Dear MRH team,

On page 22 of the latest Feb 2011 issue, a modeller asks a question which is significantly common to many modellers,

"I have next to no woodworking abilities, what's the best way to build my benchwork?"

Now, I take from the question that the inquirier has the _want_ to build a layout,
and also has the foresight to assess their abilities, and "know their limits" ahead of time.
(points for that, as opposed to the modeller who "bites off more than they can chew" on their first layout,
due to _not_ taking heed of their own limits...
and the potential failure and dis-appointment that may follow)

Fighting off the instinctive reaction that Jeff Shultz's "...Find someone to do it for you..." lead-in response was bordering on flippant,
(it may have been an attempt at humor, I get that, but humor often doesn't translate in text unfortunately  )

there _are_ quite a number of "no-manual-woodworking-required" layout benchwork options which present themselves, which do not cost the earth,
(indeed can often come out cheaper, lighter, and far more "user friendly" than some traditional wood techniques),

which simply didn't get a mention.
To list some, in no particular order of preference
- modular shelving with extruded styrene
- aluminium framing with extruded styrene
- aluminium framing with Foamcore module structure
- Foamcore standalone
- etc etc

I did note that Jeff mentioned leaving room below track level for creeks and "below-track earthworks", which is a common "gotcha" for newcomer benchwork builders,

and I agree that advising the inquirer to touch base with local modellers, possibly thru a local club, is a good way forward.

That said, not all newcomers have access to such "group support", and the fact that the question has been asked via MRH could suggest that with no "local support", the inquirier has turned to what they consider to be their "go to" source of MRR help/knowledge...

Please be aware that questions asked of the "Brains trust" via the "Questions" section often represent the honest inquiry of fellow modellers in a bind. The last thing they want, need, or expect is what appears to be a flippant off-the-cuff response...

 Happy Modelling,
Aim to Improve,
Prof Klyzlr

Fighting off the instinctive reaction that Jeff Shultz's "...Find someone to do it for you..." lead-in response was bordering on flippant,

I didn't get the same sense of flippancy from reading Jeff's answer.

Where do the Questions come from?

Does the MRH staff just make them up?

Every Modeling Magazine in every hobby has a Question and answer section with the Name of who asked the question and where they are from. For the most part they give a complete answer or a reference to where the answer can be found as that particular question would take up most of the magazine to answer.

Here is one question that is answered with a short incomplete answer: "How did railroads improve the
durability of wooden trestles".

The MRH answer was fill it in with dirt! Actually that answer is not altogether correct. The fact is that when building railroads in steep mountainous terrain and along crumbling mountain bluffs where the ground wouldn't support the substructure of the road bed the railroads would excavate the area and in-bed a trestle in the cliff side and then replace all the base soil and rock to increase the strength of the trestle and in turn the trestle helped avoid the mountain face from having a slide and taking the Roadbed, track and a passing train with it.

In fact early on in the construction of Timber Trestle Bridges it was found that Stringers, and Longitudinal bracing was required to improve the Durability of Trestle Bridges. They stopped the rock and roll over problem of early bridges. Trestle bridges are actually a series of bridges supported on piers and unless made of solid stone or concrete are called bents. The roadbed is suspended from bent to bent across a canyon or river. The stringers run along the tops of the Bents and support the Ties as well as strengthening the bridge as the force of a train crosses. The Longitudinal Bracing are place between bents in a "X" configuration to sturdy and maintain the integrity of the bents from one to the next. This is a little better answer than that in the Magazine. Short and incomplete just doesn't make it every time especially when it's used in the incorrect way.

You all asked for constrictive criticism this is mine.

Dan

Prof, 

 The answer wasn't meant to be flippant, although it was made with a smile on my face. In truth, many modelers have others do work on their layouts that they are are not capable of doing, either through a lack of skill, time, or for any other reason.

 For instance,  Sam Posey, in his book "Playing with Trains," explains how he designed his benchwork in one night at his drafting table, and called the contractor who built his house the next morning. The contractor sent over a carpenter and the benchwork (he calls it a platform) was done in a week. Interestingly, at that point he started discussing what sort of layout they should put on it with his son.... but it doesn't appear that he even considered for a moment that he build his own benchwork.

 There are also at least a couple of companies out there who will do this sort of thing as well. At least one that advertises regularly in MR, Sievers Benchwork (http://www.sieversbenchwork.com), advertises a modular benchwork system where they send you the parts for you to assemble with a screwdriver and a wrench.

Personally I've never seen an aluminum framed layout - and would consider working in aluminum, or even with steel studs, which I have seen mentioned on this website, to be more difficult than wood. Perhaps not as heavy, but also not something for a neophyte modeler. For one thing, splinters aren't fun, but metal tends to have very sharp edges. I doubt that metalworking tools are as common in a toolbox as a drill and screwdriver, either. But the idea is intriguing - do you have any photos of examples? I will admit to a bias towards wood simply because in the Pacific NW of the USA it's all over the place and is a primary building material. Perhaps in areas without such a blessing of trees the situation is different?

 The other suggestions, while probably workable, strike me as not having a sufficient foundation upon which to build a layout. What foamcore I've seen generally comes in sheets about 1/4 to 1/3rd of an inch thick and doesn't really have much in the way of structural strength. It would need to be on something like a bookshelf, I imagine.

Finally... people write entire books on this subject, or at least chapters in books. An answer in a Q-A-T should not be considered exhaustive in any way - more of an arrow pointing in a likely direction.

You are absolutely correct about the lack of undertrack space being a "gotcha" - I learned about it the hard way. The water table on my layout is a lot closer to the "surface" than I really would like and has resulted fewer water features than I had originally imagined on it.

>>>and would consider working in aluminum, or even with steel studs, which I have seen mentioned on this website, to be more difficult than wood. Perhaps not as heavy, but also not something for a neophyte modeler<<<

I have always used steel studs and find them easier to build with than wood.  But that maybe just me.  Before 1992, when my father would help with the layout construction (before his interest in restoring Classic Cars became more of a priority) we would use wood, and I find it required more precision and accuracy in cutting.  When it was left to myself to build benchwork however, I started using Steel Studs with great success. I just need to stop totally redesigning the layout needs to tear it down and start from scratch again! ***UGH***

Ken L

The spray bottle, what store carries it? I work in a Wal*mart and have never laid my eyes upon one like that there!

Dear Jeff,

I had suspected it was just me, and I unreservedly apologise for the mis-understanding. However, I stand by the comment that "humor doesn't often translate in text", and that if the Inquirer has asked the question of MRH,
(am I naive in believing that the Q&A questions are actual questions submitted by actual "End-User" modellers?),

that any perception of "flippancy" could be very detrimental.

Personally I've never seen an aluminum framed layout - and would consider working in aluminum, or even with steel studs, which I have seen mentioned on this website, to be more difficult than wood. Perhaps not as heavy, but also not something for a neophyte modeler. For one thing, splinters aren't fun, but metal tends to have very sharp edges. I doubt that metalworking tools are as common in a toolbox as a drill and screwdriver, either. But the idea is intriguing - do you have any photos of examples?

Sure do, but before we go there, let's address something. Using aluminium framing does _not_ necessarily require the modeller to cut or joint it themselves. Check out the Aussie "Qubleok"

https://www.capral.com.au/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/Qubelok_brochure_web.pdf 

"Connect-It" by RCR

https://www.metalmate.com.au/connect-it 

and the US equivalent, from Bunner Enterprises

http://www.brunnerent.com/Tools/Portfolio/frontend/itemlist.asp?type=2&size=0&lngDisplay=2&strMetaTag
(Connectors)
https://www.brunnerent.com/Tools/Portfolio/frontend/item.asp?type=6&size=0&lngDisplay=0&jPageNumber=12&strMetaTag=
(1" tubing to suit)

In all cases one can
- opt to by pre-cut tubes of set dimensional lengths (12", 18", 2', 3', 4')
(IE NO need for the modeller to own or use metalworking tools, or do their own cutting)

OR

- draw up their own framing,
- work out the tube lengths required
- and then have the Aluminium supplier cut the tubes to length against the modeller's "cut list"
(the Aussie "Capral" company who produce "qubelok" built their business on this)
- thus buying what ammounts to a pre-fab "benchwork kit" of custom-cut tubes and joiners

What does on need to assembe a layout/section/module from this kind of framing + plastic joiner system?
how does
- a rubber mallet, mid-weight hammer, or similar
- and a caulking tube of Liquid Nails or similar
sound? Surely not outside the realms of most "basic home toolboxes"...?

Looking for some actual layouts built from this stuff?

http://www.modvid.com.au/html/body_aluminium_modules.html

http://www.modvid.com.au/html/body_sweetwater_mining_modules.html

http://www.nmra.org.au/Layout_Tours/Steve_Pettit/index.html

https://www.carendt.com/wp-content/uploads/yallah.jpg 

The other suggestions, while probably workable, strike me as not having a sufficient foundation upon which to build a layout. What foamcore I've seen generally comes in sheets about 1/4 to 1/3rd of an inch thick and doesn't really have much in the way of structural strength. It would need to be on something like a bookshelf, I imagine.

Can I suggest some examples?.

https://MRH.com/foamcoremodule.pdf
(have a read, building monocoque foamcore modules requires
- an X-acto knife
- a hotglue gun
- and a decent-length ruler,
and can support up to an beyond a 4-kilo brass O scale Sunset 4-6-6-4 Challenger!)

https://www.carendt.com/articles/build-peeks-pike/

https://www.carendt.com/small-layout-scrapbook/page-87-july-2009/

https://www.carendt.com/small-layout-scrapbook/page-97a-may-2010/#chicago
(Bonus points, shows _both_ "Qubleok" + Foamcore, in a multi-module situation,
achieving a consistent 0.001" rail alignment,
supporting an operating 2-kilo O scale brass GP35 + rollingstock,
built using ONLY basic modellers tools,
and a 18Volt Power Screwdriver...)

https://www.carendt.com/small-layout-scrapbook/page-103a-november-2010-mid-month-extra-edition/#chicago-fork
(the HO all-foamcore "Chicago Fork", on show with it's bigger O scale "foamcore + Qubelok" brother)

And before we write Foamcore off as a "oddball" or "Micro-layout-only" option, consider the "Cripple Creek Central" project layout, and Mike Dannemann's "N scale through the Rockies" layouts, both featured in Model Railroader circa late 90's...

I appreciate that a "Q&A" can't cover everything,
but I really do feel that there are many more, very "newcomer/not-equipped-with-a-garage-or-basement,-let-alone-a-fully-tooled-up-workshop" do-able options than just wood out there....
(NB that I have built complete ready-to-lay-track all-foamcore modules in my apartment @ 03:00,
while my fiancee is asleep in the next room,
and I dare not risk waking the neighbours or their newborn baby.
With all the noisemaking ruckus of
- a Sharpie marking up the sheets of Foamcore
- an X-acto knife cutting thru said Foamcore like paper
- and assembling using hotglue

I'd submit that it doesn't take anywhere near the toolkit or effort to build a foamcore module capable of supporting a 4-kilo O scale brass mallet,
and is far more "apartment modeller friendly' than most any wood-benchwork technique I can readily bring to mind...)

Happy Modelling,
Aim to Improve,
Prof Klyzlr

I'll add my curiousity to it as well - especially since I'm in the middle of that stage of scenery and have experienced the "artillery range" syndrome more than I would like.

Prof,

Looks like you've given me some hours of homework. It will be infinitely more enjoyable than math homework was in college.

I'm not sure how the Q-A-T questions come about - there are a group of us on the MRH staff that get an e-mail blast a few weeks before the next issue comes out with a list of questions on it. We divvy them up and send in our answers, often with some discussion involved - the discussion generated by the question on Dreadnaught car ends was interesting in and of itself, for instance. Resulted in a much better answer, too. I believe some of them are sent directly to us, and others may be related to questions seen elsewhere that strike the editor's fancy. However they get to us, they usually succeed in being interesting and educational to me - even, as we've seen here, the ones I answer myself.

Prof:

Your posts of foam-core and aluminum lightweight module construction techniques are interesting - but I noticed most of the images show modules that are just "benchwork" ... you need more fully finished images to illustrate the process works end-to-end and to help people visualize what the end-product looks like.

How do you deal with the problems of water all over while doing scenery work on these modules? Water and foam core do not mix - moisture is just a warping problem asking to happen.

While the benchwork is clever, you need to discuss the rest of the process so people can *really* see how it works.

Prof,

Just started reading the links you posted... and I'm already gettig very interested. There may be a location on my layout (a particularly annoyingly necessary swing-bridge) that might be a good application for some of this.

Thanks!

Josh,

I hope that the Prof will forgive me, but I've bought spray bottles like his at Hobby Lobby.  BTW, if you go to Hobby Lobby's web site you can print discount coupons including a 40% off coupon on any single item.  I use the coupons to purchase things such as the Aluminite resign casting kits and materials.

Rick

Dear Jeff,

Glad to hear that it may be useful, if you've got any questions about practical deployments, feel free to ask.
Down here, the qubleok has been successfully used for N, HOnX, HO, On30, and even O scale SG,
(where train weights can easily top 10's of kilos!).

Works great with extruded polystyrene board (Blue/Pink/White), wood, and foamcore benchwork systems...

NB that a single "tube" or 25mm sq thinwall aluminium extusion is rated for 20 kilos over a 4' unsupported span. This is important when designing qubelok assemblies, Do Not Cut/splice the Main Tubes!!! The raw aluminium stock comes in 6metre lengths, so there's no excuse for "But I _had_ to insert a mid-way joiner
(thus weakening the structure),
because I coldn't get the length required..."

As for mid-frame bracing, strategic deployment of the _lipped_ version of the tube makes inserting all-aluminium cross-bracing (or even light pine brances, if you feel so inclined), anywhere it is required a doddle...

Happy Modelling,
Aim to Improve,
Prof Klyzlr

Hi Josh,

over in the USA you should be able to pick these up at garden supplies/nurseries.  I picked up mine from Bunnings which is a Hardware store. Also Kmart and Lowes over there should be able to supply a unit similar or anywhere there is a pump up spray bottle used for killing garden pests.

Chris Pearce

Thanks for the posts about the spray bottles Rick & Chris.

Hobby Lobby is out of the question for me, the nearest one is in Henderson NV, nearly 300 miles away from me. However, Michaels might... I'll check Lowes and Ace along with Kmart if those fail. Though Kmart is a trip too, about a 30 mile drive (I'm guessing since Kmart's store location finder does not work).

Josh, let UPS deliver it to your doorstep...

www.oakcanopy.com/sm001p.aspx

Dear Joe,

I have to admit I chuckled reading your post. From many years taking Qubelok and Foamcore layouts, fully completed and scenic'd to shows, I have witnessed some Olympic-class acrobatics being performed by viewers when
- I tell them "it's all foamcore"
- they can't see that from the viewers side, due to the completed carpeted fascias and scenery
- so start contorting themselves to try to see over/under/behind the layout to catch a glimpse of "the mechanics" of the module structure

Ergo, when presenting a clinic covering Foamcore and Qubelok benchwork design and construction, pics of the benchwork are kinda "normal", with the "pretty bits on top" being "assumed known information".
(If the "platform" or "chassis" is suitable, whatever "body" you put on top is up to you,
kinda like a top-fuel dragster or Monster-truck).

That said, I have taken foamcore layouts from "go to whoa",
where "whoa" = "Fully dressed, show-spec complete, ready for General Public Debut",
and assure you that I haven't bumped into a "commonly deployed' scenery technique that didn't work with Foamcore yet.

As some examples, here's the "Chicago Fork" (HO version)

here tis, half way thru assembly, sitting on my dining room table. Note the dark outside, this was being assembled late at night, and not a single sleeping resident or neighbour was distrubed in the construction of this layout.
(Try that with any wood-based benchwork technique, @ 03:00!!! ) 

Showing the "monocoque" design and box-girder base

Then outside for some sunshine the next day...

And the "from the rear" shot, so you don't have to do the "contortionist" bit...

Then with a dose of Spraypaint, as a quick-n-dirty "how will it look under 'presentation' conditions?"
(I tend to use Charcoal grey car carpet for lining the fascias, looks good and gives extra protection,
but a coat of black paint is an effective stand-in for "assessing the progress")

BTW, that "bridge looking thing" the GP is sitting on is an all-foamcore sectorplate...

Now, let's look at how it came out "scenic'd"

and an overview (heli-shot, ugh! )

Now, note the white-ish "drip" down the fascia. Joe, this speaks to your question about scenery techniques and "Water Vs Foamcore". I'm not saying what other have experienced hasn't occured, but in over 10 years of building foamcore layouts, I've Never had a water-related warping or deflection issue, and I use Dripping-Wet "isopropyl alcohol + 50/50 PVA/Water" bonded scenery technique Exclusively.

Let me say that again, I Flood the foamcore with Isopropyl to break the surface tension,
then flood it again with 50/50 PVA/water to adhere the scenery material,
I have liquid Dripping off the benchwork,
and still have not seen the kind of "devastating warpage" of which other modellers have reported.

I believe the Foamcore I'm using is the "stock" 5mm thick material as manufactured worldwide by 3A Composites, (IE it's not some freak "foamcore-like" version from the Southern Hemisphere),
and living in Sydney Australia, we experience annual temp swings from <10 degrees C (<50 F) to >40 degrees C (>104 F) with humidity averaging between 50 and 70% humidity annually.
(This also speaks to rail expansion/contraction, and how one lays various formats of track on foamcore... )

I would also note that building with Foamcore is like building with any other "sheet"-type material, it's the design of the structure that holds the key to success. In the case of the modules shown here, the Foamcore is configured to provide it's own gussetting/bracing, and NO piece of foamcore is un-supported for a distance greater than 400mm. (Compare the pics of the early module, before the "sub-roadbed" surface and backdrop was installed, compared to the "out in the sunshine" pics).

Now Joe, I know you model heavy mountains,
and the above looks too "pancake flat" for your brand of SP railroading. However, 
- thin down the width of the "subroadbed" so it resembles "cookie cutter" roadbed,
- cut back the "profile board" base cross-section so that it better reflects the required landscape surface
(if you really wanted to go crazy, no reason why you couldn't treat the profile track-support locations like L-girder benchwork)
- then add you fave "scenery base" technique as required
(I tend to use interleaved cardboard strips to form the base landform, 
+ 2 layers of CHUX kitchen wipes & Selleys "No More Gaps" caulking compound,
Ready for scenic testuring and totally avoiding Plaster!!!)

As an example of being quite cavallier about roadbed support with foamcore, try this YT

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Lbdod_dXJU
(OK, it's HOn30, so very light-weight trains, but it shows just how "up and down" scenery wise Foamcore can accomodate),

and as for "scenery base", how about this?

On30 Micro layout featuring working dump trestle, in raw foamcore stage...

Shown in "spraypaint and 1/2 done scenery". Notice the "layer of CHUX + N.M.G." edging where the foamcore profile meets the "landform".

And some "getting there" images...

NB in the image below,where the "stain" where the base of the "hill" has funnelled the _Dripping_Wet_ scenery liquids off the side of the layout (and the plastic bag below the layout that caught the overburden... )

One more time, as far as I have witnessed,
Foamcore _IS_ totally compatible with "Wet-on-dripping-wet" scenery techniques,
IF engineered correctly...

...and for examples of "below-track earthworks" in foamcore which are not "it's a microlayout and thus not-applicable to real-world full-sized layouts", may I suggest the On30 "Toorong"...

Joe, I hope this answers some of the questions,
feel free to ask if I can help furthur...

Happy Modelling,
Aim to Improve,
Prof Klyzlr

PS: Keith Harcourt publicised his adventures in Foamcore ("Kappaboard" in the UK) was in 1996 "Model Railways Illustrated". Keith mentions having his all-foamcore layouts in a _flooded_ basement, and still surviving... (check the PDF attached in my earlier posting...)

PPS: Bonus points for TOMA-thinking builders, the "clip-on/relocatable staging" at either end of the "TOMA section" which enables "ops" to get happening quickly could well be something like a Qubelok sectorplate, traverser, or  "train turntable"

Prof,

I have to admit - I don't think I've ever seen anything like it before.

Looks like you've got most of an article worked up - want to write it?

Dear Jeff,

Have seriously attempted to write some articles previously, and reading Joe's recent "MRH needs articles" call prompted me to revisit it. However, it's the words that trip me over.

Put simply, I can answer direct questions, (such as via Forum posting),
but I can't "just sprout forth for the sake of it"...
(I'm no Ace Shutterbug,
but taking the pics holds far less Fear Factor than staring at a blank page or WORD doc,

or worse,
staging at a screen full of verbiage and wondering "does/will this make sense to anyone other than myself?")

I don't expect anyone to "write it for me",
but until I can formulate a "free flowing thought" into something readable as a standalone doc,
(IE without preceeding Forum posts, conversation, or other "assumed knowledge" on the part of the reader),

I'm not sure if I'd be able to put something together that would "just work"...

Happy Modelling,
Aim to Improve,
Prof Klyzlr

If it would help, I will offer to read your first cut of something and then provide feedback and questions back and forth to work through an article.  I do proofreading as a (small) part of my job and I'm a fairly decen writer.  I just don't have many topics to write based on my limited knowledge and skill.  If you are interested, contact me offline.

Please do seriously consider such an article. I susspect Prof has provided enough materials here for someone to put it together for him, except the pictures since some seem to be his layout(s) and some others. Or maybe someone can take all this info and build thier own so as to gain the experiance and photograph it start to finish. And then co-author it using Prof.s materials and e-mails as the starting point.

This might not be the way to go for everyone, but it does seem an exciting alternative worth exploring. Oh, and I say that and am doing 2 rail O scale; so it'd take me two or more 2 foot by 8 foot sections to make a decent town.

Bob Courtney

Dear Bob,

It's horses for courses, but IMHO a highly prototypical and engaging O scale SG switching layout _can_ be built using Foamcore and Qubelok in 1' x 8', capable of supporting the weight of a 4kilo Sunset brass 4-6-6-4 UP challenger,
(but regularly hosting something more "do-able" like my 2-kilo CLW GP35 or an Atlas SW1200)

https://www.carendt.com/small-layout-scrapbook/page-97a-may-2010/#chicago

https://www.carendt.com/small-layout-scrapbook/page-103a-november-2010-mid-month-extra-edition/#chicago-fork

...and before we write off an Inglenook as "too simplistic",
note the "proto-nook" recasting of the "Main + pass + Industry spur" track arrangement,
as compare to the trad-inglenook "Main + 2 spur" format,

and compare against the "eyes to proto inspiration" blog by Jack Hill

http://oscalewcor.blogspot.com/search/label/NCIR%20OPERATIONS 

It was built after a challenge by the local 7mm (UK-based O scale) N.S.W.G.R. (Local Mainline Govt Railway prototype) modellers,  that
1 - can't use foamcore for heavy O scale SG
2 - can't handlay track on foamcore
3 - can't fit anything "prototypical" or "useful" or "real railway" (their words, not mine),
in anything less than a single-car garage space

(NB that most 7mm NSWGR locos are finescale 2-rail and equipped with working "spriung buffers" by default, and thus require a _minimum_ 5' radius...)

If you live in an apartment like I do,
(I have a 2' x 4' space for my workbench, a 2' x 4' space to store whatever layout I'm currently working on,
and that's all...)

something like this may be just the ticket to allow enjoying O scale, and get at least _something_ built and running...
(NB that the "Sectorplate" saved some linear length, but the "scenic side" track geometry was deliberately tweaked such that the Sectorplate module could be "drop-in" replaced with a "scenic'd module and regular turnout" at some future stage if desired... )

Happy Modelling,
Aim to Improve,
Prof Klyzlr

PS after the encouragement here, I am trying to get the bones of something written together.
However, all of the info one needs to "go forward" with the technique is in the public domain online,
so I wouldn't wait for a published article to "have a go".

The original module design, by local Aussie modeller Keiran Ryan,
as intended to be build for "O scale" using 9mm plywood
(Required significant "heavy woodworking tools" and skills,
REF what started this thread in the first place,
and weighs in at 30 kilos as a "basic module", Ouch!)
http://www.krmodels.com.au/module.html

http://www.krmodels.com.au/100dollarmod/100dolarmod.html

By modifying the dimensions to fit the "standard specs" of a 40" x 60" x 3/16"
(1000mm x 1500mm x 5mm) sheet of foamcore (Qty 2),

one can build a similarly designed Maximum Dimension 2' x 5' x 2' tall foamcore version,
with minimal waste material.
(I prefer 2' x 4', but that's just me... )

That weighs in at 3 kilos (around 6 1/2 pounds) _gross_,
INC halogen lighting rig fully installed,
and all ready for track/wiring/scenery!!!!

Prof;

You built the O scale Chicago module of both Qubeloc and Foamcore, but the HO one in strictly foam core. Where, size wise and intended use wise do you think the need for the Quebloc comes in, i.e. at what size is foam core alone not enough. 

I am not as constrained, space wise as you are nor will I take my module(s) to shows (much) but still like the approach for how nice and presentable it will make my layout as it co-exists with the other uses of the room. Any feel for max foamcore size?

Additionally, I was thinking of using a combination of foamcore and luan, where the 'L' of the front bottom facia and its wear plate, and the back wear plate and the stiffener it 'L's into (and possibly the two end shapes) are luan and the rest is foamcore. I am looking at the first section being six foot long becasue of what all needs to be represented in the scene.

Bob Courtney

Anytime someone mentions foamcore I can't help but also think of Sintra board. It may have an application here also.

Dear Bob,

An quickish explanation of the "break points" between
- Home use/Foamcore only
- Light Duty Touring/Foamcore "ruggedized"
- and Heavy Touring/Foamcore + Qubelok

In short:
"Home Use" assumes that the supporting structure
(bookshelves, modular shelves, tables, etc) are adequate for vertical alignment.
Horizontal alignment is via Mk1 eyeball.

Under such conditions, an adequately-designed and constructed all-foamcore module is very capable of forfilling the structural requirements.

"Light Touring" is a step up from "Home Use", and assumes that the modules may need some "Ruggedizing" to withstand none-too-careful transportation. Under these conditions, puncture-wounds can be mitigated/counter-acted by adding car-carpet covering to the existing fascia, or possibly doubling the fascia thicknesses of foamcore (I've only ever had to add carpet myself, check the "Layout in a Box").

The HO version may recieve carpetted "finishing" if it needs to go to a proper public exhibition/show. However, as a demonstration platform, home switcher, and for use at conventions and other "not general public" train events, the raw foamcore + painted finish is adequate.
(I just picked up 2 X IHB SW1500s, and intend to kitbash one of them into the PB1 slug. This will give "ChicagHO Fork" a "older era" CB&Q GP38 + caboose "set", and a current era "IHB" motive power set  )

Please note that many modellers get hung up on module joining, clamping, and alignment systems. These are _seperate_ from the foamcore module itself, although when building modules the aligmment/joint and "between the joints" techniques need to be considered "as a team".

keep this in mind as we move into the "Heavy Duty Touring" area. "Heavy Duty" modules are the kind that are expected to handle lots of shows, being thrown into and out of layout trailers, surviving when those trailers rollover at 70kph, and still live to take their place in the layout. The use of Qubelok gives a bulletproof exo-skeleton, with enough solid anchor points at each end to support most any of the currently in-vogue module alignment and joining/clamping techniques.
(Split hinges, tongue-in-slot, patten-makers dowels, bolt-thru-hole, G-clamp, over-centre catches, etc etc)

As noted in the text, such modules really do act like a serious 4WD "ladder frame" situation, where all the 'bits that matter" are directly hung off the frame, and the "pretty bits" simply come along for the ride.

Translated, you can assemble a "modular layout" out of the qubelok exoskeletons standalone,
and have all of the alignment systems working and in-play as designed,
the foamcore is just "supporting the pretty bits" inbetween the mechanically-critical "end plates".

In the case of ChicagO Fork ( O scale version), I had been put on notice that a friend was going to load-test the layout with his 4+kilo Sunset brass 2-6-6-4 UP Challenger. This plus the fact that I had not ever built a O scale layout before, _may_ have lead me to "overkill" the design of the sectorplate module,
(more queblok that maybe the design actually required),

but the "scenic" module is exactly as described, a qubelok exoskeleton surrounding a Foamcore module,
albeit with 3 thickneses of 5mm foamcore under the track locations to ensure zero flex under that Challenger...

To wrap
- If you intend to use it purely at home, and have a structurally solid "support stand" to put it on,
foamcore-only modules should work fine up to 2' x 5' x 2' tall overall.
(maximum module dimension that can be created using the "proscenium monocoque" design shown,
using 40" x 60" x 3/16"  Qty 2 sheets of foamcore,
without having to "splice and join" foamcore members)

- If you intend to take it to the _occasional_ show,
have designed in specific lifting points,
and have a _Seperate_ structurally solid "support stand" on which to put the module(s),
then "ruggedized" all-Foamcore modules should work fine.

- IF however the layout is a _Touring Layout_ from the outset,
needs to be _Self_Supporting_
(EG each module has only one end with legs,
and shares the other end's weight on the adjacent module's leg system, via the joining/alignment mechanism)
and can expect rougher-than-average handling

then I would suggest that letting the Qubleok do the "heavy mechanical work",
(module alignment, joining and clamping, lifting/rigging/handling points),
and let the Foamcore-module "core" keep the track up "between the end plates"...

Does that help?

Happy Modelling,
Aim to Improve,
Prof Klyzlr

PS I note that these "break points" between home/Light-touring/Heavy-Duty are very similar to those accepted for Extruded PolyStyrene (pink/blue) based modules.
- for home use, just laminate some foam sheet together, put them on a table, and have at it
- for "light touring", face them with MDF or light ply, and put them on a table provided at the show
- For "Heavy Touring" situations,
where module<>module alignment and joints are critical,
and weight may be shared accross custom-leg-systems,
build a base frame + mechanically reliable "end plates",
and let the foam "keep the track off the floor" between the end plates...

PPS I support ChicagO Fork (O scale) on 2 x 50litre plastic crates, 1 under the centre of each module.
The Qubelok framing + module joining/alignment system used, plus the rediculously low gross weight, 
means that the entire 2-module layout can be easily lifted by one person _in_one_piece_...

PPPS The weights of HO locos and rollingstock is nothing compared to the weight of even a small O scale SG loco  As such, the HO version can easily get away with "Foamcore only"...

Love the examples posted ... been  modelling with foamcor since I started my studies in Architecture... ('71)  and have been using it ever since.

As the Prof noted, as long as the surface remains intact, it is VERY resistant to liquids.  My freshman year model lasted 3 years - and I haven't used rubber cement since--- the cement gave out- not the board.

Some of my current MRR structures are foamcor 'stand-ins,' proportioned and built to resemble what I'm looking for.  My interchange tower even carries some details. 

I'd suggest to extend the 'load-bearing' ability of these paper & foam layouts & structures, look into gatorboard... it's like foamcor..  thick, lightweight, and with a desirable (MDF ?) surface.  Often used by exhibit designers. From links to Sintra above-- I found www.foamboardsource.com with a few other products.

[I just love exploring alternate maerials... and I've got a few more!]

Dear LK,

Not heard of Sintra board down here in OZ, I would be interested to see
- Cost/sheet

- sheet size
(sets maximum module dimension which can be constructed within stated material limits,
ah, just found this at the bottom of the page, interesting...)

- how it works with hotglue
(being a plastic surface, I fear it may not allow the hotglue to "tooth" into it as well as the porous paper surface of Foamcore)

- how hard it is to cut
(The notes on the linked page say "up to 3mm with knife", but immediately below suggests "saw cutting".
GatorFoam with it's wood laminate surface also requires "heavier tools" for cutting.

In comparison, Foamcore can be easily cut with a fresh modeller's X-acto knife.
If Sintra requires excess force, or additional tools above and beyond "the average modeller's toolkit",
then foamcore still has the advantage IMHO)

Well spotted, could be a interesting material for all manner of modelling uses,
(thin sheet may work for curvable backdrops, as some people are using sheet styrene for?
possible base materal for large industrial structures?)

Happy Modelling,
Aim to Improve,
Prof Klyzlr

PS: I note the Webstore also has "Foam-Cor" (trade name) listed in their "other products" options...

3mm  Sintra PVC Foam board ... 8x10  10 sheets   US $16.80

regards!

Dear Peter,

Yes, I've heard a number of modellers suggest Gatorboard. However, I've seen many more Foamcore layouts than Gatorboard layouts, and I'm not exactly sure why...

When it comes to "load handling" though, how many modellers _actually_ know how heavy their trains are? I'll respectfully excuse myself from the question, because I've been deliberately measuring them for years now while designing and building foamcore layouts  

However, I strongly suspect with even a 3x "structural load rating" allowance, most layouts are built such that the owners could safely benchpress their own bodyweight, and that such a "benchmark" is far in excess of what the actual train + scenery + structure load actually requires.

Funnily enough, it appears to me that it's the crucible of "Touring/show layouts" where such "boat-anchor layout engineering" really gets shown up.
When you have to lift, move, assemble, run, tear-down, and get home with a show layout,
anything that is not light + strong enough will "stop the fun" pretty quickly.

- whether because the module broke in transit,
(and module breakage can often be traced to be too _heavy_, 
having too much inertia, and slamming around inside the transit vehicle),
 
- or it broke you because the weight and effort required to move/assemble it is simply too much...
(backs aren't getting any younger, or stronger...)

Would love to see a gatorboard layout, if there are any examples available?

Happy Modelling,
Aim to Improve,
Prof Klyzlr

Sintra board is like super heavy duty foamcore application-wise. We use it in trade show exhibits for mounting prints, mostly the 3mm stuff and 6mm for the really big signs. It is super rigid and holds its shape extremely well. I have never tried to make something from it so I can't speak to structural glues. We use 3M Super 777 adhesive to mount prints. Sticks good. When we need a custom shape we supply an Illustrator file to the sign shop and their computerized cutter cuts it for us. Clean, straight, sharp edges with dimensions accurate to the thousandths of an inch.

When I saw the foamcore dioramas my mind instantly jumped to designing it in Illustrator and let the sign shop supply all the pieces cut exactly to fit.