12 - 16"

Dear Lee,

Just coming off a nightshift, so details/examples later

(HINT: Search Box at top right, use term "proscenium module" for a metric boxcar-load of examples)

but my standard measurements for such missions tend to land around:

- overall module height : 600mm (24")

- Base height (module frame < -> track datum) : 150mm (6")

Gives plenty of room below track for electronics, Tortoises, below-track bridges/creeks/earthworks

- Roof/lighting rig valence/fascia height : 100mm (4")

Ergo - Viewing Aperture (overall module height,
Minus Base height,
Minus roof valence height)

: 350mm (14")

NB that with a curved backdrop<> sky sheet, it should tick up _under_ the lower-edge of the roof fascia,
Meaning that while the "viewing apeture" is 14", the actual track<> "sky" scene height can be up to 2" taller...

Happy Modelling,
Aim to Improve,
Prof Klyzlr

Viewing angle

My layout has a 12” window. The window is too big for my viewing angle since the bottom of the upper valence is above my eye level. I think ideally the bottom of the upper valence should be below your eye level, so the ceiling is always obscured by the valence. 

 

You can see in the photos above my view of my layout. Unfortunately, I always see a sliver of the underside and sometimes the light fixtures of the upper valence. I imagine shorter visitors see pretty much the whole underside. If I get the gumption someday I may lower this valence or simply tack on a née fascia that obscures more from my viewing angle.

My layout is 18” deep, so similar to the size of your layout.

Shadow box

Rule of thumb I always used is it should be as tall as it is deep.  For an 8" deep scene you can get away with an 8" high opening.

Many...

...thanks. Lee

Viewing angle?

I'd mock it up with cardboard or other cheap material . The resulting view is a combination of your module width, your eye height above the shelf, your eye distance from the shelf, etc. I'd start by determining the most comfortable viewing position relative to you layout width and height then move the lighting valence up or down till you are most satisfied with the view. How it looks to you is more important than what anyone else might think about it....DaveB

opening size

The opening on my exhibition layout is 11",layout size is 12' x13", height from ground is 51"

Depth of Scene

Would 24 inches be too deep for a shadow box design?  Are there potential pitfalls in making it that deep?  

24" deep scene

Dear Jeff,

Assuming your proscenium design is _structurally_sound_(!!!) 24" deep scenes (with a min 4" deep spine) is very do-able...

...however, proper fully-optimised implementation of a "Proscenium Module" involves awareness and appropriate deployment of:

- scene display height

- Base and roof fascia dimensions

- viewing apeture dimensions

- controlling viewing angles in X, Y, and Z axis

- backdrop visual design and optimisation

- lighting optimisation

Reccomend the Search Box at Top Right with terms:

- "proscenium module"

- "Foamcore module"

- "Brooklyn 3AM"

- "Toorong"

- "Arakoola"

- "Kieran Ryan plywood"

I would also Strongly Reccomend reading up on the info by Iain Rice.

Happy Modelling,

Aim to Improve,

Prof Klyzlr

PS for laughs, try This

Shadowbox scene depth

On Siskiyou Line 1, I used the shadowbox approach and some scenes were 44" deep. That's actually too deep for good access, but it still works visually. See this panorama photo below, that's 44" from the fascia to the backdrop in some places:

Two levels.

I have two levels, the bench level is 18" apart, which puts the opening on each level approximately 16" average.

The depth of the entire layout is 30".

For a complete tour: 

Thanks!

Thank you all for the feedback and design considerations to keep in mind.  I was moving toward an open shelf concept, but am coming around to the shadowbox approach.  I like how it frames the scene and the lighting, as well as the design aspects for module construction.

One consideration for me is the hope that it will be appealing to my grandchildren, who currently range from 4 to 15 years.  I need to ponder layout height, possibly with a “booster” platform for the younger ones.  Obviously the level of involvement may vary, but I do want them to be able to easily view the layout, so that’s a consideration in framing the scenes.

Layout height

The viewing angle is hard to nail down, especially if you are dealing with grandchildren from 4 to 15 years. You can get it right for yourself but it will change every time someone not your height shows up.

It's surprising how much changes in the shadowbox approach within a few inches of vertical viewing positions.

I use the shadowbox idea and like it because I have run strip LEDs along the backside of what would be the valance for most people but is just the overhang from the next higher shelf on my layout. It makes you focus on the action at hand, but as soon as my wife shows up she is looking at the underside of the "roof" so to speak and the illusion does not work as well for her.

After I had the setup just right, I later added some rubber floor mats along the area where most of the standing/walking along following trains is done. Now I look more at car and locomotive roofs than I did before. It can't have changed the viewing angle by much more than one inch but I could tell the difference right away.

Alternate viewpoint

Jeff,

I know this doesn't answer your question directly, but I wanted to offer a couple ideas.

First, you've got a nice blog.  I used to live in Puyallup (South Hill) and enjoyed my time in the great Pacific Northwest.  I enjoyed Snoqualmie and the museum there as well.

Secondly, and more to the point of your question, why do you want the shadowbox style?  Give it a long consideration before you commit to it.  Nothing wrong with it if you know that's what you've got to have and you can articulate why, but just give it plenty of thought.

Personally I have never met a shadowbox-style railroad that looked right to me.  I'm always peeking up under the valence or being distracted by the lights, wiring, etc up there, no matter how it is camouflaged to hide it.  The upper valence becomes a distraction. 

Museums use them to great effect because they can control the view.  But on many model railroad layouts folks have multiple viewpoints that often result in letting the operator/viewer see "backstage".  Interestingly enough, as shown in the photos on this thread, I think the best use of an upper valance/shadowbox design is an exhibition style display railroad.  It invites the viewer to come closer and peer in.  But how many of those have you seen here in the States? 

George Sellios uses them to hide the lights on his magnificent F&SM.  Since opening the center peninsula you can now see across it to the other side of the room - but now you see row after row of valences, front/back/front no matter where you stand.  Chuck Rickett's excellent SS&S On30 railroad is up near you and having operated on it a couple times I can attest to a similar situation.  From a few operating positions you can see the backside of the valences clearly depending on where you look, making them useless at hiding lights. 

Anyway, my two cents.  Your mileage may vary.

Galen

Food for Thought

Galen - thanks for the kind comment on my blog.  One reason for starting it was to help keep me moving toward a layout with some accountability after a long gestation period (armchair modeling or “collecting” as my wife says), a kind of personal motivation in writing my goal down publicly.

Galen and Kent - I appreciate the insight on viewing angles and thoughts on pros and cons.  My layout is going to be modest in size and primarily a shelf design, which will somewhat limit viewing angles, but I hear you about careful consideration before I start.  Is 20 years of pondering enough? (VBG)

How different is seeing “backstage” with a shadowbox from having the layout out there with no frame, wall and ceiling visible above and behind?  Also the challenge of getting lighting where and how I want it in the wide open “table top” kind of design.  

Much of this is me thinking out loud as I turn these concepts over and work toward a design I like.  I very much appreciate all of the experience and different viewpoints shared here.

Box design, viewblocking, angles...

Dear MRHers,

In order of appearance:

This intuitively makes sense, but in practise, esp when observed with General Public crowds
(IE with a much wider range of Human-Eye <> Layout Height combinations than just "Grand/Dad <> Kids"),

a track height of 1350mm seems to work acceptably for "tweens" to adults, 
(over 3 decades of active deployment and observation in evidence, accross 3 continents),

with younger kids seemingly "automatically adjusting themselves" to the appropriate height using either a standard chair (approx 450-500mm seat height) or a parent...

Um, this suggests to me that the "shadowbox" in-question is not a full Box, as it does not have a continuous backscene/sky treatment. There is a reason the backdrop is "coved up" in the examples previously posted here on MRH...

See above. What you are describing is a situation where someone has put up "just the top fascia",
but failed to deploy a complete design,
(whether they failed to note the subtle details which delineate a "complete design/deployment",
or simply "slap-dash, she'll be right"d the install, is a variable),

and the resulting "visible clutter" is the inevitable result...
 

...which is funny, because Museums have to deal with uncontrolled "herds" of general public, who are notorious for finding any and every way of looking at an exhibit other than the way the artist intended...

...whereas in a "home layout" situation, we as modellers have far MORE control over "who goes where"...

Point being, we as modellers can learn-from and use all the same techniques the "Professional Display Presentation" people do, to achieve the best-performing "layout impression" possible...
(The impression a viewer gets when visiting our layouts and models is soooo important,
why would we leave "what the viewer sees" to chance?)

Assuming the "Proscenium" modules have been properly and fully deployed,
(see above), I'd submit that such issues can be addressed, if the modeller actually has the motivation to...

Viewblocking (both "onscene" and "offscene") is both an Active and a Passive technique, and those who execute it best understand and deploy both styles as the situation dictates. Anything "backstage" also benefits from at-least a coat of paint, so it presents at-a-minimum as "finished benchwork" rather than "just whatever"...
(again, the difference between "conscious effort to address an issue" vs "just leaving things to chance"...)

I would also note that even "exhibition layouts" address the issue of a "messy backstage". Indeed, the first major show layout I was involved with, "Swans Crossing", fully carpetted all the way round the layout, and painted the "backstage" staging areas a calming light lilac/blue. Sound strange, and I must admit my instinct was originally to ask "why isn't is painted Black?" (I mean, Theatre and Concert "backstage" areas are always Black   ),

The layout owner/builder replied "...in the heat of an exhibition, we're going to need somewhere to be calm and relax occasionally, and this blue color helps with that...", and over 10 years of active exhibition service proved this to be case, and amazingly effective under stress-laden conditions...

I have noted previously here on MRH though that the level of gymnastic contortions One can observe at exhibitions, when viewers "want to see such train is due next on-stage" or want to see the rumoured "all foamcore benchwork", can be a source of tremendous amusement...

Why should that matter?

I suspect I know where this is going, but as above, this only says to me that George has deployed valances, NOT Full Prosceniums/Shadowboxes...

If the layout-design intention was to provide "broad vista" views accross the layout,
then appropriate viewblocking and lighting design is inherrently part of the conscious Complete Layout Design...
(Yes, it IS possible to light a "wide open table" section of layout without presenting a visual splat of lighting gear, wiring, and ceiling construction, but it takes conscious design and effort to do Well!) 

Again, Valances, not Prosceniums/Shadowboxes...

Happy Modelling,
Aim to Improve,
Prof Klyzlr

Enclosed "Box" VS "open back"/"just a lighting valance"

Dear Jeff, MRHers,

If I may...
(GIF animations, best viewed in Chrome browser or equivalent)

Happy Modelling,
Aim to Improve,
Prof Klyzlr

PS I find myself occasionally musing over the idea of building an exhibition layout,
vaguely "domino module" in form-factor, with a "skyhook'd" floating lighting-tray rig, and no backdrop...
(the floating "top/fascia/lighting rig" and packed-for-transport space saving appeals),

but then I review the above, realise that I have Zero Control over the backside appearance/clutter/people-movement of the other layouts in the hall, which would make up the "middle/far distant view" of such a layout,

and re-confirm that "a backdrop that I can control/decorate/light appropriately for the scene" is far more beneficial to the "as presents to the intended viewer" appearance of my models/layout 
than any "space saving" or gravity-defying "wow factor" layout design trickery might be...

Challenge of "lighting wide expanses"

Dear Jeff,

There are broadly two (2) trains of thought when it comes to lighting "broad expanses of layout surface area"

- Light the entire room reasonably evenly, and hope that the modelling draws the attention

- Dim the entire room, and "spotlight" only the layout-surface you want the viewer to be drawn-to-view

The former is (arguably) easier, and many modellers just leaving the curtains open and turning on the room-lights...

...but this is actually harder than it looks, as such cavailler attitude and mixed-light-sources results in one-or-more of the following issues:
- multiple white-balance/color-shift issues
- multiple light-source shadows (both "on backdrops" and "from not-layout-borne items")
- shifting lighting angles (time-of-day/sun-position)
- degradation of models (Sun/UV exposure)
- "flat" presentation (model/layout surface does not "draw attention" from misc surroundings)

To do this properly requires use of proper flood lighting, diffusers, and strategically "barndoor" equipped spotlights to "lift" the layout surface slightly above the "room ambient".

For an extreme example, reccomend Google "Pendon Museum Vale Scene"

The later is intuitively challenging, as rendering a room "dark" under all ambient lighting conditions kinda goes against most western human's sensibilities. However, if we learn nothing else from "Totternhoe Mineral", it can be done, even in "uncontrolled lighting" exhibition environments, and done effectively...

NOTE! how the "return loop" backstage section is (also) painted black, and "evaporates  out of conscious view"...
(no "just leaving the backstage color/appearance to chance" here!!!)

Happy Modelling,
Aim to Improve,
Prof Klyzlr

Shadow Box Design

You can check out my blog from my signature block below and see how I built my shadowbox sectional layout and how it is set-up today. Moves well, sturdy, and looks good enough.

The viewing gap is about 15" between the fascia and valence. Bench work is 21" deep from fascia to backdrop in most places. 28" deep on the curved section.

Height is important. You need to figure out what works for you in terms of what you want to see or hide behind the valence, and what you need access to. I have a short valence to make the layout smaller and easier to move, but in my current house the layout is at chin height to make it over top of the washer and dryer. I can see just about everything on the 'ceiling' except the LED strip lighting against the valence . In my mind its not too distracting though because I have a painted MDF 'ceiling' that matches the backdrop, and I don't mind the rail fanning view. It looks fine to me even though I didn't cove the joint between the ceiling and the backdrop. For operations I have a step stool I kick around to stand on if I need a higher view of something. I also invested in a lot of electromagnetic uncouplers so I never have to use a pick. That was mostly for future structures but it is handy at this higher height. Recently I've had to make some track adjustments at this height and access near the back to pin, caulk, solder, etc... is a pain. I'm lucky I'm young and I can arch my back for a while. It will get even harder once I progress into some more structures and scenery.

This is why I have my own blog. BYE

The not-so-subtle "tongue-lashing" I received in the previous posts after sharing my opinion is one reason why I had stopped sharing here at MRH. 

Sorry to the original poster for bringing this to your thread. 

I'm outta here.

Galen

@Galen

Galen, I thin  you miss the whole point of Forums, they are to share information.

Several times in the past on this and on several other forums, I have posted my thoughts on how I would do a model layout, only to be shown that there are other ideas and/or that I had misinterpreted definitions.

This is how we learn, and I for one do not take alternate view points as personal attacks.

If we all thought the same way, all our layouts would be identical, all our procedures would be identical and all our layouts would be stagnant and boring.

Instead of taking things so personal, open you mind to a different viewpoint.

  "How different is seeing

I think a shadow box layout has a different feel than a layout open to room lighting. Sorta the difference between looking at my a photograph of my desk on my laptop screen  versus looking at my actual desk. I can see the same things but they have different vibes. Which one you prefer depends on personal tastes and purpose of the display( whether you want the feel of a layout room or a layout in a room). Thanks to cheap LED shop lights it's a lot easier to do the "flood the room with light thing" than to design and build the view controlling enclosures for the shadow box approach so being a lazy person that decided the matter for me  :> ) .......DaveB

Shadow box vs. shelf layout

I agree with Will that the exchanges of information have intrinsic value. In this case I claimed I am using the shadow box approach but that turns out to be inaccurate.

My shelf layout works just right for me by accident. The existing shelves were the right height and the right separation from each other so as to give the appearance of a shadow box but there was no thought given to a curved backdrop or the "ceiling" of the higher shelf that frames the view. There was an overhanging trim strip on the face of the upper shelf so as to permit its use for hiding LED strip lighting. You couldn't call it a valance.

A shadow box I gather is basically a whole 'nother thing and I don't have one.

Hiding wires

As you can see from this shot, I have enclosed the valance of my layout (Credit Valley Railway V5.0).

Right now, the the underside of the upper layer is simply the benchwork. But anyone over 4'5" cannot tell.

The only ones who will be seated when working on the bottom level will be the operators if they choose. I have 2 office chairs (20" high at the seat) and 2 stools (24" high at the seat). When an adult is seated on the chairs, you can see the underside of the upper level, but when seated on the stools, you cannot.

I do not see this as a problem.

I had one fellow who, when helping me design and build V3.0 of the CVR (the first double level free standing layout) complain about my suggestion of using dowels every 4' to support the upper level. However, once the layout was built and the dowels painted black, he agreed, that after the first couple of minutes, he did not notice the posts. The eye is not drawn to black, only to light.