Two Baseboard Questions For Our First Layout

[imt]

1 hour ago, Jeff Smith said:

I guess it might depend on whether you want a roundy layout to watch the trains go by or a shunting terminus type layout?

 

It isn't just that.  I (and many others) have learned the hard way how difficult and unweidly large lumps of baseboard are.  As soon as it's big you need lots of hands to erect it, and it probably obstructs a room entirely and must be either up or down.  Something in smaller pieces (given the connectivity issues) can be left part up all or some of the time - say round a childs bed or playroom.

 

What you might put on the boards is a whole different issue.  If you just want a shunting layout a 6ft by 1ft folding in the middle might do?  It did for me.

[Harlequin]

Maybe design your layout before you think about baseboards...?

Then buy laser-cut baseboard kits because they will save you a lot of hassle, they will be all-ply construction (as recommended by several people above), they will align accurately and will get you up and running quicker.

 

[Dave Hunt]

After all the correspondence here and bearing in mind what the original questioner wants, Harlequin's suggestion seems very sound.

 

Dave

[chris p bacon]

On 03/02/2020 at 19:47, Owen E said:

To make it portable, the best idea seems to be to split to 2 x 3x4 baseboard sections. 

 

Going back to the original question, 4'x3' is an odd size for ply, you would have to have joins within the boards as well as edges. I'd think about reducing to 4X2 which would be much easier to handle (you would struggle to get your arms around a 4' x 3' board)

 

48 minutes ago, Harlequin said:

Maybe design your layout before you think about baseboards...?

Then buy laser-cut baseboard kits because they will save you a lot of hassle, they will be all-ply construction (as recommended by several people above), they will align accurately and will get you up and running quicker.

 

 

I agree with Dave Hunt, Harlequin's is the best suggestion and would mean you'd have boards that were accurate and ready to go.

 

To give an idea of the work required for boards that can go up and down continually with accuracy I've attached a picture of some boards I'm building for a friend. To get to this point it has taken 8 hours with some more braces and legs to attach. To put a price on them there are  4,  4'x2' boards, 1 has a pair of legs and the other 3 piggy back. All made from Birch ply (6mm & 9mm) with softwood legs, bolts and dowels to join. Materials cost is just under £200. 

Edited February 10, 2020 by chris p bacon

[Junctionmad]

We first tried to go down the laser cut route , but we wanted to be able to position the crossbraces to avoid the point work above , ie to ensure under board point motors had space. 

 

So that meant we got the sheets and bracing cut by computer cnc saw, but assembled based on the track plan 

[Owen E]

The layout is designed - see picture below (prominent scenics will be detachable). I'm aware there's a good question about where the dividing point comes - my carpenttry-skilled friend and I will be laying everything out in a couple of weeks to decide final measurements etc before we buy wood.

 

3 x 4x2 *would* work, but puts pointwork at more risk of being at crossovers and involves more points of continuity. That seems suboptimal to me, though I grant the reasoning offered above isn't stupid or anything!

 

 

Edited February 10, 2020 by Owen E

[Jeff Smith]

Owen, having published your plan be prepared for lots of helpful suggestions for refinements.......I would say it needs a loop for shunting and a reverse crossover.

[Owen E]

Ha - as a pre-emptive explanation, I direct people to my layout thread. There is some logic to what's on that plan, and there are "objectives" to fulfil (it's a family play/RPG layout). I would have liked a passing loop for convenience but there's not a great deal of "wiggle room" inside the loop once points are accounted for. The existing crossover as it stands is as advised in that thread - to ensure it's trailing.

 

Suggestions welcome, of course, but it's worth laying out the parameters.

[Jeff Smith]

Another design consideration is wherever possible track should cross baseboard joints at close to 90 degrees.

 

Have you considered four 2x4 or 2x3 boards assembled into a 4x8 or 4x6 layout?  It's easier to work on smaller boards and you can do some running on just two boards.

[Owen E]

4 x 2x3 (or 2x4) would deal with the problem of cutting across curves, as they'd approach at 90 degrees, but would be more problematic for that set of internal sidings, I would have thought. Food for thought.

[Jeff Smith]

just looked at your layout thread - it might be an idea to merge the two threads.

[Owen E]

I don't think that's within my power, but might not be a bad idea. This thread was my "initial technical questions" thread - the other is where I planned to put design/construction updates.

[Sturminster_Newton]

Use furniture grade MDF is is dimensionally stable and hard wearing.

 

Or WBP birch faced plywood.

 

The stuff sold in D-I-Y shed is not the same whatever the staff tell you.

 

Hardboard is too hard for track-pins so you need to drill pilot holes or glue the track down.

 

Build a split baseboard and on one, fit four legs; on the second baseboard, only two legs are needed.

 

Rail joints will need reinforcement to survive the transit process.

 

They will also be the weak point of the electrical connections but you accept this limitation, which is easily overcome with plug and socket UNDER the baseboards.

 

IF you want the layout to be moveable.

 

Moveable is possibly easier than portable if you work in BIG slab-top layouts.

 

Have you considered building the layout as a perimeter  baseboard?

 

This can be two 4'x2' models connected by two 4' x 1' modules, which will yield a 4'x8' layout.

 

The operator sits in the resultant gap and because of the design, cannot see all the layout from one place...

 

It also means you do not have to work at arms reach to fill the centre of the board with scenery, working on the edge of the layout makes everything simpler and quicker.

 

If you used a variation of Tom Horne's kit baseboards with a scenic board on the outer edge the operator can't see out of his railway kingdom if you set the layout at about 4' from the floor. Access by crawling under.

 

You can build a roundy-roundy or terminal to terminal with a fiddle yard and it should allow the use of R2 curves and point-work.

 

It is feasible to down size the baseboard modules to 3'x18" which would yield a square layout around 4'6 x 4'6, probably better for N-gauge.

 

Use 4' x 18" and more practical 5'6 x 5'6 the beauty is the centre is a void removing the need to reach over everything to do anything.

 

This time the operator sit outside and again cannot see all the layout from one point.

 

Walkabout controllers are the way forward.

 

With the point control on each face of the baseboard along with controller plug in points.

 

Yes there are a larger number of rail connection points which can be a limitation but electrical connection can be made by plug and socket under the layout.

 

Then you only have to worry about the mechanical alignment which does not have to be a great issue.

 

 

 

Edited April 19, 2020 by Sturminster_Newton