BENCHWORK HEIGHT

[NW Modeling List]

When I built this last layout several things became inportant.
1. Keep in mind that once O rail height is established rail and scenery usually goes up from there.
2. One has to get under the layout to wire and do other things, so height of working overhead is important, you will spend time on your back!.
3. If possible suspend the layout with a few legs as possible, if it is a shelf layout so much better
4. Keep wiring in mind and design the frame to accomodate it, drill holes in risers and cross members as they are installed, it really helps.
5. Keep in mind viewing height, my wife is 5'3" and she wants to see what is going on especially if she participates. Height is important for visitors and the young ones, they want to see.
6. Avoid if possible long reaches to work areas. Access holes are ok, but one has to go under to get up.
7. Modelers have a great tendancy to shore materials and stuff under the layout so it is important that any rolling cabinets or the like clear under the layout.
I hope these help, they did me. Cal Reynolds.
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: NW Modeling List 
  To: NW Modeling List 
  Sent: Tuesday, March 10, 2009 10:09 AM
  Subject: Re: BENCHWORK HEIGHT


  I have seen Bob's layout, and can confirm what he says about its relationship to the room. BTW, he is an architect, so he would tend to be more aware of this than the average one of us; but it does give the layout a very attractive appearance. Can't comment on the fun he had laying on his back, but I do know that half-squatting under a higher layout can be uncomfortable. His layout is one of the more attractive ones I have seen. (Yes, he is my cousin).    Jim Nichols
    ----- Original Message ----- 
    From: NW Modeling List 
    To: NW Modeling List 
    Sent: Monday, March 09, 2009 8:32 PM
    Subject: Re: BENCHWORK HEIGHT


    Benchwork height - a VERY important decision - and one like most things in Model Railroading, very personal.....and whatever we want to do on our own RR is okay and is the right thing to do, correct?  However, let me suggest some considerations not acknowledged, at least as of yet, and I am a lower rather than a higher benchwork guy - 35 inches to me is "about perfect".- because:

    (1) Much better for grandchildren, which I do do this partially for - if not grandchildren, it does seem to regularly draw a lot of little people!

    (2)  I was surprised how much time was spent flat on my back doing wiring!   This height was perfect for laying on the floor reaching up to the work plane -  just do not sit up without a hard hat!

    (3)  A casual walker (including myself) entering into the room gets an excellent overview of the layout and its terrain from their normal standing eye height - it makes me happy every time!

    (4) I provide 24 to 26-inch standard stools for those that like to sit and look at it closer to their own eye level.

    (5) The earlier referenced standard 24 to 26-inch stool is also perfect for me to sit at the control desk, just below bench level.

    (6) It looks in good scale to the room and other furniture (My layout is in a rec room setting).

    At least that is the way I "see" it (everyday)
    .

    Bob Nichols (HO)


----------------------------------------------------------------------------


    ________________________________________
    NW-Modeling-List at nwhs.org
    To change your subscription go to
    http://list.nwhs.org/mailman/options/nw-modeling-list
    Browse the NW-Modeling-List archives at
    http://list.nwhs.org/pipermail/nw-modeling-list/


------------------------------------------------------------------------------


  ________________________________________
  NW-Modeling-List at nwhs.org
  To change your subscription go to
  http://list.nwhs.org/mailman/options/nw-modeling-list
  Browse the NW-Modeling-List archives at
  http://list.nwhs.org/pipermail/nw-modeling-list/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://six.pairlist.net/pipermail/nw-modeling-list/attachments/20090310/23547ffd/attachment.htm>