Is seven foot to wide for a layout,thanks.
If one edge is against a wall, yes, that’s way too wide to be able to reach anything against the back without climbing up onto the layout. If it’s out in the middle of a room so you can walk all the way around it, then seven feet would be okay.
It is a island layout but i was going to add to it,but will like to know if i need to narrow it down before i add to it.
In reality 2.5 feet is about the most you want to have to reach into your layout. The distance can be less due to layout height and other factors. If you have a big gut this would affect the comfort and ability to reach as well. You also have to factor in that with scenery and everything reaching out 3.5 feet will start to damage your layout.
I would stick with 5 feet but at maximum 6. This is at a standard 32-36 inch table height. If you have the space why bot consider a U or other similarly shaped layout with one side against a wall?
How long is it? Even as an island, seven feet is awful wide. If it’s that long, or longer, it means you are going to have to reach at least 3.5 feet to work on parts of the layout. More than two feet is really pushing it. Even if you think you can reach that far, remember that you will be reaching over things.
This part of my layout is 6’ x 18’. The only way I would go wider is if I was going to put a mountain down the centre or something else I would never need to get to. Even at that anything going in the middle would need to be completely finished before working on the outer areas. I have to stand on a stool at 6’ wide to work on this in the middle. Six feet is the widest I will ever go.
Brent
The original part of my layout is 5x12 feet. I’d have to heartily agree that 2 1/2 feet is about as far as you can realistically expect to reach and work. You might be able to stretch 3 feet to grab a derailed car, but you won’t be able to lay track or ballast at that distance from the edge.
You might consider building some sort of removeable sections in the middle, if you have to make the layout that wide. Better, though, consider removing the middle completely, or making it scenery-only, so that you don’t have to worry about derailments that you just can’t get to.
It is seven wide and twelve long, going to add about eight ft to it and add a couple four by eights to make it a L shape.That is my plan.Any other way the water heater and heat pump will be in the way,and trying to get it from under any water pipes.
Well most people have responded with a no or a general width of 24" or so is most acceptable which are all good points but if the layout is accessible from all sides then your cutting the reach distance in half. Also generally speaking yes 24" to maybe a maximum distance of 32" is as deep as one should go but now increase the height of the bench work off the floor and your reach distance is cut down no matter how wide or narrow a distance. I’ve seen where Tony Koester has overcome this obstacle by putting in steps or raised sections on his layout where you stand on a platform raised off the floor and it not only give you a better view of whats happening for operations but extends your reach.
We are all forced to work within our limitations and if this is the maximum about of space you can fit in your area to accomplish the goals you wish to achieve then you need to find ways to work with that space. I would suggest keeping your track work on the outer perimeter of the bench work and let scenery occupy the interior areas. I have seen many very large layout that were built in sections working their way outward where reaching the back of the layout is almost impossible but builders have overcome these obstacles buy adding pop up hatches ad cut out center sections that an operator can reach by crawling under the layout and popping up through the opening. It’s just time to get creative on your part. What many of us fail to remember is that suggestions like keeping your track work within 24" reach etc. are just that merely suggestions. If you can find a way to make a deeper scene work for you thats all you need to care about not what others think you should do with your layout.
When I plan a layout, I draw a 24 inch circle, cut it in half across the center and use it to check reach on the plan. Center line goes at the layout edge and the circumference is maximum reach. Look for parts of the layout that are outside the arc. Those are the spots that will be most uncomfortable reaching. Another thing to remember is that while you are reaching into the layout 30+ inches, any scenery between your elbow and armpit are at risk of being damaged.
I use a similar process to build ADA compliant spaces.
Aside from the question of being able to reach all spots on my layout, I find it difficult to create a plausible scenery for such a wide layout - that´s one of the key reasons I prefer shelf-type layouts - you can kind of line up various scenic elements, instead of having to stack them…
My Santa Fe in Oklahoma occupies a space 29ft by 33ft. It is three deck, and for the most part is narrow, around the wall. I do have an area though that is 8ft deep. Under it is a helix and the top deck is part of the Oklahoma City area including the Sooner Lift, part of Flynn Yard and some industries. The yard tracks in Flynn are long and curving and the throat of the yard is easily reachable from the edge. It is the long tracks I worried about with derailments, etc. So I cut a square open area in the yard which is concealed by structures from the aisle way. If there is a problem, derailment, etc. in Flynn yard I can come up inside the hole behind the structures (which are not anchored down), lift the structure aside and reach the problem area.
This provides good exercise for a fat old man. I might add that under all this is four staging yards and a mole hole for staging trains.
Bottom line, it can be done, but will require some thought, planning, and looking ahead. Therefore I would urge caution and also exhaust all other options first.
Bob
Hi,
study first, think hard second and start the build even later.
You could read this: http://www.layoutvision.com/id28.html
and look at :
have fun and keepsmiling
Paul
My layout has areas that are just 6’ wide and I built a cantilevered step stool/ladder that allows me to climb up 24" off the floor but at the same time I am going over the edge of the layout. I can reach areas that are 36" deep without much problem. These ladder/step units are sold by Micro Mark or other suppliers at about $250 - $300 so I built my own with padded top platform for resting my chest and elbows on. This is really only a half solution to a problem that shouldn’t have been created in the first place. I would still keep to about 24-30" max reach. My layout is also 55" high on the upper level which makes it even more difficult. I can live with what I have because the layout design is what I wanted. This is a choice you will have to make. I also have three liftout access hatches for areas that need better reach for doing track and scenery work.
Another factor about width of layout is not just laying the track, wiring, re-railing derailed trains, and dusting and cleaning the layout (and maintaining scenery even if the deepest part is free of tracks and is pure scenery – there are still reasons for access). Don’t forget the overhead lighting! A friend of mine built a layout with deep scenes where there were mountains and no rails, so he figured he was OK violating the 2 1/2 foot rule. At 6’8" I frequently had to reach in to clear away cobwebs from the trees. Eventually he bought one of these from MicroMark (if this works I have copied the image from their on-line catalog but here is the link
http://www.micromark.com/TOPSIDE-CREEPER-STEP-LADDER-SUPPORT-SYSTEM,8854.html
But the real problem is when the flourescent light bulbs he installed began to age and burn out. Even the topside creeper is not ideally suited for being on your back facing up! And that was just replacing the bulbs. replacing the entire fixture or just the ballast or those horrid plastic covers that break so easy … I don’t even want to think about it.
Dave Nelson
In that much space, there are many better choices for benchwork shape than simply connecting rectangles.
You’ll definitiely find that 7 feet is too wide.
Dave
You bring up an excellent point about lighting for those very reasons I hate fluorescent lighting but we all know it’s a cheaper alternative to incandescent lighting. I borrowed an idea from Cliff Powers MA&G where he used commercial screw in fixtures the kinds with the pig tails and fastened them to the under side of the valance using a clamp an and used the screw in type florescent bulbs. Sure you need to put then a lot closer to each other and use more of them but you eliminate all of the pitfalls you mentioned, just reach up and unscrew the bulb and replace. I have also replaced the conventional bulbs in my track lighting with those type florescent bulbs and like the lighting much better. less heat and lower cost.
Having stretched over a 2’ 6" wide workbench today to put up a wall light, I’d say that 2’ should be your maximum reach, or 4’ if you’re using an island shape. Having the apparatus such as that from Micromark is fine up to a point, but why make life so difficult ?
Dennis
In high school, I had a free-standing 6’x6’ HO table, and here’s why it worked:
[1] Grid benchwork with 1"x4" douglass fir as well as 1"x4" “L-legs.”
[2] A town was placed in the middle including an HO overhead Eheim trolly.
[3] The longest reach to inner town-trackage was apx. 32".
[4] Making the town required I get up on table edges – to reach the middle.
[5] When the town, structures, and lighting was complete – the outside layout table trackage was then completed within an easy reach standing on the floor.
Thanks everybody,i need you guys to come and help me.I will go back to the train room and do some studying and get back.Thanks.