I originally planned on using 24" but ended up going narrower, partly because I found a good source of shelving that was sturdy and didn't need a lot of extra support but was narrower, plus I found for what I wanted to do I just didn't need 2' of width.
I'm building a two-deck layout. The decks aren't connected. The upper one is 16" wide in staging and will be that wide in the yard area at the other end of the line. In between will be a single track mainline on 12" wide shelfs, it's mainly concentrating on switching and yard operations. So far I have 12' by 18' in, and that seems fine.
The lower level will be a double track continous run dogbone, 16" wide except will widen out to about 6' in a couple of places to allow for continous running loops of 30" or so radius.
The shelving (John Sterling) comes in 3' and 6' lengths, so I can widen a section out from say 12" to 16" if I wanted to put something in there, or use two 12" shelfs to make 24" width. Part of what I like is the flexibility.
I went with a 24"inch width and 50" in height off the floor. I didn't want to look down at my layout, but rather across it at near eye level. Presently, the fascia around the layout is only about 12" wide, but the plan is to make it wider to cover a larger portion of the cantilevered support system once the track feeders are secured to the buss lines.
Since I am modeling South Florida, I am in the process of completing a canal that runs the length of the layout. Even with a 4" wide canal, I had plenty of room for all my trackage.
[IM
Larry
Robby P. wrote:I am currently doing a shelf layout. I am going with a 24' wide shelf. I believe this is what alot of modelers use. I think its a good size.
WOW! Your shelf is wider than my entire layout is long!
But, back on topic, I'm going to be using mostly 12" wide shelves, mostly because my room is a wee bit narrow, (9' 3") and I agree with Joe Fugate on the topic of high, narrow benchwork.
One factor in the width of around-the-wall style self layouts is how you plan to attach the layout to the wall or if you are going to use legs. There are a number of ways to secure a layout to the walls without using legs but that is only feasible up to a point. I did not want any legs or significant diagonal bracing under my layout so my layout is limited to the "conventional" 24 inch width.
Note that in the corners of a 24" wide layout the distance from the edge of the layout to the inside corner of the wall is 34 inches. That is quite a reach unless you cove the corners (recommended).
-John
Looshi wrote: It would be easier to model the plains of Indiana on a narrow shelf compared to a major urban center or a terminal.
It would be easier to model the plains of Indiana on a narrow shelf compared to a major urban center or a terminal.
Or possibly the other way around. Urban shelves doesn't have to be that deep - it looks pretty natural for urban landscapes have tall buildings right beyond the tracks, blocking the view of what is "behind" the trackside buildings.
Have a look e.g. at the Urban Modellers SIG (Special Interest Group) web page at http://www.trainsarefun.com/urbanmodeling/urban.htm
It is probably in generally harder to convey the feeling of small train in huge open landscape on a narrow shelf.
How deep a shelf should be is generally constrained by your reach when working on scenery or running trains.
A good rule of the thumb seems to be to try to keep all tracks within about 20" of the front end. If you have to make an exception, you have to make an exception, but don't put trains any further from the edge than that if you can help it.
Try to allow minimum 2-3 inches for the background scenery in an heavily urban or mountain "canyon scene", minimum 6-12" for background scenery if you need to establish more of a depth effect.
Another good rule of the thumb is that narrow looks better when you look into the shelf instead of down on the shelf. Get it high enough up on the wall - shoulder to eye level for the operator/most viewers, and narrow will look better. Your brain expects to see further when looking down at something rather than when looking sideways at it.
Narrower shelves might allow you to put a half wall down the center of the room and get a longer run by adding two more shelves - one on each side of the extra wall.
So what I am saying ? I am saying, in a roundabout way: "it all depends"
In general, real life railroad right-of-ways are very long but also fairly narrow. If what you want to model is a single track passing through an urban warehouse district type of landscape, you could do that fairly well in as little as 6-8" - 3" for the track and foreground, 3-5" for the background.
You could squeeze in a H0 scale 5 track wide yard on 2" track centers in as little as 12" depth, allowing 1" for flats against the wall and 1" between the outermost track and the edge of the shelf.
For an N scale layout 12-15" would be an adequate depth, but for H0 scale you probably should consider going to at least 18". Fairly common shelf layout depths are 18", 24" and 30", although you can go both narrower and wider along parts of the layout.
Anyways - I'd recommend 18" as a good starting point for most of a H0 scale model railroad.
If your tracks won't take up more than about 8-12" from the front of the layout - ie if you have a double track main with one siding and a little space in the foreground, or a single track main with two sidings, then 18" of depth leaves you with 6-10" for background structures.
Model Railroad Planning 2007 has a couple of interesting articles on shelf depth and height - by Ian Rice and Tony Koester. Warmly recommended for more background info.
Smile, Stein
The impact on aisle width is certainly an important consideration but to me the most important issue is how well you can reach the back of the shelf, and how often you will have to reach there. The simple answer is to say 24" or 30" which would probably be the most common answers, but that ignores other considerations, such as height of the benchwork and the operators. Also to be considered is what you have on the back of the shelf and what you have in the foreground. Now I am a bit of a rebel in this regard because I found the common recommendations of 24" or 30" too restrictive. My shelves are 3 feet wide. You can see an example of this in the current Weekend Photo Fun in the General Discussion board. My pictures are the first ones in that thread. You will notice that while the scene is deep, all the track is on the front half of the shelf within easy reach so derailments or other operation problems will not force me to reach deep in to the scene. Essentially, the back half of the shelf is a static, 3-D backdrop which will rarely need to be accessed after construction. During construction, I used a step stool which allowed me to easily reach the back edge of the shelf and do what I need to do. I have a couple long handled feather dusters which will allow me to do routine cleaning without reaching deep into the scene. I certainly wouldn't want to have track back there which might require me to routinely deep into the shelf to uncouple or rerail a car during operations. This action would put the foreground scenery at risk.
Now on the other side of the room, I do have industrial spurs on the back edge of the shelf. I can get away with it there because I have a large classification yard in the foreground with virtually no structures that could get damaged with a long reach. Uncoupling is all done with magnetic uncouplers so only rarely will I need to reach the back edge.
24" or 30" shelves are probably a good rule of thumb but I'm a believe that rules are made to be broken. As long as you understand the ramifications of your choices and can work around them, don't be afraid stray from conventional wisdom.
As a statistician, I get bad vibes from a question about, "Most common," or, "Typical," or "Average." (Such as the, "Average," family having 2.6 children!) The proper question to ask is, What is the minimum/maximum/ideal shelf width for my specific set of conditions? Pretty obviously, that will be dictated by your conditions and won't be influenced by anyone else's.
For that matter, there may not be a single ideal width for a given layout, nor is there any valid reason for the width to be uniform. On my own layout, shelf width will be a variable between 200mm (just under 8 inches) and 800mm (31.5 inches) along 42 linear feet of wall with two inside corners. Since my scenery is vertical, very little space need be given over to non-railroad items. (You can get away with that when your prototype is built through a canyon!)
Actually, the biggest influence on my shelf width is the hidden track under the scenery. Along wall one, there will be a single visible track with three-wide hidden tracks beneath. Along wall three, there will be two levels of triple track below a single track with a passing siding. Wall two will have seven parallel hidden tracks, but that shelf's width is driven by the engine change/freight yard/interchange facility on the upper (visible) level.
Note that I haven't specified any widths. The exact dimensions are listed as, "To be determined."
Chuck (modeling Central Japan in September, 1964)
"Rust, whats not to love?"
Shelf width depends on how 'high' the layout is. I am 5' 10" tall and most of my layout is about 24" wide, with the layout height between 48" and 54". I have a couple of 30" wide areas and need a 12" step stool to work on them. It is not a real problem, but is needed for one operator who is 5' 5" tall.
Jim
Modeling BNSF and Milwaukee Road in SW Wisconsin
Most common? Probably 24 in.
Preferred? I like 30".
What I use? 18" because it lets me get 4 widths with two 36' aisles in a 12 ft wide room.
Dave H.
Dave H. Painted side goes up. My website : wnbranch.com
When designing my next layout I decided to follow the growing trend of around-the-wall style self layouts. My next immediate thought was, "how wide?" Obviously the answer would depend upon the specific situation for the layout but I was wondering what was most common. It seems to me like too narrow a shelf makes it hard to convey realism while too wide a shelf encroaches upon asle space. Also, the area modeling might be a contributing factor. It would be easier to model the plains of Indiana on a narrow shelf compared to a major urban center or a terminal.
What is the most common, or optimum, width? What do you prefer and why?