Skip to main content

Replies sorted oldest to newest

I'd say around waist height. Eric, from EricsTrains, has his table heights set at 47 inches (around 4 feet) and his second level of track sits at 59 inches from the floor (around 5 feet).

Generally you want to have your table be at a height that is comfortable for you. Waist height allows you to be able to put your trains on the track(s) without having to angle your arms in a weird way. And if you need to see something at track level, all you would need to do is kneel down.

Of course, be sure to experiment since it's your layout and you need to be comfortable with working on it. 

Last edited by MichaelB

I used Mianne standard height 30” wide benchwork, which is 40” high - adding half inch plywood and half inch homosote brings me to 41” night. It affords a nice view level while allowing sufficient room for my aging body to scoot under the layout with minimal discomfort. Another important consideration is the 30” width - that allows me to reach pretty much any area of the layout with minimal effort.

  Tall enough to be "eye to ground level" while sitting upright in nearby couches and chairs. (No slouching!)

About 30".

Tall enough to be seen by kids without them all needing stools and chairs.

About 30".... And as a kid, oh boy did I hate tall layouts I needed a stool to see and I would tell you about it too. Never was good at holding back truth 

Low enough to reach over the El line and down to ground level.

About 30".

Tall enough to sit under, but short enough to reach up to wires easy.

About 30".

My inseam...30". Reaching down that far isn't really an issue

Bob Delbridge posted:

I've had 48" high, but my new layout is 36", I specified that height when I ordered my Mianne benchwork.

layout Aug 2018_01

This top on this side with the Atlas TT is approx 40" wide, at 36" high I can just reach the far edge.

Normally I would not copy the picture as well when quoting, but I think your comment and photo combine to demonstrate a very obvious consideration .  (I'm guessing it's a huge part of why you chose the 36"! )

With sloped walls like that in an upper floor/attic, obviously something lower is more beneficial in terms of how much layout you can fit up to the wall (and/or ceiling - I'm not sure where one becomes the other in that scenario)  surface.  If yours was another foot higher, I'm sure the rear of the layout would have a big "dead zone" where you couldn't put any track or scenery/accessories.

Personally, in a big open area (~ 8 foot nominal ceiling, but it is a basement, so there are some things lower like AC ducts, pipes, etc) - I think I like 42" as the basic height to start with.

-Dave

Dave, you're most likely correct.

The other side has a slope different from the photo you showed in your quote, as can be seen in this photo:

DSCN0164

The house was built with 2 sides different because the stairway is on the left hand side in the photo above:

UPSTAIRS

If it had been built like the other side I wouldn't have been able to go around the entire room at the width I did if I had made the layout 48" high, plus I would have had to deal with the track section you see at the top of the stairway hanging out over the landing.  I would have had to design the track plan differently which would have had duckunders, didn't want them.

The layout I tore down to build this one was also 36" high, but only on the side of the upstairs left of the stairwell banister wall.  I simply liked the 36" high layout better than the 48" height of the garage layout.  I think my HO layout was 42", that was in a 12x16 shed.

Attachments

Images (2)
  • DSCN0164
  • UPSTAIRS

Add Reply

Post
The Track Planning and Layout Design Forum is sponsored by

AN OGR FORUM CHARTER SPONSOR
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×
×