Baseboard construction for high level, with tracks below

[ITG]

Hi,

i have a thread running as I start to plan the track layout for my next project, but I also need ideas specifically for baseboard construction, so hopefully this will encourage such ideas and feedback. I did find an old thread where the idea of a baseboard-specific (or benchwork-specific) topic was suggested, but can’t find anything became of it. Unless you know better.

 

Anyway, as woodworking is not my skill area, I’m keen to improve on earlier efforts. In particular, I’m planning a high level station, which due to gradient limitations etc, will probably be some 100-120mm above the lower level. There will be simple 1 or 2 through tracks running under the station area. So what can I brace this upper level board with, that gives the required 70mm or so clearance for trains to pass below? I’m using Gaugemaster undertrack point motors which sit fairly flat (on the upper level) so they shouldn’t be an impediment.

 

I've seen talk on this forum about using steel or aluminium tubing as below.

http://www.richardsonsuk.co.uk/Aluminium-Tubes/p47?gclid=CPChifGBjskCFUafGwodAxgODw

anyone actually used it, with what results?

 

or could I cut ‘archways’ in ply framing, without weakening the structure?

 

Or any other ideas? This must be a fairly common issue, I’d assume.

thanks.

Edited March 11, 2020 by ITG
Minor text change

[sjp23480]

ITG,

I am doing something similar.

 

I use 3x1 batten to clear the lower tracks, then mount 1.5x1 or 2x1 batten on top to which I fix the top level boards. 

 

Not fancy, but seems to work and is relatively cheap. 

 

Steve

[Pete the Elaner]

I made flat boards on softwood frames & built a separate high level suspended on pillars.

I had already decided to use 3'x1/6" boards instead of 4'x2' for mobility's sake, so this prevented them from being uncomfortably heavy.

[ITG]

SJP- so if my maths is correct, your upper board must be 4.5 to 5 inches above the lower one. I’d prefer to keep it a little less than that to ease gradients if possible.

P the E - what did you use for the upper board framework, and how high above lower board is it?

 

i guess what I wanting to explore is the use of a shallow framework to the upper board, but without losing strength. Hence the consideration of aluminium or steel framework.

[03060]

You've raised this subject at just the right time for me as I am just getting to the point of starting to build two multilevel baseboards for an N-gauge layout and have just been pondering how best to go about this.

 

I've probably already decided on trying to use the Woodland Scenics polystyrene gradients to transfer between the levels depending on whether or not they achieve what I want (I already have a set to try) but I'm assuming that I will need to support these with a solid baseboard underneath. As I need at least 3 different levels of flat area (2 for trackwork and 1 for a loch) this is going to test my ability to build a stable framework that will stand the test of time, I would like it to be transportable for exhibition but already suspect that at 4'6" × 30" each they might end up being a little heavy and cumbersome.

 

I think that I may build a scale cardboard mock up to help me move forward.

 

Will follow this thread with interest.

 

Regards,

Ian.

[ITG]

03060 - on my current layout (the first for 50(!) years and full of lots of mistakes learning experiences,) I have used a 3% Woodland Scenics gradient. Very easy to use, and goes around curves superbly, so no complaints there. But, I didn’t allow sufficiently for the transition at the top and the bottom, so I have a slight ‘bump’. I’ve since heard of building that very small but important transition slope. And, for me in OO, 3% seems too steep for some steam locos as they do struggle, particularly on those curves. That said, I have purchased but not yet used, the DCC Concepts Powerbase to give extra adhesion.

 

Considering all above, I’m still aiming for 2% on any future layout, but these explorations/considerations are deliberately very premature. I want to give myself much more planning and thinking time for the future development. 

[mdvle]

If you use Facebook, maybe search for Jason Shron's Kingston Sub Layout group - he has shared a lot of how it is being built over the years which may provide inspiration of what to do (or not do).  I'm not on Facebook but I believe he recently was showing how he built his helix.

[DCB]

3% is 1 in 33 in real money?   I have a gradient in this range.  Heavily weighted 00 GWR 4-6-0 locos with tender pickups stripped out can haul 7 coaches up, Bog standard DCC ready ones struggle with 3. Outside my heavily weighted battery powered Lima Diesels romp up a 1 in 15 with 7 on with ease.

The upper baseboard can give you clearance issues if you don't plan ahead.  Put one 2ft wide 2X1 framed baseboard 3" above another 2 foot wide baseboard  and you will not have a good experience even if you can actually lay the lower tracks. Top Tip, use set track straights, they connect much easier when you can't see tem, Top Tio, forget droppers, on the LL as you will never be able to fit them. 

 In places I have very little overhead clearance as in a couple of MM above the chimney of my King,  where instead of a 2X1  have a sheet of 1/2 "ply with a hole within 10mm of the top. However its only for 1/2" and I can get at it from the side each side of the obstruction.

There is no law to say baseboards need framing under the tracks. One of mine had an upper section with 2X1 framing most of which was above track level, some of it on its side. Platforms can make really effective stiffeners.

I also have a 200mm wide double track lower baseboard below the main 600 mm baseboard, that way with a 25mm lip on the lower to stop stock falling off I can easily duck under the upper to get to trains on the lower as the upper 2X1 supports are not directly over the lower tracks. To make things easy a ply or hardboard covers on the bottom of the upper board  can stop you ripping out any wires or snagging your knuckles on point motors.   With 5" clearance I have a 12 road yard under the other station but that means the top is 8" / 200mm above the lower.

[DCB]

A few pics from an old layout, the narrow baseboard under a wider  upper but with wires in the way, the 1 in 33 ish grade with a pre 1960 Hornby Dublo Castle hauling a rake of 7 of Triang Mk 1s up with barely a hint of slipping and the FY under the station. Its DC and pics date from 2005.

Edited March 12, 2020 by DavidCBroad

[Pete the Elaner]

12 hours ago, ITG said:

SJP- so if my maths is correct, your upper board must be 4.5 to 5 inches above the lower one. I’d prefer to keep it a little less than that to ease gradients if possible.

P the E - what did you use for the upper board framework, and how high above lower board is it?

 

It was a previous layout, since split up & passed on so I need to work from memory. I did not do this because of the boards though.

The high level  was suspended on softwood piers. I can't remember exactly what size, but these were screwed onto the baseboard then the top board was screwed on. I think the top boards were 3.6mm ply & the piers around 15cm apart.

The piers did have the effect of levelling the board off a little, which was fine on the flat but there was a slight incline, which caused the board to have a very slight ripple, Even after shaping the tops, there was still a small ripple there, but this was only noticeable from head on (which was not a viewing angle).

The incline raised the top board by about 3cm over a distance of about 2m, giving a gradient of about 1 in 60. The gradient was there so a lower line could pass underneath at one end, but I did not want station (which was on the high level part) to be quite so high compared to ground level.

[ITG]

I’m still thinking about how to frame/ brace the upper board, so as to allow maximum clearance for easy access to lower board. I’m planning on 6” difference in height which means traditional 100mm ply vertical bracing will make the access gap rather tight. 

What about metal (steel or aluminium) tubing, as used for shelving or furniture frames? Has anyone tried? I realise that surface board would still need screwing/bolting to frame to provide strength.

Specifically, I found this (photo below) which can also provide a lip in which 12 or 15mm ply surface board could sit.

What do you think?

Edited April 8, 2020 by ITG

[Chimer]

I've used 25mm square steel tubing (without the fin) as the supporting structure for a regular baseboard.  The tubes are perfectly rigid individually but tend to sag at any point where two or more are joined in a horizontal plane (end-to-end or at right angles) without a vertical supporting leg.  But a frame made of this stuff with a cross piece every (say) 2', supported by 6" legs under every joint, could do the job you want and of course save you 75mm of bracing depth.  And you should be able to arrange the tracks on the lower level clear of the legs OK.

 

Don't think you'd need the fin - pieces of thin ply glued or screwed to the edge of the baseboard material, projecting down 25mm, will stop it moving on the frame.

 

Good luck!

 

Chris

 

 

[CDGfife]

I agree with the plain 25mm aluminium square as Chris says above in an "n" shape with "L" shape fixing brackets at the base of each leg.  You could even easily go down to 5/8inch x 16swg or even 1/2 inch if you went for the thicker walled stuff and depending on how far they each span.  Burntisland 1883's new lighting canopy is made almost entirely from 5/8x16swg and it's proved very rigid.  I got it from here:  https://www.aluminiumwarehouse.co.uk/  (No connection other than customer).  Aluminium is easy to cut, drill and bolt together.

 

The distance between your "n" shaped supports will be a function of the thickness of your top board.  9mm ply would need supports around every 300mm to be safe from eventual sag.  Thinner would need closer and thicker would be ok with further apart.  As David says above if you glue your platforms to the ply you will have the effect of thickening it up.  Top board could be glued and/or self-tap screwed to the "n" frames.

 

Hopefully you've thought of this, but if you're planning on covering the front access to the bottom layer (maybe a retaining wall or some other scenic) then you will need access from the back in case of derailment.  Also be aware that with only around 100mm of clearance height, if you do get a derailment under there you will need to pull the whole lot out and re-rail somewhere else as the chances of getting something put back on with that kind of space constraint are very small and can be frustrating.  That said if your bottom layer track is well laid and has no kinks or humps than you can mitigate this and for this reason I would lay, connect electrically and test the bottom track before fitting the top level.

 

3% gradient is tricky in a straight line but when you add in a curve you put extra resistance into the equation and hence for consistent running you will need to have a shallower gradient if there's a curve on it also.  The Powerbase works well, and with it I've seen curved 3% with up to 12 coaches in OO. 

 

Good luck

 

Chris (another)

 

 

[ITG]

Chimer  - yes, I’d seen those tubes without the fin, but was just pondering as to whether that was any advantage or not. The lower board will only be 12” (300mm) wide apart from maybe at ends for the curves, so should be easy to avoid trackwork. There will be cupboards of some kind below the whole lot, so leg supports from top board can sit on them.

 

CDG - I assume by ‘n’ you meant ‘N’?  If so, did you find angled brackets to create the N.? I could only see 90 degree vertical and/or horizontal brackets. Or did you cut aluminium to shape to give the angle? 

3% is the current layout; the new one will be 2%. The gap from top to bottom board surfaces will be 150mm (6”) and as lower board will be largely only 12” wide, I figure I will be able to reach up to access any derailments etc. (This is a key learning point from earlier layout). 

Thanks both

 

Ian

 

 

[CDGfife]

I did mean "n" or upside down "U" if you'd rather.  I would buy a length of square tube and cut 2 legs at your 150mm height (lees top board thickness) and cut a cross piece at the top board width and screw them together with a small square of flat plate.  The pic attached illustrates the concept of the right angle joint (alright it's actually a Tee shape but it's all I have accessible to photo!) at the top of each leg, although the plate is significantly bigger here than you would need as it's on one of Cadhay's pelmet support legs.  The screws were aluminium self tappers from Screwfix.

 

Cheers

 

Chris

[ITG]

CDG - aah, I see now. A picture paints a thousand words. I thought you meant N as in diagonal bracing under the board.

 

I see from the Aluminium Warehouse website (and indeed other similar), that they do supply ready-made push-in joining brackets. Does the fact that you used corner support plates suggest you’re not a fan of the off-the-shelf brackets, or was that simply due to what you needed for the lighting frame needed heavier duty support than what I would?

Although the 150mm (approx) legs will only be directly over the lower, much narrower board (Approx 300mm). The upper board will be 750mm, so will project another 450mm, out over cupboard tops. So those legs will be longer, but same principle applies. I plan to use this metal framework for all of the upper board along that wall (3.5m) as if I use deeper bracing, it will inhibit my reaching up and into the lower baseboard tracks.

[Chimer]

I found the joining brackets were fine, and the 3-D ones make attaching the legs to the frame a doddle.  You need to take them into account when calculating the amount of tubing you need ….. every joint saves you 25mm!

[CDGfife]

Ian

Yes the joining brackets should be fine for what you are describing - I'd forgotten about them. For Cadhay and Burntisland I discounted them as I really needed a more rigid joint because particularly Cadhay's pelmet is cantilevered from the back.  Since your loading will be pretty vertical and the cross piece supported at either end there's not a need for such a rigid joint.

 

Cheers

 

Chris

[ITG]

Great. Thanks both of you. Another component in the plan is ticked.