thread though. I have picked up some amazing stuff from the 'layout thread' but by accident rather than design (excuse feeble puns).

There is one layout in Aus and the standard of woodwork is A*.

Phil 

 

Phil,

Weight should be a concern to you given that you are building in a 1990s loft.

[28XX]

Perhaps "layout foundations" would be a good title?

[The Stationmaster]

A very interesting area and thanks for starting the discussion.

 

As I understand it (as a past avid reader of the US mags) one reason for L girder construction is its flexibility and its ability to accommodate lesser carpentry skills (I'm not sure if that means carpentry skills as 'less' as mine?).  But it obviously does confer enormous flexibility in respect of levels while some aspects of it allow the use of any old bits of timber for things such as risers.

 

Interestingly US thought seems to have turned away from the use of 'dimensional timber' (i.e. off the shelf as 3x1 etc) because of instability and inconsistency and has moved to reputedly more stable cut plywood to make the girders but I think we need to bear in mind that it seems the case that better quality materials seem to be more readily available in the USA.

 

My last permanent layout had the 'benchwork' built by my father, who had served a proper trade apprenticeship as a carpenter, and used 2x1 framing with an insulation board, and on a later extension Weyroc, to.  It remained absolutely stable for nearly 30 years and alas proved nigh impossible to dismantle into usable components.  I have used two different approaches on portable layouts - one being the twin ply with spacers method (which has managed 10 years with perfect stability despite my ham fisted) and more recently a module using 'dimensional timber' for the frame and a very thin (5mm) ply top (and which has fared well over several trips to & from Somerset with no signs of bending or warping).

 

But it leaves me with a  big question mark for the allegedly permanent layout to come.  Do I go for commercial ply 'box structures' or do I go for L girder - all thoughts are welcome as far as I'm concerned but I do see L girder as having some major attractions (particularly in view of my stock of various timber offcuts ).

 

PS I actually quite like the US term 'benchwork' as it is fairly descriptive.  And this piece from Jason Shron is also rather thought provoking -

 

http://www.kingstonsub.com/mr-construction-benchwork.html

[Chimer]

I'm really pleased to see this thread as I'm hopefully approaching this stage for the "last great project".  It would be really helpful, and turn the thread into a great resource without a lot of repetition, if people who have already done a detailed show and tell on substructure/baseboard construction somewhere on another thread could post a link to that thread in this one - with a pointer to the right pages if it's one of the 200 page epics (!), and a brief description of the type of construction it describes.

[Mallard60022]

You are correct Joseph. I should have clarified that the difference in weight between what I could use and then subbing PS, would make the things lighter to move around. The calculated weight of trad boards was within parameters for this loft and the original trad 'boards' plans are now scrapped. I shall (maybe note Mike?) a mix of 'board', open and girder. It depends on what part of the layout I'm working on. For example I can't see any point in having a 4 X 2 trad 'board' where only two lines run around a hidden curve at the end of the loft. I shall use a 'bridge with sides for safety' idea with the width enough to accommodate the track. Not my idea as I have seen loads of people using this method on RMW.

Cheers

Phil

[Pacific231G]

I've just been reading an article in last month's CM about Grainge & Hodder's baseboard kits using laser cut 6mm ply and wondered if anyone had experience of kit built baseboards.

I've always built my own quite succesfully with a hybrid of conventional main framing but with foamcore for the top surface and about half of the cross members. but I think my next layout will involve a number of one metre by 40cm boards and possibly a corner unit so I've been wondering if kits might save a whole lot of tedious work. Failing that has anyone found a good place to get ply cut sufficienty accurately?

 

The American "benchwork" alway seemed to imply a structure strong enough to mount a lathe on and some of what supports American layouts does appear to be designed with a secondary function as an earthquake shelter.

[Mallard60022]

I found a decent ply supplier when we had new Karndean Flooring fitted. Karndean Flooring demand a high quality of fitting (training courses compulsory) and materials other than their product which is high quality anyway..

The chap told me where he got his ply and said I could say I had been sent by him. The place, Gibbs and Dandy (Armthorpe but branches elsewhere), cuts to size on request and it was free and good quality as per flooring requirements. Not inexpensive though.

Another little advantage of having had the work done is that I can call into the Flooring Shop anytime and take their offcuts as they only have to pay to dump them.

I wouldn't presume that another shop would be so charitable if no work had been done?

 

Phil 

[The Stationmaster]

The ply seen below was cut, under supervision, by one of the d-i-y sheds and they did quite an accurate job but I checked they were keeping a careful eye on maintaining the settings on the machine.  I wasn't too worried if they didn't exactly match the depth I wanted but it was essential they were consistent - be it spot on or a bit off.

 

[70021 Morning Star]

.

CHEAP & CHEERFUL BASEBOARD OPTION 

 

At the opposite end of possibilities from The Stationmaster's superb construction, my "Baseboards" are as simple as you can get. I've used three, wood veneer covered, interior doors. Yes, I am aware of the warnings about risks of warping, and the surface veneer is only about 1.5 mm thick. But, so far (6 months) I've had no problems. 

 

The supporting legs are a set of 5 plastic saw horses. These are an ideal height and are sold in pairs for £18 pair.

 

My rationale was that they're:

• Cheap
• Fit inside a van or estate car
• The thin veneer will (eventually) be covered by the three-dimensional scenery, so not working directly on the board's ultrathin surface
• As I add topology (hills & valleys) to the surface, I can use plywood to increase the structural integrity*
• Lightweight enough for erecting on my own
• The sides and ends of the doors are solid wood, which made fitting of location pins and board attachment clamps straightforward
• It was a darned site quicker than creating a box framework.

The track itself is only a 'test track' at the moment. I needed this up and running, with minimal cost, as quickly as possible. It's certainly met all of my objectives. The only current weakness is that I do need to use a straight edge to ensure all of the board joins are flat, as the edges are quite narrow, so it's important that the end board isn't tilted up. This will be rectified in phase 2 (see below).

 

*My thinking is to add structural integrity as I build upwards. This is the same principle as seen in The Stationmaster's triangulated structure, above, but with the box framework sitting on top of the board (as versus the conventional underframe structure) and serving the dual purpose of providing rigidity and building the hills and valleys of the scenery. Note that this also reduces the overall height of the layout, so with its scenery protection top covers fitted, it'll more easily fit inside the Land Rover you see at the back of the picture.

 

 

Rick

[Mick Bonwick]

How will you deal with point motor installation and wiring connections?

[edcayton]

Rick, what happens if (when?) you accidentally lean with all your weight on, say, the corner nearest to us?

 

Ed

[Joseph_Pestell]

The ply seen below was cut, under supervision, by one of the d-i-y sheds and they did quite an accurate job but I checked they were keeping a careful eye on maintaining the settings on the machine.  I wasn't too worried if they didn't exactly match the depth I wanted but it was essential they were consistent - be it spot on or a bit off.

 

DSCF0225.jpg

 

That's a nice looking board. I'm a little surprised that you need the 2x2 blocks in the corners when using Barry Norman style ply sandwiches.

[Joseph_Pestell]

Rick, what happens if (when?) you accidentally lean with all your weight on, say, the corner nearest to us?

 

Ed

 

If the doors are properly joined to each other, you would have to exert a lot of downward weight in that corner to shift the whole thing.

 

The main objections to doors are the (quite slight) possibility of warping, noise and difficulty of wiring and point motors.

 

Rick makes an interesting point about stiffening above the main sub-strate. There are definitely possibilities around a sandwich type construction as advocated some years ago by Michael Watts in Railway Modeller.

[70021 Morning Star]

Hello All,

Thanks for the comments/questions.

 

Ed, I did have an initial problem with the boards tipping if I leaned on one corner. The answer was to screw flat metal plates along the underside of one board. This combined with strong clamping of the boards mostly removes the problem. Of course, this is only a quick-fix test track. I'll need more stability when I add scenic detail. That's where I'll build the box structure above this very basic baseboard, and that'll give me very rigid vertical surfaces that'll be secure and prevent movement, in the normal way that The Stationmaster's construction does. (Anyone simply wanting a basic solution could easily use 4x2 battens underneath the doors. These could quickly and easily be attached/released using tension fasteners.) Of course, this will require a more hilly scenic topography than usual; but, perhaps that's to my advantage as height of layouts often presents transportation problems, while this 'superstructure' technique doesn't have such a deep baseboard. 

 

Mick, I've only got manual points at the moment, although I do have full power distribution, with two power supplies, and LED Signals on the turnouts. Wiring is simple enough. I routed the wires under the board and fixed with picture framing tape. (I may move the wiring onto the top of the boards when I add the scenic superstructure. But, for now, use of tape makes it easy to access and make changes to my wiring.) I've used automotive Lucar connectors, with wiring routed to the edges of the boards, to make my inter-board connections. Once I've finalized the wiring, I'll change these for multiblock connectors, so it's just one connection per board joint, rather than several Lucars.

 

The internal structure of these internal doors is a cardboard honeycomb. It's strong enough, and with that thin veneer is easy to open up for burying of wires and electrical components. Only do take care because the cardboard interior requires fireproofing anywhere you bury electrical components. (See Peter's second suggested link, below, for a detailed description of using internal doors as baseboards.)

 

Biggest risk is probably theoretical: that's warping. The manufacturers use solid pine battens along the top and sides. In theory, that could be prone to warping, but the manufacturers wouldn't build doors that warp (or they'd have a lot of "returns" and the vendors a lot of unhappy customers). That said, I'll monitor the situation, and reinforce with centre-cut battens at the first sign of warping. I'm thinking though, this could be a problem if the layout is permanently erected in a horizontal orientation, as this basic door-based form has very little depth; being designed to be hung vertically, so it may 'sag' if you don't support/reinforce it appropriately.

 

Joseph, surprisingly, there is almost no noise. I expected the doors to create a 'booming' noise, acting as a soundbox. I even purchased track underlay, which I tested on one part of the layout. It made no difference. That said, when I add the scenic superstructure, I'll use foam to build up the layout between plywood reinforcement, so my entire track will then be even quieter. But, as I say, to my amazement, it is almost silent now. I guess that interior doors are designed to absorb, not transmit, sounds between rooms. So the lack of track noise makes sense to me.

 

Another innovation is that the rails use something I'll call "flexi-joints" to jump between the boards. This means I have guaranteed perfect horizontal and vertical track alignment. That's because I assumed imperfect track registration -- something that hasn't been the case; movement being less than 0.1 mm with absolutely no gap for the trains to jump -- however, this flexitrack-based "flexi-join" system is capable of coping with up to 5 mm board misalignment, by using a square pin and a flat plate joiner. It's given me the best alignment I've ever seen on a multi-board layout, guaranteeing 100% perfect horizontal and vertical registration, and without any locomotive-damaging gap to jump. Simple enough to make: give me time to take some illustrative pictures, and I'll give more details of how to construct my "flexi-joins" in my next post.

 

 

Rick

[peter220950]

 It would be really helpful, and turn the thread into a great resource without a lot of repetition, if people who have already done a detailed show and tell on substructure/baseboard construction somewhere on another thread could post a link to that thread in this one - with a pointer to the right pages if it's one of the 200 page epics (!), and a brief description of the type of construction it describes.

 

 

As a great fan of ply, foam and more recently doors, I would confirm that all seem to be more stable than timber, which in many cases nowadays is still growing when you buy it! It's very much horses for courses, weight, requrements of the finished layout, and cost all play their part.

 

For my two-pennorth , and for those that don't stray into the dark world of 7mm, may I point you to lightweight ply/foam composite for a 6m x 1.5m layout

 

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/73214-cadbury-bournville/&do=findComment&comment=1077257

 

and internal doors for a 2.40m x .70m one

 

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/88451-a-quickie-out-of-doors/&do=findComment&comment=1532694

 

as options to consider. The biggest downside, as noted, with the doors is surface mounting wiring and point motors, though there's nothing to stop you adding ply downstand edging, at least they are square. Both of the above options have been constructed for over a year and show no signs of movement, despite storage in unhelpful environments.

 

MDF is the other option, where I would urge sealing with some sort of varnish or paint asap, as it tends to soak up moisture and swell, particularly at edges, where board joints occur.

 

I don't have all the answers, it's usually a case of tailoring to suit your specific requirements, but have made some of the mistakes.

 

Peter

[Pacific231G]

Hello All,

Thanks for the comments/questions.

 

 

The internal structure of these internal doors is a cardboard honeycomb. It's strong enough, and with that thin veneer is easy to open up for burying of wires and electrical components. Only do take care because the cardboard interior requires fireproofing anywhere you bury electrical components.

 

Biggest risk is probably theoretical: that's warping. The manufacturers use solid pine battens along the top and sides. In theory, that could be prone to warping, but the manufacturers wouldn't build doors that warp (or they'd have a lot of "returns" and the vendors a lot of unhappy customers). That said, I'll monitor the situation, and reinforce with centre-cut battens at the first sign of warping. I'm thinking though, this could be a problem if the layout is permanently erected in a horizontal orientation, as this basic door-based form has very little depth; being designed to be hung vertically, so it may 'sag' if you don't support/reinforce it appropriately.

 

 

 

Rick

In the 1960s there was a baseboard material called Beatiboard that worked on exactly this principle but in sizes that seemed appropriate to layouts.

BEATIBOARD is our own material but you can order it through your own model shop if you wish. BEATIBOARD is light and strong, it will take pins and screws and it comes to you ready to use as it needs no framing. If you want a good railway you must start with a good baseboard — a BEATIBOARD. Do not be put off with substitutes ! 4ft. x 2ft. ... 16/- 4ft. x 2ft. 8in. ... 22/6 6ft. x 3ft. 3in. ... 45/- 6ft. x 4ft. ... 48/- 8ft. x 4ft. ... 64/- Trestles, each ... 21/-

Honeycomb structures are frequently used when rigidity and lightness are required such as the floors of airliners. I'm guessing that Beaties had it manufactured by a factory that made doors but I've no idea how well it sold.  

[SJS]

Thanks for starting this topic. I suspect I am unusual in using aluminium square section tube framing combined with good old fashioned ply for the track. I choose this method as its quick, needs less woodworking skill and the frame doesn't warp. Its also reusable....and I just happened to have the aluminium already.

 

Best wishes Mark

[The Stationmaster]

That's a nice looking board. I'm a little surprised that you need the 2x2 blocks in the corners when using Barry Norman style ply sandwiches.

I think I was rather distrustful of my abilities in putting the thing together so went in for a spot of overkill  ( I also very foolishly also went in for overkill on the top by adding a sheet of MDF on top of the ply - nice for track pins, murder to hump these 4ftx2ft boards around.

 

Considerable contrast with the next effort - again intended to be portable and in reality very much so but certainly 'different in constructional approach.  The whole thing was built on a 4ft x 2ft sheet of 5mm ply and had to reach a set height to mate with other modules.

 

Stage 1 - add some 'dimensional timber' to form the sides and ends

 

 

Stage 2 - add some diagonal bracing (this is 'rough and ready work, no fancy carpentry as the bracing is simply glued to the ply and side members (mainly to the ply)

 

 

Stage 3 - rip off a US idea, somewhat adapted, and add a 'roadbed' (nominal 2x1 timber), there's also a cutout part way along for a very low underbridge. My favoured form of 'underlay' has been added on top of the 2x1 and the requisite Code 100 track (around 40+ years old) is in the offing.  All a very brutal sort of construction to both meet the height spec for the module and not involve any carpentry beyond my skill level (which is pretty low).

 

 

The nett result, once the scenery has been added is a module which is light enough to pick up with one hand although its size means it needs two people to handle it as it's 4 feet long and 2 feet wide.  The scenery on top is equally lightweight being mainly cardboard and foam board with the 'landscape' built up from plaster bandage coated in hydrocal.

 

So - coming back to your question - in the space of a few years I went from battleship style units to something much lighter but which has still turned out to be durable enough to withstand several trips to/from taunton and having the scenery partially cut off using a handsaw and a  small shunting 'layout' built on the top of the foamboard mountain as seen below (actually most of the cutting was done with a large handsaw as the tenon saw wasn't up to the job)

 

 

[70021 Morning Star]

.

STORAGE & TRANSPORT

 

I've recently been granted the privilege of becoming a member of a very prestigious railway modelling club. They have a great many large scenic layouts in every imaginable scale. These are used of a Tuesday evening, and put up/taken down the day before/after. One thing I have noticed is where the modellers thought about how the layouts will stack easily and neatly away, how easy they should be to put up/take down without too much manpower, and whether they'll comfortably fit into an estate car or van (for taking to exhibitions) in the design stage. Some layouts go up/down quite quickly, with only a few workers, and fit very neatly onto easily transported storage trollies. Others are so complex they'd challenge an expert in solving Rubik's Cubes, and the setting up/taking down of heavy and awkward base boards and supports turns the clubroom into an extremely hazardous 'hard hat' area !

 

Just thought I'd throw this in, as it's an important consideration we should all include in the design stage of our baseboard and layout design.

 

[ As an aside, can someone please advise on a good way of ensuring absolutely correct alignment of those brass baseboard alignment plugs -- commonly known as "Pattern Maker's Dowels" -- as they're fitted inside the join, which makes aligning them difficult? Probably already exists somewhere on RMWEB, but a pointer from this thread would be appropriate. Thanks. ]

 

Rick