south_tyne Posted February 10, 2015 Author Share Posted February 10, 2015 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!!! Thanks for that extra info. I am going to have a perusal of your layout topic today! David Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pacific231G Posted February 10, 2015 Share Posted February 10, 2015 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!!) I'll PM you a scan of my original article from MTI written when the layout was a bare board shunting puzzle. The folded dimensions of Le Goudron-Calandre (a pun on its original English name of Termingle) were determined by a cupboard where I sometimes store it and the tapered design allowed for more width where it was needed it at the goods yard end. It also seems to make the layout feel longer though it does make it a bu**er to photograph except in close up. I used medium radius points for the run-round including the yard entrance and that did allow a visually better flow to the track at the cost of a total of about four inches in total length over small radius points. The two of those I did use are actually in positions that don't affect the overall length and I have thought of changing them but as they're only used by 4W wagons I probably won't . I did also try wherever possible to avoid reverse curves and that was the reason for having the headshunt on an angle; that extra curve, as well as giving a bit more width for the goods yard, did seem to improve things aesthetically. I have found operating other people's layouts at shows that having three sidings gives a lot more operating potential than two especially if one of them faces the other way. Though I designed the Inglenook puzzle into this layout I've found that I very rarely play it as the extra private siding creates plenty of natural shunting challenges if a random selection of wagons are to go to the right places.If the train is a mixed one just too long for the run round the challenges multiply very satisfyingly. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenton Posted February 10, 2015 Share Posted February 10, 2015 I think one of the big problems we all have is to start out with a defined space 6 x 2 (as an example) then choose a track design (an Inglenook, for example) that fits easy in much less space than available then we are tempted to add (room for just one more point) track to the point of it having too much track without any more realistic operating potential. No space left for what happens outside the rails and no real purpose. Although there are examples of prototype Inglenooks they are all somewhat contrived to fit the plan. The Inglenook should be treated for what it is - a game. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
shortliner Posted February 10, 2015 Share Posted February 10, 2015 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? Sorry - been out all morning and only just logged in - Yes, as far as I know there is no reason that the numbers of cars cannot be upped - the problem in my case is that when you model HO American the cars/locos are longer - each 60' car is about 8.5" over couplers, and the locos about the same again. As the head-shunt needs to be the same length as the shortest siding + a loco, longer inglenooks start to become more, and more, unwieldy and rapidly outgrow available storage space. UK modellers would have less of a problem. An alternative, that may be worth examining ( on Carls Scrapbook page 84) http://archive.carendt.com/scrapbook/page84/index.html#winstondale might be Winstondale - with a 3 way turnout at the right-hand end and a lead track to the rest of the world, running down the board towards the left, behind the factories - particularly if they are low relief against a sky board to hide it. To see what I mean - see http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/47081-track-plans-for-north-american-layouts/?p=1198364 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
south_tyne Posted February 10, 2015 Author Share Posted February 10, 2015 I'll PM you a scan of my original article from MTI written when the layout was a bare board shunting puzzle. The folded dimensions of Le Goudron-Calandre (a pun on its original English name of Termingle) were determined by a cupboard where I sometimes store it and the tapered design allowed for more width where it was needed it at the goods yard end. It also seems to make the layout feel longer though it does make it a bu**er to photograph except in close up. I used medium radius points for the run-round including the yard entrance and that did allow a visually better flow to the track at the cost of a total of about four inches in total length over small radius points. The two of those I did use are actually in positions that don't affect the overall length and I have thought of changing them but as they're only used by 4W wagons I probably won't . I did also try wherever possible to avoid reverse curves and that was the reason for having the headshunt on an angle; that extra curve, as well as giving a bit more width for the goods yard, did seem to improve things aesthetically. I have found operating other people's layouts at shows that having three sidings gives a lot more operating potential than two especially if one of them faces the other way. Though I designed the Inglenook puzzle into this layout I've found that I very rarely play it as the extra private siding creates plenty of natural shunting challenges if a random selection of wagons are to go to the right places.If the train is a mixed one just too long for the run round the challenges multiply very satisfyingly. Thanks very much, really appreciated. I've replied to your PM. I think one of the big problems we all have is to start out with a defined space 6 x 2 (as an example) then choose a track design (an Inglenook, for example) that fits easy in much less space than available then we are tempted to add (room for just one more point) track to the point of it having too much track without any more realistic operating potential. No space left for what happens outside the rails and no real purpose. Although there are examples of prototype Inglenooks they are all somewhat contrived to fit the plan. The Inglenook should be treated for what it is - a game. I agree to an extent and mostly we (I) do things the wrong way round and design the trackplan to fit the board or specific space. Maybe that is why my projects so often grind to a half. HOWEVER the practicalities of life are that, in designing and building a layout there are constraints and mitigating factors which restrict what we want to do, it is all about compromise in the end and getting the best from your space and circumstances. I cannot agree with the inglenook concept just being a game mind. I think, yes in it's purest form it is, but the 3 siding arrangement is undoubtedly a classic and such small yard can be found anywhere on any railway line in the world! We can restrict the length if we like but, from my point of view the best scenario is to be able to do this when I like but also to have a realsitic purpose to the layout too. Hence looking to expand to 6' and give some room for the trackplan to breath and space for a world beyond the lineside fence. Sorry - been out all morning and only just logged in - Yes, as far as I know there is no reason that the numbers of cars cannot be upped - the problem in my case is that when you model HO American the cars/locos are longer - each 60' car is about 8.5" over couplers, and the locos about the same again. As the head-shunt needs to be the same length as the shortest siding + a loco, longer inglenooks start to become more, and more, unwieldy and rapidly outgrow available storage space. UK modellers would have less of a problem. An alternative, that may be worth examining ( on Carls Scrapbook page 84) http://archive.carendt.com/scrapbook/page84/index.html#winstondale might be Winstondale - with a 3 way turnout at the right-hand end and a lead track to the rest of the world, running down the board towards the left, behind the factories - particularly if they are low relief against a sky board to hide it. To see what I mean - see http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/47081-track-plans-for-north-american-layouts/?p=1198364 Thanks Jack and no need to apologise at all! Well having tested the concept a little a 'British' 7-4-4 inglenook will definitely fit into 5' with a tank engine and small wheelbase stock. Expanding to 5'6" would give the chance for a longer headshunt and locomotives. Thanks for the links, I will have a look. David Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
garethashenden Posted February 10, 2015 Share Posted February 10, 2015 If it were me I'd probably do a 6' layout but only 4' of track. Gives you space for some scenery, a street scene or large factory or something like that. Don't fall into the trap of filling every square inch with track. Less can be more. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
south_tyne Posted February 10, 2015 Author Share Posted February 10, 2015 If it were me I'd probably do a 6' layout but only 4' of track. Gives you space for some scenery, a street scene or large factory or something like that. Don't fall into the trap of filling every square inch with track. Less can be more. Thanks Gareth, sound advice indeed. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Campaman Posted February 11, 2015 Share Posted February 11, 2015 My Inglenook is 8ft (2 x 4ft boards), I restrict the length of the head shunt with a level crossing, I have the gates shut when playing the puzzle, the other 4ft board has a small run around and an extra siding which adds to the overall scenic effect. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
south_tyne Posted February 12, 2015 Author Share Posted February 12, 2015 My Inglenook is 8ft (2 x 4ft boards), I restrict the length of the head shunt with a level crossing, I have the gates shut when playing the puzzle, the other 4ft board has a small run around and an extra siding which adds to the overall scenic effect. That is a good idea, imposing the restrictions for the puzzle when necessary but also offering scoping for a more expansive set up the rest of the time. Best of both worlds really. I would be interested in seeing your interpretation if you have any photos! Cheers, David Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Campaman Posted February 13, 2015 Share Posted February 13, 2015 There are some photos on another forum but the layout is now stored in the loft as I am now building something bigger in my new purpose built shed. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.