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

[LV LOU]

Well said.   But there's another corollary to that one as well....

If the only reason the railroad was torn down was because the railroad couldn't be moved.... it's not state of the art benchwork either.  I haven't always had lots of reasons to line up on Robert3985's side of the field, but I sure willl there.  My first HCD layout (which made RMC) had to be torn down because while the door barely made it in the room on edge, the layout was never leaving that way - it had to be destroyed.  So the current ATSF layout was designed as six bolt-up modules, with no module wider than 27" and longer than 48", pretty much looking like his design.   It could fit through a door upright, on its legs.  And that was '83.  And it survived three moves to three states since.    I'll tear it down when I want to, not when I have to.

Now mind you - that battleship construction is also why a layout can live long enough to have problems like legacy track!

Another thing you'll run into on stand-alone layouts built to the 52" height is the distinct potential that you can cause significant damage by falling/leaning into them or, into the case of a duckunder, coming up too soon.  I deliberately designed my modules to function as shelving under the layout, for books and materials.  She ain't moving with all that weight on it.  If you come up too soon in the duckunder, you'll take a lot more damage than the layout.

My last railroad was kind of designed to be move.It was in twp pieces,or at least,could be divided into two,the intention being that one piece was going to be tossed.I moved it to my new house,decided that it was better to just design new,and start over..I stripped off anything I could used,the foam went into my new mountains..

[DKS]

If the only reason the railroad was torn down was because the railroad couldn't be moved.... it's not state of the art benchwork either.

I'd have to disagree with this assertion. Where in the definition of "state of the art benchwork" does portability factor in as a must-have? This is more of a personal choice than an across-the-board decree, IMO.

My all-foam WR&N was designed to be split into two and walked out of the room. Each leg was no wider than the door, and being foam, I could easily carry it by myself. But... what good is a movable layout if the new space cannot accommodate it? The next living space I had after the WR&N was a two-room apartment.

Designing for portability may mean you're not taking best advantage of the space you have at the time. That's a personal choice, of course, but my preference is to make best use of the space (and also to be as kind to my bad back as I can--which means no L-girders and 2x4s). I'd much rather design a layout to suit a space and then have to start over after the next move, rather than squander available room just so it might fit into other spaces easier. Furthermore, I always see rebuilding as an opportunity for improvement and learning.

To further chip away at the "build it like a tank" approach, let's have a look at a certain Juniata Division. How many moves, Dave? Plus how many shows? And it's just a plain old HCD with folding legs. 'Nuf said.

[ednadolski]

I'd have to disagree with this assertion. Where in the definition of "state of the art benchwork" does portability factor in as a must-have?

Seems to me like a predicate of the assertion - if the layout has to be torn down because it cannot be moved intact, then portability is a requirement (even if it might not have been a requirement when the layout was designed and built).

"State of the Art" is a semantic distinction, but it is a different question from whether or not the benchwork meets the needs & requirements of its builder.


Ed

[C855B]

... I watched a lot of nice layouts literally fall apart over the years, many which relied on homasote roadbed.  Now there's something you won't see much of anymore, and for good reason. ...

Oh, really? Tell that to the anachronist who runs a train shop here in southern Illinois. He's die-hard about his Homasote, to the exclusion of anything else. He won't even talk to you about layout construction unless you're drinking the same 50-year-old Homasote punch. I don't where he gets his supply, because the Big Boxes here don't carry it... like you said, for good reason.

[rogergperkins]

For those who like to argue, I will restate what I was trying to learn with my initial post.
I wanted to determine what material people are using for benchwork under extruded polystyrene foam n-scale layouts.
If anyone has elected to read their own meaning into my question, fine.

I built my first home layout in 1975 and between then and 2005, I rebuilt and move the layout 4 times in MN and each time I made changes based
on what I learned.  I was not asking about portability because even at my age and professional level, I know that moving can and will happen.
 
So let your off track debate continue; it is NOT relevant to my initial question.

PS: HOMASOTE IS THE MOST OVERRATED MATERIAL as a "universal" base for model railroad.  It did not meet my expectations in MN for a basement layout.  I scraped it when I rebuilt when we moved to a new home.

[randgust]

Well, in my case the overall layout assembles out to 8' x 5'6".   That fits into about any small bedroom or basement area, but if it were a solid piece of anything, it would be impossible. 

That HCD I had seemed like a great idea until I had to put it on edge.  It sorta slid apart like a pizza at a panic stop on the way home.   I think if you DESIGN for that (sideways out) you're OK, taking appropriate structural measures.

No you may decide to start over.  But do you want to eliminate that decision from the very start?    Well, there goes the layout....   I really enjoy scratchbuilding and high detail scenes - DKS stuff (credit) and it takes a long, long time to get there.   We all took a hit when UPS killed your module, you certainly took it well, but that was painful to watch.    If had to move and start over, without choice?   Overwhelming at this point, probably would sell out.    My bigger layout is ANYTHING but portable, but it was designed from the start so that the roadbed wasn't glued across table lines, scenery is thin break-out at modules, even the backdrops are cut at the joints.   

[rogergperkins]

IN 38 years of having a home n-scale layout, I have learned:1
1. I like a flat, zero grade surface.
2. I like to be able to revise the track plan with no change in the base material or bench work.
3. I enjoy detail scenery work and building kits or scratch building.
4. I build for portability.

[DKS]

For those who like to argue, I will restate what I was trying to learn with my initial post.
I wanted to determine what material people are using for benchwork under extruded polystyrene foam n-scale layouts.
If anyone has elected to read their own meaning into my question, fine.

I built my first home layout in 1975 and between then and 2005, I rebuilt and move the layout 4 times in MN and each time I made changes based
on what I learned.  I was not asking about portability because even at my age and professional level, I know that moving can and will happen.
 
So let your off track debate continue; it is NOT relevant to my initial question.

I think people are likely responding to your subject line, What is the 2013 state of the art for n-scale bench work? To be honest, I don't see a direct correlation between this and wanting to determine what material people are using for benchwork under extruded polystyrene foam n-scale layouts. So, as I see it, the debate has been more or less on topic all along. Had the subject line been, say, How do people support extruded foam for layouts?, there might not have been such a wide-ranging series of responses.

[ArtinCA]

Okay, I'll throw my 2 cents in.

I'm going to start my 6th layout shortly. I've built with L girders, cookie cutter and others, using regular wood and cabinet plywood. The most solid was the last layout with cabinet ply. Rock solid, with the door to the hobby room open to the outside in all sorts of weather.

But, I don't have a table saw now, so back to dim lumber. And I'm now in Iowa, so rigid foam is something I can find, unlike CA. So for this go around, dim lumber legs supporting HCD and foam base. Legs and door will be stained, to control expansion. Paint would be good, but Ebony stain will work as well and look better with the wood floors.

Between the Juniata Division and David P's New Haven layout, I think it would be safe to say HCD design would be pretty close to "state of the art" design. But like everything thing else Roger, it depends who you ask.

[robert3985]

It is. I have a 6-ton truck that could safely drive over that. 

HA HA HA HA.......you're soooo funny 

[robert3985]

Wow..You ain't kidding..To me,that's way overkill for G Scale..Well,to each his own...

Thinking that a larger scale needs sturdier benchwork is wrong-thinking.  Benchwork's purpose is to provide a stable platform upon which to build your trackage so that over time, and maybe during transporting it, your tracks will stay aligned so your trains will run reliably on them. 

So, lets say you construct spindly ultra lightweight benchwork for your N-scale layout and it warps enough to misalign a couple of rail joints by 1/8".  Oops!!  Your N-scale trains are gonna stop...badly.  Too bad about that substandard benchwork! 

Okay, take the same benchwork for a G scale layout.  The same warpage happens and misaligns some G scale rail joints by 1/8"...Whaddya know!...The trains just keep rolling along, clickety-clacking over those misalignments with only minor wobbles.  Maybe this benchwork is okay for G scale...

What does this mean?  It means that the tolerances for reliable running in the smaller scales are much tighter than for larger scales...which means that stable benchwork is essential for reliable operation in N-scale...especially when applied to portable, sectional or modular layouts...and even more so if you're hand-laying code 40 track....which I do.

If you don't move your layout, then you can get away with more spindly, wobbly benchwork which can be screwed to wall studs to keep it upright.

However, as I state over and over, my layout goes to two or three shows most years, and spends way too much time in a U-Haul trailer or the back of my Suburban for several hundred miles.  When I pull my sections out of the trailer and set-em up, they match up perfectly...because they're built from quality materials, glued and screwed joints, they're square and, they're overbuilt.

Even being overbuilt, I can still set them up all by my lonesome after the shows in my train room, so they're obviously not "battleships"....more like Sopwith Camels.

Yeah, I understand your remark was supposed to be funny, but as you say "Well, to each his own..."

[tom mann]

State of the art benchwork to me is aluminum square tubing and wire mesh. 

[rogergperkins]

I do seem to recall seeing an article where the person used metal studs the equivalent of a 2x4" x 8' stud used in construction for benchwork framing.

[DKS]

I do seem to recall seeing an article where the person used metal studs the equivalent of a 2x4" x 8' stud used in construction for benchwork framing.

The article is not mine, but it's quite close to what I've done (and given an opportunity to build a large layout again, how I'd do it in the future). Here is a graphic representation of the benchwork I'd assembled:



The shelf brackets are screwed into studs. The steel frame is assembled separately, then attached to the shelf brackets by bolting the cross members to them. Then the foam insulation is attached to the steel frame with Liquid Nails. It's very strong, very lightweight, goes together quickly, and requires only a pair of tin snips and a drill driver for tools.

Obviously it's not suitable as a design for stand-alone benchwork, but it could be tweaked to work with a conventional leg system.

Incidentally, there is considerably more information on benchwork in this thread: https://www.therailwire.net/forum/index.php?topic=15948.0

[SkipGear]

Entertrainment Junction is completely metal stud construction, mandated by the local firemarshal. They started initially with standard stud construction and had redo it at the first inspection. This is of course at a large public venue with paying customers but it is one of the benifits of metal studs.

As far as Roberts comment about building strong enough that the layout survives transport...that's fine if the layout is planned as portable. My Ntrak modules are built for transport. My home layout is not. It is built in sections with the idea that it will be easier to take down and move should the need arrise but it is not built for repeated moves.

The benchwork required to support a an 8oz locomotive and a couple dozzen 2-3 oz cars is not the same as what is needed to support a 15lb O scale Big Boy. Benchwork can be built according to the application. There is no need to build a layout that doubles as a tornado shelter when working with N.