What are the best materials for supporting a foam based layout.

[SOCAL-Bill]

Sorry, still no cost info for you, but hopefully this is worth something:

http://dow-styrofoam.custhelp.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/674/related/1/session/L2F2LzEvdGltZS8xMzc4Nzg3MDEzL3NpZC90NGtPdlh6bA%3D%3D

http://dow-styrofoam.custhelp.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/665/~/what-are-the-densities-of-styrofoam%E2%84%A2-brand-extruded-polystyrene-foam-insulation

These are the Dow products. The Owens Corning stuff has similar properties.

http://www.foamular.com/assets/0/144/172/174/068b3c93-7431-43c4-8d43-53e09ea0b584.pdf

A 4x8 1-inch board is 2.67 cubic feet.

[OldEastRR]

But I doubt you will get the modeling community to agree to some standardized set of terms,

Why not? There are standards for wheel flanges, track gauge, coupler heights, and rail dimensions. There are standards for DCC decoders. The are standards for what constitutes late steam, transition era, Amtrak era, modern era. There are even standards to determine what type of benchwork construction. Why not classifications as to weight and portability? I understand you see no reason to personally and that's fine, but if there had been some kind of standardized resource as to ease of construction, types of base, bracing, properties of materials and the like, I wouldn't have had to keep rebuilding layouts every time I discovered a much better way of doing them -- usually a technique or material that had been readily available all along. And was always into model railroading -- I read every source I could find, but still stumbled randomly onto things I hadn't known about.
We have people who nitpick to death rolling stock with too thick door guides or foobie paint schemes, yet this hobby doesn't have some well-known, standardized data source for building layouts. Every book on the subject has the preferences, emphasis. and personal experience of the builder built in. I'm actually tired of having half a RR mag article about somebody's layout being what kind of benchwork, materials, and construction style he used -- I want info on the layout design and considerations about what kind of railroad operations influenced the track design. I could care less if it's a stainless steel arch-beam suspension system or piles of bricks the scenery is sitting on. I could read Carpentry Today for that stuff.
What I'm saying is I think it would be helpful to have some hobby-wide standards, guides, recommendations, about benchwork -- us old geezers who know it all and have tried every technique may not think it practical, but for people starting into the hobby it would be so much better if they didn't have to find out by trial and error, and faultily-built layouts, how to build decent, proven benchwork, once they realize that setting up on the floor or the kitchen table ain't gonna cut it anymore.

[Chris333]

I like the white bead foam myself 

[peteski]

I like the white bead foam myself 

Going by the new nomenclature, is that the static-generating construction method? 

[DKS]

What I'm saying is I think it would be helpful to have some hobby-wide standards, guides, recommendations, about benchwork -- us old geezers who know it all and have tried every technique may not think it practical, but for people starting into the hobby it would be so much better if they didn't have to find out by trial and error, and faultily-built layouts, how to build decent, proven benchwork, once they realize that setting up on the floor or the kitchen table ain't gonna cut it anymore.

You are mixing terminology: standards and recommendations are two very different things. Which is it you mean?

We have already have a number of recommendations for benchwork. Example: Linn Westcott's classic L-girder type, as posted by Bob Gilmore. But that's all they are is recommendations. We have standards for flanges and track and such because they are required for interoperability. But you could build benchwork out of toothpicks and nanofibers, and as long as it's stable and reliably supports the trains, it does not matter. N-Trak has standards to ensure interoperability, but you can still make your module out of anything you like, as long as the overall dimensions and ends are in spec.

People starting out in the hobby have no end of recommendations available to them, in books and online. But many beginners are notorious for thinking they know better, and go off on impractical tangents because they lack practical experience to know what kinds of things will work and what won't. I know, because I have beginners contacting me on a regular basis looking for guidance. I will patiently explain what some of their options are, but invariably only one out of twenty will actually follow recommendations.

I'm actually tired of having half a RR mag article about somebody's layout being what kind of benchwork, materials, and construction style he used... I could read Carpentry Today for that stuff.

I read every source I could find, but still stumbled randomly onto things I hadn't known about.

Well, if you didn't have RR magazine articles that detailed benchwork, how are you going to find out about things you hadn't known? And how are beginners expected to learn about it? You tend to contradict yourself. You can't have it both ways. And you won't find foam-on-steel benchwork described in Carpentry Today.

[LV LOU]

Why not? There are standards for wheel flanges, track gauge, coupler heights, and rail dimensions. There are standards for DCC decoders. The are standards for what constitutes late steam, transition era, Amtrak era, modern era. There are even standards to determine what type of benchwork construction. Why not classifications as to weight and portability? I understand you see no reason to personally and that's fine, but if there had been some kind of standardized resource as to ease of construction, types of base, bracing, properties of materials and the like, I wouldn't have had to keep rebuilding layouts every time I discovered a much better way of doing them -- usually a technique or material that had been readily available all along. And was always into model railroading -- I read every source I could find, but still stumbled randomly onto things I hadn't known about.
We have people who nitpick to death rolling stock with too thick door guides or foobie paint schemes, yet this hobby doesn't have some well-known, standardized data source for building layouts. Every book on the subject has the preferences, emphasis. and personal experience of the builder built in. I'm actually tired of having half a RR mag article about somebody's layout being what kind of benchwork, materials, and construction style he used -- I want info on the layout design and considerations about what kind of railroad operations influenced the track design. I could care less if it's a stainless steel arch-beam suspension system or piles of bricks the scenery is sitting on. I could read Carpentry Today for that stuff.
What I'm saying is I think it would be helpful to have some hobby-wide standards, guides, recommendations, about benchwork -- us old geezers who know it all and have tried every technique may not think it practical, but for people starting into the hobby it would be so much better if they didn't have to find out by trial and error, and faultily-built layouts, how to build decent, proven benchwork, once they realize that setting up on the floor or the kitchen table ain't gonna cut it anymore.

Okay,get to work..Let us know what you come up with...

[SkipGear]

You can suggest, coach, explain, all you want. People will do what they will do.

I talked to a customer on the phone over the weekend asking for suggestions on how to mount track. I asked him what he was building on and he mentioned the evil word "homosote" and that he was building an under bed layout for his grand children. I explained all the problems with homosote (weight, dimentional stabiltity, sagging, etc), the benifits of foam and glue, and at the end of the conversation, he asked if we have track nails and a number bit that matches them to pre drill holes in his track and homosote.

Keep in mind he was still in the planning stages.

These poor kids won't be able to slide the layout out from under the bed by the time he gets done building the base.

Oh yeah, he wanted to know if we had the dreaded Atlas Pier set so he could elevate a second line above the first. Again I cautioned how unstable that setup is and how much more durable (and cheaper) mounting the track on a foam riser would be. In one ear and out the other.

[davefoxx]

Okay,get to work..Let us know what you come up with...

+1.  I think we all can agree that there is no one best way to build benchwork.   Let's move on. 

DFF

[rogergperkins]

I started this topic because I wanted to learn about the type of bench work that people on this forum use under extruded polystyrene foam.
I am open to trying a different approach for my next home layout than my currently layout that has L-girder with 1/2" plywood and 2" extruded polystyrene foam
on the plywood.
There have been several interesting suggestion which unfortunately are buried in all the off-topic discussion about semantics.
I truly want to learn from the experience of others who have been successful in building layout bench work.
Thanks.

[jmlaboda]

Sorry if this has already been mentioned... I haven't the time to go through all of the posts on this subject right now...

The new issue of Model Railroad Hobbyist has a great article about building a layout with aluminum studs, starting on page 52.  It may help some who would be interested in going this route.  The MRH September 2013 issue can be viewed without downloading at the link below...
http://model-railroad-hobbyist.com/

[peteski]

I'm actually tired of having half a RR mag article about somebody's layout being what kind of benchwork, materials, and construction style he used -- I want info on the layout design and considerations about what kind of railroad operations influenced the track design. I could care less if it's a stainless steel arch-beam suspension system or piles of bricks the scenery is sitting on. I could read Carpentry Today for that stuff.

You're joking, right?!
I know that I for one would welcome more details about how the layout is constructed.  Others have similar opinion.  Here is a related excerpt from a letter I sent to the N scale Magazine (which ended up publishing it in the Sept/Oct issue).

... I also find most of the articles featuring model layouts lacking in a similar way. While it is nice to see well-composed photos of the scenery on a layout, I would also love to see photos of other parts of the layouts, very seldom shown. To me, it would be very beneficial and informative to see how the layout's fascia and control panels are constructed. I would even go further and show photos of the the lighting fixtures and for that really "behind the scenes" look, it would be great to even have a look "under the skirt" of the featured layout.  I realize that some layout owners would rather not show such intimate details of their layouts, but I suspect that most owners wouldn't mind showing off at least the fascia or control panels.

I don't think that I'm the only person who would find photos of those technical details as interesting as the scenery.  In the past, I have posted such photos on a online forum, to supplement a magazine article featuring my friend's layout ( http://forum.atlasrr.com/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=52943 ). The forum members applauded me for posting all those "behind the scenes" photos.

BTW, The layout I mentioned uses L-girder construction, with most of the flat track and scenery supporting areas constructed using 1/4 Lauan plywood.  The layout has been around for over 20 years and it still operates as good as it did the 1st time we ran trains.  The track work is close to perfect, and the operations are quite reliable. Many seasoned H0 operators who operate on Ernie's layout often comment about how smoothly trains run on his layout. "Better than many H0 layouts", they say.  The L-girders are also quite lightweight.  I can easily lift the entire leg of the layout from the floor if needed.  Personally, I think that heavy plywood on home layouts (especially in N scale) is an unnecessary overkill.

[robert3985]

You're joking, right?!
I know that I for one would welcome more details about how the layout is constructed.  Others have similar opinion.  Here is a related excerpt from a letter I sent to the N scale Magazine (which ended up publishing it in the Sept/Oct issue).

... I also find most of the articles featuring model layouts lacking in a similar way. While it is nice to see well-composed photos of the scenery on a layout, I would also love to see photos of other parts of the layouts, very seldom shown. To me, it would be very beneficial and informative to see how the layout's fascia and control panels are constructed. I would even go further and show photos of the the lighting fixtures and for that really "behind the scenes" look, it would be great to even have a look "under the skirt" of the featured layout.  I realize that some layout owners would rather not show such intimate details of their layouts, but I suspect that most owners wouldn't mind showing off at least the fascia or control panels.

I don't think that I'm the only person who would find photos of those technical details as interesting as the scenery.  In the past, I have posted such photos on a online forum, to supplement a magazine article featuring my friend's layout ( http://forum.atlasrr.com/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=52943 ). The forum members applauded me for posting all those "behind the scenes" photos.

BTW, The layout I mentioned uses L-girder construction, with most of the flat track and scenery supporting areas constructed using 1/4 Lauan plywood.  The layout has been around for over 20 years and it still operates as good as it did the 1st time we ran trains.  The track work is close to perfect, and the operations are quite reliable. Many seasoned H0 operators who operate on Ernie's layout often comment about how smoothly trains run on his layout. "Better than many H0 layouts", they say.  The L-girders are also quite lightweight.  I can easily lift the entire leg of the layout from the floor if needed.  Personally, I think that heavy plywood on home layouts (especially in N scale) is an unnecessary overkill.

+1

[LV LOU]

 I would think you'd cringe looking under most railroads.To most people I know,benchwork & wiring is just an annoyance that's necessary to get their trains running.And also about as far as they get,LOL!!!

[peteski]

I would think you'd cringe looking under most railroads.To most people I know,benchwork & wiring is just an annoyance that's necessary to get their trains running.And also about as far as they get,LOL!!!

I don't have problem with that: If the layout works, I would like to see how its inner workings are constructed. I don't care how neat or messy it looks.  However, people with a rat's nest of wires under their layout will most likely not be very eager to show that off to others.

[robert3985]

I would think you'd cringe looking under most railroads.To most people I know,benchwork & wiring is just an annoyance that's necessary to get their trains running.And also about as far as they get,LOL!!!

My experience is just the opposite.  Most modelers I associate with take a little effort to organize their wiring and glue and screw their benchwork.  However, most of them are building long-term layouts or modular LDE's of half a dozen modules or more.

Yeah, for sure I've seen sloppy modelers who bang a tabletop module together and nail track down to it and slap a grassmat on either side of the three track mainlines, but they don't last long because the interest isn't there for them...which is manifest by their general disinterest in attempting to achieve any sort of excellence. 

Some of us actually enjoy wiring and benchwork, as well as hand-laying turnouts and track, building prototype scenes (LDE's) and close-to-prototype operation.  Oh, did I forget signaling, train detection, dispatching as well as looking at what other model railroaders have done under their scenery too.

When me and my buddy Gregg Cudworth set up at shows, a lot of fellow model railroaders come over and take a long look at what's underneath as the modules are sitting there on their backs before the integral legs are folded down and locked in place.

I think you're gonna find that a lot of model railroaders here at TRW are very interested in what goes on underneath.