I don't mean to be a smart a**. but all the I s in your post answers your question.
I believe all train tables are built to the builder's spects, for a lot of reasons.
Mine is around 50in. Thats the lenght of the material I had on hand. I can reach every thing, I think its good viewing,and allows to work under along with storage.
Its mine built for me
Mike
Mel,
As folks got into 'operation' and walk-around layout design, having the layout at 'eye' level became popular.
Back in the 60's, MR suggested 42" for basic layout height. By the 70's, 48" and up became popular. The walk-around designs with 24" to 30" wide scenes were reachable on 48"+ high layouts. My old layout varied from 48" to 54", and I am 5'8" tall. I used a step stool when I needed to reach something in a corner. Our club is around 54" as well...
Jim
Modeling BNSF and Milwaukee Road in SW Wisconsin
My current layout is 50" and is a walk around. Two layouts ago it was 58" which was great for the duckunder and viewing the near train but a little hard to see second trains. 58" was also harder to work on. I find 50" a good compromise between easy to work on and good viewing angle. plus my wife and children who are shorter than I am (I'm 5'11") can see it.
All that said, if I were in HO I would try 54". N scale I would probably do at 58". But for S scale, 50" works well.
I also have a small test layout that is 5'4" x 12' that is 36" high and I run it from a chair. My Lionel layout (6' x 12') that my grandson likes to run is also 36" high. We can run it from a chair or he can walk around it for a closer view. Plus the lower height makes reaching the center possible.
Paul
I have east end staging at 31" and west end staging at 74". Sceniced levels are at 42" and 60".
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.
RR_Mel If you wondering about me being lazy, I am! That was one of the reasons for my earlier layouts but now I’ll be 79 years old in a couple of weeks, I just get tired of standing and everything hurts.
Last week, you said that you were 88 years old. Typo?
Rich
Alton Junction
Yea, typo Im 78 until the end of teh month, I feel 88.
Mel
RR_Mel Yea, typo Im 78 until the end of teh month, I feel 88. Mel
BTW, my layout height is 36" height. I think that is a good height for sitting and viewing and operating.
My partially double-decked layout varies in height, from 36" to 59". The lower level (the portion below the upper level) is meant to be operated from rolling office-type chairs, while most of the transition between levels can be operated either from the same chairs or while standing. The upper level is operated while standing, while stepstools are available when needed, especially when doing layout work on the upper level.
Wayne
Because the SIW is only 24" deep and benchwork is designed around short file cabinets reach is not an issue as I roll around inmy layou chair.
Joe Staten Island West
I built my layout tall, to suit me (I am 6'8", or at least I was when I started the darn thing). I recognize that many shorter visitors will not be able to see deep into some scenes due to that height. I might add that my prototype is fairly flat/Midwestern. A mountain layout might well work lower with the viewer looking down at the trains but straight at (or up at) the mountain peaks.
I find it agony to visit or operate on double deck layouts because the lower decks are just too low. Don't even get me started about "duck unders." I hear Mel's point about age and backs however, and should I ever need to sit to operate then my layout will have to be cut down. It will be way too tall to sit at.
I will say that the ideal height for someone who lays flex track might be different than the ideal height for someone who hand-lays their track. I certainly know that soldering feeds to the outside of the far rails is a challenge at the height I chose (roughly armpit height).
Dave Nelson
It all comes down to "builder's choice", and that goes along with the old saying...."different strokes for different folks".
Having had layouts from about 30 inches to 42 inches, I can attest that each had their plus/minus attributes. My current layout's main level is 41 inches, with the lower level staging at about 20 or so inches. If I had only one level, I would likely go for 38-40 or so inches. But that is just me, a 5' 9 1/2" 225 lbs old guy.
ENJOY !
Mobilman44
Living in southeast Texas, formerly modeling the "postwar" Santa Fe and Illinois Central
My layout (partially unassembled currently) is/was set at 54" high. Reason? I can clear the 48" high book cases and storage units underneath it, and have a few inches to play with for scenery "below grade" where needed.
My height? I am a short 5'7" tall. So, yes, it is/was a stretch to work on, but that is what a step stool is for.
But, HO scale trains do look a better when near/just below eye level, compared with the "birds-eye view" of some other layouts.
Some of the display tracks are considerably higher, needing a step stool just to reach, but they do not operate. (And the tallest holds items rarely operated, for a variety of reasons, therefore do not need reached that often.)
Ricky W.
HO scale Proto-freelancer.
My Railroad rules:
1: It's my railroad, my rules.
2: It's for having fun and enjoyment.
3: Any objections, consult above rules.
Layout height is a matter of what works best for builder. There are really no standards. My pike has a base level of 54' and benchwork is at 48" which allows ample room for negative scenery (desends below track level). This height of 54" and in areas up to 66" in mining areas allows trains and structures to be viewed at almost eye level. Then it is considerably easier to work under bench, and also leaves a shorter distance in background to scenic. At lower track levels, a distance of 4 feet and sometimes greater from layout base to ceiling can be difficult to effectively scenic.
I have seen several pikes with heights of 36" to 42" and viewing often is like looking out of helicopter window....which again some folks prefer. My goal is realism and close to eye level viewing offers this for me. Sitting? A simple bar stool works perfectly with this level. I do prefer standing and walking with train. My mainline is over 23 scale miles (over 1400'). I enjoy telling my wife, Sandy..."excercise? I just walked 23 miles with the choo choo.
HZ
Howard Zane I enjoy telling my wife, Sandy..."excercise? I just walked 23 miles with the choo choo. HZ
I enjoy telling my wife, Sandy..."excercise? I just walked 23 miles with the choo choo.
Sounds perfectly reasonable to me!
Mel, you and I are within days of the same age - and looking at things around similar problems.
The lowest track level on my double garage filler is 38 inches off the floor. Tomikawa, the main station on the JNR was planned to be 42" (my prototype's track gauge) but came in at 44" because I didn't allow for the slope in the garage floor. All of the netherworld is between those two levels, as is the rest of the visible JNR.
Everything else goes up, up and awaaay! (but not nearly as fast as Superman.) The coal hauler stations will end up at 52 inches, 56 inches and 58 inches (after a one-turn downgrade helix - it was actually coming in at 64 inches.) As things get higher, the reach-in distance for anything except scenery shortens.
If I ever build out any significant part of the two 762mm gauge feeders the tracks will be on a shelf with a rail height of >60"> along the south wall of the garage. To get there the logger will wrap itself around a mountain, 3 turns worth. The other line will use a slant-running elevator to connect levels. (The prototype's is inside a mountain. I'll keep mine visible.)
Some of our perceptions may come from how we first observed trains. A lot of my early railfanning was done while sitting on a mountainside, or inside a tall building, looking down. So was a lot of later trainwatching. So I'm comfortable with the Blimp's eye view (not a helicopter. No annoying wump-wump-wump...) On the other hand, I explored the mines, the Kurobe Gorge and Kiso country at ground level, so having them well elevated works out for me.
Chuck (Modeling Central Japan in September, 1964)
dknelson I built my layout tall, to suit me (I am 6'8", or at least I was when I started the darn thing). I recognize that many shorter visitors will not be able to see deep into some scenes due to that height. I might add that my prototype is fairly flat/Midwestern. A mountain layout might well work lower with the viewer looking down at the trains but straight at (or up at) the mountain peaks. I find it agony to visit or operate on double deck layouts because the lower decks are just too low. Don't even get me started about "duck unders." I hear Mel's point about age and backs however, and should I ever need to sit to operate then my layout will have to be cut down. It will be way too tall to sit at. I will say that the ideal height for someone who lays flex track might be different than the ideal height for someone who hand-lays their track. I certainly know that soldering feeds to the outside of the far rails is a challenge at the height I chose (roughly armpit height). Dave Nelson
My last layout was chest height for me. I loved the way it looked and operated, I deliberately built it with no inaccessible points, operations is the reason d'etre for my railroad, it made the "duck under" a lot easier, and I'll put my next layout at that height too.And yeah, this getting older s*** ain't for sissies.
Disclaimer: This post may contain humor, sarcasm, and/or flatulence.
Michael Mornard
Bringing the North Woods to South Dakota!
I like my ISLs 48" since that is around 12-14" below seated eye level or near "boots on the ground" viewing for me. Throwing a switch is no problem nor uncoupling cars since I use KD magnets.
Larry
Conductor.
Summerset Ry.
"Stay Alert, Don't get hurt Safety First!"
In my previous post, I had forgot to mention about "duck unders". These are fine if you happen to be a duck. A layout with a 42" or lower bench is not kind to folks using duck unders. I can almost guarantee that in the planning stage of a pike, duck unders can be avoided.....and they should be avoided at all cost. As the builder gets older, the duck under always get lower and then some.
My original Piermont Division layout had two duck unders as I had 48" to bottom of bench work and I was 43 when I began this thing. After 10 years, and several visits to the chiropractor, I found that I was not spending as much time with the trains. Then in 2006, a visitor with......well let's say a bit overweight (450 lbs+) became wedged in after going to ramming speed. We had two pulling and two pushing on the caboose...to no avail. After a brief period, his back was hurting badly, so I grabbed the saws-all and cut him out thus eliminating a section of the layout. The next evening three model railroad buddies came over with pick-ups and more saws and section One became history.
Of course this is the extreme, but it sort of makes a point.
Howard ZaneIn my previous post, I had forgot to mention about "duck unders". These are fine if you happen to be a duck. A layout with a 42" or lower bench is not kind to folks using duck unders. I can almost guarantee that in the planning stage of a pike, duck unders can be avoided.....and they should be avoided at all cost. As the builder gets older, the duck under always get lower and then some.
Young flexible modelers can use those duck unders with ease.Its when old age and Uncle Arty moves in those duck unders become problematic. Of course layouts no longer last a life time so the young can enjoy those pit style layouts.
IMHO the best style for us antique modelers is around the walls or if they insist a pit style with lift. For the more robust modelers they should stick with a round the walls layout.
My layout is 52" high and is perfect for my 6'3" height. It's great for rail fanning my layout.
I also use a bar stool with a back so I can run trains when I'm tired and sore. Being older (70) is not for the young.
Interesting discussion.
I'm going to have to operate my layout from a seated position. My back simply won't allow me to stand for very long.
I haven't figured out exactly what height yet.
Dave
I'm just a dude with a bad back having a lot of fun with model trains, and finally building a layout!
DAVID FORTNEYI also use a bar stool with a back so I can run trains when I'm tired and sore. Being older (70) is not for the young.
I used a bar stool with a back for years now,I'm 68 I prefer a nice comfy office chair.
Be nice if I could find one with "EMD" on the back.
Hi all
Well my layout is nothing like the rediculouse recomended height's
I prefer to be able to reach my layout for work and play in comfort.
Without resorting to the use of ladders or other inconvieneces.
Must get a suitable chair shame I can't perminantly borrow a Loco chair
regards John
Howard Zane Then in 2006, a visitor with......well let's say a bit overweight (450 lbs+) became wedged in after going to ramming speed. We had two pulling and two pushing on the caboose...to no avail. After a brief period, his back was hurting badly, so I grabbed the saws-all and cut him out thus eliminating a section of the layout. HZ
Then in 2006, a visitor with......well let's say a bit overweight (450 lbs+) became wedged in after going to ramming speed. We had two pulling and two pushing on the caboose...to no avail. After a brief period, his back was hurting badly, so I grabbed the saws-all and cut him out thus eliminating a section of the layout.
Good heavens Howard that is an amazing story. I have seen such "slightly overweight" visitors walk into tight dead-end aisles and then need to ask for some help in backing their way out. MR's Jim Hediger has referred to some layout visitors who "Exceed Plate C."
I guess the lesson is that those with duck unders and tight aisles who open their layouts to tours should always keep a can of Crisco handy just in case ....
hon30critter Interesting discussion. I'm going to have to operate my layout from a seated position. My back simply won't allow me to stand for very long. I haven't figured out exactly what height yet. Dave
Another consideration to think of is how you are going to run your trains. A single operator, with one or two grandkids watching/helping can easily move around in a chair. Group operations, a few adualts, with multple trains, each adult in an office chair, would be likely to present a greater ability to get in each others way.
As I was going for 3 cab, cab control, I used a fifty inch height for walk around.
At age 68, in a few years, this may cause problems, but one can hope not.