Higher layouts for smaller scales

[FJ and G]

I built an HO shelf layout at my work and had to elevate it pretty high so it would clear the tall computer on the desk. When i look at the trains, I'm eyeball to eyeball with them. They appear much larger and more realistic, I discovered, when viewed high, up close, and personal.

I'm an O scale modeler and my layout is about 4 feet high. While that height is fine for my O scale trains, at that height, HO does not look too good to me.

IMO, the ideal height should be where you can view the trains at the same angle as they look in most of the pictures in the pages of Model Railroader.

[Sperandeo]

I agree with you, "Fonda,"

But even O scale can benefit from higher elevation. John Armstrong's Cqanadaigua Southern is mostly between 50" and 60" high, and his engines and trains seem even bigger and more impressive because ot it.

So long,

Andy

[FJ and G]

Andy,

It's a priviledge to have one of the gurus of MR reply to my post. Thx.

Another reason I say what I said is because in a photograph (like in MR), it is often difficult to tell which scale you are looking at. At a train show (like Greenberg's), most of the layouts are belly-button high (so kids can peer) and you generally are not getting the most advantageous perspective---esp. in the smaller scales like N or HO.

But your point of the larger scales is well taken too!

But what about the height challenged folks and kids? You may need to get a moveable stepladder!

Of course the alternative is to have it lower but provide chairs for viewing at eye level. This situation would be unavoidable where you have multiple shelves at different elevations.

[FJ and G]

BTW,

Yes, Fonda stands for Fonda, Johnstown, & Gloversville Railroad, once the largest railroad of the Southern Adirandacks!

I suppose I should sign my name to the posts but haven't yet figured out how to make it appear so I'll try to remember to type it in each time.
-------------------
David Vergun

[AltonFan]

I model in N scale. When I finally get to build a semi-permanent layout, my plan is to set it up so that when I am seated, the trains will be about eye-level (in my case, about 48") when seated, but I will still be able to get the panaramic view when standing. To me this is the best of both worlds.

[Anonymous]

Aside from adding realism in any scale, a higher layout is a lot easier to work on when you need to solder a wire or adjust a switch linkage.

John

[DavidH]

There is no question that the closer a layout is to eye-level, the better it is for viewing purposes. HOWEVER . . . you also have to build and maintain it. My N scale layout has a base level of 45" and I am just under 6' tall. Initially I was going to go somewhat higher, particularly as I have a duckunder, but I found working on a higher surface just too hard on my back and shoulders. You really need to be sure you are going to be physically comfortable with the height that you choose.

[Anonymous]

You are also assuming a single decked layout. In multiple deck layouts, height can be an issue. In N scale, looking at the engine straight on can be even more dramatic than in HO. My lower deck is 37 inches and my upper deck is 57 inches. The higher deck provides a much better vista in which to view the engines. The 37 inch level is more the helicopter view. Since I do get to see the engine at almost eye ball height on the upper deck, the lower deck height doesn't bother me.

[IRONROOSTER]

My S scale layout is 58 inches high. This makes the duck under into the room easy to use. I initally picked this height because I needed the storage space under the layout. I find though that I like it at this height - I can see the brake lines as the train goes by. With a sturdy step stool I don't have any problem working on it. Best of all the cat leaves it alone (she's too fat to jump that high).
Enjoy
Paul

[CBQ_Guy]

I would be tempted to agree more if it were a display type layout. I would think there would be issues with an "operated" layout concerning reading car numbers on further back track (or even seeing the cars!), uncoupling, throwing turnouts, re-railing.

Yeah, the stool thing would work but it's really the pits to try and operate that way. I've had that experience in the past and didn't care for it at all. And there are probably liability issues as well if someone mis-steps and falls off. Now with my curent disability problems, I would even consider trying it.

[CBQ_Guy]

QUOTE: Originally posted by CBQ_Guy

I would be tempted to agree more if it were a display type layout. I would think there would be issues with an "operated" layout concerning reading car numbers on further back track (or even seeing the cars!), uncoupling, throwing turnouts, re-railing.

Yeah, the stool thing would work but it's really the pits to try and operate that way. I've had that experience in the past and didn't care for it at all. And there are probably liability issues as well if someone mis-steps and falls off. Now with my curent disability problems, I would even consider trying it.

Sorry, last sentence should read " ...I would NOT even consider trying it."