I have the right to remain silent. By posting here I have given up that right and accept that anything I say can and will be used as evidence to critique me.
As far as depth, function first. Can you reach what you need to, reasonably and consistently? Using the techniques you've pointed out, you should be able to create a compelling scene to disguise any functional selective compression you may do.
As an example, in HO with an 18in shelf, I might put the track 12in back (which would be easy for me to access) from the front edge. I might put 1:64 vehicles on a road at the very front of the layout, with the terrain gently sloping down towards the track. Behind the track, I'd slope it back up gently. Perhaps with N scale items right along the backdrop. Your eye would be drawn to the car in front first, then back down toward the train, then up the terrain behind it.
As you've aluded to, viewing height will be a big factor. IMO, the more tricks you have to use, the closer to eye level it should be. BUT, your illusion should be the most effective at eye level too.
One thing I would add is space between elements. In the real world, there are scenic breaks between the elements. Modeling this space allows your eye to track from one element to the next, and the time it takes helps create the illusion that things are farther apart than they really are. You'll recognize each one separately rather than all at one time.
Modeling whatever I can make out of that stash of kits that takes up half my apartment's spare bedroom.
I'm planning relatively narrow shelves, although they may be wide by some layouts I've seen written about. Track-only (ie, track passing through some scenery, no sidings, etc) areas will be 12" wide, possibly even narrower. A single siding (or set, thereof, since my layout will be double tracked), or an industry spot for a typical small industry, couple of car spots like a small warehouse or manufacturing business, or a team track), no more than 18" wide. The main yard, and a large industry like a big coal breaker will be about 24" wide.
I read about an interesting concept for the upper deck in the Yahoo Layoud Design group - insteadof setting the upper deck back when it's not as wide as the lower deck (which probably would be most places - you generally do not want rail served industries located exactly above one another because it becomes a choke point and hard for either crew to operate), you make the upper deck as wide as the lower, but bring the backdrop out closer to the edge to the layout edge to backdrop distance is smaller, say 12" where just the mains pass through scenery. Yes, that's wasted space behind the backdrop on the upper level - but it could be used as a place to hide staging tracks for interchanges or unmodeled branches, or off-layout industries.
An advantage is that there aren;t lighting issues - what if you have a 12" wide upper deck over a 24" wide lower deck, lights JUST under the upper deck won;t illuminate the full lower deck. But of the upper deck BENCHWORK comes out the same 24", you can fully light the lower level. Also, by bringing all the trackw ork on the upper level out near the front edge, you make it easier to see for operating and lining switches compared to an upper deck at the same height that is set back 12" or so from the edge of the lower deck. Or you can build higher and have the same visibility you would with the standard style upper deck at a lower height.
--Randy
Modeling the Reading Railroad in the 1950's
Visit my web site at www.readingeastpenn.com for construction updates, DCC Info, and more.
My last layout (S scale) was 28" deep in places, 18" in others, and one area was 12". It was also 50" high. I never got to the scenery stage, but I did learn that uncoupling with a skewer beyond 18" gets difficult. Laying track back that far is also difficult and may require a step stool. So I recommend keeping track 18" or closer regardless of scale.
A prior layout was 58" high. It was great for viewing, even without scenery. But it required a small step ladder (3 rungs) to work on. Trains in front would hide those behind except for roof tops. If I were doing N scale I might go a little higher.
Paul
I'm not in the process of designing another layout, but if I were, it would be an around the room shelf type.
I like a height of 46" to 50", as I have no little kids around here, so it's what I like, and a shelf depth of.....well, what I can comfortably reach.
Maybe a mirror or two, some photos, and some clever art work can give the illusion of depth.
Take a look at Rob Spangler's (wp8thsub) work, you'll see what I mean.
Mike.
My You Tube
I'm building an around the rooms layout and I would say make it deeper if you can. I started over because I didn't build deep enough. Remember 1' is only 87' in HO. Of course you can't build too deep or you won' be able to reach the back. There's also other considerations, in my case I am building on the second floor of a 1.5 story house. The vertical wall is 60", then it slants inward. So far, I have approx 14' of 24" deep, 14' of 20"deep and 14' of 16" deep.
Reasonable minimum shelf depth to be able to pull off a convincing scene. On the bedroom annex of my layout the shelf minimum is 5 1/2". Other places it is 11 inches. It is 15 inches at the widest (except in the corners which are about 22 from the corner to the edge but the widest shelf is 15 inches). The shelves are built to go over furniture and vary to match the area above the furniture without getting in the way. The shelf over the bed is 5 1/2 inches wide.
The shelf is 11 inches wide at the Sunkist packing house location.
Shelf here is less than 6 inches wide.
How do you split the real estate between foreground (in front of the track) and background (behind the track)?In areas where I want a structure behind the tracks I put the track near the front edge. I've never lost a train over the edge. In areas where I want a structure in front of the track I put the track in the rear.
Sometimes the structure is flat and is directly on the wall.
The use of backdrops to create more convincing shallow scenes.I use a combination of photo backdrop hills and structures. I only use the objects in the pictures, I cut out the sky.I also use one wall of plastic structure kits and scratch build one sided structures.I make almost flat trees using green abrasive cleaning pads.
I overlap the background building to add distance.
Positioning relative to eye level.I like to have my track height pretty high because it makes the models look better and distances seem farther than the helicopter view. I think it's about chin high. I like to have the rooftops of two or three story buildings above eye level.Elevation changes front to back.In some areas the hills in the back are photos. In the corners where the shelves are wider I make 3D hills.
The hill in the corner of Highland.
The use of forced perspective.On the hills in the corners the higher the elevation the smaller the trees, bushes and roads are.
Wow! So many interesting thoughts.
One way of showing perspective is following Paul Dolkos' example: put N scale structures in the back and HO up front. I get that, but prefer showing depth with a backdrop.
Even with little kids, I like to keep the layout about 48" high. That's fine for them since they can stand on step ladders to see everything. I hate looking down and like the eye-level view.
For illusion, making the train go beyond the layout is invaluable. A point-to-point arrangement works and I plan to hide the points behind scenery or structures. They can get aligned so the train leaves the area without actually departing.
I'm builidng a two level around the room layout with a helix in one corner. Since I'm height challenged (5'5"), my lower level is 38" high with 24" depth and my upper level will be 54" with 18" depth. This is comfortable for me to reach, especially as I get older. I learned this from my current layout as I have 30" frames on two of the three walls. It's tough to reach the back, even on the lower level. This layout is in our snowbird/retirement home in So. Florida... Lesson learned!
I'm rebuilding my freestanding/around the walls layout.Top of table is 48in high,24 deep. I have one side where the track is 6in from the back, gives me a reach of <18>.When I place a few buildings in front of that track, I can not reach that track for any maintence, without a milk crate to stand on. I'm 5'11''
I have a turnout back there.that I left space between buildings to reach in to throw.I'm concerned about any issues there after I get trees and brush and stuff .
I suggest,useing some kinda of mockups to test reach before glueing/nailing.
Bundy74As an example, in HO with an 18in shelf, I might put the track 12in back
Once again something I was taught in high school that I thought I would have no use for turns out to be good information. The "rule of thirds".
Bundy74One thing I would add is space between elements.
Agreed. I am a believer in the Layout Design Element theory where you come up with elements to model, place them in the space, and then connect the dots. I think there would need to be two minimum depth standards - one for the elements themselves and one for the connectors.
rrinkerTrack-only (ie, track passing through some scenery, no sidings, etc) areas will be 12" wide, possibly even narrower. A single siding (or set, thereof, since my layout will be double tracked), or an industry spot for a typical small industry, couple of car spots like a small warehouse or manufacturing business, or a team track), no more than 18" wide. The main yard, and a large industry like a big coal breaker will be about 24" wide.
I think this supports the theory of different goals for the design elements and the connectors.
rrinkerinteresting concept for the upper deck
Unfortunately, a neurological disorder has screwed up my balance. This is why I had to abandon the double deck HO layout. This one will single deck and all be in reach from a swivel chair. I'm switching to N so it's about a break even in the same space.
mbinsewiTake a look at Rob Spangler's (wp8thsub) work, you'll see what I mean.
Rob's work is indeed exceptional. He does have a slightly unfair advantage of modeling desert scenery since the backdrops still look ok even when you view them from different angles.
Lone Wolf and Santa FeThe shelves are built to go over furniture and vary to match the area above the furniture without getting in the way.
Interesting that you have scenes that illustrate every issue I asked about. Nice work. I'd like to see you hit those palm tree trunks with a quick spray of dullcoat though.
UNCLEBUTCHI suggest,useing some kinda of mockups to test reach before glueing/nailing.
Reach won't be an issue since I'm concerned with the minimum depth for a shelf vs maximum.
Thanks for all the replies. I do have two questions on the dimensions y'all shared.
carl425 Interesting that you have scenes that illustrate every issue I asked about. Nice work. I'd like to see you hit those palm tree trunks with a quick spray of dullcoat though. Smile
Thank you. and one day I will do something to improve the palm trees. I guess I overlooked that. I know on some old palm trees I did dull them down some. It's still a work in progress.
Not all of my railroad is on narrow shelves. The main layout in the garage is more traditional with the shelf being about 30 inches wide and the other benchwork up to 48 inches wide. The narrow shelves in the bedroom were just a way to add more layout without taking up any room. The footprint is zero as the shelves are above the bedroom furniture.
A few years back there was an article in MR about blending backdrops with the layout scene itself. I thought it was an interesting trick, so I gave it a try. I had a small space in the corner of my layout. I went out with my camera on a nice, quiet day and photographed my street.
I scaled and printed the photo, and then realized I had taken it from too high an angle, so I repeated the process. Then, I stuck the photo to a piece of foamboard.
I added a truck model to further hide the transition.
This one was small and easy. I liked the experiment enough that I just kept it. I could have extended the center line on to the layout, but I never got around to it.
It takes an iron man to play with a toy iron horse.
carl425For your HO shelf depth, do you think those would scale down proportionally to N or is it more a matter of the field of view for the person looking at the scene?
Personally, I'd leave the shelf the same width regardless of scale. In N, it'd give you more room to play with elements.
carl425Since all my building/running will be done from a chair, can you put the shelf height in terms on distance below eye level?
I checked mine, and it measures 13" below eye level. But considering all that we've talked about, I'd recommend 8" or less. It would be wise to mock something up and see how different heights look.
Bundy74 Personally, I'd leave the shelf the same width regardless of scale. In N, it'd give you more room to play with elements. ...
...
I agree with this, although the aim might be to have the shallowest possible depth to the benchwork, in which case the N scale should be able to be pared down substantially. Even so, if you have the room, by all means use it! Add a feature, a small industrial spur to add interest.
Mine is 12" to 13" below eye level.
My layout was 24" because it was compleatly module but before I built it I planed another space and resurched alot and did other experiments and found in HO 19" you could have it all, should be much less in N. On the one I compleated I had one area that had to be 12", a bit tough because I was doing a large dogbone that could also be used as a point to point and would have liked more distance between tho two tracks, looked like two different lines on the 24" sections.
My original layout was 11'X7'X12" deep running down 2 walls in my hobby room. The top was at 42". I am 6'3" and 42" was just too close to my belly button. I had a "god's eye view" of the layout that was not as cool as looking more directly at it.
First change I made was to raise the whole layout to 51". Much closer to my eye level and very close to most of my visitor's eye level. Second change was to extend the East end further from the wall by 12". This allowed for a loop that - combined with a 24"x24" extension on the West - gives me continuous operations with a longer mainline run.
I am rebuilding the logging camp, but in the pic below, that area and the area where the coal mine are, are only 12" deep.
I found, that at 24", with the track at the back, wiring, soldering, ballasting, and basically anything related to the track installation was not easy. Needed to stand on a stool - try soldering like that :) I have a 6' wingspan and for me 24" deep X 51" tall is about the max.
Here's some pics...
The East Side (Switch Junction)
Left to right, new logging camp, Virgin River Gorge, Cyndi Ann Mine
Port Smith
Brownsville - including the West turn around loop.
Hope this helps...
Thanks,
s~
On YouTube at It's My Railroad