Layout Depth

From Your Experience what is the most practical width that a layout should be if it can only be reached form one direction.

 

Around 24 inches. It can be deeper than that if you have a stool handy, but it should be an area that is more scenery than "ops". I have an area that is deep for the reach and I am going to put a passing siding there, with powered turnouts, but nothing else - except structures of course.

[ 02 May 2002, 03:18: Message edited by: rsn48 ]

 

There are two factors - how tall you are and how hight the layout. If you are short and your layout is high then 24" can seem rather deep. An old rule of thumb - in the days when low layouts were popular, 30" was considered the deapest you would want to go. Keep in mind that really deap scenes look great - but you need to provide access for maintaining scenery - I don't consider access hatches a good idea for access to track - you will find that most of your derailments will happen in the area only accessable from an access hatch - better to keep all the track within reach (scenery is a different story.)

 

Hey Jim, welcome aboard! Good to have you here on Trainboard.

You know, there is a pretty famous writer named Jim Lawler. Would ye be he?

 

On mine I went with 24" for most of it, and 30" in what was supposed to be the yard (change of plans after the benchwork was in ). My track height is 40" which I have been finding to be a very comfortable height for my 6' 1" frame.

 

Thanks for all the answers and ideas. I think this has me changing my mind a little on the shape of my layout. Lots of good stuff to mull over in your answers. Im really new to this and love to read all the Questions and Replys.
Just don't know enought yet to have much to offer in the way of help to anyone. This Web site is really great I's noticed answers from all over the world..

 

Jim,
In an amazing short amount of time, you get to develop opinions because your experience deepens. In about 6 months, some one will ask this very same question and there you will be posting your "knowledge" about depth for them. Also people like to do show and tell and receive appreciation for a job well done. You can help out by appreciating what others have done, and express appreciation when you hear advice that is helpful to you.

Sometimes we post and no one responds and it can be a bit of a disappointment. It is always nice to hear educated alternate opinions, varied advise, and all the other things that make a happy modeler tick. So even a post that says "I never thought of that..." can make the author of the thread feel good.

We take the profound and the unprofound here as long as it is cheerfully given.

[ 03 May 2002, 04:29: Message edited by: rsn48 ]

 

The question can be "How deep do I NEED to make it?" rather than "How deep CAN I make it?".
Railroads are linear beasts. With Operations and DCC, when you are running a train, your field of vision narrows down to the Right of Way... even when you are operating a conventionally designed layout such as the Reid Brothers' Cumberland Valley which has some spectacular scenes.
I have paid attention to this on other railroads and it boils down to about 6" of foreground and 12" of background in HO and about 3" and 6" in N.
You may widen out to make room for industry spurs, yards, engine service facilities, etc.. but to get the effect of "railroad" you don't need too much wider.... even for flat scenery on the prairies (per Bernie Kempinski's MRP article).
The more linear you make your railroad, the higher the track/scenery ratio will be which equates to savings in time and money to getting the most railroad built.
Of course, operations is not everybody's bag and some like panorama style layouts... but the new trend seems to be to the linear with more plain track between towns as the gain for trading away scenery square footage.
Charlie Vlk
Galesburg & Savanna Rwy. Co.