Layout Height

[willy6]

As I get ready to build a new layout, one thing I never thought about in my previous layout was the "height". My last layout bench work was 36". I've been looking at some planning guides and alot go from 48" to 60". What is a good or average height for an HO scale layout?

[ChrisNH]

Whatever is comfortable for you.. although I think 48" is pretty much considered a minimum these days.

I set my current n-scale layout at 54" and have decided to set it at 56" base going up to 60" at the summit on the next layout.

However, I am not concerned with reach in as my planned benchwork depth is no more then 2' on any side. I am also 6'1".

With higher benchwork you can play a lot more games with hiding things behind buildings and scenery. It makes it easier to divide the layout in to scenes, and it makes it a LOT easier for me to read tiny n-scale car markings.

Regards,

Chris

 

[jrbernier]

How big is a dog?

  Layout height depends on the situation and the owner.  Many of the Model Railroad publications suggest 42".  My first layout was built at that height(1966) and was fine.  My current layout has the track anywhere from 48" to 54" off the floor.  The 'width' of the layout varies fron 24" to 30"(except for the turnback loops).  I am 5'8" tall and I use a small step stool to 'reach' into some of those back areas.  But 'operating' the layout is no problem.  As long 'walk-around' track plans have become popular, layout height has increased as the operator can 'pace' his train and wants it at 'eye level'.

  If you have a 'double deck' layout, you may have to compromise on the lower/upper level heights.  A friend has 36" and 56" for the two decks.  sitting on a chair is needed to switch cars in a town on the lower level.

Jim Bernier

[loathar]

I went with 48". (half of an 8' 2x4) I almost wish I would have gone a little higher. I don't see how people do those 36" layouts.

[IRONROOSTER]

My last layout was 58".  This is great for viewing (and duck unders), but trains on the front track block those on back track from view. Also, my wife and children are shorter than I am (5'11") and can't really see the 58" layout well.  So my current layout, which is under construction, I'm trying 50".  So far this seems better, but I don't have the trains running yet - so we'll see.

Enjoy

Paul 

[Mike B]

I went with 48" after doing some crude experiments to see how far I could reach at different benchwork heights.  I would have liked to go another 6" higher but found I would have created several very hard to reach areas if I went to 54".

Mike B.

[selector]

Who will want to use the layout the most?  Kids, grandkids?  Then make the height useful to them...and safe.  If it will be you, chest high is what is often recommended by the experienced builders.  I was at just above belt level on my first layout, and then went all the way up to 53" at my yard.  The rest is between that height and about 9" higher after grades.  At 5'7", I am a shorty, and one might think 50-plus inches a bit high to do any meaningful work on the layout.  Not so...I use a three-step stool to do the tricky and farther away stuff, but my views when running trains are really very gratifying.

 

[MisterBeasley]

My layout is somewhere around 38-40 inches, as I recall.  I did that so I could tuck it under the 45-degree roofline without coming out too far into the room.

I would go higher if I were to do it again, though.  Just a couple more inches would make a big difference in what I see as the main problem with a low layout - getting underneath it to do wiring.  Layouts involve a lot of wiring - tracks, signals, streetlights, structure lights, floodlight towers and so on.  If you can't sit comfortably under your layout and work on it, wiring gets to be an uncomfortable experience pretty quickly.

I like looking down on the scene, at least a bit.  Scenery is a big part of my enjoyment of the railroad, so I want to be able to see all of it.

[CSXDixieLine]

I have two scenicked levels: one at 42" and one at 57". The lower one gives more of an aerial view, while the upper gives more of a eye-level view (I am 5'-8"). Most publications say that with a double deck layout, the lower level is always too low and the upper level always too high, but I actually like having two different perspectives to work with. If I only had a single level, I would definitely go somewhere between my two levels; probably in the 48"-52" range. As another poster mentioned above, at higher levels it is easier to hide things such as tracks disapperaing behind a hill or through a wall, but you can have obscured visibility of scenic elements towards the back of the layout.

Jamie

[RRTrainman]

My layout is at 40" tall.  I'm a tall fella so its not a problem to work on it and its comfortable for me.  Your best choice is what is comfortable for you.

[tomikawaTT]

Layout height, like shoe size, is a very personal thing.  One size does NOT fit all.

Try experimenting with a couple of lengths of flex track, a couple of freight cars and a bunch of cardboard boxes of various heights on the dining room table (just not during or immediately before dinner.)

Another consideration - just how much height change will there be due to grades?  If I had designed my main engine change facility at the currently-popular height I would have to incorporate a periscope in my benchwork and operate my top-of-the-valley colliery complex like a U-boat skipper!  As it is, I may have to ease my intended grade to keep the loadout down to a visible (without stilts or a ladder) level.

I don't mind looking down on my railroad as if I was a fair climb up the adjacent mountain.  I DO mind having to look UP at it.

If, like me, you find standing up for extended periods challenging, you should design for your eye level when you're seated in a nice roll-around chair.

Chuck (modeling mountainous Central Japan in September, 1964)

[ClinchValleySD40]

Easy to figure out.  Get an empty refrigerator box, cut off one side.  Suspend it from the ceiling at various heights until you find the one that you are comfortable with.   If you have them, place a building or two and a few pieces of rolling stock on it to get a good feel.

 40" and 60" worked out for me with the branch lines at 24" (worked sitting).

 

 

[twhite]

Layout height is really a VERY personal thing.  For instance, my Yuba River Sub is minimum 45" high at '0' elevation, but has an over-all rise of 18", which puts the highest portion right at my eye height (I'm 6'1").  It's what I prefer, but whenever the neighborhood kids come over to see what Mr. White's been doing, they're all standing there with their necks craned up, LOL! 

So it pretty much depends on your personal preference. 

Tom

[traindaddy1]

Hi! My present layout track height is @ 40". The lowest point of the Benchwork border frame is @ 36".  I chose this height so that I could slip some file cabinets under part of the layout.  Thanks for asking.

[kcole4001]

Mr.B. made a good point about being able to sit comfortably to work on wiring. Something to keep in mind when setting a minimum height.

I plan to have my lower level at a good height for viewing from a rolling chair, and also a good level for my kids to watch the action.

---------------------------------------

A related question:

What's a common separation between levels, for those of us who are into double deckers?

[traindaddy1]

Awhile back, mine was 24".

[Capt. Grimek]

Don't forget to take physical limitations/maladies into consideration too.
If you're a migraine sufferer with a light sensitivity you might not want to be looking up
at florescent light fixtures most of the time on a high layout.

If you have back or neck injuries from old car accidents, skiing, whatever, looking down
all the time may literally become a pain in the neck. Workiing on wiring under the layout
falls into this catergory.

If you have friends in wheelchairs who might come by reasonably often, maybe take that into consideration. Is there a spot where they can rail fan or operate? Aisle width would
be a consideration too.

If you have a developing health situation like diabetes, glaucoma, etc. think about where you might be at a few years down the road and what limitations might crop up.

Often we all think about what pleases us aesthetically but forget about that little pain that just keeps gettin' worse every year...

[mobilman44]

Hi!

You already got several excellent responses so there isn't much more to add........

After several layouts since the mid '50s, I've come to realize that what works best for me is "chest high" - which of course leaves several inches for "negotiation".  Of course I am the primary operator, and if kids come to see the trains, I have a couple of carpet covered blocks for them to stand on.

Like other posters, I could make a case for most any height, so I believe that the "proper" height is truly something subjective and totally what pleases the owner/operator.

FWIW........

Mobilman44

[johncolley]

I seem to remember an old "formula" for main level height was to be "between elbow and shoulder" with your arm down at your side. But also there was one for second level tracks to be "between chin and tip of nose". This puts your eyes at a good level to read reporting marks and not be looking at the underside or the roofs of cars. jc5729 John Colley, Port Townsend, WA

[DeadheadGreg]

all I know is, right now my layout top is on saw horses.  IT SUCKS.  You have to bend over to do everything, and its too high to sit down for.

basically....  bottom of your ribs should be the minimum

 

[willy6]

I just want to say "Thank You" for your excellent responses. A few days after I posted this thread, I was cleaning up the room which is to be the home of my new layout and as I was trying to organize about 5 years of train magazines, I came across an issue of 2007 Model Railroad Planning and it had an article titled "Layout Heights" and basically it is an exact copy of what everyone has posted here..........amazing.