What are the pros and cons of L-girder benchwork

Well sir, I'm no expert on it, having built only one layout that way many years ago.  But the big thing to me was the flexibility it gave me afterwards, i.e., with scenery and, as you mention, grades.  It was nice; I think it's a great idea.  Having said that, it was a lot of work and did require more wood.  Maybe it's just that it's more upfront work to make it easier later on.

so your saying it's "main" benefit is ease of changing things later on down the road which as Flash said always has a way of happening.

That, plus I'm not one who can plan a whole layout in the beginning.  It kind of evolves in the initial construction.

I think it depends on the kind of layout you’re planning, layout size and also your near and long term plans as to where you're going to be living. 

In my case, I used L-girder construction supporting ½” plywood sub-roadbed with ¼” Homasote under the track, but I have a roughly 18’ x 25’ lower case “g” shaped layout with a lot of elevation changes and my landscape has a lot of hills, valleys, timber trestles and bridges over gorges, etc. Also, at the time I started this money pit layout (about 10 years ago) 1x2’s & 4’s, which is the basis of the L-girder, and 1x3’s (the cross-pieces) were cheaper than 2x4’s. I don’t think that’s the case today. You do save on plywood though, that’s for sure, since you only need plywood underneath the track and from what I’ve seen on my excursions to Home Depot plywood has significantly increased in price. (Also, there is no such thing any longer as ¼” Homasote, only ½”.)

Still, if I was starting over, I would not do L-girder. I would build a series of connected tables out of 2x4’s and plywood (or maybe extruded foam instead) that if I needed to, I could take apart and transport to a new home, if and when I ever moved. Right now, if I were to sell my house, pretty much all of my layout would need to be demolished, something I don’t even want to think about.

It's strong. You can work laying on it. Also I leave large and small gaps so I can put cuts and canyons in the layout. Some of my layout doesn't look at all like a flat table top layout. Yards and towns are generally on table top type areas. The table top part is made with 2x4s. Canyons and areas that will never be walked on are 1x4. Everything is screwed not nailed so I can change things as I go. Don

How about this for a novel idea...instead of soliciting opinions from people who may or may not know their L-Girders from First Base, why not read what the man who invented the concept might have to say. Hey, you might actually learn something.

"How to Build Model Railroad Benchwork", 2nd ED, 1996

Linn H. Westcott

Kalmbach Publishing

SkyHook, I agree with you that he should get the book, but I doubt that he will get many negatives on L-Girder Technique from the guy who designed it and is promoting it. And I also believe that we who did do L-Girder construction will know some of the positives and some of the negatives after actually doing it. I do not think his soliciting is wrong at all. 

Rick

Well....first of all what is L girder benchwork??Can we see some pics?Nick

The primary advantage of L girder on my layout is that it is very strong.  This means fewer support legs and more room under the layout.  This allows easier access for wiring and to do work below the table top.  It also gives more space to store stuff such as boxes under the layout.

In contrast to L girder, check out Jim Barrett's article in the current issue of OGR (Run 269).  You will see many cross braces and many legs using standard girder construction.    

On my layout I have one run with 10 feet between the legs.  I can stand on the L girder and it won't bend.

Joe

I should have mentioned that I did buy the book (still have it), followed it almost to the letter and my bench-work turned out great. Eric Siegel (of ericstrains.com) uses the plywood table supported by 2x4's method and his results are spectacular, but he doesn't have a lot of elevation changes. So as I said originally, it depends on the type of layout that's being planned. IMO, for a multilevel layout with many grades and elevation changes, you save on material (specifically plywood) with L-Girder open bench-work.

Eric is also a member of the North Atlanta O-Gauge Railroad Club and helped to build the club layout which is all L-girder work. It has a lot of grades and mountain regions so he learned from some of the best model railroaders there are. Here are a couple of pictures of the early stages of the club layout prior to Eric starting his fabulous layout:

L-Girder Benchwork? All pros. No Cons. No question.

By FAR the easiest and best way to build model railroad benchwork.

Can this be happening?  We agree on something else?  The second time in a month!   

Seriously though... For those who aren't familiar with it, the big advantage is you're not limited to fixed-sized cross joists.  With the more traditional methods, the joists need to all fit IN BETWEEN the long, lengthwise beams.  With L-girders, the cross joists sit ON TOP OF the inverted "l-girders", which allows for very irregular layout shapes and aisles of varying widths.

Can't really think of any negatives, per se.

David

well said

https://ogrforum.com/t...ayout-9-x-18-started

https://ogrforum.com/t...ated-track-plan-4113

And here's an L-girder variation using 2x4's:

https://ogrforum.com/t.../starting-new-layout

The point is that using L-girders, 2x4s or something else for frame rails doesn't hinder what kind of benchwork you can build or the ultimate shape of your layout. While some folks construct standard-shaped grids where cross-members fit between the rails (like I did for my Christmas layout), they/I could just as easily have constructed the frame and placed the cross-members (joists) on the top of the frame. L-girders generally cost more and require more work, but they are stronger/lighter and allow you to attach joists from below. I simply didn't want to go through the expense and trouble for a temporary Christmas layout.

And, some folks in this thread seem to be confusing L-girder and open grid. The "L" is simply a frame rail, nothing more, and doesn't negate using a plywood tabletop, open grid or combination of both for the actual benchwork that sits on top of the frame, or using a modular approach.

Look, my friend, I don't mean to be condescending, but you have no idea what you are talking about. The "L" in L Girder is not simply a frame rail. When added to a 1X4 it will impart tremendous bending resistance similar to the force multiplication in a steel I-Beam. This allows much longer distances of "clear span" without the necessity of vertical support legs everywhere.

Secondly, the use of open frame construction, on top of L-Girder is beyond ridiculous, for the simple reason that you are now negating the the benefits of the L-Girder construction, including but not limited to topological adjustments such as river and valley construction not permitted or easily achieved by Open Frame Construction.

You are free to disagree with what I have said, but you will be wrong and I would invite anyone here with proper knowledge of L-Girder construction to critique my analysis. JMHO, as usual.

Dave thanks for bringing this up.  L-girder is just one of the many terms that are used incorrectly on this forum.  Back in the day we simply used "flat top" or "open grid" when referring to our bench work.  Heck most of the time we just said "platform" since there wasn't any grid work going on in our basements back in the 50's.

Dewey:

This cover is just an illustration of all construction methods in one snapshot. When you take the time to drill down into Westcott's numbers you see the clear span distances that are available to the skilled layout builder. Thanks for the response.

You do NOT have to use L Girder to do open grid benchwork. Scenery flexibility and risers for grades are not dependent on L Girder construction nor is L Girder always the best way to accomplish the task. NEVER choose your railroad to fit your construction technique. In the photos below you can see multiple techniques were used depending on the terrain, trackwork, structures, grades, etc. There is no need at all to use only one type of construction. As a matter of fact, using one type of construction can sometimes make the job less effective. I call some of my construction "Flat Girder" LOL.

Always choose your construction technique to fit the railroad !!!

Scrapiron, I would not like to be the one having to get underneath this mess to do necessary wiring and other chores. No, I'm afraid you are simply making my point that maximum clear span along with minimizing vertical support makes for the elegant solution to layout construction. Good try, however.

SkyHookDepot,

Everything in layout building is a trade off. Nothing is perfect.

I weigh 1/2 a hippopotamus so everything got extra bracing, two by fours,

and oak where necessary.

For the wiring, I hire munchkins.

On those occasions when the Munchkins are not available, a hippo can actually make it through . . . . . LOL

Ohhhhhhhhhh, I forgot.

Everything on the layout is modular so it can actually be taken apart piece by piece.

That is the biggest reason there is so much cross bracing.

I did not treat Westcott's book as a recipe, but rather as a source for good ideas.  The two primary ones I used were

1)  Adding a 1 x 2 flange to a standard 1 x 4 makes for a very strong girder, capable of spanning long distances. This minimizes the number of vertical legs, and thereby provides a cleaner look, as well as ready access underneath (SkyHookDepot's point)

2) Leaving the cross members open from underneath, allows ready and continual access to risers so you can put in whatever scenery and/or track contours you want.

On my layout, the longitudinal members are L girders, made of two 1 x 4 boards screwed together, and a 1 x 3 flange at the lower edge.  The flange makes them look like an "L" in cross section (Westcott's name, not mine) They are installed with the short leg of the "L" down, and the short leg facing inward.

The cross members are single thickness 1 x 4 boards, with the flange both glued and screwed edge on into the board. Thus their width is still the same as a nominal 1 x 4.  These are mounted with the short leg of the "L" up, and they rest on the flange on the long stringers.  They are screwed in place from the bottom, and the edge.  Thus the flange on the cross members are flush the top of the bench.  You can now do anything you want.  For the flat areas (yards, etc) simply screw through the bottom of the cross member flange into the plywood sheet. For risers. screw them to the opposite side of the joists.  This has proven, for me, to be structurally stiff system that could easily accommodate all my layout changes

Incidentally, the spans you see on either side are about 12 feet long.  The far span is about five feet

Scrapiron, I think we all agree nothing is perfect, however, if you can demonstrate to me the downside of L-Girder construction, or show me where any other construction method is ever needed I'm a listener, believe me. I always want to learn.

Dewey:

Sorry about that.

I have a similar setup where I used knee bracing along the wall tied directly into the house structure to support the L-girder. No vertical legs at all. I try to find a photo.

Then it's pretty simple, don't be condescending. It's one thing to question my terminology and quite another to be offensive.

The L-girder system consists of a frame assembly (made of rails, legs, and braces) and joists (sitting on top of the frame assembly). The "L" part is just a rail in the frame, nothing more. It is comprised of a 1x2 attached to the top of a 1x4. The "L" is NOT just the 1x2. AS I SAID, the "L" is then stronger, straighter, more resistant to warping/sagging over longer distances, etc., than 2x4s and other materials, but it is still "just a rail", so I don't know what you're problem is. If you still want to disagree, so be it, I won't lose any sleep.

The joists that go on top of the L's are what I was referring to as an "open grid", for lack of knowing a better term. I wasn't referring to the alternate table-like system of rails, cross-members and legs that you apparently think I was. While the term might have been incorrect/misleading, the photos in the links fully illustrate what I was referring to. It would indeed negate the benefits to put a table-like grid on top of the L-girder joists, so at least we agree on that part. It would have been nice though if you had simply questioned my terminology vs calling me ridiculous.

So what I gather here is that the layout plan is the most important starting point for me to choose which method I will use. I see that most of the awesome layouts on here use l-girder bench work. Scher that's a nice approach. I also like the modular idea. Daz great insight with those links. Thank you all for your answers I have to look further into this Wescotts book it maybe a good idea to help me along.  I think I want to do this just because I have built 5 nice layouts using a regular flat top bench and I want to try something different. all my other layouts were 4x8 or 5x10 and this one will be around 17 x 10 so I feel it should be stronger. All I have ever used on my tables werE 1x4s 1x6s with 5/8 sheetrock and 2 inch foam on top unbelievably quiet and easy to work with and it always worked well for me. Again thanks for all the great responses. 

For what it's worth Daz, I understood your terminology compleatly. That's why I have been on these boards for years but don't post much, just lurk and pick up what I can. Thanks again and have a great day

I see those benefits Rick scenery look eaiser to and think this is the route I will choose. plus if Rich says it's the only way then who am I to argue. (Lol)

L-girder can be more expensive, take more work to cut/assemble and is taller than an open-grid frame by 4" (assuming 1x4s are used for both). As far as another method being "needed", I don't see where anyone has said that. All anyone has said is that L-girder is not "always" needed and that contrary to some comments, there ARE cons, even though they may be outweighed by the pros. While I admire Linn Westcott for his work, it was mostly (all?) in HO scale many years ago and, as Jim Barrett has shown/said, the benefits of L-girder might not be needed for O scale, today.

My layout is a perfect example. It's a irregular-shaped 12x13 horseshoe where the length advantage of L-girder won't be useful because there will still be legs in specific places regardless of what kind of framework I use. I may still use L-girder though because I like the idea of being able to screw the plywood for the yards and other sections from underneath. The sub-roadbed will be a combination of plywood tabletop and risers, but as I've shown in my links, I can do that with benchwork other than L-girder. I'll weigh the pros and cons and make a decision, which is what the OP is trying to do.

Thank you for saying so. I truly appreciate it. Good luck with your decision!

No offense meant. I just called it the way I saw it and I was correct in my assessment because words are important if you want people to understand what you are trying to say. You were never called ridiculous-the use of open frame over L was called ridiculous, which it is. I weighed my words, and I stand by them. Thanks for the response.

I take it you had the 2" foam on top of the sheetrock on top of a 1x4/1x6 table frame. How did you attach the track to the foam? What kind of track?

Maybe not, but it sure sounded like it to me for someone who says words are important ("not to be condescending, but you don't know what you are talking about" is not offensive?). Anyway, the OP (and others) understood me and that's all I care about.

The OP knows nothing, as he said. You don't understand the terminology, as you said. But you are advising the OP. Then you claim the OP, who knows nothing, understands what you, who know little more, are saying. What you should care about is not offering advice to others in areas where you have little or no expertise. There is enough of that going on around here.

Thanks, Nick. I'll be the first to admit I don't know all the proper terms and that's why I tend to be verbose trying to explain what I mean. To me, the joists in L-girder look like an open grid "on top of a frame" as opposed to an open grid "being part of the frame". Having used an open grid frame, I do see the advantage to the joist method vs a checkerboard.

LOL!! It must be the cold. It's messing with my mind.

From some of the responses in this thread, I think there is a fundamental mis-understanding of just exactly what L-Girder really is. It is MUCH easier to build than the open grid method, and stronger, too. Hmmm...maybe someone should write an article for the magazine. Dave...since we agree on this, are you up to the task?