I think your pike is fantastic! The attention to detail (hyper-detail) is incredible. You have done so much to replicate Chicago that I don't think a tunnel or bluff is going to make anyone think the scene is in Pennsylvania! Thanks for all you have taught and shown me.
You bring up a great point with any model diorama or railway Chris - if the scene is composed such that viewers intuitively 'get it' re: location/time period, etc. then the other stuff is just practicality/artistic license and doesn't really matter.
I'm enjoying this series, so thank you for putting the time into it! Also, absolutely love to see BRC power on your layout! Esp going through that iconic Chicago industry!
Good points again. Designing a tiny layout, I resigned myself to making it freelance despite a desire to model reality--there wasn't enough space for it. I also designed backwards like you operationally, coming up with a region and schematic after I laid the longest loop of mainline I could fit. I even based the industrial buildings on which cars I already had. I also based the road name on the livery name of the 35 year-old locomotive I had, which also dictated the era for the locale. Somehow I came up with a believable venue (at least for me). I knew and accepted the limitations before starting: steep grades, short cars only--tight radii, short trains, etc. But real railroads also have real limitations--tight radius industrial trackage requires them to use a "handle car" also to couple and un couple. I suggest procuring a copy of "Track Planning for Realistic Operation" by John Armstrong; he's big on having extra track for storage because we're always wanting another cool car model. The main thing is to have fun.🙂 Once again, nice presentation.
Thanks for the description and comments - always helpful to see how others handle the compromises inherent in a small layout. I like Armstrong's book quite a lot, another one of those things I looked at AFTER design and build...and you are correct that limitations in the layout can be entirely prototypical in reality.
The addition of the crossovers is more demanding in terms of workmanship (the trains have to run after all!) than scenic changes, but both follow your mantra of "constant improvement" regardless of whether another layout is in the future. Design-wise, replacing the scenicked tunnel with perhaps an elevated portion of the city does present a challenge in making it look believable. Anyway, I am enjoying seeing your progress and evolution of the layout!
Thanks Jeff and both good points. There needs to be a lot of precision in both the demolition of track and addition of the new turnouts, and certainly so as this is not a Unitrak-based layout. I see lots of folks do these sorts of post-hoc projects and it really is a pardon-our-dust mess for a while. To your second, I agree that a cityscape wouldn't be believable, pretty sure that's why I went for tunnels in the first place as the compromise move. I go back and forth on the matter - I think my conclusion at the end of the video that ripping out or remodeling the tunnels is probably more work than is worthwhile is likely correct, since almost nobody (including myself most days) notices them. They do manage to sort of hide in plain sight while many folks who see the layout exclaim 'that looks like my old neighborhood!'
Just recently ran across your videos. I am just getting back into the hobby after a 30+ year absence. I finally have space and means to do trains. Your layout will inspire how I plan out my layout. Thank you.
Thanks Eric, model railroads are inherently a work of fiction, so I agree that accepting some artistic license is necessary to achieve the bigger goal.
If reach becomes a problem you could use a "helping hand." The type I mean is like a stick with a pistol grip and a trigger on the one end and a couple of "fingers" on the other end. They're commonly used to pick up trash. If you were too cover the fingertips in felt (or something like it) you should be fine. Just an option. Extra tracks, if possible to access by car or truck, can always be rented out as a team track. A team track is a dead end piece of track where (box)cars are stored, for a few days at most, so shipments in lesser volume than a full (box)car can be hauled by truck. Road access is an absolute need. Just another option. Perhaps you may want to look at your layout with somewhat more "commercial" eyes.
Yeah that sounds like a clumsiness magnifier for me at least...I already knock over plenty of stuff even with my level of fine motor skills. Interestingly the bakery area was a team track prior to revising it. It was great, but the bakery ended up being a bit more interesting operationally.
Good idea with the added crossovers for longer runarounds. With no reverse loop, reversing direction would be done by running the engine to the other end of the train, by going around the whole loop, without the x-overs. I noticed both proposed x-overs cross the same way. Maybe consider changing one so there's one of each, like the 2 existing ones, then there'd be 2 of each. The 2 new ones could serve as the ends of a long passing siding if you're into that--using an industrial belt track for a passing siding, that is. Actually, 2 long passing siding since it's a loop. For some reason I'm thinking changing the lower right one because it would make a longer second passing siding with the existing ones. But maybe you've already run it all through your head. Track planning is fun! Cheers!
Thanks Jim. I suspect in the end I'm not going to make significant modification to the track despite some of these issues. It's a ton of work and mess that may not reap dividends vs. just incorporating lessons learned into the next layout.
Ah yes, the next layout.The plan as-is still has a lot going for it operationally. Also it could be incorporated into a larger around the walls layout as a peninsula or part of one. There would be access from both sides and your tour-de-force of superb fine modeling would live on. Love visiting the layout!@@ChicagoCrossingRR
@@4x7layout Thank you very much Jim. At minimum I'll keep this one around, the next will be a shelf layout of Goose Island in Chicago during the 1980's-90's. There are so many great modeling opportunities within what was just a few miles of branch line track that I can't pass up capitalizing on the deep dive into what CCMR just touches on to the left side.
Since most if not all beginners put a tunnel on their first layout, may be you´re not wrong. Chicago is ! Chicago, the real one should have that type of infrastructure where graffitis would be welcome instead of on railcars. Homeless would have a rain / snow free place to gather....or may be a YMCA building for them with trains passing below... I´ve seen your industrial tracks full, always busy.... but no one at train stations. Sure that Metra is a money looser and service should be discontinued ! I know, it breaks your hearth, but then redundant main line could be removed too. Less track to be so costly maintained for that commuter run. Cut expenses just like PC did. Big success to you with happy stockholders....😢 😮 😂 😅 😊
Yeah currently nobody's waiting for the train at Clybourn, but there are a bunch of passengers hanging out at 95th street. Maybe that spells doom for the UP-North line but the old Rock Island is still going strong. I doubt I'd dig up the double-tracked mainline, but layout #2 will be a shelf format from Kingsbury through Goose Island, so that will be predominantly single trackage (plus a few runarounds) outside of North Avenue Yard. Lots more space for scenery, and no reach problems!
From what I see on your track plan there are several pieces of track from the industries that you could have joined into the main lines and thus had runaround or just track that joins back onto the 2 main lines around the track itself thus giving you parking area's for carriages and run around sections etc..
Hi Tim, that was a possibility I'd actually thought about - particularly the track by the petrochemical plant. For the time being I've opted against, mainly due to a lack of room for a turnout based on the track's current configuration.
On the other hand there are often industrial tracks that ones was built but not lounger in use. Still laying there year after year. (At least here in Sweden😁) So instead of removeing them You can make them even more ”not in use”. If You don’t need the space, that is? Anyho! Wonderful work You’v done!👍
Thanks Thomas - it’s a great point and very much the same here in the US. You’re spot on that making the track more a part of the scenery could really help.
I have a real problem with tunnels. They are SUPER rare in most parts of the world. In the real world, they cost an absolute fortune to build - they require a ton of maintenance - and real railway architects will go to any amount of trouble to avoid building them. In the model world, that's where trains stall or derail or do anything they can to make it a pain to reach in and haul them out! I particularly hate when the train track aims unerringly at the only hill for miles around and goes right through the middle of it - rather than heading 50 feet to the side and skirting alongside it - or just having a cutting though which the track passes. Cuttings are MUCH more common...and they can do a similar job of hiding the fact that there is this weird, non-prototypical, oval of track in the middle of you city/countryside. I'm in the process of landscaping my layout - and I have a 5' long cutting running down the back side of the layout - but you see glimpses of the track where the hills dip down a bit - some places, there is dense forest rather than a cutting...road bridges...many excuses to avoid having a tunnel.
At my train club house layout, I actually had a train go into a tunnel at full speed and it came to an abrupt stop, as I tugged it out by the caboose, it was a stop & derailment via spiderweb!
I think the inclusion of the redundant track as abandoned sections is highly prototypical. Many railroads simply abandon sections in place, and only spend the time/money to remove it if it becomes necessary to do so. A good example of this is the railroad siding and bridge serving the Wilkins Rogers Flour Mill in Ellicott City MD, the latter of what is still in place but disused. It also inculcates your layout with a sense of history, both real (former alignments you personally don’t use) and imagined (former alignments of the prototype).
Awesome setup. While watching your video, noticed your Civil Air Patrol Frame. Ironically I finished CAP with the Bill Mitchell award as well. Brought back a lot of memories.
Hi Robert, thanks for the note. I really enjoyed my time in CAP. My composite squadron had a bunch of flight instructors so almost every weekend we used to fly out of Midway Airport for student pilot training, back when that airport was sleepy enough to harbor a lot of general aviation.
I agree on the sidings but would not put them in the areas you indicated. Keep the cross-over on the left front, move the other crossover so it comes out of the curve and is attached to the end of the turnout to #6. For the back, put the crossover right after switch to staging to the other track so you can get to interchange from either track. Put the crossover the other way after the switches to #1 for the runaround. The back runaround will be somewhat shorter than the front one
Hi Eric, Another excellent and thought provoking video. Self critique that you provided in the video validates as “ok” what most of us do as we live with our layouts. Finding solutions to make our small layouts seem larger and plausible at times requires concessions to meet a good enough end point ( so I wouldn’t sweat the tunnel). Adding the additional crossovers might be beneficial for more realistic operations if that is becoming more important to you. In the end, I personally feel the most important part to strive for with a small prototypical layout is for the majority of the parts to support the overall goal/feel and Chicago Crossing nails that! Have a great week! Scott
You make some great points here. I think there are a number of things you could do, but the big question is, do you want to build a new layout? If yes then major changes to this one is indeed a waste of time, but instigating the alterations you listed is like building a new layout. In addition I would lengthen the Metra platform, just one coach length is certainly not practical and there looks to room to double (at least) it. Running round a train is not something the railroad likes to do, it takes time and blocks the main. They like trailing industries that can be switched easily, so don't get to hung up about lack of cross-overs. Run 2 locals, one in each direction. You could remove the tunnels and model a CTA EL section with buildings underneath to disguise the trains. Good luck, we will be watching.
Thanks Andy. There is a shelf layout in the planning stage, but the timeline on it is somewhat ambiguous. The 'worth my time' issue has been an interesting one to play with in my mind. On the one hand, this little layout has been a testbed for a lot of experimentation as I learn new techniques and just about everything on the layout save the track and tunnels has been redone, upgraded or revised. On the other, there comes a point where the training and/or operational value gained isn't significant vs a new layout, which is pretty much your point. Since that video was made, where I've started to come down on the matter is to leave well enough alone re: track/tunnels, finish certain upgrades, and look to layout #2 as a fresh start.
@@ChicagoCrossingRR What ever you decide, we look forward to seeing you do it. It has indeed been a worthwhile exercise and much has been learnt (for us watching as well) along the way. Take plenty of photos if you decide to retire it. Andy, Letchworth, UK.
@@andyknott8148 Thanks Andy, I really appreciate it. I sense that I'll hang on to this one for a very long time even if it's under a dust cover for a bit ;)
Agree with adding in the extra crossovers. The extra tracks at the grain mill and refinery are not really non-prototypical; you could use the 2nd track at the refinery for, well, more tankers as there are loads of refineries that use more than one track and some even have 2 tracks despite only being able to service a low amount of tankers at the same time. The extra track at the grain mill where the trackmobile resides could be used as an off-spot for both full and empty grain cars, or as an unloading/loading spot for the occasional boxcar bringing in parts/inventory for the mill and/or shipping product (feed bags) out. At any rate, I really like your layout and how it's designed to run like an oval without looking like the typical oval.
Thanks for the feedback, it's spot on - I occasionally use that grain elevator/mill setup as a brewery, in which case the third track is an offload for corn syrup tankers (cheap industrial beer fermantables). They're short and I can fit a couple into that little pocket.
OK. As someone who grew up in Chicago, I knew there had to be a solution to your tunnel problem. Here is one idea for a semi prototypical replacement for a tunnel. The old Chicago main Post Office had a freeway running right through it. Replace the freeway with tracks! I think it is not unusual in many big cities to have a large building built right over the tracks. I love your layout by the way - I think you have done a great job for such a small space! en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Chicago_Main_Post_Office
Artistic license, my friend, lol (I typed this before hearing you mention it in the video). There are/were 'tunnels' leading to/from Union Station and, back in the day, Sun Times / Merchandise Mart / Tribune Tower. Annex space from other parts of your home and expand the layout!
Hey David, had to laugh about annexing space in the house - that might be worth some 'artistic license' for sure 😂. In any case, you're spot on in relation to some of the 'air rights' usage in the city that pretty much fits the description of a tunnel. I've been starting to plan a new shelf layout that would cover a lot of the old CN trackage on Goose Island and associated customers. That I might be able to swing a much longer run of track for some 'expanded' operations.
Modeling Goose Island would be awesome. Big Bay Lumber, centerbeam flatcars and street running. And don't forget a swing bridge or two. Can't wait to see the expanded version of your layout, lol.
@@davidchang7838 Big Bay, Morton Salt, Peerless Confections, Finkl, General Iron, North Ave. Yard, and maybe down to the Trib print shop and other areas, etc. and yes I definitely will be modeling the bobtail swing bridge onto the island.
Hi, I agree I would put in the crossovers but I wouldn’t worry about tunnels etc prototyping will always be a compromise, I model out back South Australia where modern freight trains and passenger trains can be a mile long which would 60 feet or 18m in HO scale. Cheers Peter.
For small layout against a wall. Put backdrop on wall and layout on wheels. Easier for maintenance, operations and photo shots. A new layout ? Wait ! Before axe and flame thrower, why not a second one above ? Fun with this one while building the new one. No train craving in the meantime. You can even use an elevator 3 feet long track to pass from one level to the other. Just have the moving track at right "floor" for operation. One actual main line can even been used. Then your interchange yard or track will really be one...or if elongated, your drawbridge could lift for real... Removable building ? Fantastic idea for improving them...or why not an additional shipper by replacing them ? You can even, if you accept to not show both sides, to have different windows, colors etc...one side shows Robin Hood flour milling, turn it 180 degrees and it comes Plastruc plastics ! Both receive covered hoppers. One with grain and plastic pellets for the second. Put a ramp somewhere and you gain off the layout clients. Loads of lumber, boxcars etc... Your tiny first 3 X 7 is already an entire world and like the real one isn´t perfect and if its "hell on earth", well...go up on "paradise level"... By the way i don´t want to be bad mouth, but CRI&P executives may be don´t know, but their Rock will rock for good in 1980 quake...
Oh no worries Daniel, I'd never get rid of this layout. It's a treasure to me, especially after all this time. At worst it would just get moved to a different part of the basement and kept active and running. Layout 2 will in some ways be a dive into an area sort of suggested by CCMR. BTW I absolutely agree with the multipurpose concept. It's why my buildings are never fastened to the layout (aside from removal to shoot video). I have a number of other structures off to the side in the train room (cement plant, team track infrastructure, etc) that can be used to replace any of the structures currently on the layout just to keep things interesting and change out shippers/receivers. I was thinking of purchasing a couple of RI locos and just dirtying the hell out of them like it was 1979...
Yeah - we have a 4'x8' HOn30 layout that fits into a corner of my home office - it's possible (but not easy) to reach the far side - but (as you suggest) - the whole thing is on six heavy-duty lockable caster wheels - so I can wheel it out in to the middle of the room when I'm working on the far side. There's just one power cord leading out from the controllers, turnout switches, light switches - which are mounted into a drawer which slides under the layout when not in use. We have black curtains around the normally-visible sides which hide tons of storage. The table itself is on 4"x4" legs and is stiff enough that if we ever needed to move it - we could roll it up a ramp into a U-haul truck.
Adding the crossovers would, it seems to me, add the most benefit. With those in place, I'd eliminate the crossover to the right of the bridge, You don't use it currently and it does nothing more than remain as a potential operating hazard.
Interesting point Jerry, I may not need all of the existing crossovers. A couple of other folks have mentioned this, and it's a fair point. I suppose it's a matter of how much track I feel like ripping up :)
Hmmm. For my layout, I'm building elevated sections where urban scenes will be, with track running underneath (Think millennium station) so that's how I'm breaking up the view of the trains. Your layout looks great. Don't stress.
I think you could easily replace the tunnel scene with something more representative of urban Chicago with a highway overpass of some sort. It doesn’t need to overwhelm the layout, just enough to disguise the ninety degree curve the track makes. Just my ten cents (amount adjusted for inflation.)
What an excellent job of a self-critique! Your points are well taken and spot on. If you plan on continuing on with this layout, perhaps one of those surplus industrial sidings would make a good team track (provided there was an access road nearby and room for an unloading/loading area next to the track). This siding could then take a variety of different cars for more operational fun. Just a thought. The layout looks great, and I particularly like the industrial lead/branch line feature. Cheers from Wisconsin!
Thanks Andrew - the team track idea has always been a favorite. I had one where the bakery was, but at that point it ended up tying the yard and the spur into the same location. Since all of my buildings are removable, if I get bored with any of my industries, I actually have a backup set of builds (including the team track) that can be moved into any of the spurs.
@@ChicagoCrossingRR Well, you are prepared! All my buildings, except background flats, are also removable, and I just changed one of them out for scenic reasons. Great minds, etc. 🙂
What about changing the rock tunnel into an all concrete affair where on its newly flat top is a portion of a concrete laid freeway or highway with some lane divider lines in the middle or so and a few motor vehicles on it OR, a high rise on it, or both.. Then remove one set of crossovers at the left end of the lift bridge and plug them instead into the main in the very bottom of the middle box where spurs 6 and 7 originate ... But, then there's you next video to find out what you may have come up with/changed.
If I do anything to that tunnel, I kind of favor your approach. Likewise for the crossovers. I had a viewer offer an interesting take that after some thinking makes me suspect I won’t need to disrupt the mainline with new construction.
You could use curved switches (not american like - I know) to resolve the short crossing problem. I would install one east before the station and the other one west right after the bridge. regarding extra track, 6 is OK, 7 gotta go entirely and one should be single track not double track (keep the longer one). The rest look OK
@@ChicagoCrossingRR Y switches have little to no sense on a European layout, but make plenty of sense in a Japan based layout. Curved switches are usually an European thing. An open helix is a big no on most layouts, but it makes plenty of sense for a layout based on Switzerland. It is even one of their two hallmarks (the other one is the curved viaduct right before a tunnel entrance) for their railroads. A "sandwich layout" has no sense for the USA, but make plenty of sense for layouts based on the Alps.
Non prototypical ideas that would fit follow your compression rule. Chicago has connections to the rest of the country. Homage to those connections could be a Maine lighthouse on one end of the river with people fishing from a bridge on the other with the Fisherman's Wharf sign over the track. You have a scrap yard. Make a street festival area with people in costume, and symbols of all kinds of festivals. Instead of just the reliefs of non descript buildings on the back wall make a miniature skyline backdrop behind them. Scale freeway overpass backdrop for a side wall. Maybe a distant airport on another. Homeless encampments. Bicycles, and racks. If you've seen those posters of a city with all the landmarks but little else. Looks like the city but isn't. Captures the feel. That could be done with signage, and color.
Thanks for all the suggestions - there are quite a few opportunities to enhance some of the street life in the neighborhood areas. It's August on the layout, Chicago is well known to have a ton of neighborhood festivals in the summer!
Thanks for continuing with your videos and ideas , such a joy , And that's what the hobby is about. If you have a train enter from the interchange how does it return without reversing from the main , I suppose a tunnel only is there cause it's the only way through the landscape , It doesn't just pop up , the geography dictates the construction of one . What do you put there instead? Road bridge at one end which is industrial , I like the tunnel to the interchange. It's your railway mate , like this railway for its ops potential. 🦘
Thanks David - to your question, without a good runaround on the layout, the yard loses a lot of functionality, unless my locals consist of a car and a locomotive. Elsewise, for spurs facing a direction where the loco can't shove cars in, the loco will get 'trapped' trying to switch the spur. So adding better crossovers would likely open the potential of the yard to a much greater degree. As for the tunnel by the industry, I'd considered making it into a suggestion of the mainline passing beneath an embankment carrying above-grade trackage from an off-layout 'air line.' That would allow a couple of cosmetic alterations without actually ripping the thing out, and there's good precedent for that on the near north side of the city. Either that or I might leave it, the funny thing about the tunnels is since they're in the corners, they're very unobtrusive.
I did wonder if the layout moved so you could access the back. 3 feet seemed a stretch. How high is the layout? I think you could move the crossover from the right of the bridge al little further right to your indicated position. 3 should be enough. We all have ideas to improve our layouts, so only 3 on your list shows just how well you designed it from the start.
Thanks Geoffrey, the layout is sitting on some standard cabinetry, so something like 34-36" high. Given I'm over 6' tall the reach is doable but the lean-over sometimes endangers that relatively fragile vertical lift bridge. I've recently thought about mounting the layout on a purpose-built cart or something like that so it can be rolled in and out. Thanks for the idea relating to the crossovers, less could be more (certainly less work removing track and adding turnouts).
If being prototypical serves your layout and its operation, or is neutral to it, go ahead and throw it in. If it hinders your enjoyment of the layout, toss it out. Like any hobby, it all boils down to what's fun for you.
Hi Naro, thanks for stopping by. I agree - it's a subjective decision as to how to proceed. I think that's true for everyone's models. Some folks make decisions I wouldn't make, but it's their art :)
Adjusting the track configuration as times change is very prototypical. You could install the crossovers and then add in the crew that installed them - cleaning up & doing final touches before heading back to their facility. That way you are making 2 improvements at once. Just a thought.
@@chrisbarr1359 I love it when folks show their railroads under construction and have the little crew and vehicles out there...adds some fun to the scene. Spot on about track uses changing with time as well.
I want to thank you for your thoughtful and meaqningful narration that is really valuable quite exceptional. Of course, gotta love your layout too!
Thank you Keith!
I think your pike is fantastic! The attention to detail (hyper-detail) is incredible. You have done so much to replicate Chicago that I don't think a tunnel or bluff is going to make anyone think the scene is in Pennsylvania! Thanks for all you have taught and shown me.
You bring up a great point with any model diorama or railway Chris - if the scene is composed such that viewers intuitively 'get it' re: location/time period, etc. then the other stuff is just practicality/artistic license and doesn't really matter.
I'm enjoying this series, so thank you for putting the time into it! Also, absolutely love to see BRC power on your layout! Esp going through that iconic Chicago industry!
Thanks! It's tough to find BRC locos too - some are custom models like the SD40-2 in the video.
Good points again. Designing a tiny layout, I resigned myself to making it freelance despite a desire to model reality--there wasn't enough space for it. I also designed backwards like you operationally, coming up with a region and schematic after I laid the longest loop of mainline I could fit. I even based the industrial buildings on which cars I already had. I also based the road name on the livery name of the 35 year-old locomotive I had, which also dictated the era for the locale. Somehow I came up with a believable venue (at least for me). I knew and accepted the limitations before starting: steep grades, short cars only--tight radii, short trains, etc. But real railroads also have real limitations--tight radius industrial trackage requires them to use a "handle car" also to couple and un couple. I suggest procuring a copy of "Track Planning for Realistic Operation" by John Armstrong; he's big on having extra track for storage because we're always wanting another cool car model. The main thing is to have fun.🙂 Once again, nice presentation.
Thanks for the description and comments - always helpful to see how others handle the compromises inherent in a small layout. I like Armstrong's book quite a lot, another one of those things I looked at AFTER design and build...and you are correct that limitations in the layout can be entirely prototypical in reality.
The addition of the crossovers is more demanding in terms of workmanship (the trains have to run after all!) than scenic changes, but both follow your mantra of "constant improvement" regardless of whether another layout is in the future. Design-wise, replacing the scenicked tunnel with perhaps an elevated portion of the city does present a challenge in making it look believable. Anyway, I am enjoying seeing your progress and evolution of the layout!
Thanks Jeff and both good points. There needs to be a lot of precision in both the demolition of track and addition of the new turnouts, and certainly so as this is not a Unitrak-based layout. I see lots of folks do these sorts of post-hoc projects and it really is a pardon-our-dust mess for a while. To your second, I agree that a cityscape wouldn't be believable, pretty sure that's why I went for tunnels in the first place as the compromise move. I go back and forth on the matter - I think my conclusion at the end of the video that ripping out or remodeling the tunnels is probably more work than is worthwhile is likely correct, since almost nobody (including myself most days) notices them. They do manage to sort of hide in plain sight while many folks who see the layout exclaim 'that looks like my old neighborhood!'
Just recently ran across your videos. I am just getting back into the hobby after a 30+ year absence. I finally have space and means to do trains. Your layout will inspire how I plan out my layout. Thank you.
Appreciate the feedback and welcome back to the hobby! I had about a 20 year gap from the last model building I had built to when this one started.
Too much emphasis on prototype is a killjoy - I personally love your blend of realism with artistic license. It’s an incredible layout!
Thanks Eric, model railroads are inherently a work of fiction, so I agree that accepting some artistic license is necessary to achieve the bigger goal.
I have always admired your layout but had no idea it was so small. Great work.
Thanks Gary!
I absolutely love this series !!!
Thanks Jeffrey - more to come soon.
If reach becomes a problem you could use a "helping hand." The type I mean is like a stick with a pistol grip and a trigger on the one end and a couple of "fingers" on the other end. They're commonly used to pick up trash. If you were too cover the fingertips in felt (or something like it) you should be fine. Just an option.
Extra tracks, if possible to access by car or truck, can always be rented out as a team track. A team track is a dead end piece of track where (box)cars are stored, for a few days at most, so shipments in lesser volume than a full (box)car can be hauled by truck. Road access is an absolute need. Just another option. Perhaps you may want to look at your layout with somewhat more "commercial" eyes.
Yeah that sounds like a clumsiness magnifier for me at least...I already knock over plenty of stuff even with my level of fine motor skills. Interestingly the bakery area was a team track prior to revising it. It was great, but the bakery ended up being a bit more interesting operationally.
Good idea with the added crossovers for longer runarounds. With no reverse loop, reversing direction would be done by running the engine to the other end of the train, by going around the whole loop, without the x-overs. I noticed both proposed x-overs cross the same way. Maybe consider changing one so there's one of each, like the 2 existing ones, then there'd be 2 of each. The 2 new ones could serve as the ends of a long passing siding if you're into that--using an industrial belt track for a passing siding, that is. Actually, 2 long passing siding since it's a loop. For some reason I'm thinking changing the lower right one because it would make a longer second passing siding with the existing ones. But maybe you've already run it all through your head. Track planning is fun! Cheers!
Thanks Jim. I suspect in the end I'm not going to make significant modification to the track despite some of these issues. It's a ton of work and mess that may not reap dividends vs. just incorporating lessons learned into the next layout.
Ah yes, the next layout.The plan as-is still has a lot going for it operationally. Also it could be incorporated into a larger around the walls layout as a peninsula or part of one. There would be access from both sides and your tour-de-force of superb fine modeling would live on. Love visiting the layout!@@ChicagoCrossingRR
@@4x7layout Thank you very much Jim. At minimum I'll keep this one around, the next will be a shelf layout of Goose Island in Chicago during the 1980's-90's. There are so many great modeling opportunities within what was just a few miles of branch line track that I can't pass up capitalizing on the deep dive into what CCMR just touches on to the left side.
Since most if not all beginners put a tunnel on their first layout, may be you´re not wrong. Chicago is ! Chicago, the real one should have that type of infrastructure where graffitis would be welcome instead of on railcars. Homeless would have a rain / snow free place to gather....or may be a YMCA building for them with trains passing below...
I´ve seen your industrial tracks full, always busy.... but no one at train stations. Sure that Metra is a money looser and service should be discontinued ! I know, it breaks your hearth, but then redundant main line could be removed too. Less track to be so costly maintained for that commuter run. Cut expenses just like PC did. Big success to you with happy stockholders....😢 😮 😂 😅 😊
Yeah currently nobody's waiting for the train at Clybourn, but there are a bunch of passengers hanging out at 95th street. Maybe that spells doom for the UP-North line but the old Rock Island is still going strong. I doubt I'd dig up the double-tracked mainline, but layout #2 will be a shelf format from Kingsbury through Goose Island, so that will be predominantly single trackage (plus a few runarounds) outside of North Avenue Yard. Lots more space for scenery, and no reach problems!
From what I see on your track plan there are several pieces of track from the industries that you could have joined into the main lines and thus had runaround or just track that joins back onto the 2 main lines around the track itself thus giving you parking area's for carriages and run around sections etc..
Hi Tim, that was a possibility I'd actually thought about - particularly the track by the petrochemical plant. For the time being I've opted against, mainly due to a lack of room for a turnout based on the track's current configuration.
On the other hand there are often industrial tracks that ones was built but not lounger in use. Still laying there year after year. (At least here in Sweden😁) So instead of removeing them You can make them even more ”not in use”. If You don’t need the space, that is? Anyho! Wonderful work You’v done!👍
Thanks Thomas - it’s a great point and very much the same here in the US. You’re spot on that making the track more a part of the scenery could really help.
I have a real problem with tunnels. They are SUPER rare in most parts of the world. In the real world, they cost an absolute fortune to build - they require a ton of maintenance - and real railway architects will go to any amount of trouble to avoid building them. In the model world, that's where trains stall or derail or do anything they can to make it a pain to reach in and haul them out! I particularly hate when the train track aims unerringly at the only hill for miles around and goes right through the middle of it - rather than heading 50 feet to the side and skirting alongside it - or just having a cutting though which the track passes. Cuttings are MUCH more common...and they can do a similar job of hiding the fact that there is this weird, non-prototypical, oval of track in the middle of you city/countryside. I'm in the process of landscaping my layout - and I have a 5' long cutting running down the back side of the layout - but you see glimpses of the track where the hills dip down a bit - some places, there is dense forest rather than a cutting...road bridges...many excuses to avoid having a tunnel.
I like the strategy and rationale - it does make sense that tunnels are generally infeasible outside of big mountain ranges.
At my train club house layout, I actually had a train go into a tunnel at full speed and it came to an abrupt stop, as I tugged it out by the caboose, it was a stop & derailment via spiderweb!
I think the inclusion of the redundant track as abandoned sections is highly prototypical. Many railroads simply abandon sections in place, and only spend the time/money to remove it if it becomes necessary to do so. A good example of this is the railroad siding and bridge serving the Wilkins Rogers Flour Mill in Ellicott City MD, the latter of what is still in place but disused.
It also inculcates your layout with a sense of history, both real (former alignments you personally don’t use) and imagined (former alignments of the prototype).
Thanks Owen - feedback from you and others has definitely brought me around on this point!!
Awesome setup. While watching your video, noticed your Civil Air Patrol Frame. Ironically I finished CAP with the Bill Mitchell award as well. Brought back a lot of memories.
Hi Robert, thanks for the note. I really enjoyed my time in CAP. My composite squadron had a bunch of flight instructors so almost every weekend we used to fly out of Midway Airport for student pilot training, back when that airport was sleepy enough to harbor a lot of general aviation.
I agree on the sidings but would not put them in the areas you indicated. Keep the cross-over on the left front, move the other crossover so it comes out of the curve and is attached to the end of the turnout to #6. For the back, put the crossover right after switch to staging to the other track so you can get to interchange from either track. Put the crossover the other way after the switches to #1 for the runaround. The back runaround will be somewhat shorter than the front one
Thanks for the suggestion on this - I like the idea of a crossover closer to the yard/interchange.
Hi Eric,
Another excellent and thought provoking video. Self critique that you provided in the video validates as “ok” what most of us do as we live with our layouts. Finding solutions to make our small layouts seem larger and plausible at times requires concessions to meet a good enough end point ( so I wouldn’t sweat the tunnel). Adding the additional crossovers might be beneficial for more realistic operations if that is becoming more important to you.
In the end, I personally feel the most important part to strive for with a small prototypical layout is for the majority of the parts to support the overall goal/feel and Chicago Crossing nails that!
Have a great week!
Scott
Thank you Scott - absolutely appreciate your thoughts on all this as a fellow Chicagoland model railroader whose work I admire.
You make some great points here. I think there are a number of things you could do, but the big question is, do you want to build a new layout? If yes then major changes to this one is indeed a waste of time, but instigating the alterations you listed is like building a new layout.
In addition I would lengthen the Metra platform, just one coach length is certainly not practical and there looks to room to double (at least) it.
Running round a train is not something the railroad likes to do, it takes time and blocks the main. They like trailing industries that can be switched easily, so don't get to hung up about lack of cross-overs. Run 2 locals, one in each direction.
You could remove the tunnels and model a CTA EL section with buildings underneath to disguise the trains.
Good luck, we will be watching.
Thanks Andy. There is a shelf layout in the planning stage, but the timeline on it is somewhat ambiguous. The 'worth my time' issue has been an interesting one to play with in my mind. On the one hand, this little layout has been a testbed for a lot of experimentation as I learn new techniques and just about everything on the layout save the track and tunnels has been redone, upgraded or revised. On the other, there comes a point where the training and/or operational value gained isn't significant vs a new layout, which is pretty much your point. Since that video was made, where I've started to come down on the matter is to leave well enough alone re: track/tunnels, finish certain upgrades, and look to layout #2 as a fresh start.
@@ChicagoCrossingRR What ever you decide, we look forward to seeing you do it. It has indeed been a worthwhile exercise and much has been learnt (for us watching as well) along the way. Take plenty of photos if you decide to retire it. Andy, Letchworth, UK.
@@andyknott8148 Thanks Andy, I really appreciate it. I sense that I'll hang on to this one for a very long time even if it's under a dust cover for a bit ;)
Just awesome 👌.
Thank you!
Agree with adding in the extra crossovers. The extra tracks at the grain mill and refinery are not really non-prototypical; you could use the 2nd track at the refinery for, well, more tankers as there are loads of refineries that use more than one track and some even have 2 tracks despite only being able to service a low amount of tankers at the same time. The extra track at the grain mill where the trackmobile resides could be used as an off-spot for both full and empty grain cars, or as an unloading/loading spot for the occasional boxcar bringing in parts/inventory for the mill and/or shipping product (feed bags) out.
At any rate, I really like your layout and how it's designed to run like an oval without looking like the typical oval.
Thanks for the feedback, it's spot on - I occasionally use that grain elevator/mill setup as a brewery, in which case the third track is an offload for corn syrup tankers (cheap industrial beer fermantables). They're short and I can fit a couple into that little pocket.
Fantastic train talk.
I enjoyed very much.
I'm looking forward to watch the next episode.
Dats
Thanks Dats!
You are ready for layout number 2, well done grasshopper! Still it's a fantastic layout.
Thank you Thomas!!
OK. As someone who grew up in Chicago, I knew there had to be a solution to your tunnel problem. Here is one idea for a semi prototypical replacement for a tunnel. The old Chicago main Post Office had a freeway running right through it. Replace the freeway with tracks! I think it is not unusual in many big cities to have a large building built right over the tracks. I love your layout by the way - I think you have done a great job for such a small space! en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Chicago_Main_Post_Office
Artistic license, my friend, lol (I typed this before hearing you mention it in the video). There are/were 'tunnels' leading to/from Union Station and, back in the day, Sun Times / Merchandise Mart / Tribune Tower. Annex space from other parts of your home and expand the layout!
Hey David, had to laugh about annexing space in the house - that might be worth some 'artistic license' for sure 😂. In any case, you're spot on in relation to some of the 'air rights' usage in the city that pretty much fits the description of a tunnel. I've been starting to plan a new shelf layout that would cover a lot of the old CN trackage on Goose Island and associated customers. That I might be able to swing a much longer run of track for some 'expanded' operations.
Modeling Goose Island would be awesome. Big Bay Lumber, centerbeam flatcars and street running. And don't forget a swing bridge or two. Can't wait to see the expanded version of your layout, lol.
@@davidchang7838 Big Bay, Morton Salt, Peerless Confections, Finkl, General Iron, North Ave. Yard, and maybe down to the Trib print shop and other areas, etc. and yes I definitely will be modeling the bobtail swing bridge onto the island.
Hi, I agree I would put in the crossovers but I wouldn’t worry about tunnels etc prototyping will always be a compromise, I model out back South Australia where modern freight trains and passenger trains can be a mile long which would 60 feet or 18m in HO scale. Cheers Peter.
For small layout against a wall. Put backdrop on wall and layout on wheels. Easier for maintenance, operations and photo shots.
A new layout ? Wait !
Before axe and flame thrower, why not a second one above ? Fun with this one while building the new one. No train craving in the meantime.
You can even use an elevator 3 feet long track to pass from one level to the other. Just have the moving track at right "floor" for operation. One actual main line can even been used. Then your interchange yard or track will really be one...or if elongated, your drawbridge could lift for real...
Removable building ? Fantastic idea for improving them...or why not an additional shipper by replacing them ?
You can even, if you accept to not show both sides, to have different windows, colors etc...one side shows Robin Hood flour milling, turn it 180 degrees and it comes
Plastruc plastics ! Both receive covered hoppers. One with grain and plastic pellets for the second.
Put a ramp somewhere and you gain off the layout clients. Loads of lumber, boxcars etc...
Your tiny first 3 X 7 is already an entire world and like the real one isn´t perfect and if its "hell on earth", well...go up on "paradise level"...
By the way i don´t want to be bad mouth, but CRI&P executives may be don´t know, but their Rock will rock for good in 1980 quake...
Oh no worries Daniel, I'd never get rid of this layout. It's a treasure to me, especially after all this time. At worst it would just get moved to a different part of the basement and kept active and running. Layout 2 will in some ways be a dive into an area sort of suggested by CCMR. BTW I absolutely agree with the multipurpose concept. It's why my buildings are never fastened to the layout (aside from removal to shoot video). I have a number of other structures off to the side in the train room (cement plant, team track infrastructure, etc) that can be used to replace any of the structures currently on the layout just to keep things interesting and change out shippers/receivers. I was thinking of purchasing a couple of RI locos and just dirtying the hell out of them like it was 1979...
Yeah - we have a 4'x8' HOn30 layout that fits into a corner of my home office - it's possible (but not easy) to reach the far side - but (as you suggest) - the whole thing is on six heavy-duty lockable caster wheels - so I can wheel it out in to the middle of the room when I'm working on the far side. There's just one power cord leading out from the controllers, turnout switches, light switches - which are mounted into a drawer which slides under the layout when not in use. We have black curtains around the normally-visible sides which hide tons of storage. The table itself is on 4"x4" legs and is stiff enough that if we ever needed to move it - we could roll it up a ramp into a U-haul truck.
@@SteveBakerIsHere love the setup - that's exactly what I should be doing.
Adding the crossovers would, it seems to me, add the most benefit. With those in place, I'd eliminate the crossover to the right of the bridge, You don't use it currently and it does nothing more than remain as a potential operating hazard.
Interesting point Jerry, I may not need all of the existing crossovers. A couple of other folks have mentioned this, and it's a fair point. I suppose it's a matter of how much track I feel like ripping up :)
I agree with the crossovers. I would add them in. Currently modified mine to add them and increase the spacing
Glad to hear! Thanks for sharing re: crossovers!
You have a very nice layout. It's ok to make a few oversights. It looks fun to run and is well scenicked.
Thank you, and I agree at some point we can't copy the real world exactly.
Hmmm. For my layout, I'm building elevated sections where urban scenes will be, with track running underneath (Think millennium station) so that's how I'm breaking up the view of the trains. Your layout looks great. Don't stress.
I think that's a great idea, and absolutely fits with the location! Can't wait to see everything come together on your layout!
I think you could easily replace the tunnel scene with something more representative of urban Chicago with a highway overpass of some sort. It doesn’t need to overwhelm the layout, just enough to disguise the ninety degree curve the track makes.
Just my ten cents (amount adjusted for inflation.)
What an excellent job of a self-critique! Your points are well taken and spot on. If you plan on continuing on with this layout, perhaps one of those surplus industrial sidings would make a good team track (provided there was an access road nearby and room for an unloading/loading area next to the track). This siding could then take a variety of different cars for more operational fun. Just a thought. The layout looks great, and I particularly like the industrial lead/branch line feature. Cheers from Wisconsin!
Thanks Andrew - the team track idea has always been a favorite. I had one where the bakery was, but at that point it ended up tying the yard and the spur into the same location. Since all of my buildings are removable, if I get bored with any of my industries, I actually have a backup set of builds (including the team track) that can be moved into any of the spurs.
@@ChicagoCrossingRR Well, you are prepared! All my buildings, except background flats, are also removable, and I just changed one of them out for scenic reasons. Great minds, etc. 🙂
@@andrewpalm2103 absolutely!!!
What about changing the rock tunnel into an all concrete affair where on its newly flat top is a portion of a concrete laid freeway or highway with some lane divider lines in the middle or so and a few motor vehicles on it OR, a high rise on it, or both..
Then remove one set of crossovers at the left end of the lift bridge and plug them instead into the main in the very bottom of the middle box where spurs 6 and 7 originate ... But, then there's you next video to find out what you may have come up with/changed.
If I do anything to that tunnel, I kind of favor your approach. Likewise for the crossovers. I had a viewer offer an interesting take that after some thinking makes me suspect I won’t need to disrupt the mainline with new construction.
I like the suggestion on adding and repositioning crossovers and I think it would be OK to remove the excess trackage.
Thanks Gary, appreciate the feedback!
You could use curved switches (not american like - I know) to resolve the short crossing problem. I would install one east before the station and the other one west right after the bridge.
regarding extra track, 6 is OK, 7 gotta go entirely and one should be single track not double track (keep the longer one). The rest look OK
Heh, whatever nationality does what with switches dies as an issue on a small layout :) I've considered that as an option.
@@ChicagoCrossingRR
Y switches have little to no sense on a European layout, but make plenty of sense in a Japan based layout.
Curved switches are usually an European thing.
An open helix is a big no on most layouts, but it makes plenty of sense for a layout based on Switzerland. It is even one of their two hallmarks (the other one is the curved viaduct right before a tunnel entrance) for their railroads.
A "sandwich layout" has no sense for the USA, but make plenty of sense for layouts based on the Alps.
Non prototypical ideas that would fit follow your compression rule. Chicago has connections to the rest of the country. Homage to those connections could be a Maine lighthouse on one end of the river with people fishing from a bridge on the other with the Fisherman's Wharf sign over the track. You have a scrap yard. Make a street festival area with people in costume, and symbols of all kinds of festivals. Instead of just the reliefs of non descript buildings on the back wall make a miniature skyline backdrop behind them. Scale freeway overpass backdrop for a side wall. Maybe a distant airport on another. Homeless encampments. Bicycles, and racks. If you've seen those posters of a city with all the landmarks but little else. Looks like the city but isn't. Captures the feel. That could be done with signage, and color.
Thanks for all the suggestions - there are quite a few opportunities to enhance some of the street life in the neighborhood areas. It's August on the layout, Chicago is well known to have a ton of neighborhood festivals in the summer!
I love that grey black and yellow livery on your one loco at the end of the video. Did you custom paint that?
Hi Andrew, that’s a Belt Railway of Chicago loco. The model is a custom paint job that I found on eBay of all places.
Thanks for continuing with your videos and ideas , such a joy ,
And that's what the hobby is about. If you have a train enter from the interchange how does it return without reversing from the main , I suppose a tunnel only is there cause it's the only way through the landscape , It doesn't just pop up , the geography dictates the construction of one . What do you put there instead? Road bridge at one end which is industrial , I like the tunnel to the interchange. It's your railway mate , like this railway for its ops potential. 🦘
Thanks David - to your question, without a good runaround on the layout, the yard loses a lot of functionality, unless my locals consist of a car and a locomotive. Elsewise, for spurs facing a direction where the loco can't shove cars in, the loco will get 'trapped' trying to switch the spur. So adding better crossovers would likely open the potential of the yard to a much greater degree. As for the tunnel by the industry, I'd considered making it into a suggestion of the mainline passing beneath an embankment carrying above-grade trackage from an off-layout 'air line.' That would allow a couple of cosmetic alterations without actually ripping the thing out, and there's good precedent for that on the near north side of the city. Either that or I might leave it, the funny thing about the tunnels is since they're in the corners, they're very unobtrusive.
I did wonder if the layout moved so you could access the back. 3 feet seemed a stretch. How high is the layout?
I think you could move the crossover from the right of the bridge al little further right to your indicated position. 3 should be enough.
We all have ideas to improve our layouts, so only 3 on your list shows just how well you designed it from the start.
Thanks Geoffrey, the layout is sitting on some standard cabinetry, so something like 34-36" high. Given I'm over 6' tall the reach is doable but the lean-over sometimes endangers that relatively fragile vertical lift bridge. I've recently thought about mounting the layout on a purpose-built cart or something like that so it can be rolled in and out. Thanks for the idea relating to the crossovers, less could be more (certainly less work removing track and adding turnouts).
If being prototypical serves your layout and its operation, or is neutral to it, go ahead and throw it in. If it hinders your enjoyment of the layout, toss it out. Like any hobby, it all boils down to what's fun for you.
Hi Naro, thanks for stopping by. I agree - it's a subjective decision as to how to proceed. I think that's true for everyone's models. Some folks make decisions I wouldn't make, but it's their art :)
Great layout! I would add the crossovers you mention, but leave the tunnels. A layout is NEVER done...
True that - almost 8 years and still working on it!
Adjusting the track configuration as times change is very prototypical. You could install the crossovers and then add in the crew that installed them - cleaning up & doing final touches before heading back to their facility. That way you are making 2 improvements at once. Just a thought.
@@chrisbarr1359 I love it when folks show their railroads under construction and have the little crew and vehicles out there...adds some fun to the scene. Spot on about track uses changing with time as well.