Baseboard Construction

[regme]

Hi

 

Putting the final touches on the baseboard construction and someone mentioned that rather than having the legs in the corner.  Have it so that the ends are cantilevered.

 

The baseboard is going to be 2900mm long by 600mm wide.  The recommendation was to place the legs 700mm in from the ends, which means I don't need a leg in the middle. The frame is going to be made from 90x19mm pine timber.

 

Still tossing up as to whether to put a 9mm ply or 50mm xps foam as much as I would like to use the xps foam, I'm not sure how to do the inclines and connect it to the foam.

 

So is a 700mm overhang too much when I measured it out it just look big.

 

Cheers

[jamesed]

Before you finalise where to put legs and cross braces, take a look at your track plan and work out where points will be.  You'll need the underside of the board clear of legs and cross battens where you want to install your point motors. 

 

With a 4x1 frame (you could just as effectively use 3x1 PSE) you'll find it will be sturdy wherever you place your legs even if they aren't spaced evenly. For my money, 9mm ply every time for the top sirface. Paint the top boards both sides before you fix them in place. 

[ITG]

More support rather than less would be my option, as it won’t necessarily be easy to add support if you discover you have a sgg8ng effect somewhere. But the idea of point motors or any other underboatd structure (uncouplers maybe) avoiding battens etc is important.

[regme]

Thanks, I have checked the location of the point motors in relation to the supports (learnt that the hard way)

 

This is what I have currently designed, moving the legs in would help with where the layout is, but I could work around it.

 

What is PSE?

[ITG]

Don’t want to steal jamesed thunder, but it’s planed square edge timber, typically available from such as Wickes.

 

it looks like the end two sections are separate boards, so won’t benefit from quite the same rigidity if all one board and/or continuous bracing across the board join.

I assume there’s no option of fixing one or more baseboard edges to a wall?

A problem is the fact that baseboards often have to support a human leaning on them to reach across, either at the construction/scenery/track laying stage or later for maintenance reasons. Hence why I prefer legs in corners and at regular intervals.

[jamesed]

Your 90x19mm 'pine timber' is actually PSE and starts off as 100x25mm (4"x1" in old money). It's then planed down to 90x19mm with square edges.    I used 75x25mm (3"x1") for my frame which is planed down to 70x19mm.  That's still pretty sturdy and would do just as well for you.  It may save you a bit of money too given how the cost of timber has risen. 

[2ManySpams]

In engineering terms, if you were supporting a simple beam the most efficient way you would put the supports roughly 1/5th of the beam length in from each end. That doesn't affect the load carried by the supports or their design but does help even out the load in the beam. 

 

I'd still do the same on a baseboard as the end effect would be to reduce the amount of sag between legs. 

 

Looking at your drawing I suspect there's an easier more efficient way to support the layout as there do seem to be a lot of leg sets, some next to each other. 

 

Have a think about how you're going to work on the layout when building it. Will you need to turn boards around, flip them to work on electrics etc?

 

On both my layouts I've gone for having the boards themselves having no legs. This means they can be picked up, turned and flipped as required. The boards sit on parallel rails of 75mm X 50mm timber which are themselves supported in one case on kitchen cabinets and another case on folding trestles. 

 

You'd only need two pairs of rails, one pair along each long wall in your case. You could put cupboards under each long run or have 3 or 4 trestles on each side. Legs attached to boards don't half get in the way.

 

 

[regme]

The two end boards are separate and in this pic there are four side boards but I was looking at having them as one 2.9m board rather than two 1.45m long boards.  No chance of bolting one side to the wall.

 

The trestle idea sounds good.  Also if I incorporate storage space, then cabinets to put all the stuff I have in will also be good.  This will test the woodworking skills or just go to Ikea.

 

So much planning involved.

[5BarVT]

Beware a 2.9m board: if you live in a modern house you won’t be able to turn it upright.  I have two 1.425x0.55m boards and they are as big as I can manage.  However, they were supported on timber rails (64x38 CLS) so I could upend them for working on.  I currently have a 1.75x0.425m board and that is almost too unwieldy for me.

Photos in my thread if you’re interested.

Paul.

[Jeff Smith]

Some years ago I built an 8'x4' layout comprising two 8'x2' boards with 2"x4" edges and 1/2" particle board top with no bracing.   They were heavy and unwieldy even before attaching 3/8" ply backboards and all the scenery (hills made from broken suspended ceiling tiles etc).

 

My advice is to stick to small boards even if ultimately to be permanently assembled.  Permanently attached legs add weight so better to make a frame with cross bracing for the boards to sit on.

[regme]

Well after taking into account the suggestions, I have fore gone the legs all together and have gone with cabinets (need to make it decorative).

 

So the opening in the front is 1700mm enough to crawl through and the cabinets are 900mm high so the final base height will be1040mm.  To put it into perspective there three walls around the outside.

 

The supports are about 600mm apart but this needs to be fine turned once I get the building footprint sorted, all the point motors miss the supports.

 

There are two sets of drawings for the locos and wagons that have no boxes, with space underneath to place plastic tubs and anything else train related.

 

This will still allow me to up-end each module to work on as I won't fix the modules to the cabinets.

 

Hopefully, I haven't missed anything.

[doilum]

A better alternative to any of the PSE timber currently available from the DIY stores is to get a sheet of 18mm ply ripped into strips of the required depth. At least this way they will be straight and flat. The only down side is the 2.4 metre length restriction. Equally strong, take two strips of thin ply and sandwich blocks of scrap 2x1 between them. This is not an original idea but works well. Whilst a good timber merchant might charge a little more than the local superstore they will probably cut it for free or a small nominal charge. 2.4 metre lengths will also fit inside most vehicles with a rear hatch (including the MGBGT)thus avoiding potential delivery costs.

[Jeff Smith]

Sorry but I just don't understand all this heavyweight baseboard construction.  I indicated a heavyweight one I made some years ago earlier in this thread.  Strength lies in clever construction using thin materials braced at corners and some edges.  If aircraft were built the way some baseboards are built they would never get off the ground!  Remember you have to lift these things!

 

My philosophy is to make baseboards 6" deep, ie with the top surface 6" from the bottom of the board.  Sides, ends and top using 1/4" or 6mm ply (cheap floor underlayment), braced vertically at corners and horizontally on the top edge of the sides and ends with planed 1"x2" strip wood.  All pinned and glued with one cross bracing per board.  The boards are joined with 2 off 1/4" bolts through the end bracing strips.  The current layout is three 40" boards 15" wide with 12" high back and end boards above track level with track, wiring and point switches installed.  When bolted together it is easily picked up and carried by one person!

[regme]

I hear what your saying, I'll work out the weight of the longest module and if I can keep it under 15kg, all the buildings will be removable just because if I did have to move it, it would easier that way.

 

I'm doing an iron ore layout so I want the main structures to be on one board rather than split over two boards.

 

I checked out your link about base board construction, however no images, would have liked to see your approach.

Edited May 6, 2022 by regme

[DCB]

Just wondering how you plan on getting in to the centre well, its a bit low to crawl under and a bit high to step over. Advancing years make lifting sections an increasingly attractive idea. 

 As a general rule the baseboard ends need support where two or more join.  General rule wood always warps and sags.  Its not good practice to build a hobby table and plonk track on it.  Just about all the best layouts have tracks at different levels, and no track at the lowest level.  with the track bases cut to follow the profile of the tracks, that gives open areas beside the tracks for underline scenery. it also allows packing to be inserted to level up the tracks when the frame and base inevitably sags, that's if you get "New" timber from DIY stores, I get properly seasoned second hand wood from skips and old panel vans and true it up on my table saw which minimises the problem, its about the same cost by the time you buy the saw and scrounge the wood!   All track bases warp. I have some laid on concrete in the garden and even that has warped

[AndyID]

3 hours ago, DCB said:

Just wondering how you plan on getting in to the centre well, its a bit low to crawl under and a bit high to step over. Advancing years make lifting sections an increasingly attractive idea. 

 

The underside of my baseboard is over three feet above the floor. It seemed high enough when I built but now it's a bit of a struggle to get under it. Fortunately I only need to go under it occasionally to get to two access wells.