Upside Down Upper Decks

[basementcalling]

It seems with the move to shelf style layouts, many with 2 decks of narrow benchwork, that metal shelf brackets, either slot and track, or stamped metal are very popular ways to support the upper deck and keep its thickness to a minimum.

I was playing around with some stamped metal brackets this weekend to see what could be done with them, and used as designed they are about as easy as falling out of bed to use to support a 3/4 inch plywood upper deck UNTIL it comes time to put in a backdrop for the lower deck. I've seen several websites where people go to great lengths to notch the top of a styrene backdrop or some other material in order to clear the supports. That may be fine on a layout with 12-18 inches of clearance between decks, but mine will be more like 10-12 in most places, which means that blank blue sky areas may be rare on my backdrops. I wouldn't want to ruin a great Photoshopped backdrop effort by having a notch come down into a mountain or impressive industrial building.

Moving the entire backdrop out the 1-1.5 inches the track set or stamped bend in the support occupy against the wall is certainly possible. but why give up the valuable modeling space on a narrow 8-12 inch shelf if it's not absolutely needed? I was picking up screws off the floor - they work better after I drop them at least once when adding grid members - when I started looking at the underside of a mocked up section of double deck shelving against a wall. Then I sat down on a screw, but an idea germinated in my brain. Could I flip the benchwork by mounting the supports upside down OVER the plywood base of the upper deck?

I had to try this after thinking it over at dinner. So what do the a$$hats think? Too much work? Not feasible?

Here's the mockup with obligatory pink styrofoam mountains. If the upper deck has mountains or tall buildings behind the tracks, this might be a way to completely hide the supports. If you're modeling fields of grain on the flatlands, or open suburban type industrial sprawl with roads meeting the backdrop, it might just move the problem from the sky background into a modeled scene at ground level.


Here's how an upside down upper deck might look before scenery.



traditional brackets are just waiting to make mounting a backdrop a complicated process. This is underneath an 18 inch upper deck mock up.



Here's both. The normal orientation of the bracket on right will be visible on the lower deck until hidden by a backdrop. The brackets - there are two - on the plywood are hidden by the foam used in construction of scenery and to raise the right of way.



Simple notches in the foam can allow it to sit level over the stamped brackets. Note the drywall screw holding the plywood to the bracket. Be sure the screws used are not long enough to come through the bottom of the top deck. That makes lifting it into position a sharp proposition; don't ask how I learned that.   



The foam mountains had to have 2 pieces notched with a trench underneath to clear the ridge stamped into the bracket, but were used as normal otherwise.

Not sure yet if I am on to something I can use, or if the weight of the plywood in long sections will make this way of mounting the upper deck too cumbersome.

Thoughts?

Peter

[John]

I don't like the looks of this --- mountains sticking up every 2-4 feet just looks plain weird  ... if you are concerned about the brackets notches  - just bolt them to the backdrop ..  you can always photoshop them out of pix if needed

just my opinion .. remember - rule 1 applies..

[GaryHinshaw]

When I started building I experimented with brackets like these and decided I didn't like them for similar reasons (they also tended to flex a bit).  I ended up just screwing the box frames directly to the stringers with long screws, as you can kind of see in the upper deck shown in this shot:



The ends of the boxes are attached to other boxes, so the whole structure is rigidly tied together and is very stable.  I do have a piece of 1x1 (nominal) as a support post out of paranoia, but it's really not necessary, and there is only one of them in a 14' run of shelf.

-Gary

P.S. While it's probably fine, I'd be a bit concerned about hanging the shelf from these brackets with 3/4" screws, since all the weight of the upper deck will be born by them.  This kind of commits you to lightweight scenery construction.

[robert3985]

If ya wanna do the upside-down bracket thing, for total scenery control, I'd build the skyboard out from the wall enough to clear the bracket bodies. You're only going to lose a coupla inches at the most, but gain total control over your scenery-space.

I just read where you specifically don't want to sacrifice scenery depth.  To sacrifice the least amount of depth, I'd determine what kind of topography I'm gonna build...specifically its height at the rear of your scenery-box...then build your skyboard out from the wall just enough to cover the remaining parts (but less intrusive) parts of the upside-down brackets.

I'd rather sacrifice a couple of inches than be forced to make a mountain top at regular distances all along a strip of upper layout level.  The choice is obvious to me...a little less depth vs regular, evenly spaced scenic obstructions/intrusions?  A little less depth is the clear winner in that contest.

You'll also gain dead space for running wires without 'em hanging down all over the place on the underside of your upper level.

Sounds like a plan to me!

[robert3985]

I do have a piece of 1x1 (nominal) as a support post out of paranoia, but it's really not necessary, and there is only one of them in a 14' run of shelf.

-Gary

Sometimes, paranoia's a good thing...

[basementcalling]

If ya wanna do the upside-down bracket thing, for total scenery control, I'd build the skyboard out from the wall enough to clear the bracket bodies. You're only going to lose a coupla inches at the most, but gain total control over your scenery-space.

No more evenly spaced mountain peaks lining the back of your upper level.

AND, you'll gain dead space for running wires without 'em hanging down all over the place on the underside of your upper level.

Sounds like a plan to me!

Why put wires behind the skyboard where you cannot get to them without ripping out scenery and backdrop? Maybe I misunderstand the process.

I am thinking this method works best in a place like Echo and Weber Canyon where the scenery is long stretches of steep canyon walls. I agree that even spaced hills would be a dead give away and look as bad as even spaced trees.

Gary, the screw length worries me too, unless perhaps I needed to run a stiffener under the plywood right below the bracket screws, or run a piece of something to use to mount LEDs or other light sources.

I did screw the lower deck to the furring strips directly, which does solidify things nicely, but I don't want to lose 4 inches of clearance above the lower deck because of upper level framing that is so thick.

I plan to use lots of foam land forms on the layout. It's pretty easy to shape and handle, especially with hot wire cutting tools, so weight should not be a problem. If it weren't for the need to go with 2 inch foam for rigidity, I would probably just use foam for the upper deck as well ala Bill Darnaby. Easy to do, but I see no reasonable way to mount anything below decks to the foam and hide it from sight, so back to the 4 inch thick deck.

[peteski]

How about using a right angle brace instead of using shelf brackets? Just bolt the vertical part to the wall and then place the plywood base on top of the horizontal part of the brace.  These are quite strong and stiff (even though they are flat).  This solution would not take up any of the space in the back, or on the layout's surface.

http://www.homedepot.com/p/Everbilt-8-in-Zinc-Plated-Corner-Brace-15215/202033926#.UaQTZGy6Nph

[robert3985]

Why put wires behind the skyboard where you cannot get to them without ripping out scenery and backdrop? Maybe I misunderstand the process.

I plan to use lots of foam land forms on the layout. It's pretty easy to shape and handle, especially with hot wire cutting tools, so weight should not be a problem. If it weren't for the need to go with 2 inch foam for rigidity, I would probably just use foam for the upper deck as well ala Bill Darnaby. Easy to do, but I see no reasonable way to mount anything below decks to the foam and hide it from sight, so back to the 4 inch thick deck.

You'd only run wiring behind the skyboard that would not need to be "got to" such as 120 for your upper level lights...coming up from either a plug or junction box on the wall or lower deck, or if you need to run DCC busses from the lower deck to the upper deck.  After re-reading my post, I did make it sound like complicated wiring would be placed behind the skyboard...which is not what I mean.

That dead space is a very handy space for running that type of wiring...not placing solder joints, wire nuts or anything that might fail and need to be "got at" there.

Just like the dead space in the walls of your home, you can run wires just fine, but where there's a junction, switch, relay or whatever, you'll need a junction box...so, you use that space to easily run hidden lengths of un-spliced wire...something you'll most likely never have to "get at".

However, the problem of hiding track wiring on the upper deck is always going to involve a choice of just letting it hang out for easy access, or devising a less "handy" way of hiding parts of it.  Just like your brackets, wiring from the upper deck, if it's not hidden, will be obvious to both people and in photographs of the lower deck.

Another place to make wiring less visible on the underside of the upper deck, is to run it along the underside, near the lower deck lighting fascia, which doubles as the scenic fascia for the upper deck.  This'll allow easy access to feeder joints and splices and will only be visible if you stand on your head and look up (maybe looking "down" if you're standing on your head  ).  Your lighting should also be placed there, along with its associated wiring.

Most likely, you've already thought about this, but your comment about running wires behind the skyboard  kinda made me think maybe you haven't.  If you haven't, now is the time to do it. 

[jagged ben]

Gary, the screw length worries me too, unless perhaps I needed to run a stiffener under the plywood right below the bracket screws, or run a piece of something to use to mount LEDs or other light sources.

Just go get some small machine bolts with nuts and washers and through-bolt the brackets to your shelf.   That should hold up all the weight of any shelf layout, especially if your scenery is foam. 

[Lemosteam]

A piece of 1x4 cut to the same contour as the styrofoam with a leg out 3/4 of the way to the edge of the shelf would acutally be stronger than that shelf bracket after gluing and screwing.  It is the height of the rib in the bracket at the corner the provides the it's strength.  Replacing that with wood (taller rib) would make the 90 degree corner infinitely stronger and less likely to deflect.

[Denver Road Doug]

How about using a right angle brace instead of using shelf brackets? Just bolt the vertical part to the wall and then place the plywood base on top of the horizontal part of the brace.  These are quite strong and stiff (even though they are flat).  This solution would not take up any of the space in the back, or on the layout's surface.

http://www.homedepot.com/p/Everbilt-8-in-Zinc-Plated-Corner-Brace-15215/202033926#.UaQTZGy6Nph

This.

Why the stringers?  Unless the wall is concrete or built with insufficient studs you're wasting 3/4" right off the bat, versus screwing into the studs.   You're looking at what, 1-1/4" or maybe 1-1/2" *total* to begin with, so that's significant.   Yes, I get why you would use stringers in a normal situation, but when 1-1/2" is so critical, (assuming for aisle space?) that might be the first place to look.

Also, you shouldn't need a 4" deck.  Two layouts ago I used good quality 1x2's and as long as they're straight and put together properly a 1x2 frame will handle anything you want to try in n-scale.   And 1/2" plywood...it's a game of (quarter) inches...

[wm3798]

Having just dismantled my layout, I would recommend against the upside down bit.  If you are faced with a move, you will be forced to destroy a fair amount of the scenery to remove the basic structure of the layout.

My simple solution for the wall brackets was to just paint them into the backdrop...



Another easy solution would be to build out a backdrop in front of the brackets, and provide for at least the removal of the upper deck without disturbing it.

lee

[Philip H]

SO, two additional thoughts:

1)  The brackets you showed are not designed to carry downward forcing loads in the manner you have them installed.  even with foam scenery you are putting the load weight in the OPPOSITE direction of the designed load channel or direction.  This may well resul in brackets that slowly move past 90 degrees over time, meaning your shelves will slope down.

2) Gary's box frame method is a tweak on a box beam method that Jim Fitzgerald used to advocate for in N Trak conventions in the early 1990's I don't remember if he ever published his ideas - I saw it at a clinic in Orlando almost 20 years ago - but if you found that, you'd have a rigid construction method that would give you a channel to run wiring through and the ability to use the uprights you already have in place to screw shelves to.

[conrail98]

Actually, you have your stringers exposed, you want to build something that also connects to the side. Jamie from CSX Dixie Line did something similar for his wall brackets, http://csxdixieline.blogspot.com/2008/07/howto-build-wall-bracket.html. I have exposed studs on mine, so I had 1 1/2" to work with but did the same thing. Substitute your stringers for his long bracing and you have essentially the same setup. You could even make them a L-girder with 3/4" exposed on the end, get yourself a Kreg jig and put some of them on the flat side going into the stringers underneath and mount both into the stringers from the front and side.

Also, I meant to comment earlier on your peninsula setup. I was going to recommend using L-girder construction to support the bracing for the double-deck peninsular. Here's a post from my site on the benchwork I have built:

Peninsula Support: http://www.conrailharrisburgline.org/2010/11/layout-progress-november-22-2010.html
Deck support: http://www.conrailharrisburgline.org/2010/11/layout-progress-november-29-2010.html

I borrowed it off of Jamie and Bruce Faulkner of CSX Shenandoah Division (his method starts here in his construction journal, http://shendiv.com/construction/20020224.html) but wanted more space under the layout to store things (like the beer cooler in the one pic),

Phil

[mmagliaro]

How about using a right angle brace instead of using shelf brackets? Just bolt the vertical part to the wall and then place the plywood base on top of the horizontal part of the brace.  These are quite strong and stiff (even though they are flat).  This solution would not take up any of the space in the back, or on the layout's surface.

http://www.homedepot.com/p/Everbilt-8-in-Zinc-Plated-Corner-Brace-15215/202033926#.UaQTZGy6Nph

+1 on this one.
Peteski is showing an 8", and they make them even bigger.  They are not particularly cheap.  This one costs
about $5.  But you only build benchwork once and it needs to last.  Plus, these are easily salvageable
if you rebuild.