Inglenook variations and diversions!

[jamest]

Hi all,

 

Its about time for me to muck about with track again and my interest was recently poked by reading through an old magazine. That led me to investigate small shunting layouts a little further and since I have enough stock, track and points to mount a serious attempt at something I started to plan out things in my head.

 

Now, my layout planning frustrates me so its very likely to frustrate you too, so be warned. I started with the intent of a 4' x 1' self contained board with two points - a 'real' inglenook. I then questioned the logic of doing this on 'another' board when I had a decent size board ready to go in the garage hinged against the wall. The board in the garage is 6' x 1' widening after 2' to 18" inches at the end (if that sounds confusing please see the plans below). This solution solves the 'where are you going to store that?' question from swmbo!

 

Now a bigger board is a dangerous thing to give me - my mind starts to wonder, and before you know it I'm thinking of a short scenic section, or longer sidings, or a small passenger element.

 

So here are some of my ramblings on Any-rail. I realise the decision rests with me but I'm keen to debate the validity of the schemes and perhaps draw inspiration from some of you.

 

A few basics (i'll probably forget some):

Late steam early diesel era

OO scale

There is a fiddle yard to the left (garage shelf)

Code 100 track

Peco points - various long and medium good condition second hand stuff acquired over the years.

 

Plan 1:

Basic inglenook with a engine siding to add interest (a la Neptune Road):

No passenger services

 

Plan 2:

Still a basic inglenook but the longer siding doubles as a platform for a DMU service

2a

Do I need a headshunt?

2b

2c

 

Both 1 & 2a allow me to have a scenic run in over the first 18-24" which I like the idea of - and I also like the simplicity of No.2a - although as I write 2b is growing on me!

 

 

Then I go mad with the points and track available!!

Plan 3:

Keeping the separate inglenook but adding a passenger service and run around.

 

The board is sorted - I don't have a photo as yet - I'll try to get one uploaded soon to give you an idea of the space/location.

 

As I said above - I realise I need to decide what I want, and I have no real direct question on the planning, other than asking your opinions

 

Regards,

James

[Rivercider]

Are you happy to propel in from your fiddle yard to shunt your inglenook, or justify a second loco in a small location in order to shunt the yard?

 

I would go for plan 3, but I do take Mickeys point.

 

cheers 

[Merc435]

2B or not 2B? That is the question,

 

To which the answer is...................GO FOR IT!!!!!!

 

PLAN 2B is the only one for you!

[Gordon A]

I would go for plan 1, unless you can find a prototype that propels mixed stock along a passenger rated line to the sidings.

 

Gordon A

Bristol

[kevinlms]

It depends on what passenger trains you decide to run.

 

If none, then plan 1.

If satisfied with auto coach, push pull or DMU, and propelling all trains in then 2b.

If you want to run with more variation, then 3.

 

Personally in the length you have available (with separate fiddle yard), I'd go for 3.

[HeavyDuty]

What about 2b with the headshunt extended into staging? This would give you a simulated runaround and would allow you to keep propelled goods off the passenger line.

[Pacific231G]

Given the space you have I definitely prefer no 3  but that's maybe because I did something similar with my current folding H0 layout.

 

 

Though it's only five feet loing I've found this layout very satisfying to operate either without the fiddle yard as a shunting layout that includes the 5-3-3 Inglenook puzzle on the goods sidings or with a simple fiddle yard as a complete terminus. The run round loop is designed to take the five wagon "inglenook" train. The kick back siding from the platform to the warehouse probably wouldn't be prototypical for Britain but I've seen it in France for private sidings (the running lines are generally protected by derailers rather than catch points or sidings).

 

 

 

I didn't include a separate headshunt because for a small station like this it was more common in France  to use the protected main line for that. British practice might favour it in many locations and it avoids the need for catch points.  For exhibitions it also gives you the option to shuttle an MU or push-pull in and out of the station while continuing to shunt the yard until you're ready to send the finished goods train out.

Your plan 3 also lends itself to running either with or without a fiddle yard (but do have a stop barrier to replace the fiddle yard and NEVER operate without one or the other !!)  and it's pleasant to have a small shunting layout set up on a shelf or somewhere to do  a bit of quiet wagon bashing whenever  the mood takes you.

 

Edit: Though it's probably fairly obvious I meant to include the wagon capacities that make the terminus+inglenook idea work

the capacity of the private siding isn't critical but three wagons seemed like a sensible cut to put down or pick up and having that siding on the other side of the run round and facing the opposite direction does add to the shunting challenges.

 

Looking at your plan three again the only comments I'd make is that, if you intend to use it as a shunting layout without its fiddle yard, then it's useful to have the length of the loco or the longest vehicle you'll be shunting with at both ends of the run round loop. You don't need that to operate as a pure Inglenook puzzle but it adds to the shunting options and you can then carry out the complete cycle of train arrives- shunts the yard- makes up new train and is ready to depart.  Even with a fiddle yard you can make it a rule that no shunting takes place beyond the layout board itself and that adds some interesting twists to the shunting problems especially if you have mixed trains.

 

Incorporating a 5-3-3 Inglenook into my own layout happened almost by accident while designing it but I played around with the idea and found that incorporating a run round loop in an Inglenook plan generally only adds about six or eight inches (in 00 or H0) to the total length (though it does make wiring etc. a bit more complicated). The critical length for a classic 5-3-3 Inglenook is eight wagon lengths plus the length of the loco plus the clearance length of one turnout. The critical length for a run round loop able to take the same five wagon train is five wagon lengths plus twice the clearance length of a turnout plus twice the length of the loco (or twice the length of the longest wagon if that's longer)

[Campaman]

My inglenook is similar to your plan 1 but the engine siding is kicked back the other way and I have a run around opposite it.

 

The operation from a cassette fiddle is engine brings in the train runs round into the loop and goes off scene then the shunter can come from the siding to run round and shunt it in the inglenook, then returns to its siding ready for the main engine to re-appear to take it away.

[Chimer]

3 for me 'cos I would want the run round for extra operational interest.  But if you could incorporate the gentle curves of 2b while you were at it .......  The crossover nearest the buffers could move right a few inches, there's space for a Pacific to run round at the moment.

[jamest]

Hi all,

 

Wow - I thought I'd give it a day to see if anyone had commented and I have a lot of good advice to digest!

 

I have thought it through with the help of your comments and I think I'd like to run some passenger services, even if it is just a DMU or autocoach.

 

Here are some pictures of the space I have in the garage. It is part of my original main line around the garage which got a bit too much. My other layout Braybridge lives in here on the old baseboards. The board folds down to allow the car in, and me to get out!

 

 

 

 

I'm going to chew over the suggestions made above - I too lean towards plan 3 but I don't want to cram in to much track - and slow running over many points seems like a recipe for fustration!

 

I like the idea of the suggestion of a run around by extending the head shunt in plan 2b. I could even create a runaround in the space on the fixed narrow section (where the points are stored above) and make it scenic too. But I don't want to expand this too far - its an annoying habit I seem to have when planning things.

 

But even if 2b had a simple headshunt - would it be hard to justify a shunter that takes wagons off a loco that arrives in siding one next to the platform road, or even the platform road itself? I also like the idea of separate shunting off the running line.

 

Thanks for all your ideas

 

James

[Norm81]

2b is a bit like my extended inglenook, link in signature.

[ColinK]

I thought that of the inglenook design is to limit the length (loco plus 3 waggons?) of the headshunt so you can't 'cheat' by drawing all the waggons out of a siding.

 

Personally I like 2b.

[Campaman]

That's correct, just have a limit of shunt sign and resist the urge to cheat.

[kevinlms]

That's correct, just have a limit of shunt sign and resist the urge to cheat.

A 'limit of shunt' sign on a head shunt?

 

Although maybe there is a good reason!

 

http://danger-ahead.railfan.net/accidents/driffield/home.html

 

Pity this web site is no longer being updated.

[jamest]

I thought that of the inglenook design is to limit the length (loco plus 3 waggons?) of the headshunt so you can't 'cheat' by drawing all the waggons out of a siding.

 

Personally I like 2b.

 

Hi,

 

Yes you are right of course. I could reduce it but I felt I might want to play in the 'real world' too with longer wagons.

 

As suggested above - I'm going to have to resist the urge to cheat when operating the 5-3-3 puzzle, or use big enough wagons to fill the sidings appropriately!

 

regards,

James

[Campaman]

Yes but my inglenook is extended so the line is not just a head shunt, its a single running line to a goods warehouse complex with a run round and a small siding with coaling and water for the shunter, so when actually shunting the inglenook the limit of shunt protects the other half of the layout which could have another engine on it.

 

Its my train set and the I will do what I like rule applies....

 

I can't be bothered to count rivets..

 

:no:

[Kenton]

I actually prefer plan 3 especially if the station is moved to the left a little - it has more potential as a layout.

 

But an Inglenook is supposed to be small and once you start being tempted to add track it becomes more than just 3 sidings as a shunting puzzle and more like a layout. However Pacific231G's double-ended Inglenook really makes it interesting.

[jamest]

Hi,

 

Been musing over your comments and questioning what I want from this layout and decided to go more for the layout than the shunting puzzle.

 

Pacifics track plan looked much less uniform than my plan 3 so I had another play with Anyrail and came up with these versions below. I think they 'look' better and have the advantage of saving a point or two. So I've definately plumped for operational interest and passenger services, and made the sidings a little longer than the 5-3-3 normal limitations of the inglenook.

 

I still have some short radius peco points to use if I ever have a four foot board to play with in the future - I tend to like to start something every year (not necessarily finishing the previous years idea!) - so perhaps a strict small inglenook could be attempted then.

 

Anyway here are the new plans:

 

And with a head-shunt:

 

I need to finalise the siding lengths for real with track and wagons - the head shunt could extend off scene. But I like the idea of separate shunting away from the running line.

 

Thanks to pacific231G for the idea!

 

Regards,

James

[Pacific231G]

Hi,

 

Been musing over your comments and questioning what I want from this layout and decided to go more for the layout than the shunting puzzle.

 

Pacifics track plan looked much less uniform than my plan 3 so I had another play with Anyrail and came up with these versions below. I think they 'look' better and have the advantage of saving a point or two. So I've definately plumped for operational interest and passenger services, and made the sidings a little longer than the 5-3-3 normal limitations of the inglenook.

 

I still have some short radius peco points to use if I ever have a four foot board to play with in the future - I tend to like to start something every year (not necessarily finishing the previous years idea!) - so perhaps a strict small inglenook could be attempted then.

 

Anyway here are the new plans:

inglenook 9.jpg

 

And with a head-shunt:

inglenook 9.1.jpg

 

I need to finalise the siding lengths for real with track and wagons - the head shunt could extend off scene. But I like the idea of separate shunting away from the running line.

 

Thanks to pacific231G for the idea!

 

Regards,

James

What is now the headshunt could be a kickback siding to a mill or something. That would give you a third destination for shunting and I've generally found that more satisfying than two sidings. However for a British station I think you're probably right about having the head shunt. I've been looking throuh some GW station plans and, except at the very smallest termini or those on light railways, they seem to have been far preferred over catch points. In reality this was probably because, with the points onto the running line closed, wagons could  be safely shunted by by a couple of porters or the station horse (small British wagons were far easier to move around a yard by hand than most people realise) 

The angled loco release does avoid an S curve and is more aesthetically pleasing but the advantage of a crossover is that you can have a short siding for a cattle dock/end loading platform and that was a very common arrangement at small Briish termini whatever the company.