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.
Robt. LivingstonNow, 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.
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
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.ByronModel RR Blog Layout Design Gallery
Layout Design GalleryLayout Design Special Interest Group
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:
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/
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
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
Dr.Wayne:
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.
- Douglas
Indeed...yourself and others have stated why folks don't do more urban/city layouts.
The nice thing is model railroading can be a lifetime hobby..we hope and pray anyone who gets into the hobby; remains.
My layout, once built; will be a freelanced version of a section of Downtown Columbus, suburban Clintonville, "Maxtown Crossing", Sunbury, Centerburg, Lewis Center, and Delaware, Ohio..
Yeah, that sounds like a lot..but with compressed modeling, theater tricks, and recycle scenes from previous modeling endavours..I think I can pull it off..in ten years! LOLOLOLOL!!!!
Look for the Columbus Division of the Cinci Central Railway System.... in MRR's 90th year issue!
...I guess I went against the "grain" if you will when I built my layout. When planning my layout six years ago, I wanted something that was truly mine; something that said "me". I have always been a fan of skyscrapers and stadiums, and so I wanted both on this layout. Granted, these building on this layout still need to be painted, but this is what my skyline looks like to this point on a typical night. The stadium to the right is a model of old Riverfront Stadium in Cincinnati; I have field lights and other lights that I am currently installing to make it look realistic for ballgames; the skyline is made up of various skyscrapers from around the U.S. The Sears (or Willis) Tower is the centerpiece of the city; with the Chase Tower in Indianapolis directly to it's right. To the left front is a partial model of the World Trade Center Complex as it was pre 9/11. The entire downtown area is a grid of 9 blocks centered around a park with a model of the Chicago Water Tower in it. As stated earlier, all of my buildings still need to be painted, and I will be starting this project one building at a time this winter. All of the skyscrapers(except the Empire State Building) and the stadium were scratch-built in my garage over the past six years. The street lighting system consists of 31 lights and is from Walthers. The EL tracks surround the downtown area and I mainly use this for trolley traffic. The mainline surrounds the various neighborhoods of the city and I am currently working on a expansion plan for the future that will create a more neighborhood feel around the city center. I hope to be posting more updates soon.
OOPS! Sorry Everyone...I'm new to picture posting. Here is a link to my site that HAS the picture of my city I just described. Thanks!
You can click on the picture on the main site to enlarge it on a new page.
http://sites.google.com/site/joesurbanchicagosite/
As I have three urban areas to deal with, I make a distinction between urban and city. I grew up in NYC (Rockaway) and I agree, the only visible tracks are either the subway (El) or further out in Brooklyn or Queens. To me, that is urban. As is East Hartford CT or to some extent Hartford, CT. The city is Manhattan and tracks in contemporary terms is not really visible. If you model 30s or 40s that is not the case, but even then the "city" is a backdrop.
Springfield MA, my major "city" or urban area, is different. Union Station and it's elevated yard is very obvious. The track wrap around the downtown area, with it's share of tall buildings, but they don't run through the downtown area. The tracks in Hartford also miss the downtown area and the buildings are just backdrop for the yard north of the city. The main line runs just to the west and is visible among the buildings or from roads.
Yes big buildings are expensive, but then so are some of the large industries in the more rural areas and take up far more space. Like everything else, city/urban modeling needs selective compression.
As to time spent on scenery, why does modeling a sidewalk (available ready made or easily scratch built) or adding people, mail boxes, trash etc. take more time than tufts of grass, decent looking trees, realistic ponds or rivers, corn fields etc. etc.? Well crafted, realistic scenery takes time in any form.
Co-owner of the proposed CT River Valley RR (HO scale) http://home.comcast.net/~docinct/CTRiverValleyRR/
I built a pretty nice urban layout years ago, which I have a lot of VHS tape of, but precious few photos. Mine was definitely "destination" based, with a terminal yard and a large passenger depot. The whole scene occupied a shelf layout, approximately 11' long x no more than 2', and most of it was about 18" deep (N scale)
Here's a rough sketch of the track plan...
As you can see, the main line was basically a folded dogbone with return loops at each end. The photos were shot on the left side of the partition. The upper area of the left side was densely developed with a varity of urban type structures, which were on a rise over the tracks. The Passenger station was down in a pit, with lower platforms, and a single higher level platform that was served by commuter trains (I had some ConCor RDC's back in the day!). From the downtown, which was across the street from the station, the roads sloped down hill toward the industrial tracks in the foreground, where I had some large DPM factory buildings. The city scape wrapped around to the left, with an elevated roadway and a ramp down to a small intermodal terminal.
It was a really fun layout to build, working out the engineering to get the structures lit, street lighting etc. It was also fun to operate, with the branch line over on the rural side, and the compact but functional yard.
One of these days I'll have to do a more detailed drawing of it...
I'm working out a revision to my current track plan now to try to add a more urban scene. I really do like the effect of a big city. (Well, Cumberland is a big-ish city!) But I'd love to do the area around Hillen Terminal in Baltimore... maybe as a One Track module.
I also work in a small town, (and live there, too) so I guess you could say I'm a neo-urbanist...There's just something about those old stacks of bricks downtown and out by the railroad that fascinate me...
Route of the Alpha Jets www.wmrywesternlines.net
DoctorWayne:
As the one who initiated this thread I have followed most of the comments and learned alot. Your layout size seems to be ideal to display urban, small towns, with the river and rural area between them. Your modeling is very good and well thought out.
My layout room is small so my entire layout will be urban. Not New York City urban, not even downtown Norfolk or Portsmouth Virginia. An urban flavor can be modeled so anyone seeing it will know they are looking at an urban industrial area. Many of your pictures show exactly what I am talking about. The viewer knows that there is more city behind the railroad scene.
I thank you and all the others who contributed to this thread with meaningful comments and suggestions.
Bob
Photobucket Albums:NPBL - 2008 The BeginningNPBL - 2009 Phase INPBL - 2010 Downtown
rclangerDoctorWayne:As the one who initiated this thread I have followed most of the comments and learned alot. Your layout size seems to be ideal to display urban, small towns, with the river and rural area between them. Your modeling is very good and well thought out.My layout room is small so my entire layout will be urban. Not New York City urban, not even downtown Norfolk or Portsmouth Virginia. An urban flavor can be modeled so anyone seeing it will know they are looking at an urban industrial area. Many of your pictures show exactly what I am talking about. The viewer knows that there is more city behind the railroad scene.I thank you and all the others who contributed to this thread with meaningful comments and suggestions.
And I thank you for your kind remarks.
Robt. Livingston Looking back over the history of model railroading, I was always impressed that Railroad Model Craftsman seemed to cover more of the Eastern subject matter I was interested in than Model Railroader. WHY were certain forms of model railroading favored in one magazine over the other? It was clearly not random. I suspect editorial policy did indeed shape the tone and content of the two mags. Maybe MR has tried to be all things to all men, while other magazines have cultivated more narrow interests.
Looking back over the history of model railroading, I was always impressed that Railroad Model Craftsman seemed to cover more of the Eastern subject matter I was interested in than Model Railroader.
WHY were certain forms of model railroading favored in one magazine over the other? It was clearly not random. I suspect editorial policy did indeed shape the tone and content of the two mags. Maybe MR has tried to be all things to all men, while other magazines have cultivated more narrow interests.
Well first to state the obvious, Hal Carstens was from New Jersey and Al Kalmbach was from Wisconsin, and both had their publishing companies headquartered in their home state. A lot easier to do an article on a railroad near you !!
MR I think has always been aimed more at the layout builder, RMC more aimed at the model builder. When Model Craftsman started, it was a mag for guys who liked to build models of things - boats, planes, and trains. It evolved into Railroad Model Craftsman, but kept the emphasis on building models. This made sense, at that time people who built models and often had a very simple layout to operate them on at best - the point was building the model (often completely from scratch) and getting it to work.
Model Railroader was aimed more at people who wanted to build a working layout, and were more interested in that than in just building models for their own sake. (BTW in the early days MR was sort of the unofficial - offical mag of the NMRA, and carried NMRA news, meets etc.) This is just a guess, but I bet over the years MR has had more articles on scenery than RMC for example.
Robt. Livingston The typography and layout was cruder in RMC, some of the writing was poorer, but the subjects were more interesting to me.
The typography and layout was cruder in RMC, some of the writing was poorer, but the subjects were more interesting to me.
I've written and submitted several articles over the years, the only mag to publish one was RMC...so I would have to agree they may have some "quality control" issues.
wjstixAlthough people did have parts of their layouts dedicated to urban railroading, I think it wasn't until George Sellios came along that people really started to realize what could be done in that area. As far as why more people don't do it, I guess it's different for different people. People living in crowded urban areas maybe want to have their layout be a "getaway" to a more rural, scenic area...and maybe people living in rural areas feel more comfortable modelling that, compared to modelling "the big city"?? Cost could be a factor, plaster and such for hills and valleys are cheaper than dozens of structure kits.
Although people did have parts of their layouts dedicated to urban railroading, I think it wasn't until George Sellios came along that people really started to realize what could be done in that area. As far as why more people don't do it, I guess it's different for different people. People living in crowded urban areas maybe want to have their layout be a "getaway" to a more rural, scenic area...and maybe people living in rural areas feel more comfortable modelling that, compared to modelling "the big city"??
Cost could be a factor, plaster and such for hills and valleys are cheaper than dozens of structure kits.
It could also be a matter of skill. Natural scenes are hard to say "you did it wrong". There is a lot of variation and leeway. Rarely is anything ever straight, sharp, or precise. It might also be a matter of finding materials. Or it may be that people want their railroads to go from one town to another so they make smaller towns so they can have more in-between spaces.
Hi from Belgium,
A few months ago I iniate a post about city/urban modeling.
This post was very interesting about all the answer I received and also all the links you provided.
I have begun the construction of a big city in Nscale for my Maclau River RR set in the end of the thirties.
Because of a coming move work is stopped a little bit for now.
The town is in fact a divider between my Port Allen and the Yard area, its fit in an roughly 4.5 feet by 3 feet. I was asking for well detailled town even I am modeling in Nscale. Level is 4.2 feet from the ground so your eyes are nearly in the streets. For now only building construction and a few laying track are on the way.
What I have learn about the construction of the town of Corrinnesburg?
Well it's fun to do and I like the way trains are litteraly small insects at the feet of the skyscrapper.
But don't forget two thinghs about urban modeling, it's time consuming and very expensive because a lot of model are needed whithout speaking about all the cars and people to populate it.
Whithout no doubt you are easily to a minimum of 500/1000$ models to make a medium sized town!
I have bought nearly all the models aviable of urban building from DPM, Lunde, Walthers and the list is long.
Kitbashing and scratchbuilding is necessary if you want big buildings.
In some case I have made rubber molds of the models using the manufacturer parts as master to create big buildings from my own design and to save money. Beleive me it's time consuming!
Roads are made of stryrene or plaster.
Now I am on the way to build the big station with a six tracks underfloor. I starded whith two heavily modified Vollmer Nscale Baden-Baden station, whith now flat roof and an different wall arrangement.
On the other side of the town is also a small downtoww project with smaller building.
I am looking for some skyscrapper of www.custommodelrailroad.com which look great even if a little bit expensive.
This town take a lot of time to do and even it was fun, I don't repeat such project on the expanding Maclau River.
By example I was able to construct the benchwork, lay track and sceniked my yard in a two months to an average finished look but it's take the same time to just complete a small street with all the buildings and details.
So good luck for your urban projects.
Marc
The site of the town just behind port
Where Corinnesburg is on the Maclau route
tomikawaTTIn the urban areas I am most familiar with, the railroads are simply overwhelmed by massive nearby structures, many of which serve no rail-related function. Then, too, since the real estate value is astronomical, the air rights over the rails are a valuable commodity.
In the urban areas I am most familiar with, the railroads are simply overwhelmed by massive nearby structures, many of which serve no rail-related function. Then, too, since the real estate value is astronomical, the air rights over the rails are a valuable commodity.
You took the words right out of my mouth! I think that's the reason right there. In a big city, buildings and auto infrastructure (read: freeways, wide, multi-lane-with-parallel parking streets) are king. Railroads might still play a vital economic role to that city, but when it comes to modeling it, and if you wanna be more or less prototypical, you're gonna have to do away with classic layout "ideals" such as grade crossings (in most cities, railroad ROW is grade-separated), mountains and tunnels, etc.
Even if you had a large layout space, there simply isn't much room to do a big city justice. If you were to do an N-scale version Chicago, the Sears Tower would be 9 feet tall!
I live in a big city, was born and raised, I consider myself an urban dweller by nature. But even in N scale, for me at least, a largely urban layout won't be that fun. Of course, if I had a much larger layout space, I can model a fraction of a city, and even model rail-related locales like an intermodal yard, a large multi-track passenger terminal, commuter and/or light rail operations, etc. But I'm not gonna have room to make many mountains and hills.
The best thing to do is model a "hint" of a city - either through a backdrop or false front structures or the like. Have a freeway run along the backdrop. If you want to model multi-story buildings you can, but don't expect to model an entire city skyline, even if your layout space was the size of an airplane hangar.
Metro Red Line If you want to model multi-story buildings you can, but don't expect to model an entire city skyline, even if your layout space was the size of an airplane hangar.
Really, this layout is only 15x18 http://prrnortheastcorridor.com/NORTHEASTCORRIDORHO.html
hi
a lot of talk, what is needed is more precise use of words.
No one can ever do justice to greater urban area's, but no one can ever do justice to the UP in Wyoming or the Santa Fe through New Mexico too.
Mistake # 1, never confuse an urban area with downtown or the city.
Bill Denton built Chicago (Kingsbury branch); a wonderful pike. Lance Minheim built and is building Miami. If you look well in most bigger urban area's, not in the city, you will find quite buildable places. Who has not seen a rainy Brooklyn at 3 AM. Some of the old hats even remember the Milwaukee based KR&DC.
Mistake #2, also John Allen modeled an urban area. George Sellios had a good look at John Allen's layout, he was defenitely not the first; and imho not the most inspirationally.
Mistake #3: you don't need a hangar for an urban layout. As our metroman stated you can only model a hint of a big city. This is what we all are doing all the time, whether it is Abo County or Orange County or New Jersey. Just a hint of coalmining operations in West Virginia, but how well was it done on Tony Koester's Coal Fork Extension. Just a hint of the Milwaukee Beer Line, what a nice little layout it was.
I am born and raised in Amsterdam, across the big pond, and I must admit it costs me years to realise where to look. A nice exemple can be seen in MRP 2009, page 76 a track plan with a European Flavor, modeling the larger Vienna urban area. As ever the city side was modeled. But the picture of the house track in that backyard alley really struck me. What an awesome model this could be, you just have to see it. And road crossings all around. So now we have mistake #4.
After Henry Ford brought out his model-T in the 20's life changed. Vast area's of our countries are suburban; not only to day but dating back to the 30's in USA, to the 50's in Europe. So broaden your view to the larger urban or suburban area's. In my home town (Bussum) were three large industrial plants, still operational through the 60's, beside three teamtracks and a freighthouse. And six roadcrossings; the gates are down often with more then 10 trains, in both directions every hour of the day. I've seen so many pictures of cityroads crossing tracks throughout the States. Just turn your back to the city.
BTW Lance Mindheim's Down Town Spur isn't even on the 30's Sandborn Maps. The area was still out of town in that decade (my guess, not 100% sure).
Paul
Metro Red LineRailroads might still play a vital economic role to that city, but when it comes to modeling it, and if you wanna be more or less prototypical, you're gonna have to do away with classic layout "ideals" such as grade crossings (in most cities, railroad ROW is grade-separated), mountains and tunnels, etc. Even if you had a large layout space, there simply isn't much room to do a big city justice. If you were to do an N-scale version Chicago, the Sears Tower would be 9 feet tall!
Railroads might still play a vital economic role to that city, but when it comes to modeling it, and if you wanna be more or less prototypical, you're gonna have to do away with classic layout "ideals" such as grade crossings (in most cities, railroad ROW is grade-separated), mountains and tunnels, etc.
You seem to confuse "modeling railroading in a city" with "modeling the downtown area of a big city".
If you want to model an entire big city (or even just the entire downtown area of a big city), then you need a lot of space.
If you want to model railroading in a big city in a realistic looking way, you can do a very credible and interesting thing in e.g. 4x2 feet (in H0 scale, to boot).
But instead of just repeating all the arguments that already has been discussed in this thread, I respectfully suggest you read all the posts in the thread and think about what has been pointed out.
Metro Red Linebut when it comes to modeling it, and if you wanna be more or less prototypical, you're gonna have to do away with classic layout "ideals" such as grade crossings (in most cities, railroad ROW is grade-separated), mountains and tunnels, etc.
but when it comes to modeling it, and if you wanna be more or less prototypical, you're gonna have to do away with classic layout "ideals" such as grade crossings (in most cities, railroad ROW is grade-separated), mountains and tunnels, etc.
This important aspect is retained in the planning of our CR&T layout -- the Pennsy surrounds the Conemaugh Road & Traction representing the city's passenger & shortline freight with those interurban grade crossings, etc. The Pennsy portion will have major (but limited) industry sidespurs for freight and passenger interchange, and yet will still require the majority of staging yards.
Pennsy's mainline was the first "cross-state Pennsylvania Turnpike."
In Western Pennsylvania, the (generally) 4-track mainline (now NW 3-track) from Altoona on the east slope, thru Horseshoe Curve & Gallitzin Tunnels, and down the west slope through Johnstown was always isolated somehow from the urban center's activity.
In the middle of Johnstown & Bethlehem Steel...
PRR's Stone Bridge -- elevated mainline is in middle of Johnstown.
Union Station Passenger Platform -- 2 tenths mile east of Stone Bridge.
Between major Western Pennsylvania towns, like Johnstown and Greensburg, the Pennsy 4-track mainline would become less than 4-tracks, like when splitting to both sides of the Conemaugh River's Conemaugh Gap, down to a 2-track mainline, 3-4 miles west of the two above downtown pictures.
Conemaugh Gap Tracks -- seen every few pictures just west of town.
Bethlehem Steel had apx. 12 miles of plants in Johnstown, and when the PRR "interchanged" with the Freight Car Division (home of the BethGon), it never lost that "4-track interstate-flavor" even when running through the middle of a large Bethlehem Steel Plant interchange yard -- just isolated from the city's culture.
Conemaugh Road & Traction circa 1956
City modeling railroading is modeling the City as a whole. It is a larger Category of Urban Model Railroading that really encompasses everything (from the city limits to the center of city). While something Like a Switching Layout encompasses only a small part of Urban Model Railroading. When I Mean “City” I’m talking about a population center of 100,000 or more with buildings over Ten Stories with a large railroad station. Anything lower in population is a town but is considered Urban. In Cities, most likely the main line is Grade Separated. There are few examples of City model railroads ex: Franklin & Manchester, Rod Stewarts Layout and plenty examples of urban switching type model railroads. Ex Sweet Home Chicago, Milwaukee beer layout. City model railroading must not be confused with switching. Switching model railroads are just a “Slice” of the city and tend to be more protypical because there is less space needed, while the City railroad attempts to represents the whole city and it is more constrained by modeling space. It can be done in a small space with the right scaling. A Rarer subset of City Model railroading are layouts with “full” model traction or Subway/El systems and mainline railroading I’ve seen very few “city” layouts in MR but allot of Urban Switching layouts. Below is a 3d view of My Layout. Right now its 80% finished
with 35+ square blocks and almost a Hundred buildings. Most of the tall ones are Scratchbuilt ..
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.
hi,
accatenaryCity modeling railroading is modeling the City as a whole. It is a larger Category of Urban Model Railroading that really encompasses everything (from the city limits to the center of city).
I do not know what you are talking about. I know quite a lot of 100000+ inhabitants city's. All are way bigger then your little empire. You also are building just a slice of the real thing.
When you like to differentiate between modeling the "city" versus scenes in a city, you are welcome. All to often, also in large city's both sides of the tracks were treated differently. In to many "towns" you could find the "city" at one side and an industrial area at the other side of the tracks. Focussing on commutor trains, metro-like systems or streetcars is a choice you can make. I do not like the every 5 or 15 minutes appearence the very same train on high frequented lines. I like the view actually, but operating such a pike seems boring to me. And switching between the 12 trains going east and the 12 going west every hour of the day in my home town (pop 40000) means waiting in the hole for hours. The same number of trains, even more near and in bigger towns or city's, brings no operational fun for me. So I started looking to the other side of the tracks.
At stake here is a proper use of words; I do not like you claiming the word city. You are modeling passenger operations in a city, I am modeling transloading operations in the city.
Paulus Jas hi, I do not know what you are talking about. I know quite a lot of 100000+ inhabitants city's. All are way bigger then your little empire. You also are building just a slice of the real thing. At stake here is a proper use of words; I do not like you claiming the word city. You are modeling passenger operations in a city, I am modeling transloading operations in the city. Paul
A "slice" but a bigger slice then 5 or 10 blocks that a "transloading" or just a switching layout would occupy. I'm modeling beyond the factory Facades that line the Railroad. City modeling is just that. I model freight, Passenger and surface transit operations and they how react with each other. Its all part of a city wide system.
we agree on the slice, remains one issue:
You are modeling the facade along your surface lines, I do the very same. Only your surface line facade is different from mine. Yours contains theaters, shops (boutiques) and offices, mine is less fancy.
This thread is about city/urban layouts. If you want to use the word city only for the posh high rise part of town you have at least in the USA a major problem. In to many towns the downtown area is pretty much run down. Scattered along major boulevards are shopping and office centers. Witch cities still have surface transport. Compared with Europe only a few.
And let us be honest; even in major towns in the past were never so many lines as in your dreamscape. George Sellios and you are great dreamers, but both pikes have nothing to do with reality. Don't get me wrong, I do love mr Sellios's dream, but a dream it is.
Your layout or mr Sellios's are also only 5 or 10 blocks long due to severe selective compression. And you tell me that my 5 or 10 blocks don' t count. As i said before we are just looking at a different direction.
When leaving Utrecht Central 50 years ago, to the North was downtown or the city and to the south were industrial zones and blue collar residential area's. Today a huge Congress building is facing the south side of the station. Will be the same in your country.
You also (like me) are using the word city in two different connotations. From the city to the city-limits is using the two meanings in one line. It is about the proper use of words; I often hear real estate agents using the word city-centre. They made me clear I could not buy a farm in the city-centre. Debating the meaning of a word is fruitless when the word can be and is used in different ways.
Bill Denton's Kingbury Branch is in Chicago (city?), but not along the loop. Your layout is in the high-rise centre of Philadelphia. BTW I remember having seen some tracks in the street pictures in downtown Philadelphia in the 50's. Probably a condo paradise today.
Although severely compressed my layout gives you two benefits: the feeling of up and personal small freight/passenger/trolley diorama and the feeling of the city as a whole as viewed from all sides not just one or two. Its not just operations it’s a 3d journey from one area to another. Its 5 or 10 blocks x 10 blocks x 25 stories.. 3 dimension backdrop is what I call it.
I don't consider detailing an urban or city environment all that much different than detailing a town or industry or decent countryside. All take time to get right. Super-detailing urban type areas is probably harder than other environment.
A city or big urban area does take up space, witness the Chicago city layout at the Museum of Science and Technology (see pictures below). If you look hard enough they put in details, but you won't find a back alley with trash.
I will have several "urban areas" on my planned layout, some just Main Street, one a multi-block area next to Springfield Union Station. Would be nice to have a bigger Springfield, but time and money AND space will not permit.
Link to construction details of the HO layout.
Alan
accatenaryI'm modeling beyond the factory Facades that line the Railroad. City modeling is just that. I model freight, Passenger and surface transit operations and they how react with each other. Its all part of a city wide system.
The city makes a nice (albeit a little too big for my taste) backdrop, but the interesting part is the railroading.
How about telling us a little about how you model the railroading part of your city layout ? How long is an operating session ? How many operators ?
What kind of staging do you have ?
How many freight trains do you run in an operating session ? What do they do ?How do you route your freight trains - is there just one route, or several ?
How many passenger trains ? What do they do ? How do you schedule passenger trains ?
How does transit and heavy rail interact ?
Smile, Stein, curious