I love buildings and I am not a knitpicker. Now, on my are larger layouts built over the years I spaced my buidling, giving myself some room out in the country, but still put in a lot of structures.
I just like building them and adding more detail to my layout. My latest venture is smaller in our new home, only 10 X 12 but packed with building, almost like one continuous town.
But again each to his own. I like crowded neighborhoods with buildings filling in all of the space.
Even my warf scene has buildings right up to the water,
Many will say not realistic, but cities can be crammed full of brick an concrete structures. It's a city.
I love this Bus Station at night, you can almost hear the sound of the city around it. Over the years I have built and painted so many structures, many are still packed. A new project is on the horizon. A new building just for trains-16X24 is going to be built behind the house. Can't wait. More room for more buildings.
And, I like watching the trains traverse the towns going from one street to the next.
I like older cities, not so much modern. There is something about the character and charm of the buildings from the last century so I build them.
They just don't build them like they used too.
Thanks,
Robert Sylvester
Newberry-Columbia, SC Line.
I agree , I treat my layout the same . It represents a crowded New England suburban area . I might add that I enjoy overcrowded streets ; too many vehicles .
doctorwayne .......While I choose to ignore the unrealistically-close proximity of the towns to each other, and despite the length of my mainline, I prefer to think of my layout as an elongated ISL, where the multitude of relatively large industries are the reason the railroad exists.I don't think of my layout as having too many structures, but rather as one with too little separation between the scenes which represent each locale. Wayne
.......While I choose to ignore the unrealistically-close proximity of the towns to each other, and despite the length of my mainline, I prefer to think of my layout as an elongated ISL, where the multitude of relatively large industries are the reason the railroad exists.I don't think of my layout as having too many structures, but rather as one with too little separation between the scenes which represent each locale.
Wayne
I like this explaination of yours
Brian
My Layout Plan
Interesting new Plan Consideration
Well stated Travis.
.
I have always included lots of buildings on my layout because except for one layout, each only modeled one city. This required no spaces in between the towns, so the buildings were abundant.
-Kevin
Living the dream.
Again as stated so much depends on location and era. Doing a New York City switching terminal with a car float etc? Then your backdrop is buidings and all the eye should see is nothing but buildings ontop of more buildings (very specific example of that is Chris Brimley's layout in the recent Model Railroad Craftsman). Or something like Lance Mindheim's industrial switching layouts, that focus very much on the urban architecture of cities such as Los Angeles or Miami. Doing the empty Midwest plain's with fields of corn and small towns? Then your buildings are going to be sporadic farm houses and one road small towns. Look at Pelle Soeberg's Daneburg Sub or Tony Koester's Nickle Plate layout... the buildings are few and far between with lots of wide spaces. I think you could count the number of buildings on the entirety of the Daneburg Sub with just two hands, and even if that's not the case it would shock me if there is more than a dozen structures on that thing. Similarly the wide mountain valley's and tight canyon ranges of the West, or the rolling hills of the East need to similarly be focused on natural spaces. My favorite example of this that I have seen first hand is WP8thSub's layout, Rob really accentuates the vast desert vista by leaving so much of the layout nothing more than scrub grass and dirt while letting his backdrops give the illusion of distance. Except for the brief segment modeling Ogden which is a very building dense area, most of Rob's layout is just wide empty spaces with only a few buildings here and there to represent small towns or industries. Once outside of theme... the next thing to determine building density is the spacing needed to represent the local. Remember you want your minature town to look like the roads and alleys are wide enough people can use them. But... a wide road city like Salt Lake City with its massive roads is a different story compared to the narrower roads and sharp inclines of a place like San Fransisco, and both seem to be a far cry from the almost insanely narrow roads in places in Europe like Lisbon Portugal. For example if your modeling a place like Las Vegas and your spacing each massive casino only a few scale feet apart without the realistic spacing to represent alley's and sidewalks; its hard to believe. But if your modeling say old town Boston and space the buildings very close its a believable representation of that locale. When space is needed is were selective omission is better than selective compression... sometimes its better to just remove a building from a scene to make the rest look more realistic.
Wow you guys gave me a lot to consider and think about. First I git rid of my older less detailed buildings,then I allowed for parking spaces and roads,then I seperated rural scenes from cities and added nearby small town. Since my layout is free lanced and the eras is all over the place so I can run those big beautiful diesel jobs and my beloved steamers it is hard to do. For instance the cars that look best are from the fifties and sixties and they will get by but the people with their modern clothes and hairdos frustrate my quest for realism. I know I can use the steamers for excursions and use other excuses for my love of modern and older trains but I want it all to fit visually together. I know this is my problem but it sure hurts when somebody says what is that reefer doing on your layout.Like so many have said before make yourself happy or make others happy,you have a choice. Thanks for the comments and suggestions. By the way I use to run lines on my telephone poles til I found out when I cleaned track it was hard not to break the thread I was using.
Depends on weather you are modeling New York City or Richardton, North Dakota.
ROAR
The Route of the Broadway Lion The Largest Subway Layout in North Dakota.
Here there be cats. LIONS with CAMERAS
This thread reminds me of a question a visiting relative from the Chicago area made while riding in our car traveling through Southern California. The question was, "How far is it between cities here?" The answer was, "Don't blink!" Imagine an area 100+ miles long by 100+ miles wide, with almost continuous development (read side-by-side buildings), and you have the Los Angeles basin. The only indication that you've passed from one City to the next are the City limit signs on the side of the road. If it weren't for Camp Pendelton separating San Diego County from Orange County and mountains separating Ventura County from Los Angeles County, development would be continuous for a length of over 300 miles.
As far as the number of structures on layouts, one of the layouts I am privileged to operate is most pleasurable because of the dozens of structures making up its most urban scene. One of the biggest operating challenges is simply finding the various businesses to/from which you are delivering or picking up cars. The "turn" through this scene often takes an operator several hours to complete all the switching, but the high density of structures, the incredible detailing, the thorough weathering and the overall scene is quite believable and so entertaining that this job is always one of the first chosen.
Even if you are modeling a rural area, most development occurs in clusters of buildings so I don't see why similar clusters would be considered unrealistic on a layout. Although it was not as densely developed in the 1950's era I model, the rail served areas of Orange County, California were still fairly densely populated. Thus, my layout includes several large clusters of structures representing different urban centers that extend from the aisle to the backdop with many low-relief buildings right against the aisle and more low-relief buildings and/or building flats against the backdrop. No one has yet to tell me I have too many buildings on my layout!
Hornblower
I started to reply to this thread yesterday, illustrating it with photos, but the post disappeared before I could finish. I'll try again, without the photos.
Despite my layout having over 250' of mainline, the five urban areas on the main level of the layout are mostly unrealistically close to one another.The first two (part of a city and part of a smaller town) are separated by a small creek and a couple of feet of "farmland".The next town is quite well-removed, visually, at least, from those two, and from the next two towns, which literally abut one another, albeit at an outside corner of the room, which provides the minimal "separation".
The partial upper level of the layout is separated from the lower area by a 45' long grade of 2.8%, so is distinctly separate, with the first town at the top of the hill, and stretching for about 10' or 12'. The next town, about 6' down the line, will be only a station and perhaps a small industry or two on a siding.
The final urban area, representing a city of some size, will be about 10' beyond the last town and will feature only four or five industries, and a portion of the "downtown" near the station. Beyond that, across the aisle, is a staging yard, strictly "off-layout" with only track - no ballast or scenery or structures.While the layout is meant to represent two affiliated shortlines, controlled by an unmodelled larger road, only a very few of the trains will travel the length of the line unimpeded, stopping only for water or opposing trains.All other trains will "work" each of the towns through which they pass, picking-up or dropping-off cars, re-spotting other cars as needed, and then moving on to the next town.For all of the towns and cities, the portions modelled, naturally, represent those areas near the tracks. The industries served are the reason the railroad exists, so the most prominent structures are those which are rail-served. Any buildings in the background are simply filler to give each scene some depth, and many are simply flats or low relief structures.
I'm the sole operator of my DC powered layout, and while many trains may use more than one locomotive, there's only one train in motion at any time. My plan is to run trains sequentially, where one starts on it's trip to switch every town, but may be periodically sidetracked to allow a through train or an opposing train to pass.An operating session might take a few hours, or could take several days or even weeks before the first train completes its run.While I choose to ignore the unrealistically-close proximity of the towns to each other, and despite the length of my mainline, I prefer to think of my layout as an elongated ISL, where the multitude of relatively large industries are the reason the railroad exists.I don't think of my layout as having too many structures, but rather as one with too little separation between the scenes which represent each locale.
What a fantastic question! Its answer is far too challenging. You have to consider what you are modeling? I don't just mean era and location, but the purpose? Are you trying to squeeze a lot of stuff in a small space? No one can provide the right answer because no two people can agree.
Aesthetics are important of course, but there are also practical reasons to keep the number of buildings on the lower side. At our club, I realized that a cluttered layout makes operations and maintenance a bit of nightmare. When track is not easily accessible, it becomes difficult to clean the track and make repairs. It's true for tunnels, but also for buildings when there are many between tracks. Obstacles can also be a problem when de-coupling and re-rerailing actions are made during operations. I am currently working on a layout where most track will be easily accessible, which means practically no buildings in front of the mainline, and few in front of the sidings. Less is definitely more in my books...
Simon
The era you're modelling is one factor, but the era that the buildings (or at least the majority of the buildings) were built is another. 100 years ago, very few people owned cars. In big cities, people walked or took the streetcar to work or to shop, so there was no need for parking lots. Stores and office buildings could be built one right next to the other. Often you'd see buildings with stores on the ground floor, with apartments above.
In some downtown areas, things have remained like that until today. In other places it changed - a department store might buy out an old apartment building next door to them, tear it down, and build a large parking ramp for their customers. Openings for parking ramps or lots also occured as older buildings were torn down as part of "urban renewal" in the 1960's.
I've got 50-60 buildings on my 100 square foot layout. There are a couple of urban areas, tightly packed, and some open space.
It doesn't look crowded or congested.
It takes an iron man to play with a toy iron horse.
Building a 1:1 full size mock-up of the layout will let you know how the scenes will look. It is much easier to make changes in cardboard at this point.
In city and town scenes you can pack building in wall to wall and it looks good. Country scenes want a fair amount of space between buildings. If you want to make your whole layout city and town scenes you can pack in quite a few buildings. If you want some country scenery with the main line running thru it, you won't be able to pack in as many.
David Starr www.newsnorthwoods.blogspot.com
On a ISL you will need industry buildings but,no houses or stores.
Exception being a urban industrial lead then you may add stores or perhaps a strip mall along the street(s) you cross.
Don't forget to add nonrail served industries.
Larry
Conductor.
Summerset Ry.
"Stay Alert, Don't get hurt Safety First!"
Exactly seventeen. 18 is too many.
Telephoto views certainly exaggerate the perspective. From what I've read, the roadbed was excavated and lowered several times, recently in the 1970s and again in 2007.
For us modelers it is always nice to know that we can get away with placing a "tunnel" within city limits and point to a real-life existence of the same. Selios has done this on his layout, of course. Maybe places like Bellows Falls were his "excuse".
Here's another look but this video doesn't quite capture the surrounding buildings as well.
Regards, Ed
gmpullmanTake a look at this scene (first photo) at Bellows Falls, Vermont.
Ed,
That is an amazing shot. Obviously the camera is fooling the eye given how steep the grade appears to be from the point where the locomotive is to the track under the buildings.
Dave
I'm just a dude with a bad back having a lot of fun with model trains, and finally building a layout!
tstageFor me - the F&SM is a great example of too much.
I agree with Tom's point of view but I also appreciate where George Selios is coming from, too. Even he is "decluttering" the F&SM and trying to model more open spaces on the layout.
But when I recall my many visits to New England I do understand how the congested "old-world" cities came to be. And the railroad threaded its way through these congested mill towns to a modeler's delight.
Take a look at this scene (first photo) at Bellows Falls, Vermont.
http://whiteriverdivision.blogspot.com/2016/04/modeling-bellows-falls-tunnel.html
If some of us modeled a scene like this we would surely hear someone say, "you would never see tracks laid under a building like that" yet — here it is.
UNCLEBUTCH I get my ''fix'' from building, therefore I have way more then I need. I gotten tothe point of replaceing early builds with better recent builds.
I'm in this camp as well.
In one case I had a perfectly good grain elevator occupying the center area of a wye. One day I decided to pull that out and replace it with a large, urban, U.S. Mail handling facility with tracks and platforms underneath. Likewise, I replaced my perfectly servaceable, nine-stall roundhouse with a newer version of the Walther's Modern Roundhouse. I enjoy building structure kits. It was fun to build the kit and make improvements along the way.
A layout is never really "done" but is a work-in-progress.
Cheers, Ed
SeeYou190 Franklin and South Manchester: Too many is never enough. . It all depends on what you want. . -Kevin .
Franklin and South Manchester: Too many is never enough.
It all depends on what you want.
Kevin,
For me - the F&SM is a great example of too much. Amazing detail but a bit over-the-top as far as "realism"...
Tom
https://tstage9.wixsite.com/nyc-modeling
Time...It marches on...without ever turning around to see if anyone is even keeping in step.
I like space between more crowded urban areas. So, I don't build edge to edge. My layout has both built-up sections and empty spaces, and I think it looks better that way.
I hope that when I have built all I need, I will have the good sense to remove less well built structures and replace them with better ones.
Too many? You know it when you see it, but our eyes can be fooled. There are some psycho/visual issues at work. Brightly colored buildings tend to look more cramped than dull and weathered ones. As a necessity on most layouts buildings - even if rail served -- tend to be too close (by measurement) to the tracks and, in many cases, also too close to the streets. And yet they may look just right.
Real prototype sized buildings tend to be much larger than even the "large" buildings you see on most layouts -- for example even the Walthers steel mill buildings, which are enormous by plastic kit standards, are dinky compared to real modern steel mill buildings. And if you measure the doors on many model kit structures surprisingly few of them are anywhere near the 80" or so of the normal door. Yet, again, they look right, unless a scale figure is placed too near them, perhaps because our streets and alleys and driveways tend to be far narrower than prototype, utility pole distances tend to be shorter, "generous" turnouts of #8 or #10 would be flange-sequealing tight industrial turnouts on the prototype, and so on.
Very few city blocks on layouts large enough to have city blocks are really full sized, as well. And in most "real" places streets tend to be boringly north/south/east/west, or at least involve more 90 degree angles than the hodge podge you see on some heavily populated layouts, particularly if the modeler tried to "accurately" model grade crossings given our more frequent and far to sharp curves. If you want to be 90 degrees to the track, it is tough to be 90 degrees to the other streets, in other words.
Modelers who strive for accurate prototype sized buildings have different issues and different challenges than the rest of us when it comes to the "right" number of buildings.
Dave Nelson
Pelle Soeborg's Union Pacific: Six is too many.
One of the things to consider is roads/streets for your buildings. If these are off layout, the buildings should still be oriented towards them. Also many businesses need places to load/unload trucks, employee parking, customer parking, etc. Houses may need yards.
Otherwise, put in as many as you want.
Paul
As Rich and others have stated, it depends on location and era. My personal philosophy is to make the buildings, structures, track, etc. spacing as prototypical (realistic) as possible and do any "compression" in-between scenes. I also subscribe to the "less-is-more" approach and detail enough of a town or area to capture to flavor of it rather than add too much. Same goes for weathering.
the old train man I dont want to over crowd the scenery with buildings so I would like to hear from modelers as to what they consider too crowded on a layout. Thanks
As the others have said, it depends on your lay out and your "theme", or location, etc., etc.
Everybodies answer so far, is right on!
You add what you think fits in with what your modeling. And since you have many buildings from a previous lay out to choose from, you can keep changing arrangments and buildings, to get what your looking for.
The only time I consider a lay out "too crowded" is when every availiable space is filled with track.
I wish you would reconsider your previous "dinasour" reason for not posting photos. I think you have something really interesting going on with the two different scales, and seperate shelf lay outs.
Mike.
PS. Pssst.....Rich....speaking of posting photos?....
My You Tube
OK, you've heard that the amount of buildings is very locale dependant. But, I ask what about era? Are you modeling post 1990? Many of those cool 19th century multi-story brick factories which modeler like would have been demolished, or repurposed into housing, storage, or office/performance spaces. No bulk freight generation, you OK with that? Are you modeling the 1940s? Then many of the modern era buildings Summit offers would be anachronisms, and tilt-up construction and Pikestuff-style Butler buildings would be rare and different from today's style. Lots of generic brick/block commerical buildings of 3 stories or less - you could do blocks of them if you model fairly dense inner suburbs.