Genesis of an Inglenook?

[tomparryharry]

10 minutes ago, hartleymartin said:

If you want to get pedantic, it should be 121.92cm x 30.48 cm, but I'm not going to go that far. I may also account for the fact that beyond the switch-blades of each point there is about 20mm of track at the toe-end. I have also considered the possibility of trimming the points slightly to get a bit of extra room. I'll see what happens when I get some foam-board and lay out all the track to test how functional it is all going to be. It would have been a wee bit easier if Peco already had the medium-radius points in the Bullhead range.

 

Well.... If you want to get pedantic..... My cat's blacker than yours!

 

Ha Ha Ha!

 

Happy modelling,

 

Ian.

[hartleymartin]

Life experience has taught me that you can do all the planning you want, but you won't know how well it works for certain until you actually put the objects into the spaces you want them.

[south_tyne]

Looks like a great little project Martin. You can't beat an inglenook for simplicity but they are also highly entertaining, providing so much operational potential, but can also be applied to almost any prototype. I will be following with interest. 

 

Mind it will be a perfect setting for that 48ds....... 

[hartleymartin]

If all these industrial locos were coming out about 15 years ago I would have stuck with OO scale. The main reason I'm doing this now, despite being a pretty committed O-scaler is that I have stuff stashed away and I was able to get a bunch of other things at a very, very good price. Secondary reason is that I've not actually had my own layout for many years and I really want to run trains somewhere other than the dining room table when everyone else is out for the day.

[mogtrains]

I used something very similar to your trackplan in your first post here..

 

[hartleymartin]

I've got the track now. Found the power brick for my Hornby controller too.

 

I'm looking at what to do for the baseboard. I'm thinking of using 30mm hard insulation foamboard (brand name "Knaufboard" from Bunnings warehouse) and some 1" square aluminum tube. I'll then ise some 3mm MDF as the fascia board. 

 

I'm in two monds about whethet to use electric point control or just manual levers of some description. Any suggestions?

[south_tyne]

On 21/03/2019 at 13:24, hartleymartin said:

If all these industrial locos were coming out about 15 years ago I would have stuck with OO scale. The main reason I'm doing this now, despite being a pretty committed O-scaler is that I have stuff stashed away and I was able to get a bunch of other things at a very, very good price. Secondary reason is that I've not actually had my own layout for many years and I really want to run trains somewhere other than the dining room table when everyone else is out for the day.

 

Martin,

 

I don't think there is any harm at all in having a side project in another scale. It can make us think about things differently and bring a fresh perspective and impetus to our modelling. I think this is especially the case with micro layouts. Low cost, compact and fun, with nothing lost if it doesn't go to plan and everything to gain if it is a success!

 

Whereas 7mm scale may remain your main focus a nice side project in 4mm scale sounds like a great idea. You're right mind, those new industrial locos from Hornby are so tempting! The Peckett, with another example to come, and the Ruston 48ds, really are fantastic for those of us interested in industrial railways. I am also focused on 0 gauge but I must admit I am very tempted by the aforementioned little beauties! 

 

1 hour ago, hartleymartin said:

I've got the track now. Found the power brick for my Hornby controller too.

 

I'm looking at what to do for the baseboard. I'm thinking of using 30mm hard insulation foamboard (brand name "Knaufboard" from Bunnings warehouse) and some 1" square aluminum tube. I'll then ise some 3mm MDF as the fascia board. 

 

I'm in two monds about whethet to use electric point control or just manual levers of some description. Any suggestions?

 

I must admit I like to keep things simple and would always stick to manual control, although I would try to incorporate a micro-switch to change polarity. Are the points which you are using the newer style unifrog ones? 

 

Keep up the good work!

David

[hartleymartin]

They are the new uni-frog type. That said, my Dapol Pug still managed to stall on the Vee. (Not yet wired up). I'm thinking of using slide-SPDT switches and wire-in-the-tube to control the points. The crossing will be wired live.

 

Funny thing is that my Hornby Controller gives me nice, smooth control of my O gauge models which hall have 40:1 gearboxes and flywheels, but my old OO scale models seem to run rough (perhaps I need to oil the gears?) Maybe a gauge master combi controller.

I am sorely tempted to get myself the new Hornby Terrier, the Peckett 0-4-0ST and the Barclay 0-4-0ST. An Austerity tank is rather big power for small industrial yards.

[south_tyne]

On 23/03/2019 at 09:16, hartleymartin said:

They are the new uni-frog type. That said, my Dapol Pug still managed to stall on the Vee. (Not yet wired up). I'm thinking of using slide-SPDT switches and wire-in-the-tube to control the points. The crossing will be wired live.

 

Funny thing is that my Hornby Controller gives me nice, smooth control of my O gauge models which hall have 40:1 gearboxes and flywheels, but my old OO scale models seem to run rough (perhaps I need to oil the gears?) Maybe a gauge master combi controller.

I am sorely tempted to get myself the new Hornby Terrier, the Peckett 0-4-0ST and the Barclay 0-4-0ST. An Austerity tank is rather big power for small industrial yards.

 

The Unifrog should offer the best of both worlds, simplicity of insulfrog as bought but easily adapted to electrofrog when wired up. Wiring the crossing should make a big difference for those short wheelbase locos mind. 

 

We really are so lucky at the moment with so many 'real' industrial locos now available. Makes up for the last 40 years where the austerity tank has been the only real option I you've stuck to rtr. You're right, they are a bit big for small industrial yards. 

 

Have you had any thoughts around the theme of the layout? Is it a specific industry or a factory/works complex? 

 

David

 

[hartleymartin]

2 hours ago, south_tyne said:

 

The Unifrog should offer the best of both worlds, simplicity of insulfrog as bought but easily adapted to electrofrog when wired up. Wiring the crossing should make a big difference for those short wheelbase locos mind. 

 

We really are so lucky at the moment with so many 'real' industrial locos now available. Makes up for the last 40 years where the austerity tank has been the only real option I you've stuck to rtr. You're right, they are a bit big for small industrial yards. 

 

Have you had any thoughts around the theme of the layout? Is it a specific industry or a factory/works complex? 

 

David

 

 

Have not thought much about a theme as such. I thought about maybe doing some sort of little exchange/sorting yard so that I could have a random assortment of wagons. Perhaps something set in preservation era so that I could have all those lovely little industrials now on the market.

[hartleymartin]

I was a bit disheartened by my loco testing this evening. The Hornby J94 judders at slow speed, the Pug is running more like a pig and gives off a smell of ozone when running, and the Mainline J72 has splits in all the axles. The later Bachmann J72 runs well, but a closer inspection reveals that the insulated centre axle has already started to split.

 

I figure that the lubricant in the J94 is dried out and is easy to fix, the Pug is a mystery to me and the two J72s are going to need work.

[hartleymartin]

New axles for the two J72s have been ordered from Peter's Spares (that man's shop is a god-send!) and the J94 now runs a lot smoother after applying some labelle 102 oil to the gears, wheel bearings and side-rods (I can't figure out how to remove the body to oil the motor bearings). The old Dapol Pug now runs more like a piglet after a similar lubrication treatment, but still makes a horrible grinding noise when running forward.

 

The old Hornby Terrier and Airfix 1400 have been sold to another member of RMweb.

[long island jack]

think there's a screw in the J94's funnel

[TonyA]

There is a screw in the funnel and reassembly is tricky as described here.

 

https://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/60934-problem-reassembling-Hornby-j94-loco/

 

Tony

[Wendell1976]

On 20/03/2019 at 08:03, hartleymartin said:

The only way I can get an Inglenook to fit a 4'x1' baseboard is to angle the track thus. I won't really know for sure until I start laying track onto some foam-core board.

If you cannot fit a standard 5-3-3 Inglenook on the size of the board you have, try a 4-3-3 Inglenook with 7 cars. The switching/shunting lead size will still be three cars plus the locomotive. I had built a 4-3-2 Inglenook(six cars) with a switching lead capacity of two cars plus the locomotive.

 

Wendell

Idaho, USA

[Pacific231G]

On 15/03/2019 at 06:41, hartleymartin said:

It is just the classic inglenook layout with a kick-back off the long siding. I arranged the points this way to avoid any S-bends, though with large radius points this might not be much of an issue. I would have preferred to use medium or small radius points, but the job lot of large radius Code 75 bullhead points came in at a price that was too good to refuse (the three additional wagons cost more than the 6 points!)

My thoughts are to put some sort of shed or loco servicing area on the kick-back, but I have also seen a couple of interesting variations on the inglenook as a set of exchange sidings. One had an extra siding for a loco and brake-van, and then had a Wye point leading into the fiddle-yard, implying that one was the "branch-line" and the other was the "industrial line."

 

One question I have for those with inglenook layouts is about the arrangement of the uncouplers. I am using Kadee couplers and I'd like to know if people think I should just have the one uncoupler magnet at the throat of the yard, or if I should have uncouplers in every siding. I am using rare earth magnets 20mm long x 10mm wide and 2mm thick under the track instead of the Kadee ones.

Hi Martin

That is a very nice arrangement and gives you more operating potential than a simple Inglenook. I looked at it for a four foot long shunting layout some time ago based on Chris Krupa's delightful 009 Minbury Abbas 

Minbury was orginally operated with an integral fiddle yard a la Piano Line and was just 26 ins. long by 19ins wide though Chris later added a 13 in. long fiddle yard bringing it to 39 ins. In that small space the capacities were a loco and three wagons in the platform and the "main line" fiddle track, a loco plus two wagons in the yard head shunt (I think the loco poked its behind into the engine shed) and four wagons in each of the sidings. That actually gave a lot more operation than Inglenook with the possibility of working two trains on the layout at once.  

 

 

I came up with this plan, which is very similar to yours, in H0 based on Minbury but with a straight "main line". With the same operational parameters as Minbury and Peco medium radius points it certainly fitted in four foot for European four wheel wagons (about four inches long over couplers) . The idea is a private siding yard off a single track line with a halt where Chris put his station.  With your slightly extra length I think the extra couple of inches for large radius points could be easily accomodated.

The operating plan I envisaged was for a main line loco to "arrive" with  a four or five wagon train, uncouple the first two wagons and draw forward so that the industrial shunter can take them to one of the yard sidings and repeat that a couple of times till the wagons are all in the yard. The main line loco then retreats to the top left hand corner and the shunter sets a couple of wagons out on the main line which are picked up and drawn away  to enable a couple more to be set out. Finally the shunter retreats to the head shunt and the main line loco couples up to the four or five wagons and (in imagination or reality) chuffs off with them back down the main. I think with shorter British 10ft wb wagons you probably could fit the classic Inglenook puzzle in and with a fiddle stick at one or both ends you could also alternate with a passenger working even if just a push-pull or railcar.  The puzzle comes of course with exactly which wagons have to be dropped and picked up and into which sidings and it would be very easy to make that as awkward as any Inglenook.

 

On Kadees, my experience with four wheel wagons is that they don't like coupling and uncoupling on curves so you may well be better off with magnets for each siding. I use them and prefer them to anything else yoyu can plug into an NEM pocket but find that I do need a shunting pole to encourage them - my layout wasn't laid out with Kadees in mind.

 

 

 

 

[Harlequin]

OK, since everyone is still posting alternate designs here's something that I came up with. A 5-3-3 Inglenook in 1300 by 300mm:

 

Using three Peco large radius points - one righthand, two lefthand. The straight section of one set of points is shared with the 5 wagon siding.

 

The idea is that the Inglenook forms a set of private sidings, hence the fence.

With 3 wagons already on scene your little shunter would enter from the fiddle yard on the left pulling 5 wagons and the gate would close behind it.

It would then have to sort the 8 wagons into a randomly drawn arrangement ("Reverse Inglenook" puzzle).

Then a new random draw would take place and the shunter would be required to select 5 wagons from the 8 on scene.

When that was accomplished the gate would open and the newly formed train would leave the scene.

 

Edited March 28, 2019 by Harlequin

[Wendell1976]

3 hours ago, Harlequin said:

OK, since everyone is still posting alternate designs here's something that I came up with. A 5-3-3- Inglenook in 1300 by 300mm

 

Using three Peco large radius points - one righthand, two lefthand. The straight section of one set of points is shared with the 5 wagon siding.

 

The idea is that the Inglenook forms a set of private sidings, hence the fence.

With 3 wagons already on scene your little shunter would enter from the fiddle yard on the left pulling 5 wagons and the gate would close behind it.

It would then have to sort the 8 wagons into a randomly drawn arrangement ("Reverse Inglenook" puzzle).

Then a new random draw would take place and the shunter would be required to select 5 wagons from the 8 on scene.

When that was accomplished the gate would open and the newly formed train would leave the scene.

 

I like this "Reverse Inglenook" plan. This teaches people about car-spotting. I had created a post about car-spotting on a Inglenook layout on the Model Railroad Hobbyist website. Here is my post:

https://model-railroad-hobbyist.com/node/30075

 

Wendell

Idaho, USA

[hartleymartin]

Found a way to sneak a little extra length by trimming down the points to reduce overall length. About 9-10mm is trimmed off each point, which gives me about 20mm of additional length to use on the sidings or the shunting neck. I have thus far decided to make it a plain "Classic" Inglenook without the kick-back siding, but I am making provision to link the shunting neck to a cassette or staging area to do the whole 5-wagons in, shunt then wagons out. It is a way of making it slightly more real and not just a shunting puzzle for the sake of a shunting puzzle.

 

 

Edited March 30, 2019 by hartleymartin

[hartleymartin]

Revised plan which accounts for the alterations I have made to the length of the points. I finally figured out how to do curves in this program - you have to specify the radius and arc BEFORE attaching it to other tracks.

 

Potentially, I could just have 60cm long cassettes, but I decided to draw a 90cm fiddle-yard which makes use of set-track points (though, I could use small-radius electrofrog) so that a fresh consist of 5 wagons with loco can move onto the layout as soon as the old consist is off-stage. The blank panel blocking the view of the staging area would probably have some info sheets on the layout and explain exactly what an Inglenook is.

 

Isolated section of track would be a test-area (bottom edge is viewing side for exhibitions). Large blank area (is there such a thing on a micro-layout?) would be a suitable site for a building to act as a scenic break - probably in semi-relief with a yard of some sort. Weigh bridge, goods office maybe?

 

I intend to use above-board point motors mounted close to the back-scene and hidden in buildings with a wire-in-tube linkage to the points themselves. Since I want to get back into O gauge, this will let me experiment with how much I may enjoy an Inglenook, a new method (to me) of lightweight baseboard construction, running my own layout at an exhibition, etc. I'm just as likely to put up a "For Sale" sign at the first show I attend.

 

Edited March 30, 2019 by hartleymartin

[hartleymartin]

Today I took the first steps in building the baseboard. I had bought a 120cm x 60cm sheet of 30mm thick "knaufboard." I cut it in half lengthways and glued the two halves together to form a 60mm thick baseboard. At the moment I am waiting on some magnets to arrive in the post which will be my uncouplers for the Kadees I am using. A few days ago I ordered replacement axles from Peters Spares for my Mainline and Bachmann J72s. The Bachmann J72 runs so smoothly, but already has cracks in each axle, so better fix it before it becomes a problem. 

[hartleymartin]

Magnets arrived in the post today. I had a chance to do some experimenting with spacing under the track to figure out what worked best and to check that the steel axles and weights in the wagons were not affected by them. I somewhat ironically find that my wagons are a little too free-running to work properly with Kadee couplings and I will have to add some friction for them not to roll so freely. At the moment, I am thinking a little bit of wire rubbing on the backs of the wheels or the axles may be necessary.

[hartleymartin]

Track loosely pinned down with magnets in place for testing of clearances. Having reliability issues with the Kadee couplers. It seems almost definitely the problem that the wagons are too free-rolling and I'll have to come up with a way to reduce this.

 

The best inspiration I have found so far is to try using modifies Kadee #634 springs. This is an example of a HO scale bogie where the springs are modified into bogie pick-ups.

 

Link to source: http://soundtraxx-soundbytes.blogspot.com/2015/10/diy-track-pickup-wipers.html

 

[south_tyne]

Martin,

 

Pleased to see you are making progress. Intersting to read of your use of the knaufboard - will you be facing it will ply or do you think it will be robust enough as is? Similarly, are you going to lay the track directly on the board or will you be putting something else down for the trackbed?

 

Cheers and apologies for asking so many questions!

[hartleymartin]

Knaufboard is basically a type of insulation board. I plan to use some 5mm Foamcore board as a sub-base for the track. I plan to use some 1" square aluminium box-section for the frame (I have some in the garage) and then 3mm MDF to form the outside faces of the layout module. The plan is to then use speaker-cabinet carpet covering. Basically, I want to be able to make this without having to use power tools or saws. The only exception of course is the soldering iron that I will need to attach track power. At the moment I'm using a pair of alligator clips!