How High?

[jim s-w]

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.

Exactly!

(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!)

Some do. I imagine they are quite expensive though.

At the end of the day with the best will in the world someone may watch a layout for half an hour at a show but oppo's have to work the thing for about 7 hours a day. Their comfort has to be all that ultimately matters. If we all spend a weekend stooped over layouts that are too low for comfort we will be the ones ending up in wheelchairs!

[Ian Everett]

At the end of the day with the best will in the world someone may watch a layout for half an hour at a show but oppo's have to work the thing for about 7 hours a day. Their comfort has to be all that ultimately matters. If we all spend a weekend stooped over layouts that are too low for comfort we will be the ones ending up in wheelchairs!

I have to say that in my experience this is not a serious problem. If the layout is at table height the operators should be able to sit comfortably and relaaaaaxxxxx.

Conversely, with a high layout people of my (lack of) stature can get very tired manipulating cassettes with their arms constantly above shoulder level. I recall at one show one of my operators put a chair on top of a table to get comfortable. I think he was "making a point". I always have a high stool on which to sit and a box on which to stand to avoid this problem.

Ian

P.S. I've never seen B.N.S. in the flesh. Is it true that it has been "retired" from the exhibition circuit until it is no longer "work in progress"? That would be a real shame.

[nigelcliffe]

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.

I'd suggest seeking legal advice from someone properly qualified in the area. There are lots of places where misunderstanding of the law and its scope causes over-reaction and excessive concern over outcomes, and results in silly and unnecessary actions being taken (Health and Safety being amongst the worst).

My unqualified observation of the area is that the DDA hasn't resulted in lots of legal cases over accessibility, and that whilst some aspects of accessibility have improved, there are vast numbers of serious accessibility problems where no legal action is taken. So height of layouts at a model railway show isn't an obvious place to start. UK civil law is based around actual losses, not punitive damages, which would appear to limit the size of any civil claims. The DDA guidance documents talk about "reasonable modifications" where cost is a factor and also have different views of what is reasonable for a small organisation compared to a large organisation. I'd expect all but a handful of model railway exhibitions to be in the very small scale end of things financially, so the legal expectation of changes is minimal.


- Nigel

[jim s-w]

P.S. I've never seen B.N.S. in the flesh. Is it true that it has been "retired" from the exhibition circuit until it is no longer "work in progress"? That would be a real shame.

That's right. I felt after scaleforum (whatever year it was) I didn't put on much of a show. To do so it will need to be bigger and given that it already doesn't fit in the van it's got a lot more expensive to take to a show. Plus now Calcutta sidings 2 has started its shows we are focussed on that for the foreseeable future.

If there are any more work in progress shows for new street they will be a very rare occurance.

Sorry - back on topic gents.

Jim

[Will L]

I want to place my vote firmly in favour of layouts you can see down on. This may be an unnatural view but at least you an see the sweep of the track through landscape, enjoy the subtleties of the track plan and have a fair chance of getting a good look at that beautifully modelled feature in the background. The eye level view may be a good way to see life like passing trains and entirely suitable for displaying small diorama style planks only a few inches deep, but as a way of enjoying every aspect of a decent sized model railway with an interesting track plan, it's a total dead loss.

Will

[waveydavey]

At the end of the day with the best will in the world someone may watch a layout for half an hour at a show but oppo's have to work the thing for about 7 hours a day. Their comfort has to be all that ultimately matters. If we all spend a weekend stooped over layouts that are too low for comfort we will be the ones ending up in wheelchairs!

My feelings exactly Jim. Longcarse West was approx 48" and was just the right height for leaning over the backscene and being close enough to see the couplings. No-one reported any issues with bad backs when operating and with a length of carpet to stand on sore feet were avoided too.

Cheers

David

[David B]

Regarding references to the Disability Act, I can't see that everything has to come down (no pun) to the lowest common denominator. There are other factors to consider — for example, if a layout is too low, this can have an adverse effect the operators, so do we start trading off perceived disability requirements with health and safety? Surely there has to be a balance between making a reasonable effort to accommodate the disabled with disadvantaging the non-disabled?

Let's not get carried away or paranoid about legislation. There are still plenty of shops that are not wheelchair accessible; coaches which can't take wheelchairs; buildings where access is not universal for the disabled and so on. It is my impression that providing a reasonable effort has been made and due consideration given, then there should be nothing to worry about.

[Lindsay G]

Let's not ruin a good hobby, and sidetrack the thread, worrying about legislation that might one day apply!

It's true that in considering the height of a layout, the width also has to be considered. Burntisland 1883 in its original form was only about 15" at its widest point. It was built to c52", and could have been built to nearer eye level height. However, when it was extended to include the harbours, the width jumped to 4' or more, and we made the decision to lower the height by 6" in order that everything modelled could be appreciated more fully.

However, since then, the backscene has been extended and raised by 9-12" to feature the cliffs et al of the prototype. Looks great from the front and adds another dimension but it has resulted in only those of basketball stature being able to see the full length of the layout from behind or sort out the odd derailment with ease.

Lindsay

[Armchair Modeller]

I want to place my vote firmly in favour of layouts you can see down on. This may be an unnatural view but at least you an see the sweep of the track through landscape, enjoy the subtleties of the track plan and have a fair chance of getting a good look at that beautifully modelled feature in the background. The eye level view may be a good way to see life like passing trains and entirely suitable for displaying small diorama style planks only a few inches deep, but as a way of enjoying every aspect of a decent sized model railway with an interesting track plan, it's a total dead loss.

Will

Agreed!

Real life viewpoints can be very frustrating - especially when you are standing on a platform admiring something in the distance when a train comes through on the line nearest to you, blocking the view. If you are standing at ground level, close to the tracks, it is quite uncomfortable to see the bulk of the train above you - and impossible to see anything much above footplate level.

Even a slightly elevated viewpoint allows you to see so much more.

Of course, models of the modern scene should have the view obstructed by modern security fencing, interspersed with tall shrubs, old prams etc. To be realistic, you should barely be able to see anything on railway property at all - especially in urban areas

[Knuckles]

Just my quick 2P (not the loco class!)...

I think layouts are best when at a height roughly 3-3.5 feet tall. So you can see most of it from a helicopter or building in scale comparison. If you want to see it at track level then by all means squat down. I know either extreem has advantages and disadvantages, and the disadvantage here is that some people might find squatting or bending uncomfortable - but at least you have the option of viewing a layout at any height you want. For the really short people - periscopes! I've read in some MR magazines that some exhabitions or demonstrators should offer this option. (or do)

[shipbadger]

Hi all,

I don't want to add to the debate but a little story may help to put things into perspective. My N scale American layout has two levels and I built it to what I thought was the 'correct' height for viewing. At one of the early shows a chap from the host club took videos of all the layouts and the owners were promised a DVD in due course. When mine arrived I duly rushed to see my efforts on the small screen; alas only the lower level appeared. Slowly it dawned on me, the videographer was a good foot or more shorter than myself and hadn't realised there were trains on the upper deck! Needless to say a new set of (shorter) legs was produced before the next show.

Tony Comber

[Andy W]

I can't help thinking about Abraham Lincoln's answer when asked how long a man's legs should be i.e. "Long enough to reach the ground".