Why so few city/urban layouts?

[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.