I had a layout at 58" high. The viewing was great and the duckunder was easy to negotiate. But construction required a step stool and the 24" and 30" aisles felt very narrow. The only train I could really see or switch was the first one. My next layout was 50" with 36" aisles. This worked much better.
Enjoy
Paul
Here's how the experiment is progressing:
photo.php?fbid=170601792961262&set=a.159069444114497.30666.158366614184780
Barry
"That high benchwork might work if you are modeling a single track that clings to the face of a cliff by its fingertips, sort of like that 'Road of Death' in the Andes."
Actually, that's very close to what I'm modeling - single-track coal railroading in West Virginia.
A stepstool is only required for construction and maintenance, not for operation or viewing. Because of the angled orientation of the scenery, anyone who is four-and-a-half feet in height or taller would be able to appreciate the view as they look up the hill. Anyone who is under that height, I'm not concerned about.
- Barry
That high benchwork might work if you are modeling a single track that clings to the face of a cliff by its fingertips, sort of like that 'Road of Death' in the Andes. I just can't see it if the object is to switch loose cars at the top-of-the-hill colliery. The alternative to the stepstool that immediately jumped into my mind was of the U-boat Kapitan with one hand on the periscope handle and a DCC controller in the other...
I actually incorporated a not-originally-planned stretch of downgrade on the climb up to the colliery, just to keep the action below step-climbing level. IMHO, a stepstool or fold-down step is not a suitable sub for a solid floor.
Just my . Other opinions will differ.
Chuck (Modeling Central Japan in September, 1964)
Most of the "hands-on" operation would be on the lower level, with the upper being mainly a helper division with passing sidings and a few industries like coal mines. Not a whole lot of switching or yard work. Just a lot of train-watching.
So far in building the test module, I've spent a lot of time on a step-stool, but that hasn't been a problem. It might be when I'm 70, but I'm hoping I can get a permanent layout started sooner than that.
Here's a photo of the benchwork for the module:
http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=159069457447829&set=a.159069444114497.30666.158366614184780
I like my 'working' surface to be high on my layouts. I appreciate the ground level views. But that means I had to get used to moving a step stool around with me as I built it. In my case, it has three steps and folds nearly flat.
My shorter guests, children and women, beam with delight when they are afforded a better view using the stool, and believe me, few mind having to use it.
Crandell
Fold down step about 12" wide. http://www.cmrailroad.com/images/File0138.JPG
ratled
Modeling the Klamath River area in HO on a proto-lanced sub of the SP “The State of Jefferson Line”
I'm planning a double-deck layout, with the upper deck at or above eye level. It will be anywhere from 12" to 20" deep. I've been building a 14'-long test module and so far the height seems to work, since the scenery is mountainous and the viewer looks up the hill at the trains from a riverbed. So far, the only issue that I need to ponder is the visitor who is shorter than me; not because he/she can't see, but because their point of view would be below water level, which defies logic (unless, of course, the person is a trout).
Anyone have practical experience with benchwork that high?