Why so few city/urban layouts?

[BroadwayLion]

This is the first time that this thread has caught my eye. My idea of railroading is strictly urban/suburban, and 100% passenger trains. (Passengers, after all are tasty and make good LION food.) But consider what it takes to run a passenger train into the city. LIRR trains are mostly 10 or 12  cars long, call it 850 to 1000 feet long. In HO your passenger platforms would be over 11 feet long. This does not fit in a 10 x 10 room.

Fortunately the LIONS train room is 24' x 27', but still nowhere near enough for a credible Penn Station. Besides, NYP is all underground. Are you going to model a hole in the ground?

Well the LION is doing just that, but him is focused on NYCT (subways). Subway trains are also 10 cars long, but the shorter (!RT) cars make trains 500' long. This makes the platforms 6' long. The LION has compromised and runs six car trains stopping at 4' long platforms.

The LION is not all that much of a skilled builder, and the shortcuts he used in construction would never pass muster with the MR editors. Still, the layout pleases the LION and that is good enough for me.

The subway runs in tunnels, under cut and cover streets, in open cuts, on embankments, and on elevated structures. It runs through "woodland" (Think Franklin Shuttle) and down town at Penn Station.

A passenger (commuter) railroad serving a REAL city needs trains every few minutes. You can model some sort of a push pull commuter line in Arizona with one train an hour, but that does not cut it for a city. And for a subway trains passing every few seconds on a four track main line is closer to the mark.

The LION is presently running (or will run when he rebuilds his lower track level) eight trains at a time. Six on the (1) Broadway Local and one in each direction on the (2) Seventh Avenue Express. LION does not have eight operators. Him runs the railroad by himself. Him not have money to computerize the railroad or even to use DCC. Nonetheless the railroad is automated, and the LION need only dispatch the trains from 242nd Street.

Penn Station is (will be) represented as a static display on the lower levels of the main table. It will serve as a display for the older passenger cars that I will no longer be running. Since viewers can only see glimpses of it, it does not need high degrees of detail.

LION will make a credible model of Seventh Avenue between 33rd Street and 31st street above Penn Station and above the subway line that passes through there. That will be expensive over $500.00 which I do not have and cannot get. Further south I will build a model of the former World Trade Center. Each Tower was 200' x 200' or with a 2' square HO footprint. But then the towers would have to be over 15' tall! Forced perspective will make the towers smaller and shorter. Smaller buildings around the base, perhaps N scale buildings behind HO scale buildings will aid this deception. Still one is tempted to forgo such towers and simply model Battery Park. That is much easier and is also "Big City".

The LION will also model Seventh Avenue above 42nd Street, but this will be at the top of the layout, and while viewers can look directly into the subway station at eye level, they will need a step stool to see the street level. Buildings will consist of cardboard cutouts with lighted signs fixed on them. After all, one does not see buildings in times square, one sees lighted billboards. Broadway is a pedestrian mall at this point in the city.

If you look at my system map, you will see that I have fit the railroad and the city into the tables that I have built. The train moves from one vignette to another and I try to smooth the transitions as best I can. The layout is on "Three" levels (if you do not count the helix and mezzanines) and so sometimes a subway tunnel is placed just above an open air scene. 242nd Street to 42nd Street is on the upper level; 8th Street to 34th Street is on the middle level; and 14th Street to South Ferry is on the lower level. Thus 42nd Street is directly above Smith-9th Street. Only a thin strip of fascia separates them, and a hidden helix to the lower level is behind and below the Smith-9th Street Station. The track to South Ferry is in the lower left corner of the picture.

Once all of the track is in, I will have a city subway, but there will not be much room to model a city.

[tomasman]

This is my first post so bear with me.  I have experienced frustration at building a viable urban layout and I have come to 2 main things to keep in mind.

1) If you are modeling in N scale, you might want to reconsider an urban layout.  Even with large N scale buildings, it may not give you the impression of size you are looking for, and unless your layout is at nearly eye level, you will have an airborne perspective, not a street level point of view.  HO is a better choice for an urban layout due to the sheer size of the buildings, the level of detail and the availability of product is far better in HO.  Something I didn't think through when I changed from HO to N.   A large N scale building, either a kitbash of multiple smaller buildings or one of the newer buildings from Lunde will be a substantial  investment in order to create the effect you are looking to achieve.  If money is no object it doesn't matter, but for those on a budget.....  Also Rome was not built in a day, think in the long term, be patient, find buildings that will kitbash well into larger structures and gradually accumulate many of them until you can build what you want--make sure you can still find them.  It is frustrating to obtain a discontined kit that would have potential for kitbashing only to discover you will never be able to procure another one.

 

2) Trying to fill up an N scale layout with building is expensive, don't try to fill every square inch with a building, cities have streets, bridges, freeways and these help create the flavor of a city when used in conjunction with each other.  Railroad cuts  exist in major cities now, the tracks are rarely near the downtown area at street level unless  you are modeling an earlier era.  Allow space for parking lots, empty lots, etc.  All these things are characteristics of a major city--you need to study urban areas so you  don't end up looking like a suburb--go vertical, downtown areas have apartments, town houses and tenaments, not ranch houses and split levels.  If you live in a suburb, take a trip to a large city and take a digital camera along so you can review your photos and create the right atmosphere.  You won't find a Wal Mart in the downtown of a major city, no you won't find a 10 story Wal Mart so don't try to represent one.  Make sure what you represent is appropriate! 
     

[steemtrayn]

Another urban layout:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q3EoufT8B7A&feature=channel

[accatenary]

Thanks Stein & markalan for the compliments. 

I think I have a while to go before its museum Quality.. I still have alot track ballasting to do and other things.

Although it has that display function, I really enjoy running trains from Station to Station through the  North Phil interlocking and up the Highline to Broad street Station. Once this new loop is completed the dog bone configuration will be in effect with 120 feet of mainline track. thats not many for some but for me its alot. Im also thinking of building a loop under 30th street station back to Zoo interlocking That way some trains will not have to orbit the center city area to get from one station to the other.  

Stein, You were right about the storage closet for a freight storage yard. Thats is another project on the list. The trolley tracks that appear to be ducking under the layout was an idea I had for a trolley subway, but I canned that idea in favor of a seperate elevated/subway that would run from North Philly to West Philadelphia with three stations one being in a subway, another on a ramp out of the subway and the final stop elevated in West Philadelphia.

Steve In Philly   

 

[markalan]

Steve,

I haven't been up on the forum in a few months but today between appointments, the urban thread caught my attention.  Your city is, to my eye, a CITY.  In the past, steinjr and I have compared notes on urban layouts and found much to agree upon.  Today, I agree with everything he said about your layout.  It is outstanding.  Thanks for posting your photos and notes.

Having said that, I'll go do some work on my very small (6'x2') "slice" of a city.

markalan

[steinjr]

accatenary

Basically its two railroads in one, a trolley layout and a heavy traction layout. The Heavy traction Layout has 4 switch towers (panel locations) Zoo, Arsenal, North Phil & Broad

The Heavy Traction layout is a 4 track oval at one end, a figure 8 in the middle and a loop at the other end making the whole set up a dog bone.(see plan below)  It can be set up for viewing purposes with 4 trains that operate continuously independant of one another or Point to Point operations. Freight operations are minimal with industrial switching that occurs along six sidings along the main line. With a larger (freight staging yard)planned extension reached by a wye at zoo interlocking. Passenger operations are Point to Point from 30th street station to Broad Street Station South via a North Philly Full 4 track interlocking on to a two track viaduct (highline) that leads across town to Broad St Station. At Broad st Station which is set up as a stub end station with a wye at the begining of the throat, for turning locomotives/passenger trains or through freights but Broad Street station also has two through Tracks that lead to another part of the city with a loop/4 track yard for turning passenger trains back to Broad st Station .Staging of passenger trains is essentially done in the stations with total capacity of 11 passenger trains. As of now I am building process of building the Loop extension which is really a staging area that is not hidden. 

Each Station is served by a trolley line and in one section of the City the trolley lines cross the railroad at grade crossings. In this area there is an industrial siding that has an freight exchange with trolley maintenance depot. The Trolley lines are Basically street running with working traffic lights and if you obey the signals it will take forever to do the longest route which is 96 feet.

 I have looked at your track plan, had a look at your web page (again), and looked at several of your youtube videos.

 I suspect that your layout is truly in an awe inspiring class of it's own. Maybe the phrase you chose to describe it is appropriate, even thought it somehow doesn't run that easy off the tongue (yet) : "City Modeling Railroading", rather than "Urban Model Railroading". Or maybe I would have described it as "museum display layout" - where a railfan can stand for a long time watching passenger trains and trolleys run fully automated through a great depiction of the downtown area (and a sample of the Germantown area) of the city of brotherly love. 

 Where you can go e.g : "Wow - wasn't that a Metroliner that just ran by?", or stand there and watch with fascination the trolleys roll up to the intersection, stop at a red light and wait for a green light before proceeding. 

 IMO, this is a work of art that, which also is built on solid engineering. I would not be surprised if the city of Pennsylvania wouldn't some day offer to buy your entire house with the layout and turn it into a major tourist attraction for railfans - provided you are actually located in the Philadelphia area and that it would be possible to arrange for parking and the flow of people through the room to look at the layout and such practical considerations. It is Miniature Wunderland Hamburg style model railroading - very impressive, both in sheer size and in detail work and automation!

 And you track plan is very sound for what you are doing - by keeping 4 passenger (or more) trains moving all the time, and by having the other seven sitting at the two impressive stations, or at the North Philadelphia loop you create, with those 11 passenger trains, a very convincing impression of a very bustling city railroad - there will be several different trains through your field of vision every 30 seconds. 

 The trolley lines are also fascinating, with the interaction between different trolley routes. I bet that automating signals and routes must have been a major task, with an awesome number of iterations to get everything synchronized !

 I also like that you have added a freight mostly path trough your city, where you can run longish freight trains in display mode, and do a little switching when you feel like it. And I can see how that storage room off to the right is just calling out for some freight staging (by way of the upper track off the layout at the left at Zoo tower).

 Btw - those two trolley tracks (red) that stops suddenly (or ducks under the layout ?) just above and to the right of the 30th street station - what are they leading to ?

 Smile,
 Stein

 

[accatenary]

steinjr

accatenary

I'm modeling beyond the factory Facades that line the Railroad.  City modeling is just that. I model freight, Passenger and surface transit operations and they how react with each other. Its all part of a city wide system.

 

 The city makes a nice (albeit a little too big for my taste) backdrop, but the interesting part is the railroading.

 How about telling us a little about how you model the railroading part of your city layout ? How long is an operating session ? How many operators ?

 What kind of staging do you have ?

 How many freight trains do you run in an operating session ? What do they do ?How do you route your freight trains - is there just one route, or several ?

 How many passenger trains ? What do they do ? How do you schedule passenger trains ?

 How does transit and heavy rail interact ?

 Smile,
 Stein, curious

 

 

 

 

The Railroad is DCC and at this point isn't that complicated in the terms of operators and operating sessions. It takes two people to operate it effienciently although I can run it myself. Basically its two railroads in one, a trolley layout and a heavy traction layout. The Heavy traction Layout has 4 switch towers (panel locations) Zoo, Arsenal, North Phil & Broad

The Heavy Traction layout is a 4 track oval at one end, a figure 8 in the middle and a loop at the other end making the whole set up a dog bone.(see plan below)  It can be set up for viewing purposes with 4 trains that operate continuously independant of one another or Point to Point operations. Freight operations are minimal with industrial switching that occurs along six sidings along the main line. With a larger (freight staging yard)planned extension reached by a wye at zoo interlocking. Passenger operations are Point to Point from 30th street station to Broad Street Station South via a North Philly Full 4 track interlocking on to a two track viaduct (highline) that leads across town to Broad St Station. At Broad st Station which is set up as a stub end station with a wye at the begining of the throat, for turning locomotives/passenger trains or through freights but Broad Street station also has two through Tracks that lead to another part of the city with a loop/4 track yard for turning passenger trains back to Broad st Station .Staging of passenger trains is essentially done in the stations with total capacity of 11 passenger trains. As of now I am building process of building the Loop extension which is really a staging area that is not hidden. 

Each Station is served by a trolley line and in one section of the City the trolley lines cross the railroad at grade crossings. In this area there is an industrial siding that has an freight exchange with trolley maintenance depot. The Trolley lines are Basically street running with working traffic lights and if you obey the signals it will take forever to do the longest route which is 96 feet.

Steve 

 

 

[steinjr]

accatenary

I'm modeling beyond the factory Facades that line the Railroad.  City modeling is just that. I model freight, Passenger and surface transit operations and they how react with each other. Its all part of a city wide system.

 

 The city makes a nice (albeit a little too big for my taste) backdrop, but the interesting part is the railroading.

 How about telling us a little about how you model the railroading part of your city layout ? How long is an operating session ? How many operators ?

 What kind of staging do you have ?

 How many freight trains do you run in an operating session ? What do they do ?How do you route your freight trains - is there just one route, or several ?

 How many passenger trains ? What do they do ? How do you schedule passenger trains ?

 How does transit and heavy rail interact ?

 Smile,
 Stein, curious

 

 

[Doc in CT]

 I don't consider detailing an urban or city environment all that much different than detailing a town or industry or decent countryside.  All take time to get right.  Super-detailing urban type areas is probably harder than other environment.  

A city or big urban area does take up space, witness the Chicago city layout at the Museum of Science and Technology (see pictures below).  If you look hard enough they put in details, but you won't find a back alley with trash.

I will have several "urban areas" on my planned layout, some just Main Street, one a multi-block area next to Springfield Union Station.  Would be nice to have a bigger Springfield, but time and money AND space will not permit.

 

Link to construction details of the HO layout.

Alan

[accatenary]

Paul

My city is not just the center city with the tall buildings. It is comprised of neighborhoods that are outside the center of the city, there are residential areas on both sides of the Tall buildings as well as industrial areas.  In the Northeastern US, Cities have their tall buildings concentrated in one area and as you radiate away from the city center the height of buildings decrease with a scattering of taller apartment buildings and factories in the mix. Typically outside this center city ring exist the industrial areas and run down places, beyond that are row homes and semi suburban areas.  The point is all these places are considered the urban environment but the city is the term for the whole thing.  

Although severely compressed my layout gives you two benefits: the feeling of up and personal small freight/passenger/trolley diorama and the feeling of the city as a whole as viewed from all sides not just one or two.  Its not just operations it’s a 3d journey from one area to another. Its 5 or 10 blocks x 10 blocks x 25 stories.. 3 dimension backdrop is what I call it.

Believe it or not In the Past Philadelphia and allot of major cities In the US had a trolley lines down every street. In some parts of philly (in University City) it is virtually still that way.  In My version of Philadelphia I wanted a trolley route down virtually every street just like in the Past.

 

[Paulus Jas]

hi

we agree on the slice, remains one issue:

You are modeling the facade along your surface lines, I do the very same. Only your surface line facade is different from mine. Yours contains theaters, shops (boutiques) and offices, mine is less fancy.  

This thread is about city/urban layouts. If you want to use the word city only for the posh high rise part of town you have at least in the USA a major problem. In to many towns the downtown area is pretty much run down. Scattered along major boulevards are shopping and office centers. Witch cities still have surface transport. Compared with Europe only a few.

And let us be honest; even in major towns in the past were never so many lines as in your dreamscape. George Sellios and you are great dreamers, but both pikes have nothing to do with reality. Don't get me wrong, I do love mr Sellios's dream, but a dream it is.

Your layout or mr Sellios's are also only 5 or 10 blocks long due to severe selective compression. And you tell me that my 5 or 10 blocks don' t count. As i said before we are just looking at a different direction. 

When leaving Utrecht Central 50 years ago, to the North was downtown or the city and to the south were industrial zones and blue collar residential area's. Today a huge Congress building is facing the south side of the station. Will be the same in your country.  

You also (like me) are using the word city in two different connotations. From the city to the city-limits is using the two meanings in one line. It is about the proper use of words; I often hear real estate agents using the word city-centre. They made me clear I could not buy a farm in the city-centre. Debating the meaning of a word is fruitless when the word can be and is used in different ways.

Bill Denton's Kingbury Branch is in Chicago (city?), but not along the loop. Your layout is in the high-rise centre of Philadelphia. BTW I remember having seen some tracks in the street pictures in downtown Philadelphia in the 50's. Probably a condo paradise today.

Paul

[accatenary]

Paulus Jas

hi,

I do not know what you are talking about. I know quite a lot of 100000+ inhabitants city's. All are way bigger then your little empire. You also are building just a slice of the real thing.

At stake here is a proper use of words; I do not like you claiming the word city. You are modeling passenger operations in a city, I am modeling transloading operations in the city.

Paul

 

 

A "slice" but a bigger slice then 5 or 10 blocks that a "transloading" or  just a switching layout would occupy. I'm modeling beyond the factory Facades that line the Railroad.  City modeling is just that. I model freight, Passenger and surface transit operations and they how react with each other. Its all part of a city wide system.

[Paulus Jas]

hi,

accatenary

City modeling railroading is modeling the City as a whole. It is a larger Category of Urban Model Railroading that really encompasses everything (from the city limits to the center of city).

I do not know what you are talking about. I know quite a lot of 100000+ inhabitants city's. All are way bigger then your little empire. You also are building just a slice of the real thing.

When you like to differentiate between modeling the "city" versus scenes in a city, you are welcome. All to often, also in large city's both sides of the tracks were treated differently. In to many "towns" you could find the "city" at one side and an industrial area at the other side of the tracks. Focussing on commutor trains, metro-like systems or streetcars is a choice you can make. I do not like the every 5 or 15 minutes appearence the very same train on high frequented lines. I like the view actually, but operating such a pike seems boring to me. And switching between the 12 trains going east and the 12 going west every hour of the day in my home town (pop 40000) means waiting in the hole for hours. The same number of trains, even more near and in bigger towns or city's, brings no operational fun for me. So I started looking to the other side of the tracks.

At stake here is a proper use of words; I do not like you claiming the word city. You are modeling passenger operations in a city, I am modeling transloading operations in the city.

Paul

 

[accatenary]

City modeling railroading is modeling the City as a whole. It is a larger Category of Urban Model Railroading that really encompasses everything (from the city limits to the center of city). While something Like a Switching Layout encompasses only a small part of Urban Model Railroading.  When I Mean “City” I’m talking about a population center of 100,000 or more with buildings over Ten Stories with a large railroad station. Anything lower in population is a town but is considered Urban. In Cities, most likely the main line is Grade Separated.  There are few examples of City model railroads ex: Franklin & Manchester, Rod Stewarts Layout and plenty examples of urban switching type model railroads. Ex Sweet Home Chicago, Milwaukee beer layout.  City model railroading must not be confused with switching. Switching model railroads are just a “Slice” of the city and tend to be more protypical because there is less space needed, while the City railroad attempts to represents the whole city and it is more constrained by modeling space. It can be done in a small space with the right scaling.  A Rarer subset of City Model railroading are layouts with “full” model traction or Subway/El systems and mainline railroading   I’ve seen very few “city” layouts in MR but allot of Urban Switching layouts.  Below is a 3d view of My Layout. Right now its 80% finished 

with 35+ square blocks and almost a Hundred buildings. Most of the tall ones are Scratchbuilt ..

 

 

[tgindy]

Metro Red Line

but when it comes to modeling it, and if you wanna be more or less prototypical, you're gonna have to do away with classic layout "ideals" such as grade crossings (in most cities, railroad ROW is grade-separated), mountains and tunnels, etc.

This important aspect is retained in the planning of our CR&T layout -- the Pennsy surrounds the Conemaugh Road & Traction representing the city's passenger & shortline freight with those interurban grade crossings, etc.  The Pennsy portion will have major (but limited) industry sidespurs for freight and passenger interchange, and yet will still require the majority of staging yards.

Pennsy's mainline was the first "cross-state Pennsylvania Turnpike."

In Western Pennsylvania, the (generally) 4-track mainline (now NW 3-track) from Altoona on the east slope, thru Horseshoe Curve & Gallitzin Tunnels, and down the west slope through Johnstown was always isolated somehow from the urban center's activity.

In the middle of Johnstown & Bethlehem Steel...

PRR's Stone Bridge -- elevated mainline is in middle of Johnstown.

Union Station Passenger Platform -- 2 tenths mile east of Stone Bridge.

Between major Western Pennsylvania towns, like Johnstown and Greensburg, the Pennsy 4-track mainline would become less than 4-tracks, like when splitting to both sides of the Conemaugh River's Conemaugh Gap, down to a 2-track mainline, 3-4 miles west of the two above downtown pictures.

Conemaugh Gap Tracks -- seen every few pictures just west of town.

Bethlehem Steel had apx. 12 miles of plants in Johnstown, and when the PRR "interchanged" with the Freight Car Division (home of the BethGon), it never lost that "4-track interstate-flavor" even when running through the middle of a large Bethlehem Steel Plant interchange yard -- just isolated from the city's culture.

[steinjr]

Metro Red Line

Railroads might still play a vital economic role to that city, but when it comes to modeling it, and if you wanna be more or less prototypical, you're gonna have to do away with classic layout "ideals" such as grade crossings (in most cities, railroad ROW is grade-separated), mountains and tunnels, etc.

Even if you had a large layout space, there simply isn't much room to do a big city justice. If you were to do an N-scale version Chicago, the Sears Tower would be 9 feet tall!

 

 You seem to confuse "modeling railroading in a city" with "modeling the downtown area of a big city".

  If you want to model an entire big city (or even just the entire downtown area of a big city), then you need a lot of space.

  If you want to model railroading in a big city in a realistic looking way, you can do a very credible and interesting thing in e.g. 4x2 feet (in H0 scale, to boot).

  But instead of just repeating all the arguments that already has been discussed in this thread, I respectfully suggest you read all the posts in the thread and think about what has been pointed out.

 Smile,
 Stein

 

[Paulus Jas]

hi

a lot of talk, what is needed is more precise use of words.

No one can ever do justice to greater urban area's, but no one can ever do justice to the UP in Wyoming or the Santa Fe through New Mexico too.

Mistake # 1, never confuse an urban area with downtown or the city.

Bill Denton built Chicago (Kingsbury branch); a wonderful pike. Lance Minheim built and is building Miami. If you look well in most bigger urban area's, not in the city, you will find quite buildable places. Who has not seen a rainy Brooklyn at 3 AM. Some of the old hats even remember the Milwaukee based KR&DC.

Mistake #2, also John Allen modeled an urban area. George Sellios had a good look at John Allen's layout, he was defenitely not the first; and imho not the most inspirationally.

Mistake #3: you don't need a hangar for an urban layout. As our metroman stated you can only model a hint of a big city. This is what we all are doing all the time, whether it is Abo County or Orange County or New Jersey. Just a hint of coalmining operations in West Virginia, but how well was it done on Tony Koester's Coal Fork Extension. Just a hint of the Milwaukee Beer Line, what a nice little layout it was.

I am born and raised in Amsterdam, across the big pond, and I must admit it costs me years to realise where to look. A nice exemple can be seen in MRP 2009, page 76 a track plan with a European Flavor, modeling the larger Vienna urban area. As ever the city side was modeled. But the picture of the house track in that backyard alley really struck me. What an awesome model this could be, you just have to see it. And road crossings all around. So now we have mistake #4.

After Henry Ford brought out his model-T in the 20's life changed. Vast area's of our countries are suburban; not only to day but dating back to the 30's in USA, to the 50's in Europe. So broaden your view to the larger urban or suburban area's. In my home town (Bussum) were three large industrial plants, still operational through the 60's, beside three teamtracks and a freighthouse. And six roadcrossings; the gates are down often with more then 10 trains, in both directions every hour of the day. I've seen so many pictures of cityroads crossing tracks throughout the States. Just turn your back to the city.

BTW Lance Mindheim's Down Town Spur isn't even on the 30's Sandborn Maps. The area was still out of town in that decade (my guess, not 100% sure).

Paul

 

[Doc in CT]

Metro Red Line

If you want to model multi-story buildings you can, but don't expect to model an entire city skyline, even if your layout space was the size of an airplane hangar.

 

 Really, this layout is only 15x18  http://prrnortheastcorridor.com/NORTHEASTCORRIDORHO.html

[Metro Red Line]

tomikawaTT

In the urban areas I am most familiar with, the railroads are simply overwhelmed by massive nearby structures, many of which serve no rail-related function.  Then, too, since the real estate value is astronomical, the air rights over the rails are a valuable commodity.

 

You took the words right out of my mouth! I think that's the reason right there. In a big city, buildings and auto infrastructure (read: freeways, wide, multi-lane-with-parallel parking streets) are king. Railroads might still play a vital economic role to that city, but when it comes to modeling it, and if you wanna be more or less prototypical, you're gonna have to do away with classic layout "ideals" such as grade crossings (in most cities, railroad ROW is grade-separated), mountains and tunnels, etc.

Even if you had a large layout space, there simply isn't much room to do a big city justice. If you were to do an N-scale version Chicago, the Sears Tower would be 9 feet tall!

  I live in a big city, was born and raised, I consider myself an urban dweller by nature. But even in N scale, for me at least, a largely urban layout won't be that fun. Of course, if I had a much larger layout space, I can model a fraction of a city, and even model rail-related locales like an intermodal yard, a large multi-track passenger terminal, commuter and/or light rail operations, etc. But I'm not gonna have room to make many mountains and hills.

 The best thing to do is model a "hint" of a city - either through a backdrop or false front structures or the like. Have a freeway run along the backdrop. If you want to model multi-story buildings you can, but don't expect to model an entire city skyline, even if your layout space was the size of an airplane hangar.

[Marc_Magnus]

Hi from Belgium,

A few months ago I iniate a post about city/urban modeling.

This post was very interesting about all the answer I received and also all the links you provided.

I have begun the construction of a big city in Nscale for my Maclau River RR set in the end of the thirties.

Because of a coming move work is stopped a little bit for now.

The town is in fact a divider between my Port Allen and the Yard area, its fit in an roughly 4.5 feet by 3 feet. I was asking for well detailled town even I am modeling in Nscale. Level is 4.2 feet from the ground so your eyes are nearly in the streets. For now only building construction and a few laying track are on the way.

What I have learn about the construction of the town of Corrinnesburg?

Well it's fun to do and I like the way  trains are litteraly small insects at the feet of the skyscrapper.

But don't forget two thinghs about urban modeling, it's time consuming and very expensive because a lot of model are needed whithout speaking about all the cars and people to populate it.

Whithout no doubt you are easily to a minimum of 500/1000$ models to make  a medium sized town!

I have bought nearly all the models aviable of urban building from DPM, Lunde, Walthers and the list is long.

Kitbashing  and scratchbuilding is necessary if you want big buildings.

In some case I have made rubber molds of the models using the manufacturer parts as master to create big buildings from my own design and to save money. Beleive me it's time consuming!

Roads are made of stryrene or plaster.

Now I am on the way to build the big station with a six tracks underfloor. I starded whith two heavily modified Vollmer Nscale Baden-Baden station, whith now flat roof and an different wall arrangement. 

On the other side of the town is also a small downtoww project with smaller building.

I am looking for some skyscrapper of www.custommodelrailroad.com which look great even if a little bit expensive.

This town take a lot of time to do and even it was fun, I don't repeat such project on the expanding Maclau River.

By example I was able to  construct the benchwork, lay track and sceniked my yard in a two months to an average finished look but it's take the same time to just complete a small street with all the buildings and details.

So good luck for your urban projects.

Marc

The site of the town just behind port

Where Corinnesburg is on the Maclau route

 

[jwhitten]

wjstix

Although people did have parts of their layouts dedicated to urban railroading, I think it wasn't until George Sellios came along that people really started to realize what could be done in that area. As far as why more people don't do it, I guess it's different for different people. People living in crowded urban areas maybe want to have their layout be a "getaway" to a more rural, scenic area...and maybe people living in rural areas feel more comfortable modelling that, compared to modelling "the big city"??

Cost could be a factor, plaster and such for hills and valleys are cheaper than dozens of structure kits.

 

It could also be a matter of skill. Natural scenes are hard to say "you did it wrong". There is a lot of variation and leeway. Rarely is anything ever straight, sharp, or precise. It might also be a matter of finding materials. Or it may be that people want their railroads to go from one town to another so they make smaller towns so they can have more in-between spaces.

[wjstix]

Robt. Livingston

Looking back over the history of model railroading, I was always impressed that Railroad Model Craftsman seemed to cover more of the Eastern subject matter I was interested in than Model Railroader. 

WHY were certain forms of model railroading favored in one magazine over the other?  It was clearly not random.  I suspect editorial policy did indeed shape the tone and content of the two mags. Maybe MR has tried to be all things to all men, while other magazines have cultivated more narrow interests.  

Well first to state the obvious, Hal Carstens was from New Jersey and Al Kalmbach was from Wisconsin, and both had their publishing companies headquartered in their home state. A lot easier to do an article on a railroad near you !!

MR I think has always been aimed more at the layout builder, RMC more aimed at the model builder. When Model Craftsman started, it was a mag for guys who liked to build models of things - boats, planes, and trains. It evolved into Railroad Model Craftsman, but kept the emphasis on building models. This made sense, at that time people who built models and often had a very simple layout to operate them on at best - the point was building the model (often completely from scratch) and getting it to work.

Model Railroader was aimed more at people who wanted to build a working layout, and were more interested in that than in just building models for their own sake. (BTW in the early days MR was sort of the unofficial - offical mag of the NMRA, and carried NMRA news, meets etc.) This is just a guess, but I bet over the years MR has had more articles on scenery than RMC for example.

Robt. Livingston

The typography and layout was cruder in RMC, some of the writing was poorer, but the subjects were more interesting to me. 

I've written and submitted several articles over the years, the only mag to publish one was RMC...so I would have to agree they may have some "quality control" issues.

[doctorwayne]

rclanger

DoctorWayne:

As the one who initiated this thread I have followed most of the comments and learned alot. Your layout size seems to be ideal to display urban, small towns, with the river and rural area between them.  Your modeling is very good and well thought out.

My layout room is small so my entire layout will be urban.  Not New York City urban, not even downtown Norfolk or Portsmouth Virginia.  An urban flavor can be modeled so anyone seeing it will know they are looking at an urban industrial area.  Many of your pictures show exactly what I am talking about.  The viewer knows that there is more city behind the railroad scene.

I thank you and all the others who contributed to this thread with meaningful comments and suggestions.

 

And I thank you for your kind remarks. 

Wayne

[rclanger]

DoctorWayne:

As the one who initiated this thread I have followed most of the comments and learned alot. Your layout size seems to be ideal to display urban, small towns, with the river and rural area between them.  Your modeling is very good and well thought out.

My layout room is small so my entire layout will be urban.  Not New York City urban, not even downtown Norfolk or Portsmouth Virginia.  An urban flavor can be modeled so anyone seeing it will know they are looking at an urban industrial area.  Many of your pictures show exactly what I am talking about.  The viewer knows that there is more city behind the railroad scene.

I thank you and all the others who contributed to this thread with meaningful comments and suggestions.

[wm3798]

 I built a pretty nice urban layout years ago, which I have a lot of VHS tape of, but precious few photos.  Mine was definitely "destination" based, with a terminal yard and a large passenger depot.  The whole scene occupied a shelf layout, approximately 11' long x no more than 2', and most of it was about 18" deep (N scale)

Here's a rough sketch of the track plan...

As you can see, the main line was basically a folded dogbone with return loops at each end.  The photos were shot on the left side of the partition.  The upper area of the left side was densely developed with a varity of urban type structures, which were on a rise over the tracks.  The Passenger station was down in a pit, with lower platforms, and a single higher level platform that was served by commuter trains (I had some ConCor RDC's back in the day!).  From the downtown, which was across the street from the station, the roads sloped down hill toward the industrial tracks in the foreground, where I had some large DPM factory buildings.  The city scape wrapped around to the left, with an elevated roadway and a ramp down to a small intermodal terminal.

It was a really fun layout to build, working out the engineering to get the structures lit, street lighting etc.  It was also fun to operate, with the branch line over on the rural side, and the compact but functional yard. 

One of these days I'll have to do a more detailed drawing of it...  

I'm working out a revision to my current track plan now to try to add a more urban scene.  I really do like the effect of a big city. (Well, Cumberland is a big-ish city!)  But I'd love to do the area around Hillen Terminal in Baltimore...  maybe as a One Track module.

I also work in a small town, (and live there, too) so I guess you could say I'm a neo-urbanist...There's just something about those old stacks of bricks downtown and out by the railroad that fascinate me...

Lee

[Doc in CT]

As I have three urban areas to deal with, I make a distinction between urban and city.  I grew up in NYC (Rockaway) and I agree, the only visible tracks are either the subway (El) or further out in Brooklyn or Queens.  To me, that is urban. As is East Hartford CT or to some extent Hartford, CT.  The city is Manhattan and tracks in contemporary terms is not really visible.  If you model 30s or 40s that is not the case, but even then the "city" is a backdrop.

Springfield MA, my major "city" or urban area, is different.  Union Station and it's elevated yard is very obvious.  The track wrap around the downtown area, with it's share of tall buildings, but they don't run through the downtown area.  The tracks in Hartford also miss the downtown area and the buildings are just backdrop for the yard north of the city.  The main line runs just to the west and is visible among the buildings or from roads.

Yes big buildings are expensive, but then so are some of the large industries in the more rural areas and take up far more space.  Like everything else, city/urban modeling needs selective compression.

As to time spent on scenery, why does modeling a sidewalk (available ready made or easily scratch built) or adding people, mail boxes, trash etc. take more time than tufts of grass, decent looking trees, realistic ponds or rivers, corn fields etc. etc.?  Well crafted, realistic scenery takes time in any form.

[ChicagoJoe]

OOPS!  Sorry Everyone...I'm new to picture posting.  Here is a link to my site that HAS the picture of my city I just described.  Thanks!

 

 You can click on the picture on the main site to enlarge it on a new page. 

http://sites.google.com/site/joesurbanchicagosite/

[ChicagoJoe]

 

...I guess I went against the "grain" if you will when I built my layout.  When planning my layout six years ago, I wanted something that was truly mine; something that said "me".  I have always been a fan of skyscrapers and stadiums, and so I wanted both on this layout.  Granted, these building on this layout still need to be painted, but this is what my skyline looks like to this point on a typical night. The stadium to the right is a model of old Riverfront Stadium in Cincinnati; I have field lights and other lights that I am currently installing to make it look realistic for ballgames; the skyline is made up of various skyscrapers from around the U.S.  The Sears (or Willis) Tower is the centerpiece of the city; with the Chase Tower in Indianapolis directly to it's right.  To the left front is a partial model of the World Trade Center Complex as it was pre 9/11.  The entire downtown area is a grid of 9 blocks centered around a park with a model of the Chicago Water Tower in it.  As stated earlier, all of my buildings still need to be painted, and I will be starting this project one building at a time this winter.  All of the skyscrapers(except the Empire State Building) and the stadium were scratch-built in my garage over the past six years.  The street lighting system consists of 31 lights and is from Walthers. The EL tracks surround the downtown area and I mainly use this for trolley traffic.  The mainline surrounds the various neighborhoods of the city and I am currently working on a expansion plan for the future that will create a more neighborhood feel around the city center.  I hope to be posting more updates soon. 

[GKEngineerOH]

Indeed...yourself and others have stated why folks don't do more urban/city layouts.

The nice thing is model railroading can be a lifetime hobby..we hope and pray anyone who gets into the hobby; remains.

My layout, once built; will be a freelanced version of a section of Downtown Columbus, suburban Clintonville, "Maxtown Crossing", Sunbury, Centerburg, Lewis Center, and Delaware, Ohio..

Yeah, that sounds like a lot..but with compressed modeling, theater tricks, and recycle scenes from previous modeling endavours..I think I can pull it off..in ten years! LOLOLOLOL!!!!

Look for the Columbus Division of the Cinci Central Railway System.... in MRR's 90th year issue!

[Doughless]

Dr.Wayne:

It's been mentioned that many don't model urban scenery because of space restrictions, but a quarter mile of track (about 15' in HO) threading through an urban scene can be a much more convincing representation of the real thing than using that same 15' of layout space to represent the "wide open spaces" of the countryside.  I don't mean that you can't model convincing rural scenery in that space, as many do, but it's just that it's more difficult to convey that feeling of "openness" within such a limited space. 

I agree with that statement, especially with the lack of distance between towns often seen in basement empire layouts.  In the flesh, when looking at the entire layout, that feeling of openness is somewhat mitigated by the closeness the towns are to each other.  Even tougher to pull off on smaller layouts. Open space conveyence works best when the scene is limited to what the photographer wants us to see.

Your photos give the viewer a great sense of the overall layout view, something that you see first hand, but something alot of us don't when modelers focus in on the close ups.  I like the way the two towns are separated by the river scene, choosing to place it in the short wall, traveling in perpendicular direction from the towns. Sort of a natural scene break.  Having the eye see something different when it is also changing direction and angle of view helps to convey the sense of distance.  That's again seen along the wall to the right where the bridge is angled as it crosses the river.  I think changing the type of scene from town to river works better when you also change, or angle, the position of the track as well.

[doctorwayne]

Thanks, Lee.    I do remember the steam era, and you're right:  things should be a bit dirtier.  Perhaps when the city scene is more complete, I'll add a patina of soot to the area.  As a young child, I watched the steam engines of the TH&B (in Hamilton, Ontario) from the comfort of our front porch, as the mainline was on an elevated right-of-way directly across the street.  My mother always hoped for sunny and calm weather on Mondays (laundry day), as we were downwind from the tracks. 

Needless to say, when that residential area gets built between the city and Mercury Mills, it'll be a Monday morning, with the clotheslines in the backyards abutting the tracks filled with the week's laundry.  I no longer reside in the city, but I'm never far from my roots.

It's been mentioned that many don't model urban scenery because of space restrictions, but a quarter mile of track (about 15' in HO) threading through an urban scene can be a much more convincing representation of the real thing than using that same 15' of layout space to represent the "wide open spaces" of the countryside.  I don't mean that you can't model convincing rural scenery in that space, as many do, but it's just that it's more difficult to convey that feeling of "openness" within such a limited space. 

While my formative years were decidedly urban, I have fond memories of visits to various relatives in the country, and am trying to replicate vignettes of that on other areas of the layout.  Unfortunately, at least with regard to that goal, generating traffic for the railroad requires industry of one kind or another, and that, in turn, requires some representation of the communities supporting that industry.  The result of this is that small towns have sprung up along the line, leaving me with precious little "open country".  On my room-size layout, the towns are too close together, with the city separated from the first town by only 6'-or-so,

and the next town about 16' down the line, but with most of that track in a tunnel.   The next town is another quarter mile down the line, through the only rural scenery on the "completed" part of the layout:

The last two towns on this branch of the line abut one another, with the second locomotive in the picture below sitting roughly on the town limits:

 

The long curving grade to the second level of the layout is roughly 3/4 of a mile of track, and will be the longest stretch of "county" on the layout, with another town at the top of the grade (more childhood recollections to be modelled).  Beyond that, perhaps another 15' or 16' of open country before reaching the northern terminus of the line.

I'm fortunate to have such a space for my layout, but my choices of what to model limit my chances of making it look like a secondary line running through mostly rural scenery, which is what the original concept of the layout called for.  My hope is that, when all of the trackwork is in place, operations will become the focus of the layout, with scenery, whether rural or urban, merely the setting for the action.

Wayne

 

[yankee flyer]

Doc

I like your layout. Great work. Allthough, in the steam era everything would be covered with coal  dust.
I've ridden on steamers and the granules are on everything.
That's why I prefer the country, because the dirt would not be as obvious.

Lee

[tywest]

 I just stumbled across this posting and have checked out a lot of the links provided. I also have asked the question as to why there are so few layouts. I am relatively new to the hobby and am attracted to the urban theme. I have started my layout and I think I am going to go with a strictly transit type theme. I will be combining the CTA and MTA. Here is a link to my blog. Thanks

http://millersvillerr.blogspot.com/

[Robt. Livingston]

The only thing that keeps me from building the railroad is that I spend too much time on the internet, engaging in blah-blah-blah.  My limitation entirely, mea culpa. 

The city awaits, in its glorious incompletion:

The subterranean staging is functional:

Supported by a maze of L-girder (all credit to Linn Westcott):
 

At least traffic is moving at the freight station:
 

 

 

[cuyama]

There certainly has been a lot of focus on this thread on the supposed bogeymen that are keeping one from modeling city and urban areas. The tired diatribes against hobby institutions are unproductive, in my view, but perhaps they help some justify their lack of meaningful modeling progress to themselves.

In fact, right now is the best time in the hobby's history for modeling the city. If one were to focus on the positives instead of wallowing in "woe is me" rumination, much good would result.

The range of large city structures available in kit form (or even built-up!) is unprecedented. The Magnuson (Walthers)/DPM/Lunde progression of kits has provided many kits that can be used as-is or kitbashed. And the availability of modular wall and window sections from multiple vendors means modelers need not buy multiple kits just to throw away portions.

A far cry from the 1970s when the Heljan brewery was cut up and reassembled on numerous layouts because it was virtually the only raw material available for large structures. (And was almost always instantly recognizable, no matter how severely hacked up). I can't imagine how thrilled urban modelers from the '70s would have been with the current Walthers offerings of large structures.

A lot of this progress is due to improvements in CAD, tool-making, and injection molding. Regardless of what magazines were printing, large plastic building kits just weren't as practical to produce in earlier years.

Mike Palmiter's (among others) articles on building high-rise structures probably helped spur some modelers and manufacturers into more focus on urban modeling. This began with an article in Model Railroader magazine in April 1981 (!). Some of Art Curren's larger kitbash projects probably also encouraged modelers to consider this direction (What, MR again – it can't be!!)

In more recent years, more modern tilt-up and metal buildings have become available. These are readily bashed into structures of substantial size.

Bottom line, if you're interested in city and urban modeling and can't at least get started based on the products that are available today and the information published in the last decade or so, the problem might lie with you, not the hobby institutions.

Byron
Model RR Blog 
Layout Design Gallery

[steinjr]

Robt. Livingston

Now, I don't mean to cast aspersions or accuse MR of narrow-mindedness, lack of creativity, lack of imagination, Midwestern flatness, or "institutional discrimination". 

<...>

Maybe MR has tried to be all things to all men, while other magazines have cultivated more narrow interests. 

 A blog post from October 2007 that pretty much covers what you seem to be trying to communicate:

 http://mrsvc.blogspot.com/2007/10/youre-not-expert-if.html

 Smile,
 Stein

[Robt. Livingston]

Looking back over the history of model railroading, I was always impressed that Railroad Model Craftsman seemed to cover more of the Eastern subject matter I was interested in than Model Railroader.  The typography and layout was cruder in RMC, some of the writing was poorer, but the subjects were more interesting to me.  I recall first reading about big time, steam-era  Appalachian coal roads in RMC, milk trains and cars in RMC, and tinplate reminiscence in RMC. I also recall much more in-depth exploration and drawings of actual freight cars in RMC,  while MR seemed to be concerned more with overall operations, and the primitive, early stirrings of DCC, when the freight car knowledge explosion (?) started up in the 1980's, in other publications (typified by Hundman's Mainline Modeler, Railmodel Journal, and Pat Wider's amazing Railway Prototype Cyclopedia). 

Now, I don't mean to cast aspersions or accuse MR of narrow-mindedness, lack of creativity, lack of imagination, Midwestern flatness, or "institutional discrimination".  If anything, the editors of MR were doing the best they could with what they had. Maybe every single high quality article that was submitted got into print.  I have no idea because I didn't work in their editorial office. But there was distinct difference in flavor between MR and RMC, so what accounts for that?  WHY were certain forms of model railroading favored in one magazine over the other?  It was clearly not random.  I suspect editorial policy did indeed shape the tone and content of the two mags. Maybe MR has tried to be all things to all men, while other magazines have cultivated more narrow interests. 

 

[Anonymous]

 

accatenary

 We are a minority in Model Railroading. So the MR articles are Few and so are the Products!

Finally I know what I am - a minority. Folks, are we getting discriminated by the industry and the press?

I can see a headline in CNN - UN rules to banish discrimation of urban modellers in the hobby!

I am happy with being a minority. 

[accatenary]

 

steinjr

I am just not all that certain that industrial switching in grimy urban/industrial surroundings is your "typical" European model railroad layout.

Well I dont think Urban industrial switching is popular overseas. Actual "City" railroad modeling is more popular in Europe and another factor is avaibility of model city building Kits by manufacturers like Faller Vollmer and Kibri.  Its can be frustrating for many being an American City Modeler. I have to stratch build most of my Buildings.  American companies like Walthers just started making buildings for the big city over 4 stories and they are few. Spectrum highrises are no longer available and all of those are 40/50's buildings. The ones you see around are going for twice the original price.  When it comes to large stations, American companies in the last 8/10 years have finally made some products.  Walthers came out with Union station and just came out with Milwalkee Station. Before those releases and CMR products there was nothing on the market. Things are getting better for the American "City" railroad  modeler but We are a minority in Model Railroading. So the MR articles are Few and so are the Products!

[steinjr]

accatenary

People model what they are familiar with. In Europe you find a lot of city modelers because Europe if full of cities. 

 

 Maybe. Europe is a fairly diverse region - it is somewhere on the order of 40 different countries, with different languages, histories, economies, social attitudes etc.

 1:1 scale railroading in Europe can be (and was) fairly different if you compare Sweden with Spain or Switzerland, and when you compare either of those with Germany or the United Kingdom.

 Electrified TGV trains running flat out through the fairly flat French rural landscape from city to city are a pretty different type of railroading from a 1930s German passenger express train where a streamlined steam engined pulled heavy passenger cars past picturesque villages with old castles on hilltops while running down the Rhine valley in Germany, which again is pretty different from a 1970s Norwegian branch line where a railcar comes out of the pine forrest to pull into a small rural town to drop off passengers and LCL at the combination depot and freight house.

 Also, a British small steam engine pulling a few short 4 wheel freight cars in a cramped city environment in the 1940s is pretty different from a modern Swedish ore train, where a 15 000 hp two-unit IORE engine pulls loaded iron ore cars across the mountains from northern Sweden to the Atlantic ocean port of Narvik in Northern Norway.

 Anyways - I quite agree that people tend to model what they have seen before. After all, it is pretty hard to model something you have never seen (either in person or in pictures in magazines and books) :-)

 I am just not all that certain that industrial switching in grimy urban/industrial surroundings is your "typical" European model railroad layout.

 
Grin,
Stein

[rclanger]

arbe1948

Did the editors during this time really only promote western mountain-small town-rural model railroading, or because those styles were what the modelers were doing that the magazines covered them?

Very true, MR is going to publish any article that they believe is going to capture the attention of as many readers as possible and get each one of them to buy a copy next month.  If they thought a layout in an aquarium would get readers, that is exactly what they would do.  Anyone who thinks they would do anything to decrease their readership is not thinking clearly.

The articles in MR are now and always have been primarily written by modelers like you and I.  Maybe not like me... They want contributions, so those of you who are talented, do so.

There are lot of articles in both major magazines that I do not read but there are enough that I continue to buy the magazine. Not every article will be of interest to every reader.  But I think they do a fairly good job.

Now for the topic...

 

 

 

[arbe1948]

Robt. Livingston

In my earlier comments about the role of magazine editors in steering the interests of model railroaders, I was referring to an era long before yesterday.  Look through the pages of MR in the years 1960 through 1980

 

This may be true, or is it a "which came first, chicken or the egg."   Did the editors during this time really only promote western mountain-small town-rural model railroading, or because those styles were what the modelers were doing that the magazines covered them? 

Bob Bochenek

[accatenary]

I don’t think Model Railroader is symatically ignoring urban/city railroads.. Some people have personal opinions against the city and what goes on in the city.  Some people don’t think its pretty or relaxing so why model it. A large percent of the country is rural. People model what they are familiar with. In Europe you find allot of city modelers because Europe if full of cities. 

 

When Model railroader does show urban layouts the majority of them are Midwestern based/Small switching type layouts, because of the Urban layouts that’s what is popular.

 

 In “my opinion” around the wall types Urban areas are the easiest to build in a small space  but they leave with me the curiosity of what is beyond the Backdrop 6” from the rail. I want to see everything not just the trains from one angle and the best example of this is George Sellios Model City. It is a city with a model railroad running through it. Not a slice of a model railroad running through a city.   

Some Other examples of City Model railroading

Rod Stewarts layout

The LOXX in Berlin

http://www.loxx-berlin.com/en/en_galerie.html

MIT model railroad

 

Is Model Railroader Ignoring City Railroading & modern railroads with catenary??  The only article that comes close to it Rick Abramsons layout.  

 

 

 

[accatenary]

Hamltnblue

For those who want to see somegood stuff go to accatenary's site.  I'm just outside of philly city and will have to try to beg him to visit sometime to see his layout.

 http://prrnortheastcorridor.com

Thanks,  Im going to have to clean up the basement for visitors  

[Robt. Livingston]

Byron, the argument that the publishers of MR are trying to "squelch" anything is invalid in the internet era, as a few editors no longer control things the way they once did.  With the upsurge of so-called SIGs (beginning in the 1980's?), deep-research historical societies, and (for me) John Nehrich's work at RPI, I don't see MR as enjoying the hegemony it once did (their only rival was the somewhat tatty looking, but seemingly more Eastern-centered RMC).  Mind you, I grew up reading, and inspired by, Linn Westcott, who was indeed an open minded individual, but I did perceive a somewhat more close-minded, orthodox, Midwestern-Southwestern approach in MR after he left.  Again, let me stress that my initial comments were based on a rather longer time window than the present, or the last decade.  And, my comments are based on my perception of things.  My first layout track plan was indeed a copy of John Allen's first inside-out figure eight, (the core of the G&D), as shown in a Fawcett How-To book of the early 1950's.  My second was a two track mainline around the walls, my third is  the same, expanded with a longer run and massive staging on a lower level, 2/3rds urban and 1/3 rural.  

But ya gotta be an outsider to think like one.  The tension between divergent, sometimes-unruly outsider tendencies and more organized, insider control is what results in forward motion. Lots of serious-prototype modelers did break away from the NMRA into SIG's, and as you point out on your blog, there was tension.  I'm thinking that tension has been resolved, and SIG's don't seem to be at odds with anything now, as their thought has been incorporated into the mainstream.  Hooray, the war is over.  No, really!   Bland smiley indicating good will to all.  

[cuyama]

Doc in CT

I think the point (to use your dates) is that Pykes' book came out in 2000, yet the citations you have are 2009. 

There are a number of city and urban articles in the intervening years. I just didn't spend time researching it -- the 2009 issues and the special issue were at hand.

One that I remember off the top of my head was Jonathan Jones' fabulous city switching layout in the May 2001 MR. Recent urban switching layouts I recall included Chuck Hitchcock's new layout in the February 2007 MR and Stephen Priest's coverage of an urban switching layout (I don't recall the builder's name) in the April 2007 RMC. And of course there's been the coverage of Lance Mindheim's modern urban switching layouts in the last few years, as others have pointed out, along with Sellios and Stewart (2008 and 2007).

I have a few issues of Great Model Railroads at hand doing research for a client's project, so I took a quick thumb through those. Matt Snell's and Debbie Baker's New Jersey Conrail layout (GMR 2006) was a huge chunk of urban scenery, although a work in progress and not all ready for photography. And John Fultz' compact layout in the 2004 GMR had very dense city scenery. Mike Hamer's layout in the same issue is one of my favorites and the coverage included photos of some of his city scenes. Jerry Strangarity's dense city scene in GMR 2003 is also very well done. Ray Garagher's G scale trolley layout in the same issue also had some city scenes. Not as realistic as Strangarity's, in my view, but undeniably city/urban.

This is just a quick thumbing-though of pages from a few magazines I had immediately at hand, not an exahsutive survey. That proof is left to the student -- I've got better things to do.

Also, while there may not be as many purely city or urban layouts covered (since relatively fewer of them exist), there are city scenes shown as part of larger layouts that receive coverage in layout articles multiple times each year.

These city and urban layout scenes, found with only the most casual search, make it obvious that city and urban layouts are not being systematically excluded from the commercial press. Even this cursory glance at issues in the last decade shows that urban modeling has not been purposely squelched by the magazine editors at Kalmbach or Carstens, as one poster claimed.  Of course, his claim was apparently based on magazines from 30 to 50 years ago, so that's beyond the statute of limitations in my view.

Hey, I get it, some people always seem to want to feel wronged by "the Establishment". For example, I could complain that there's no coverage of Western rail-marine in the mainline magazines (except for Bill Kaufman's articles in the April 2007 and the current RMC). But it would be silly for me to suggest that it's due to editors purposely trying to keep those articles out of the magazines in favor of other kinds of layouts.

Byron
Model RR Blog 
Layout Design Gallery

[steinjr]

Doc in CT

I think the point (to use your dates) is that Pykes' book came out in 2000, yet the citations you have are 2009.  Urban layouts (and no a couple of 4 story buildings is not urban) have not been given any coverage. 

 

  Byron just did a "look at some examples just from the last year". There has been quite a few urban layouts in the period between 2000 and 2008.

 A few samples from Model Railroader in the period 2006-2008 that definitely is not just "a couple of 4 story buildings":

• June 2008 : Montreal Harbor http://www.trains.com/mrr/objects/pdf/mrr-i0408_a.pdf
• Jan 2007 : Montreal and Northern: http://www.trains.com/mrr/objects/pdf/montreal___northern_ry_0107(1).pdf 
• July 2007: 59th Street Branch: http://www.trains.com/mrr/default.aspx?c=a&id=1905
• Feb 2007: Argentine Industrial District Ry: http://www.trains.com/mrr/objects/pdf/mrr-a0207_f_terminal.pdf
• December 2006: Franklin and South Manchester: http://www.trains.com/mrr/default.aspx?c=a&id=1239

Smile,
Stein

 

[Robt. Livingston]

TMarsh

Money, skills, space, all great possibilities. I haven't read every post in this thread so forgive me if I repeat someone elses idea. What if someone builds a rural scene for the same reason one takes a drive in the country? I've not heard of too many people who take a drive in the city. Maybe there is something to the railways and the beauty of the landscape that just appeals to many. Not taking anything away from cities and industry, they are beutiful in their way and chock full of activities that can challenge many a modeller and wow many a visiter, but maybe they just like to get away from the hubbub and imagine life when the rails connected small towns through the beautiful peaceful countrysides. Possible?

 

One of my most memorable railfan trips was through the vast industrial reaches of Brooklyn, on the NYC (New York Connecting, not New York Central) Bay Ridge branch.  But you are right, not too many people are interested in this.  Cities scare the heck out of lots of folks, and the recreation of them in miniature taps that fear.  The countryside seems more beneficent. I personally like the "edge" of cosmopolitan life;  heck, I live in a beautiful, pastoral location, but I work in a gritty inner city, as well as build models of it (as it appeared  in the 1940's).

As for the time/money/space/skill  aspect, I suppose it does take more work to assemble fifty building kits than a mere dozen, but I've been at it for years now, and although progress is slow, it has been due to distraction: I participate in other working-model hobbies.   

The motivations of model railroaders are a big subject indeed, largely unexplored, often ignored. The choice of city vs. country for a railroad is, I believe, more complex than available real estate or nostalgia.  As I have mentioned earlier, I don't think that we can rule out the influence of major magazines (at least, pre-internet) in driving (or steering) the interests of many.     

[Doc in CT]

cuyama

Published an MR special issue on the topic: How to Build Realistic Layouts 4: Trackside towns and city scenes. This followed a book: John Pryke's Building City Scenery for Your Model Railroad, which in turn followed a layout project series in Model Railroader magazine (Sep to Dec 2000).

The Beer Line layout construction series (MR, January to May 2009) is unquestionably urban,but maybe not enough multi-story buildings to suit the huddled masses yearning to model freely.

Covered a substantial city scene on a layout in the most revent Great Model Railroads annual. (Cliff Coutinho's Old Colony and South Shore).

Covered John Grosner's layout in the April 2009 MR.

Covered Barbara Brunette's city and dockside layout in the March 2009 MR.

Included the town of Aurora in the coverage of Seth Puffer's layout in the Feb 2009 MR.

 

 cuyama

I think the point (to use your dates) is that Pykes' book came out in 2000, yet the citations you have are 2009.  Urban layouts (and no a couple of 4 story buildings is not urban) have not been given any coverage.  People ARE influenced by what they see in magazines (see reference to John Armstrong earlier in thread).  They pick up technique and approaches to modeling; if you don't see urban then what?

It is a lot less expensive to build rolling hills covered in puff ball trees or ignore fine detail.  Yet the layouts people admire are filled with details and scratch built structures.  I will grant that finding inexpensive buildings for urban settings is not easy and you need a bunch, but if you are modeling rural to light suburban, have you priced out a farm house or residence lately?  And what of the industrial layouts with reproductions of large scale structures?

 

[Robt. Livingston]

 

In my earlier comments about the role of magazine editors in steering the interests of model railroaders, I was referring to an era long before yesterday.  Look through the pages of MR in the years 1960 through 1980 and you will see  a decided emphasis on several themes:  switching, granger roads, single track mains, "operation" by timetable/thumbtacks/waybills, and Colorado to name a few.  While this may seem old and irrelevant to some, it did set a tone which lasted through the internet era. It used to be that the admiration of John Allen and John Olsen trumped all else.  The Disneyland ethos (quaint, exaggerated decrepitude out West) ruled for a while, but that era seems to be over now.  Pryke's book on building cities was a pleasant surprise indeed; you will note that his modeling isn't cute or quaint, but rooted in study of the  prototype. 

[Hamltnblue]

For those who want to see somegood stuff go to accatenary's site.  I'm just outside of philly city and will have to try to beg him to visit sometime to see his layout.

 http://prrnortheastcorridor.com

[cuyama]

The idea that magazine editors are holding down the people who yearn to live free and model cities is just silly. Or if they are trying to so, they're doing a remarkably poor job of it.

If the denfition of city/urban is areas with "three to four-story buildings" as has been bandied about, well, here's how the editors at Kalmbach are "repressing" the city modelers:

Covered George Sellios' and Rod Stewart's layouts in detail, Sellios' layout over and over (November 2008 most recently).

Published an MR special issue on the topic: How to Build Realistic Layouts 4: Trackside towns and city scenes. This followed a book: John Pryke's Building City Scenery for Your Model Railroad, which in turn followed a layout project series in Model Railroader magazine (Sep to Dec 2000).

The Beer Line layout construction series (MR, January to May 2009) is unquestionably urban,but maybe not enough multi-story buildings to suit the huddled masses yearning to model freely.

Covered a substantial city scene on a layout in the most revent Great Model Railroads annual. (Cliff Coutinho's Old Colony and South Shore).

Covered John Grosner's layout in the April 2009 MR.

Covered Barbara Brunette's city and dockside layout in the March 2009 MR.

Included the town of Aurora in the coverage of Seth Puffer's layout in the Feb 2009 MR.

And that's just the few issues I had at hand. There are many other city and urban layouts that have been covered over the years, in MR and other magazines.

Modeling city and urban scenery can be more demanding of time, money, and space. A smaller percentage of modelers choose that path, so there are relatively fewer layouts of this type built, thus less coverage. But to imply that there's some great conspiracy among magazine publishers to kill off urban modeling doesn't withstand ten minutes' investigation.

 

[steinjr]

Robt. Livingston

Here is what I aspire to:

Atlantic Avenue, Brooklyn NY, as it looked in 1900 or so, keeping this general appearance through WWII, my modeling era.

 

Inspiring.

Here are a few more prototype pictures of urban scenes from Minneapolis that cry out (at least to me) to be modeled on a layout:

 Industry yard tracks between buildings, Pillsbury Mill, Milling District, Minneapolis:
 http://collections.mnhs.org/visualresources/image.cfm?imageid=79034

  Railroad tracks in the milling district:
  http://collections.mnhs.org/visualresources/image.cfm?imageid=180277

   Municipal (River) Barge Terminal in Minneapolis:
  http://collections.mnhs.org/visualresources/image.cfm?imageid=102086

 

Robt. Livingston

Forums like these promote the free interchange of excellent work and ideas, unlike the old days when everything was filtered through a magazine editor or two.  Multiple points of view are accessible to everyone.  Welcome to the city, where diversity rules.  I think The City has been given short shrift, as a vessel for our imagination.     

  Mmm - I obviously agree with your statement that forums like these allow people to share ideas and get inspired by each other, but I don't agree that editors has exhibited some systematic bias against city based layouts - I think that there just hasn't been that many such layouts as there has been mainline running type layouts.

  But be that as it might - as long as we all enjoy what we are doing, who cares how many layouts are of this kind or that kind ? :-)

 Smile,
 Stein

 

[markpierce]

Robt. Livingston

... unlike the old days when everything was filtered through a magazine editor or two. 

Now, free from complete domination by magazine editors, we will see a blossoming of layouts with city/urban scenes, right?

Home : Model Railroading : Books : Scenery : Building City Scenery for Your Model Railroad [view larger image] Building City Scenery for Your Model Railroad By John Pryke Learn to model realistic city structures and scenes of any size in any scale! Step-by-step photos, technical illustrations, and a variety of approaches to assembling a model city show you how. An ideal book for intermediate modelers who want to enhance realism on their layouts. Perfect-bound softcover; 8 1/4 x 10 3/4; 96 pages; 120 color photos; 40 b&w photos; 25 illustrations; 12204$19.95

Mark

[Paulus Jas]

mobilman44

But what a root cause of me not modeling urban areas on any layout I've ever built just struck me.  It's simply space - or lack thereof!

 

Hi Mobilman,

when by change you have a some unused square feet, and you can't sleep, maybe you can think about me, lonely roaming the streets of a rainy Brooklin at 3AM.  

Is it really lack of space? Or are you just a country boy?

From a bigtown dingy lad

Paul 

[Robt. Livingston]

Here is what I aspire to:

http://arrts-arrchives.com

Atlantic Avenue, Brooklyn NY, as it looked in 1900 or so, keeping this general appearance through WWII, my modeling era.

I think the HO modeling press has had a lot to do with promoting the idea that plains, farms, small towns, and mountains are the supposed theme of a "proper" or "serious" model railroad.  I see the urban railroad as my natural home. But I will be including a rural area in my under-construction layout, the East New York RR.   As a child in the 1950's, I visited one grandmother in Manhattan, and the other near rural Chatham NY (along the tracks of the Rutland and NYC). I saw the best of both worlds, and both are nostalgic for me. 

Take a look at those buildings: none are multi-story skyscrapers.  The rails run in a man-made cut, definitely "going somewhere", not the destination, but the journey. The rails are the focal point, and the cramped nature of urban railroading is as justified for modeling compression as a single-track main clinging to a mountainside, or ambling over the plains. 

Forums like these promote the free interchange of excellent work and ideas, unlike the old days when everything was filtered through a magazine editor or two.  Multiple points of view are accessible to everyone.  Welcome to the city, where diversity rules.  I think The City has been given short shrift, as a vessel for our imagination.     

 

 

[mobilman44]

Hi again!

I posted earlier answering this question from my situation's point of view.  But what a root cause of me not modeling urban areas on any layout I've ever built just struck me.  It's simply space - or lack thereof!

My wants and needs for all of my layouts over the last 55 years have been for farms and trackside industries and loco terminals and stations and country scenery with hills and mountains.  These were and are my top priorities, and have filled up (actually more than filled up) any layout space I've ever had.  

Right now I've got an 11x15 HO layout with lower level staging and I'm really grateful for the space (spare room).  But it just isn't big enough to have all my "wants and needs" AND a town.  Soooo, the town goes!

Mobilman44 

[Anonymous]

 Todd - well said!

If I had the time, the money and the space - plus plenty of buddies to join in the work and fun - I would built the layout you described , from a bustling port through an industrial district into  the beautiful countryside.

Ah, dreams! 

I am still happy with my 2´by 8´ shelf switcher with urban/port character... 

[TMarsh]

Stein and Ulrich- Well put from both. I agree whole heartedly. A model railroad, whether prototypical, freelanced or a combination of both, is like art. It's what you like that is appealing to you. Most of us would like the best of both worlds, but as you have said it's rarely possible with the space most of us have. Wouldn't it be great to have the space to go from a busy metropolis through the countryside, through the mountains and end in another busy dingy section of a city with a nice big yard with little towns and spurs along the way? All in the area most of us have. Aaah to dream.

[Anonymous]

 Allow me to add my to this thread again. I guess that the majority of us likes to operate their trains in a beautiful scenery, with sweeping curves, little rivers spanned by a bridge, rolling hills and forests, cows on a pasture etc. After all, deep down in our hearts we are railroad romantics and there is hardly any romance in the dingy part of a city that railroads usually run through.

Layout reality, however, is something else. Those rolling hills just don´t fit on a 4´ by 8´ "table" or a 2´ by 10´ shelf layout, so we need to compromise a lot. The result is, that we encounter scenic features in a density on a layout, that "Mother Nature" would never have, i.e. a mountain growing just out of nothing, a bridge spanning something where no bridge would be in reality. On a typical shelf-type layout, we have less than 90 feet to left and to the  right  of the track - too little for a breathtaking scenery, especially when our layout has some track allowing us to have a minimum of operation. This is where in my opnion, an urban layout is much more realistic. Just look at Jon Grant´s Sweethome Chicago layout, how much depth of view he has created. Or take a look at that Brooklyn 3 am layout - how emotional Prof. K´s pictutres are. These are two examples of perfect urban layouts, showing us, that you don´t need a lot of space or money to create the right feeling! It only takes a lot of imagineering!

 

 

[steinjr]

 

TMarsh

 What if someone builds a rural scene for the same reason one takes a drive in the country? I've not heard of too many people who take a drive in the city. Maybe there is something to the railways and the beauty of the landscape that just appeals to many.

 Certainly possibly. People do things (and don't do other things) for all kinds of reasons. We all have different backgrounds, have seen different things and have different preferences. 

 To decide to model something on your layout, you both need to be aware of the fact that this "something" is possible to do, and you must want to do it - more than you want to do something else instead. What each of us desire to model on our layout is probably depending both on what we have seen before, and what each of us find interesting and fascinating.

 We cannot try to force each other to like or want this or that style of railroading or this or that style of model railroading.

 We can only show each other that there usually are several options for most kinds of layout spaces, and some of those options may be things you hadn't considered yet, but which you might find interesting to model once you learn more about them.

 Grin,
 Stein

 

[dm9538]

twhite

In other words, it's modeling the Destination, not the Journey

 

That's the point of my layout, the destination. My layout repersents the Chicago area treminus of my freelanced railroad including our major Chicago area terminal and with connections to the rest of the railroad world. I am interested in yard and urban operations and I also like many different RR's. The scenery will transition from urban/ industrial to suburban to rural if I can do it the way I've planned. As far as cost I have been collecting structure kits for about ten years, I tend to buy them when I find a deal. Therefore the cost of obtaining the needed buildings has not been bad.  I have also had the basic concept for the layout rolling around in my head since I was a teenager it wasn't until I moved into my current house that i was able to plan a layout that was about as close to Ideal as I could get.

[steinjr]

arbe1948

I don't seem to be catching on as to how to include a photo with a post, so here is a link to a picture on my old layout which had an urban theme.  My new layout under construction will also be urban based but also includes a mainline for times I want to watch trains go around.  Most of the "train" action will be transfer type operations over a line from the inner city yard to a interchange yard in the "Burbs."  along this line will be a warehouse-industrial area for that type of switching operation.

 http://www.flickr.com/photos/8406947@N04/3688117727/

 Many of you are right about the time it takes, and also there is an expense issue with building construction in urban railroad modeling.  However, in hours of hobby enjoyment per dollar, I think it is quite acceptable.

 Bob Bochenek

 

 

 Start by making sure you have a link (URL) that actually ends in .jpg - not a link to a directory (ending in /), or a link to some program with parameters that ends in "?something=something" or whatever else.

 You want a link to a picture, not a link to a web page or a link to some program on some server.

 For your image:

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2674/3688117727_2165de0828.jpg

 (I right clicked on the image on your web page and chose "properties", and then removed from the URL everything after the .jpg part)

 Then click on the little gree tree icon in the editing field, paste that link into the box "image URL" and and click "Insert".

Or alternatively type {IMG}http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2674/3688117727_2165de0828.jpg{/IMG} - except you use square brackets instead of curly brackets around the IMG and /IMG parts.

 This is easier to do using e.g. www.photobucket.com - where they provide a very simple and visible place in the graphical user interface for the website to grab a link to your photo - both with and without the IMG and /IMG tags.

 Here is your city picture:

 

 Looks good (and city like).

 Smile,
 Stein

 

[arbe1948]

I don't seem to be catching on as to how to include a photo with a post, so here is a link to a picture on my old layout which had an urban theme.  My new layout under construction will also be urban based but also includes a mainline for times I want to watch trains go around.  Most of the "train" action will be transfer type operations over a line from the inner city yard to a interchange yard in the "Burbs."  along this line will be a warehouse-industrial area for that type of switching operation.

 http://www.flickr.com/photos/8406947@N04/3688117727/

 

Many of you are right about the time it takes, and also there is an expense issue with building construction in urban railroad modeling.  However, in hours of hobby enjoyment per dollar, I think it is quite acceptable.

 Bob Bochenek

 

[TMarsh]

Money, skills, space, all great possibilities. I haven't read every post in this thread so forgive me if I repeat someone elses idea. What if someone builds a rural scene for the same reason one takes a drive in the country? I've not heard of too many people who take a drive in the city. Maybe there is something to the railways and the beauty of the landscape that just appeals to many. Not taking anything away from cities and industry, they are beutiful in their way and chock full of activities that can challenge many a modeller and wow many a visiter, but maybe they just like to get away from the hubbub and imagine life when the rails connected small towns through the beautiful peaceful countrysides. Possible?

[Paulus Jas]

Dear members,

Today the difference between urban and not-urban area's is getting smaller and smaller. This dates back from the time the first railroads were built. Commutor trains and later highway's made it possible to live or work away from the citycenter. Years ago the railway was the window to the rest of the world. Today we take a plane, but we do love the memory. May be that's the reason so many want to model mainlines; Californian Dreaming.

Recently I see a lot of well known modelrailroaders changing their layout, Keith Jordan, Chuck Hitchcock, Lance Mindheim and many others.They all go urban. And let not forget that wonderfull rainy Brooklyn at 3AM. 

Paulus Jas

 

 

[MichaelWinicki]

 I think the term "urban" focuses too much on the larges cities and having or needing to create buildings that are many stories tall, but urban can as the previous poster stated, mean ANY city from say 10,000 people on up.  And when I think about cities of say 100,000 and less, I'm thinking about buildings with 3 or 4 or 5 stories, which falls in line with many of the offerings by Walthers, DPM and others, which aren't expensive kits and are found on a great many layouts.  I think there are more people modeling urban scenes than what are given credit for.

[rclanger]

I have been reading the many responses to my original question with interest.  I have been collecting magazine articles for a long time and have all of the ones mentioned.  I really do appreciate the pictures of those who do model urban railroading.

I am not going to try to summarize all 50 plus comments because the ranged from one extreme to the other.  The main point I did pickup on is that it is not necessary to have a huge amount of space to give the viewer the impression of being on the outskirts of a city.  Cities range in size, everyone has a different idea of a city when they hear the word.

It just so happens that the subject of an urban industrial area is covered in a good article in this months RMC,  The article is by Don Spiro entitled Shallow-relief structures.  The author gives the impression of exactly what I was thinking about.  Selective compression and good skills does get the idea across without taking up a lot of real estate.  That is what I would like to do...

Again thanks for all the comments.  I learned a lot and have tagged a few of you as being MR I would like to follow.

 

[steinjr]

accatenary

Railroads that have a passenger terminus in the city will definitely have high residential and high commercial and low industrial zones around them

 Mmm - "terminus" implies end station, right ? If so, probably right. But if you are simply modelling a passenger station in a city, it really depends on what city and era you are modelling.

 If you model a present day downtown passenger station in e.g. Philadelphia or Chicago, there certainly should be high rise buildings around the station, to make it look real. Maybe even a subterrean station with a skyscraper on top for Chicago (or NYC).

 If you model e.g. the passenger trains arriving at the Union RR station in Minneapolis in the 1940s or 1950s, it was not surrounded by skyscrapers. Even today, when both downtown St. Paul and downtown Minneapolis has a skyline consisting of skyscrapers, there is no skyscrapers in the immediate vicinity of the Amtrak station in the Midway area of the Twin Cities. So it is certainly possible to pick a city RR passenger station to model without having to model skyscrapers.

 Anyways, I'll stop nitpicking - I just wanted to make the point that it is quite possible to represent railroading in a city without making the city itself so big - it all depends on whether you go for creating an illusion by carefully controlling what viewing angles are possible, or whether you build a layout that you can walk around and study from all (or most) angles.

 Smile,
 Stein

 

[accatenary]

Thanks for the compliments, but im still along way from being finished

Stein You are absolutely right!  The Island Style Urban railroad emphasizes the Urban City with the Railroad as being almost secondary verses the around the wall Urban Railroad which emphasizes the railroad as the primary interest, and that is a choice of the modeler.  With a around the wall railroad you will not need tall buildings, plenty of cars, trolleys or people. It will all be contained in your backdrop. This is the easier route. (In my opinion)  If your modeling a primarily freight switching Outfit most likely there wont be and high residential/ commercial buildings any where near the railroad. So maybe around the wall would be best for you. The interesting thing (in my opinion) is some urban railroads do travel in the industrial or run down parts of town but once (if) they reach the station areas. The industrial/low income residential zones turn into High commercial/ high residential Zones.  These railroads however are mostly mixed use (passenger & freight). Railroads that have a passenger terminus in the city will definitely have high residential and high commercial and low industrial zones around them. Once again it’s a modeler’s choice 

 

[steinjr]

 First, let me say that Steve has built here obviously is a marvelous model - with great structure modelling, streets, amazing details, all the cars, people, catenary wire, signature Philly buildings, trolleys and so on and so forth. It is truly breathtaking.

 But when Steve says:

accatenary

The city has to be filled up with trolleys, cars, buses and thousands of people

 I respectfully have to disagree with this statement. 

 As Steve himself points out:  

accatenary

There are Two Types of Urban Layouts: Against the Wall with a Urban Backdrop a Great Example is - John Grant’s “Sweet How Chicago” and the Island Type- George Sellios “Franklin Manchester”

 I'd say the "thousands of people" is more a function of choosing to do a deep/panoramic model of a largish slice of the city, instead of modelling railroading in a city as a thin slice of industrial or modest residential buildings that forms the backdrop for a narrow corridor of freight railroading.

 Most railroading (or at least most freight railroading), even in the larger cities, tend to take place in the more industrial parts of the city, where buildings tend to be no more than 4-6 stories tall (and often are low warehouses), or thorugh medium or low income residential areas where the tracks run by the back yards of row houses or tenement buildings, rather than past the amazing gleaming towers reaching for the sky.

 An along the wall model of the Sweet Home Chicago style or in the style of Dr Wayne still takes a signifcant amount of effort and quite a bit of detailing (plus of course - if you want to to look that good, the talents of a great modellers like Jon Grant or Dr Wayne).

 But "thousands of people" are not necessary for modelling a smallish, yet believable, slice of railroading in a city. They are only necessary if your primary goal is to is to model a largish, deep, panoramic view of the city.

 Smile,
 Stein

 

[rclanger]

accatenary

Being a Urban Modeler I must chime in!

Keep chiming, you have a fansatic layout.  I have the felling your ocupation has been a great help.  But that in no way lessens what you have accomplished.

Seeing your results gives me a very high bar to strive for... I will never get there but I can try.

[doctorwayne]

Very ambitious, Steve, and very impressive, too. 

Wayne

[Doc in CT]

Steve

Fantastic urban layout.  Something to serve as a model for the rest of us.

Alan

 

[accatenary]

Being a Urban Modeler I must chime in!

First I would say that modeling a city model railroad takes allot of time and effort versus a rural or mountains layout. City Modeling though has to be the most expensive even if your scratch building your buildings. The city has to be filled up with trolleys, cars, buses and thousands of people.  I have been building my HO scale Philadelphia for almost 20 years now since I was 16 and I’m 70% finished. It’s relatively a small layout in plan and fits in a small space of 18 x 15, but it appears Huge.  I was inspired by George Sellios Model Railroad back in the 80s (his railroad was only 10’x8’ then) and how he used tall buildings as a backdrop on an “island” style Layout. .

There are Two Types of Urban Layouts: Against the Wall with a Urban Backdrop a Great Example is - John Grant’s “Sweet How Chicago” and the Island Type- George Sellios “Franklin Manchester” I Gravitated toward the Island style at first because I wanted to build city blocks and have trolleys running down every street, Modern Skyscrapers, Large factories with sidings, traffic congestion, Large train Stations with the Railroad running right through the city. I also wanted it to be set in the 1980’s to present.  All these things are rarely seen in Model railroading. I eventually used both the backdrop style & Island style  In Philadelphia, and cities on the east coast the railroad come right into the center of town. It’s not on the outskirts. The railroad main line is usually grade separated so pedestrian traffic and train traffic happen of different levels.  There aren’t many layouts of this type because of many factors. Space can be one of them. Some people think Cities are Ugly filthy places and aren’t familiar with the city environment. I’m from the city and any other type of railroad for me was not an option.  

Below are a couple of shots

 

 

 

[fwright]

 I won't even try to speak for other model railroaders, nor try to guess as to their reasons for doing or not doing something.  Generalizations in the hobby end up with contra-examples proving the generalization is not as general as once thought.

Personally, I'm not a big fan of cities.  I choose not to live in the city, and I prefer not to work in the city.  I certainly don't want to spend a lot of effort modeling something that doesn't appeal to me in the first place.

As for towns on my layouts, space constraints drive me to just enough modeling to suggest a town.  I'll focus on the part of town adjacent to where the tracks are, and the buildings that support or interface with the railroad.  Perhaps if there's room, I'll add some structures that suggest some of the rest of the town.

But these are my reasons.

Fred W

[Doc in CT]

Hamltnblue

In the US over 90 percent of the track is outside the cities. In the downtown areas of the cities there are relatively no visible railways with most being passenger underground.  Take a drive through manhattan or philly or boston or wherever. You don't see many freight trains.

 

That may be true of the very largest urban areas, but here in CT/western MA - RRs in Hartford, Springfield, Waterbury have an obvious presence.  Hartford and Springfield have elevated lines, Springfield, Waterbury and Hartford have yards (with another major yard is actually across the river in E. Hartford, along with multiple trackside industries.  If anything is lacking it is lot's of industry serviced by rail, yet there are a number of them.  The north end of the Hartford yard for instance has a sand/gravel business that received shipments by rail.  RT 5 on the east side of the river has a number of warehouses, brickyards etc also serviced by the line that runs back up to Springfield.

As someone pointed out, you would need a lot of selective compression to get everything to fit.  (One possibility is the Springfield Union Station Complex, see an example here on the Modular Railroading site.)  

[BRAKIE]

steinjr

BRAKIE

So,we see it is possible to build in urban scene layout in a small area.

 Sure. Here is a 2 foot deep and 8 1/2 foot long urban switching plan I drew up for a friend. Not that many or expensive buildings necessary - this stuff could be kitbashed from say 6-8 structure kits, a couple of trucks, a handful of people etc:

 Here is an even smaller 2x4 foot H0 scale urban layout called "Brooklyn 3am" by the Sydney, Australia model railroader known as Professor Klyzr  from the www.carendt.com website:

http://www.carendt.com/scrapbook/page81/index.html

 Urban railroading can be done pretty small - you don't have to model both the route to the city and the whole of the city.

 Smile,
 Stein

 

What a sweet ISL!

 

Kudos on a well planed switching layout.

[Hamltnblue]

Regarding the original topic I guess the answer is that the amount of Urban layouts seen probably represents close to the amount of actual urban vs rural track in the US and worldwide. In the US over 90 percent of the track is outside the cities. In the downtown areas of the cities there are relatively no visible railways with most being passenger underground.  Take a drive through manhattan or philly or boston or wherever. You don't see many freight trains. Maybe that's why you don't see many posted.

[arbe1948]

 Here is a photo on my old layout now dismantled as I build anew.  I was interested in the urban aspect then and will have that is my major focus now.

Bob Bochenek

[ef3 yellowjacket]

 

Chuck;

What you say matter-of-factly is very true, but there is still a lot to see and model-in a very small area-like from Greenwich to New Rochelle, or the harlem River Branch.  It is in the details and that can be a royal cramp when you are trying to model that setting.  As I previously stated, I am doing urban; precicely, trying to get some carfloat operations, warf areas, lighterage, etc into my layout, while trying to minimize the city stuff by sticking the "heavy" city stuff into a corner, and jus ttrying to flavour the immediate area.  To me, transitions (ship to rail) are great makings for a good layout-and that can be had in a relatively small area; hence the payoff especially when you don't have much room.

 

Rich 

[ef3 yellowjacket]

There are several notable urban layouts out there; the one that immediately comes to mind is Sellios' Franklin and South Manchester.  Take a good look at George's layout:  There is a lot of detail-far more than the average person would probably consider right off the hop.  Urban layouts are loaded with scads of clutter, function, life-detail.  I remember on a trip into Manhatten from New Haven one evening, I took note of the detail and different types of same that are inherrently present in real life on and around a real railroad (former New Haven).  This in itself, would be a daunting challengeand a half to the average guy.  I am doing just that, and it is just that:  a challenge; but it is something I came to terms with early on, so there are few surprises.  Slective compression and clutter are just two of the tools asvailable to the urban modeller.  I suggest to anyone who is interested, to really give it some thought before jumping in, and really plan your layout to your advantage.  Nothing can beat you down like intimidation, and an urban setting can be just that.  Good luck to you.

Rich

YellowjacketEF-3

 

Rich   

[R. T. POTEET]

Your photography is impeccable there Dr W.

You raise a very good point; representations of small cities is not nearly as rare as major urban centers. Whenever I see photographs of G. Selios' layout I am swamped with sensory details. I got the same impressions with the recent article on Rod Stewart's layout. All that is well and good but when I see something like that I am immediately reminded that I don't really have the time nor money nor inclination to go into that detailed modeling. My layout will have one small city and a couple of industrial burgs set in a rural environment. That's good enough for me!

[steinjr]

BRAKIE

So,we see it is possible to build in urban scene layout in a small area.

 Sure. Here is a 2 foot deep and 8 1/2 foot long urban switching plan I drew up for a friend. Not that many or expensive buildings necessary - this stuff could be kitbashed from say 6-8 structure kits, a couple of trucks, a handful of people etc:

 Here is an even smaller 2x4 foot H0 scale urban layout called "Brooklyn 3am" by the Sydney, Australia model railroader known as Professor Klyzr  from the www.carendt.com website:

http://www.carendt.com/scrapbook/page81/index.html

 Urban railroading can be done pretty small - you don't have to model both the route to the city and the whole of the city.

 Smile,
 Stein

 

 

[BRAKIE]

rclanger

I cannot help but wonder why there are so many mountain, or plains motifs for many, I mean most, layouts?  After joining this forum I visited all of the clubs under the resources menu selection.  I really enjoy looking at the work of others and was really hoping be inspired.

On the other hand there are very few towns, never mind cities, that are the heart of a layout.  Are they too hard?  Do they take up to much space, either horizontally or vertically?  Maybe there are not enough kit buildings, and/or detail parts available?

I have seen just a few in MR and can't remember in the other  publication.  The ones I can remember were spectacular, taking up many cubic feet because of the height of the buildings.

Maybe I have answered my own question by just asking it...  The ones that stick out are the efforts of either a museum or rock star.  Most of us, including myself, do not have the money or the time to invest.  Mostly the money.

I personally have a small layout and want it to look like the period of 1965 to 1975.  The area is in south eastern Virginia.  That would be Norfolk, Portsmouth and Suffolk.  Not New York City size towns but bigger than most of the city scenes I have seen. Three and four story buildings in the downtown city center.

Web site links welcome as are your thoughts?

 

 

That's a good question and one to ponder on..

 In the beginning it was taught layout a needs mountains and unrealistic steep grades.All to sadly its still being taught.

Overlooked is the loop type urban switching layout that has urban scenery..

One needs a large space for a city or town cryth the multitude.

Really?

 Let's take a closer look..

A 4x6' urban layout.

http://www.gatewaynmra.org/project10.htm

 A 4X8 footer..

http://www.gatewaynmra.org/mhslayout/mhslayout.htm

 

So,we see it is possible to build in urban scene layout in a small area.

 

[leighant]

Quote from original post by rclanger: "...there are very few towns, never mind cities, that are the heart of a layout."

I have always wanted to model a big city scene.  I guess my "Berliner" layout, 27x37", built back in 1971, was supposed to be a slice of a city scene.

My East Texas District of the Santa Vaca and Santa Fe 93x7' layout) , had a courthouse-square town scene as its heart.  I tried to include as much as possible of the "infrastructure" of a town as possible- the courthouse on the square, jail on the back of the same block, U S Post Office, town water tower, a high school (or at least the front of the building).  Then I had the businesses (generally NOT directly railroad served) that every town needs to have-- bank, supermarket, service station, cafe, drugstore, furniture store, movie theater, church, jewelry store.

There were two large industries, a creosote treating plant and a peanut butter plant, and some of the smaller rail-served industries you might find in any town-- a bulk oil dealer and a farm implement dealer.  The residential area sort of ran off into the edge of the woods background and I had only 6 dwelling, far fewer than proportionately appropriate.  I tried to give the feeling that the layout sliced through the industrial and commercial part of the town and there was more there, just as little ways off.

That layout has been dismantled and I am building an around-the-walls layout representing a medium-sized city with a few areas of big city feeling.  Computer rendering of planned layout scene:

 

But even the "not downtown" amusement district needs to have a crowded feeling that days it is PART of a city. 

This "mock up" was over a year ago.  Somebody wrote about needing lots of little people.  The pier nightclub is nearing completion and it must have a hundred or so people in it, counting:

• patrons dining
• waiters seating patrons and serving
• hostesses serving coffee and tea
• chefs
• dishwashers
• cleaning staff
• patrons dancing
• band
• patrons drinking
• bartender and cocktail waitress
• doorman checking at entrance
• customers waiting to be allowed in
• customers enjoying the view halfway down the pier
• club lookout on the shore end of the pier who rings the signal if the law is coming
• Mr. Big and a couple of his "gorillas"

 band: http://www.trainboard.com/railimages/data/548/Band1.JPG

kitchen: http://www.trainboard.com/railimages/data/548/Kitchen.JPG

I haven't been able to get into the room where the layout being built sectionally will be set up, so I am not running trains.  But I am having fun.

[doctorwayne]

twhite

Though I've seen some beautiful urban/city based layouts, I'm also wondering if it isn't a kind of 'psychological' thing for a lot of model railroaders, in that the City is the Destination.  It's where the trains 'stop' and are broken up or re-assembled or (in the case of passenger trains) often terminated and turned. 

In other words, it's modeling the Destination, not the Journey. 

 

You're probably right, Tom, but it doesn't necessarily have to be modelled as the destination.  While the city scene on my layout does represent, more-or-less, the terminus of the railroad, there is no classification yard, coach yard, or locomotive servicing facility, nor is there a major industrial area.  All of these are represented solely by staging tracks - five for actually staging complete trains, plus two that represent (unmodelled) industrial shippers & receivers..  The actual city scene is a handful of fairly large structures, some streets and urban-type scenery, a few houses and stores, and a total of only nine modelled (with their own siding) industries plus three more if you count the combined passenger station, express terminal, and post office.   Most of the visible part of this could have been condensed into an area about 30" deep and 10' long, with the loss of only two modelled industries and some residential development.

I do have a small engine terminal elsewhere on the layout, and there'll be another, larger one, when the second level of the layout is built, but no plans for a classification yard of any type.  There'll also be another "city" scene, probably longer than the current one, but perhaps less "urban" and more railroad-oriented.

Wayne

[twhite]

Though I've seen some beautiful urban/city based layouts, I'm also wondering if it isn't a kind of 'psychological' thing for a lot of model railroaders, in that the City is the Destination.  It's where the trains 'stop' and are broken up or re-assembled or (in the case of passenger trains) often terminated and turned. 

In other words, it's modeling the Destination, not the Journey.  Now before everyone jumps on me, let me say that on my own model railroad, if I had the room (or had planned better) I would have included either a 'making up' or 'breaking up' terminal representing a fairly large Northern California city in the Central Valley.  However, like a lot of model railroaders I know, I instead chose to show the portion of the railroad where the trains were passing THROUGH smaller towns to get from point A to point B.  I'm in the planning process of at least partially redeeming that particular mistake by having a major urban yard on the other side of the garage, and yes, with an actual 'city', but sometimes it just doesn't figure out into the original planning. 

It didn't in mine, and that was a mistake.  And yes, it's going to be fairly expensive, I'm thinking.  Buildings and warehouses cost a lot more than just making your own pine trees, LOL!

Tom   

[arbe1948]

 I am in construction of an urban based layout and am starting to work on structures, a favorite activity in the hobby almost as much as rolling stock.  The January 1999 Model railroader issue has a fantastic article by the Master of kitbashing, Art Curran.  He has in this article built a really nice double-sided divider of mostly 4 and 5 storey buildings to separate the sides of an approximately 6' X 10' penninsula thay might be part of a larger layout, or possibly I think attached to fiddle and staging yards and operated as a stand-alone theme.  This project really captures the essence of a large central city warehouse-commercial-manufacturing district.

This article as well as the others mentioned in this discussion are my inspiration.

Bob Bochenek

[Graffen]

It all comes down to this: If you like to build models, make an elaborate layout, city or countryside. If you like to operate on a finished layout, keep it simple and buy readymades.

[kcole4001]

Anything you have a lot of, will incur a significant cost, or a more significant amount of time to fabricate.

I originally wanted to model one city section including the hint of a seaport, but I don't have enough space to do it justice, at least to my satisfaction. I'd always be dreaming of what might have been instead of enjoying the scenes that I can represent effectively. I do enjoy building structures and scenery. I'll have to make do with a staging yard to suggest the traffic to and from the seaport.

I think a major railyard and engine servicing facility would be the most expensive and time consuming to model accurately, even when scaled down considerably. Impressive, but that's a lot of expensive trackwork needed.

[Anonymous]

johncolley

My opinion only, but it seems to me that towns and especially cities require a much greater investment in time and resources to get a realistic effect. You need an awful lot of structures, streets, etc. to pull it off. Note that those who do such a great job of it, like George Selios, or Rod Stewart, really enjoy and are committed to that part of model railroading. John

 

Sorry, but I have to disagree!

If you plan to have a little forest on your layout, you will be spending either a lot of $$$ to buy realstic looking trees, or you will spend years in fabricating the required amount....

Fortunately, the industry offers a lot of not so expensive kits and modulars, that building urban layouts is not as expensive as you think. The time requirement is IMHO not much diffrent also!

[johncolley]

My opinion only, but it seems to me that towns and especially cities require a much greater investment in time and resources to get a realistic effect. You need an awful lot of structures, streets, etc. to pull it off. Note that those who do such a great job of it, like George Selios, or Rod Stewart, really enjoy and are committed to that part of model railroading. John

[nbrodar]

 John Prkye's Union Freight project layout is one of my favorite MR series.   I also love his Building City Scenery for Your Model Railroad.  He gives several ways to simulate urban areas in small spaces, and I've used many of them.   But the tour de force Union Freight project is a massive undertaking.

A quick glance at my insurance spreadsheet shows structures as the second most expensive component of my layout behind rolling stock.

Nick

 

[Doc in CT]

 No one seems to have mentioned "Building City Scenery for Your Model Railroad" by John Pryke [link] which is available from Kalmbach.  Lot's of great information, illustrations and instructions on building urban scenery without robbing a bank to pay for it (oh wait, they don't have any money either).

Some of the City Classics buildings lend themselves to "kit bashing" as do the buildings from RIX's SmallTown collection.

 

[mobilman44]

Hi!

I'm 65 and been playing with trains since the mid '50s, having O, HO, and N scale layouts over the years.  All have represented rural areas circa the '50s.  Landscape has always included hills, fields, and a must have farm.  Also included were loco terminals, and rail serviced small industries.  The only hint of a town would be passenger/freight stations that gave the illusion of being on the edge of town.  My HO layout currently under construction is designed like all the previous ones, with a little more emphasis on "edge of town" rail served facilities.

Ok, so why is this?????   Ha, you are making me think!   I grew up on the northwest side of Chicago about a stones throw away from the C&NW tracks.  I spent a lot of time there, away from the hubbub of the city streets.  I longed for the countryside and for the vacations each year at Grandmom's (see my Avatar) in Anna Illinois, right across the road from the IC racetrack.  She lived on the edge of town (6500 pop), but it was the country to me.  I loved those times there, and I guess I've always tried to recreate that atmosphere on my layouts without really thinking about it.

Another reason is that my interest is in the railroads, and not the cityscape.  

Now the good news is that we can each model what we want - be it city, country, mountains or seashore.  That is another greatness of our Hobby!

Mobilman44

[JeffG]

Hey Bob: Have you seen Model Railroad Planning 2002? In it, Bernie Kempinski has an article about a waterfront yard that is accessible only by car float - and I believe it's in Norfolk. The buildings are warehouses and the like but not very tall, maybe 3 stories max if remember correctly so this might be of interest to you? Also, Lance Mindheim of Shelf Layouts fame is building a modern day industrial switching line based on rail operations in Miami. At any rate, I too am in the planning stages of an urban layout. However it will be based on the numerous switching lines that laced the streets of the Brooklyn waterfront for nearly 100 years. It will also feature an elevated rapid transit line that runs to a ferry terminal like the ones at the Brooklyn and Williamsburg Bridges. Truth be told, this is my primary modeling interest, but the concept just evolved over time to the point where the industrial switching is the main feature. I don't really have enough room to make an exclusive rapid transit-themed layout. I am planning a layout 24" wide and 12 feet long. If I can manage it, I would love to add another 10 foot section which would form an "L" shape along two walls. I live in an apartment so space is at a premium. Though some structures will be tall, (perhaps with the base of one of the river bridges' towers!) the layout will have a top which will serve as a lighting valance. The effect will be diorama-like and focus the viewer's attention to the scene. This might be something for you to consider if you are concerned about structure height. Track plan is loosely based on John Armstrong's classic Southside Connecting RR. It's not the most ideal plan but I have been fascinated by it since first seeing it nearly 40 years ago. Plus it resembles the jumble of street trackage found on the prototype (to me anyway) and will work a bit better when widened and stretched. Good luck!

[doctorwayne]

Thank you for the kind words, Bob.    The city scene is about 3' deep in most places, although almost all of the track is within easy reach, as the layout there is not too high.  Eventually, the scene will encompass about 18' linear of layout.  There are some backdrop buildings to add and a small residential area, but all of the major structures are in place.

Here's a view of Mercury Knitting Mills, which is on the outskirts (where real estate costs were lower),

...with a residential neighbourhood to be added between it and the rest of town:

Wayne

[rclanger]

doctorwayne

My urban scenery (only partially complete) is meant to represent a small city, not a major urban centre.

And it does.  You have accomplished your goal.  Urban doesn't mean skyscrapers, especially when railroading is the real love.  Your pictures depict an urban industrial setting.  If you wanted to change the era you model it would only be necessary to get more modern railroad equipment and automobiles.  The buildings constructed in the 20's but to the 40's certainly may still be around.  Rail yards and the industries they serve are almost always at the edge of town, far, far away from the busy downtown.

I do not have the depth you do but I would like to accomplish the look.  I think you are on the right track to "represent a small city" and the industrial area.

[wedudler]

 I've not so much space. So my layout - the Westport Terminal RR - has different switching districts. The Third Street Industrial District is finished, Plywood District and Harbor District are on the way.

I like switching, and street running!

Wolfgang

[blownout cylinder]

Midnight Railroader

The real answer is: Urban layouts are a lot more work.

The cost factor can be mitigated by scratchbuilding, but no one seems willing to do that, either.

Small towns and rolling hills are cheaper and easier (read: faster) to model.

Agree with all three.

The issue with space is true if one thinks that ISL's don't count as a layout. In my case I chose the great northern plains/prairies just because the area has its own attractiveness to me. 

Scratchbuilding is not as labour intensive as what some people think it is. I think it is all perception anyhow.

The thing about urban layouts though, for me, is the amount of people it would take to populate urban scenes to make them 'believable'----and if you hand paint your own well then----

[Anonymous]

 Most of the layouts I have seen here in Europe are of the sort I call the Disneyland or Fairy Wonderland type - sweet and lovely scenery with gingerbread houses, lovely forests with Bambi in them! So much sweetness - gives me a toothache!

Railroad reality is something else, especially in the US. Railroads serve business and usually run through the more dingy parts of a town, so why don´t we model what is the reality around us?

Not all of the world is like Switzerland, which is a scale 1/1 giant-sized model railroad ... 

[yankee flyer]

Hmmm
Interesting thread. For myself I like the mountains, Our vacations are usually in the mountains.
In the cities by the tracks and especially in the steam era it was a very dirty and depressing place. I never thought about modeling a city. I don't even weather my rolling stock.
For the most part we model our interests and emotions, what ever gives us satisfaction, and that's as it should be. IHMO    "different strokes for different folks"  
I love seeing pictures of other peoples interpretations of the hobby.

Having fun is the name of the game.

Lee

 

[rogerhensley]

Deleted.

 

 

[NittanyLion]

MisterBeasley

You don't get to put a lot of trestles and bridges in cities, though.

 

If you pick the right city, or make up the right one, you can get a lot of bridges and such done.  Yeah they might not be as visually engaging as a timber trestle, but a monster concrete approach to a bridge flanked by equally monstrous concrete flyovers is pretty complicated looking.  Even my little home town of 20,000 features at least three multi-track bridges and two long (300+ feet) viaducts in the urban core.

[WaxonWaxov]

Believe it or not building model buildings appeals to me...maybe more than building model rolling stock.

I figured a person could use something like this : http://www.modeltrainsoftware.com/model-builder.html

to fill their city scene with paper buildings to a) give the layout a finished look and b) allow for operation.

then the person could take thier time and build high quality 'regular' model buildings over a long period of time and replace the paper ones as the 'regular' buildings are completed.

 

 

[WaxonWaxov]

Have you guys seen that commerical for prostate pills where the guiy in the commerical is a professional model builder working on a large city scene? How do I get that dude's job?

 

[IRONROOSTER]

 I think you don't see many because most of us have a finite space.   If we do a city as something more than a back drop we use up all our space for one place on the railroad.  Since most of us like to have the railroad run to multiple towns we can't dedicate much space to the city.  For all their size, cities are less than the open spaces, so we need to have mostly open space on our layouts.

Trolley modlers don't have this problem since Trolley lines were mostly in just one city.  But trolley modeling doesn't seem as popular as it once was.

But for all that, there's no reason not to model a one city layout.  If you pick an earlier period such as 1905 when most businesses had most of their materials delivered by rail and shipped by rail you would have a lot of activity.  Also, you could have shipments within the city.

Enjoy

Paul

[Midnight Railroader]

The real answer is: Urban layouts are a lot more work.

The cost factor can be mitigated by scratchbuilding, but no one seems willing to do that, either.

Small towns and rolling hills are cheaper and easier (read: faster) to model.

[MisterBeasley]

With a 5x12 foot HO layout, I don't have the space for a large urban scene.  Instead, I've chosen to have a "pike-sized" downtown area, with 2, 3 and 4-story buildings.  I've discovered that it takes a long time to do these the way I want to - with detailed interiors, lighting and all the extras that surround urban scenes.  Of course, I like this kind of modelling, so it's a pleasure.

Others may be more interested in running their trains.  A lot of operating layouts, after all, are little more than plywood praries.  The rural scenery goes on quickly and doesn't take a lot of time, unless, of course, you want it to.

You don't get to put a lot of trestles and bridges in cities, though.  These dramatic scenic elements are desireable for many of us, so a lot of modellers choose a setting where they can put them.

[Anonymous]

 Actually there  a lot more city/urban layouts than we may think - and not only huge layouts like Rod Stewart´s really fantastic layout. Jon Grant has posted some pics of his Sweet home Chicago layout, which is a shelf layout - wonderfully detailed. This year´s MRP also has a feature on Lance Mindheim´s Downtown Spur RR. His East Rail also shows that you don´t have to invest a lot of $$$ into creating plausibel urban scenery.

 If you´d like to create an urban layout, you need to love kitbashing/scratchbuilding, though ...

[steinjr]

secondhandmodeler

I'm sure this is somewhere in Steins thread. 

http://www.trainboard.com/railimages/showgallery.php?cat=500&ppuser=2703

 Yep, Jon Grant's "Sweethome Chicago" was in the thread, as was Dr Wayne's excellent layout (which has moved to a new URL now - see his post above mine for updated pictures).

 Note what they do - they do not model buildings as being 48" long and 25" deep. They create the illusion of large buildings by making their buildings fairly long and tall, but not all that deep. The brain of the viewer is fooled into thinking the rear buildings continues farther backwards than they actually does.

 Here are some attempts of mine (not even close to be in the same league as the layouts mentioned above) to create the illusion of city structures in an area that is 24" deep and 60" (5 feet) wide:

Looking right towards core of Milling District:

 

Looking left towards core of Milling District:

 

Squeezing in a non-railroad served industry on the far right of this scene:

 

 The two buildings inside the curve in the mainline are 20" long, 4" deep, and 8" (4 stories) tall at their tallest point. There are two industry tracks (which each can hold three RR cars) running down between the two buildings.

 The grain silos on the far left of the layout is 30" long, 4" and about 10" tall deep. Could easily have been cut down to 2" deep. There are two industry tracks in front of the grain silos - one for unloading or loading at the silos, one for the industry behind the silos.

 Large red background building is printed on paper and glued to a 1/4" thick piece of wood. Building along far right hand side of layout is also running along the wall (apart from a corner that juts out about 6x6" to hide the missing end of the red large background building.

 Scene is by no means anywhere near ready (especially since I at the moment has the whole layout torn apart to rebuild it with some height differences ), but hopefully it can give a little hope to others who are no more artistic than me - buildings (so far) are built by very simple kitbashing - like just putting together Walthers modulars, or cutting down from kits walls and gluing them together in different combinations.

 Smile,
 Stein

 

[tomikawaTT]

In the urban areas I am most familiar with, the railroads are simply overwhelmed by massive nearby structures, many of which serve no rail-related function.  Then, too, since the real estate value is astronomical, the air rights over the rails are a valuable commodity.

Note that Park Avenue in New York City, arguably the most expensive address in the world, is built directly over the approaches and 'fan' of Grand Central Terminal.  When those tracks were exposed to the air and operated by steam locomotives the adjacent properties were among the least expensive on Manhattan.  Yet, for model railroading purposes, that area 100 years ago is far more interesting than the present.

Speaking only for myself, I like the appearance of rural mountain railroading far more than the cramped, constrained and stupefyingly complex big city variety.  That's why I'm modeling an area where the skyscrapers have trees growing on them.

Chuck (Modeling Central Japan in September, 1964)

[doctorwayne]

Trying to get structures large enough to properly depict a city environment, and then fitting enough of them into what is usually a limited space, is a big factor against urban layouts.  Add to that the cost and time required by structures and streets as opposed to most "country" scenery, and the chances of seeing such type of layouts decreases further.  Adding citizens and vehicles only compounds the problem.

Stein, since the link to my layout in your linked thread is no longer working (I removed all of my pictures from that forum), I'll take the liberty of posting a few pictures here.  My urban scenery (only partially complete) is meant to represent a small city, not a major urban centre.

And finally, a couple of (sorta) over-all views:

Wayne

 

[secondhandmodeler]

I'm sure this is somewhere in Steins thread. 

http://www.trainboard.com/railimages/showgallery.php?cat=500&ppuser=2703

[hcc25rl]

This, too, puzzles me. Almost all the layouts I visit or have had the chance to see, either in person or in print (video, magazines, tapes, etc.) contain vast rural scenes, whether concerning some sort of mining operations (e.g. coal, iron ore, taconite, bauxite, soda ash), or the alternative is Granger railroading with large rural scenes containing small towns and/or farming scenes. I realize that some of us in this hobby have a fondness for our childhood/youth where we grew up or where we wish we had grown up. I am no exception. I grew up in St. Paul/Mpls., MN (still live here) and have a fondness for gritty, urban railroading such as the Minnesota Transfer Railway/MN Commercial Ry, I remember the tracks that ran down Charles Ave. in St. Paul serving a lot of small industries that are now LONG gone, but the buildings (and tracks in the street, some paved over) still survive. For me, urban switching is where it's at. Check out the work of one of the people on this forum, steinjr, Yep, it can be expensive in the long run, but, I'm in no hurry; the more time I take to construct what's in my imagination, the better time I have pursuing one of the hobbies that I love to do. The more cool stuff I learn, all the better will be my modeling efforts. As always, I believe ANY layout is a work in progress, never really completed; we all strive to be as good as, or better than our mentors. I have only a small amount of space available for my RR, but I have a LOT of myself invested into it (vis-a-vis) time, effort, money, intellectual property etc. Well, enough for now. H10-44's rule!

[NittanyLion]

 Which is easier, more readily modeled and put in a reasonable space:

1) a single track main passing a small depot with maybe a coal yard and grain elevator nearby with five or six three story buildings.

or 2)

Not to say an urban layout has to be a massive yard next to an equally massive steel mill in pre-war Pittsburgh. I'm planning and tweaking a modern day urban railroad.  The first thing that became apparent to me is that its difficult to adequately represent buildings.  Most people have never actually seen a coal mine with their eyes.  So "close enough" is actually pretty easy to pull off.  And a flood loader isn't really that big to begin with.  Urban rail served structures are massive.  Even cutting them down they're still titanic.  Just one building on one of my prototype's route is over 48" by 25" when scaled down to HO.  Its one of three buildings just as big.  Even cut down to half size or less, they absolutely dominate their section.  Of the 24"x5' devoted to them, they eat up at least half of the total area.

[Doughless]

Would you model relatively more structures than track?  Or devote your space to track and trains and develop your scene using cut down kit structures and background buildings? 

Assuming your observation is correct, some may think urban layouts take too much space away from the trains and also require the modeler to devote too much time to building structures.

Also, I think its more difficult to model the sense that the train is going somewhere when the the entire layout has the same scenic theme.

Doug

[steinjr]

Some urban layouts: http://cs.trains.com/trccs/forums/p/135841/1663345.aspx

Smile,
Stein, also a fan of urban layouts

 

[Allegheny2-6-6-6]

 You want to see cities check out MR issue featuring Rod Stewart's layout. Like the Franklin & South Manchester structures are the scenery. If space constraints aren't an issue then the cost factor must be. As far as space goes think about how much room you need to make a city scen look believable as opposed to a rural setting. A lone grain elevator and a few out buildings can make for a ver believale scene in a relatively small area. Take that same size area and fill it with buildings and you'll have a scene that looks liek a city that ran out of money during construction. I've seen some really nice city scene on large club layouts in my o/p you simly just need the realestate to make them look good.

[locoi1sa]

  The Franklin and South Manchester is a layout that sets a very high standard of detail and realism that puts it in a category all by itself. Most modelers are happy just to model the small towns and villages that trains would run through. Remember its model rail roading and not movie sets. Cost and time to achieve a believable city scene is more than some would want to apply to the project. I myself am happier just to model an industrial scene and a small village that had a branch line that ran down the middle of main street than something like Penn station or Chicago union station with a 100 miles of track in 1 square mile of real estate.

      Pete

[mikelhh]

  I have to agree with Nick that the cost of recreating it all pretty much rules it out. It does for me, anyway. I painted my city.

 

Mike

[nbrodar]

 Money is a big factor.  It takes far more dollars to fill an urban square foot, then a rural one.   Time is also a factor.   Constructing the buildings, roads, and sidewalks, and adding the appropriate detailing, can take much longer then building a rural scene.

Nick

[corsair7]

wjstix

Although people did have parts of their layouts dedicated to urban railroading, I think it wasn't until George Sellios came along that people really started to realize what could be done in that area. As far as why more people don't do it, I guess it's different for different people. People living in crowded urban areas maybe want to have their layout be a "getaway" to a more rural, scenic area...and maybe people living in rural areas feel more comfortable modelling that, compared to modelling "the big city"??

Cost could be a factor, plaster and such for hills and valleys are cheaper than dozens of structure kits.

I think it has more to do with the fact that railroads in uban areas tend to be hidden away and so can't and won't often be seen. That isn't the case in wide open areas and so they are more popular.

I am working on a layout that runs right three of the Boroughs of the City of New York (Brooklyn, Queens and the Bronx). While there are places the rail libes can be seen, they are few and far between primarily because real estate is expensive and railroads are considered noisy, dirty and ugly. So, in an effort to hide their presence they are often located underground, in cuts with no views available or behind fences and buildings that offer no viewing access. People are often unaware of that trains run just a few feet away frm where they live or ahop as there are no signs and the sounds made by the trains are rarely heard.

Of course, in the post 9/11/01 wrold we live in, hiding such things in the urban area is probably not such a bad thing, but it is still not something that is easily modeled unless one has lots of photos and/or is able to get to places where you can take pictures.

Irv

[wjstix]

Although people did have parts of their layouts dedicated to urban railroading, I think it wasn't until George Sellios came along that people really started to realize what could be done in that area. As far as why more people don't do it, I guess it's different for different people. People living in crowded urban areas maybe want to have their layout be a "getaway" to a more rural, scenic area...and maybe people living in rural areas feel more comfortable modelling that, compared to modelling "the big city"??

Cost could be a factor, plaster and such for hills and valleys are cheaper than dozens of structure kits.

[JWhite]

 I'm in the design phase of a layout that has Centralia, IL and Effingham, IL at each end.  Not exactly urban railroading but Centralia was a rail hub served by the Illinois Central, CB&Q, Southern and Missouri and Illinois (MOPAC).  The downtown area where the IC had a large depot and freight house, the CB&Q had a depot and freight house and the M&I had a freight house had many multi story buildings on the east side of the tracks.  The IC freight house and several industries are located in this area.  So far I haven't noticed a shortage of kits and I think the downtown area won't be especially difficult to recreate with all of the modulars available these days.  The hard part for me has been finding photos from 1955 of everything I intend on recreating.