Does my terminus building (WIP) need more strength. If so, how?

[billy_anorak59]

I don’t think I’ve planned this very well.

 

I’m a fair way into building a terminus building (‘inspired by’) Birkenhead Woodside, but half the length, half the width. It’s still big (and getting heavier) at over a metre long and about 375mm wide, and now I’m starting to look at bringing the walls and end-screen together (once detail painted and weathered), I have a niggly feeling that I have underestimated the strength needed to handle the part-completed building prior to final installation.

 

All walls are layered mdf covered with a skin of embossed plasticard. The end wall has already been glued and screwed to a piece of chipboard which will form part of the concourse. The walls themselves will be glued (and probably dowelled) to the end-wall/concourse – the attachment points forming a sort of ‘L’-shape on both walls. Please see this amended photo of the end-wall as it stands   - the ‘red’ areas will be the to-be-bonded areas.

 

At the other ‘open’ end, I’ve contrived to brace the walls apart with a section of old bullhead rail, bent at either ends, to be epoxied into the end towers on assembly. See below showing the brace and joins on a computer-generated sketch:

All well and good, but as I said, I’m getting a nagging feeling that this will still result in a rather fragile structure – especially at the bottom of the open end.

 

So I thought I should finally ask for guidance now I’m this far along!!

 

I can’t do anything more at roof height, as the roof will be removable during operation in order to aid access, and the base of the walls obviously need to be free of obstruction in order for the rails to pass into the shed. The other photos are included to give a perception of the size of the work in progress – everything is just lightly clamped a the moment:

 

 

 

The only thing I can think of would be to assemble and glue the building to a piece of ply of the thinnest thickness I can get away with. It does, however, mean that the approach rails would have to slope up to the train shed in order to get over the threshold (so to speak). If I went this way, would 3mm do the job do you think? Have I answered my own question?

 

I would appreciate comments/thoughts as to my perception that this will end up fragile (if built as originally intended), and indeed, if anyone has had a similar problem?

If you did, how did you overcome it?

 

Thanks in advance.

 

[AndyB]

I guess one question is this.

Will the layout be moved? For example to an exhibition? If so then the answer may be different than if it's a permanent home layout. 

 

BTW. Nice bit of modelling!

Edited November 16, 2023 by AndyB

[BluenGreyAnorak]

How about building it on a piece of board that's the same thickness as your baseboard and then cutting a hole in the latter for it to sit into? You could even pre-lay the tracks and finish them as if it were an exhibition layout.

[billy_anorak59]

18 minutes ago, AndyB said:

Will the layout be moved?

 

No - it's a lyout that never leaves home - and thanks for your 'BTW'!

 

7 minutes ago, BluenGreyAnorak said:

How about building it on a piece of board that's the same thickness as your baseboard and then cutting a hole in the latter for it to sit into?

 

Interesting! Hadn't thought of that one - thanks. However, where it is going to sit has a number of cross braces underneath the 1/2" chipboard, so may throw up all kinds of issues. They might however, support the potential insert though, so more thought/investigation on that is required. Cheers.

[BluenGreyAnorak]

Where there's a will, etc 🙂

[AndrueC]

I have built two such structures for layout. They are both N scale and cover four tracks so about a metre long.

 

The first is currently the strongest:

 

You couldn't swing it to hit someone but I have no qualms about picking it up.

 

The second cover (completed recently) is currently less sound. I can still pick it up but I'm more careful:

I'm currently mulling over whether to 'wall paper it' and turn it a dull orange colour. That would provide a bit more strength.

 

I think that mounting the first cover on 'skids' helped a lot. I've done that to part of the new cover but not the whole length.

 

The latest cover 'South Yard' has seen some handling already because it sits over a ladder yard and I had to adjust the turnouts and clean the track. It survived the experience just fine.

Edited November 16, 2023 by AndrueC

[JeffP]

Could you attach a couple of cylindrical pegs pointing down, under the front corners?

Then drill the baseboard at the appropriate place before gluing in bits of tubing to fit the pegs.

[Enterprisingwestern]

 

The only alarm bell ringing for me is the use of mdf, I personally would have used plywood which would have given a more than adequate structure.

A tad late though!

 

Mike.

[billy_anorak59]

1 hour ago, JeffP said:

Could you attach a couple of cylindrical pegs pointing down, under the front corners?

Then drill the baseboard at the appropriate place before gluing in bits of tubing to fit the pegs.

Thanks Jeff - a friend of mine suggested the same thing (and I might actually do that), but it's not really the problem of location, it's the keeping of everything together whilst its being built!

 

25 minutes ago, Enterprisingwestern said:

A tad late though!

 

Erm... yes...afraid so...! 😃 

The walls themselves are pretty strong though - they have a central core of 4mm, with overlays of 2mm on either side, so they've ended up as a sort of mdf ply. I'm not worried about them individually - just when everything gets joined together. Cheers.

[Hal Nail]

 

20 hours ago, billy_anorak59 said:

The only thing I can think of would be to assemble and glue the building to a piece of ply of the thinnest thickness I can get away with. It does, however, mean that the approach rails would have to slope up to the train shed in order to get over the threshold (so to speak).

 

Impressive looking building.

 

I think the key to this is how often it needs to move. The solution is probably different if it just a case of making sure it is stable in position? If its basically going to stay there then I'd use the dowels idea to "anchor" and support the walls.

 

If it needs to be moved sometimes, then a base seems like a good idea and you could avoid a ramp by removing that section of base board and having a half height area of baseboard and a half height slab under the building. I'd be concerned about warping though.

 

A variation on a full base is to cut a couple of slots in the base board with a multi tool and then have a beam just under the open end of the shed and say half way along the building. You'd either then have to have all the track lift or a short section bridging the beams.

 

Even so, I think either way I'd use dowel foundations on the side walls in combination with some sort of drop in tie bars across the top, so the walls are essentially self supporting and can't fall outwards and then you don't actually have to physically join them to the end, which is the potential weakness.

 

Edited November 17, 2023 by Hal Nail

[Nick C]

I'd be tempted to use threaded bar rather than dowels, set into the pillars so it could also be used to secure the building into position with a couple of wing-nuts under the board. I'd also make a temporary base that it could be fixed to during construction (and any future moves) - that way the only time it's vulnerable is while transferring from the temporary base to the main baseboard, but hopefully you'd not need to do that too often!

[AndrueC]

2 hours ago, Enterprisingwestern said:

 

The only alarm bell ringing for me is the use of mdf, I personally would have used plywood which would have given a more than adequate structure.

A tad late though!

 

Mike.

My structures are MDF and they are okay. For something mostly left on the layout and only lifted to fix an issue they are fine. Unlike the op's structure my arches are the entire width though so that does help by resisting twisting.

 

The 'skids' on mine (firelighter sticks running along the bottom) help a lot especially since mine consist of multiple sections. In fact since posting about the second yard cover I've added skids along the entire length same as the first cover.

 

For what it's worth the actual dimensions of mine are:

1,100mm x 200mm. Walls 50mm high, arches obviously going somewhat higher. Arches are every 80mm on the first cover, every 90mm on the second. MDF, with tabs glued with PVA apart from the acetate roof which uses superglue.

 

I have square poles on helping guide the first cover into place and provide some anchoring. The second cover so far has nothing.

Edited November 17, 2023 by AndrueC

[billy_anorak59]

Thanks for all your thoughts folks – most appreciated.

 

@Hal Nail  I’m hoping that the building won’t need moving once installed, but I recognise now that some sort of semi-permanent fixing might be desirable for those unforseen issues that could occur once in a while, so dowel (or threaded bar as suggested by @Nick C) would be sensible. I do like the beam front and mid-way idea though – I reckon that might give the rigidity I’m looking for, albeit with the inconvience of cutting slots in the baseboard top to accomodate them.

 

Just to clarify the construction, these two photos show the centre removable section of roof under construction – it will be flanked at either end by a ‘fixed’ section of roof, which I’m hoping will enhance the rigidity of the walls further.

 

On this inside shot, you can just make out the two longitudinal brass strips (like @AndrueC‘s ‘skids’) that are the foundation for the roof trusses of the removable section, at the top of the walls. I’m hoping that will brace the walls from falling in on themselves even more. The trusses themselves are slotted into gauge 1 cast track chairs at each end which are epoxied to the brass ‘skids’, so are quite firm.

 

 

I don't want to add more bracing at the top of the wall, in order to maintain the 'openness' of the trainshed, as this was a feature of the actual Woodside that has inspired it.

 

Cheers all - like I said, all appreciated, good food for thought.

 

Edited November 17, 2023 by billy_anorak59
fat fingers

[AndrueC]

It's looking very good - better than mine. I tend to think of mine merely as 'decorative dust covers' but you've actually modelled a building. That interior shot looks excellent. I had to do a double-take to confirm that it was a model.

[DCB]

I would do the cylindrical dowel method, I used it on much smaller buildings with brass dowels which takes power to the interior lights.     It looks great  but  can you really operate with the lid on...  Do you have an infallible uncoupling system? 

Edited November 17, 2023 by DCB

[billy_anorak59]

13 hours ago, DCB said:

 It looks great  but  can you really operate with the lid on...  Do you have an infallible uncoupling system? 

 

Thanks, but the answer is probably no and no.

 

I'm still on tension locks for most of my stock, so no infallible coupling system here!

 

The main reason I went for a terminus with a lid was to bring back memories I have of Birkenhead Woodside (however I've compromised it here) when I was a child - I enjoy the building of scenery rather than operation to be honest. So the intention is to remove the centre section of the roof when operating steam hauled stock, and also use a good dose of DMU (and even EMU Class 503 : modellers licence here) operation to obviate the need for uncoupling . A bit of a minories the way the track plan has ended up really. 

 

Although it won't be a static diorama by any means, the main interest for me is the nostalgia and the process of construction - sorry if that upsets the operators out there, but each to their own I guess - the hobby is a broad church after all!

 

[AndrueC]

3 hours ago, billy_anorak59 said:

Although it won't be a static diorama by any means, the main interest for me is the nostalgia and the process of construction - sorry if that upsets the operators out there, but each to their own I guess - the hobby is a broad church after all!

I'm the same way although with less of an eye for detail. This is one of my favourite videos though it will need updating when I've finished my South Yard cover (not built when this was recorded).

 

I do also like watching trains run round my layout but am happy to do so from a distance. My intention is to eventually go full computer control then I can just switch on and let the computer randomly run stock while I observe.

 

Shunting has never been of any interest to me which is a good thing since I model in N 🙂

Edited November 18, 2023 by AndrueC

[The Johnster]

4 hours ago, billy_anorak59 said:

the hobby is a broad church after all!

 

Or in your case a broad arched canopy.  I'd go with the dowel-in-the-bottom-of-the-wall method, which supports the walls and holds them in position.  Dowels along the length of the wall will give a strong, multi-point, fixing that enables the assembly to be postitioned precisely and lifted off whole as well as having a removeable roof.  As you're using tension locks, some version of the old-fashioned lifting ramp uncouplers should enable you to release incoming locos, with the removable roof as a backup.

 

Only worry I can see with the dowels is vulnerability to damage when the building is removed from the layout.  I'd fix the dowels to the underside of the wall rather than having them protruding upwards from the baseboard, and protect them and prevent the walls from moving by either a sort of double-ended collar that would fit over the end dowels, or a piece of 'spanded polystyrene with holes that the assembly could sit in when it is removed from the layout.

 

Very convincing building, btw!

Edited November 18, 2023 by The Johnster