Best height for an exhibition layout

[Neil]

What he said.

[TheQ]

3 link shunting plank + standing all day..

 

A recipe for torture

 

I've done it.. Should be against the geneva convention

Edited August 13, 2019 by TheQ

[john new]

As the replies in this thread have shown with regard to the OP's question I don't think there can be an answer that is definitive. Other than operator comfort (which is important and often neglected) a lot of this is personal preference. If you draw parallels do you prefer to watch live sport from behind the goal/bowlers run up etc, or side on? In the theatre do you go low or high - the former lets you see the dancers feet, but not the pattern of the dance, for that you need to be in the circle. These choices are neither right nor wrong, but the individual buying the tickets will have a preference.  Even if, as an example, the operator's waist band height is deemed the best level to build at* what actual height should I settle on - as I am 5 inches taller than my wife do we build to mine, her's or spilt the difference?

 

One part of visiting most exhibitions is seeing a variety of modelling scales, styles and prototypes, differing layout heights adds to that; whether as an individual you like a high or low viewpoint is surely no different to preferring steam to diesel and electric traction or the converse?

 

*Just given as an example

 

Edited August 13, 2019 by john new

[Dungrange]

50 minutes ago, john new said:

Even if, as an example, the operator's waist band height is deemed the best level to build at* what actual height should I settle on - as I am 5 inches taller than my wife do we build to mine, her's or spilt the difference?

 

*Just given as an example

 

 

Agreed, and if the layout is operated by a club with a dozen or more members who may form the operating crew at an exhibition, which ones do you design for: the tallest club member or the shortest?  Also, whilst it doesn't matter for an end-to-end layout, for a continuous run layout, the operators need to gain access to the central operating well and that often means ducking under the layout at the start and end of each shift.  Obviously this is easier if the layout is higher and much less so, if a lower track level were adopted.  The more able bodied operators are probably more able to crawl under a low layout, but this could be difficult for more elderly or less able bodied club members.

 

Ultimately there is no right or wrong answer as there are a large number of competing parameters to define 'best'.  Some layout heights will suit some viewers more than others and those at either end of the height (or eye level) spectrum will tend to find fewer layouts at an exhibition that are at or close to their desired height.

[Julia]

8 hours ago, PMP said:

Because if you’re using three link couplings unless every uncoupling/coupling move is within arms reach of the seat, standing is more practical. My layouts are all designed to be viewed and operated from the front at a height of around 56 inches for practicality, and to make the viewing lines and blocks work.

 

Like other exhibitors here I have sympathy for the few whom can’t see the layouts at a show, and offer to take pictures for them and advise them of the website. My layouts are home layouts that occasionally get invites out, which makes a difference. A club or personal layout designed to go to shows as a major part of its raison d’etre could perhaps factor ‘public’ viewing height more prominently in its design spec.

 

But a person doesn't pay for transport and entry to goto an exhibition to be shown photos and directed to a website... 

 

J

[NHY 581]

8 hours ago, PMP said:

Because if you’re using three link couplings unless every uncoupling/coupling move is within arms reach of the seat, standing is more practical. My layouts are all designed to be viewed and operated from the front at a height of around 56 inches for practicality, and to make the viewing lines and blocks work.

 

Like other exhibitors here I have sympathy for the few whom can’t see the layouts at a show, and offer to take pictures for them and advise them of the website. My layouts are home layouts that occasionally get invites out, which makes a difference. A club or personal layout designed to go to shows as a major part of its raison d’etre could perhaps factor ‘public’ viewing height more prominently in its design spec.

 

 

Spot on. 

[john new]

10 hours ago, PMP said:

Like other exhibitors here I have sympathy for the few whom can’t see the layouts at a show, and offer to take pictures for them and advise them of the website. 

 

Original text deleted - hindsight from later posts indicates the intention behind the above quoted text was misinterpreted.

 

As a revised entry though I would state that height can be an issue for tall people too (as I am) as well as for the short and wheelchair bound. There are several on the circuit, both the high set and the low set, where lowish pelmets crop the line of vision for the tall just as much as high baseboards do for the short.

 

Edited August 13, 2019 by john new
Hindsight suggested original text hastily written and inappropriate.

[Phil Parker]

9 hours ago, Julia said:

 

Why stand?

 

J

 

Because most people in front of the layout are standing and it's nicer to be able to talk face to face. As I said in my earlier response when demonstrating and therefore sitting down, I prefer to talk to people also sitting down, hence chairs out the front of the table. Do that for a layout and you end up with a sea of largely empty chairs cluttering up the aisles. I also need to move around while operating to get to the fiddle yard or just prod recalcitrant locomotives - far easier to do when on my feet.

 

A quick check on my eye height sat in an office chair (lower than a wheelchair by several cm as my feet are on the floor)  suggests that my 1m height for the layout works for most. That's my experience at shows too with visitors who use mobility equipment including wheelchairs and scooters. It's a compromise, but the best I can come up with. 

 

 

[Julia]

4 minutes ago, Phil Parker said:

 

Because most people in front of the layout are standing and it's nicer to be able to talk face to face. As I said in my earlier response when demonstrating and therefore sitting down, I prefer to talk to people also sitting down, hence chairs out the front of the table. Do that for a layout and you end up with a sea of largely empty chairs cluttering up the aisles. I also need to move around while operating to get to the fiddle yard or just prod recalcitrant locomotives - far easier to do when on my feet.

 

A quick check on my eye height sat in an office chair (lower than a wheelchair by several cm as my feet are on the floor)  suggests that my 1m height for the layout works for most. That's my experience at shows too with visitors who use mobility equipment including wheelchairs and scooters. It's a compromise, but the best I can come up with. 

 

 

 

1m is about what I suggested up thread. It's a good height.

 

J

[PMP]

36 minutes ago, john new said:

 

Not an attitude likely to get you booked to many exhibitions I would suggest.

 

Well I've turned down plenty of invites, so your theory doesn’t hold up. Every time I’m out with Pete Kirmonds Laramie, that is displayed at a similar height, and I’ve heard plenty of requests coming over the counter for it. 

 

I make it quite clear to any managers whose offer I accept, the height the layout is displayed at, and if it’s a problem not to take the layout for the show. My web site makes it quite clear too.

https://albionyard.wordpress.com/exhibition-manager-information/

 

The offers I’ve had at shows indicate that the people making those offers understand the nature of the display as they are standing front of it. I don’t and won’t display them at a different height because its impractical to operate them effectively at a lower height.

 

In the same vein as people don’t go to a exhibition to see a photo or web site, myself and my operators don’t go to an exhibition to display the layout in an impractical or uncomfortable position for six hours or more each day. Occasionally I go to an event, sports or music, and there’s a piece of infrastructure blocking part of my view, that’s life.

[PMP]

1 hour ago, john new said:

That is the socially aware compromise.

 

When you lend your layout to a terminally ill cancer patient, with restricted mobility and vision, with no restrictions or qualms about it getting damaged, or helping that same guy out of a wheelchair onto our operating stool so he could see the layout Albion Yard at the Define exhibition, then you can lecture me about being ‘socially aware’. 

 

Until then..

[Argos]

I've only exhibited my Glencruitten layout twice which is a "cameo"layout and is displayed at a height of 50" .

 

it sits on top of a bookcase at home, so this is the height it is designed to be viewed at.

 

I bring along a plastic step to enable kids to view the layout ( with support from a parent or other adult) without the need to lifted.

 

At the first show I exhibited at a chap in wheelchair came by, stopped briefly in front of the layout, shook his head and wheeled off leaving me feeling exceptionally guilt.

 

It occurred to me that as I use builder's trestles as supports, if I had a second operator with me it would have taken moments to lower the layout for this gentleman to view before raising it back again.

 

I appreciate not all layouts could be raised and lowered as easily but where possible why not adjust the height to suit?

 

Do we need to rigidly stick to one level?

 

 

 

 

[Barry Ten]

This had been done to death - there's no answer that will satisfy everyone. Presumably art galleries face the same challenges. i spend a lot of time in art galleries and the majority of paintings are hung to be looked at from a standing position.

 

I'm on the tall side, so my layouts are mounted accordingly. Dave Stone is taller still and his Sherton Abbas (I was one of the operators) had to fend off invitations during RailEx, despite being mounted to suit Dave. We apologised to the visitors who were in wheelchairs, and nobody seemed put out. There were other layouts at the show which were set a lot lower (such as Buckingham), so there was variety.

[PMP]

3 minutes ago, john new said:

, but your here’s a picture, see our website, came over as you wrote it as somewhat uncaring

 

I wrote

Like other exhibitors here I have sympathy for the few whom can’t see the layouts at a show, and offer to take pictures for them and advise them of the website.

 

‘uncaring’ is entirely your emphasis. If you look around you’ll find a few references to how I happily hand over the controls of my ‘finescale’ layouts to visitors including youngsters, if I guess their demeanour and interest allows the risk. I’m pleased to say that my core operators have also taken that on board and do the same with my blessings. Something for you to consider perhaps?

[Harry Lime]

This is a very interesting thread as I am in the process of building a layout to exhibit. Part of me is wanting to use legs which I have bought with my baseboards and will make the layout baseboards around 1000mm high. However, during construction, I have been using some sawhorses under the baseboards and these have been much lower at around 750mm. This has been much more comfortable as a working height for me and has set me thinking. Some of my potential operators would find this problematic, especially if there is an 450mm back scene to look over as well. Having built a smaller (and taller) layout, I had to find an old-fashioned PE bench (form) for one of my operators to stand on in order to see what was happening!

 

Looking at the comments regarding accessibility of a layout, it would seem easier to have the layout at a height where all children and adults are able to see what I have done (the quality can be judged separately). It also means that setting up and striking the layout is simplified as well.  Having chairs in front of the layout can be negotiated with exhibition managers prior to accepting any invite, so to me,  this not an issue.

 

Yes I am building this layout for myself (and those who want to come and operate it). However, it would be foolish to ignore the potential audience, so a little thought about how a layout is presented is worthwhile - IMHO.

[LBRJ]

I have said this quite often before (both in reality and on other forum threads that ask the same basically unanswerable question).

Baring in mind you cannot even start to please everyone all the time, you have to go for the happy medium - Aim to please the majority of people not pander to the minority.

 

The average ten year old is about 4 foot six.

The average "sat down person" is pretty similar, maybe a bit less.

so 

make the layout about 44 inches off the floor and it works as best as possible for the largest number of people.

Its almost like its that simple really.

 

One thing that really is missed is that most decent layouts are far better when viewed at, or close, to eye level...Not some random helicopter view of some roofs and trains somewhere down there.........

[Joseph_Pestell]

On 09/08/2019 at 19:55, toolongtoremember said:

Hi everybody, 

 

quick question, what is the best height to make a layout for the public to get the best view of a layout you are exhibiting? 

 

Have built a 5ft x 2ft layout and can't decide on the height to make the legs. 

 

Thanks. 

 

 

 

[davknigh]

First consideration has to go to the person who will be operating the layout. If you are in agony at the end of the day you will not be in the best of moods for dealing with the public nor will you feel like trotting the layout out again for another show. After that has been settled the rest of the problems can be dealt with. My layout is set for 51” which works well for me and the vast majority of punters.

 

Cheers,

 

David

[Julia]

1 hour ago, davknigh said:

First consideration has to go to the person who will be operating the layout. If you are in agony at the end of the day you will not be in the best of moods for dealing with the public nor will you feel like trotting the layout out again for another show. After that has been settled the rest of the problems can be dealt with. My layout is set for 51” which works well for me and the vast majority of punters.

 

Cheers,

 

David

 

Unfortunately the punters you are disadvantaging are the young, and those in wheel chairs. 

 

Nicely done!

 

Maybe have a think about how you can make a layout at about 1000mm more comfortable for your operators rather than ignoring those who aren't as able bodied as you? 

 

J

[toolongtoremember]

9 hours ago, Joseph_Pestell said:

 

This isn't a bad call actually, mount a small 4x3 wooden board on that and we're in there! 

[Neil]

1 hour ago, Julia said:

 

Unfortunately the punters you are disadvantaging are the young, and those in wheel chairs. 

 

Nicely done!

 

Maybe have a think about how you can make a layout at about 1000mm more comfortable for your operators rather than ignoring those who aren't as able bodied as you? 

 

J

 

If the alternative is pain and/or damage then I'm afraid then that is how it will have to be. No one who embarks on building an exhibition layout builds it to deliberately disadvantage some sectors of the potential audience but ergonomics sometimes result in so doing. As PMP has mentioned it is possible to mitigate the disadvantage to some extent which while not fully levelling the playing field may be as good as we can get. The world is an unfair place but not being able to get a good view of all layouts in a model railway exhibition does seem to be a bit of a first world problem. When significant numbers of our fellow countrymen and women are experiencing insecure employment, zero hours contracts, a adult social care system that can't cope with increasing numbers of elderly citizens, the necessity for food banks, unaffordable housing, a hostile environment in both citizenship matters and welfare benefits then I'd suggest that we try to place the viewing height of exhibition layouts in proper perspective.

[Julia]

1 minute ago, Neil said:

 

If the alternative is pain and/or damage then I'm afraid then that is how it will have to be. No one who embarks on building an exhibition layout builds it to deliberately disadvantage some sectors of the potential audience but ergonomics sometimes result in so doing. As PMP has mentioned it is possible to mitigate the disadvantage to some extent which while not fully levelling the playing field may be as good as we can get. The world is an unfair place but not being able to get a good view of all layouts in a model railway exhibition does seem to be a bit of a first world problem. When significant numbers of our fellow countrymen and women are experiencing insecure employment, zero hours contracts, a adult social care system that can't cope with increasing numbers of elderly citizens, the necessity for food banks, unaffordable housing, a hostile environment in both citizenship matters and welfare benefits then I'd suggest that we try to place the viewing height of exhibition layouts in proper perspective.

 

 

Wow.

 

Just Wow.

 

J

[Dunsignalling]

Once the question of height has been, settled, other factors come into play.

 

If one makes it low enough for those in wheelchairs to view, it follows that operating comfortably dictates doing so seated.

 

With manual coupling/uncoupling a chair on castors becomes essential and, as one cannot be sure of such a thing being available, ones own must be provided and transported. If ones transport cannot accommodate one, using a static chair means not being able to move conveniently along the layout, so auto-couplers with remote uncoupling become essential. My personal view (with my operating hat on) is that low-level layouts are a pain unless they are designed with seated operation properly thought through.

 

With my (fortunately able-bodied and standing) spectator's hat on, I find the bird's eye view greatly detracts from any illusion of reality, so the modelling has to surpass that of exhibits on higher boards quite substantially in order to impress equally. Thus, I'd want the exhibition organiser to provide a modest number of chairs for spectators, too.

 

John

[Phil Parker]

10 minutes ago, Neil said:

 

If the alternative is pain and/or damage then I'm afraid then that is how it will have to be. No one who embarks on building an exhibition layout builds it to deliberately disadvantage some sectors of the potential audience but ergonomics sometimes result in so doing. As PMP has mentioned it is possible to mitigate the disadvantage to some extent which while not fully levelling the playing field may be as good as we can get. The world is an unfair place but not being able to get a good view of all layouts in a model railway exhibition does seem to be a bit of a first world problem. When significant numbers of our fellow countrymen and women are experiencing insecure employment, zero hours contracts, a adult social care system that can't cope with increasing numbers of elderly citizens, the necessity for food banks, unaffordable housing, a hostile environment in both citizenship matters and welfare benefits then I'd suggest that we try to place the viewing height of exhibition layouts in proper perspective.

 

To be fair. this could apply to everything else on RMweb too. Despite the protestations of some members, we are only talking about toy trains, not food and water.

[Gilbert]

26 minutes ago, Phil Parker said:

 

To be fair. this could apply to everything else on RMweb too. Despite the protestations of some members, we are only talking about toy trains, not food and water.

 

Thanks Phil.

Playing Trains is a luxury we should cherish.

and so is being able to express an opinion about it....ior anything else for that matter...

The older I get the more I appreciate the hobby - warts and all

Chris