Using the maximum space available...

[south_tyne]

I am in the process of planning a inglenook type shunting layout and just wondered what people's thoughts were on utilising space...

 

I have up to 6' in total to play with. A standard inglenook (for the purposes of the puzzle) can be built in 4' length but I have been considering using the full space available, or at least another foot or so of the additonal space, to create longer sidings/headshunt and a more realistic setting.

 

Now, just as a general question, do you as a modeller always use the maximum space you have available? Or do you plan a project based on other aspects or practicalities - ease of transportation, likelihood of finishing the project etc?

 

I think I will use at least 5' in length but then I think why not go the whole hog and use 6'! I just don't want to make a decision and then regret it later... By nature I am indecisive so this probably just another example of that coming to the fore!!

 

Interested to hear any thoughts on the issue.

 

Cheers

[Oldddudders]

An important issue for some is the environment that they may be able to create on the rest of the baseboard, which may suggest less trackwork and more scenery and/or structures. Only you know how important that is to you, but it is worth considering how the trade-off will affect your enjoyment of the layout when it's "finished".

[BG John]

Don't forget that the rules of operating an Inglenook specify the maximum number of vehicles on each piece of track. So if you make the sidings longer, operators can cheat, unless you create some way to stop them.

 

One option to use up extra space is to use larger radius points, or go for finescale, maybe in EM or P4 (or better still broad gauge!). A layout designed in Templot won't easily fit the same space that one designed for Peco points will. My new layout, Ingletyme, that combines an Inglenook and a Timesaver, plus a fiddle yard in 6ft 1in (I think that inch makes all the difference!) only works with Peco medium radius points. It wouldn't fit if I used large radius.

[Catweasel]

What are you hoping to achieve? I to have 6 feet to play with and I'm doing a shunting puzzle, designed by Shortliner.His name for it is Box Street Yard, but mine is Pots Lane and I've added an extra siding.I'm using Peco short Live frog points and a double slip.

[Joseph_Pestell]

Pots Lane Yard.jpgWhat are you hoping to achieve? I to have 6 feet to play with and I'm doing a shunting puzzle, designed by Shortliner.His name for it is Box Street Yard, but mine is Pots Lane and I've added an extra siding.I'm using Peco short Live frog points and a double slip.

 

That looks much more fun than an Inglenook. Assume that is a sector plate on RH side.

[BG John]

Pots Lane, with its extra siding, looks rather like a Timesaver, and using British short wheelbase stock would probably fit in 4ft. That's the space my Timesaver takes up. It probably needs less wagons than an Inglenook too.

[south_tyne]

An important issue for some is the environment that they may be able to create on the rest of the baseboard, which may suggest less trackwork and more scenery and/or structures. Only you know how important that is to you, but it is worth considering how the trade-off will affect your enjoyment of the layout when it's "finished".

Yes that is very true, I suppose in some ways it is rhetorical as only the individual concerned can decide. My thinking was one of givimg that extra room for the layout to breath - added siding length and non-railway scenery is an important consideration.

[south_tyne]

Don't forget that the rules of operating an Inglenook specify the maximum number of vehicles on each piece of track. So if you make the sidings longer, operators can cheat, unless you create some way to stop them.

 

One option to use up extra space is to use larger radius points, or go for finescale, maybe in EM or P4 (or better still broad gauge!). A layout designed in Templot won't easily fit the same space that one designed for Peco points will. My new layout, Ingletyme, that combines an Inglenook and a Timesaver, plus a fiddle yard in 6ft 1in (I think that inch makes all the difference!) only works with Peco medium radius points. It wouldn't fit if I used large radius.

Hi John,

 

many thanks for your reply! I will have a look at your thread. Yes I appreciate the point of the rules of the inglenook game - however 5' length for instance would allow an enlarged version... So 7-4-4 rather than 5-3-3. As I understand the siding lengths amd headshunt etc must all be enlarged in proportion for it to work. So the next step would be 9-5-5.

 

Longer points would definitely be an option, I will have a think about that. And of course, as you point out the sidings can be restricted in length when operating if necessary.

 

David

[south_tyne]

Pots Lane Yard.jpgWhat are you hoping to achieve? I to have 6 feet to play with and I'm doing a shunting puzzle, designed by Shortliner.His name for it is Box Street Yard, but mine is Pots Lane and I've added an extra siding.I'm using Peco short Live frog points and a double slip.

Interesting plan which I am sure will give lots of operating potential. There is something about the inglenook mind... So simple but very effective and also very prototypical and can be applied to almost any situation!

 

Do you have a topic for your layout?

[shortliner]

If you want to make an Inglenook longer to make it look more realistic, Put a warehouse or goods-shed beside the longer track, and park a lorry across the track "being loaded" to artificially restrict the length.  Another dodge is to run the track into a yard with locked gates, which does the same thing. You could also try a de-railed wagon, with sundry "workmen" standing round looking at it and wondering how to get it moved without sending for the "Boss", I did one on Carls Scrapbook, "Ingleferry wharf" which collapsed into a shoebox,  a 3:2:2 version, where the tracks were 3 cars long on the ferry - and the head-shunt was on the dockside - on that two of the tracks were restricted by having a car at the far end which couldn't move (fastened down) and was assumed to be destined for another destination on the river.

[BG John]

The siding in the top left corner on Ingletyme will go into the goods shed, but will have a wagon just inside it fixed to the layout. My original idea was either that the shed had been sold off and the end wall bricked up, or to just close the doors.

 

The siding at the bottom that goes to the dairy should hold 2 wagons on the Timesaver, and may have a gate on the boundary between BR and the private dairy sidings.

 

The Inglenook headshunt ends at the point in the platform, and will probably have an isolating switch to stop a cheating loco driver going any further!

[DCB]

I would use every single inch, but then my idea of shunting is to pull everything out of the sidings in a long string and attach the incoming wagons and pull the whole lot out and push the incomers into the sidings with the pannier struggling to push them......

[ColinK]

if you are invited to take it to an exhibition, or move house, 6 feet long is difficult to move.

[martin_wynne]

A layout designed in Templot won't easily fit the same space that one designed for Peco points will.

 

Not so, John. Templot can go as small as Peco and smaller if you want. You may not want to go this far though.

 

Templot screenshot.

 

Martin.

[south_tyne]

If you want to make an Inglenook longer to make it look more realistic, Put a warehouse or goods-shed beside the longer track, and park a lorry across the track "being loaded" to artificially restrict the length. Another dodge is to run the track into a yard with locked gates, which does the same thing. You could also try a de-railed wagon, with sundry "workmen" standing round looking at it and wondering how to get it moved without sending for the "Boss", I did one on Carls Scrapbook, "Ingleferry wharf" which collapsed into a shoebox, a 3:2:2 version, where the tracks were 3 cars long on the ferry - and the head-shunt was on the dockside - on that two of the tracks were restricted by having a car at the far end which couldn't move (fastened down) and was assumed to be destined for another destination on the river.

Hi Jack, thanks for that insight. I will have a lool for Ingleferry on Carl's website - it is a regular calling point and has been for years. Am I right in thinking that the inglenook concept can be extended - to 7-4-4 or 9-5-5 for instance - as long as the proportions of headshunt and the short sidings remain?

The siding in the top left corner on Ingletyme will go into the goods shed, but will have a wagon just inside it fixed to the layout. My original idea was either that the shed had been sold off and the end wall bricked up, or to just close the doors.

 

The siding at the bottom that goes to the dairy should hold 2 wagons on the Timesaver, and may have a gate on the boundary between BR and the private dairy sidings.

 

The Inglenook headshunt ends at the point in the platform, and will probably have an isolating switch to stop a cheating loco driver going any further!

Thanks John, really interesting plan and a bit different too! How many wagons can you fit in the loop for the purposes of runnning round?

[south_tyne]

if you are invited to take it to an exhibition, or move house, 6 feet long is difficult to move.

Hi Colin, thanks for the reply. Yes I am with you there, a single 6' would be unwieldy. However the idea is to have a baseboard which folds in two with a hinge for transport and storage whether it is 5' or 6' overall. That's what makes me even more tempted to exploit the full space, for the sake of an extra 6" when stored away.

 

I just wonder whether further down the line I will regret not utilising all the space available...

 

Cheers, David

[Kenton]

 

Now, just as a general question, do you as a modeller always use the maximum space you have available? Or do you plan a project based on other aspects or practicalities - ease of transportation, likelihood of finishing the project etc?

 

If I based my layouts on the "likelihood of finishing the project" I would never get anything done ... hang on a minute ...

 

Space, I have a double garage to fill, but I don't like big layouts and find it easier to start and fail with "smaller" projects that can be stacked on their end at the back of the garage lost in time and space as new ideas blossom from the wreckage.

 

Have saw - can easily cut down to size for transportation, just as long as I can lift the weight.

 

I tend to start with the plan and then build the boards to suit it. I don't find plans that are based on a flat board size as being very interesting and soon loose the will power to continue. The real world just doesn't work that way. But have been known to break that rule as well (modules anyone?)

[Catweasel]

Carl Arendt's site is wonderful for inspiration.That's where I found Box Street many years ago. I'm having a couple of 3 ft x 18"  boards made by Tim Horn for mine.He seemed interested in the sector plate arrangement. I sent him a copy of the track plan,along with a sketch of the alterations required to his standard system, and I'm just waiting now or an e'mail saying they are ready to ship. I've already got the trestles built to his measurements so they should fit. I've also got an idea for the front siding which will be different. 

[Pacific231G]

If you've got about 5-6 feet to play with and want to incorporate the Inglenook puzzle it's fairly easy to make that the goods yard for a complete terminus.

I did that to create a French light railway terminus which is tapered and horizontally hinged to form a smallish box. It does have an optional fiddle yard but can be operated as a shunting layout.

 

I'm not suggesting this actual plan for a British railway as the kick back private siding from the platform wouldn't be prototypical even for a light railway but the basic principle of adding a run round loop to a standard Inglenook with the same five wagon capacity doesn't add more than a few inches to the total length. The other critical lengths are that there must be room for the longest vehicle you're going to use at either end of the run round loop.

 

 

Originally the kick back was going to be a loco shed so it would simply have been an Inglenook plus a run round but the third siding facing the other way added considerable operating potential. It also gave a good excuse for some wooden wine tankers. 

 

 

The plan was intended for a small shunting loco but I soon found that I preferred a small tender loco or a diesel so when the fiddle yard is not added a small box fits on the exit end so that the loco plus three wagons can clear the relevant points. With about three extra inches added to the total length of 62 inches that wouldn't have been necessary and the run round is also a bit tight for anything longer than short wheelbase wagons

With short wheel base British wagons the whole thing could be a bit shorter but I think I'd use any space saved in the terminus to create a longer main line run in. I also found that medium radius points looked far better than short ones and with hindsight I wouldn't have used the two that I did.

[BG John]

Not so, John. Templot can go as small as Peco and smaller if you want. You may not want to go this far though.

 

Templot screenshot.

 

Martin.

I was using the example of Templot in the context of being a tool for "serious" railway modellers

[BG John]

Thanks John, really interesting plan and a bit different too! How many wagons can you fit in the loop for the purposes of runnning round?

2 on the main line and 1 in the loop, as per the regulations. With short wagons it may be possible to squeeze an extra one in, but I'll position the uncouplers to prevent that! It will take a single bogie coach, but it will need manual uncoupling. The fiddle yard will take a loco, 4 wagons and a brake van, and I think I've worked out that it's quite practical to run it into the station and shunt it. Any day now, I'll start tracklaying, although it's nearly all been cut to length and checked to make sure it fits already, so I may find out if it works soon! You need to read the first post in my topic on Ingletyme for the totally unconvincing explanation!!!

[martin_wynne]

I was using the example of Templot in the context of being a tool for "serious" railway modellers

 

But even so you can do all you could want in Templot. This is a 9ft - 1:4.5 turnout in 00 gauge. The radius is around 25" and it is similar in size to a Peco short-radius turnout:

 

 

regards,

 

Martin.

[BG John]

I know Martin, but I decided SCARM with its built-in Peco templates was quicker and easier! I have other ideas for the future that will need Templotting!

[south_tyne]

 If I based my layouts on the "likelihood of finishing the project" I would never get anything done ... hang on a minute ...

 

Space, I have a double garage to fill, but I don't like big layouts and find it easier to start and fail with "smaller" projects that can be stacked on their end at the back of the garage lost in time and space as new ideas blossom from the wreckage.

 

Have saw - can easily cut down to size for transportation, just as long as I can lift the weight.

 

I tend to start with the plan and then build the boards to suit it. I don't find plans that are based on a flat board size as being very interesting and soon loose the will power to continue. The real world just doesn't work that way. But have been known to break that rule as well (modules anyone?)

Thanks to everyone who has offered there thoughts to the thread so far. I guess the key points are that, on the one hand it is important to maximise potential, in terms of both operation and the scenic aspect of such a small layout, yet the mitigating factors of ease of transportation and handling are also to be taken into account.

 

I have started, but not completed, a couple of micro layouts over the last 4 or 5 years and one of my key failings in the past has been lack of proper planning. In the main this was lack of forsight about siding length, fiddle yards and operation. Hence why I want to get everything right first time and for going to tried and tested inglenook route. Those were far more constrained in size than this would be mind so I am hoping the extra potential provided by a little more space will keep me interested. I think Kenton's point above is quite prudent.... Design the layout and then build the baseboard round it. Sound advice but not always possible. I suppose I am in the position where I know my maximum footprint but if I might be able to get what I want from this project in less space.

 

I suppose what an extra little space, say by stretching to 5'6" or 6', might also offer is the chance to have a little off-scene storage - not such much a fiddle yard as such but more of some kind of area to allow a loco or wagon to 'escape' the scene as it were. That would definitely offer some added flexibility to the operation.

[south_tyne]

If you've got about 5-6 feet to play with and want to incorporate the Inglenook puzzle it's fairly easy to make that the goods yard for a complete terminus.

I did that to create a French light railway terminus which is tapered and horizontally hinged to form a smallish box. It does have an optional fiddle yard but can be operated as a shunting layout.

le goudron-calandre Jan 2011 noties.jpg

 

I'm not suggesting this actual plan for a British railway as the kick back private siding from the platform wouldn't be prototypical even for a light railway but the basic principle of adding a run round loop to a standard Inglenook with the same five wagon capacity doesn't add more than a few inches to the total length. The other critical lengths are that there must be room for the longest vehicle you're going to use at either end of the run round loop.

 

le goudron-calandre - capacities.jpg

 

Originally the kick back was going to be a loco shed so it would simply have been an Inglenook plus a run round but the third siding facing the other way added considerable operating potential. It also gave a good excuse for some wooden wine tankers.

 

Le Goudron at Wealden tidied .jpg

 

The plan was intended for a small shunting loco but I soon found that I preferred a small tender loco or a diesel so when the fiddle yard is not added a small box fits on the exit end so that the loco plus three wagons can clear the relevant points. With about three extra inches added to the total length of 62 inches that wouldn't have been necessary and the run round is also a bit tight for anything longer than short wheelbase wagons

With short wheel base British wagons the whole thing could be a bit shorter but I think I'd use any space saved in the terminus to create a longer main line run in. I also found that medium radius points looked far better than short ones and with hindsight I wouldn't have used the two that I did.

Thanks for that, I do like that plan. Interesting thoughts about the hindsight of length and small radius points too. One of the reasons for looking at stretching the whole scene a bit was to use large, rather than medium radius points, and the opportunity to utilise longer locomotives instead of just shunting locos.

 

I think I might have a play around with this plan as a full sized mock (currently my roll of paper which folds away complete with paper point templates and a few wagons!!)