18" is plenty

I built a 5 track yard (or 4 and a main line) in 12", and later added on with an additional 3 tracks, bringing the total width to 18".  So a 5 track yard and 2 main lines can easily be done in less than 2'

I would suggest that you keep the benchwork under 18".  That leaves plenty of room for scenery, and it will give you 38" in the middle of the room (minus any extra for backdrop structure, etc.).  One thing I wish I had done was to leave about 1" of space at the back of the layout, to prevent the scenery being directly on the backdrop and provide room for lights back there.  I've always liked the look of the night and dawn/dusk lights in dramatic colors, shining up from the bottom of the backdrop.

yard in 2' width

2' deep benchwork at the arrows

Thanks guys, that info is

Thanks guys, that info is helpful

As narrow as you can stand

The rule for shelf width is to make it as narrow as you can stand. Even 6" in some cases may be plenty.

I've found the wider you make the shelf, the more scenery work you have signed up for. It doesn't take much scenery to make a railroad interesting when it's the focus.

It depends....

It depends on what you are modeling. Like Joe mentioned, as narrow as you can. If your scene is a single track main through a rural area, it can be 6" or so. Adding sidings, buildings, etc will require more depth. I have decided to vary my width based on the scene. My yard area is 38" max to allow the turntable, narrowing down to 20" or so. In my redesign, it took 24" deep sections down to 18" max, most are now 12-16". The narrowest I will have is about 8" on the upper deck. Track height will be 62" and narrow benchwork works best with higher track height IMO.

If you want to see what can be done in 8", look at James McNab's Grimes line. http://model-railroad-hobbyist.com/node/12058

You need less width than you might think

I've found you need less width than you might think for the shelf, especially if you get the layout up closer to eye level. Here's a snapshot from an op session on my Siskiyou Line back in 2008:

The benchwork over the tunnel in this photo is only about 9" wide, and it widens out to about 18" wide in the foreground. This scene is plenty wide, especially up this high, with the track level here about 60" off the floor. I took this photo, so you're seeing my eye level view of this scene - I'm 6'3" tall, and my eyes are at about 69", so I look down on the track here from about 9" up.

But in contrast, Cam, the operator in the photo, is quite a bit shorter than me, and the track's right at his eye level - which makes for some fun railfanning views, actually!

The foreground in this scene is unfinished - it will eventually be a parking lot for the gravel pit that's out of the view to the right. There will be some cars and trucks in the lot, along with the gravel pit office. Also in the foreground near the fascia will be a fenced pasture with some grazing cattle. All on the to-do list ...

But the point remains - this is what you can do in 9-18" on a high shelf in HO. This doesn't feel at all constrained to me, and on paper I never would have guessed this scene would look this "spacious" in such a narrow space. Getting the benchwork up higher works very well with going more narrow.

Interesting - 6 inches? Wow.

Interesting - 6 inches? Wow. This is why I ask you guys before doing things - you seem to have fit everything you could want in small spaces

My absolute minimum would be eight inches....

And that's just MY opinion, people are free to differ with me. I just think that when you start getting to depths narrower than  eight inches, that the ability to model real looking scenes is compromised. Frankly I'm more comfortable with a foot, eight would actually be a compromise for me.

Michael

I'm thinking between 18-20

I'm thinking between 18-20 inches for the yard, and between 12-16 for the other side. Still gives me plenty of room in the middle for a walkway, and I'll have more than enough space to model what I want to do. Thanks for the suggestions everyone, they're really helpful, and once the benchwork is started I'll update every so often. Thanks again!

What's amazing...

What's amazing is we have an impressive proof of concept available right here....

https://forum.mrhmag.com/post/along-the-line-at-clive-12192516

-bill

Ultra narrow isn't needed

I'm going to contradict Joe and his opinion about ultra narrow benchwork. Well not completely contradict him, only in certain cases.

Joe's point assumes a rather large layout so the difference between 18" deep and 6" deep scenery is quite a bit of extra work building scenery. If you have 100 linear feet of scenery to construct, 18" wide scenery would include 100 square feet more scenery than 6" deep scenery. Scenery costs a mix of time and money.

In a relatively modest space, I don't think you'll find a deeper scenery will create a huge construction effort problem.

Also, the narrower the scenery is, the closer to your eye level it needs to be to look good. Shallow scenery depth also cries out for a 3D background. The 6" deep scenery at the east end of Rice Hill on Joe's layout looks amazingly good because it's at eye level AND because the background is a solid row of trees your eyes can't see through to the wall. In the Kings Creek scene that Joe posted earlier in this thread the significant hill and mountain sides in the background as well as the large number of trees to form a 3D background so that scene also looks good even from a slightly higher viewpoint.

But if your railroad will be more than a foot lower than your eye balls and especially if you're modeling flat country with no opportunity for a 3D backdrop other than a series of grain elevators and massive industrial buildings, deeper benchwork is called for.

In your case, with a 6'+ room width, using 18" deep benchwork should work fine IMO. Another alternative would be to vary the benchwork depth. Having a bit of undulating benchwork helps break up scenes and make the layout seem a bit larger than it is.

Try to avoid a lot of straight track perfectly parallel with a straight benchwork edge. Sometimes it's unavoidable but it usually doesn't look great. Even a difference of a degree or two between the track and benchwork edge makes a difference.

Finally, get some sheets of cardboard and mock up different widths. Get a few sticks of flex track to represent where the tracks will go, a few cars to put on them (and these certainly don't need to be $40 RTR cars!), and try to mock up a building or two with paper or cardboard or use real buildings if you have some on hand. Wadded up newspaper covered with brown grocery bags can mock up hills. Try different configurations and try it at different heights. If at all possible visit other layouts in your area to get ideas and see what things can look like.

In summary, an eye ball level (or close to it) layout can have narrow benchwork and still look very realistic. A lower layout will benefit from increased scenic depth.

Cheers,

Charlie

almost too wide...

My switching layout is wall-mounted on 4 walls. One side is 12" wide, 2 opposing sides 18" and the side opposite the 12" section is 24" wide. The 24" section is almost too wide and may eventually get cut down to 18". I think I would have done better with three 12" wide sections and one 18".

Well Danon...

You certainly have gotten some input in this forum.  I suggest you take a look around here and other places.  There are certain points I definitely agree with - having a backdrop or very high scenery behind a shallow scene is a must.  I built a very shallow 27" long diorama for photographing engines recently, and I had to put a short (12") background behind it to make it "pop" - I didn't think about it until I read Charlie's post.  So there certainly is wisdom in what is being shared here.  One thing is for sure, there are many of us that envy you starting from a clean sheet of paper.  I love that part of a project!  Good luck, and for goodness sake, post some pictures when you start!!

-bill

Just started benchwork today,

Just started benchwork today, I'm going to use homasote/plywood for the subroadbed. The yard is going to be on 16-inch plywood, still debating the other side. I appreciate all this input, makes things way easier. The entrance is a duck under (has to be with the space I have) so you guys have any clever ideas as to how to make the fascia to disguise it as a highway underpass or something?

My biggest learning

My biggest learning when designing and building my HO Siskiyou Line layout is that you don't need that wide of a shelf. 12-18" is often plenty, 24" is extravagant, and 30" wide is just plain decadent. Going as narrow as 6-8" actually works okay for short runs of a few feet.

The only reason you ever NEED to make the shelf very wide is when you have a yard or busy industrial scene with lots of tracks or you are doing a turnback look at the end of a peninsula.

Now you can make the shelf wider to allow for a deeper scene, but you don't HAVE to.

You can get a lot of railroad into a space if you only need a 12" shelf width!

Agreed, mostly at least...

Joe, I agree with you except the "30" wide is just plain decadent".  Sometimes even in HO Scale, 30" is needed for a major industrial structure and have background scenery.  In my case, there is one section of the layout that is 30" deep to make room for a 9 track coal mine complex, enough depth to have a noticeable mountain slope, a mainline and siding in front of hte complex, and having said mainline separated by a decent distance.  No track is farther back than 26" from the edge, and it is at the lowest deck (33" high) so reaching should not be an issue.  The decks above are only 24" deep. 

Ken L.

Bit tongue in cheek, Ken

Well you know me well enough Joe

99.9% of the time, I take things literally!

No harm, no foul!

Ken L

Thoughts on shelf width

I suppose the ideal width depends upon the number of tracks passing through a particular scene.  6" is feasible with one or two tracks at the most.  Even  with a shelf this narrow, you could still have a bit of scenery; perhaps the track(s) are in front of an embankment or there are industrial flats against the backdrop, either narrow 3-D or photos.  

My future layout will be 24" at it's widest, which is about the maximum width when you consider having to reach into a corner.  Then again, the tracks will be kept as close to the front edge as possible for easy reach.  And width will also be affected by height; the higher the shelf, the harder the reach (then again I understand there are things called "stools" that should alleviate this potential problem!).

Check out Lance Mindheim's excellent website shelflayouts.com, which really is a treatise on this subject IMHO.

That is a really great

That is a really great website, full of information! Thanks for sharing

Shelf Layout using 'Dominoes'

Givens & Druthers

The width is determined by room constraints and, most important, what You want in your RR. I like to vary the width depending on pinch points, yards, tunnels, bridges, etc. Where my trains disappear thru a wall, the width is 4", but where an industry or yard is located, it is closer to 24". Enjoy.

Narrow Shelves

This scene on the club layout is between 10-12" deep:

NARROW SHELVES

Depending on the height of your layout, 24 inches would be the max. Otherwise, you will have a hard time reaching the back of the shelf. On my 'N' scale layout, I have one shelf that is 24 inches wide and at one point on the layout, I have a shelf that is 8 inches wide. If your layout is close to eye level, you can get away with narrow shelves even in HO scale.