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?
Bob
Photobucket Albums:NPBL - 2008 The BeginningNPBL - 2009 Phase INPBL - 2010 Downtown
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.
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.
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
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
Take a Ride on the Reading with the: Reading Company Technical & Historical Society http://www.readingrailroad.org/
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
Modelling the UK in 00, and New England - MEC, B&M, D&H and Guilford - in H0
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
I pray every day I break even, Cause I can really use the money!
I started with nothing and still have most of it left!
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.
Some urban layouts: http://cs.trains.com/trccs/forums/p/135841/1663345.aspx
Smile,Stein, also a fan of urban layouts
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
- Douglas
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.
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!
Jimmy
ROUTE ROCK!
I'm sure this is somewhere in Steins thread.
http://www.trainboard.com/railimages/showgallery.php?cat=500&ppuser=2703
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
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)
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
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 ...
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.
It takes an iron man to play with a toy iron horse.
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.
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
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?
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.
MisterBeasleyYou don't get to put a lot of trestles and bridges in cities, though.
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.
Roger Hensley= ECI Railroad - http://madisonrails.railfan.net/eci/eci_new.html == Railroads of Madison County - http://madisonrails.railfan.net/ =
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
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 ...
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----
Any argument carried far enough will end up in Semantics--Hartz's law of rhetoric Emerald. Leemer and Southern The route of the Sceptre Express Barry
I just started my blog site...more stuff to come...
http://modeltrainswithmusic.blogspot.ca/
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
Pueblo & Salt Lake RR
Come to us http://www.westportterminal.de my videos my blog
doctorwayneMy 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.
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: