Wow-- this has been a busy week on the MR site with lots of good topics and terrific particiption by lots of folks! You all have really good thoughts and opinions, and I was really intrigued by a lot of the responses and suggestions.
A Sense of Place
Over the last year or so I have been pouring over every track plan I can get my hands on, from every source imaginable-- especially from back issues of Model Railroader and all those Great Model Railroads, and Planning Guides editions, but also from the Internet and even in these forums. I love looking at them and studying them to find out all the neat things or tricks people have done, and many of them I have literally studied over and over until the pages are coming loose!
Sometimes when I look at a plan though I get a feeling I can't quite put my finger on-- everything looks okay, nice trackage, scenery, staging-- the whole bit-- and yet something just seems out of place with it somehow. I look at the pictures accompanying the plan and they look good. The trains are nice-looking and usually well detailed, and there's usually a lot of care taken to make the scenery, structures and back-ground look good and fit together-- and I just can't quite shake the idea that there's something I'm missing when I'm looking at the plan.
Well, last night I figured it out-- it dawned on me all of a sudden what it is... a sense of place. And by that I don't mean where the layout is located (supposedly) geographically, or regionally, or what the town names are or anything like that-- I mean, much more locally: how do people get around in that space? (I reckon they take the train! Duh ) I was looking at one specific layout plan (whose it was and which one doesn't really matter) and it just hit me that there's lots of stuff for the train to do-- it can go over to the coal mine and pick up loads or drop off cars; it can spot cars at the warehouse or transport coal to the power generating plant; or it can interact with all of the other rail-oriented industries spotted around the layout.
And I'm not picking on this particular plan-- after I noticed what I did I started thumbing through lots of issues and saw it in plan after plan after plan...
How do the *people* that "live" there get around?
You see, the layout I was looking at was very, very nicely constructed and well-scenicked, and any one of us would have looked at the pictures and said "Man, I *wish* I could do *that*!!!" and meant it quite sincerely.
And on this plan, which by the way was *not* a shelf layout, there were "towns" designated here and there, but aside from a parking lot here and there or a hint of a road now and then, there was no ability for the people who supposedly live there to get from one place to another.
And I realize that there are a lot of selective omissions in this hobby-- people do what they have to do to fit in the stuff they want to model and give a lick and a promise to the rest and hope it gets by. I realize that, I do. But this wasn't that kind of situation. Rather, the longer I looked at the plan and studied the placement of the buildings and such, it looked more like the modeler just "sprinkled" the structures around the layout such that every area kinda had something to do in it.
And okay, that's not even such a huge thing either. I understand space constraints and the desire to "spread things out" a little so that its not all crammed-in together-- i get that too. But it didn't seem like that was the situation here either. As Iooked at the plan, and at the accompanying pictures of the layout, it really hit me that there was *no way* for an inhabitant of that space to drive from one place to another. There was no sense of "place"-- it was just buildings stuck here and there with railroad spurs and decorated very nicely. And I'm not knocking either the track plan, the "operational" aspect (from the train's point-of-view), or any of the individual modeling, scenicking, or painting or weathering-- all of that was done beautifully. But there was just nothing there that felt like it tied it all together.
So here's my questions for today:
When you look at a layout (yours or anybody's), have you ever had that feeling? Or else a feeling that you couldn't really "put your finger on", that in retrospect might be something like that? When you plan your layout, do you think of that? Does it matter to you whether the imagined inhabitants of the spaces you create could actually *use* that space? Regardless of whether the roads all actually connect or not-- does it *seem* to fit together or do you just "sprinkle" some buildings around, hook up the track to it-- give it a placename for the operating schedule and call it a day?
How much does a "sense of place" matter to you-- or perhaps a better way of phrasing it might be: "continuity of space" ???
As usual, I'm looking forward to your thoughts and opinions!
OH, and if you *have* places you'd like to share-- however they got that way-- feel free to post pictures, I love looking at all your pictures too!
John
Well John if you modeled Thurmond WVA on the C&O / CSX mainline
You'll know from doing some research that Thurmond has no traffic lights and it wasn't till the 1930s that they put in a car bridge accross the river
and still doesn't have a main street per se just enough room to squeeze between the tracks and
Downtown buildings
It's changed very little in 100 years and with a population of 6 it saves on buying all those little plastic people
The only way in and out of town was by train
One of many reasons why I chose to model it
I hate making streets and don't care for the look of "plasticville " towns that take up space and detract from the trains
If i wanted to model towns and streets i'd have done slot cars
TerryinTexas
See my Web Site Here
http://conewriversubdivision.yolasite.com/
That was one of the things I wanted to address with my planned shelf layout (which I STILL haven't had the opportunity to build!). After visiting several towns and seeing the way the buildings, roads, and rails all fit together, it clicked in my mind that all three are an integral part. That's assuming, of course, that you're modeling a city/urban/industrial scene. If you prefer pure scenery, that's a whole other ball of wax.
So I sat down and came up with this:
And what can I say? I really like grade crossings!
Robert Beaty
The Laughing Hippie
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The CF-7...a waste of a perfectly good F-unit!
Then it comes to be that the soothing light at the
end of your tunnel, Was just a freight train coming
your way. -Metallica, No Leaf Clover
C&O FanOne of many reasons why I chose to model it I hate making streets and don't care for the look of "plasticville " towns that take up space and detract from the trains If i wanted to model towns and streets i'd have done slot cars
Excellent solution!
So what about other layouts? Have you ever had that feeling looking at someone else's layout? I suspect you have based on your view of "plasticville" towns.
Arjay1969 That was one of the things I wanted to address with my planned shelf layout (which I STILL haven't had the opportunity to build!). After visiting several towns and seeing the way the buildings, roads, and rails all fit together, it clicked in my mind that all three are an integral part. That's assuming, of course, that you're modeling a city/urban/industrial scene. If you prefer pure scenery, that's a whole other ball of wax. So I sat down and came up with this: And what can I say? I really like grade crossings!
That's it exactly. Nice drawing too.
I think its probably easier to do it with shelf layouts since they are pretty shallow and you can scratch in a road here and there and then use your imagination to figure out how they fit. The plan I was looking at was a larger, more "traditional" type plan (I just know I'm going to get myself in trouble for saying that! ). And while it looked really nice, it just didn't quite seem right-- I think for the reasons I outlined in my post.
Thanks for your comments!
This scene on Seth Neumann's layout definitely has a "sense of place." It replicates a scene in Niles Canyon, including that kink in the highway, on the old SP and WP routes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niles_Canyon
Mark
markpierceThis scene on Seth Neumann's layout definitely has a "sense of place." It replicates a scene in Niles Canyon, including that kink in the highway, on the old SP and WP routes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niles_Canyon Mark
That's very cool too. I don't think I've ever noticed lines painted across the grade crossing before. I'll have to try and remember to look for that. Do you have shot that shows the intersecting road, closer to the rr overpass?
Indeed, John, I think I know just what you are talking about. Layouts that have not really been well thought out often end up with some industries and structures that appear to have just plopped down out of the sky onto the layout with no vehicle, or other access, from any point. Often the hobbyist has overly considered the operations factor in locating his sidings and industries, but failed to consider what the infrastructure surrounding it would be like. Of course, for those industries set against the backdrop, or at the layout's edge, one can at least assume that the roads and streets are there just "off stage" and thereby get away with the omission.
Most of my roads and streets appear to originate off the layout's edge, or from behind dense stands of trees, or large buildings, at the backdrop. In my rural areas I have the tops of smaller buildings and church steeples sticking out above the trees to imply that some roads that really aren't there at all continue on into the hills. However, I've included visible and obvious road access to each and every one of my industries and, as you imply, feel that such is necessary to convey a true sense of reality to a pike.
And indeed, layouts lacking logical infrastructure do immediately appear a bit "strange", or have an distinctly artificial feel about them right from the visitor's first glance. It's a mistake one doesn't too often see on layouts constructed by experienced hobbyists, but it is not at all unusual to find on the 1st and 2nd layouts built by novices.
CNJ831
jwhitten That's very cool too. I don't think I've ever noticed lines painted across the grade crossing before. I'll have to try and remember to look for that. Do you have shot that shows the intersecting road, closer to the rr overpass?
Sorry, that's the only shot I have of the scene.
One of my druthers was "everybody can get to work", so I consciously included roads and parking lots in my scenery plan.
You can see this in my town "Lakefield", where the village streets run perpendicular to the track. Only the "main drag" has a grade crossing - the other streets dead-end at the tracks or in industries in logical blocks. Carson City yard has less of this, but I tried to include access roads and parking lots in the yard where they made sense.
Any photos wouldn't look so great, as everything on my layout is "pinkalicious" right now
CNJ831Indeed, John, I think I know just what you are talking about. Layouts that have not really been well thought out often end up with some industries and structures that appear to have just plopped down out of the sky onto the layout with no vehicle, or other access, from any point. Often the hobbyist has overly considered the operations factor in locating his sidings and industries, but failed to consider what the infrastructure surrounding it would be like. Of course, for those industries set against the backdrop, or at the layout's edge, one can at least assume that the roads and streets are there just "off stage" and thereby get away with the omission. Most of my roads and streets appear to originate off the layout's edge, or from behind dense stands of trees, or large buildings, at the backdrop. In my rural areas I have the tops of smaller buildings and church steeples sticking out above the trees to imply that some roads that really aren't there at all continue on into the hills. However, I've included visible and obvious road access to each and every one of my industries and, as you imply, feel that such is necessary to convey a true sense of reality to a pike. And indeed, layouts lacking logical infrastructure do immediately appear a bit "strange", or have an distinctly artificial feel about them right from the visitor's first glance. It's a mistake one doesn't too often see on layouts constructed by experienced hobbyists, but it is not at all unusual to find on the 1st and 2nd layouts built by novices. CNJ831
Totally agreed. The layout I mentioned in my opening got the cover shot too :-) That picture looked fine though. I don't know if it was accidental or on-purpose, but the photograph was of one of the areas that did look "well-placed" and connected. It wasn't until I was looking at the track plan and getting the overview sense that it struck me. And when I went back thumbing through other issues, I saw it in other places too. I don't think I noticed it though on shelf layouts though, and I think the reason for that is that its easy enough to imagine that there are connecting roads that are just not modeled.
odaveOne of my druthers was "everybody can get to work", so I consciously included roads and parking lots in my scenery plan.
Yeah, but can you imagine how useful that could be... "Uh, hello Boss? Yeah, I can't come into work today because... um, the guy who created this town didn't think to add any roads...."
"What's that?"
"Oh yeah???"
"You can't fire me! I happen to know that you can't get to work either!"
The Location: Forests of the Pacific Northwest, OregonThe Year: 1948The Scale: On30The Blog: http://bvlcorr.tumblr.com
tbdannyI haven't really seen any layouts that gave me that feeling, at least not that I've noticed. It's something that I've always sort of looked out for without realising in my own layouts, but haven't tried to pick in others. I'll keep an eye out for it now, though.
Uh oh, you'll see it everywhere now!
I'm sorry dude. You might be scarred for life...
jwhittenUh oh, you'll see it everywhere now!I'm sorry dude. You might be scarred for life
I'm sorry dude. You might be scarred for life
Meh - just part of the critical thinking process - looking at things, rather than just taking them at face value. All you've really done is move it from a sub-conscious process to a conscious one - which I can ignore if needed.
jwhitten As Iooked at the plan, and at the accompanying pictures of the layout, it really hit me that there was *no way* for an inhabitant of that space to drive from one place to another. There was no sense of "place"-- it was just buildings stuck here and there with railroad spurs and decorated very nicely. And I'm not knocking either the track plan, the "operational" aspect (from the train's point-of-view), or any of the individual modeling, scenicking, or painting or weathering-- all of that was done beautifully. But there was just nothing there that felt like it tied it all together.
As Iooked at the plan, and at the accompanying pictures of the layout, it really hit me that there was *no way* for an inhabitant of that space to drive from one place to another. There was no sense of "place"-- it was just buildings stuck here and there with railroad spurs and decorated very nicely. And I'm not knocking either the track plan, the "operational" aspect (from the train's point-of-view), or any of the individual modeling, scenicking, or painting or weathering-- all of that was done beautifully. But there was just nothing there that felt like it tied it all together.
If they could drive from one town to the next on the layout, they wouldn't need the train.
The railroad ties it together. Since getting a cab ride is hard, take a drive on a rural interstate highway. There is nothing tying the towns together other than they touch the interstate. You are driving through a cornfield and there is a town and then there is another 20 miles of cornfield. and then another town and then 20 more miles of cornfield There is no obvious way to get between those two towns that you can see from the interstate.
Personally I would consider a model railroad that had roads connecting the various towns toylike (maybe after the railroad session the owner drives his Hot wheels around the layout?) I intentionally do NOT connect towns together by roads.
So here's my questions for today: When you look at a layout (yours or anybody's), have you ever had that feeling? Or else a feeling that you couldn't really "put your finger on", that in retrospect might be something like that?
When you look at a layout (yours or anybody's), have you ever had that feeling? Or else a feeling that you couldn't really "put your finger on", that in retrospect might be something like that?
No sure what your actual question is. What feeling is "that" feeling/
Does it matter to you whether the imagined inhabitants of the spaces you create could actually *use* that space? Regardless of whether the roads all actually connect or not-- does it *seem* to fit together or do you just "sprinkle" some buildings around, hook up the track to it-- give it a placename for the operating schedule and call it a day?
To me the roads connecting and the arrangement of the buildings are two completely different things. To me the buildings have to be arranged in some fashion that looks like they were located intentionally. I do that by trying to maintain some sense of a constant angle or parallel lines between man made objects. The buildings have to be oriented towards roads and spurs in a typical manner.
Sense of place is important but I define it completely differently than you are, I define "sense of place" as the appearance of a scene locates the scene in time and locale. I think of sense of place as looking at the layout and being able to identify that it is a 1950's midwestern town or a 1890's New England town or a 1970's western town.
"Continuity of space" is something I want to avoid. I want to encourage the separation of scenes and locations to encourage the sense that my train has traveled to a different place and NOT just traveled 6 feet to the left of where it was. I do NOT want my trains to be in a continuation of the previous scene, I want them in a different place. No roads will connect any two locations. Even if I have two different towns on different levels in the same area (e.g. Rockland in the lower foreground and St Peters 4" above it and behind it) I would not connect those two places with one road. Each scene may have roads, but the won't connect. I am hoping to have a view block or scenic element of some form, a row of trees, a rock cut, something between scenes specifically to break continuity between areas on the layout.
Dave H. Painted side goes up. My website : wnbranch.com
Dehusman,
I agree with what you're saying - there does need to be a 'need' for the trains to be there. The way I see the original post is that there is a need for a way for people to get around independently of the railroads within towns, and for a 'continuity' in the sense that the roads seem to be part of a bigger network, but not necessarily connected - e.g. the familiar 'road going over the edge'.
John: Good topic as usual.
In my case, my Rio Grande Yuba River Sub travels through the 'northern mines' section of the Sierra Nevada mountains, and except for one town (Sierra City) all of the towns on the layout are 'off-stage'. For instance, the station at Wagon Wheel Gap on the North San Juan ridge serves two towns--North San Juan and Allegheney, but by necessity, they're both somewhere behind a mountain and only accessable by dirt road (this is the Sierra in the 1940's--not a lot of paving has hit here, LOL!). Even the large town of Nevada City (Deer Creek yards) is 'imagineered', simply because I had no space for it. However there are roads leading to the passenger station, freight station and engine facilities.
And of course, the roads end abruptly at the edge of the layout.
I do have a section of California State Hwy 49 that meanders through Sierra City at the foot of the Sierra Buttes, but I'm not satisfied with it at all (road-making and I are not the best of friends!). It's due to be torn out and 're-paved' this summer. However, it does hint that a major state highway somewhat parallels the railroad over the Yuba River watershed.
But as far as long stretches of highway paralleling the tracks, I don't have any. I wouldn't MIND it, of course, but in my 'imagineering', the highway took a different route over the mountains from the railroad.
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!
Just to touch on one aspect of the thread: Generally, I think layouts look more realistic when the roads follow the contour of the track as closely as possible and cross the track(s) at 90 degree angles when possible. At least, each road that crosses the track should probably cross at the same angle, like they would with several city blocks lined up, rather than a several different angles. Even small towns tended to be designed with a business area that had even a few streets laid out parallel and perpendicular to each other. Even mountain towns sought a flat spot with which to locate the business district.
The linear look is easier to pull off on a shelf layout, I think.
For instance, in many 4 X 8 loop track plans, the spurs tend to depart the main at various angles to fill up the center. The buildings tend to follow, and end up being at odd angles to each other, with the roads following as well. That enhances the train set feel of the layout, IMO. But I've seen photos of many layouts that did this and they still captured that sense of place very well.
Look at some of the NMRA Gateway track plans and they try to keep the center of the loop devoted to structures, many not railroad related, in order to keep the alignment of tracks, buildings, and roads consistent with each other. I think its either the Red Wing or some SOO Line based track plan in MR some years ago that also tried to have a linear look to it as well.
- Douglas
Oh, you are going to be so sorry you brought this up! Because I will probably get carried away! Sense of Place has been one of my main and intensifying modeling focuses since before Amtrak. And having a sensible city and town layout with streets and roads that at least seem to go somewhere has been, well, 3rd or 4th on my list of things I wanna have if at all possible.
I am building a freelanced version of the Santa Fe in Galveston in a space about 11 feet square. The railroad comes onto Galveston Island via a two-mile long causeway, paralleled by Interstate 45 on the seaward side of the passage.
The high clearance birdge of the Interstate is barely visible at the right of the picture. A brick road with two narrow lanes used to run alongside the railroad in 19-teens and 20s but long since closed.
I have modeled the rail causeway using about 8 sets of Atlas viaduct top sections and an AHM Scherzer rolling lift bridge.
Haven’t done the highway bridge yet. My causeway is modeled looking north, so left hand is west, right-hand is east. I am putting the highway bridge- the 2 lane 1950 version- on the back-bay side of the rail causeway. I feel it HAS to be there to make the scene complete, but it is not as important as the rail causeway, should not obscure the train scene, I will NOT have moving cars, and its placement to the back of the 14inch deep causeway scene will help to hide the transition between flat modeled bay water and bay scene painted on the background.
Here is a 3D computer rendering done over 10 years when this was all just a dream, showing the orientation of the highway bridge.
Haven’t built the highway bridge as I said, but have gotten a little more worked out on the “pleasure pier” shown in the rendering.
The railroad and causeway actually come in on the “back side” of the island in real life, away from the beach, seawall, pleasure pier, roller coaster, gun emplacement that are on the Gulf side. The tracks are all a mile or so from the Gulf.
But I wanted those fun features on my layout so I moved them to the side with the causeway entry to the island.
I WILL have streets on my layout for autoists to get around but I have created a mammoth traffic problem. The busy highway onto the island will cross the tourist-congested Seawall Boulevard just a few scale feet from a mainline railroad crossing. This intersection really ought to have some complicated traffic controls-- lights at the intersection and crossing gates and all. I guess when I get track and roads laid, I will put in some Bachmann or Model Power non-operating gates and signals and etc, and someday maybe the really electrified thing…
The section just inland of the seawall is a dropdown, required to give a little wiggle room to allow the 6 ½ foot long duckunder causeway section to be short enough to roll out of the way into the middle of the room when not in use.
I didn’t want any trackwork on the dropdown except the straight-through main line to complicate matters. This gives a lot of room to suggest a particular part of the city.
(Sense of place: NOT big city downtown, that’s ANOTHER scene.)
This is to be the entertainment and amusement district along the seawall and the main drag into town, with crowded OLD residential district just off the main drag.
One thing about the Galveston residential districts I think is rarely modeled. Nearly all the blocks have alleys running down the back. And I plan to model a district two blocks deep with the alleys.
Galveston Victorian neighborhoods have big “main” houses on the front of the lot, and smaller houses, often originally built as servants quarters, along the alley. So I can model a variety of “alley houses”, garage apartments, etc. Some houses have access off the alley, some through the yard of the main house. I kitbashed a “dollar junk bin” used plastic house into a generic alley house.
Downtown and the docks in Galveston are another “street” story, so I’m going to post this now and maybe add more later, unless there are too many objections.
dehusmanPersonally I would consider a model railroad that had roads connecting the various towns toylike (maybe after the railroad session the owner drives his Hot wheels around the layout?) I intentionally do NOT connect towns together by roads.
I agree, but that wasn't the situation. This wasn't an issue of not connecting the *towns* but not connecting what was in the town.
dehusman"Continuity of space" is something I want to avoid. I want to encourage the separation of scenes and locations to encourage the sense that my train has traveled to a different place and NOT just traveled 6 feet to the left of where it was.
Again, I agree. But that wasn't the situation.
Would you agree that *within* an alloted space, say a town, you would like to create the illusion or appearance of being a normal space? That's part of the modeling aesthetic that most people strive to recreate. It doesn't require placing every road, foot by foot mile by mile verbatim, but it does require some suggestion that those facilities exist and that someone living in that space is able to inhabit that space in a normal manner rather than being trapped in the scene with no escape. The former sets up a convincing illusion or depiction of reality/
twhiteJohn: Good topic as usual.
Thanks!
twhiteEven the large town of Nevada City (Deer Creek yards) is 'imagineered', simply because I had no space for it. However there are roads leading to the passenger station, freight station and engine facilities.
And I think that's the essential point that I was attempting to make in my opening post. When the modeler takes care to include the hints that it all ties together, the viewer is able to pull it all together even if he/she has to imagine the rest. But when its all out there "plum pudding" style, and there's no obvious manner that ties it altogether-- aside from the train, which in the case of the plan I wrote about-- was not a "commuter" or "trolly" type line-- there were no stations at each location-- there were just industries and whatnot plopped down this way and that, strung together with track and no hint of how you go from one point to another. So in my estimation it did not create a cohesive illusion, even though every other aspect seemed very well executed.
DoughlessJust to touch on one aspect of the thread: Generally, I think layouts look more realistic when the roads follow the contour of the track as closely as possible and cross the track(s) at 90 degree angles when possible. At least, each road that crosses the track should probably cross at the same angle, like they would with several city blocks lined up, rather than a several different angles. Even small towns tended to be designed with a business area that had even a few streets laid out parallel and perpendicular to each other. Even mountain towns sought a flat spot with which to locate the business district. The linear look is easier to pull off on a shelf layout, I think.
Yes, agreed. Because of the limited depth of the shelf layout, it is much easier for the viewer to imagine that things connect "just out of sight" either in front of or behind the actual modeled portion of the scene-- assuming the modeler has made some provisions to provide the viewer with hints as to how that could happen-- a snippet of road leading toward the front or back of the layout. A parking lot that extends toward (and conceptually beyond) the front of the layout thus putting its entrance/exit just forward of the modeled portion. And other tricks, as you suggested.
The plan I was looking at was indeed a more "traditional" plan that was much deeper and not a linear style of layout-- i.e., not a "shelf layout". And in that setting, I think it is much more important for the modeler to provide clues as to how it fits together so as to give each scene modeled a "sense of place" and a "location" within the larger "layout space framework" whether modeled or un-modeled. Although if un-modeled, then at least provides the typical devices to trick the viewer into believing it is part of a larger space.
leighantOh, you are going to be so sorry you brought this up! Because I will probably get carried away!
Nah, I'll probably end up being sorry for some other reason entirely!
I like your concept. Particularly your causeway. It reminds me of one of the layouts I've seen that models the Florida Keys. I think it was in like 2000 or 2001 Great Model Railroads or something like that. The track plan is probably also located in the MRR database. Its a double-decked layout in which one of the decks-- the upper I think-- had a very large portion devoted to the causeway getting to the keys, and it really went a long way to set the scene, establish the locale, and to give the viewer an understanding of how things moved in that space. If you haven't seen it I invite you to go check it out-- if you need it, let me know and I'll see if I can get you a more concrete pointer to the exact issue and date.
leighantmaybe add more later, unless there are too many objections.
No objections on my part, on the contrary, I hope you *do* add more later!
Caveat: Since I am still mucking around in the netherworld, I don't have a square millimeter of scenery. The description refers to my planned end result.
Of necessity, a lot of the roads on my layout will be virtual - existing in my aisleways and imagination, but not modeled. For example, the main route through Tomikawa is located in the operating aisle, with a couple of spur routes running from the aisle edge to disappear behind scenic elements. However, most of the (few) roads that will be more hinted at than modeled are the typical (for the time and place) 'two ruts in the mud,' rural Japanese goat trails. The kids living in the hills get to school by rail, both standard gauge (the coal-hauling Tomikawa Tani Tetsudo) and narrow gauge (Kashimoto Forest Railway.) When I was railfanning the prototype Kiso Forest Railway my UP-bound train was held at one station until the DOWN-bound school train arrived, discharged the 6-16 year olds and departed, so I know this is prototypical.
Unlike typical American practice, in-town streets in rural Japan don't run in nice right-angle grids. They run in all directions, meet at strange angles and take odd bends for no apparent reason. Again, realistically, many of them will be hinted at rather than modeled 'in the round.' I have always planned to use the technique CNJ suggested, having reduced-scale (forced perspective) buildings (and road signs) semi-visible through a screen of intervening vegetation to suggest thoroughfares that aren't really there.
An American might not recognize the scene as having much sense of place. All (s)he has to do is ignore the irimoya roof contours, the kanji signage, the ubiquitous high platforms and the obviously Japanese design of locomotives and rolling stock. It might be hard to overlook the five-tiered pagoda on the hill, and the active sumo ring in its courtyard, but some unobservant people can do it.
Chuck (Modeling Central Japan in September, 1964 - eventually)
Galveston’s history created an unusual downtown district- “the Strand”, a commercial big city street of Victorian era commercial buildings terminating in a 1930s Moderne multistory railroad station and office building.
Even though it cut my passenger station tracks two feet or more short of the end of my benchwork, I am using valuable space for streets and downtown building. WHEN I build the station section, past the end of the passenger tracks are laid out the multi-story depot and railroad office, a divided boulevard with palm trees down the median, and then a block and a half of Victorian downtown buildings. The length of layout taken by the downtown scene would not be entirely wasted. Behind “Exchange Street” (my version of the Strand), warehouse buildings would face “Harbor Drive.” The streets that cross Strand T-end at Harbor Drive rather than continuing because in real life, that IS the end of the world. Or at least the end of the land.
Harbor Drive is the truck access to the port cargo sheds that line the port, with ships visible over the roofs of the cargo sheds (actually collaged onto the background.) And the long cargo sheds hide staging tracks for passenger trains. Harbor Drive serves FOUR functions on the layout. It helps to represent the sense of place. It also is a visual divider between the Santa Fe railroad owned trackage, and the industrial trackage owned by the Navigation District.
old computer rendering of planned scene
Part of the width of the street has a Port Terminal RR track in the pavement. However, because the Santa Fe once had its own tracks to a carfloat about a mile east (toward right on the plan) and ceded some of right-of-way to the Port, it is “grandfathered” to use the port tracks to reach two industries by spurs in the street….an ice plant that provides ice for railroad reefers, ice for the nearby shrimpboat harbor, and cold storage space for a meat distributer.
-Half-built model to go onto a layout section not yet started.
I got a lot of my city information from an old city directory bought at an antique store in a building that used to be the Peanut Butter Warehouse, with a spur track in Harbor Drive.
Isn’t it convenient that wall sections from 2 DPM Goodnight Mattress factory kits can approximate the Peanut Butter Warehouse?
The street in between the ice plant and the peanut butter warehouse allows a view of the shrimpboat harbor, based on Galveston’s “Mosquito Fleet.”
It’s at least in the mockup stage on the “back” section against the background.
Harbor Drive would continue around one-third to one-half the layout, visually diving the Santa Fe tracks from the Port Terminal tracks.
I showed the gray line of Harbor Drive ending near the export grain elevator but I think I can squeeze it in almost to the sulphur dock.
None of this is exactly to prototype, but I think it helps give a sense of place.
Not a whole lot of need if you model 1900 or earlier. Before the arrival of the automobile, railroads were sought after (and many a bribe paid) to come to a given town because going between towns was so painful otherwise. However, the coming of the railroad quickly put the long distance stagecoach lines out of business where the routes competed. Many of the dirt roads that weren't needed for nearby farm access outside of town quickly reverted to their natural state.
Railroads in the streets - dirt or paved - were the norm, not the exception. Many a town had the railroad main line running down main street. Streets in larger towns had both steam and electric/horse-drawn trolley lines. Steam trains, even with their soot, were considered cleaner than horse-drawn vehicles.
Logging camps are another great example. Semi-mobile housing, shops, and sometimes more were moved by rail and set next to the tracks. Then the day would come when there wasn't enough timber left and everything (including track) was moved to a new area to log.
Logging camps were really a semi-mobile form of company towns. In Valdez, Alaska, the man-camp dormitories left over from rebuilding the town after the 1964 Anchorage earthquake are still there, and in use as a low rent hotel. Whittier, Alaska, which was created as an ice-free, protected port to rail connection during WW2 still has the single building which housed most all of the year-round inhabitants. It was the building of a road (1998?) that shares the railroad tunnel under the glaciers which spurred the need for additional and newer housing in Whittier.
Study carefully some of the photos of the bygone eras - they reveal a very different way of life. In a 1911 (may be off by a year or two) of Manhattan there was not one automobile in the scene. There was a freight train running down the street, and horse-drawn vehicles next to stores and street vendors everywhere.
....modeling foggy coastal Oregon, where it's always 1900....
I carefully did my track plan in Atlas RTS, lo these many years ago, and when I was ready to really "visualize" it, I took a bunch of old brass track and laid out most of the plan on the floor. At that point, I started laying out roads. They had to be a reasonable width, and I didn't want them crossing the tracks on turnouts or at highly oblique angles. This caused a few changes to the track plan itself, but overall I am still quite happy with it.
One thing I did not do was insist that all the roads connect. I have an "island" layout, but I'm quite happy to have roads come up to the edge and end. I think it adds to the illusion of a "greater world" out there.
Some years ago, I was showing my layout to a friend. He isn't a train guy, but he's certainly a car guy, and he was able to name all the autos on my 50s and 60s layout. I realized that the average visitor knows a lot more about cars than he does about trains, and it's really the cars that set the era for a layout. The combination of an SD70 and an 0-6-0 causes visitors no consternation at all.
My final "sense of time" suggestion is to use advertising. I love locating old ads and placing them on buildings, fences and the like. Old ads which haven't been seen for half a century bring back memories to all of us.
It takes an iron man to play with a toy iron horse.
jwhitten I agree, but that wasn't the situation. This wasn't an issue of not connecting the *towns* but not connecting what was in the town. <snip> Again, I agree. But that wasn't the situation.
<snip>
I guess didn't understand the question then.
jwhittenWould you agree that *within* an alloted space, say a town, you would like to create the illusion or appearance of being a normal space?
That's part of the modeling aesthetic that most people strive to recreate. It doesn't require placing every road, foot by foot mile by mile verbatim, but it does require some suggestion that those facilities exist and that someone living in that space is able to inhabit that space in a normal manner rather than being trapped in the scene with no escape. The former sets up a convincing illusion or depiction of reality/
You haven't spent much time riding trains have you?
Most of my modeling is fairly narrow shelves18 to 30 inches. So I model mostly the backs of buildings. It is very rare that I model all 4 sides of a building . So I don't model the fronts of buildings that much. As a result in the majority of my scenes there is no "continuity" as you are suggesting. You can't see the fronts of the buildings, so you can't see how people get to or from the buildings. Don't think it really matters. When you are riding a train all you see is the side of the buildings that face the tracks. You can't see how people get to the buildings.
jwhitten When you plan your layout, ... Does it matter to you whether the imagined inhabitants of the spaces you create could actually *use* that space? Regardless of whether the roads all actually connect or not-- does it *seem* to fit together or do you just "sprinkle" some buildings around, hook up the track to it-- give it a placename for the operating schedule and call it a day?How much does a "sense of place" matter to you-- or perhaps a better way of phrasing it might be: "continuity of space" ??? ... ...
When you plan your layout, ... Does it matter to you whether the imagined inhabitants of the spaces you create could actually *use* that space? Regardless of whether the roads all actually connect or not-- does it *seem* to fit together or do you just "sprinkle" some buildings around, hook up the track to it-- give it a placename for the operating schedule and call it a day?
... ...
Great topic, but I'm wondering if 'continuity of space' is the correct description. I'm guessing what you really want to know is "How are our mrr scenes connected to the world beyond the layout, other than by rail?" That has always been a concern with me as well, so I've tried to incorporate roads/streets into all of my scenes.
jwhitten OH, and if you *have* places you'd like to share-- however they got that way-- feel free to post pictures, I love looking at all your pictures too!
LOL "Careful what you ask for ya just might get it!"
As most of you know by now, my layout is centered around a steel mill. That's one of the few types of places where "spaghetti bowl" trackwork is prototypical. Along one side is the mill yard; I put a few roads across it between the structures and the edge of the layout so anybody viewing it would think "...there's how I would drive into that place if I worked there." Here are a few shots from several years ago when this layout was still under construction, if you look closely you can see the roads slicing thru the tracks:
Eventually I decided that wasn't enough. Having mill buildings by themselves seemed kind of sterile, so I decided to add a "business district" just outside of it - to make the mill look like it was in a neighborhood, with the typical bars and eateries where mill workers hang out after the end of their shift. I had to temporarily rig the scene to get the type of photos I wanted, where the aisle was supposedly a parking lot. Here's a closeup of what a visitor would see driving into "The Strip" along River Avenue; you can see the mill entrance guard shack in the distance.
This is intersected by Avery Street, which runs off the layout at the point where I had the camera for this shot:
Of course, I wanted my layout to be more than just a steel mill. So I threw up a view blocker to create an isolated section of "country" main line. Here's one of the small towns, as it would first appear to someone driving into it:
A more overall view:
I do whatever I can to make it look like people can drive to/from each scene, even if the road itself is hidden due to lack of space.
-Ken in Maryland (B&O modeler, former CSX modeler)