Baseboard Stiffening - limited height

[ISW]

I would be pleased to here about any methods that have been successfully employed that stiffens a baseboard, but which do not take up much height / thickness. 

 

I'm in the process of building a two-layer layout (with ramps between), and because of this I'm somewhat limited by the thickness of the upper baseboard. It will be 9mm or 12mm plywood, but clearly will need stiffening to prevent warping / sagging. Normally I'd use 18x44mm timber, but I don't have 44mm of vertical space.

 

I was thinking of using aluminium profiles (either an 'L' or a 'U' - about 15x15mm ish) in place of the 18x44 timber where space is at a 'premium'.

 

Would this work, or are there better solutions out there?

 

[Ray H]

I was going to suggest aluminium angle but you beat me to it.

[ISW]

30 minutes ago, Ray H said:

I was going to suggest aluminium angle but you beat me to it.

Ray,

 

Have you tried aluminium angle yourself? I'd help me if I can get some actual experience(s).

 

[DCB]

A whole thin baseboard  is quite awkward.  Thin bits where one track passes over another is easier, having the baseboard framing extend above the baseboard surface  can be a solution.  I made some short lifting sections with 3mm MDF fitted in to slots in the side of  2 X 1 timbers which worked well. 

Otherwise I would consider supporting a thin upper baseboard on pillars maybe every foot supported by the lower baseboard framing or even its surface as long as there was framing immediately below.   Station platforms are handy stiffeners, as is anything you can hide under a  cutting side above the baseboard.  Use steel strips under the the baseboard countersunk and screwed through the surface to engage the support above.  To my way of thinking  9mm or 12mm ply is too thick and heavy for a thin baseboard , It will warp and come up at the ends.  If I had to use 9mm or 12mm ply and cut lightening holes to save weight, you don't need baseboard where there are no tracks, scenery can be on thin ply of card.

[Nearholmer]

You might want to give serious consideration to a "thin box" or "wing-like" structure.

 

If your total available construction depth is, say 20mm, then an upper and a lower skin of 3mm ply, spaced apart with 12mm x 6mm battens in a 300mm square grid, very well glued, will provide you with almost as much rigidity as the same thickness of ply (which would be astonishingly heavy), so won't need lots of supports from below.

 

Track-pins will go into ply fine if you drill pilot holes.

 

Put together a small area of "wing" as a test piece, let the glue go off properly, and you will be surprised how strong and rigid it is for its weight.

[ISW]

1 hour ago, DavidCBroad said:

A whole thin baseboard  is quite awkward.  Thin bits where one track passes over another is easier, having the baseboard framing extend above the baseboard surface  can be a solution.  I made some short lifting sections with 3mm MDF fitted in to slots in the side of  2 X 1 timbers which worked well. 

Otherwise I would consider supporting a thin upper baseboard on pillars maybe every foot supported by the lower baseboard framing or even its surface as long as there was framing immediately below.   Station platforms are handy stiffeners, as is anything you can hide under a  cutting side above the baseboard.  Use steel strips under the the baseboard countersunk and screwed through the surface to engage the support above.  To my way of thinking  9mm or 12mm ply is too thick and heavy for a thin baseboard , It will warp and come up at the ends.  If I had to use 9mm or 12mm ply and cut lightening holes to save weight, you don't need baseboard where there are no tracks, scenery can be on thin ply of card.

David,

 

The arrangement of my Upper / Lower / Ramp baseboards makes supporting from the 'underside' next to impossible unfortunately. My baseboards are split into sections of up to 1240x900mm, so the 12mm plywood weight is 'manageable'. What I also need is the ability to lift (well, slide out preferably) and remove any baseboard, so that working on them is much easier, plus I can turn them over for all the wiring - much easier than working on your back!

 

I had thought about stiffeners 'on the top', along the back edge to help out. I can see how some steel strips, screwed to the underside, would also help, but wouldn't an L or U profile be stiffer?

 

I plan to have perimeter stiffening (as usual), plus some cross-bracing at ~400mm centres, so that the baseboard will not warp (famous last words ...). I just need to find a method of stiffening that does not take up too much height under the baseboard soffit. It's looking like a combination of my normal 44x18mm timber and some aluminium profiles.

 

[ISW]

1 hour ago, Nearholmer said:

You might want to give serious consideration to a "thin box" or "wing-like" structure.

 

If your total available construction depth is, say 20mm, then an upper and a lower skin of 3mm ply, spaced apart with 12mm x 6mm battens in a 300mm square grid, very well glued, will provide you with almost as much rigidity as the same thickness of ply (which would be astonishingly heavy), so won't need lots of supports from below.

 

Track-pins will go into ply fine if you drill pilot holes.

 

Put together a small area of "wing" as a test piece, let the glue go off properly, and you will be surprised how strong and rigid it is for its weight.

Nearholmer,

 

The idea of a 'box' structure had not occurred to me, so that's something I'll be investigating / considering for my 'troublesome' baseboard(s). I can certainly see the advantages, but doesn't it cause problems when fitting turnout operating equipment on the underside?

 

I'm using servos in a 15x15mm aluminium angle (the 'standard' MegaPoints method).

 

[Nearholmer]

You mean there might be no more than 3mm thickness to screw into? Put an off cut of softwood in the sandwich at that location.

[DCB]

40 minutes ago, ISW said:

David,

I had thought about stiffeners 'on the top', along the back edge to help out. I can see how some steel strips, screwed to the underside, would also help, but wouldn't an L or U profile be stiffer?

Agree  but I meant the steel strip to hold the baseboard up against a timber above the baseboard.   Without something to spread  the load like a big washer or steel strip, the screw will tend to pull through.   Otherwise an L or U is always stronger.

 

With your situation if the back of the layout is against a wall I think I would use thicker framing at the back and taper it off towards the front again with the front framing extending above the baseboard surface.   Rectangular chunks of steel are strong if you use them sparingly.

[ISW]

40 minutes ago, Nearholmer said:

You mean there might be no more than 3mm thickness to screw into? Put an off cut of softwood in the sandwich at that location.

Okay, I can see how that would work. It just needs a bit of 'planning' to get the offcut in the right place when building up the sandwich.

 

Thanks for the ideas.

 

[ISW]

30 minutes ago, DavidCBroad said:

Agree  but I meant the steel strip to hold the baseboard up against a timber above the baseboard.   Without something to spread  the load like a big washer or steel strip, the screw will tend to pull through.   Otherwise an L or U is always stronger.

 

With your situation if the back of the layout is against a wall I think I would use thicker framing at the back and taper it off towards the front again with the front framing extending above the baseboard surface.   Rectangular chunks of steel are strong if you use them sparingly.

David,

 

Thanks for the input. I 'think' I'm slowly getting to a point where I can design the baseboards and their supports and then 'apply' a few of the fixes suggested to eliminate the clashes with the ramp tracks beneath. Fingers crossed ...

 

I'll be back when I get stuck again!

 

[Ray H]

 

16 hours ago, ISW said:

Ray,

 

Have you tried aluminium angle yourself? I'd help me if I can get some actual experience(s).

 

 

I have used it a;long the sides of a sector plate that wasn't previously "dead" flat and it seemed to do the job.

[rdr]

I've made five baseboards out of ally extrusion. These were originally ikea bed frames that were discontinued and for sale at £2.50 per frame. They are exceptionally strong but the height is 42mm. They are 12 x 42mm box section with a 30mm flat tab running down the one edge. Rectangular ally box section would be much better than angle, have a look at Aluminium Wharehouse, they do a fair range.

[ISW]

4 hours ago, rdr said:

*snip*

Rectangular ally box section would be much better than angle, have a look at Aluminium Wharehouse, they do a fair range.

Thanks for the suggested supplier. They appear to have the sort of thing I was thinking of, and at a cheaper price that B&Q and the like.

 

[rdr]

watch the postage though, they used to be high. 

 

[ISW]

1 hour ago, rdr said:

watch the postage though, they used to be high. 

 

I wondered about that ...

 

At least there is still B&Q - although the lockdown queues are enough to put anyone off.

 

[doilum]

Is there room for a backscene?

If so, this could be made structural.

[ISW]

41 minutes ago, doilum said:

Is there room for a backscene?

If so, this could be made structural.

Yes, and it could be used, but the outer edges are not one of the locations where I've got a height limitation unfortunately.

 

I've done a lot of design development and drawing over the last few days, and seem to have overcome 'most' of the problems by the selective use of aluminium profiles where I can't fit in 44x18mm timber.

 

I'll be posting the 'solution(s)' on my layout page (see footer).

 

 

 

[ITG]

I’m planning on using Aluminium Warehouse’s Easyfix system, which has the advantage of multiple types of connecting blocks, which themselves are exactly the same profile (25mm) as the square section tubes themselves. I am planning on providing ‘leg’ support for each junction. I’m planning on working out all the horizontal and vertical lengths, and using AWs cutting service to ensure exact lengths. I have already ordered and received a sample lot for which I already knew the required lengths, and they are very accurate.

[ISW]

2 hours ago, ITG said:

I’m planning on using Aluminium Warehouse’s Easyfix system, which has the advantage of multiple types of connecting blocks, which themselves are exactly the same profile (25mm) as the square section tubes themselves. I am planning on providing ‘leg’ support for each junction. I’m planning on working out all the horizontal and vertical lengths, and using AWs cutting service to ensure exact lengths. I have already ordered and received a sample lot for which I already knew the required lengths, and they are very accurate.

 

I'd like to see a photo of their 'sample' when assembled, if you have one. The EasyFix system sound intriguing.

 

Do you have any further information regarding how you are "... working out all the horizontal and vertical lengths ..."?

I've managed to draw up the baseboards and frames in my layout software (3rdPlanIt) to get the major dimensions. However, I'm currently drawing the baseboard design up in SketchUp, as this helps to sort out the timbering at the junctions between baseboards and the supports. I'm hoping the SketchUp version can also be used for the timber lengths and assembly.

 

[ITG]

Hi ISW,

the main reasons I ordered sample lots was because I wanted to be sure of the dimensions of the two types of adjustable feet (Because I am wanting to align baseboard height with both height above a lower baseboard and also using a batten already mounted on the wall), and to ensure that the push-in joining sections were completely flush with tubes. As I am only planning on using this frame system for the upper board (3500 x 600mm), I am really only at the stage of testing the concept. So the sample bits I ordered were only those I could be sure I’d want. The lower board, under this upper board, is  only 300mm wide at narrowest point, with 3 or 4 parallel tracks. So, allowing for push-in joiners, I calculated the aluminium crosspiece supports would have to 240mm long, plus 25mm each end connector. That way, they bridge the lower tracks (calculated using full size print off Anyrail) but sit inside the 300mm width of lower board. That meant I got 10 x 240mm 

lengths from the standard 2500mm length.

i will add a photo or two in this thread, but it will only be a test, rather than in situ.

happy for you to pm me for further detail.

ian

[ITG]

So, some photos of the planning test. (Note - they are posted upside down - whoops!) 

These two photos show an assembly, with what will be the correct size cross piece (240mm) attached to a 4-way junction at each end. The vertical lengths are not the ones I will be using which will be cut to achieve a baseboard height of 150mm above the lower board. I haven’t ordered those yet, as it makes sense to complete all the calculations first, to order once in bulk. Each of the verticals will have a ‘foot’ of some kind, probably adjustable to allow fine tuning. I am planning on a vertical support every 300 -500mm, dependant to some degree on avoiding track below (ie curves in corners), so I won’t order these until lower level track is in situ. With the upper board being 600mm wide, there will be 3 lengthways runs of tubing; one along each long edge, and one to sit in between, which will in fact be supported by a vertical leg on the outer edge of the lower board, ie a little under 300mm from the wall.

Because the Upper board is wider than the lower board, the outside support legs will be a different length, as it will be supported by cupboard surfaces underneath the whole layout.

i am planning on self-tapping countersunk screws into pre-drilled undersize holes from baseboard 9mm ply into the aluminium tubing below. Hence so important to ensure the joiners sit flush with aluminium tube, which they do.