I am now working on the scenery part of my new layout. Since I downsized I find I cannot use many buildings I had on the old layout. I am shooting for realistic scenery within reason. I dont want to over crowd the scenery with buildings so I would like to hear from modelers as to what they consider too[*-)] crowded on a layout. Thanks
That all depends upon the landscape that you are modeling.
My layout is urban based layout with a large downtown passenger station. So, in keeping with the theme, I have squeezed 11 large freight houses in a 6’ x 30’ area.
On the other hand, if a layout is designed to run trains through farm country, you need a few barns, silos, farm houses and not much else.
So, tell us more about your layout and your landscaping theme.
Rich
I get my ‘‘fix’’ from building, therefore I have way more then I need. I gotten tothe point of replaceing early builds with better recent builds. Right now I’m building an lumber/coal dealer. No clue where I’ll put it,but will build it anway
But more to your question; I believe it depends on location, small town midwest, would be more open then a bigger,eastern city.I have been in hilly mountain type towns that looks as if .any flat pieace of land was packed. The steeper hills left open ,and then when level was packed again.
Are there enough scale people to support a large city, or would a few stores be good enuff. Then you kinda need a reason for the RR to be there, factory, warehouse ect.
‘‘I’’ have never seen a layout too crowded,but found many too empty.
Bottom line; its your layout
Every layout is different, having its own needs - own image for “what looks right”.
I believe you will know what’s right for you when you see it.
And may I add, sometimes less is more.
OK, you’ve heard that the amount of buildings is very locale dependant. But, I ask what about era? Are you modeling post 1990? Many of those cool 19th century multi-story brick factories which modeler like would have been demolished, or repurposed into housing, storage, or office/performance spaces. No bulk freight generation, you OK with that? Are you modeling the 1940s? Then many of the modern era buildings Summit offers would be anachronisms, and tilt-up construction and Pikestuff-style Butler buildings would be rare and different from today’s style. Lots of generic brick/block commerical buildings of 3 stories or less - you could do blocks of them if you model fairly dense inner suburbs.
As the others have said, it depends on your lay out and your “theme”, or location, etc., etc.
Everybodies answer so far, is right on!
You add what you think fits in with what your modeling. And since you have many buildings from a previous lay out to choose from, you can keep changing arrangments and buildings, to get what your looking for.
The only time I consider a lay out “too crowded” is when every availiable space is filled with track.
I wish you would reconsider your previous “dinasour” reason for not posting photos. I think you have something really interesting going on with the two different scales, and seperate shelf lay outs.
Mike.
PS. Pssst…Rich…speaking of posting photos?..[:-^]
As Rich and others have stated, it depends on location and era. My personal philosophy is to make the buildings, structures, track, etc. spacing as prototypical (realistic) as possible and do any “compression” in-between scenes. I also subscribe to the “less-is-more” approach and detail enough of a town or area to capture to flavor of it rather than add too much. Same goes for weathering.
Tom
Since I found out I could come up with some good looking scratch builds when I get into the do it to it mode I build another one. My layout doesn’t have any room for additional structures so I swap them out to get different a look now and then. I went to using Neodymium magnets (⅛” x ⅜”) to hold my structures in place so they are easy to move around.
All of my structures have lighting so I drilled a 1” hole under each structure for the wiring. All the structures have the same connectors so it’s just lift and unplug the existing structure, plug in the replacement and plop it down on the magnets.
One of the things to consider is roads/streets for your buildings. If these are off layout, the buildings should still be oriented towards them. Also many businesses need places to load/unload trucks, employee parking, customer parking, etc. Houses may need yards.
Otherwise, put in as many as you want.
Paul
Franklin and South Manchester: Too many is never enough.
Pelle Soeborg’s Union Pacific: Six is too many.
.
It all depends on what you want.
.
-Kevin
.
Too many? You know it when you see it, but our eyes can be fooled. There are some psycho/visual issues at work. Brightly colored buildings tend to look more cramped than dull and weathered ones. As a necessity on most layouts buildings - even if rail served – tend to be too close (by measurement) to the tracks and, in many cases, also too close to the streets. And yet they may look just right.
Real prototype sized buildings tend to be much larger than even the “large” buildings you see on most layouts – for example even the Walthers steel mill buildings, which are enormous by plastic kit standards, are dinky compared to real modern steel mill buildings. And if you measure the doors on many model kit structures surprisingly few of them are anywhere near the 80" or so of the normal door. Yet, again, they look right, unless a scale figure is placed too near them, perhaps because our streets and alleys and driveways tend to be far narrower than prototype, utility pole distances tend to be shorter, “generous” turnouts of #8 or #10 would be flange-sequealing tight industrial turnouts on the prototype, and so on.
Very few city blocks on layouts large enough to have city blocks are really full sized, as well. And in most “real” places streets tend to be boringly north/south/east/west, or at least involve more 90 degree angles than the hodge podge you see on some heavily populated layouts, particularly if the modeler tried to “accurately” model grade crossings given our more frequent and far to sharp curves. If you want to be 90 degrees to the track, it is tough to be 90 degrees to the other streets, in other words.
Modelers who strive for accurate prototype sized buildings have different issues and different challenges than the rest of us when it comes to the “right” number of buildings.
Dave Nelson
I like space between more crowded urban areas. So, I don’t build edge to edge. My layout has both built-up sections and empty spaces, and I think it looks better that way.
I hope that when I have built all I need, I will have the good sense to remove less well built structures and replace them with better ones.
Kevin,
For me - the F&SM is a great example of too much. Amazing detail but a bit over-the-top as far as “realism”…
Tom
I agree with Tom’s point of view but I also appreciate where George Selios is coming from, too. Even he is “decluttering” the F&SM and trying to model more open spaces on the layout.
But when I recall my many visits to New England I do understand how the congested “old-world” cities came to be. And the railroad threaded its way through these congested mill towns to a modeler’s delight.
Take a look at this scene (first photo) at Bellows Falls, Vermont.
http://whiteriverdivision.blogspot.com/2016/04/modeling-bellows-falls-tunnel.html
If some of us modeled a scene like this we would surely hear someone say, “you would never see tracks laid under a building like that” yet — here it is.
I’m in this camp as well.
In one case I had a perfectly good grain elevator occupying the center area of a wye. One day I decided to pull that out and replace it with a large, urban, U.S. Mail handling facility with tracks and platforms underneath. Likewise, I replaced my perfectly servaceable, nine-stall roundhouse with a newer version of the Walther’s Modern Roundhouse. I enjoy building structure kits. It was fun to build the kit and make improvements along the way.
A layout is never really “done” but is a work-in-progress.
Cheers, Ed
Ed,
That is an amazing shot. Obviously the camera is fooling the eye given how steep the grade appears to be from the point where the locomotive is to the track under the buildings.
Dave
Telephoto views certainly exaggerate the perspective. From what I’ve read, the roadbed was excavated and lowered several times, recently in the 1970s and again in 2007.
For us modelers it is always nice to know that we can get away with placing a “tunnel” within city limits and point to a real-life existence of the same. Selios has done this on his layout, of course. Maybe places like Bellows Falls were his “excuse”.
Here’s another look but this video doesn’t quite capture the surrounding buildings as well.
Regards, Ed
Exactly seventeen. 18 is too many.
On a ISL you will need industry buildings but,no houses or stores.
Exception being a urban industrial lead then you may add stores or perhaps a strip mall along the street(s) you cross.
Don’t forget to add nonrail served industries.
In city and town scenes you can pack building in wall to wall and it looks good. Country scenes want a fair amount of space between buildings. If you want to make your whole layout city and town scenes you can pack in quite a few buildings. If you want some country scenery with the main line running thru it, you won’t be able to pack in as many.
Building a 1:1 full size mock-up of the layout will let you know how the scenes will look. It is much easier to make changes in cardboard at this point.
.
.
-Kevin
.