Narrow Isle

[Flagler]

I gave the 16ft long section a extra 6 inches and made it 1 foot wide vs 6". This will provide motivation to stay the same or loose some weight the Isle is only 26" wide. In the long run ,no pun intended it will be worth the visual.

[mmagliaro]

What layout is this talking about?  I must have missed something.

[peteski]

...just a random thought from Flagler...

Speaking of which, I could benefit from trimming my waist by few inches. 

[Ian MacMillan]

Wha?

30" is the min I will go on aisles. I had one on my old Pittsburgh Line layout that was 24" and it 'twas the dumbest thing ever.

[DKS]

Regardless of where this thread was supposed to go, that aisle dimension is too narrow in most books. 30" is considered a bare minimum, 36" preferred.

[conrail98]

Regardless of where this thread was supposed to go, that aisle dimension is too narrow in most books. 30" is considered a bare minimum, 36" preferred.

Depends on expected number of operators and/movement in that area. If it's a place where someone is going to go to spend an hour switching out a branch line with no one else interfering, you can get down to 24". There are big layouts, Mark Lestico's Cascade Subdivision and Jim Hertzog's Reading Shamokin Division, that go below the 30" and have made it work. From my own experience operating, making sure any squeeze points or small space is in an area that's really a 1 operator section, not a main pass-through,

Phil

[mmagliaro]

Well, without even seeing the track plan...
When I built my last layout, I set a hard-and-fast minimum at 30" just because interior doorways are usually
30" (after you subtract the little stops and the jamb), and I figured I should not go below that.

On the current layout, I did the same thing.   As a test, I stacked up to columns of boxes at 30" apart and spent time standing and walking between them.  Then I did the same thing after my wife nudged them in or out (to 28 or 32).  I could definitely notice it, even at only 28".  In other words, 2" matters more than I thought it did.

What could be going on here is that even though I'm skinny, we are used to going through the passageways in standard homes, which are 30" (or wider), so anything narrower just doesn't feel right, even if there really is enough room.

I'm glad I stuck with 30".   Standing in my aisles, I would not want the narrowest points any narrower.  At anywhere other than possibly the end of a long dead-end aisle where you will rarely stand, I would not want to go below 30" if at al possible. (and again, I'm a skinny guy).

[Flagler]

Hi Max, yes I agree it is amazing how much 2" can change the Isle function. Two people can pass within the 26" width.
I plan to use it as  a standing area only. no stools.I really wish it was 30" but the shelf could only be 8"then. I might narrow a 5 ft long section in the middle to 8" to create a bay.

[VirginaCSX]

This is one of those topics that there is no right answer and everyone has an opinion.  Thirty inches seems to be the "excepted" norm and the wider you make it the less complaints you hear.  BUT most of us only have so much space and we want to maximize the railroad space.  I'm going to say what you all are thinking it also matters on your operator sizes, we all are different so what is good for some is not good for all.  In places where only one person passes through the low twentys can work but is tight to work in and almost impossible to pass in.

[CBQ Fan]

I have a main isle that is 24" wide.  I fit fine and I am comfortable with it.  Maybe mock it up and see how it feels.