Wet finger in the wind track planning.

@Tom Tee  Thanks for sharing these and the many photos of your work. You take layout building to an entirely new level. Way beyond simple bench work framing and slapping down a chunk of plywood like most of us do.  Do you ever lay roadbed like Westcott does for individual track? Does it make more of a challenge when working with 2 rail scale wheels?   Jeff

I think the reason that few people have benchwork that looks like that is the carpentry skills necessary to pull it off!

@ScoutingDad posted:

.... Do you ever lay roadbed like Westcott does for individual track? ........Does it make more of a challenge when working with 2 rail scale wheels?   Jeff

Split cork over half inch Homasote is used all along the branch line right a way.  However all flex track in towns, yards and stations are laid directly on Homasote that has been skim coated with feather finish Portland patch.  The Homasote is raised to the branch line cork top level so the railhead always runs a true flat.  No dips or bump ups at scene transition points.

Yes two wheels / rail could be more sensitive if you were not careful.

Three rail is very easy to work with considering the deep flanges, large couplers and Talgo trucks.  It takes a real effort to make three rail operation undependable.

Left to right:   branch line connecting grade w/cork on Homasote,   elevated branch line w/cork on Homasote,   station tracks & yard direct on Homasote.

Your bench work has a furniture look; very impressive.

@Tom Tee posted:

  It takes a real effort to make three rail operation undependable.

Don't underestimate how easy it is Tom.......😂😂😂😂😂😂

Bob

@Tranquil Hollow RR posted:

Your bench work has a furniture look; very impressive.

Funny thing bout that, I'm sure Tom could build some impressive furniture if he wanted to.

@Tom Tee  why the portland skim coat over the homasote?  Assuming everything would be landscaped it would not show. I can see a coat of paint to help seal the surface, but doesn't the  portland interfere with laying the cork roadbed down flat?  Of course perhaps you have never seen how unlevel my skim coats can be.

The skim coat is simply to fill the joints between the panels and the screw depressions, I did that to mine as well.  You use a putty knife to smooth the seams and screw holes.  When it dries, then you sand it smooth.  I can assure you, it's quite flat when you're done.

Since the subject is here, I may as well take advantage of the expertise. My bench work is on 16” centers, 2x4s, and the table top is 3/4”  plywood. Next, I plan to partially cover the top with 1” foam board; for scenery purposes. My next thought was to cut homasote for underneath my dual mainlines. Based on information shared here, noise reduction is always a consideration. Will the homasote be overkill? My operation is conventional and tubular track.

Jay, if sound control is a goal using tubular track is your biggest single sound enemy IMO .   In my experience, solid rail over hollow rail would be a larger attenuation than Homasote over foam  as a track base.

The best sound control I found for my three rail trains is running them at a lower speed.

My three rail track is laid over a variety of sub surfaces primarily for first person diagnostic testing.  Running them at typical 3 rail speeds gets noisy.  Running them at reduced speeds cuts the sound down significantly.

Running your trains at a slower speed will effectively also increase the size of your railroad.  Slower speeds could double the time it takes a train to circumnavigate your layout.

In addition to sound another reason I favor Homasote is it's attachment capability.  Whether it be small screws, tacks, or track spikes Homaote is easier than plywood to sink a fastener and way more secure than foam.    With foam one usually needs to use an adhesive.

Homasote is especially helpful with flex track.  Installation of flex track frequently involve massaging it into position with occasional tweaking as a final process all along the right of way.   Pulling and resetting fasteners is easy with Homasote.

Another favorable aspect with Homasote is that as you wrap up a job it is easy to patch in scrap in odd shaped voids.  Working primarily with curved modules I am always creating unusual shaped scraps and voids.  No problem.

I will say, the Homasote makes a huge difference over plain plywood.  I have the contrast, my elevated section does not have Homasote on it, and the difference between that and the main level is obvious!.  I've started putting butyl rubber sound deadening sheets under the elevated level, that really does cut down the sound a bunch.  The Homasote works perfectly with the Gargraves track screws, and the track is very securely held in place without putting the screw into the plywood base.

FWIW I read somewhere, maybe here, that 12 x 12 ceiling tiles worked well as a noise abatement technique.  Since they are smaller and easier to handle they might be a viable alternate if homasote isn't available.  As far as benchwork is concerned I subscribe to the method put forth by a former forum member, it needs to hold up the layout, esthetics are not required as it will be covered with scenery and some form of skirting.  I also never climb on the layout, that is the cat's job.

Thank you Tom I appreciate your insights as they are consistently on target. At this point I have to stay with the tubular track. That was part of my consideration when going with the 16” centers and overly built bench work. But, some of the noise is part of the fun. Thanks again.

I agree mostly on the distinctive 3 rail nuances.  It's just at this point in life my ears find elevated sounds very harsh and annoying.  Large 3 rail layouts literally drive me out of the building with multiple trains running at traditional speeds.  Plus, I have worked on so many 3 rail layouts that I find the visual center rail concern fading.  To me it's the fun factor which I enjoy much more than rivet population.

On the flip side the nostalgic value of 3 rail trains provides that step back in time that I find enjoyable.  Most of my scale 2 rail friends have at least one PW Lionel train or locomotive from their youth on display.

Do not have a favorite here.  I enjoy both my 2 & 3 rail trains.  Just wish I had more room to expand the 3 rail portion.  Have  got three 3 rail loop to loop & point to point runs operating and one more area where I can hang a forth 3 rail on the wall covering the drain pipe running between window wells.  Going to have to move my wake back a few more years, I need more building time.  Hope my wife's next husband likes trains. 

@Tom Tee posted:

Hope my wife's next husband likes trains. 

@Tom Tee posted:

  It takes a real effort to make three rail operation undependable.

@RSJB18 posted:

Don't underestimate how easy it is Tom.......😂😂😂😂😂😂

Bob

Had Rayman do a BOILER board for my RK Imperial ps3 C&O  Allegheny for me that worked perfectly .

  Had an issue with my Lionel tubular track 7 foot test oval that I believe blew the TENDER board.  (  one of the components bubbled up. )

Banged my head against the proverbial wall for a while trying to figure out what happened 😨.          I've run  dozens of engines from 0-6-0 s to  Challengers on this track before with zero issues.       

I tore almost all of the test track apart after I found  continuity between  ALL THREE RAILS .        It turns out that one cuved section was the culprit with a center rail insulator that no longer did its job.   AARGH

Most of my tunnels are removable.  Here is a view of a small toy tunnel which is held in position with a pair of recessed  square brass dowels.

I fabricate a plywood shell for structural integrity then foam it, carve it then wrap it in plaster cloth.  Here it what it looks like at birth, turned upside down with it's bottom being spanked.  The portals are a part of the framework.

@Tom Tee posted:

  Here it what it looks like at birth, turned upside down with it's bottom being spanked.

Do you always do that to your tunnel's bottom?

Well, the good news is that a definitive study of roadbed noise was conducted by MR magazine. The bad news is that they did it in 1954!--long before our modern materials were available. In 1954 they found that a "noiseless roadbed" could be made with 4 layers 1) a wood support base of 1x2 or 1x3 risers spaced every 18 inches, 2) 1/2 inch "cellotex" (is this the same as homosote?) 3) 1/8 inch plywood and 4) cork on top. They suggest gluing the whole sandwich together at every level. Using this sandwich on top of spaced risers, they say, "noise is practically eliminated". This study was published in February 1954 MR in an article by George Allen under the title "Get Dat Ol' Devil--NOISE".

If you don't like using spaced risers, they suggest 1/2 inch plywood, with cellotex UNDERNEATH the plywood layer to try to eliminate the "sound board" effect of a plywood tabletop. They report "results are astonishing. Noise is dampened to a remarkable degree."

I have tried using sheets of extruded foam underneath the wood layer to dampen the sound with mixed results. I bet cellotex/homosote would work better.

The quest continues...

Don Merz

The butyl rubber adhesive backed sound deadening sheets used for car noise suppression works pretty well on suspended plywood, I'm doing that to my elevated sections.  The difference where I've installed it and where I haven't is quite remarkable.

John,

Are you screwing the track down through the roadbed to the plywood?

@Tranquil Hollow RR posted:

Since the subject is here, I may as well take advantage of the expertise. My bench work is on 16” centers, 2x4s, and the table top is 3/4”  plywood. Next, I plan to partially cover the top with 1” foam board; for scenery purposes. My next thought was to cut homasote for underneath my dual mainlines. Based on information shared here, noise reduction is always a consideration. Will the homasote be overkill? My operation is conventional and tubular track.

Plywood table covered with a topper of either foam or Homasote (your choice) is fine.

From there, if I was going to install a roadbed underneath the trackage to try and further reduce noise, I would use either a rubber style (like flexxbed) or a foam roadbed. I have used the foam (available on the "bay") and am very satisfied with it under my Fastrack. 

I wonder is spraying expansion foam insulation to the underside of the board would have any impact on noise transmission?  It certainly is inexpensive and works well on top for scenery forms.

Necrails, that would probably help but you have to take into consideration the wiring and any future modifications.

Jay that certainly is a concern although once wired i would think it might be ok.  It is also easy to penetrate.  I am in the process of building out a platform for a return loop and roundhouse.  Am following the material and noise discussion with much interest.  I have sufficient material on hand for legs and joists but table top and size of this will likely create a challenge for both material and noise.  Im not a big fan of 3 rail train noise so any new info is welcome.  I might try the foam but the limitation will be the volume in each can.

Foam.

Cost per rattle can to yield can get out of hand.   I bury spray foam cutoff &  sheet foam trimmings of the previous job into the core  of the next job to control expense.   My large removeable mountains are hollow.

On a large job earlier I purchased a two part contractors pack which I shot myself.

There were 3 very large jobs where for each one I brought in foam contractors who laid out an enormous quantity of foam.  They used a 40:1 expansion  rate "iso" product which expanded fast !!