Because eye level is real. Looking down on the layout destroys the illusion. Plus it hurts your neck and back to stand like that.
I completely understand your point on the bench height. But in the case of this layout, this is in my home office, and is my zen garden or fish aquarium. So the height is going to be from where I can enjoy the view from my desk. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Oh that's fine. I'm just answering the question asked about the preference for high benchwork. I'm not sure what myths need busting. I posted 3 true things. The illusion of the scene depends on viewing as an observer would in the real world. Get down to eyelevel and many flaws you see (tight track radius) disappear. And there is really zero debate on the ergonomics.
Not to argue the point...but just for discussions sake... If 'track level' is 'observer level' in the 1:1....how come almost all photos taken of the 1:1 are from a higher vantage point where you can see more ? As far as ergonomics go...standing is standing...whether eye level or looking down. Looking down at your layout has now effect on the neck or back. PLUS...if you want/need to sit and watch...at least ya can stare at the top of the layout at 'ground level' and not at the benchwork underneath...lol.
Looking down most certainly does have a negative effect on the neck and back. And I don't know what railroad photography you see, but the vast majority of it is 3/4 wedge shots at or below ground level. Only wide shots or bridge shots are taken typically from above and even so, that's not the helicopter view 36" benchwork implies. Just for the sake of discussion. Of course photography is shot composition not general observing and a HCD isn't a walk around layout where you will be walking with your train. Again, just for the sake of discussion.
Ohhhhhhhhh...dont tell my neck and back its suppose to be in pain...I would have to go on pain meds...LOL. Most guys claim 'chest high' for layout height. Sitting in the front seats of the RV OR on my mechanics stool gliding up and down the aisle....mines chest high. Who wants to stand for an 8 hour operating session ? !! Talk about a pain in the back ! I say make it whatever height ya want
I have my layout at the height of my bar so that we can use the barstools to sit on when we start to get the preverbal pain in the neck. Works good for us.
About four years ago, after a long time of thinking about my own N-scale modular standards, my grown son and I decided that it was time to quit planning and start building again. We had decided on a 36" modular depth as a "standard" on modular ends, but the double track mainlines would start at 10.5" track center to fascia edge. The skyboard would take up another 1.5" on the backside so the true "layout" depth was a maximum of 34.5" with track being close to the front. The reason for the depth was that it afforded us the space to utilize N-scale's wonderful scenery-to-track-ratio and make the world around our 1:160th trains larger than what is "normally" done in N-scale. We were building a large layout to run tiny trains on rather than a tiny layout to run tiny trains on. After we had built our first "standard" module (6' X 3') we needed to make integral folding legs for it, but how high did we want it to be? We made some temporary 2X2 legs and clamped them on to the benchwork and fiddled around with railhead to floor height for two days on a weekend, setting a goal that by Sunday night, we'd KNOW (from practical experience) what height was best for us. I'm 6' tall and was 60 years old at the time, and my son is 5' 8" tall and was 22 and we started at the defunct club we used to belong to's railhead height of 46" (which we were used to, but we already knew was too short). We then added height by sliding 1' long 2 X 2's clamped to the bottom of the legs up until we'd reached a maximum 56" railhead height (which was obviously too tall for us). We then backed it down inch by inch until we settled on 52" as the ideal height. At each height, we ran trans back and forth on the module, put complicated and easy engines on the track, fixed de-railed cars and engines and stood back and looked at the scenery. I had some super detailed dioramas that I placed on the module and we placed them near the front edge and towards the back and took note of our behavior when looking at really detailed scenes. The interesting part is that we always "stooped" when looking at scenes that have "depth" and "interest"...just like at shows when visitors see something that interests them, get closer and closer...ask to come inside the guard rope, then stoop over to look closely at the thing that interests them, often just eight or ten inches away. Although at 52" we still had to stoop a little, it was way less stressing on our backs and necks to do it, often flexing at our knees to get to the right "seeing height" rather than bending our backs. It was also much easier to put trains on the tracks, manually uncouple cars (Rix Pick) and observe problems that a train might have and find it than lower heights. 52" also allowed us to stand back and look at the overall scene too, but not from a God's Eye View, but more of a top-of-the-water-tower angle, which in both of our opinions, was much better than too far away. We also tested the ease of getting under the benchwork to work on wiring and linkages to turnouts, and 52" was just right. Higher was easier in this case, but 52" for some reason, was a LOT easier than even 50". Keep in mind that the actual height of under-the-layout working is considerably less than the railhead to floor height because of the benchwork thickness, riser height, subroadbed height etc. 52" is NOT "eye level" for me or my son, but it's way easier to get to eye-level, with much less stooping than the old club height of 46". This layout is designed for portions of it to be taken to shows, and as added evidence to the "correctness" of our 52" railhead height decision, many visitors complimented us on both the different "look" of the portable layout as well as how the higher track level really made a big difference in seeing the smaller models. I noticed that there was a whole lot less stooping going on at the shows. Additionally, after making our decision, I became aware that several modular groups and home N-scale layout owners have come to very similar conclusions, and their baseline railhead to floor height is from 50 to 52", and includes such groups as FreeMoN, and the Midwest Mod-U-Trak group. So, although I am sure that many N-scale modelers just LOVE their low layouts, there are also many N-scale modelers who are convinced that higher railhead to floor height is the way to go, and can list the advantages of their opinion. I, for one, thoroughly approve of my decision to make my modular railhead to floor standard 52" and offer absolutely no apologies or excuses for that decision. Here's a photo of our high portable layout at the Evanston Roundhouse Festival in 2012: As you can see in this photo, the track level is obviously NOT eye-level, but you get a good view of the scenery and track at a much lower (eye to top of rail) level than Ntrak, which makes for a very pleasing perspective. I took the photo with my DSLR held at eye level, and, as you can also see, the tops of my skyboard ARE at eye-level, which prevents me from seeing the backs of the skyboard as it continues around to the other side, adding both distance and aesthetics into the design. In addition, some of the scenes on this portable layout are 4' deep, with sandstone cliffs that far back. It really adds to the spaciousness and prototype appearance in my opinion and is not that difficult to work on. I limit my track to a maximum of 25" from the front unless I have additional access engineered into the scene. Cheerio! Bob Gilmore
My current layout is at sitting height for various reasons as well. But the argument about why over 48" is preferred is pretty simple.
listen, I have a herniated disc. I know exactly what positions cause neck and back trouble. And I have a hard time taking you too seriously. Your MO is to be contrarian when it comes to hobby conventional wisdom.
Really ? My MO is a contrarian ? Ouch !! I rather believe I dont have to be 'sheeple' because 'conventional wisdom' ( its what everyone else does) says I should. ;-)
sactcf....I understand the reasoning behind your layout height. I say...build like ya wanna for the reasons ya wanna ^5
Well of course. The reasons are sound and the environment dictates it. The NMRA ninjas won't come after you. The conventional wisdom is conventional, because it has given the most people the most pleasure. You're about to spend what will probably be hundreds if not thousands of dollars on layout bencheork. You kinda want to know what works for most people. And nobody is making you do anything, you regularly reply as if advice is a directive. And you also belittle. That Kilroy image is actually kind of annoying. You're dismissing what I and others have said. Having said that, I don't want to derail this any more or start an argument. You asked a question, I gave a thoughtful answer and you did not respond in kind. No harm no foul. But not helpful to the OP or anyone else tuned in
I have my layout at 56 inches with a layout depth of 24 inches. I would have it higher if I could but with my height at 5ft 10", 56 inches it close to my arm pit height. Anyway try a high height, it is great for watching trains while you walk around the layout. I started with MicroTrains freight car in my toothpaste cabinet, on the wall at eye height. It was perfect but in practice you need to be a little lower, so that you can reach over the layout. 56 inches works very well for me but I have step stools for my two kids. As many have said, the right height is the one that works best for you!
I appologize if you see it that way. I dont belittle anyone. I am inquisitive by nature. Debating a subject is also a natural thing to do. My questions being dismissed as trival or branding me as contrarian is really non productive. If my questions or replies come off as blase...you obviously dont know me very well for the 6 years I've been here and posting. The 'kilroy' image was meant jokingly. I am sure most took it as such. I also appreciate those who have responded with their sincere insight on higher layouts. While I still dont agree with the consensus it doesnt mean I havent listened. There are at least two sides to every story I guess. I dont take things too seriously...Its just a hobby...to me anyways...thnxs Now that we have derailed this thread so bad it needs a train wreck crew to clean it up...where were we ? (that last part is a joke btw)
Just wait until you've ruptured a disc. Or even try having spinal bacterial infections which destroy 2/3 of the discs in your back. All atop several nasty spinal injuries and a broken neck.
I took out L5S1 when I was 29 years old. The good lord only knows what I'm in for. I want to apologize for being to serious. The kilroy image was funny...the first time. After that, it felt dismissive. I don't claim to be an expert, but I've been in this hobby for long enough to know that it's good advice to know what the common wisdom is and why before you break it. This is an old hobby, there's a lot of wisdom in those rules of thumb. Anyway, my previous layout was 56"at the lowest rising to 60" 24" max depth. I loved it and hate working or viewing shorter. The club layout is around 45". I squat to get a good view.
My first of several back injuries was at age thirteen. I got an early start. So it did not take me as long as an adult, to start disliking duckunders, and benchwork which required being scrunched up underneath to do any work.
