Fiddle Yards -- visible or hidden?

[OklahomaGWR]

Here in the US staging tracks are more common than fiddle yards so I need some extra help/advice about fiddle yards. I am currently building a modified Inglenook on a baseboard that is five feet long and 13 inches wide. I work in OO scale. If you know the Inglenook design, I am planning on using the A track as a fiddle yard. I'd appreciate any thoughts on whether fiddle yards should be visible or hidden. This is not going to be an exhibition model! My sense is that it would be easier to have the fiddle yard (really a fiddle track) visible so that my 0-5-0 (hand) could do the necessary work. Advice? Suggestions? And thanks again to all who have been so helpful over the past week or so.

 

Jim

[Oldddudders]

Easy 0-5-0-ing is the key to fun & effective operation of a fiddle yard. Many UK layouts on the exhibition circuit have visible fiddle yards - but with a substantial and clear physical scenic break. Separation, not camouflage, is the key.

[Kris]

As it's a home layout I would go for visible. If this becomes a problem then possibly a removable backscene for the hidden section.

[shortliner]

Youn have me slightly confused here - an Inglenook is, by definition, self contained and doesn't have a fiddle yard - it cosists of a headshunt and three sidings with a fixed number of wagons and each track of a fixed length. - can you expand a little on your requirements

 

 

The headshunt should be the same length as a short sidng plus a loco - this is a 5-3-3 version the wagons are simply to show siding lengths - this version should be operated with 8 wagons and a loco

[dave_long]

Don't forget the Profs inglenooks Jack Chicago fork ok you can argue its not your classic nook but you can operate it that way.

[Flying Pig]

Youn have me slightly confused here - an Inglenook is, by definition, self contained and doesn't have a fiddle yard

What the man in the snowy kilt said.

[OklahomaGWR]

Youn have me slightly confused here - an Inglenook is, by definition, self contained and doesn't have a fiddle yard - it cosists of a headshunt and three sidings with a fixed number of wagons and each track of a fixed length. - can you expand a little on your requirements

 

 

The headshunt should be the same length as a short sidng plus a loco - this is a 5-3-3 version the wagons are simply to show siding lengths - this version should be operated with 8 wagons and a loco

 

Hi Jack: Sorry to be confusing -- and my initial post was more than a little confusing. My intention is to use the basic Inglenook track plan with an added kickback track. On my PRR railroad I use a card order system with car cards and waybills. My plan here is to make cards and waybills for each car and then make up a train on the headshunt. Shuffling the cards will tell me the order in which to spot those cars on the sidings; shuffling again will give the order in which a train will leave the visible yard via the kickback track. This will allow me to use two locomotives. So -- the basic track plan is a modified Inglenook but the operating system is really a variation of the card order system (this is actually a four-cycle waybill system widely used here) to select and route the rolling stock. I am considering the headshunt and the kickback track as the fiddle yard -- perhaps unconventional but I think it might work. I've built the base board out of foamcore following the directions in Chris Ellis's book and am fully amazed at how sturdy the construction has proven to be. I wish I had known about foamcore twenty years ago. My current benchwork for the PRR railroad is strong enough to walk on and heavy as well!

 

Thanks as always

 

Jim

[OklahomaGWR]

Easy 0-5-0-ing is the key to fun & effective operation of a fiddle yard. Many UK layouts on the exhibition circuit have visible fiddle yards - but with a substantial and clear physical scenic break. Separation, not camouflage, is the key.

 

Thanks Ian: I've not yet figured out exactly how the physical separation is going to be done but you are right -- that is the key. And it may well be that having the fiddle yard painted a different and perhaps darker color will be useful as well. Over the past week or so I have spent quite a lot of time on the RM website. I'm not only astonished at the amount of information available but the extraordinary level of craftsmanship and attention to detail. Perhaps the major move in the US right now is more attention to prototype operation and a sense of what is "good enough" detail. I know that there needs to be a balance here. On my Pennsylvania RR Marietta Branch I pay lots of attention to operation with a card order system. What looking at all the amazing layouts on the RM web has done is to remind me about "attention to detail" and what can be done in quite small spaces.

 

Thanks

 

Jim

[Pacific231G]

Youn have me slightly confused here - an Inglenook is, by definition, self contained and doesn't have a fiddle yard - it cosists of a headshunt and three sidings with a fixed number of wagons and each track of a fixed length. - can you expand a little on your requirements

 

Hi Jack

I've seen a couple of layouts that have succesfully used this configuration such as this one.

 

This is a particularly attractive little layout (my poor photo taken at a show does it no justice at all but it's the only one I have showing the whole layout at once) built by a fellow member of the SNCF Society in 4'x1'. By using a short Y for the goods yard entry it was able to follow the normal rules for a 5:3:3 Inglenook with standard European wagons within the four feet. This arrangement enables you to make up a five wagon arriving train in the fiddle yard and then sort them and the wagons already in the goods yard like any other Inglenook. For a bit of variety though the wagons can be changed off stage or the shunting operation alternated with a railcar.

 

As well as the goods yard, this particular layout managed to include a very attractve street scene, a small station, a river bank and an old city wall to give the scenic break and all without looking in the least crowded. The layout used a "Denny" fold with the front hinge block concealed by the removable tower and the rear one hidden behind the battlements of the city wall. The two points (Peco Y and short radius right hand) were either side of the fold and it folded very neatly to form a box two foot by one foot by about ten inches for transport. It was as I recall capable of being taken to exhibitions by public transport.

This photo does it rather more justice

 

I thought a design like this might also work as a wharf.

 

David

[signalmaintainer]

Well, at any rate, keep the fiddle yard visible! You'll be glad you did.

[OklahomaGWR]

Hi Jack

I've seen a couple of layouts that have succesfully used this configuration such as this one.

 

This is a particularly attractive little layout (my poor photo taken at a show does it no justice at all but it's the only one I have showing the whole layout at once) built by a fellow member of the SNCF Society in 4'x1'. By using a short Y for the goods yard entry it was able to follow the normal rules for a 5:3:3 Inglenook with standard European wagons within the four feet. This arrangement enables you to make up a five wagon arriving train in the fiddle yard and then sort them and the wagons already in the goods yard like any other Inglenook. For a bit of variety though the wagons can be changed off stage or the shunting operation alternated with a railcar.

 

As well as the goods yard, this particular layout managed to include a very attractve street scene, a small station, a river bank and an old city wall to give the scenic break and all without looking in the least crowded. The layout used a "Denny" fold with the front hinge block concealed by the removable tower and the rear one hidden behind the battlements of the city wall. The two points (Peco Y and short radius right hand) were either side of the fold and it folded very neatly to form a box two foot by one foot by about ten inches for transport. It was as I recall capable of being taken to exhibitions by public transport.

This photo does it rather more justice

 

I thought a design like this might also work as a wharf.

 

David

Hi David:This is close to what I have in mind. Imagine a kickback track from the siding closest to the front edge of the layout in the photos. And imagine the headshunt and the kickback as the fiddle yard. I'm not planning on using the Inglenook operating system but a card order system with car cards and waybills. Trains come in on the headshunt part of the fiddle yard and are spotted to the appropriate locations. Trains leaving go by way of the kickback track. I think this might work; worth a try; I use a 4-cycle waybill system on my larger Pennsylvania RR Marietta branch; works well there so I am tempted to try it here. If this fails I will revert to the Inglenook operating system. In the meantime I'm having lots of fun exploring RMweb and learning a whole new railroading language.

 

Thanks

 

Jim

[OklahomaGWR]

So it is intended to look a bit like this?

 

 

 

Mickey: Yes -- precisely right. I really should not have called this an Inglenook since this layout does not use the Inglenook operating system. Rather, it employs a variant of the card order system with waybills that is quite popular here. Trains inbound use the headshunt track; trains outbound use the kickback track. The 4-cycle card order system takes a bit of time to set up but once it is done the whole thing works amazingly well. And doing the waybills means that you can have a lot more fun researching loads and destinations, customers and suppliers!

 

Thanks

 

Jim

[shortliner]

Jim now I see your thinking - The only problem I can forsee is that Mickeys plan means that the northerly siding of the inglenook HAS to be kept free to enable switching onto the kickback and really only allows you to move a single car at a time onto it. I wonder if it could be done using Prof Klyzlrs Chicago Fork with two moveable headshunts fitted side by side on a sectorplate (allowing two trains to be used, but only one at a time - one track is always full)- see Carls site if you don't know about Chicago Fork

 

http://www.carendt.u...e97a/index.html and http://www.carendt.u...103a/index.html

 

I also offer you this 3-2-2 inglenook with a 2 car and loco hidden siding which has a yard limit sign at the threeway leading onto it preventing that track being used when switching. It was drawn as a minimum space layout in 2 metres x 30 cms - but a bit more width would be an advantage.

 

 

If you make the board slightly wider the rear track could take the form of a two track traverser, allowing swapping cars on alternate trains, and even two entirely different trains including loco - The rear backscene would need hollow buildings to allow the traverser sufficient movement. It is a bit feint, but there is a hinge at mid-point on the front to allow simple storage with a sideways fold

[OklahomaGWR]

Jim now I see your thinking - The only problem I can forsee is that Mickeys plan means that the northerly siding of the inglenook HAS to be kept free to enable switching onto the kickback and really only allows you to move a single car at a time onto it. I wonder if it could be done using Prof Klyzlrs Chicago Fork with two moveable headshunts fitted side by side on a sectorplate (allowing two trains to be used, but only one at a time - one track is always full)- see Carls site if you don't know about Chicago Fork

 

http://www.carendt.u...e97a/index.html and http://www.carendt.u...103a/index.html

 

I also offer you this 3-2-2 inglenook with a 2 car and loco hidden siding which has a yard limit sign at thre threeway leading onto it preventing that track being used when switching. It was drawn as a minimum space layout in 2 metres x 30 cms - but a bit more width would be an advantage.

 

 

If you make the board slightly wider the rear track could take the form of a two track traverser, allowing swapping cars on alternate trains, and veen two entirely different trains including loco - The rear backscene would need hollow buildings to allow the traverser sufficient movement. It is a bit feint, but there is a hinge at mid-point on the front to allow simple storage with a sideways fold

 

Jack: Thanks for what looks like an appealing alternative. I'd like to return for a moment to the original question I posed about fiddle yards -- visible or hidden. I think one of my real problems here (one of many!) is that I have not yet been able to shake free of the notion of a fiddle yard as something like a staging track. At least here in the US the notion of staging tracks is that you put a full train -- cars and locomotive -- on the staging track. So when I began to think about a fiddle yard, the first thing I did was measure the total length of a Collett Goods and five cars. Here was the trap -- thinking that a fiddle yard was a staging track. But a fiddle yard is conceptually different isn't it? You can fiddle with one car and a locomotive or several cars and a locomotive or just a locomotive. So this really is for me a conceptual problem -- one that I need to think past so that I can use the fiddle yard concept to its fullest. What do they say about the US and the UK? Separated by a common language! What I've got here is the collision of two quite different model railroading concepts.

 

I'd appreciate comments from anyone on this.

 

Thanks

 

Jim

[Oldddudders]

What do they say about the US and the UK? Separated by a common language! What I've got here is the collision of two quite different model railroading concepts.

 

I'd appreciate comments from anyone on this.

Perhaps because our respective prototypes are different - mainly freight in the US, mainly passenger in the much-smaller UK - so our models may also have different emphases. As RMWeb shows, UK modellers tend to have to make do with rather less space - few here have a basement at all, and houses are often smaller and offer little scope for the modeller to build an empire - if he wishes to retain domestic harmony!

 

Thus a modest-or-smaller station and limited "offstage" storage have become the recipe for many Brits. "Fiddling" with trains offstage enables an infinite number of trains to be introduced in any one operating session - limited only by the owner's budget to pay for them.

 

The sort of operations led by the Sperandeos and Koesters on your side of the pond have few parallels here.

[OklahomaGWR]

Perhaps because our respective prototypes are different - mainly freight in the US, mainly passenger in the much-smaller UK - so our models may also have different emphases. As RMWeb shows, UK modellers tend to have to make do with rather less space - few here have a basement at all, and houses are often smaller and offer little scope for the modeller to build an empire - if he wishes to retain domestic harmony!

 

Thus a modest-or-smaller station and limited "offstage" storage have become the recipe for many Brits. "Fiddling" with trains offstage enables an infinite number of trains to be introduced in any one operating session - limited only by the owner's budget to pay for them.

 

The sort of operations led by the Sperandeos and Koesters on your side of the pond have few parallels here.

 

Thanks Ian -- I think you are right about both household space realities and the prototype. And yes -- I've been much influenced in thinking about model railroad operation by Tony Koester. What intrigues me now is thinking a bit smaller and shifting perspective. Since joining RMWeb about a week ago I've spent a good deal of time working around in the site. Trying to build something that is believable and operationally interesting in 00 in something five feet long by 13 inches deep is a challenge -- especially after spending twenty years operating a room-size railroad. I have a handful of books and one copy of the GWR Journal so the web -- and especially RMWeb -- has become my principal source of both information and inspiration. Simple questions like how did the GWR unload coal at the branch line terminal in the 1930s-1940s (I still don't have the answer) can lead in all sorts of directions. Thanks again for letting me be part of the conversation.

 

Jim

[Coombe Barton]

Simple questions like how did the GWR unload coal at the branch line terminal in the 1930s-1940s (I still don't have the answer) can lead in all sorts of directions.

Shovel and barrow - labour was cheap, mechanisation wasn't. That works for loco coal and merchants.

 

If you haven't found it, this site is worth a read - http://myweb.tiscali...gansg/index.htm - gives a whole raft of information about railway freight operations.

[OklahomaGWR]

Perhaps because our respective prototypes are different - mainly freight in the US, mainly passenger in the much-smaller UK - so our models may also have different emphases. As RMWeb shows, UK modellers tend to have to make do with rather less space - few here have a basement at all, and houses are often smaller and offer little scope for the modeller to build an empire - if he wishes to retain domestic harmony!

 

Thus a modest-or-smaller station and limited "offstage" storage have become the recipe for many Brits. "Fiddling" with trains offstage enables an infinite number of trains to be introduced in any one operating session - limited only by the owner's budget to pay for them.

 

The sort of operations led by the Sperandeos and Koesters on your side of the pond have few parallels here.

 

Ian: No sooner did I write saying I had not yet found an answer to the coal unloading question than I spent a lot more time in the "Goods and Not So Goods" website and found what seem a reasonable set of answers. That is simply an astounding site; it has certainly furthered my education!

 

Jim

[OklahomaGWR]

Shovel and barrow - labour was cheap, mechanisation wasn't. That works for loco coal and merchants.

 

If you haven't found it, this site is worth a read - http://myweb.tiscali...gansg/index.htm - gives a whole raft of information about railway freight operations.

 

John: No sooner did I write that to Ian than I went back to the Goods and Not So Goods site and spent more time with it. What an amazing site! And I did indeed find a number of things that will help me sort out just what I do next with that challenging 13 inches by 5 foot base board. I've spent too much time with a room size railroad; in retirement it is time to think small.

 

Jim

[Coombe Barton]

Coal unloading at branch terminii: I've read somwehere (and can't remember where) that merchants were allowed three days to unload wagons before extra charges crept in. Maybe someone will be able to confirm/deny or give more details.

[shortliner]

Jim, as you say , the staging track/fiddle yard concept is really a difference in use and terminology.In USA the staging tracks are areas representing the rest of the world, outside the confines of the model railway, as indeed, are the fiddle yards in UK. However the US ones are frequently pre-loaded at the start of a session and trains simply run out of or in to them as a unit. In UK we tend to have them built, sometimes as a sector plate or a traverser, (or even as parallel tracks with a sectorplate/traverser at the far end to release locos)so that we can use them during a session, and fiddle with rearrange the make-up of wagons, carriages or locos in order to allow us to run more trains. I would suggest that staging can be open or hidden, so long as it can be accesed for changing the complete stock ready for the next ops session, whereas the Fiddle yard needs to be accessible at all times so that the stock can be re-arranged "on the fly"

I guess that one way of looking at it is as a theatre. The US version is like a play - the actors come on from "off-stage", do their acting and depart "off-stage again, wheras the UK is more like a radio play (or even a farce), where the actors spend the performance dashing in and out, changing costumes, and sometimes even playing more than one part. They are all performers, it is just the acting style that is different.

[Coombe Barton]

Having seen (and appreciated) Andrew's( Ullypug) mega stock shifter on Wheal Elizabeth at Wigan, makes me think if something in the vertical plane would be possible. More engineering and you'd still have to arrange stock handling and shuffling. Hmmmmm.........

[Oldddudders]

I guess that one way of looking at it is as a theatre. The US version is like a play - the actors come on from "off-stage", do their acting and depart "off-stage again, wheras the UK is more like a radio play (or even a farce), where the actors spend the performance dashing in and out, changing costumes, and sometimes even playing more than one part. They are all performers, it is just the acting style that is different.

I think the first - i.e. US - part of Jack's analogy is exactly as laid out by one of the early US modelling opinion-formers, named, I believe Frank Ellison.

 

The fiddle yard is more intensive in its demands, because it does not pretend to hold all the trains for that day's operations. There are ways of easing this, by use of cassettes and similar devices, but basically the operator - or his long-suffering mate! - has to manually remove one train, and replace it with another if "play" is to continue. Wholly inappropriate if the railway is a high-density main line or busy suburban route, but hardly much of a chore for a branchline or similarly relaxed prototype.

[shortliner]

Having seen (and appreciated) Andrew's( Ullypug) mega stock shifter on Wheal Elizabeth at Wigan, makes me think if something in the vertical plane would be possible. More engineering and you'd still have to arrange stock handling and shuffling. Hmmmmm.........

 

Can I suggest a look at "More Layout, Less space" a Model Railroader special - page 18 for a suggestion by Iain Rice, together with pages 66 and 71 for more complicated versions. It might just save you re-inventing the wheel.....

[OklahomaGWR]

I think the first - i.e. US - part of Jack's analogy is exactly as laid out by one of the early US modelling opinion-formers, named, I believe Frank Ellison.

 

The fiddle yard is more intensive in its demands, because it does not pretend to hold all the trains for that day's operations. There are ways of easing this, by use of cassettes and similar devices, but basically the operator - or his long-suffering mate! - has to manually remove one train, and replace it with another if "play" is to continue. Wholly inappropriate if the railway is a high-density main line or busy suburban route, but hardly much of a chore for a branchline or similarly relaxed prototype.

 

Ian: It was indeed Frank Ellison in a landmark set of articles called "The Art of Model Railroading" that appeared in MODEL RAILROADER in the 1950s. Ellison was involved in stage set design so the theatre language of stage, play, and actors came naturally to him. He also did a fine book called FRANK ELLISON ON MODEL RAILROADS, published in 1954. It is much more user-friendly than Tony Koester's more recent REALISTIC MODEL RAILROAD OPERATION. I use Koester's card order-waybill system but I much appreciate Ellison's more chatty, friendly way.

 

Jim