General Discussion (Model Railroader)

thanx for the tips. They are helping alot.

Topic this post: Layout height and its affect on operations

The Layout Design Special Interest group of the NMRA did an iteresting survey on layout height. They asked several well-known operations-oriented layout owners what the height of their layout was, then averaged the results.

Typical layout height: 45-55". (Remember, this is operations -oriented layouts)

Then they asked another question: If you were to start over, would you build your next layout higher, lower, or the same height? The answer:

Build it higher. Probably 5-10" heigher.

So my HO Siskiyou Line is in the 50" - 65" range for height, and I love it (see photo).



One discovery I have made with hgher benchwork is you can make it very narrow and it still looks really good. The photo above is a case in point: the benchwork height is 65" from the floor (see note) but the benchwork is only 6" wide! I would not have thought that such narrow benchwork would look good in HO, but as you can see, it works well, especially if the benchwork is also high.

So if you are having problems getting everything to fit, consider raising the level of your benchwork and making the shelves narrower. Not only could things fit better, but the trains will look great!

Next topic: But watch out ... don't make it TOO high!

NOTE: Actually I'm on a raised floor, which is why the ceiling is so close to my head, so it's 65" from the 15" raised floor, or 80" from the actual room floor. The raised floor is part of my mushroom benchwork configuration. To learn more about my layout, see my new online discussion forum: http://mymemoirs.net/model-trains/forum/phpBB2/index.php?c=4
or visit my website (link is in my signature).

QUOTE: Originally posted by eastcoast thanx for the tips. They are helping alot.

jfugate,
One thing I am trying to learn is industry spurs on my
layout at this very time. I have 3 industries that have to
share 2 spurs. Right now, I have my plastics co. and a
wharehouse on one line and an energy firm separated.
Is this smart? Or should I try to give each industry it's own
spur? I can remodel a 12" area of track, but may cramp the
track space in the doing. Any advice?? Ken

Joe,

That 6" is very impressive. My layout is single level, and the track elevations range between 48" and 54". I find this works out very well(I am 5'8' tall). I am planning on retiring the present layout(started in 1987), and will start the new layout late in 2005(after some new windows and utilities upgrades). I still am not planning to go double-deck, but the ability to use narrow areas as you have shown are very interesting.

Jim Bernier

QUOTE: I have 3 industries that have to share 2 spurs. Right now, I have my plastics co. and a wharehouse on one line and an energy firm separated. Is this smart? Or should I try to give each industry it's own spur? I can remodel a 12" area of track, but may cramp the track space in the doing. Any advice?? Ken

Having industries share spurs is not uncommon on the prototype and makes for some interesting switching, especially if the car to pickup/setout is in the rear industry. That means you have to move all the cars in the way at the front industry, switch the rear industry, then put the cars back where they were at the front industry.

So yes, as long as you don't over do it (don't make *every* industry that way), multiple industries on one spur is fine.

The other thing to consider, and is actually very prototypical, is one industry served by multiple spurs. In fact, it is the really large industries that tend to be served by rail more. I have one industry on my HO Siskiyou Line that is 12 feet in length and holds over 70 rail cars on 7 different spurs -- all serving that one Forest Products complex.

Multiple industries on one spur is seen a lot(at least back in the 50's). I have a house track in 3 of 4 towns that has 2 or more small industries on same track. The key is that these industries are not switched very often. They are firms like a bulk oil dealer, small feed mill, etc. - they rarely see more that 1 car/week at each industry.
I also have two industries with multiple tracks and multiple spots:
o - Swift Packing. This has a 4 car 'meat dock', two car stockyard, and 'pre-cool' ice
house, and a supplies spot on 2 tracks. This industry ships up to 7-8 cars/day.
o - The other is a 'zinc' mine that has 3 tracks and ships about 4 cars/day.

Jim Bernier

Topic this post: But watch out ... don't make it TOO high!

Although getting the trains up higher with taller benchwork makes the trains on the main look good, you also need to weigh that against the need to see what is going on when you are switching.

This is especially true in yards and industrial areas.

Experience has shown me that 45" - 55" is about perfect height for a model yard. That's high enough you can see things real well, but low enough you can see over typical obstacles like other cars or structures.

A yard or switching area that's 55" - 60" high will work (my Roseburg yard is 58" from the floor, for example) but it's not ideal. Any place where you need to do lots of switching that is over 60" from the floor will be a problem for most people and should be avoided.

My Coos Bay yard is 54" from the floor and the height is excellent for a model yard. Notice it's in the 45" - 55" range. I would recommend 50-55" as the *ideal* height for a model yard.

If you are not sure, it's always best to mock something up. Get a large piece of cardboard and some boxes / books, then set them on a table to make a flat surface at various heights. Put some track, locos, and cars, perhaps even some structures on the cardboard and see what you think of the height.

It's far better to take an evening mocking things up, than to spend money and time building benchwork only to find it's too low or too high!

Next topic: Aisle width

Hold the phone, Joe, How about "chest high, or x inches below the eye. We come in all heights and sizes so inch ranges are kind of limiting. Also are any young people likely to be involved in running or viewing? I have experienced this working on a friends3 tier layout. Being 5'7" I can handily operate the two lower levels but need to use portable stepstools to work anywhere on the top level. The folks I operate with run in the 6' plus range. Happy Railroading, John

John:

I guess I'm thinking of most of my crew and the 58" height for Roseburg yard is a tad high, but the 54" for Coos Bay yard is just right. Granted, some adults will find even these heights a problem ... which is a good point you make there, John.

So you have to design the layout first and foremost for yourself and then hope others will fall somewhere inside a reasonable continuum.

My raised floor is an example of the very issue you mention. I'm on the tall side, being 6'-3". So I designed the raised floor with 1" clearance over my head, figuring most people would not exceed my height. Well, my very first operating session, I had an operator who was 6'-5". For some reason, he preferred to operate on the branch, which had the full 7'-9" ceiling.

So no matter what height you pick, there will always be someone who will find it too high or too low. But for the 12 or so regulars I've had through the years operating the Siskiyou LIne, the inch heights I mention work well. But there will always be exceptions, and I acknowledge that.

That's why I said it's best to mock it up and see for yourself. The general rule, though, is to be aggressive and aim higher than you might at first think.

QUOTE: Originally posted by andrechapelon OK, Joe, what do you from a design standpoint when you have a reasonable amount of room for a layout (> 350 sq. ft), but the basement is in a rural location where the nearest model railroader you know is 40 miles away, the likelihood of being able to gather a multi-person oerating crew on a regular basis is questionable and you would rather model a main line operation than a branch or short line? The above is the situation I'm facing. So far, the solution I've come up with on a conceptual basis is to give up on much in the way of mainline running and concentrate on a single town which will provide a lot of local action (for instance Salinas, CA, during the lettuce season in the early 50's) while at the same time providing a variety of through traffic that "struts and frets its hour upon the stage and is heard no more". Since there is an ebb and flow to prototype traffic, the layout would be run in real time choreographed around those times of relatively intense action. No attempt would be made to run a full 24 hours worth of trains. Whether or not this would provide sufficient action for a multi-person crew or not, I don't know as yet. I think it would, but until it's built (or at least under construction), they ain't going to come. [sigh] In any case, I think it would be a relatively small crew (3 or 4 at most in any given session). Andre

I'm faced with a similiar situation. Even thought in a primarily retirement community (many originally from nothern states) I've yet to run into a serious model railroader. Most are Lionel or collector types. I hope the "build it and they will come" concept holds true. I've built the layout for a lot of thru traffic to make it easy for beginner operators but at the same time allow for lots of meets and passes as the experience level grows. In the meantime, I can run multiple trains single handed (thanks to DCC) and enjoy the layout myself.

A friend's layout on which I used to operate had two adjacent towns which were serviced by a TSR (Traveling Switch Engine) which did all the local pulls and setouts. In a Op session this kept an operator busy - in solo mode it provides ample challange for the owner. The only thing missing is having to occasionally dive in the siding to clear the main for passing thru trains.

QUOTE: Originally posted by jfugate Topic this post: Mainline Run One thing that can make a layout design less realistic is for the locos to be in one town, while the caboose is still in the last town. If on the other hand, you designed the layout above with 10 towns, leaving 5 train lengths out of the 15 that were not "in town", you end up with less than 1 train length between all the towns and you get the problem mentioned with the train constantly in two towns at once around the layout, which is less than realistic.

Depending on whose point of view, in a typical around the walls layout, the operator usually turns away from the town he's departing to view the engine and track ahead mitigating this problem. Longer separation would be desired, but I only have about 1 train length between towns but they are viewed individually.

I got in on this clinic a little late, but I just spent a couple of hours "catching up." This is a great idea. Thanks, John, for starting it for us. I hope the clinic and all of the good ideas, responses, and questions continue. THIS is why I joined thid forum!!! [:D]

As to layout height, sometimes you do have to make compromised for the sake of operators. I am in construction of my second N scale layout. My first was 48" high, which was good or even a little low for me at 6'2", but too high for my wife who is 5' and way too high for my young children. My new layout will be have some outside operators, but as we are in a remote area there will not be many. That leaves me and my 3 kids as they gorw up. For this reason I built it lower than I would prefer--42" - 45"--to accomodate them operating through their childhood years. By the time all 3 of them are too tall for it (the youngest is only 6 months old) I'm sure I will have either moved or be ready to build something new.

QUOTE: Originally posted by SunGlow QUOTE: Originally posted by andrechapelon OK, Joe, what do you from a design standpoint when you have a reasonable amount of room for a layout (> 350 sq. ft), but the basement is in a rural location where the nearest model railroader you know is 40 miles away, the likelihood of being able to gather a multi-person oerating crew on a regular basis is questionable and you would rather model a main line operation than a branch or short line? The above is the situation I'm facing. So far, the solution I've come up with on a conceptual basis is to give up on much in the way of mainline running and concentrate on a single town which will provide a lot of local action (for instance Salinas, CA, during the lettuce season in the early 50's) while at the same time providing a variety of through traffic that "struts and frets its hour upon the stage and is heard no more". Since there is an ebb and flow to prototype traffic, the layout would be run in real time choreographed around those times of relatively intense action. No attempt would be made to run a full 24 hours worth of trains. Whether or not this would provide sufficient action for a multi-person crew or not, I don't know as yet. I think it would, but until it's built (or at least under construction), they ain't going to come. [sigh] In any case, I think it would be a relatively small crew (3 or 4 at most in any given session). Andre I'm faced with a similiar situation. Even thought in a primarily retirement community (many originally from nothern states) I've yet to run into a serious model railroader. Most are Lionel or collector types. I hope the "build it and they will come" concept holds true. I've built the layout for a lot of thru traffic to make it easy for beginner operators but at the same time allow for lots of meets and passes as the experience level grows. In the meantime, I can run multiple trains single handed (thanks to DCC) and enjoy the layout myself. A friend's layout on which I used to operate had two adjacent towns which were serviced by a TSR (Traveling Switch Engine) which did all the local pulls and setouts. In a Op session this kept an operator busy - in solo mode it provides ample challange for the owner. The only thing missing is having to occasionally dive in the siding to clear the main for passing thru trains.

We'll see about the "build it and they will come". In any case, I've had something of a change of heart about branch line modeling. Southern Pacific's Monterey Branch had enough traffic in the late 40's to provide operating interest (especially when the sardine canneries were going all out). It also has the advantage of having a named passenger train, the "Del Monte" which could run up to 8 cars from the pictures I've seen.

The part of the branch I would be modeling (Monterey station, Cannery Row, Pacific Grove) would also have some interesting scenery, especially between the canneries and P.G.) since the line ran on a ledge above Monterey Bay. Then there's the Monterey Cypress, a unique tree native only to the area which would add some scenic interest.

In addition to the above, the equipment requirements are modest in comparison to a main-line operation, but sufficiently varied motive power(2-8-0's, 4-6-0's, 4-8-0's and a Pacific) to avoid boredom.

Andre

Andre:

Your Monterey Branch layout idea is a fascinating one, and I thought you explained your thinking on it extremely well at:

http://mymemoirs.net/model-trains/forum/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=26

It's truly a model-sized prototype with great scenery possibilities. Operationally, how challenging will it be? Any sense of that yet?

QUOTE: Originally posted by jfugate Andre: Your Monterey Branch layout idea is a fascinating one, and I thought you explained your thinking on it extremely well at: http://mymemoirs.net/model-trains/forum/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=26 It's truly a model-sized prototype with great scenery possibilities. Operationally, how challenging will it be? Any sense of that yet?

Joe,

Thank you for the compliment.

I've been trying to get some questions answered about actual branch operations, but the one answer I got back (on another forum - SP related) was essentially "it's your layout, run it the way you like" . I got a bit ticked off, especially since I was looking for background information and the fellow who said that is rather well known in SP circles.

To be a good operational layout, it's not enough to slavishly reproduce the prototype. As you said in your forum, it may be prototypical for 12 hours to pass between trains. Given the fact that an operating layout is something akin to a play on a stage, one of the keys to maintaining interest is to ignore all the boring stuff (and real life is chock full of that) and cut to the next interesting bit of action.

It's also not necessary to be slavi***o what the prototype actually did even when you're modeling a prototype. What actually was done is only one of the many options the railroad could have taken that would probably have produced similar results. For instance, I've never seen any evidence that an SP A-6 4-4-2 was ever used on the "Del Monte". There's no reason why one could not have been used. A-6's were short enough to fit on the Pacific Grove turntable (even with the 10,000 gallon Vanderbilt tenders). With the booster engaged, they had a tractive effort approaching that of the P-6 Pacifics that were used in the last years of steam. Additionally, there were no grades of any significance that would have made the use of an Atlantic problematic since the train ran only around 8 cars at most.

Going along in the same vein, I was informed that the Del Monte was not turned in Pacific Grove. IOW, the train was not switched. However, swapping the mail baggage car with the parlor car does add some switching interest and effectively turns the train. There's no point in reversing the order of the coaches.

One of the things I need to find out is the traffic mix on the branch. The canneries would have used mostly box cars. However, they all had boilers and they all needed fuel. That provides some demand for tank cars. There were at least 2 sand loading facilities on the branch, so there's some traffic for covered hoppers. There was also a fruit packing house near the Monterey station, although it may have been gone by 1941. Doesn't matter though, it's not much of a stretch to keep it in business past WWII. There were also some sizeable lumber yards in the area. The Sanborn map of PG in 1905 shows a big one there. I don't know how long it lasted

All in all, I think the layout could provide sufficient operating interest. I haven't seen any show stoppers yet.

Andre