Ideal height can vary. I would go for shoulder height as the ideal height. However, if you want children to be able to see the layout better or you have deep scenery, you may want to go shorter.
The Layout Design Primer is a must read. This section discusses layout height directly.
I'm 6'4" tall and the track height on my last N scale layout was at at 54" which put it at about my chest height. I prefer operating trains closer to eye level to create a more realistic appearance of the trains and scenery. At this height, there is sufficient height under the layout to allow ample space to install and maintain wiring, etc. I use a reclining desk chair with casters to roll around under the layout. Also, if you need to have a duck-under on your layout, this height will make access easier. I'm about to start work on my next N scale layout and I intend to have the track level at 54" to 60" off the floor for the reasons given above.
Hope this helps,
Bob
Personally, I don't see the allure of building a layout at chest height. Seems to me it would be clumsy to work on, and even fixing a little derailment would require some sort of up-and-over-the-scenery reach. Plus, you'd have to be constantly standing just to see your trains.
My track height varies from (I think) 42" to 46" above the floor (that's the height of a typical handrail). If I were to do it all again, I might raise everything by just a couple more inches. It's low enough to make all areas easily reachable, yet high enough to give a nice operating view. If I want to view the trains from ground level, I just plunk myself down in a desk chair and I'm there. Plus, I'm inherently lazy - when I feel like just running a train and railfanning instead of "operating" the layout, I can literally sit back and enjoy the show.
"I am lapidary but not eristic when I use big words." - William F. Buckley
I haven't been sleeping. I'm afraid I'll dream I'm in a coma and then wake up unconscious. -Stephen Wright
My current layout is 58". I'm 5'11" so this is a good viewing height for the track nearest the edge. But on the second track I can only see the top of the car. It's good for duckunders as well. But I need a two step ladder to work on the layout. I'm planning to try 50" for my next layout.
Enjoy
Paul
ericboone wrote:To add to what Bob said, layout height can vary depending upon what scale you are modeling too. For example, if your eyes are 12 inches above the track, that is like being 87 feet above the ground in HO scale and 160 feet above ground in N scale. In other words, the smaller the scale, the closer you'll want the track to be to eye level.
Thoughtful advice here. It may obviate, or delay, at least, the onset of the dreaded up-scaling due to age with all its associated costs.
mononguy63 wrote: Personally, I don't see the allure of building a layout at chest height. Seems to me it would be clumsy to work on, and even fixing a little derailment would require some sort of up-and-over-the-scenery reach. Plus, you'd have to be constantly standing just to see your trains.My track height varies from (I think) 42" to 46" above the floor (that's the height of a typical handrail). If I were to do it all again, I might raise everything by just a couple more inches. It's low enough to make all areas easily reachable, yet high enough to give a nice operating view. If I want to view the trains from ground level, I just plunk myself down in a desk chair and I'm there. Plus, I'm inherently lazy - when I feel like just running a train and railfanning instead of "operating" the layout, I can literally sit back and enjoy the show.
Not withstanding my reply above, I do share your feelings about this. I cannot sit for my current layout, unless I use the top of three steps on a stool that I must use at one height or another due to the reaches I have built in to the layout. It seems that one must compromise between having a certain spread and associated length of track and viewing time and the ease with which one can correct and repair when needed. I knew that I was asking for some discomfort or inconvenience with the requirement to have a duckunder access to the central layout managing pit, and with having to reach high and far to rerail items or to fix turnout throwbars that stick. It meant that the last thing to be scenicked was the table on which the yard would eventually rest since I needed access to the far reaches while laying track and scenicking those far off places and the table afford(ed) that. Now, it is quite a challenge...but I really wanted lots of visible main. I also wanted it high so that it placed me and involved me more in the setting.
I do miss being able to sit occasionally as I did with my last layout.
The problem is that the ideal height for viewing a layout is not the same as the ideal height for building or maintaining. It can get very tiring operating on a layout that is too low. It can be backbreaking to try to solder track leads on a layout that is too high.
What we need are removable knees.
Dave Nelson
dknelson wrote:The problem is that the ideal height for viewing a layout is not the same as the ideal height for building or maintaining. It can get very tiring operating on a layout that is too low. It can be backbreaking to try to solder track leads on a layout that is too high.What we need are removable knees.Dave Nelson
Or hydraulically-adjustable layouts :)
I'm with you guys on having the layout high. I like the view. I am 6-2 and have the layout at a little above elbow high. Now my Dad is 5-5 and he gets an almost eye level view and looks into the canyon area from under track height. For kids I built a 4 foot long, two step platform for their use when viewing and running and I use it for maintainance. I leave just enough space under the layout so it will be hidden when I put the drapes or whatever I use to block out the lower section.
John
I personally perfer a a height between 40" and 68" with the prime between 46-58." Any lower and I have to bend over a lot, any higher higher and I typically can't see much. I don't mind having ther upper end or even higher as long as the train is near a cliff or in a long bridge viaduct for much of the distance. This is true for even above eye level.
I live 5 minutes away from Bruce Chubb and his layout is mostly at a good height except one staging yard is very low (12" or so), and the other is very high (72-74"). When it comes down to operating, it doesn' really matter as long as you can reach the train in case of a derailment and see whats going on. When working on top the layout, it's better to be a lower level or it can get uncomfortable to do work. If it's too short, its harder to work under a shorter layout area.
Fellers,
I use 48" as the hight. I did that because it's easy to work with when making the benchwork, and I don't have so much wasted lumber. It's a good hight for viewing for me and the kids. In fact, all of the dimensions are multiples of 12" for wood-saving and construction ease.
Respects,
IMHO, the "ideal" height is the one that you are comfortable with. One size most emphatically does not fit all!
As an aid to finding out what that ideal height is, put a chair on a card table, stack up some boxes and move them from tabletop to chair seat. Measure the distance of the various levels to the floor. As an aid to visualization, put a loco and one car on a piece of flex (or two pieces of the sectional track of your choice) and move that micro-diorama from level to level. Try the view standing up and sitting down. If you've reached the age where standing for an extended period has become challenging, you will be more comfortable if the layout and its controls are at sitting height. The same is true if some of your assistant operators are grade-schoolers or younger.
The one thing that makes me cringe about layouts at high levels (and with duckunders) is the inevitability of reaching an age where standing IS a challenge. (I've reached that age, which may be why I'm sensitive about it.) Having to operate a layout like a submarine (periscope, panel indicators and sound detection) doesn't strike me as fun.
A final thought. If you model mountain scenery, with long, sustained grades, starting at a high level could easily put your summit above the eye level of an NBA center! One answer is to build a mushroom layout. A simpler solution is to start from a lower base altitude.
Just my . Feel free to disagree.
Chuck (modeling Central Japan in September, 1964 - at a base height of 1067mm, my prototype's track gauge)
perisher wrote:Just about to start my benchwork and i would like to know if there is a ideal height or is it just preference.I'm modelling in ho
I went for 40" as the base height. I am 5'9". I like to be able to sit in a chair and not have to stand all of the time. I also have an adjustable lab bench chair which allows me to sit and see the entire layout. At this height I also have pretty good reach for depth, since the backside of my layout is up against the wall.
Engineer Jeff NS Nut Visit my layout at: http://www.thebinks.com/trains/
I just completed 80' of bench work.... I built it in 6' modules to allow for assembly in the garage and easy transport to the financial black hole my wife calls my train room... In setting the bench work height I read all the books... In the end it was determined by required access to the main water shut off for the house at 43".
This is an around the walls layout with a peninsula. I set the aisles first following John Armstrong's recommendations; the water shut off set the base height...
The layout will go to 60" on the logging branch... What I have found is that I can comfortably get under the layout and my reach is enough to hit all areas at the base level. I do have to have one access pit for "just in case" scenarios...
I believe that one should build to ensure comfort in operating and ease of maintenance. For me and my height the 43" bench height is great... Thank you mister plumber....
regards,
Roger
Linn Wescott's benchwork book reccommends 42 inches for most island/table layouts. That's what I plan for my layout(will prob. be a 6 X 12 island)--seems like this is a fair balance for good viewing height, ability to work on the layout at the longest reaches and yet be able to get under the benchwork for under the table work fairly easily.
Jim
My layout is 48" high, which is about the middle of my chest. I prefer to work standing, so it's a nice height for working on both the top and underside. When I want to sit, which is rarely, I use a tall bar stool.
Nick
Take a Ride on the Reading with the: Reading Company Technical & Historical Society http://www.readingrailroad.org/
This is an interesting thread I find myself generally agreeing with most of what I have read here.
My dual level is 40" and 52" in height.
It seems to me there are a couple of factors beside viewing preference that factor heavily into a decision about benchwork height.
1. How deep is the benchwork? IF your benchwork is deeper than 24" height, regardless of viewing preference is going to be an issue. The size of the issue depends upon your height and one's willingness to work on a ladder.
2. Construction and maintenance are an issue. At 40" in height, my lower level is high for me to lie down and reach up to work on the bottom of the layout and too low for me to sit up and work! If it were 3 or four inches either way, the problem would not be there.
It is intersting just how complicated some of the issues with our hobby can be!
My
Joe
Visit my model railroad Blog where I have posted my 12 lessons learned for model railroading.
http://wwwjoe-daddy.blogspot.com
While vissiting a friend, who cannot stand for long periods of time, made me re-visit this topic. He will not be able to operate my layout for very long. Well shucks, I guess I will have to expand and ad an area where he can sit on a normal chair and operate.
This also reminded me of the Alturas and Lonepine RR of Whitney Towers. The Alturas yard was at a confortable level while seated on a stool or high office type chair where he operated most of the time. Auburn was also at this level and had a dedicated loco. Yet his Lonepine yard was almost sholder high along with Sonora, one of the stops along the line, that required a dedicated loco.
He actually satisfied both ends of that spectrum.
The ALP will always be one of the great inspirations for me.
I too have a problem standing for long periods of time. Because of this, I plan to use a tall drafting chair with casters to operate my linear walk-around layout which I plan to build at a height of approximately 54". I will have to use an appropriate surface on the concrete floor in my train room to accomodate the casters, i.e., a painted surface or other smooth finish so that the casters will roll freely.