How High?

[Ian Everett]

I've recently been cogitating Iain Rice's ideas on the height at which layouts should be presented. This is currently important as I am preparing Clecklewyke for Scalefour North next year, which will require new under-pinnings for the extended layout.

Iain advocates that for most cases tracks should be at, or just below, eye level. I entirely agree with him on this as it enables the layout to be presented as a three-dimensional picture and simplifies so many issues, such as how to disguise tracks as they disappear off the ends of the visible part of the layout. So I have normally set my layouts, both at home and for exhibition, with tracks at about 56", which is just below my eye level.

However, not everyone's eyes are at the same level. I build my layouts mainly for adults to view and minor differences in adult height are not very significant. Children can be coped with by letting them stand on the stout box in which I transport tools, electrics etc. and by offering them a periscope, which is not very good but is fun.

However, there is one group of people whom I am worried about disadvantaging, namely the wheel-chair bound. No such person has yet complained about being unable to see but it does seem to me that they would have a valid complaint if after paying an entrance fee for an exhibition they could not see most of the layouts. At the moment, this seems to be rarely the case. I noticed that none of the layouts at the recent ExpoEM North was at eye-level, and the only prize I have ever won was for "The Most Unusual" layout, presumably because of its high-level presentation. (BTW this was no great honour - the previous winner had been a Lego train set...) Nevertheless, I worry.

Clecklewyke now has a station scene at the right hand end of the layout, balanced by a viaduct with deep river valley at the left. The track level is 56", which is well above the eye-level of someone in a wheel-chair, but the river is much lower - at 41" above floor level.

See http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/51388-bradford-north-western-branch/

I am trying to persuade myself that this gives a scene of sufficient interest for someone in a wheel-chair but I am uncertain.

(Incidentally this was inspired by Richard Chown's Allendenac, but is far less extreme, as Richard's ambition knows no bounds and his river is just about at floor level. See http://home.btconnect.com/Enhance-Ecosse/Allendenac.html and spot the Goodwillie!)

What do you think?

Would any wheel-chair users like to respond? Are you happy with the solutions Iain proposes, namely periscopes or video cameras and monitors?

Ian

[David B]

I suggest there is another serious consideration which is the comfort of those operating the layout and the ease with which they can carry out operations in both the scenic area and fiddle yards. A high level layout may require operators standing on platforms which can be very tiring. It is more difficult to reach over higher baseboards without catching stock or scenery.

My preference (not a wheelchair user) is for a lower layout with, if necessary, chairs out front. Maurice Hopper had such an arrangement at Wells in August with St Juliot.

[jayell]

FWIW I had my two great-grandsons (age 4 & 6) with us when we attended RailWells and spent a lot of time carrying on or other of them because they couldn't see the trains. We did find some stools for them to stand on at one point but even these were a bit low for the youngest.

Whilst Wells has disabled access I think trying to move around in a wheelchair would not have been easy due to the number of people present.

John

[Noel]

It is possible to have a high[er] level layout without needing to stand on boxes [operate from the front rather than from behind a backscene, for example] but the point about maintenance and fiddle yard operation is valid. Frequent bending down over a weekend exhibition is potentially a strain on the back. So far as chairs are concerned there are two major issues. One, only a few people can use them, every one else still has to stand [and lean over the chairs], and in busy times access and egress can be disruptive for other viewers; two, they clog up the aisles, so would probably not be popular with organisers seeking free movement around the show. You can also bet they will be taken away over time by people wanting to use them elsewhere...

Noel

[wally]

This is particularly relevant to me given the following points.

1. Just over a year ago, as chairman of the local club, I was admiring the work carried out on one of the clubs layouts and agreeing that raising it to nearer eye level increased the "viewing experience"

2. In August this year three burly club members carried myself and my newly acquired wheel chair out of the house (the first time I had been outside since the previous October) and took me to the club's annual exhibition.

My first comment to those operating the layout was that I did not appreciate the latest mods which seemed to replace the track and scenery with a plain dark blue cloth! The whole viewing experience now was going over my head by some twelve inches.

On the other hand several familiar layouts had appreciated in visual impact due to now being viewed at eye level rather than the up till then familiar down from the sky view leading me to consider that perhaps we should consider making show halls, the same as football stadia, all seated areas.

On a more practical point the provision of some form of periscope is not a viable proposition as many disabled cannot hold such devices for any period of time.

Wally

[Tim V]

There are many forms of disablement.

It is your layout.

The height of your layout IMHO is dependant on the depth of it, a thin layout can be set high, a deep layout much lower.

[Hardwicke]

I design my layouts to be at least chest height for myself. This allows me to get underneath it without breaking my back. If I hurt my back now I will be disabled later in life. I also keep the weight to a minimum for the same reason. I try and have the trackbed frequently on an embankment as I find this allows people lower down to still get a view (children). But at the end of the day it's my layout.
Layouts on the level of a table are irritating in the extreme. I've seen them at tiny local shows and you have to crouch down to see them, usually knocking into the person behind you.

[David Knight]

Track level on my traveling layout is roughly 50" off the floor. This allows me to operate from the back with minimal danger of messing up structures and scenery while uncoupling or, should the need arise, re-railing. Most children who come to shows in our neck of the woods come equipped with plastic stools which bring them up to eye level. Wheelchair bound patrons may or may not do well depending on the height that their chairs are set at. I suppose I have come to look at it this way, I'm there all day for the two days of the show and the height is best for my long term comfort. In an ideal world the layout would be on an adjustable stand to suit all heights but that would be an expense that would not allow me to exhibit.

Cheers,

David

[martin goodall]

Iain Rice's Trerice is at about 51 to 52 inches above floor level, which is within what I regard as the ideal range for viewing (between 48 and 52 inches above floor level). One or two earlier Iain Rice layouts (such as Leintwardine) were at or near eye level, and this struck me as too high. Another high layout currently on the exhibition circuit is Albion Yard, which again strikes me as being too high for effective viewing.

I take the point about operating height, and my home layout (Burford) is 42 inches above floor level, which is ideal for constructional work as well as operation, either from a standing position or seated on a high stool. This layout was originally somewhat lower, but I got excruciating back-ache leaning over the layout while constructing it. This was what led me to raise the height, which had the added advantage of improving the layout's visual impact.

My old exhibition layout (Crichel Down) was also only a few inches above table top height when first exhibited, but I soon raised it to 42 inches above floor level and added a lighting fascia, and these two changes greatly enhanced the visual impact of that layout. It completely lacked any such impact when first exhibited at the lower level, and without a lighting fascia.

So from the builder's and operator's point of view, 42 inches is probably the ideal height, and this also gives the public a good view. 48 inches to 52 inches enhances the visual impact for the viewers even further, but at the expense of potential problems for the operators (possibly including the need to stand on a raised platform or low stool).

So, for an exhibition layout, I would aim for 48 to 52 inches ideally, but would compromise on 42 inches for easier operation, unless absolutely faultless operation (with automatic couplings) could be guaranteed without any need for finger-poking, in which case the higher viewing level might be practicable.

[Philip Hall]

I agree with Martin's thought that 42 inches is a good height for a home layout, although I think I shall probably go for a little higher when the new layout finally (my wife says watch for the flying pigs) gets off the ground. I would like not to have to burrow beneath the layout for any reason (wiring, point control etc.) as my back complains when I try to work upside down, to say nothing of trying to focus on a soldered joint with vari-focals, but we'll have to see once the baseboards are up. I do quite like the idea, though, of controls on top of the boards. My main issue will be reaching across them, but so long as that is practical I will go for 45 inches at least. More room beneath for storage, which is another important point.

However, I don't currently have any wheelchair bound friends who would be likely to visit, but it would be a nice thought to bear this in mind. Doing so, though, would also render it necessary for me to stoop a bit when constructing the layout. So my back might complain again.

I do remember helping with a customer's EM layout a few years back which was about 30 inches off the floor and this was definitely too low for me, both for viewing and working.

Philip

[Tim V]

All this talk of 42" makes me think that Clutton is at that height, but the piece of paper with it written on has disappeared!

[Paul Willis]

All this talk of 42" makes me think that Clutton is at that height, but the piece of paper with it written on has disappeared!

Are you sure that it wasn't a bag of Scrabble letters that has disappeared?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zBmdkhDGZ8A

31' 45"

HTH
Flymo

[billbedford]

'corse if you decide to set the height of your layout at much less than eye-level you should really run tapes of helicopter noises to give the viewers an authentic experience.

[Ian Everett]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iu7vySQbgXI

Ian

[Hardwicke]

Now we know what the ultimate question was. Earth was created for the sole purpose of working out how high P4 layouts should be.

[Noel]

Bill, despite what some films would have you believe, helicopters were not in practical use until after the end of WW2. Autogyros in the 1930s perhaps? Layouts set in the Victorian era show a time before man achieved reliable powered flight at all...

Noel

[jayell]

Bill, despite what some films would have you believe, helicopters were not in practical use until after the end of WW2. Autogyros in the 1930s perhaps? Layouts set in the Victorian era show a time before man achieved reliable powered flight at all...

Noel

There was an military airship station at Toller in 1914, I wonder if they took any railway photos

John

[martin goodall]

'corse if you decide to set the height of your layout at much less than eye-level you should really run tapes of helicopter noises to give the viewers an authentic experience.

Wot, you mean like the BBC does in its news bulletins? Aerial shot - cue faux helicopter sound effect. (It really, really irritates me when they do that.)

[martin goodall]

One thing I forgot to mention in my earlier reply is that when I raised the baseboard height on Burford, I lengthened the baseboard legs in a way that would make it very easy to reduce the height of the layout to its original level in the future, should I ever wish to do so. The leg extensions were screwed onto the sides of the original legs (in preference to a butt joint), as an easy way of getting the final height exactly right.

Reversing this change in the height of the layout was not in my thinking at the time, but it would reduce the height of the layout to something like table top height (actually about 31 inches above floor level), if I ever wanted to have the layout at a height which would give easy access from a seated position. I naturally hope that this will never become necessary, but it would be quite feasible if the need were ever to arise.

[Terry Bendall]

In the last few years I have seen layouts at shows using adjustable metal trestles. These consist of a four legged folding part and then adjustable vertical parts. It seems like a good solution since the height can be altered when working on the layout and changed if required for exhibition.

The one disdvanatge that I can see is the space needed for those who take layouts to exhibitions.

Terry Bendall

[jim s-w]

Don't forget that if a show has barriers people can lean on the average viewing height of the viewers eyes will be a fair bit lower than a show that doesnt have them.

[Mark Tatlow]

I actually think this is a minefield area.

I concur that an at least moderately high running line is visually the best thing. Mine is set at 52 inches and my next one might creep up an inch or too. I just think that layouts that you look down on look to toy like because when we see real life, we see it at about 66 - 70 inches from the ground (except Venton, whose eye height is about 3'2") and anything else jars to me.

We do require steps to operate it well, which does give one a slightly god like feeling around an exhibition hall, but is hard work getting up and down from. One of the boxes for the next layout will be conceived to be a big platform when not in use to make this better.

One thing that has not been mentioned is that the height of the lighting pelmet also needs to be conceived with the layout height in mind, as it defines what the theatrical viewpoint is and is all part of the experience.

My problem is that I know that I am disadvantaging people at times; children, wheelchair users and Mr Venton (although I am a lot less worried about the latter!). I do have the advantage that in two locations on Portchullin the ground to the front slopes down a lot and therefore the view for those with a low eye height is quite good. Wheelchair users and children often migrate to these areas.

My concern is that I am worried that the Disability Act will cover us. One of its provisions is that service providers can not unreasonably discriminate against the disabled. I think we stand a good chance of being seen as a service provider and it wouldn't be that difficult to lower a layout. The get out might be whether it is reasonable to do so if it destroys the very thing that the service is seeking to provide for the majority. I also suspect that it may also be that suing for compensation will result in limited damages and instantly stop the majority of exhibitions.

One thing I think show managers may need to think about is the offering of periscopes on request?

[jim s-w]

I also suspect that it may also be that suing for compensation will result in limited damages and instantly stop the majority of exhibitions.

Not likely. The worst it would do is stop invites for layouts that are too high. They are a minority anyway.

[Tim V]

(except Venton, whose eye height is about 3'2") and Mr Venton (although I am a lot less worried about the latter!).

So we're being size-ist now?

My own layout has been said to be too high by a wheelchair user at I think 42"

I think that very high layouts ONLY work where they are shallow - not much depth.

At the end of the day, you can't please all the people all the time.

I have to say I think I've missed seeing your layout Mark, can you describe it to me

[Ian Everett]

The worst it would do is stop invites for layouts that are too high. They are a minority anyway.

The question is "what is too high?" I think my layouts - at 56" - are the right height - for the average adult. Their impact would be destroyed if they were pitched lower.

I agree with Tim (who like me is unencumbered with excessive height) that most deep layouts should be at a lower level - Clutton always seems to me to be just right, indeed I've never really noticed its height. One exception to this is the Dartmoor scene at Pendon, which is very deep but works fine, for me at least, because although the track is at eye level the landscape is at very varying levels. I think I recall that it also has different viewing heights to accommodate smaller people.

I would be interested to hear exhibition managers' views. So far, none has criticised the heights of my layouts except for one incredibly rude visitor to a Workington exhibition who said he would never book a high layout for one of his shows because "we have to encourage children". This greatly worried me until I went to an exhibition run by said rude man. It was an appalling waste of money - just RTR train sets with no creative modeling.

Children are not the problem - they can be accommodated with boxes and periscopes. Anyway, it's not mainly children whom we need to encourage to take up fine scale modeling, it's the over 40s.

So, we are left with the main issue: how we cope with with wheelchair users. I'm tempted to seek the views of organisations who support them but I suspect I would get a standard response - that they should not be disadvantaged. But how, if, as Mark says, to avoid that "destroys the very thing that the service is seeking to provide for the majority". I think we need someone with a degree in philosophy here.

Ian (who you will see from the time this was posted is losing sleep over this problem!)

(Edit - P.S. I've solved it! Wheel chairs should have lift mechanisms to raise the seat squab. Being too low must be an incredible hindrance to wheel chair users in all sorts of areas, not just model railway exhibitions!)