PROS/CONS OF DIFFERENT STYLES OF BENCHWORK

Having the layers interconnected will be difficult due to the size of the layout. I would suggest a wedding cake style which starts with the solid deck on grid framing.

The cut out the 2nd level from the center of 1st level deck and elevate it and finally cut the third, if that happens from the center of the 2nd level.

Shape the cutouts to avoid stacked rectangles (perhaps a kidney shape) and use scenery, like rocks or walls to make the sides of the layers and the transition not so visually vertical.

5 rail track may provide one layer for operating both scales.

The layers made cookie-cutter style provide a natural hole to create access hatches.

I think this works well for the "toy" look of STD gauge and perhaps a toy or semi-toy look for O.

Switches could be for a passing siding or crossing through the center tunneled. STD looks better with a passing siding to my eye.

Thanks Carl,

I do a large cake layer style for our holiday display, and was hoping to do something different in this permanent bedroom layout. To your point, I may not have a choice, and never doing the other style was not sure what to expect?

JoeG

Trainlover160 posted:

I am torn between designing bench work that has a solid surface top, as opposed to wood risers with plywood runners under track. I am looking at a size of 12'4" x7'6", and am wanting a 2-3 level track plan with both o and std Gargraves loops with maybe one or two switches.

One drawback is 3 sides of it are between walls. This being said I will need to incorporate some way get to the center from underneath. Also not sure which still of bench work work allow easier installation of scenery. 

What has worked nest for You?

JoeG

A lot would depend on the overall configuration with the track plan and the desired scenic treatments. Sometimes a combination of different methods works well on a larger layout: flat table for yards, open grid for hilly scenery, with a frame designed to accommodate both. Also depends to some extent on how 'permanent' you expect the layout to be.

A flat top layout is easier to lay out tracks to perfect fits and alignments, then risers for grades can be positioned anywhere. If the layout has low track density and more scenery, open grid framework makes more sense except for flat terrain

I agree with Ace. I would design the layout first and then decide what style of bench work to use. Carl brings up some very good points regarding the size of the space you have to work with. Rising 6"-6.5" for over/under clearance takes a lot of space and you might find it difficult to connect multiple levels in your limited 7.5'x12' space. Designing separate levels wedding cake style to overlap each other in places can give you the appearance of connected levels without the difficulty of trying to configure reasonable grades to actually connect them. If you don't have design software, I recommend you download SCARM and learn how to use it. Start with simply offset ovals and connect them to see what the grades would be.

Here's an example of different grades using O72/O63 GarGraves. As you can see, it is possible to get grades of 1.7%, 2.3% and 2.9% (left number should be 2.9 not 2.3). However, that's with just one overpass and very limited track. Of course, using tighter curves would give you more options.

If you used cut sub- roadbed and elevated opposite ends of two ovals, it may provide an interesting look, rather than horizontal layers.

4 inch rise, 2.2 grade, opposite ends

All,

I probably did not give everyone enough info in the original post. My plan (fingers crossed) is to do something similar to Tom Snyder's Layout. It would be std Tinplate mixed with O gauge all on Gargraves track with the scenery look from high rail. Also would want to run my die-cast steamer trains.

The seperate levels would not be overlapping, but seperate loops.

I want to incorporate the following:

Hellgate, Mth Brewery, Lionel 115 station, tin freight sheds, Nuclear Reactor, and MTH buildings on 3rd level for a Skyscraper look.

On the bottom level was thinking 1ea 0-72 loop in STD and another 0-72 Loop in O

For the second level was hoping for an 0-54 or 0-60 loop in O, and 42 in std

Hope this helps,

JoeG

What worked here was a open grid frame made of  1" x 4" pine.  As it sits in a high humidity basement no particle board or Masonite was used. Those deteriorate with humidity.  Open grid seems to offer the most flexibility  as you can put plywood down where you have a town or yard or easily build mountains, rivers and valleys.

IMHO, open grid is most useful when you want multiple elevations throughout much of the layout. The biggest pro is that you can do everything using open grid whereas solid surface often limits your options, at least without more work. So it really does depend on your design. It's like selecting what brand of track to use. They all offer different curve radius, so again, it depends on your design. I convert most of my designs to at least 3 different track brands mostly because I don't have to luxury of using large radius curves and there is a big different between O31, O36, O42 and O45. I think picking bench work style before you have a design is like putting the cart before the horse, though it is important to understand the differences between the styles during the design process. I intend to use a combination. My dual main runs, co-mingled reversing loops and staging yard will be mostly on solid surfaces while the grades/elevations will be on open grids.

I attempted grades (and therefore cookie-cutter roadbed) on my 18.5' x 10' PRR Panhandle.  Originally, I wanted to use "snappers" (Pennsy term for a pusher or helper), but I didn't have enough real-estate.  The cookie cutter sub-roadbed was a true PITA, especially since I used plywood that was too thin (11/32").  Many extra supports were needed.

With your size of layout, you will need access hatches in the middle to reach track on the far wall.  Make sure they are large enough (I'm not getting any smaller, that's for sure. ).

I would emphasize some of the previous advice:  design the layout, then the benchwork.

Best of luck.

George

Thanks everyone, Thanks for the advice/suggestions. This is a different approach of what we are used to doing for the seasonal displays. Especially since this will be permanent. I have a lot to think about now.

JoeG

I'm guilty of over-thinking because I've had so much time to wait for space to open up and I still haven't decided. One thing that hasn't been suggested is to do a google search for "l-girder benchwork". You'll see links to threads here and also to You Tube videos that might give you some useful hands-on information.

Joe, I'm currently working on a permanent holiday layout for my wife to display her Bedford Falls collection of buildings. It will have 3 levels. The bottom level will have 2 simple (but connected) ovals for 2 trains. The middle level will have a crisscrossing run with some tunnels for a single train. The top level will be for display only. I intend to use open bench work for the bottom level because I don't want it to be sandwiched beneath the middle level with restricted access. The middle level will by a solid surface with removable tunnels, etc., to provide access. The top level will be modular so it too can be removed if needed.