I have seen too many finished layouts and trackplans and partial builds that have one basic flaw. A flat surface an inch or two above the benchwork leaving a space of no more than an inch or two for depressed areas such as ponds or whatever terrain features will fit. Height above is not really a problem since foamboard or any other sort of terrain buildup material will fit the bill for as high as you wish to go. Several modelers, however, have done the following in at least some areas of their layouts- Basic support benchwork lower to the floor by about four to six inches than usual, two or more sheets of 2" thick pinkboard to bring layout up the originally desired height and then more layers of pinkboard for elevations. The two or three sheets below track level virtually scream out for sculpting out areas for a variety of scenery changes, whether rivers, gorges, towns, rockfall, whatever.
Good preplanning will get you these things. My layout goes from subtle elevation variations on the flat side: ..to a pretty mean drop off over on the Ridge!
wow, the canyon came out great Mark. good suggestions Fotheringill. i think people get worried about getting the benchwork and foam as smooth and flat as possible and don't think about going up so you can dig down. i've been thinking about the benefits operationally of having a basicly flat trackwork, but deep canyons, great bridges and tunnels braking up the scenery to make you think your climbing up or down a large grade. being able to pull longer trains without wondering if 2% is going to be too much for one
This is why I like the L-girder bench work. You can make changes fairly easily to facilitate many different geographic features. I cringe when I see a newby jump on the simplicity of foambaord as their base.
4" of foam atop the layout base for track level, up to 14" on top of that for more vertical scenery. I can think of no better overall shot of how I built my layout to just this standard: Here's a good sized hill on one end of the layout:
John, I have done it both ways. My old Secret Places Sub layout (before my move to Europe last year) was a cookie-cutter open benchwork approach. My current HCD is foam, but I layered it purposely to catch the flavor of the remote, rugged, vertical terrain in the area I model. Mark showed a great use of a ton of elevation. John Widmar used a similarly dramatic approach. The entrance to his layout was a 6' deep chasm with the feel of the Royal Gorge in CO. The tracks crossed the gorge on the scenic bridge high at the top. It was a step-under layout entrance. He layout was eye level, with steps and benches to stand on.
Watson- Dramatic. Hemi- Exactly what I was thinking about when writing the OP. I love that yellow Stanley sculpting tool. It is great for digging out a groove in the foam for tracks any depth you want until you hit plywood and have put it to use in the section upon which I am now working.
Yes .... and what many people overlook: you can hang a substantial gorge/valley between two more or less level sections. Even if you don't use L-girder, though L-girder is the cat's meow.
My modules are mostly flat, but on a few of them I have taken a jig saw to remove some plywood and lowered the level a little to provide enough elevation change to put in a bridge and some sort of water course. I've even taken a Dremel tool to the plywood on occasion and only lowered the level by fractions of an inch. It doesn't take much in N scale to make a creek.
Interesting timing. I'm about to design the next stage of expansion which will include under the layout storage / book shelves / and "stuff". It reminded me I wanted to build a long viaduct: I wanted it to be 3 to 4 inches "deep" and about 4 feet long. Maybe I'll post the table work designs progress here or possibly a new thread. Hmmm. Shhh, don't tell "Lady Grandure"
The flatness issued doesn't bother me too much, as Paris, Texas, isn't exactly a hilly city. The only place I'm dealing with in the way of elevation changes is where the tracks go over Loop 286/US82. Cutting thru the foam and taking out a section of HCD benchwork, and adding a plywood base at the bottom, should do the trick. Jigsaws are wonderous tools for such work.................
I agree with what the OP is saying but some of us like to model a prarie based theme and so it is fairly flat. I, for example, like to model trackwork as close to the prototype as possible, with the same type of operations in mind. I model a modern era on a fictional railroad based loosely on CP from 1995-2000. All my mainline switches are powered with under table machines and the yard, spur, and backtrack switches are manual...so I ask myself, with all that foam under the track how would one ever mount a realistic working turnout motor???
It depends on which turnout machine you use. The Tortoise rods that go from the machine to the throw can be replaced by much longer rods that can be picked up at any RC car store in exactly the same thickness but come in lengths of 3'. Tortoise also has a remote assembly that can be installed near, but not under, the turnout location. This can easily be nestled in a pocket of foam. If near your control panel, a manual throw might work just as well for you.
