Minimum operating well size?

[Malton Seadog]

Hi all,

 

Currently planning a OO gauge layout - of which the size is yet to be decided. Absolute minimum will be 6 x 4, but I'm determined to have a central operating well with a fiddle yard at the back against the wall.

 

I'm relatively slim and tall, so what would you recommend as the minimum size for an operating well? I'm thinking 2 x 2 would probably be quite comfortable? On a 6 x 4 board, this would only allow for a 2 foot wide scenic area down the front, and 1 foot down the sides.

 

From experience, what's the smallest comfortable space you have worked in, in terms of a central operating well?

[Michael Delamar]

give a little space so you can bend and limbo in and out comfortably

[Kenton]

I know I couldn't work in a 2 x 2 ft space - I'm a little claustrophobic but that would feel more like wearing a hula hoop or being stuck down a manhole. In fact standing still with my arms at my side I measure 20 inches across (I'm not exactly large) and that doesn't allow any room to manoeuvre or get in and out of the hole.

 

You say the absolute minimum would be 6 x 4 - if that turns out to be the real extent I simply wouldn't bother with a roundy-roundy although it is possible to get a passable model railway in that space most of the better examples use the centre for some scenic addition.

 

It will also be quite difficult to fit any working fiddle yard in that space unless you are thinking of a traverser. By the time you have a point ladder at each end the roads are going to be quite short. And, as you have pointed out there will be only 1ft width left of running space front and back.

[shortliner]

I'd suggest an 'L' or 'U' shape which would make far more sense - with a fiddle yard down one leg - BUT - with one foot wide boards you are still restricted to a 24" gap in the middle - If you can restrict the boards at the side to 9" width you have a 30" aisle which will be more comfortable and you'll be less likely to cause damage while turning round or moving - my personal preference would be the 'L' shape. recommendedations on designing sites are allow a minimum 30", or preferably 36", diameter turning circle for a human being, between peninsula aisles (which is virtually what you would have) so there is less chance of a sleeve catching, and performing a "vertical gravity shunting" move. The extra room would also make working on the layout much more comfortable

[AngusDe]

I'd echo shortliner's observations. My computer and I live in a 6' x 6' (x 3') L shaped cupboard under the stairs and as this is the most likely site of any layout (unless either of my grown up daughters ever move out, lol!) I've given this endless thought.

 

Currently the two 6' walls have 10" book cases along both sides, and whilst these could easily go to 12" for a layout anything else would really cramp your style one way or another. So the current "aisle" is 26" which is enough for me to slide into the PC desk at the end of the alcove on my swivel chair but doesn't leave much room for much, dropping anything on the floor requires reversing out of the cupboard, lol.

 

Just my experience,

 

Angus

[Donw]

I would go for a cockpit style. Take your 6x4 and take a bit out of one side to give a waterwings shape. Then run a single line lifting bridge acrosss the gap. That way to can still have trains round and round. You can get in quite easy and you can have a decent width on the other side the two end areas offer space for a goods yard engine shed etc.

Don

[tebee]

It also depends on what height you intend to have the board at. Remember you need to get your arms from below board level to above it as well and arms only bend at the elbow ! Having the well too tight will also increase the chances knocking something on the layout when you move.

 

Too small a well = being uncomfortable and will cause frustration and you won't want to work on the layout because you don't enjoy doing it any more.

 

In OO a well in a 6X4 board does not really leave you enough useful real estate.

[Oldddudders]

You need to distinguish between an access hole and an operating well. The former can be titchy-tiny, as long as you can get upright and reach the bloomin' wagons that derailed on that remote point (again). If you are to enjoy your railway, the operating area needs to be comfortable and a pleasant-enough environment to pass hours at a time, whether building or running. Too small equals a new layout sooner rather than later!

[PaulRhB]

Ok so if you want a round the wall layout and only have 6 x 4 how can it work?

Two ideas based on your idea of a 2x2 access, operating well :-

Raise the height so can get in and out easily, say chest height.

Make the rest of the centre a separate panel too so it can either hinge up or down or be lifted out to provide a bigger working space when required.

 

Plus don't eat while running trains or you may get trapped

[B McG]

From experience, what's the smallest comfortable space you have worked in, in terms of a central operating well?

[/quote/]

 

Before I dismantled it, part of my operating well was barely 18 inches wide. I had built through an archway and had twin lines running either side mainly because permission to drill through the walls was refused! lol (My wife is a chartered surveyor, she knows her stuff much better than me)

 

It was tight to the extreme although each side was more spacious and comfortable. 2' by 2' I would find too small, but that's just my own opinion and 2 cents :-)

Cheers

Bryant

[johnd]

Just my tuppence worth, I have had some boards built for a new layout each (4) of them 6ft long 3 21inch wide and the 4th 18 inch wide. when errected they are 9ft 6 X 6ft with an operating well of 6ft by 30 inch. This gives ample space for 2 people to move around.

 

Personally for a single 6 X 4 I wouldnt bother with a hole in the middle.

[Del]

If you build your 6'x4' from four 4'x1' boards, you end up with a nice 4'x2' well in the middle. There's a few plans using this idea in the PECO Setrack planbooks