Does optimum baseboard thickness depend on layout size and amount of track?

[Tony Davis]

I have been reading the optimum baseboard thickness thread with some interest. I am planning on building a layout as (roughly - I haven't quite mastered Scarm yet) per the attached. (If you think it looks familiar that is because it is unashamedly based on the wonderful Crackington Quay)

I would like to use the thinnest ply that I can, the layout will be based in a reasonably temperature stable room, it's a fairly modern bungalow with good insulation. I have no plans to exhibit the layout.  I have seen various recommendations on the other thread but they seem to be based on larger layouts. I have only built one layout,  6 x 1, ply top with timber frame and cross braces. Would that sort of arrangement suit a layout of this size (57" x 27")?

 

Thoughts and recommendations, please

[Nearholmer]

TBH, for what you intend, I'd forget the idea of making a baseboard, and buy a cheap interior flush door, or an Ikea Linmon https://www.ikea.com/gb/en/p/linnmon-table-top-beige-20353736/ table top to use instead, but ......

 

The board thickness that is needed depends hugely on the form of construction, and how many places it is going to be supported from below.

 

You could happliy make what you want from 6mm ply, using a grid of 6mm ply members say 75mm deep underneath. and put it on four legs (not at the corners, put them about a quarter of the length in from the ends, and a quarter of the width in from the sides to get optimal sizing of the grid members).

 

Or, if you aren't happy with creating that sort of thing, than go up to 9mm ply, and use softwood battens in a grid at wider spacing.

 

If you went up to 19mm thickness (heavy!) you could probably get away with barely any bracing, just a frame of softwood battens maybe 100mm deep with the legs (spaced as I've said) fixed to it.

 

If you think about it, what you are trying to make is a small dining table ......... so study dining table design. 

 

People will suggest all sorts of difficulties about point-motor mounting, wiring etc, but they can all be overcome irrespective of the thickness of the table-top, with a bit of ingenuity ........... much of what is written on the topic is based on the assumption that it needs to be light, and in smallish sections, which is hugely important for a portable layout, but much less so for one that stays put.

 

Things get a bit more complicated if you want to have scenery below track level.

 

PS: the curve in the top RH corner of your sketch looks a tad tight for locos other than very small 0-4-0.

 

 

Edited January 11, 2020 by Nearholmer

[Dungrange]

I agree that the thickness of the plywood top is dependent on the amount of bracing you intend to make.   Personally, I'd be looking at either 6 mm ply or 9 mm ply, that is braced every 12 - 18" with either plywood or softwood battens.

 

I guess however it's also worthwhile highlighting that the quality of plywood used also affects the thickness that you need.  Good quality Birch ply of 6 mm thickness should be okay, but the cheap 6 mm ply found in many DIY sheds, probably isn't (unless you have much more rigid bracing).  Therefore, if using lower quality plywood, it's probably best to use the thicker stuff.

[Tony Davis]

I was going to try one of the local timber merchants, do I just ask for Birch ply, or does it have a specific name?

[wasdavetheroad]

I use blue extruded polystyrene boards 6 inches thick. Any wiring runs in little trenches. Very light and rigid/strong. You can lift a 6' x 4' with one hand. Mine are made up up of 2" sheets glued together with special adhesive . You can also use longish screws but NOT self tapping. Add a light plywood edge if you want for protection. Mine rest on either tables or a simple wooden frame. Probably expensive though

[flockandroll]

Having followed various discussions on here over the last few years, most people go for plywood, in which case "baltic birch" is the standard to go for. 

 

However, depending on what you want to achieve, Nearholmer post is food for thought. 

[Tony Davis]

On 11/01/2020 at 21:10, Nearholmer said:

TBH, for what you intend, I'd forget the idea of making a baseboard, and buy a cheap interior flush door, or an Ikea Linmon https://www.ikea.com/gb/en/p/linnmon-table-top-beige-20353736/ table top to use instead, but ......

 

 

PS: the curve in the top RH corner of your sketch looks a tad tight for locos other than very small 0-4-0.

 

 

The interior door idea actually looks to be the easiest, thanks.

 

Yes, the curve does look tight, but that is more due to my lack of ability to use Scarm than a failing with the design, I know that because that particular track layout has already been built using the dimensions given, running small loco's.

 

regards

 

Tony

[Nearholmer]

If you can accommodate it, I’d suggest going to a wider board - interior doors come in various widths, up to I think 900mm.

 

I have bitter experience of a too-narrow door, because my very first fixed layout (c1963!) was such a door, fixed so as to hinge up to the wall above my bed. Great ideas by my Dad, but he bought a 30” door on which to fit a Hornby Dublo circuit, with a track radius of 15” (he wasn’t into model railways), so the track overhung the board and couldn’t be screwed down permanently! It was just about usable, because the batten that he fixed to the wall to carry the hinges yielded an extra 2” in the folded-down position.

[Tony Davis]

I do have the room, I was just going with the original layout specs. I also thought it might be easier to get it through doors if I had to move it anytime. The doors in our bungalow are extra wide to accomadate wheelchair users, which does come in handy for moving furniture etc.

[peach james]

Remember you should be able to tip the layout onto it's side to get it out a doorway... I manage 3' baseboards through 24" doorways easy enough with a helper...

 

I'd second an interior door as an easy solution to a "flat" surface layout.  I went a different road with Long Marton, but it all does depend.  Long Marton consists of styrofoam on plywood, T section'd 19mm plywood edges, lots of work on a table saw, but produced fairly solid baseboards...at the expense of about 5 days of woodworking to make the baseboards up.

 

James

[Tony Davis]

Are there any issues with fitting servo's for points on flush doors?

[peach james]

You can cut a hole into the door face, and re-inforce around the opening with thin material- either plastic or wood, depending on available materials.  Think of it like an I beam, you can drill through the middle axis, but try to leave as much meat as possible.  I would think that the 9 gram servos would sit inside a door OK, so you should be able to operate Peco points via a linkage and the servo mounted in the door.

 

I do similar in the foam that I use,

 

James

[Bill Radford]

With regards to Scarm - if you have an idea of the radius required use Settrack pieces for curves - I found this much easier - you can then use the appropriate Tracksetta tool when you lay the track.

[Nearholmer]

Nothing at all to do with baseboards, so apologies for taking things well OT, but I do smile a bit when I read all the discussions of the quirks of SCARM and other software applications for track-planning.

 

They doubtless save time/effort when it comes to planning large layouts with complex track formations, but I'm a long way from being convinced that they are a good substitute for a pad of squared paper, a pencil, and a rubber when it comes to devising modest-sized layouts.

 

Something like Templot for designing bespoke, high-fidelity track-work I do understand, BTW, but that's a different application.

[sharris]

7 hours ago, Nearholmer said:

They doubtless save time/effort when it comes to planning large layouts with complex track formations, but I'm a long way from being convinced that they are a good substitute for a pad of squared paper, a pencil, and a rubber when it comes to devising modest-sized layouts.

 

I suspect SCARM is used for so many small and medium layouts is because you can get away with the free version for small/medium layouts, but have to pay for it to do large ones. Too cynical? 

 

A Templot user here too (user might be a bit of an overstatement- bodger might be a more accurate description of my way of using it!)