It's been a while since my last post. As many of us in the hobby know that this hobby takes time, money and ingenuity. I'm currently lacking all three. As all responsible modellers at this time of year it's time save up for the Liverpool Exhibition goodies, and my layout is no exception. Hoping to procure the turntable and most of my turnouts and track the September Budget, my tax return and the October budget are all roller into one. Right now that we are updated let's get into the legs.
With the legs of the design, I am tossing up between 3 options;
1. All modules stand self sufficient on a combination RHS legs and timber feet with RHS cross bracing.
2. All modules stand self sufficient on timber legs
3. Modules have at least 2 legs each and are supported by each other with snug bolts and nuts between the modules.
I'll discuss each option below and their positives and negatives.
Option 1
RHS (Rectangular Hollow Steel) is strong, light weight and can easily be bolted and cut. The massive advantage with this system comes from the joinery between the layout and the legs. The legs can be welded to a plate at the top of each leg with a U channel either welded or bolted to that. This would be fantastic for a dismantling stage! I would be able to lift each module out of the U channel one at a time while the U channel and leg supported the adjacent module. The down side is the cost and the time. While I do know people who could get the lengths of metal cheaply and quickly, then cut it to the lengths, I'm not able to actually be there (due to work commitments) when it would arrive. I would much prefer to go to the workshop and assist, and guide to avoid mistakes. (I'm starting to think I'm a micro-manager with this project) I'll sit and think and see if I can't get made up some drawings that would provide sufficient information, but the last thing I want is to be out on site with no reception, miss the phone call and have a decision about the legs made that I'm not consulted on that changes the leg design.
Option 2
While this option is cheap, relatively quick (another weekend with Dad) and painless, there is a stumbling block here. The stumbling block and where I'm currently stuck is the joinery between the legs and the layout. Again I would want the modules to be able to stand independently or one another so that when I lift one module out the other doesn't fall (and ruin my hard work). I thought of making a wooden U-channel or individual legs. Both are time intensive and one is more expensive than the other, while being easier. Glancing over to my timeline on the right, I'm not sure that either option would allow me to finish the layout in time. I want to avoid each module having 4 legs, but outside of the U-channel idea I am unsure how to achieve it.
Option 3
This option would mean making a few of the more rectangular modules self supporting tables, with bolts holding the legs to the modules. The remaining modules would then be give additions support legs, but would have the bolts from the "table modules" run into their side skirts and be fastened tightly. This may require a lot of cross members, and would limit my options before I have to dismantle the modules, meaning I would need a large amount of help and support to move the layout in the future. I am unsure of exactly which modules would be the "table modules" but I have a rough idea. Predominantly the 4 corner modules with the modules between these having 2 legs for support. The issue comes where modules are "stacked" next to each other. How many legs would the obscure shaped modules need.
Across all designs there is the options for adjustable feet to be screwed into the bottom for adjustable height and allowing the modules to be made level.
As you can see each method has it's advantage and disadvantage. Am I over thinking this too much? either way I can't do anything until my November budget becomes available (come on Liverpool Exhibition!).
I'm going to put a survey below (something I told myself I would never do with this Blog) to see if the general model railway population is sitting at their computers screaming at it "IT'S SO SIMPLE YOU CLOD!" There's also the comment section if you have a new idea.
See you all at Liverpool, Happy Modelling!
With the legs of the design, I am tossing up between 3 options;
1. All modules stand self sufficient on a combination RHS legs and timber feet with RHS cross bracing.
2. All modules stand self sufficient on timber legs
3. Modules have at least 2 legs each and are supported by each other with snug bolts and nuts between the modules.
I'll discuss each option below and their positives and negatives.
Option 1
RHS (Rectangular Hollow Steel) is strong, light weight and can easily be bolted and cut. The massive advantage with this system comes from the joinery between the layout and the legs. The legs can be welded to a plate at the top of each leg with a U channel either welded or bolted to that. This would be fantastic for a dismantling stage! I would be able to lift each module out of the U channel one at a time while the U channel and leg supported the adjacent module. The down side is the cost and the time. While I do know people who could get the lengths of metal cheaply and quickly, then cut it to the lengths, I'm not able to actually be there (due to work commitments) when it would arrive. I would much prefer to go to the workshop and assist, and guide to avoid mistakes. (I'm starting to think I'm a micro-manager with this project) I'll sit and think and see if I can't get made up some drawings that would provide sufficient information, but the last thing I want is to be out on site with no reception, miss the phone call and have a decision about the legs made that I'm not consulted on that changes the leg design.
Option 2
While this option is cheap, relatively quick (another weekend with Dad) and painless, there is a stumbling block here. The stumbling block and where I'm currently stuck is the joinery between the legs and the layout. Again I would want the modules to be able to stand independently or one another so that when I lift one module out the other doesn't fall (and ruin my hard work). I thought of making a wooden U-channel or individual legs. Both are time intensive and one is more expensive than the other, while being easier. Glancing over to my timeline on the right, I'm not sure that either option would allow me to finish the layout in time. I want to avoid each module having 4 legs, but outside of the U-channel idea I am unsure how to achieve it.
Option 3
This option would mean making a few of the more rectangular modules self supporting tables, with bolts holding the legs to the modules. The remaining modules would then be give additions support legs, but would have the bolts from the "table modules" run into their side skirts and be fastened tightly. This may require a lot of cross members, and would limit my options before I have to dismantle the modules, meaning I would need a large amount of help and support to move the layout in the future. I am unsure of exactly which modules would be the "table modules" but I have a rough idea. Predominantly the 4 corner modules with the modules between these having 2 legs for support. The issue comes where modules are "stacked" next to each other. How many legs would the obscure shaped modules need.
Across all designs there is the options for adjustable feet to be screwed into the bottom for adjustable height and allowing the modules to be made level.
As you can see each method has it's advantage and disadvantage. Am I over thinking this too much? either way I can't do anything until my November budget becomes available (come on Liverpool Exhibition!).
I'm going to put a survey below (something I told myself I would never do with this Blog) to see if the general model railway population is sitting at their computers screaming at it "IT'S SO SIMPLE YOU CLOD!" There's also the comment section if you have a new idea.
See you all at Liverpool, Happy Modelling!