Optimum viewing height... (N part 3)

What is the optimum height to display a model railway? This is just one question that has come up through the discussion Chris and I are sharing with the N scale exploration and yet it feels like a separate but connected conversation... 

Kinross is 60" off the deck, and I'm 5'6"

There are many ways to consider this ranging from an operational view point to the constraints of your space. In search of a starting point I read some of the planning books in my library; the following from Iain Rice seems as good a place as any for kicking things off...

“Close up viewing has another benefit. The nearer the distance from which you view a scene, the narrower your field of vision, especially in the vertical sense…” Iain Rice, Shelf Layouts, Kalmbach 2009

Traditionally we’ve perhaps just thought about how H0 suits close up viewing at eye level… with Iain’s reflection coming to the fore… I’ve been exploring and exploiting this with all my cameo and shelf layouts in OO/ H0. But what about N? Although we strive for detail it is unlikely to stand up to the same close scrutiny as H0... as a result we’re viewing from further back hence our field of vision takes in more of the landscape, but what is the optimum height to view a layout in N? Does it depend on the landscape we’re modelling?

It’s a fascinating question. In the larger scales it’s always the trains we look at but in the smaller scales it’s difficult to focus on only the train—you invariably see its background in your peripheral—so the focal point is that space occupied by both the train and the scene. Moving back a little expands that.

Perhaps the Prairies would work well with a 60” height eye level view where we look along the scene and see a long horizon with towering elevators? We can’t get as much vertical height into our eye level ‘field of vision’ so the elevators seem massive, as they do on the prairies. However, that same viewing height wouldn’t work as well for the Rockies, where we need to maximise our appreciation of the vertical. In this we need our field of vision to take in more height, so perhaps looking down into the scene more, more like a 54” level scene gives the chance for some vertical scenery on the board, and then a backscene full of more of it…

I like your sketch and in it I’m the guy on the left. I walked over to Coy/Victoria/Manheim and it’s about 53” from the floor to the track and I’m 6’-1”. Because of N scale’s smaller size my sense of distance is changed in N and even though the length of the run doesn’t change my perception of it does. Not so much distance travelled but white space moved through. In the larger scales my focus is closer to the train and what it’s doing, in N it’s about that context of travel so moving back a little, up a little, away a little seems to effect that feeling.

So have we helped? It feels like our short conversation has drawn on others ideas, combined with a bit of science and we’ve come to some basic conclusion... that the viewing height depends on not just the scale, it’s not true to say all N scale layouts should be viewed from higher up, further back... rather it’s about the relationship between the viewing height and the prototype. What works best will depend on what you’re modelling and the relationship you have with that physical real world environment. 

Perhaps more importantly, viewing height is a real world constraint just as the more obvious physical space available. You might have a room 12’ by 10’ but have bookcases 54” high... that’s going to push your layout in to the 56-60” height range., Just as I’ve discussed marrying a prototype to your available space is important, if viewing height is also a given this should be considered to find a prototype that not only fits the space but works well viewed at the proposed height. Until next time, more soon...