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!
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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.
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.
Bob
Photobucket Albums:NPBL - 2008 The BeginningNPBL - 2009 Phase INPBL - 2010 Downtown
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.
Thanks for the compliments, but im still along way from being finished
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.
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:
accatenaryThe 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:
accatenaryThere 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.
accatenaryBeing 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.
Very ambitious, Steve, and very impressive, too.
Wayne
Steve
Fantastic urban layout. Something to serve as a model for the rest of us.
Alan
Co-owner of the proposed CT River Valley RR (HO scale) http://home.comcast.net/~docinct/CTRiverValleyRR/
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. .
Below are a couple of shots
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
HamltnblueIn 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.)
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 So,we see it is possible to build in urban scene layout in a small area.
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.
What a sweet ISL!
Kudos on a well planed switching layout.
Larry
Conductor.
Summerset Ry.
"Stay Alert, Don't get hurt Safety First!"
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.
Springfield PA
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.
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
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.
YellowjacketEF-3
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!
From the far, far reaches of the wild, wild west I am: rtpoteet
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?
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
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:
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.
twhiteThough 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.
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.
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
Tom View my layout photos! http://s299.photobucket.com/albums/mm310/TWhite-014/Rio%20Grande%20Yuba%20River%20Sub One can NEVER have too many Articulateds!
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.