Kirkby Luneside

[Mythocentric]

Sorry Jeff but I think you are way overdoing it. L-girder construction is intended to give an increase in strength and rigidity while saving weight and giving a lot of adaptability. A 3x1 +3x1 L or a 3x1 +4x1 (vertical flange) glued and screwed is one thing but by using 4x2 as the upright leg reduces the top leg to little more than a convenient flange to screw the cross members to! It just isn't needed and could be just as well omitted without any loss in strength in it's current form and gluing 1x1 pieces to the cross members for screw attachment. Using 3x1 or 4x1 for the cross members would also give you more leeway in forming sub-track level landforms. Sorry if I'm being a bore by sounding a sour note but better to consider it now before it's too late for a rethink!

 

Regards

 

Bill

Edited August 25, 2015 by Mythocentric

[peach james]

I'd sort of agree with Bill.

 

Mind, I had bad experience with 1x4 on edge, in that some of the Long Marton 2.0 sagged by as much as 1/2" on a 6' span of 1x4 on edge. (so the centre was 1/2 lower than the ends with legs).  Decent quality 1x4 topped with 1x3 makes sense for a L girder, but 2x4 should be solid enough to not need any further support.

 

James

[ben pez]

Good work jeff

Keep cracking on

 

Cheers

 

Ben

[Allegheny1600]

Hi Jeff,

I have to agree with Bill (& James)!

I'm well acquainted with the L girder principle from my US modelling days and what Bill says is correct. I don't like to give you any kind of negative vibes (man!) but it would save some timber and effort, as James says to just use that lovely 4"x2", maybe with 1" square tacked on.

Cheers,

John.

[Physicsman]

Sorry Jeff but I think you are way overdoing it. L-girder construction is intended to give an increase in strength and rigidity while saving weight and giving a lot of adaptability. A 3x1 +3x1 L or a 3x1 +4x1 (vertical flange) glued and screwed is one thing but by using 4x2 as the upright leg reduces the top leg to little more than a convenient flange to screw the cross members to! It just isn't needed and could be just as well omitted without any loss in strength in it's current form and gluing 1x1 pieces to the cross members for screw attachment. Using 3x1 or 4x1 for the cross members would also give you more leeway in forming sub-track level landforms. Sorry if I'm being a bore by sounding a sour note but better to consider it now before it's too late for a rethink!

 

Regards

 

Bill

 

Bill & Co.

 

Am I way overdoing it? Yes, I always do. Has it taken me a lot of extra time to tag on the "flange" - not at all, and although it may not be "classical" L-girder, it suffices for what I need.

 

The 2 sections are glued and screwed.

 

I'm not interested in saving weight (cost, maybe!) and the versatility is in no way reduced by using a stronger vertical member. I agree, the top section is virtually a convenient flange - that's exactly what it is. I agree that it could be omitted - as I said in my reply to Mike's post - and maybe what I've built isn't classical L-girder.

 

I haven't even posted a plan, so there's no way for anyone to know if what I've done compromises future scenics. It simply doesn't.

 

As for "wasting" timber, mentioned elsewhere - that's my choice. I have a strong base to work from - yes, 4 x 1 would have sufficed, but I chose not to use that.

 

I apologise if anyone is upset about the way I've done this. I could accept criticism if what I'd done had resulted in a WEAKER base.

 

Thanks for all of your comments.

 

Jeff

Edited August 25, 2015 by Physicsman

[Donw]

I'd sort of agree with Bill.

 

Mind, I had bad experience with 1x4 on edge, in that some of the Long Marton 2.0 sagged by as much as 1/2" on a 6' span of 1x4 on edge. (so the centre was 1/2 lower than the ends with legs).  Decent quality 1x4 topped with 1x3 makes sense for a L girder, but 2x4 should be solid enough to not need any further support.

 

James

 

You must have had some weight on that 4x1! or else it had too high a moisture content and bowed as it dried out.  Used with a 4x1 or 3x1  top piece it effectively becomes a 5x1 depth if fixed properly.

Don

[skipepsi]

Thanks Jeff for the reminder about L girders I had been undecided what to hold my American layout up with, two 13ft L girders will do the job just fine. Your woodwork looks as strong and square as ever. 

[Physicsman]

Thanks Jeff for the reminder about L girders I had been undecided what to hold my American layout up with, two 13ft L girders will do the job just fine. Your woodwork looks as strong and square as ever. 

 

Mick, thanks for the comments, though it would seem my construction can't be classed as an L-girder because 4 x 2 is inappropriate. So follow my lead and create your own support and call it what you like.

 

Irrespective of the size of the top piece compared to the vertical section, the flange provides more than enough space to allow an upward fixed screw or two. I'm not trying to defend what I've built - cost, weight etc are factors that don't impinge on its functionality. It will support whatever is put on it, allow for risers and a trackbed with plenty of space for contouring around the station area, it allows me to keep most screws accessible and it doesn't matter whether it's classical structure or not - it works for me.

 

Jeff

[Jock67B]

Jeff,

I'm sure that your finished effort will confound the doubters as you have obviously applied techniques which have been long and carefully pondered over, and if anyone understands the physics involved, it is you. I'm afraid that I must vote for the blow by blow account, as I'm thoroughly enjoying it, but as someone else mentioned, don't let it put too much of a constraint on your time!

Thought I'd mention that, if and when I'm fit enough to start a new layout, the 'master batten' which will be screwed to the garage end wall, 8ft 6in wide, will be a straight and true, fully weathered 4in x 4in timber, fashioned from a 9ft length I have saved for the purpose. It will be countersunk and screwed into the brickwork at intervals, and everything will mount off it!

Look forward to the next batch of images and please don't overdo it, working at that rate!

Kind regards,

Jock.

[peach james]

You must have had some weight on that 4x1! or else it had too high a moisture content and bowed as it dried out.  Used with a 4x1 or 3x1  top piece it effectively becomes a 5x1 depth if fixed properly.

Don

 

Mick, thanks for the comments, though it would seem my construction can't be classed as an L-girder because 4 x 2 is inappropriate. So follow my lead and create your own support and call it what you like.

 

Irrespective of the size of the top piece compared to the vertical section, the flange provides more than enough space to allow an upward fixed screw or two. I'm not trying to defend what I've built - cost, weight etc are factors that don't impinge on its functionality. It will support whatever is put on it, allow for risers and a trackbed with plenty of space for contouring around the station area, it allows me to keep most screws accessible and it doesn't matter whether it's classical structure or not - it works for me.

 

Jeff

 

Jeff, don't take it that we're saying it won't work- it most assuredly WILL work, but that it is not of necessity the most engineered way of doing it.  Remember what Nevil Shute had to say about engineers- an engineer is a man who can do for 12/- what anyone can do for a quid...  .  I have had our lego club engineer despair about my long bridge- it's too flimsy he says, but it holds up (JUST !) with the heaviest train I run on it.  It's not even 1/2 point safe, but it barely does it's job, and that's what I want.  (I'll edit and add the video later...)

 

James

[gismorail]

Very interesting construction method Jeff have heard you going on about L girder;s and was wondering what it would look like. I notice some members think your a bit over the top or even 'over engineered' but one thing that we as modeller's soon realise is that a solid foundation is essential for a successful project. Over the years I have seen so many good layouts fail just for the sake economy on the baseboards and within a short space of time the dreaded 'warp' has come and destroyed hours of work. It's like my current shed project ' A new home needs a good shed' I know that I have gone ' over the top' as far as the frame is concerned but one thing is of certain it's not going to get blown away or rot any time soon. 

[Joseph_Pestell]

We all know from KL1 that Jeff likes to build very strong. We won't change that and it's his money that he is spending on surplus timber (at least two locomotives worth so far).

 

He still has the primary characteristic of L-girder which is being able to easily fix cross-bearers and trackbase from below which is a big advantage if anything needs subsequent modification (e.g. moving a support to avoid a point motor).

 

My quibble would be with the legs. The L-girder should be rigid enough (especially at those dimensions) not to need so many legs which not only cost a lot in timber but get in the way.

[Jason T]

It doesn't really matter if the layout is built strong enough to survive WW3 as I would be amazed if it ever has to move again.

 

I am glad that none of you have ever seen the underside of Bacup (with the exception of Chris-GNR, who helped me move it to the new house recently) as it is woodworking at it's worst and you would have a field day.

[Andrew P]

I JUST HATE WOODWORK so I'm keeping out of it, I let Lee decide on my frame and its solid, good luck Jeff, but most of all ENJOY.

[Alister_G]

I think it's a great shame that having finally started construction of his eagerly awaited layout, Jeff immediately has to counter criticism (whether constructive or not) of his methods.

 

It doen't matter whether what he's doing is strictly by the book, nor does it matter if some people consider it too heavy. It is a rock solid foundation onto which he can add as much scenery as he wants without any danger of subsidence or warping - hell, he can even walk around on it if he needs to!

 

If I were Jeff I would be slightly miffed that his first set of pictures of his first day of construction drew so much adverse comment.

 

Al.

[gismorail]

I think it's a great shame that having finally started construction of his eagerly awaited layout, Jeff immediately has to counter criticism (whether constructive or not) of his methods.

 

It doen't matter whether what he's doing is strictly by the book, nor does it matter if some people consider it too heavy. It is a rock solid foundation onto which he can add as much scenery as he wants without any danger of subsidence or warping - hell, he can even walk around on it if he needs to!

 

If I were Jeff I would be slightly miffed that his first set of pictures of his first day of construction drew so much adverse comment.

 

Al.

Totally  agree with you. 

Each of us have our own way of doing things, and different ideas of what is needed. Now if Jeff was 'under constructing' the baseboard sub-frames that are going to support another 'master piece' in S&C modelling then criticism could be justified as a matter of a friendly warning      

[Allegheny1600]

 it works for me.

 

Jeff

That's all that matters Jeff.

I do apologise most humbly and sincerely if I or any other commentator has upset you with our comments - it's your layout and you're big enough to build it how you like.

I only wanted to try and save you some effort and I most certainly would have spoken up right away had you been weakening the structure!

No offence taken here, I must add.

All the best,

John.

[The Stationmaster]

You must have had some weight on that 4x1! or else it had too high a moisture content and bowed as it dried out.  Used with a 4x1 or 3x1  top piece it effectively becomes a 5x1 depth if fixed properly.

Don

Interestingly a US based constructor reckons a 3x1 by 3x1 L girder (or even a 3x1 by 2x1 using the right timber) should be able to manage a 9.5 feet gap without intermediate supports but he recommends having supports closer together if you want to stand on it  

 

I think it really depends on what you are going to put on top of the basic girder structure although 18mm ply seems to feature on top of the risers on some US layouts - but it's worth bearing in mind that the 'solid top' is only used where track will be placed and even then it isn't normally used on curved areas in 'open countryside because splined roadbed is used instead.

 

All a matter of horses for courses and no doubt Jeff's will still be standing long after some of the spindlier stuff (which seems to include equally spindly legs).

[aberdare]

Hi Jeff

 

I also have L girders under what is the main station layout, mine is only half the size of yours, supported every 5ft, it works fine for me but that was to suit my budget and peace of mind.

If you want big that's fine too and I can't say I'm surprised because as you have said many times before that's how you do it and it makes you happy.

 

I may smile and say 'flippin eck Jeff that's a bit OTT' but that's just you and we are are quite happy to accept that.

 

Keep up the good work.

 

Jim

[Mythocentric]

It seems friendly constructive criticism only applies it it turns out to be what you or the 'yes' men want to hear. Time to seek other pastures I believe.

 

Regards

 

Bill

[Donw]

I quite agree that Jeff should build his layout how he wants. My objective was to point out that the principle of an L girder was to use two pieces of a fairly deep section placed at right angles which is more rigid than a single beam containing the same amount of timber. There are many who admire Jeff's work including myself. 

Don  

[Physicsman]

It seems friendly constructive criticism only applies it it turns out to be what you or the 'yes' men want to hear. Time to seek other pastures I believe.

 

Regards

 

Bill

 

Bill,

 

If you read my comments in post # 1205 you will see that I AGREE with some of wht you said. YES, I do go OTT and yes I could have used 4 x 1 with the resulting wider flange. Yes, it isn't strictly necessary and maybe not the "conventional" L-girder. So I'm not disagreeing on any of that.

 

However, you can't expect me to agree with everything as I've made my own choices. The system will work, there's plenty of scope for above and below board work and I hope that people will respect my choices, even if THEY don't agree with them.

 

I don't speak for any of the other people who post on here. They can agree or disagree. I don't ask them to apologise and I certainly wouldn't call any of them "Yes" men. Jason is a very good friend of mine, but KL is riddled with his constructive criticism - MUCH of which I took on board. I listen, but I also make my own choices. It would be impossible to agree with everything that everyone says - that's one of the reasons that Andy had problems, as he was trying to please everyone.

 

Everyone is welcome to their opinions, but I'm not going to agree with some of them.

 

I think a lot of people who do agree with what I've done will be offended to be labelled Yes men.

 

I'm sorry if you feel you wish to look elsewhere. If you do so, I wish you the best of luck with your modelling projects, telescope work and have a great time with your niece protegy!!

 

Best wishes,

 

Jeff

Edited August 26, 2015 by Physicsman

[Physicsman]

Don, I agree - my "construction" is a girder in an L-shape with somewhat reduced flanges..... I have no problems with you pointing this out!

 

I'd also like to say that I don't go OTT out of spite or for the sheer hell of it. I've always had a paranoid streak - so I'm ultra cautious! My method isn't for everyone and it isn't pretty. But if it helps anyone, fine.

 

Jeff

[Jason T]

And people wonder why some of us don't post as often as we once did........

 

 

Regards,

 

'Yes Man' Jason, who really doesn't give a shite at the moment because I have far more pressing things to attend to than train sets.

[Physicsman]