Layout Height

I think armpit height is too high. My personal preference is belly level, on my good friend's layout it is chest level. Some don't like a bird's eye view but I do. It's a very personal thing.

Thanks ...

... for posting this link.  I respect the view of Lance Mindheim (as well as several others).  I had originally allowed only 2" between track center and layout edge.  I knew it was on the tight side, but figured if it was good enough for parallel tracks, it would be good enough.  After reviewing Lance's "Best Practices" and seeing 3"; I took another look and made some very minor changes to achieve a 3" clearance.  I think the extra 1" between the layout edge and the tracks will make a big difference visually -- just a bit more room for some track side details.

I could do this, as I have yet to lay track ... had the track already been down, chances are, I would have just lived with it.

Layout height can be a tricky thing.  Higher, places the layout at a more "natural" viewing angle (roof top vice helicopter); but does make reaching into the layout for coupling etc. a bit more difficult.  The deeper the baseboard (i.e. longer the reach), the lower it should be I think ....  Me, going with chest height (just a couple inches less than arm pit).

I recommend high enough so

30 in radii

A 30 in radius seems too tight for passenger cars. Most of you probably remember the first issue of MRH (2009) with a detailed article with pics on various radii using different length cars so you could see how unrealistic the overhang can be. I feel the 36 in radius I chose for all ( but one) of my curves was more of a compromise than I wanted but my available space dictated reality.

Bob

I think it is personal

Reach is 24" or less. I had a section that was 27" wide and I could not reach the other side. I'm 5' 10"

Layout height is 40" I tried an arm pit layout as test for my self. NO WAY!!! Uncoupling using a pick is very dangerous unless it is right in front of you and up close. Same with working on it for the same reasons. How much do you want to fix after you reach over to to do some sort of detail work or repair behind something else? And then there is the issue of having to stand on a stool to do just about anything and then you forget you are on it and step off even if it is only one step. Two reasons I like 40" is because it is comfortable to work on on and sitting in a desk chair to watch trains is a great height. To do actual operating I will stand up.

30" radius, That really depends on how much space you have to work with. In a 10x10 or 12x12 room you can use up a lot of realistate in a hurry. It might be better to go with smaller and disguise the curve with scenery of some sort. Interestingly enough though this is one of the places that height really helps. The closer to eye level it is the harder it is to tell how sharp the curve is.

Jack

I agree with 30 inch radius

I agree with 30 inch radius being sharp for passenger cars, but as always, space is the issue.  Wouldn't we all love to have an aircraft hanger to build layouts in and go with 50 inch or greater minimum curves!  That said, I've always been an advocate of pushing the minimum curve limits as much as possible - even though it's ruffled a few feathers.

Guides

Looking over his site reveals a wealth of ideas but, since I model in 1:48 narrow gauge, not much really applies except the layout height. The lowest level of my layout is 52" and rises to the mountain wye at 64". Granted I am 6'-4" tall. 

O scale structures are not only large but take up 4 times as much space as HO (width times length!) so reaching in is a real concern at any height. 

The track spacing and radius also don't scale well, especially narrow gage. My longest cars are the 50' passenger so I don't have problems with the way they look on outside curves but conceal the overhang of inside curves on my 26" minimum radius. This may also be a function of the layout height as well. A helicopter (drone?) view makes our curves look much worse. 

The biggest thing I would take away from his site is that simple is not only real but achievable - measure your layout size based on time and not size. 

Neil

I think armpit height is too

 My interpretation of this is that you have bird's eyes in your belly? 

 My interpretation of this is

It's large enough for a good sized nest.  

I think Lance's standards

I think Lance's standards work very well for his style of shelf layouts with switching. Obviously if you are looking to build a layout with deeper scenes or a different design emphasis, things such as layout height and depth may change with the objectives of you approach. 

I wish there was a height standard high enough to keep a cat off the layout, but raising the benchwork and then using the storage space underneath to declutter the layout room just created multiple "stair cases" for kitty to experiment with. Luckily, she really likes a flat area by a window the most, so that will become "Catfish Hill."

Cat Standards and Bellybuttons

Peter: 

I am convinced that my cat has no respect for standards! Perhaps I should give in and make a similar roost but he seems too interested to sit still. 

Thanks Onewolf and GregW - that gave me a good belly laugh. 

My aisle space is so narrow that I have to step outside to turn around - well, not quite but bending over for a rail side view takes more room than building high to start with. It is harder to maintain and does not seem to deter that d@*% cat. 

Would I do it differently if starting over? IDK My cousin wrote a book called "Scared Sitless". Perhaps it is just another health fad but I raised my office desk to standing height about a year ago and have a drafting stool for some occasional relief but do feel stronger, better balanced, and have less back pain. Not trying to preach. What works for me my help others. 

Neil

As Wallis Simpson went on to say....

"You can never be too rich or too thin"  Wallis Simpson.  With respect to model railroading she went on to say "...and you can never have too much aisle space or curve radius".

When I put those specs out there I tried to emphasize they were no more than general guidelines to get somebody started and keep them out of trouble.  True, the mainline curve radius of 30" is tight but that is a "minimum" and longer cars will negotiate it.  A center peninsula, even with a 30" minimum (and allowing some room between track and fascia)  gobbles up a whopping five and half feet of width.  A lot of folks are working with spare bedrooms so every inch of radius on a 180 degree curve adds up.  No argument though, larger would be better.  More space between the front track and fascia would be better.  More room between the back track and backdrop would be nice.  More money in my bank account would be nice.  If only we lived in a perfect world

Lance

Back track and backdrop space...

Is the space between back track and backdrop purely an aesthetics thing? I can see being far enough away so that you can get your hand around a car should it be necessary, but any more space than that seems unnecessary. 4" is a mile when your cramming ten pounds of sh... er, I mean railroad, into a five pound bag. 

Randy

Space, or not....

Being a single operator, though I do have the occasional open day, my aisles are rather on the minimum side, being a consistent two foot wide. But that's more than ample for me to turn! As regards height, I prefer a minimum 48". I'm currently on 52" to the top of the baseboards, and have been higher, but I found any higher was too high, even if only on a foot wide baseboard. Which leads me in to width. I like a reasonable amount of depth, especially on an open country style layout, but I do try and keep the taller buildings, especially those I switch, at the far side of the tracks. The odd tree etc populates the front, but that is more a view block. Perhaps an industrial scene is different, I don't know, I've never done one.

As for cats, well mine will leap 48" to sit on the layout, given a chance, although he usually gives me plenty of warning, so I can get the bedroom door shut first!

Back track to backdrop space

"Is the space between back track and backdrop purely an aesthetics thing? I can see being far enough away so that you can get your hand around a car should it be necessary, but any more space than that seems unnecessary. 4" is a mile when your cramming ten pounds of sh... er, I mean railroad, into a five pound bag. Randy"

Yes, purely aesthetic and subjective.   Often every inch does count but it's nice to have a buffer for at least a tree line and some building flats.

Lance

Is the space between back

It depends primarily on what kind of scenery you want behind the track and secondarily on how the lighting is arranged and if it throws shadows on a too close backdrop........DaveB 

A list to start with.

I would think most of this would go on many of our lists of layout requirements, but how would you know what is trash and what is helpful? 

Experience.

You have to admit that you didn't know how an elbow level layout would work out until you saw all your visitors resting their elbows on your layout, scenery and all, while having a discussion. 

We all will have our own lists based on our differing experiences.

A big one for me is turnout location as it relates to grade transitions. Even as simple as going from cork to table top can cause issues, but some people just don't listen. Why? They have not experienced what might come of such a set up.

I went to the site and read

I went to the site and read the list lance had posted and his standards are a bit different than mine but very close. I like bigger minimum radius but do not run passenger cars. I also like bigger aisles. Lance seems to be tall and thin, I am shorter and wider.

These things are his minimums and are designed to work for him. I can easily reach 30 inches and work at that distance, but further than that it becomes uncomfortable. Our club layout has typically 42 inch aisles with some tight spots here and there and I would be tempted to go wider to 48 inches. Remember that space will be for you and your tool cart later on, or a space where full grown men can get past each other.

For me unless I was forced into a restrictive space that required a much tighter radius I would go 42 inch minimum in HO scale, large steam looks better on bigger radius to me. Long trains back better through larger curves for switching purposes. I have my equipment reliable enough to back through curves as tight as 28 inches but like the look of bigger curves (that is trains of more than 100 cars.)

With that 42 inch minimum radius we are looking at curves that should allow reliable coupling on curves of any car up to about 60 feet long, most cars in the late fifties are less than that length.

Each person should use the preferences of another as a starting point and actually experiment a bit to see what will allow them to accomplish their particular goals. Keep in mind the word minimum as that is a list of what is the most restrictive option is that will allow mechanical reliability. We are often involved in doing things in our hobby for visual effect and that might have a different set of minimums.

For me in the case of curve radius I could achieve mechanical reliability on much tighter radius for example but the visual effect I am after requires a much larger radius.

When designing your layout it is often beneficial to look it over and see if one could not for example increase the curve radius to a larger size and still keep the same type of operating scheme. Lots of folks focus on the minimums instead of maximums. In reality are we not after the most enjoyment from our hobby and not the minimum. Maybe after looking at a minimum version looking at a maximum version might be worth while.

S Curves

Lance recommends that F, the minimum length of straight track between a curve and a turnout  be 2 inches.My preference is to make it zero if possible. In this diagram the lefthand turnout is replaced with a righthand one, which serves as something of an easement and eliminates an S-curve. This is from John Armstrong's Track Planning for Realistic Operation. 

Where the F dimension can't be avoided is in crossovers, where I try to use the largest frog number that will fit, to reduce the wiggle of trains that can strain couplers.

curve to turnout

I'm confused

Dear P:rof,

 I'm one of those who needs no brain to flip the turnout for better operation, and I think that a full-sized railroad would also design track to reduce or eliminate excessive curves.  So  I'm having trouble figuring out why the "US-outline modelers" -of whom I know none - insist on the main line going thru the straight leg of the turnout. Are these the folks who also think that every time the whistle or horn blows it must be two longs, a short, and a long?

Maybe this can help me understand why "F=2 inches" makes sense. I've redrawn my picture to show a hybrid of Lance's picture and a picture from Armstrong's discussion of S-curves. Armstrong shows two turnouts joined point-end to point-end, and recommends that the sets of points be as close to each other as possible. Is this where Lance's 2 inches comes from? It seems large. Note that by removing the left-hand straight leg of one turnout in my drawing, you end up with the curve-into-turnout transition.

DrJolS

Those flippin' turnouts

A full-size railroad will avoid doing this, and anyone who knows how they approach the situation will spot the problem right off.  On my previous layout, I had a couple turnouts so arranged for what I thought would be better operation.  My wife's dad, a civil engineer for the Union Pacific, and very knowledgeable about prototype trackwork because of his job, immediately noticed them and let me know how wrong they looked to him, noting that such things were sufficiently rare they jumped out at him for looking off.

In order to keep model track looking right, it pays to take the same pains as the real thing to keep the main track running through the straight leg of a turnout, at least for US practice.

Think of the speed

Think of the speed restrictions imposed on a real railroad when it takes the curved leg of a turn out. In the case of real railroads they are fairly restrictive in comparison to our models. Someone had gone to the trouble of posting a chart that would show the equivalent turn out the real roads used and how slow they had to go to get throw the turn out. If you consider how much energy gets used up slowing and getting back to track speed it will readily be apparent how much money and time the railroad could save.

Getting Educated is Fun

Thank you, Rob & Rob. I will now stifle any further suggestions that real railroads followed John Armstrong's recommendation for models.
However, as I am not doing dioramas but rather building a railroad for satisfying and reliable operation, I will continue to prefer track alignments that support this goal.  Radii of all of my (our?) curves are much less than on the prototype; turnout frogs are sharper. These should be noticeable to anyone knowledgeable enough to squawk at straight-vs.-curved leg thru a switch. I am content to run trains thru these sharp curvatures faster than the creepy-crawl required by the big boys, although still slow enough to look reasonable and not like a racing toy. My preferred alignment with F=0 makes it easier to back long trains through the special work without incident. I may well have other track features that aren't prototypical, but I can run without excessive rerailing and recoupling. So I'm satisfied with my compromises.

Thank you again for useful comments.

My question remains - where did Lance's 2 inches come from?

Cheers,

DrJolS