Ingle VS Proto-nook : track length archilles heel...?

Dear MRHers,

In going-back and re-researching Ingle VS Proto-nooks,
I came accross this thread on the Kalmback Trains forum...

http://cs.trains.com/mrr/f/11/t/187726.aspx

many of the same angst and issues were discussed, but I noted "SteinJr" (RIP) comments that it was the extreme and strict track-capacity restrictions of the "Inglenook" which governed in his opinion that

(or said another way, an Inglenook could not ever be considered a "proto-nook" slice of a real-location
just because the modeller mentally accepts it and says it is so...)

In support of this, SteinJr posted the following pic,

noting that 

Now, I take STeinJr's P.o.V, but IMHO there's a lot more "tolerance" to play with than we might think...

Iain Rice has been noted as saying that "...a spur which can hold 2 and a half cars is no-more-useful (in mechanical operational terms) than a spur which can only hold 2 cars,
and significantly less useful than a spur which can hold 3 at a pinch..."

Consider that for a moment, and consider that the "half a car" excess length on model-form can be quite valuable in visually breaking-up the "obviously contrived truncated track length" appearance,
while not allowing any "cheating" as far as the "carspot capacity numbers" are concerned
(irrespective of whether the modeller is operating under Inglenook "game rules" or Proto-nook "prototype operation switchlist/guidelines")

Furthur, those extended "mainlines" shown in SteinJr's diagrams could well:
- run into hidden staging
(can't switch on trackage you can't see "from the front", while leveling the well-accepted "hidden staging" technique to represent "the rest of the railroad world")
- have a grade crossing which cannot be fouled during switching operations
- have a "blue flag" (or Red Stripe, see http://model-railroad-hobbyist.com/node/29805 ) enforcing a trackage-limit
- have some form of interlocking which cannot be fouled during local switching ops

or any number of other entirely-plausible prototype factors which effectively re-inforce the "limited track capacity" specs which make up a "nook-like" track array...

Guess what I'm bumping up against is,
(and I respectfully ask this as a serious question for those who stuggle with the concept of Inglenooks),

is the issue:
Option 1 - A mechanical problem : IE the truncated "no prototype spur/switchback is ever that short" track capacities

Option 2 - A visual problem : IE "The layout looks obviously contrived, the spurs are jammed hard-up against the edges and are obviously that-short because they have to be, not because the prototype says they need to be"

Option 3 - A "Operations headspace" problem : IE "the random selection of car and destination is simply not prototypical, cars have a defined reason why they are destined where..."

Hint: all of the 3 possible reasons have solutions,
many of which can still fit a HO "40' nominal unit length" nook in a 4x1...

Happy Modelling,
Aiming to understand all sides of the issues...,
Prof Klyzlr

1: The short switching lead

What makes the Inglenook Shunting Puzzle a *puzzle* is the requirement that the switching lead can only hold the number of cars on the shorter spurs + a loco.  This is what complicates the switching, as many back and forth movements may be required to get a car in that back spot of the train/industry.

The prototype generally would have a much longer switching lead, so all the cars could be pulled if desired; and this makes the switching much easier (and more in line with the prototype I think).

I'll offer up an example:  East Hartford Connecticut (near the bottom of this page).

http://www.carendt.com/small-layout-scrapbook/page-73-may-2008/

This is about as close to a real life Inglenook as I've ever seen.  It could be built full scale as a 3-2-2 Inglenook; however, if built this way, it would not be possible to switch the transfer facility in the same manner as the prototype.  This is because the 3-2-2 Inglenook only allows a switching lead that will hold 2 cars + the locomotive; while the prototype could pull as many cars as the locomotive could handle onto the lead/main and simply shuffle them back into the spots/storage.

Another *difference* between the puzzle and *this* prototype would be along the lines that as all the cars are the same (box cars) they would not necessarily have to go to a specific spot.  However, there IS a very interesting note from the prototype that shows that because of inoperable doors, or perhaps loading considerations, a specific car MAY have to go to one side or the other ... it isn't like any car can go to any spot and there may be instances where a car has to be moved from one spot to another.  And of course if they have not completed unloading a car, it would have to be returned to the dock when the switching is done.

So ... I am of the opinion, that while an Inglenook Shunting Puzzle is first and foremost a *puzzle*; it could easily be turned into a very typical prototype industry by lengthening the switch lead.

while an Inglenook Shunting

I don't see any need to worry if a layout design element is an inglenook or anything else,it seems to make more sense to just fit in whatever track plan best suits our space and goals and build it? ......DaveB 

Inglenook vs. Time Saver

Well, yes.  Unless the question is which to build, an Inglenook or a Time Saver ...?  Some folks may want the *puzzle* ... the Inglenook has the option of being easily incorporated into a layout where it loses its "puzzle" constraints (imposed by the too short lead) and becomes a typical industry.

Car spots

Inglenook?

Dumb question... probably... I know what a Timesaver looks like (it's in one of the track plan books I have) but, I haven't a clue what an Inglenook would look like. Any visuals?

UPDATE: Heh... never mind, just saw it.

Short switching lead on an Inglenook

What is a Inglenook layout?

Dear Warflight   Just look at

Dear Warflight

Just look at the post above from the Prof which shows an inglenook track plan.

Thanks!

Thanks! Yeah, I missed that!

Hmmm... with the right amount of space, I can see doing a "tail chaser' layout with that on it for some extra flavour, and something more to do.

I wonder if there are examples in the Old West I can use? (not that it matters... my Old West will be "inspired", but not necessarily a history project)

"I cannot block the street(railroad crossing)."

I think that in the real world, you will discover that this is not a true statement.  Yes, cities and states can make rules; however, if they try to enforce them on the railroads, it WILL go to court and the courts WILL rule that federal regulations override any local/state ordinances.  There seems to be a rule that the trains can't block a HIGHWAY for more than 5 minutes (varies) IF THEY ARE NOT MOVING ... but obviously, if they are switching out an industry, they are moving ...

Yes, the railroads make every reasonable attempt to minimize the inconvenience to the public; however, I somehow doubt they will turn a simple switch maneuver into an Inglenook puzzle just to keep from momentarily fouling a road.  It would be far easier to simply drive in, collect all the cars, back out to clear the crossing, allowing traffic to flow and then moving back in and spotting the cars and being done with it and on to the next job.

Perhaps I've gotten it wrong ... would love to hear from real railroaders ....

Railroads vs grade crossings: Fouling and standing-clear-of

I think the real reason that

I think the real reason that railroaders don't like switching puzzles whether a time saver or inglenook is the frustration it causes in order to get a job done safely, quickly and effeciently.

I have switched as a real railroader whether conductor or engineer many "puzzle" switching industries and was ALWAYS relieved when it was over. As an experienced railroader I looked for the best way to accomplish a task with what tools I was given but if there was a way to do it better I would. For example, the inglenook which seems to be so popular with modelers in other parts of the world is is not liked here in the US. In the past many of the examples sited for current operations are a result of the removal of additional, helpful trackage like runarounds which many fool hardy large railroads removed in order to save a few bucks. Those who made the decisions in upper managaement rarely thought about the consequences of their actions by those who lost flexibility in performing operations. While it might save a few bucks on paper it often requires more time and hence additional expense to accomplish a task.

If I were going to switch an inglenook type operation which is nothing more than a pair of spurs and little head room I would call the customers to see how their requirements lined up with what I had to bring them.Then I would line the cars in correct order before arriving at the industries so my operations would merely be spot and pull. I would also use "gravity drops" if possible to get cars on one side or the other of the engine rather than making a lot of long, dumb shoves. Shoves are not fun to ride, as they are dangerous and unsafe unless you use a caboose/shoving platform.

Nope, for my railroads whether prototype or model they include runarounds, wyes and balloon tracks to make operations safer, more enjoyable and satisfying. 

Barry