My question is a simple one, why is it that so many layouts are well over 42” above the floor? My current (and my 3 previous layouts) is just above table height at 34”. My reasons are it gives me more reach into the center of my layout, I normally sit down in a comfortable chair when operating my trains, it generally works out very good for little eyes and taller visitors can see more up close by leaning in a bit.
I find it easier to work on the under the layout stuff too, I can use a mechanic’s creeper to comfortably work on my wiring and switch machines. I also bought a Top Side Creeper that wouldn’t work out near as good if my layout was higher.
My hobby room workbench is at the same level as my computer workstation, 32”. I have them next to each other for easy accessibility between the two of them from my super comfortable high back roll around computer chair.
I have a small workbench in the garage with my layout that is also at 34”, it supports a 5” vise and my bench drill press.
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.
Mel, I believe much of it has to do with a desire to operate while standing versus sitting. While you could wheel a chair around the room, I think many people find it simpler to walk along with their trains if they are lucky enough to have a set-up of that design and are still able to physically without too many aches and pains. My current layout is a walkaround in the 46-54 in range and I spend most of my time standing up and appreciate the closer views of a layout of that height. When I need to be in a single spot for any length of time and don’t feel like standing, that’s when the bar stool comes out!
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…
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.
I’m so glad now that I built my layout closer to the floor, I can pick up dropped stuff with a grabber and put it back on the layout easier.
Just for you young guys, any thing you brake when your young comes back to haunt you starting at about 65 or so and get worse as time moves on. So build your layout with that in mind.
Mel
Modeling the early to mid 1950s SP in HO scale since 1951
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.
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).
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.
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.)
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.
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.
Good points Dave! I use flex track and I have mountains. Fairly high mountains, 39” to tree top. I’m 6’2” and don’t have a problem with the bird’s eye view or laying my track 27 years ago. I have a large sack full of grand and greatgrand daughters between 30” and 4’ that really enjoy watching my railroad and my layout works out good
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.
