MichaelW Posted November 6, 2012 Share Posted November 6, 2012 I've been idly thinking of a replacement for the layout I dismantled over the weekend, and am wondering what size of baseboard I can go down to before it would start looking silly. I'm thinking of modules around 3 foot long (they fit into the space left by the old layout) but how wide / high should I make them? This will be a 009 layout, and I want a reasonable 'railway in the landscape' effect, but want to be able to restrict the width and height... So is 12" too narrow? Could I get away with a 4" high backscene? What do you think? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Linthorpe Posted November 6, 2012 Share Posted November 6, 2012 I have seen plenty of layouts with 3' long boards. As for depth there have been a few good '00' ones at only a foot wide so it should be ok for '009'. As regards back hight I think that viewing angle is relevant, the lower down you view it from the more back scene you take in. I would do a little mock up and conduct a couple of trials. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenton Posted November 6, 2012 Share Posted November 6, 2012 No problem with 3' long except if that means cutting pointwork across joins far more of an issue in 9mm track than 16.5. 12" depth is going to prevent a roundy-roundy and a reversing loop but no problem end to end. I always think backscenes are a personal choice and there are no rules. Though might say that if it is lower than any building or trees it might look a bit peculiar. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Kris Posted November 6, 2012 RMweb Premium Share Posted November 6, 2012 To get away with a 12" board you will have to be quite selective with the scene and how you set it. Done well and it will be great but ... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjcampbell Posted November 6, 2012 Share Posted November 6, 2012 My 009 layout (see link in signature) is 3' 6" long, and 12 to 13" wide. That is reasonable for scenery although it depends what you want to achieve of course! My layout is mostly station yard but there is space for some background. Increasing the width to 15" might help a lot if you want more visual depth, and don't forget boards can vary in depth... For a narrow board, 4' or even 5' long is managable - although check what fits in your car for transport. For wider boards (18" to 24") then I reckon 3' to 3' 6" is the maximum managable by one person. As for backscenes, in my view they are there to remove any background from the eye/camera. So a minimum of about 10-12", or a good 2-3" above your tallest tree or building. That also helps protect the layout from humans leaning over the back! If storage limits height, invert one board over another. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
shortliner Posted November 6, 2012 Share Posted November 6, 2012 For what it is worth - an art critic would probably suggest that for a layout proportioned to please the eye, it should conform to the "Golden Ratio*" which is 1:1.61, which for a 36" long layout, would make it 22.5" wide - I'd suggest that that is excessive and suggest that a suitable width for a 36" long layout should be a maximum of 15"-!8" wide *http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_ratio Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Karhedron Posted November 6, 2012 Share Posted November 6, 2012 My layout has a 4" backscene which I hoped would be adequate as it is N gauge. I now wish I had gone for something taller as I have one chimney that is taller than the backscene. Also the trees in the foreground of the backscene look like bonsai. Whilst is does an adequate job of framing the layout, it doesn't really work as part of the illusion of being a background. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MichaelW Posted November 7, 2012 Author Share Posted November 7, 2012 Thanks for all your replies. I did a bit of experimenting this evening with a couple of bits of track and some of my stock, and have decided that a 12" width could work for what I want. From what most of you mentioned, I don't think a 4" backscene could work, I may have to rethink that bit - I've been so used to thinking in N, I'd forgotten 009 is a bit taller... Mjcampbell - your layout is roughly what I was thinking of as a module - though not all would be that complicated, some would just be a length of track and a some countryside... Time to get a drawing board out I think... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Torr Giffard LSWR 1951-71 Posted November 7, 2012 Share Posted November 7, 2012 Mornin' The frames for Torr Giffard are 3" off the floor on adjustable supports and 6' x 2" in size but they are in aluminium. Dave Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
fender Posted November 7, 2012 Share Posted November 7, 2012 I would think a taller backscene would allow you to keep the depth of the layout down. I think depth is the least important part of the physical model. I find width and height the most important dimensions when looking at any one part of a layout, but the height you get from a backscene also gives you free visual depth. you could get away with a very narrow board as long as the eye has the backscene to fill out the view, although a narrow board cuts down on the possible physical scenery/track space, as has been said. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
PatB Posted November 8, 2012 Share Posted November 8, 2012 As I recall, Cyril Freezer was always an advocate of a metre long baseboard unit on the basis that it would fit easily into most cars, which 4ft won't, necessarily, but gives usefully more room than 3ft. The main disadvantage that I can see is that, because timber is still sold in bastardised Imperial measurements, it might be difficult to do this and utilise materials efficiently. For example, over here I can buy sheet materials in 900 and 1200 mm widths, but not 1000 mm so, for a solid top baseboard, I'd be stuck with either a two piece baseboard top or an offcut which may not be useable elsewhere. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Donw Posted November 8, 2012 RMweb Gold Share Posted November 8, 2012 It is difficult to define a 'right' size for a baseboard I always thought that length was more important but up pop these micro layouts that turn that on its head. So choose a size that will contain the image you want. However I definately think 4in to low even in N. In 4mm 4in is about 25ft The chimney on a large building could be above that (do not forget the station building includes the platform height. Also 25ft is a pretty small treewhilst you might not find room for englands tallest tree (almost 200ft) 75ft to 100ft are common I suggest that a 50ft tree on a raised bank say 20ft above the baseboard needs about 1ft of backscene if possible. An alternative is not to have a backscene and instead have provision to place a sky cloth behind the layout ( canvas or similar painted sky colour) trouble is you then need extra width to place more scenery behind the trains or it will look a bit odd IMHO. Don Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenton Posted November 8, 2012 Share Posted November 8, 2012 Of course this approach to building a model railway is completely wrong. We should be planning the railway and then designing the baseboard to fit including avoiding cutting through pointwork and buildings. If that means we have a two baseboards, one of 30 inches and one of 42 inches then so be it. Sometimes I think we get far too hung up on size ... as the saying goes ... it is what you do with it that really counts. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MichaelW Posted November 8, 2012 Author Share Posted November 8, 2012 Of course this approach to building a model railway is completely wrong. I was about to take issue with that statement Kenton, but having re-read my original post, I have to admit I wasn't very clear about what I was thinking of doing (well, I knew ), so instead, a slight discussion... I would say it depends - given a limitless scope, yes, we should design the layout then figure out how to build the baseboards around the plan. But very few of us have that limitless scope to play with, so the design is (almost) always constrained to some extent or other (be it room size, what will fit in the car for transport, or what SWMBO will allow ). Ideally, that limit should restrict the design as little as possible, and we should pick an idea (be it a prototype or a figment of our imagination) that will fit within the constraints with minimal compromise required. From this the rest of the non-railway planning (baseboards, wiring, fiddle yards etc.) can be made to fit. In this case, I've just scrapped (via the fun method of a big bonfire), the baseboards of a 009 layout I started building over 13 years ago, and haven't done anything to in over 12 - mainly due to how big and complicated it was. Whilst I wanted to replace it, I don't want to start on something big - I want something small and simple that I can do relatively quickly, and get to a finished state without losing interest in it. To this end, I thought a modular approach might be a good idea - each module can be simple, and small, but over time build up into a larger system with more operability. Given the restriction that it has to fit in the space left behind by the old layout (8ft by 3ft) it seemed sensible to limit the modules to a 3ft length. This thread was an attempt to garner opinion on the width and height I should make them (the smaller they are, the sooner they'd get finished - hence how low they can go). But as you say, size isn't everything - you see some really good small layouts, and some absolutely atrocious large ones. I just want something I can manage... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MichaelW Posted November 8, 2012 Author Share Posted November 8, 2012 Again, thanks everyone for your replies, you've certainly provided much food for thought... (and apologies for semi-ranting in the last post) From your comments, I'm now fairly sure a 12" width is workable for most of the modules - given the small nature of most narrow gauge stations, I think most could be fitted in that width. Length wise, around 3ft feels right - maybe slightly longer (thanks for the tip there PatB) if I can get away with it. Height is a different issue - you've convinced me that a 4" backscene would look bad, but I need to think a bit more about how to cope - the 4" came from thinking that a 4ft by 2ft sheet of ply would build a single module (12" wide top, 4" strip for the front, 8" for the back, trimmings off the end for the cross pieces) - and now that isn't going to work... Donw I like your idea of a skycloth as a backdrop, especially as it makes the modules reversible... More sketching and thinking required I think... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Donw Posted November 8, 2012 RMweb Gold Share Posted November 8, 2012 One factor which will not affect you much is what you can fit on a board. In 0 gauge building a small layout I realised that in a 1metre length I could fit a crossover or a headshunt plus half a crossover increasing the baseboard might not help for example if I adopted a 4ft board I could have a larger headshunt but it was less practical keeping the headshunt the same size as the other half of the crossover ends up over the baseboard join.It strikes me with a modular approach one question you need to ask is how long does it need to be to handle a reasonable length train WHR garrats and bogie coaches might need a bigger module than prince and a few bug boxes. Don Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MichaelW Posted November 9, 2012 Author Share Posted November 9, 2012 Just to update you all, I've started a layout thread here about what might result from these discussions... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.