 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion Groups General ModelsRailroadsRocketsRadio Controlled Air ModelsHelicoptersLand ModelsWater ModelsModelGeeks.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Model Forum / General / Railroads / October 2008Are 1x2s too small?
I'm planning the benchwork for my model railroad. Up until now, I had used 1x4s spaced 24" apart to support my modules, but I'm looking at using an open L-girder style of benchwork. The L-girders I plan on making will be entirely 1x2s, but I'm not sure if they'll be strong enough. The reason for 1x2s is they'll be cut from 2x4s, providing a much better chance of getting straight lumber than with 1x2s. The yard will be a 5/8" piece of plywood supported by L girders on a 12"x12" grid. Do I need to beef this up? I am in an area where movement because of temperature and humidity is a factor. The layout will be in an occasionally air-conditioned but always heated building. Puckdropper  SignatureIf you're quiet, your teeth never touch your ankles. To email me directly, send a message to puckdropper (at) fastmail.fm >I'm planning the benchwork for my model railroad. Up until now, I had used >1x4s spaced 24" apart to support my modules, but I'm looking at using an [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >because of temperature and humidity is a factor. The layout will be in an >occasionally air-conditioned but always heated building. My tinplate layout is atop 1 x 2 L-girder construction. Horizontal boards across top of the L-girder are 1x3 and legs are 2x2. Gussets are 1/4" ply. Atop this is 1/2" plywood with 1/2" homosote on top of that. Homosote was secured to plywood with panel adhesive. > My tinplate layout is atop 1 x 2 L-girder construction. Horizontal > boards across top of the L-girder are 1x3 and legs are 2x2. Gussets > are 1/4" ply. > > Atop this is 1/2" plywood with 1/2" homosote on top of that. Homosote > was secured to plywood with panel adhesive. How long have you had it like this? Have you noticed any movement or warping of the material? Please understand that my questions are that of someone who's planning for the next 20 years. My biggest regret with the old layout is cheaping out on the plywood for the first module, and not joining the two pieces I had together properly. Ten years later (Wow!) I'm having trouble at the spliced area. Puckdropper SignatureIf you're quiet, your teeth never touch your ankles. To email me directly, send a message to puckdropper (at) fastmail.fm >> My tinplate layout is atop 1 x 2 L-girder construction. Horizontal >> boards across top of the L-girder are 1x3 and legs are 2x2. Gussets [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >How long have you had it like this? Have you noticed any movement or >warping of the material? Good question and I covered those points in my draft but somehow I edited out the last 2 lines. Framework was begun in 1997 and basic layout completed late 1998. There has been no warping or sagging but I do keep a dehumidifier on most of the time. Layout is basically on two 4 x 8s about 6 feet apart. Side frames are 1 x 3s with 1 x 2 L-girder attached. By separate e-mail, I'll attach one pix showing some of benchwork -- I never enclosed in the side areas, so please excuse all the storage boxes underneath. >Please understand that my questions are that of someone who's planning >for the next 20 years. My biggest regret with the old layout is cheaping >out on the plywood for the first module, and not joining the two pieces I >had together properly. Ten years later (Wow!) I'm having trouble at the >spliced area. I have no regrets as to construction but, alas, to save time and money I went with a "duck under" layout. 10 years later and older, I find it more and more difficult to "duck under" to get to main control panel even though bottom of layout is 30" from the floor. For casual running I just attach a spare transformer and operate from the outside. Good luck > I have no regrets as to construction but, alas, to save time and money I > went with a "duck under" layout. 10 years later and older, I find it > more and more difficult to "duck under" to get to main control panel > even though bottom of layout is 30" from the floor. For casual running I > just attach a spare transformer and operate from the outside. > Good luck I know what you mean about the "duck under", I believe I was wise when I made mine 44.5" from the floor. Yet there are still days when ... >My tinplate layout is atop 1 x 2 L-girder construction. Horizontal >boards across top of the L-girder are 1x3 and legs are 2x2. Gussets are >1/4" ply. My layout is tinplate (0 gauge) too, and the frame is 1 x 2 softwood, with a 1/4 inch ply top. May be a little thicker than 1/4 inch - 5 ply, anyway. The boards have been in use for about twenty years, for various different layouts, and are fine. The boards are not really strong enough to walk on, though. Support below the boards, using 2 x 1 softwood, is at two foot centres. Legs are a mixture of 2 x 2 and 3 x 2 - whatever I happened to have available. SignatureGraeme, Scotland > My layout is tinplate (0 gauge) too, and the frame is 1 x 2 softwood, with > a 1/4 inch ply top. May be a little thicker than 1/4 inch - 5 ply, [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Legs are a mixture of 2 x 2 and 3 x 2 - whatever I happened to have > available. I'm surprised that your 1/4" plywood doesn't sag between the 24" centered supports. I know that 3/4" sheeting is suggested for 24" roofing supports. My first layout was similar only I had plenty of 1x2s so I used them on 12" centers. I wouldn't have danced on that but wouldn't have felt too bad walking on it... gingerly. : ) As mentioned elsewhere in this thread, if one had plenty of 1x2s, I'd think the best route would be to build L-girders or even I-girders. Properly screwed & glued, those should be very strong. dlm > > My layout is tinplate (0 gauge) too, and the frame is 1 x 2 softwood, with > > a 1/4 inch ply top. May be a little thicker than 1/4 inch - 5 ply, [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > I'm surprised that your 1/4" plywood doesn't sag between the 24" centered > supports. I know that 3/4" sheeting is suggested for 24" roofing supports. Snow, etc. is a lot heavier than model trains... > My first layout was similar only I had plenty of 1x2s so I used them on 12" > centers. I wouldn't have danced on that but wouldn't have felt too bad [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > SignatureRobert Heller -- 978-544-6933 Deepwoods Software -- Download the Model Railroad System http://www.deepsoft.com/ -- Binaries for Linux and MS-Windows heller@deepsoft.com -- http://www.deepsoft.com/ModelRailroadSystem/ > I'm planning the benchwork for my model railroad. Up until now, I had used > 1x4s spaced 24" apart to support my modules, but I'm looking at using an > open L-girder style of benchwork. The L-girders I plan on making will be > entirely 1x2s, but I'm not sure if they'll be strong enough. The reason > for 1x2s is they'll be cut from 2x4s, providing a much better chance of > getting straight lumber than with 1x2s. For H0 or N, this should be strong enough, esp. since the 2x4s you will be slicing up will likely be spruce, rather than the pine that 1x4s are normally made from -- spruce is a bit stronger and denser than pine. > The yard will be a 5/8" piece of plywood supported by L girders on a > 12"x12" grid. Do I need to beef this up? I am in an area where movement > because of temperature and humidity is a factor. The layout will be in an > occasionally air-conditioned but always heated building. What scale? 0 or 1? :) 5/8" plywood is pretty heavy duty for H0 and serious overkill for N. 1/4" or 3/8" is even rather heavy these days. 3/4" or 1" insulation foam (pink (Owens Corning) or blue (Dow and others)) is more than strong enough. 1x2s can support this easily, unless you plan on standing on your yard or are going to put a solid plaster mountain in the middle of your yard... > Puckdropper SignatureRobert Heller -- 978-544-6933 Deepwoods Software -- Download the Model Railroad System http://www.deepsoft.com/ -- Binaries for Linux and MS-Windows heller@deepsoft.com -- http://www.deepsoft.com/ModelRailroadSystem/ > At 01 Sep 2008 12:35:01 GMT Puckdropper <puckdropper(at)yahoo(dot)com> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > 1x4s are normally made from -- spruce is a bit stronger and denser > than pine. Well, I cut 4 2x4s up today. We'll see how fast they evaporate when I get in to making them in to structure. I hope they'll be strong enough to prevent warping. (On the woodworking group, we have a saying: Wood warps. Wood Warps. Wood WARPS. WOOD WARPS.) >> The yard will be a 5/8" piece of plywood supported by L girders on a >> 12"x12" grid. Do I need to beef this up? I am in an area where [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > unless you plan on standing on your yard or are going to put a solid > plaster mountain in the middle of your yard... It's HO... but the plywood was cheap because someone cut about a foot off of it. The mountain is going to be next to the yard. Probably use foam for that... >> Puckdropper Puckdropper SignatureIf you're quiet, your teeth never touch your ankles. To email me directly, send a message to puckdropper (at) fastmail.fm > > At 01 Sep 2008 12:35:01 GMT Puckdropper <puckdropper(at)yahoo(dot)com> > > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > It's HO... but the plywood was cheap because someone cut about a foot off > of it. The problem is: 5/8" plywood is going to be *heavy* -- much heavier that your trains! You will need lots of support structure *just for the plywood itself*. You *could* just rip the plywood into 2" strips and use that for your L girders or other supports -- this might be a better use for it than bothering with the support structure you will need to support it -- the thing is the weight issue becomes accumulative: you need something strong and heavy to hold up the (thick and heavy) plywood, then you need something to support and brace the support "timbers", and strong legs under that... That is why the old school benchwork needed so much wood (eg 1x4s). Using modern materials (foam) and benchwork technology (L-girders) lets you use smaller wood, eg the 1x2s, since you don't need to support lots of *heavy* plywood. The trains themselves are very light (and have allways been so, at least H0 and N scale: mostly plastic cars and loco bodies) -- you don't really need 1" (or 3/4") thick girders -- 5/8" would probably be strong enough, esp. if it is plywood. > The mountain is going to be next to the yard. Probably use foam for > that... Well, if you have the foam (or are planing on getting some anyway), you might as well use the foam for your yard. Foam has an additional advantage, besides being light: it does NOT warp. > >> Puckdropper > > Puckdropper SignatureRobert Heller -- 978-544-6933 Deepwoods Software -- Download the Model Railroad System http://www.deepsoft.com/ -- Binaries for Linux and MS-Windows heller@deepsoft.com -- http://www.deepsoft.com/ModelRailroadSystem/ > I'm planning the benchwork for my model railroad. Up until now, I had used > 1x4s spaced 24" apart to support my modules, but I'm looking at using an > open L-girder style of benchwork. The L-girders I plan on making will be > entirely 1x2s, but I'm not sure if they'll be strong enough. The reason > for 1x2s is they'll be cut from 2x4s, providing a much better chance of > getting straight lumber than with 1x2s. As has been said here before, ditch the lumber and go with plywood. L-girders cut from plywood will be straighter and stronger. I'd use a hardwood plywood if the cost isn't exorbitant. HD occasionally has some that looks like birch or maple but is just marketed as "paint grade", "Redi-Panel", or some such meaningless name. But yes, 1x2s would probably work unless you plan on climbing on the benchwork or otherwise subjecting it to heavy loads. Whatever you use, seal it on all sides by wiping on a coat or two of shellac - Zinsser's SealCoat is one of the best. >> I'm planning the benchwork for my model railroad. Up until now, I >> had used 1x4s spaced 24" apart to support my modules, but I'm looking [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > some that looks like birch or maple but is just marketed as "paint > grade", "Redi-Panel", or some such meaningless name. Around us, it's birch. They simply call it "hardwood plywood" and sell it for $25 a sheet. Repairs have been made and such, but it's got the same grain as the birch they're selling for $40 a sheet. > But yes, 1x2s would probably work unless you plan on climbing on the > benchwork or otherwise subjecting it to heavy loads. I think I'll beef it up a little bit, then. Growing up with the possibility of moving once a year leads me to build for the stresses involved in moving to a new house. > Whatever you use, seal it on all sides by wiping on a coat or two of > shellac - Zinsser's SealCoat is one of the best. I'll definately do that. I might just use paint, though, as I intend on painting the top of the layout anyway. Puckdropper SignatureIf you're quiet, your teeth never touch your ankles. To email me directly, send a message to puckdropper (at) fastmail.fm >> Whatever you use, seal it on all sides by wiping on a coat or two of >> shellac - Zinsser's SealCoat is one of the best. > > I'll definately do that. I might just use paint, though, as I intend on > painting the top of the layout anyway. Just a hint - latex paint is made to allow moisture through. Shellac (dewaxed) blocks moisture transfer better than any other common finish. Oil based paint is somewhere in between. big snip >>But yes, 1x2s would probably work unless you plan on climbing on the >>benchwork or otherwise subjecting it to heavy loads. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > I'll definately do that. I might just use paint, though, as I intend on > painting the top of the layout anyway. The object with the 'Shellac' is 'waterproofing' -- most paints are porous to water vapor (humidity) ---- I.E. be sure you are getting what you need/ want. Chuck D. > Puckdropper > The L-girders I plan on making will be entirely 1x2s, but I'm not sure if > they'll be strong enough. The reason for 1x2s is they'll be cut from > 2x4s, providing a much better chance of getting straight lumber than > with 1x2s. As has been noted elsewhere, make the L-girders from plywood. It naturally resists warping due to the cross-grain glue laminated layers. > The yard will be a 5/8" piece of plywood supported by L girders on a > 12"x12" grid. Whoa!! A 12x12 grid is WAYYYY overkill, not to mention getting more in the way of things underneath. SignatureSteve >> The L-girders I plan on making will be entirely 1x2s, but I'm not >> sure if they'll be strong enough. The reason for 1x2s is they'll be [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > naturally resists warping due to the cross-grain glue laminated > layers. I'll probably use both plywood and 1x2s making the L girders. The plywood for choosyness of size, and the 1x2s because they'll work really nicely. No need to predrill if you're far enough from the edge. >> The yard will be a 5/8" piece of plywood supported by L girders on a >> 12"x12" grid. > > Whoa!! A 12x12 grid is WAYYYY overkill, not to mention getting more > in the way of things underneath. After having some time to think, I guess 12"x12" would be overkill. (But isn't that what the grids on the track plan are for, though? lol) I'll still run my cross braces at 16", though at least initially. That'll give me plenty of support to screw up (pun) the top. Puckdropper SignatureIf you're quiet, your teeth never touch your ankles. To email me directly, send a message to puckdropper (at) fastmail.fm >The L-girders I plan on making will be entirely 1x2s, but I'm not sure if they'll be strong enough.< This concept is from Lynn Wescott (MR editor) years ago (40 years?) and it works. For HO it's not a problem and I have always built this way. For O scale there (might) be a weight problem. >The yard will be a 5/8" piece of plywood supported by L girders on a 12"x12" grid. Do I need to beef this up? < Typical yard is 1/2" ply and 1/2" homosote. I don't think you need a 12 x 12 grid for this but just L-girder on (probably) 18" centers. 12 inch centers if you want to stand on it <VBG>! Slicing up 2x4s would be worth it if you get them for less. I'd rather slice them the other way and get some 1/2"x4". The thing here is that the vertical part of an L girder is used for the load bearing and the taller it is, the more solit it will be. 1x2s will do the job tho if you are not going to crawl on the layout. Another way is to use the 1x2 for the top and bottom of a I beam where the center is 1/8" plywood of about 4-6" wide. A little cut in the 1x2s will put the plywood in a nice glue joint for max strength. -- Bob May rmay at nethere.com http: slash /nav.to slash bobmay http: slash /bobmay dot astronomy.net I've used 1x2s in benchwork just fine. Built a Wall mounted setup using 2x2s, 1x2s exclusively. The raw materials came from a previous floor standing layout. keeps the weight down. Structure design matters. "Greg G. F." <gforestieri@yahoo.com> wrote in news:5a9f0c9a-5fd7-4087-adff- 10c00f6fbf6c@b2g2000prf.googlegroups.com: > I've used 1x2s in benchwork just fine. Built a Wall mounted setup > using 2x2s, 1x2s exclusively. The raw materials came from a previous > floor standing layout. keeps the weight down. Structure design > matters. I decided to go with 1x4s. Even with good structure design, sometimes you just can't beat mass to handle whatever life throws at it. Plus, it gives me an easy way to attach a "cup rail" and fascia when I get to that part. The legs are 1x2s and are just beautiful. They give me a place to easily run braces between sets of legs, and it looks really nice. One last parting thought: I should have gotten the big box of screws. Puckdropper SignatureIf you're quiet, your teeth never touch your ankles. To email me directly, send a message to puckdropper (at) fastmail.fm > One last parting thought: I should have gotten the big box of screws. And hopefully square drive instead of Phillips. SignatureSteve >> One last parting thought: I should have gotten the big box of screws. > > And hopefully square drive instead of Phillips. "Square dive"? Please! "Robertson" head, the name they have in the country of their invention, Canada. "Robertson's" and *the* most popular screw in Canada and have been for donkey's years, at least back into the 1940 or earlier. IIRC, Ford Motor company wanted to use them but also wanted to become the patent holder but Mr. Robertson, the inventor, refused to sell them the patent. -- Cheers Roger T. See the GER at: - http://www.islandnet.com/~rogertra/ > "Square dive"? Hunh? Ralph Nader's nightclub? > Please! "Robertson" head, the name they have in the country of their > invention, Canada. "Robertson's" and *the* most popular screw in Canada and [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > patent holder but Mr. Robertson, the inventor, refused to sell them the > patent. Yes, I know, and I wish Robertson had been able to find a US manufacturer and perhaps been a little more flexible in licensing, for all our sakes, although I can't begrudge him not wanting anything to do with that notorious racist and anti-semite in Dearborn. But I was just using a name US members would find more descriptive, since the meaning of square drive should be obvious to Canadians, Brits, and others, while "Robertson head" would confuse Americans who hadn't read Witold Rybczynski's "One Good Turn: A Natural History of the Screwdriver and the Screw". The Robertson head screw is far superior to almost all other drive systems, certainly those in common use. SignatureSteve >Yes, I know, and I wish Robertson had been able to find a US manufacturer >and perhaps been a little more flexible in licensing, for all our sakes, [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >screw is far superior to almost all other drive systems, certainly those in >common use. Somehow, I feel there is a subliminal message that the Canadians and particularly Mr. Robertson are of the opinion that they and he should have a patent on screwing..or at least the best way. :). On 9/27/2008 10:36 AM Steve Caple spake thus: >> One last parting thought: I should have gotten the big box of screws. > > And hopefully square drive instead of Phillips. Amen to that. Someday I'm going to throw out every goddamn Phillips bit I have. SignatureWashing one's hands of the conflict between the powerful and the powerless means to side with the powerful, not to be neutral. - Paulo Freire >>> One last parting thought: I should have gotten the big box of screws. >> >> And hopefully square drive instead of Phillips. > > Amen to that. Someday I'm going to throw out every goddamn Phillips bit I > have. We Canadians have known that since the 1910s. :-) They were "invented" in 1908, so you Americans and the rest of the world are waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay behind the times when it comes to screwing. ;-) -- Cheers Roger T. See the GER at: - http://www.islandnet.com/~rogertra/ >>>>One last parting thought: I should have gotten the big box of screws. >>> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > They were "invented" in 1908, so you Americans and the rest of the world are > waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay behind the times when it comes to screwing. ;-) And you have been waiting for years for a chance to use that line!!!!! Chuck D. > -- > Cheers > Roger T. > See the GER at: - > http://www.islandnet.com/~rogertra/ >> We Canadians have known that since the 1910s. :-) >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > And you have been waiting for years for a chance to use that line!!!!! > Chuck D. Guilty! -- Cheers Roger T. See the GER at: - http://www.islandnet.com/~rogertra/ > >> We Canadians have known that since the 1910s. �:-) > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Roger T. > See the GER at: -http://www.islandnet.com/~rogertra/ Do you mean that popular drink made from vodka and from milk of magnesia... the Phillips Screwdriver?! >> One last parting thought: I should have gotten the big box of screws. > > And hopefully square drive instead of Phillips. I went with Phillips. They work for me, and I have a relatively low failure rate using them, about 1 in 50 leave the head slighly distorted. Complete failure (broken head, head stripped so it won't turn) is about 1 in 1000. With a good #2 Phillips bit, you'll be able to put quite a few screws in before you strip one. I've not used square head (you know, the Canadian-invented Robertson head made by Mr. Robertson in Canada) screws extensively enough to do the comparison, but I'm sure the bigger factors in good screwing are the bit, screw driver, operator, and screw composition. Sometimes it's better to be stanardized than to always use the best tool for the job. Puckdropper SignatureIf you're quiet, your teeth never touch your ankles. To email me directly, send a message to puckdropper (at) fastmail.fm >>> One last parting thought: I should have gotten the big box of screws. >> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Puckdropper Sometimes we need to screw the standard and move on. Greg.P. > but I'm sure the bigger factors in good screwing are the bit, > screw driver, operator, and screw composition. In my experience screw composition and drive type are more important than the bit - unless it's a typical Phillips bit that becomes badly buggered from the inevitable cam-outs. Cam-outs are almost unheard of with square drive screws (most often seen here in Disney-land as "deck screws"). SignatureSteve |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.