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.
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
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?
Todd
Central Illinoyz
In order to keep my position as Master and Supreme Ruler of the House, I don't argue with my wife.
I'm a small town boy. A product of two people from even smaller towns. I don’t talk on topic….. I just talk.
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
arbe1948I 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
twhiteIn 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.
Dan Metzger
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.
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
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!
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.
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...
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
ENJOY !
Living in southeast Texas, formerly modeling the "postwar" Santa Fe and Illinois Central
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.
mobilman44But 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 ... unlike the old days when everything was filtered through a magazine editor or two.
... 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?
Mark
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 ? :-)
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.
Layout Design GalleryLayout Design Special Interest Group
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
Springfield PA
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.
cuyamaPublished 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?
Co-owner of the proposed CT River Valley RR (HO scale) http://home.comcast.net/~docinct/CTRiverValleyRR/
TMarshMoney, 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 CTI 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":
Smile,Stein
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.
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.
ByronModel RR Blog Layout Design Gallery
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.
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
Steve Smith 1:1 Railroad Architect 1:87 Railroad Architect Certified PRR foamer
Visit www.prrnortheastcorridor.com
Movies http://www.youtube.com/user/ac0catenary
Live DCC catenary in Ho scale
Urban/City Modeler
A Real Juice Jack .. IF its not electric Its not running on my layout.
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.
Robt. LivingstonIn 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?
arbe1948Did 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...
Bob
Photobucket Albums:NPBL - 2008 The BeginningNPBL - 2009 Phase INPBL - 2010 Downtown
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
steinjrI 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!
accatenary We are a minority in Model Railroading. So the MR articles are Few and so are the Products!
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.