Small/Micro layouts for Solo Ops...

Dear Rick,

OK, let's see where this leads...

Given that we're "preaching to the converted" as far as model RRers here, pretty safe to say that running a train is going to appeal as much, if not more than flicking a mouse on a computer screen. (If not, then we're not talking to "Physical-Model" model RRers, we're talking to "Auran Trainz/MSTS" model RRers  ).

RE: "Interesting layout designs". Hmmm, this is a risky statement, because "Interesting" has to be tempered against:
- actual space available
- style and degree of "operations desired"
- what constitutes "interesting" to the given modeller in question.

EG the Timesaver is arguably more "interesting" to the trackwork and "railroadiness" fan than an Inglenook/"proto-nook",
(more turnouts to build/play-with, a switchback, etc)

but is also a deadset pain to switch (as it was intended to be under the original _Game_Play_ conditions set out by John Allen), and struggles to emulate many of the most common, day-to-day ops performed by prototype 12'/1' scale railroaders. (The Timesaver "switching job" was unashamedly contrived to fit a given set of "game" conditions, and is quite inflexible in that regard).

Given the kind of 4' x 1' shelf space which tends to prompt many to think "timesaver", a simpler track-arrangement 3-2-2 Inglenook (assuming HO scale and average 40' cars)

provides much of the same "Game" playability, but with the additional flexibility of being operated as a _proto_ nook (IE not limited to simple "move the tile" car shuffling, actually capable of emulating real railroad "switch tasks")

with only a minor change of mindset (and maybe some appropriate scenery) to achieve the "Ingle/Proto" change

What I'm driving at is
- if space is at a premium
- and "solo operations which can hold interest for a given time period per session" is the priority

then the trackplan in play needs to respect those priorities, and place a (visually) or (construction-complexity) degree of "interesting track arrangement" on the back burner.

To place (visually or contruction-challenge) "interesting" track arrangement above the stated "satisfying solo operations" requirement in the priority stack is to build an "operating diorama".
(Nothing wrong with building a "operating diorama", so long as that's what One _intended_ to set-out to build in the first place,... hate to find a modeller who wants one thing, and torpedos or "significantly falls short of" their top-priority/desired outcome, thru adding "interesting" elements to the mix...

RE "reducing inconvienience" : For my mind, speaks to reducing anything which gets in the way of "just plugging it in, turning-it-on, and running the trains". (and anything subsequent which, pun not intended, "derails" the fun along the way...)

The next section addresses a key part of this, IE having the "layout" in such a situation where it is both socially and domestically acceptable to have it set-up and "ready to turn on" at a moment's notice. Having trains "staged in plain sight" helps, and the generating of "todays switching session" needs to be quick and painless.
(and if it requires turning away from the layout, or any form of manual data-entry, then that's a Con as well).

In terms of contact and control, a simple analog DC walkaround throttle will work fine, and may allow depoloyment in cost-challenged situations. For those who prefer DCC, a smaller system with basic booster + "driver cab" would decrease the "button shock" for a visiting operator, and give literally "just what's needed to plug-it-in-and-turn-it-on". For myself, when I find it actually required to use DCC, my PowerCab tends to stay at the workbench for programming, and the layout works with a SB3+CAB04P. (simple throttle for "pick it up and start running" ops).

Wheel/rail pickup on switching layouts (esp DCC apparently) is kinda critical to enabling the "Turn it on and start switching"/convienence ethos. Thankfully, as noted by Iain Rice and many other doyens of the small/micro layout genre, "when the layout is only _that_ (4x1 or less) big, cleaning the track is but the work of moments"
(Iain Rice, "Small, Smart and Practical Trackplans"). Again, speaking to the next section, a layout which is "domestically acceptable" may also include proscenium fascias and possibly even simple dustcovers which can promote and prolong "switching-grade" slow motion capability for significantly longer between "major track-cleanings". And of sourse, there is whatever fave track/wheel treatment is going round...
(My layouts personally thrive and survive on Graphite).

Given a small switch doesn't need scads of locos, just 1 (or maybe 2) which are really stellar switching performers, tweaking and keeping-optimised such a small roster is a doodle. Ditto for rollingstock wheel/truck/coupler performance. (you don't need a mainline freight worth of mediocre cars which all cause their own degree of pain, just a handful of well-tuned cars which give reliable "first-time, every time" performance).

Same for turnout wiring and maintainence. With only low-single digit quantities in play, wiring them from Day 1 of the layout _properly_ to avoid electrical issues is not a hardship (the 30 seconds you save on Day 1 will come back to bite you later in "inconvienient" failures and issues which stop the party for what could potentialy ammount to _years_ over the life of the layout!). .

Sure, wireless + battery power for a small (1-2 loco) switching fleet may be another option, but in the spirit of making it budget-do-able for most any modeller, such is not a _mandatory_ way-forward.

While we're at it, on the "quantity VS quality, weighed against a finite ammount of available resources" equation,
such small layouts with low numbers of turnouts and locos/cars also opens up the ideas of possibly trying "hi-grade" options such as Proto87Stores detailed turnouts, and Sergeants couplers... but I digress..
(As Andy from P87Stores points out, 2x #5 turnout kits from him are approx 1x the cost of an equivalent PECO, Atlas, or ME turnout.
If you're looking for a small layout which not only gives post-build operational opportunities,
but give more "play value" in the build stages, and visually eye-popping results, it's something to think about.
Maybe a "Solo operator who wants a visually impressive highly-detailed layout" _can_ have their cake and eat it too??? ).

OK, so we've got reliable track, locos, and cars. We've got a control system which allows us to "just run trains" at the drop of a hat, and we've got the layout in a location where it can be left setup, power at the Mains switch, and rollingstock auto-staged in position. (Those last 2 points are furthur covered below, keep reading... ).

So, what do we actually do with it?

The original Inglenook can be run using "tiddlywink computer"
http://www.wymann.info/ShuntingPuzzles/Inglenook/inglenook-rules.html

or simple photos of the cars in-play on the layout, drawn and placed in drawn order along the layout fascia.

but for those more "proto ops inclined", this degree of "no real-world relevant raison de-etre" is irksome.
("...so, you just draw the maximum # of cars at random, how is that relevant to 'real railroads'?")

Hold up a sec, when working out what cars to place in a "local freight" for delivery to a given industry back at the classification yard, the yardmaster takes a quick mobile phonecall with the stated industry manager, and confirms "...Which cars do you need? These are the cars that are waybilled to be sent to you..."

The local crew takes said cars to the industry, and then consults with the man-on-the-ground to establish,
(of the cars in the train, and already at the industry),
which car needs to go where relative to the "spots" available on the industry trackage.

That conversation, in essence, is the same as "drawing the car cars in spot order". It's only the _WHY_ that changes. ("Drawing the cards because that how we play this model-train game" VS "this order of cars is how the plant manager wants his cars spotted").

If a given "draw" of the car-cards assigns a given car on the layout to the same spot in the industry as it is already occupying, then obviously is hasn't finished being un/loaded yet, and thus may need to be "moved off-spot, and returned on-spot later" as required. If it's drawn as "at the industry, but in a different car-spot", then that's a potentially proto-valid move too...
(If a given car is not drawn, it can be assumed to have to stay in the "local train"s consist, presumably either for delivery to another industry, to be delivered back to the local's home classification yard for onward forwarding, or delivered back because "those so-and-sos at the classicifation yard marshalled the wrong car in our train again...")

SO, making a small "solo ops" layout "soo convienient to start an op session anytime a few spare moment become available" comes down to:
- building/wire it _Right_ the first time
- not building everything in sight, or having masses of everything
- rather, build just enough locos/cars/track do achieve the required task, and spend the effort you'd expend on a _massive_ fleet, redirected into making a small-fleet run bulletproof (it's not that hard, truly!)
- optimise control and "human interface" so that it's "no brainer"
(simplified throttles, turnout controls = a ready-to-go good-time, and easier maintainence later)
- aim for a system which "self-restages" between sessions
- think "real world", not "arbitrary shell game"

RE "Position the layout as part of living area"
I have to say I'd probably blow the definition out to "position in a readily accessible, semi-permanent location", but the jist is the same. This is where many attributes of a small/micro and shelf layout come into play:
- Readily fits within existing cabinentry
- can be finished to a "presentable piece of furniture" spec without excessive effort
- use of hyper-lightweight construction makes build/maintainence do-able
- mounting high allows "co-existance" with other room functions

Examples of nicely-finished shelf layouts are readily available, some which come to mind are:
Keith Jordan "Patch" LA switching
http://www.patchrailroad.net/The_Patch/Patch_Home.html

Mike (WaxGroove) switching layout
https://forum.mrhmag.com/post/layout-complete-working-on-cars-12190314

NS using what ammounts to 2x Inglenooks for live-fire 2-team/4-person training purposes,
could be perfect for demonstrating "model RR switching operations" at public shows
https://forum.mrhmag.com/post/prototype-ns-railroad-uses-ho-layout-for-switching-training-12191669
http://www.flickr.com/photos/themodelrailwayshow/sets/72157631974631333/detail/

Seaford Lumber C/O RMWeb
http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/48565-seaford-lumber/

and some very happy customers... oops, I mean _operators_,
displaying exactly IMHO what this thread is considering...

SO, Rick, I'm not sure if it addressed the criteria you started out with,
but hopefully it gives some thoughts and inspirations to kick-on with...

Happy Modelling,
Aim to Improve,
Prof Klyzlr

Nooks and uncoupling

...

I think this is a terrible assumption built upon a complete misunderstanding about just what a model railroad run from a computer console allows in terms of operations.

For instance, if we're talking Solo Ops, then a computer running X trains allows the solo operator to preprogram routes for all of the through trains and passenger trains, going so far as to give time for the passenger trains stopping in station, freights waiting for oncoming freights, and both doing crew swaps, amidst other such interesting moments where the trains purposely stop.  A very good program would go so far as to replicate whistles and horns at appropriate places along each route.  An even more complex system would include DCC activated turnouts and a fully operating Signal network, hence you'd indeed see REAL action as your model railroad "works."

The solo operator is then challenged with the task of running the local freight, switching in and out cars while ducking the normally scheduled trains.  The normally scheduled trains have priority, and they stop for nobody - hence, the operator had best get it right!!

Now there is one level less involved, and this is the railroad that freely operates in the living quarters, in an interesting manner, without any input from the living save the pre-programmed information.  It's be all passenger trains and through freights, with the only exchanges being within the staging yards where one train stops and another starts.

I realize the people who have to have their hands on everything would perhaps baulk at such an idea, but really, there is a sort of Zen to a model railroad that operates all on it's own.  When your railroad gets to this point, you can safely sit down and say "I have actually finished the bliminy thing - and look, IT ACTUALLY WORKS!!

Uncoupling Magnets on 'nooks?

Dear Thomas,

Not sure I can hold the "most 'nooked" title, but thanks for the wraps...

If we check the "helpful hints" provided by Kadee,
http://www.kadee.com/html/delay.pdf

the implication seems to be that placing a magnet on the switchlead, right around where the end of the loco pilot ends up is the "most flexible" location. Problem is, if we want to split the string of cars coupled  to the loco, those cars never get to the magnet :-(

If we place a magnet right in front of the first turnout, uncoupling along the straight route will likely be OK, and any car or the loco can access the uncoupler. However, uncoupling with the car starting to diverge and the loco still "sitting straight" on the switchlead will possibly be problematic.

NB that this solution is probably the closest to that which a proto crew would prefer. As the brakeman would be wanting to minimise walking, and would probably be shuttling between the 2x groundthrows on the 2 turnouts, having all of the coupling happen right next to the first-turnout switchrails/headblocks means he's "right where he needs to be" most of the time.

If we have the track length available, placing a magnet on _each_ of the 3 tracks, at least 1/4 of a car-length away from the clearance-point (between the clearance point and the turnout), would allow each track to be "split" as required, while avoiding having to "try and re-couple on top of a magnet". Given the reasonable consistency of vehicle length on the average 'nook, this can also allow placement of the magnet, optimised for each tracks geometry and predicted car/coupler-centreline offset. 

As a side issue, esp with smaller switching layouts, don't be afraid to _add_ a tiny bit of drag to each car. Adapting a spare Kadee #5-type centering spring as shown here

https://forum.mrhmag.com/post/fine-tuning-couplers-how-do-i-cure-inadvertent-uncoupling-12187317

allows cars to be spotted _exactly_ where you intend them to be (no chasing cars all over the layout trying to couple to them) and keeps tension on a coupled rake as they are pulled over the magnets, thus avoiding the majority of "spontaneously uncoupling" situations.
(It also works great if you're the kind of modeller who loves watching the slack come out of a rake of cars one-at-a-time as the loco starts moving them... ).

I know of a local On30 Inglenook doing the show circuit here for many years, which used the Kadee electro-magnetic uncouplers. This allowed a 2nd handset/"brakeman's throttle" to act as the "uncoupling trigger", and encouraged 2-man crews (1x engineer strictly responsible for loco movement, brakeman in control of turnout setting and uncoupling). It also completely avoided any risk of spontaneous uncoupling

Downside? Using the electro-magnetic uncouplers doesn't remove the need to accurately place and position the uncoupler relative to the loco+car positions, and doesn't avoid any "uncoupling on curves/coupler-offset-VS-magnetic-flux" issues. The layout used mostly short wheelbase 4-wheel cars, so represented possibly the best-case scenario for track-VS-coupler offset conditions. The layout builder always lamented that the original track geometry needed to be straightened to achieve "show-spec" consistency of operation. (Although, having personally operated the layout for over 3 hours at a time non-stop, I cannot recall a single un/coupling failure...)

Also, for those who are instinctively thinking "hey, DCC accessory decoder + electro-uncouplers = DCC-controlled uncoupling", remember that a electro-uncoupler is a _big_ current sucker. With some interface electronics or strategic decoder choice, it can work, but will definitely take some effort

Now, total open-ness and honesty. While "Brooklyn:3AM" uses 308 under-track permanent delayed-uncoupling magnets, neither HO or O 2R versions of "Chicago Fork" (3:2:2 inglenooks with sectorplate switchleads) do. Given the size of the layouts involved and display height, reach-in distances were easily within do-able range. Utilising manual uncoupling eliminated any concern where magnets may-be located, or coupler/centerline offset. Practical experience also shows that children as young as 5, and as old as 90, can easily and quickly grasp the finer points of uncoupling knuckle couplers with a pointed kebab skewer to a high degree of proficiency and accuracy without causing damage to surrounding details,equipment, or scenery...

Long story short (too late),
- using Kadee or equivalent magnetic uncouplers is entirely possible on a 'nook
- irrespective of the size of the layout, position of magnets and related track geometry directly affect the "usability" of the uncoupling system (as much as possible, place magnets on straight or exceedingly-shallow-radii curves).
- use of electromagnetic uncouplers can be beneficial in some circumstances, but the control system must be adequately designed (enough current handling to power the magnets, with time-out control to avoid damage to both the magnets and the control circuitry)
- contrary to instinct, adding just a _hint_ of drag on each car can simulate the inertia of prototype cars, and can help smooth out the consistency of the un/coupling operations

I hope this helps!

Happy Modelling,
Aim to Improve,
Prof Klyzlr

PS on rethinking, If I _was_ to use a permanent delayed uncoupler on a 'nook, I think I'd place it on the switchlead, 1-car-length ahead of the first turnout. (holds true for either 3:2:2 or 5:3:3 nook configurations). This would keep the 2 cars (or loco+car) being uncoupled on relatively straight track,
(IE before either vehicle started potentially being deflected by diverging on the first turnout),
and would allow full flexibility in uncoupling any combination of cars on a 5:3:3 nook. 

Prof Klyzr

A question. What is your opinion of using Sergeant couplers for a switching layout such as your "Brooklyn 3:00AM" layout? I would think they would be much easier for coupling/un-coupling. I have tried these couplers and am very please with there operation.

Bernd

What is a nook?

Dumb question! I thought this was a reading devise?

What's a Nook

Here ya' go: http://www.carendt.com/

Bernd

A nook is a...

Inglenook

Nook is short for "Inglenook", a track plan very popular in the UK.  It is a lead with 3 spurs.

What is a (Ingle/proto) nook?

Dear Bob,

No such thing as a silly question, just one that ain't been asked yet...

The cannonical "Inglenook" was "independently developed" by AR Walkley in the 1920s, and Alan Wright in the 1970s, Info is available HERE

http://www.wymann.info/ShuntingPuzzles/sw-inglenook.html

http://www.carendt.com/microplans/pages/shelf/inglenook/index.html

As originally designed, there were "switching puzzles" which added extra "play value" to otherwise circular show layouts. The "track capacity limits" of the Inglenook were artificially, but prototypically enforced ("Yard Limit" signs, for example), to stop people cheating by using parts of the circuit as extra switchlead.

However, building the Inglenook as a standalone switching layout quickly caught-on, and is now (arguably) a sub-genre of small/micro layout building in it's own right.
(witness the number of hits if you search "Inglenook" in the dedicated search-mechanism of the memorial Carl Arendt Small/Micro Layout website, http://www.carendt.us )

"proto-nook"s take the concept one step furthur, by applying the basic track arrangement and capacity limits of the cannonical 'nook, but applying highly prototypical locations, geography, operational ethos, and industrial contexts. Many of the "operational slowdown" techniques made popular by Lance Mindheim can be very-much applied to switching a "proto-nook". The "artifical" (read : "game style") track capacity limits can equally be enforced by entirely proto conditions (EG spotting all cars within chain-link-fence/gated areas, do not block road/rail grade crossings, respect Blue-flag and Fusee limits, derail positions, etc etc)

SO, to recap:
- Inglenooks have been around for _decades_
- with only 2 turnouts and a few lengths of flextrack, they can form an absorbing switching "game"
(simple rules, simple to setup and deploy like a game of checkers or chess, honest simple fun)
- with a simple change in mental context, same track arrangement can be operated as a Proto-nook, with entirely prototype setting. ethos, and op scheme

(oh, and they make a fantastic "covers all the bases" real-world condition test track for qualifying cars and locos too!)

Happy Modelling,
Aim to Improve,
Prof Klyzlr

specifically...

Dear Jason,

...Specifically, the space between the fireplace intrusion into the room, and the adjacent wall.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inglenook

Although, if you happen to find yourself in the North West corner of Tasmania, I can highly reccomend the "Inglenook B&B" at the town of Penguin
(it's literally accross the 3' 6" rail line from the Tasman Sea/Pacific Ocean)

http://www.inglenook.com.au/

Happy Modelling,
Aim to Improve,
Prof Klyzlr

Sergeants...

Dear Bernd,

Interesting question, and well-timed insofar as I'm actually in the process of assembling a batch of Sergeants here as we speak...

For layouts and modellers aiming for "ultra hi-fidelity" proto modelling and ops, I can see how Sergeants would appeal from both an operational and visual P.o.V. If the same modeller-in-question has a preference for "hands-ON" operations, then we would appear to be off to the races...

In terms of group or "public show, allcomers step-up-and-have-a-go" operations, Sergeants seem to require the ye-genuine magnetic uncoupling wands. This then puts the onus on the owner to supply enough "wands" to equip the envisaged # of operators. If any of the wands "wander off" (pun not intended) post-op-session, then that represents a risk and a potential $$$ issue. Ditto x10 for "public show" situation, where you may have 4 - 10 "newcomer/guest operators" per-hour. (If you're using Kadees and 1000-for-$1 kebab skewers as manual uncouplers, there's significantly less outlay if the "uncoupling wand" somehow disappears off the layout...)

In the case of "what you see is what you get" Ingle/proto-nooks, manual uncoupling is entirely do-able for my mind. Everything is open and exposed, the layout itself is likely not larger enough to have to deal with "reach-in distances" and other such physical "human interface" issues, and the "hands-on" switching approach is just part of the fun.

In the specific case of "Brooklyn:3AM", things are a little trickier. All of "Brooklyn"s industrial car spots are out of direct line-of-sight, and most are out of direct reach (behind 4-storey warehouses, on multi-track traversers, or "drop-leaf" staging). As such,
- uncoupling manually is out of arm's reach if attempting to uncouple "on the spot"
- delayed-uncoupling (uncouple where accessible, then push/spot the car elsewhere) is entirely possible with Sergeants.
- However, with the lack of auto-centering function (which is a _feature_ of the Sergeants couplers), heading "into the warehouse" (offstage) to couple up to a cut of cars is not the "automatic, convienient, no-brainer" operation one would want it to be.
(Remember, one of the OPs stated requirements for encouraging "Solo Operations" was to eliminate "inconvienient" issues/annoyances... ).

As such, when I operate "Brooklyn" at home, and the otherwise-hidden-staging industrial carspots are fully visible and accessible, using Sergeants couplers is a pleasure, not a chore. (NB that I personally _like_ _having_ to be where the coupling is occuring, to ensure the couplers are lined-up, the knukles are open, and the "pin drops OK").

However, at shows, where the carspots are shielded from the viewers (and operators out the front) view by various covers and drapes,
(IE the viewers are forced to look at a 2'x4' HO scene set at 3:AM on a cold drizzy morning, on the corner of 41st and 2nd in Brooklyn, sometime in late 1999, anything which _detracts_ from that impression is screened off from view),

I need the confidence that I can:
- uncouple over a known magnet location
- set the couplers to "delay" mode with nowt but a strategic 1 scale-foot "rollback" of the loco
- then push the cars into the "industry"
(IE thru a mousehole onto the hidden staging "dropleaf")
- with the full confidence that I can at any later time stick the loco's nose into the "industry", and couple up to the cars without destroying the illusion of a "train switching in the street"

Guess what I'm driving at is, it really depends whether you're looking to emulate the hands-on actions of the actual train crew (brakeman particularly), or if you're just wanting to emulate the actions of the _train_...
(neither is wrong, just need to have your preference firmly in mind from the first moment of layout design, thru build, and including actual op-session).

If one _is_ considering using Sergeants, I would reccomend:
- analysing the actual operations ebb-and-flow of the layout,
- making sure that any actual coupling/uncoupling moves are likely to be performed in a readily-accessible area. (reach-in distances, clearance between decks or proscenium arches/fascias/"scene framings", scenery interferrence, etc
- and that any "hidden staging" areas are solely used for "run the train in, let it wait out it's allotted delay, then run back onstage again" staging tasks. (IE don't use hidden staging for un/coupling tasks which, by definition with Sergeants, need visibility/accessibility to occur successfully...)

Hope this helps...

Happy Modelling,
Aim to Improve,
Prof Klyzlr

PS Just re-looked at the "Brooklyn" photo album, the 308 undertrack permanent delayed-uncoupling magnet in the middle of the intersection is actually positioned directly under the throwbar of the turnout. (the magnet is actually made of a very soft material, and I have pics showing the slot routed out of the magnet so the wire-in-tube turnout throw mech could engage with the PECO turnout). This allows one magnet to successfully and reproducibly delay-uncouple for both routes.

Solitaire Operation

One of the reasons I'm designing my around the walls layout to be a single industry, even though it will wrap around all four walls of the spare bedroom, is that it will give me the space to pull cars into a staging area, and bring new cars on to the layout.

By concentrating on the switching aspects, and leaving the main line running as a secondary task, I am free to do both, depending on my mood. Taking up the whole room allows my to have guests run as well, either switching, or running main line.

My layout will have a small yard where road engines drop off and pick up strings of cars, then disappear into staging. From there, switch engines owned by the industry take the cars from the yard, and place them where they are needed, picking up out bound cars to take back to the yard.

Personally, I believe that the solution to the original question is building a layout that appeals to what you enjoy most about running trains.

Thanks

Well that makes perfect sense. Thanks to everyone for all the cool links.

Remote Couplers,Prototype Nook, and BR locomotive.

Remote Couplers are being offered in G/#1 gauge by Kadee (www.remoteuncoupling.com).   For a nook railway with few cars, this might be the answer to reaching in for uncoupling.

Prototype Nook (almost) can be found in Richmond, CA at Pacific Vegetable Oil (PVO).  A tank car rack track serves to load and unload vegetable oil; a scale track serves to weigh cars; and outside the gates, there is a lead track and runaround.  PVO also leases a couple of tracks at Seaver yard, just around the corner.  These tracks are used to store tank cars of vegetable oil inventory.  Cars would be taken from the rack track and Seaver Yard; weighed; sorted; and returned to Seaver Yard and the rack track.  In true model railroad fashion, there was not much room on the scale spur, so it might require an extra pass to weigh the required cars.  And also in true model railroad puzzle fashion, the cleaning spot was at the end of the rack spur... and some cars might have to be spotted back to their position after the cleaning spot was switched.  The switch job might arrive with one or two cars, do a great deal of switching involving a dozen cars, then go away with one or two cars to ship out.  This all came down to the interaction of two nooks seasoned with car weighing and "sure spots" on the rack track.

Battery power Radio controlled (BR) locomotive is possible with the NWSL S-CAB, Rail-Lynx, Rail-Pro, MRC, or various hobby radios.

Wow!  I might just have to get out of the chair and build some of this.

Inspiration hits...

Dear Rick,

If the conversation thus-far has inspired you to get in and "have a go", then I'd be calling that "Mission Accomplished"...

As far as remote couplers go, the larger the scale, the more appealing the idea of encouraging guest operators to actually manually interact with the cars becomes. It's this idea that inspired Gavin Sowery and Carl Arendt's "Ginglenooks"...

http://www.carendt.com/scrapbook/page42a/index.html

http://www.carendt.us/scrapbook/page38/index.html
(scroll down 4/5th of the way down the page)

but I guess it depends on whether the preferred "human interface" is "pressing a button on a handset/throttle/panel" or "actually pulling the pin" on the equipment
(with the full understanding that "pulling the pin" in HO or smaller is more-likely "poking at the couplers with a skewer"... ).

If, as a by-product, you want to use a 'nook as a live-fire testbed for a RCC+Battery system, I'm sure there'd be a boxcar+-load of fellow modellers who'd love to hear about the resulting experiences...
(Although, I still maintain that with a layout as small as we've been discussing, and a proportionally small loco/car roster in play, there's no reason why wheel/rail contact can't be made bulletproof without tipping over the "inconvenient-level-of-effort" threshold).

Look forward to seeing you having fun with a 'nook or similar!

Happy Modelling,
Aim to Improve,
Prof Klyzlr

PS ...and to think I was just about to ask
"hey Rick, has the thread thus far addressed your OP questions? If so, what's your thoughts?"

It hit here!

Almost two years later, that is. I finally decided to bite the bullet and proceed forward with an Inglenook yard as a portable switching layout - something to "fiddle" with while the UPRR basement empire slowly comes along. While the permanent layout will feature somewhat contemporary operations the 'Nook will be early '70s MILW in the northern plains. With a couple EMD SW7 switchers on hand, a pair of ribside waycars and a handful of 40-foot or shorter boxcars, hoppers - open and covered - and a gon and tank car each I'm all set for rolling stock.

As far as a baseboard I have a 12"x52" arrow-straight hardwood plank that started life as a table leaf. While the table met the firewood pile years ago this nicely finished slab of wood makes for a great micro-layout platform. I am mounting a luggage handle centered on one edge so it can easily be carried to shows and exhibitions. Topped with cork sheet and minimal yet weathered yard scenery it should show nicely. A small AMI yard shanty/office near the lead is about all the relief planned on this flat but limited expanse of plain.

I figure a 3-2-2 plan or perhaps six cars in a 4-2-2 arrangement may fit in the 52 linear inches available. The PS-2 and 50 ton open hoppers are visually shorter than 40' and make up four of the eleven cars available in my travel case. Of course, no more than five or six would come out at a time for game play. Trackwork is a combination of Peco code 75 small radius Electrofrog turnouts and Atlas code 83 flextrack - materials I already have on hand. Power and control will be provided courtesy of a single NCE PowerCab.

I've started the work this past weekend and will start to post updates to my blog for those that are interested. My timeline and goal is to have this ready for show this coming spring at the annual NW Ohio Small Layout Meet.

If the person playing

If the person playing solitaire had to write the software for the game, would there be less solitaire players?

Dear RSN, Thankfully building

Code bashing

Not always. One of my personal challenges for 2014 was to teach myself PHP. Midway through the year I can say that it hasn't been nearly as difficult as I thought it might be. I'll go so far as to say it has been fun. A lot of fun actually. While I may be a long way from being proficient, I have been able to make some pretty cool stuff happen. There is a satisfaction when you finally get a PHP web site working as you intend that is similar to building a model. The "I made that" good feeling comes over you. Well, at least until the server throws another error.

Alan, I believe you had fun

Alan, I believe you had fun with your experience learning code, and I believe the experience of building layouts also to be fun, when you are cursing, but "having fun with code" just won't bring a tidal wave of new people into solitaire.