Wendell1976
A Inglenook layout has two turnouts consisting of three sidings. On a 3-2-2 Inglenook layout, the longest siding has a capacity of three cars. The other two sidings has a capacity of two cars apiece. The switching lead has a capacity of two cars plus the locomotive. In this example of the 3-2-2 Inglenook, the layout will represent the end of a branch line within a industrial park. If we look at the diagram of an Inglenook by clicking on the attachment below from The Model Railways Shunting Puzzles Website or by going onto the http://www.carendt.com website, there is one mainline and two sidings. In my layout example, let's make believe the "mainline" is an industry siding adjacent to a warehouse with three car spots(similar to Prof Klyzlr's Chicago Fork layout). The two "sidings" represent team tracks(upper and lower) with a two-car capacity. Each team track has one car spot apiece at the stub end. Spots #1, #2, and #3 are on the industry track. Spot #4 is at the end of the upper team track. Spot #5 is at the end of the lower team track. The operating session begins with an inbound train "arriving" from the classification yard(or the interchange with another railroad). Five boxcars are coupled with the locomotive. The train is "pushed" in towards the sidings with the locomotive at the rear of the train. The outbound boxcars have already been moved away from their "spots", forming an outbound train. Using car cards or a die(singular for "dice"), switch all five boxcars in order of draw or roll, to their respective spots. For example, if you're using car cards, the first card drawn represents that particular boxcar going to Spot #1, the second car card drawn going to Spot #2, and so on. You can also use switchlists or waybills for this type of layout also. In this layout example, the industry track and switching lead combined represent the interchange or visible staging. You can do this kind of operation on a 4-3-2 Inglenook(with a two-car plus locomotive capacity) and a 5-3-3 Inglenook(with a three-car plus locomotive capacity) also. Wendell
Reply 0
Neil Erickson NeilEr

Thanks

I couldn't get the link to work but am laying out a chainsaw inglenook for testing (and playing) so the timing is perfect. There are so many great examples out there that my appetite seems insatiable. 

Neil Erickson, Hawai’i 

My Blogs

Reply 0
Wendell1976

Another website

Neil, you can also check out the http://www.carendt.com website and type the word "Inglenook" in the search box. There are a myriad of different Inglenook layouts on that website.
Reply 0
David Husman dave1905

So........

So how do you operate it "prototypically".

The prototype would just couple all the cars together and go.

Dave Husman

Visit my website :  https://wnbranch.com/

Blog index:  Dave Husman Blog Index

Reply 0
Mike Kieran

Wyman's website

Here's the link for Wyman's layout  http://www.wymann.info/ShuntingPuzzles/index.html.

A simulator is available for the timesaver and inglenook layouts  http://precisionlabels.com/shunt/jpage200.html

I'm not trying to start trouble here, but where are we going with this new thread? I'm confused.

_________________________________________________________________________________________

To enquiring friends: I have troubles today that I had not yesterday. I had troubles yesterday which I have not today. On this site will be built a bigger, better, Steeplechase Park. Admission to the burning ruins - 10cents. - George C. Tilyou, Owner of Steeplechase Park

Reply 0
Wendell1976

A way to operate a 3-2-2 Inglenook prototypically.

Mike, the purpose of this post is to show people a way(not the only way) how to operate an Inglenook layout prototypically with open or visible staging.
Reply 0
John Peterson

Inglenook Sidings is a shunting game.

As a game, it was never designed to operate "prototypically"; rather it was designed to provide a mental challenge in a format that incorporates model trains.  As a puzzle, it had very rigid rules on the lengths of the sidings and switch lead; these rules were necessary to increase the challenge.

The argument "for" the Inglenook, is that as it is a very simple track plan with only two switches.  Examples of the geometrical arrangement can be found in many places along real railroads; however, these real places generally do not have the restrictions on siding and switch lead lengths (not to mention the fact that cars are being shuffled back an forth among the available spots), therefore they are not generally operated in the same manner as the shunting game.

Yes, I suppose the railroad *could* operate these places as a Inglenook with self imposed restrictions ... but why would they?  So, by simply extending the switching lead on your Inglenook puzzle, you can get a track plan that can be operated as per the prototype.

Reply 0
pschmidt700

To what Dave and John said . . .

. . . creator Alan Wright designed Inglenook Sidings in 1979 as a shunting game with specific rules. The rules are not based on prototype operations per se. (The Brits didn't really cotton to then, and still don't really appear to embrace "operations" in the same manner as we North Americans approach the topic.)

Quote:

The operating session begins with all five boxcars at their aforementioned spots. Using car cards or a die(singular for "dice"), switch all five boxcars in order of draw or roll, making a five-car train just like the standard Inglenook operation.

Why go to all that trouble on industry tracks? A real local switch job would simply pull the spots in the most efficient manner to make up their train without random artificiality, accounting for any hazmat rules for car placement from the locomotive(s), then head back to their terminal yard. 

Quote:

In the next operating session, the five-car train has "arrived" from the classification yard with loaded boxcars. Switch the five-car train, putting the boxcars in their proper "spot" in order of draw or roll.

Nothing the least prototypical about this. Cars are spotted based on efficient and safe operations, not a roll of a die or random card draw.

There's not a single thing wrong with Inglenook Sidings as it was intended. But trying to force it into a role it was never intended to fulfill makes things awkward and artificial.

Reply 0
Oztrainz

The Randomness of Industry

Hi all, 

as someone who has used electronic dice to simulate/direct the movement of goods on a layout (and yes its a small layout  - The Randim Stackum & Wrackem"  below

The electronic "random selector" is that box with the red button under the warehouse floor at the right), and with over 15 years experience in the steel industry as a production planner (aka crisis manager) perhaps I can debunk some of the objections about the random assignment of what car goes where and when?

One of my jobs was as a steelmake production planner who had to specify the grade of steel to be made by the furnace, whether by caster or ingot route and then organise to have the right stuff get to the right place at the right time by rail inside the steelworks. We are dealing with 300 ton lots of molten iron and steel that often have to undergo several processes before and after the actual steelmaking furnace.

Big industry, including railroading is about repeatability of process and product that makes money like the tick of a metronome. But when things don't go to the 'planned plan', then that's when you as a production planner can pay your salary for many years into the future. What do I mean by this??  

Yes, you plan for "stuff" to happen in an orderly and "planned", efficient and least-cost manner and, most of the time you MIGHT get lucky. But the first thing you learn as a production planner in big time heavy industry is that "the plan" is always subject to IMMEDIATE change with NO notice, however much you might wish this to be otherwise. When the plan changes, yes, there is a rationality about it, BUT you have to know the industry to realise what is actually going on. It probably does look like total chaos to an outsider .

This is where the randomness factor comes in. You don't know what is going to "break", where, or when in the process chain, but when it does, you had better have a good Plan B, C, D, & E up your sleeve. Because when you "stop" a  major production unit for whatever cause, the cost in $'s/minute can be in the $X00,000's/minute. Your whole plant can go from being cash positive to being very cash negative in the blink of an eye, In the steel industry, this blink is usually associated with clouds of smoke and sparks, damage to plant that has to be fixed in often people-unfriendly conditions. 

When things "break" and you can no longer achieve "the plan", you have to react and choose a Plan ??. Often you are acting with incomplete/unavailable information, Doing nothing is not usually an option. As this extra information becomes available, the plan is changed again, offten resulting in changed requirements, like for a different ingot rake to be moved to the teeming pit, rather than the one that was already there, because a different grade of steel is heading that way to be teemed into ingots of a differnt size going to a different customer or part of the plant. Again from the outside this looks like a random move. Sometimes the problem is in a unit before the streelmake shop, but in other cases a failure of a rolling mill well downsteam of the furnace can cause a major plan reorganisation.  

Sometimes you have to go with a far more costly plan than you might like. Over a drink sometime, ask me about the time I shipped 8 tons of air on each of 6 semi-trailers over 700 miles? A 'Plan A" had fallen over and this "Plan B" option was the only way I could get the right stuff to a place where it could be rolled in time to prevent the shutdown of a major car maufacturer's engine plant and the subsequent triggering of non-delivery penalty clasues that would have cost the company far more than that freight bill for "air".  

Ok, so that was the big end of town, how about for the small end of town - a smaller industry that might be served by an Inlgenook or similar? All it takes is for one part of the plant making ?? to break either mechanically or electrically and then you need to make something else. This may require a different car going to a different destination and alter your preplanned ideal car-spotting plan. You don't know when it is going to break, only that it just has, and the car you have spotted at your warehosue door is now useless until the problem is fixed. But you can load something else until that problem is fixed. 

Another thing that can cause an "apparently random" change is a change in the order that the customer wants his product, and, again, saying "NO" might not be an option. See the air-shipping Plan B above. This could also requre a shuffle of the Inglenook deckchairs. Again you didn't know that it was going to happen, only that it just has happenned.

The current JIT (just-in-time) manuafacturing approach with minimal inventory held on site only aggravates the effect of these type of "random" changes. Too often I have seen JIT turn into TBL despite our best efforts (I'll let you work that one out).  

In the ideal manuafacturing world, there should be no place for such randomness. But this manufacturing world can be far from ideal. Most of you will have heard off Murphy's Law, where "evrything takes longer than you expect and if anything can go wrong, it wil, at the worst possible time". But when you are a production planner in big time industry or perhaps even a Despatcher/Network Controller on a railroad, maybe it could be a good idea to remember the words of a Mr O'Toole who reckoned "Murphy was an optimist",  

Regards,

John Garaty

Unanderra in oz

Read my Blog

Reply 0
David Husman dave1905

Nothing the least

Quote:

Nothing the least prototypical about this. Cars are spotted based on efficient and safe operations, not a roll of a die or random card draw.

There's not a single thing wrong with Inglenook Sidings as it was intended. But trying to force it into a role it was never intended to fulfill makes things awkward and artificial.

Exactly.  Its fun, its a game, its causes you to think about how to make the moves.  I expect that at some point I will have one of these when I don't have the space to have a "conventional" layout.   My objections are not to the Inglenook itself, just to describing the operation as "prototypical."

Dave Husman

Visit my website :  https://wnbranch.com/

Blog index:  Dave Husman Blog Index

Reply 0
George J

A Very Prototypical Inglenook

A very prototypical Inglenook layout is Ken Olsen's Dawson Station N scale switching layout based on the former Hull Oaks sawmill.

 

 

 

-George

"And the sons of Pullman porters and the sons of engineers, ride their father's magic carpet made of steel..."

Milwaukee Road : Cascade Summit- Modeling the Milwaukee Road in the 1970s from Cle Elum WA to Snoqualmie Summit at Hyak WA.

Reply 0
pschmidt700

Re: Hull-Oakes

Yes, Hull-Oakes was a three-track stub arrangement at the end the SP's Bailey Branch. That's where the comparison ends. And SP didn't switch the mill using a die or card draws.
Reply 0
George J

Prototypical Operation

@Paul Schmidt

If you watched the video, you'll see that that particular layout is operated in a very prototypical manner. If you check out other videos by Ken Olsen, you'll see he did an entire 4 part series on the full size Hull Oaks operations.

-George

"And the sons of Pullman porters and the sons of engineers, ride their father's magic carpet made of steel..."

Milwaukee Road : Cascade Summit- Modeling the Milwaukee Road in the 1970s from Cle Elum WA to Snoqualmie Summit at Hyak WA.

Reply 0
pschmidt700

@George

I'll take your word for it that the model version of Hull-Oakes' mill which you reference is operated in a prototypical manner. But Hull-Oakes' track arrangment was not an Inglenook; it was merely a three-track stub arrangement in the middle of the Oregon woods. Nor did SP treat it as a switching puzzle; the conductor did not roll a die to determine which car to pull or spot next. That's my context. In other words, a switching layout with three facing-point spurs and no runaround operated prototypically does not necessarily make the layout an Inglenook.
Reply 0
Wendell1976

You don't have to use a die to operate a layout

Paul, you don't have to use a die to operate this type of Inglenook layout. You can also use car cards, waybills, or switchlists.
Reply 0
Wendell1976

Randomness

John Garaty, great example about the "randomness" factor of an Inglenook layout. On Scot Osterweil's Industrial Switching Layout in the 2005 Model Railroad Planning magazine(titled Highland Terminal on the http://www.carendt.com website), the type of cars on yard tracks "N" and "S" can be randomly arranged(four boxcars, one reefer, three hoppers, one gondola, and one tank car) to make the switching operations challenging. This layout was set in New York City with 40 foot boxcars(New York Central Railroad).
Reply 0
Wendell1976

Skipping the first cycle of operations

To everyone thinking that the first cycle of operations is not prototypical(building a train in order): Skip over to the second cycle of operations. This cycle of operations is very prototypical! Make believe that the local four-axle locomotive has already pulled all the empty boxcars from all five aforementioned "spots." The four-axle locomotive has just brought in five loaded boxcars from the classification yard or interchange with another railroad to the visible staging area(industry track and switching lead combined). Using car cards or index cards that state the boxcar color, number and/or roadname, switch the boxcars to all five spots in order of draw(in the first draw, the boxcar goes to Spot #1, the second draw to Spot #2, and so on). There are 120 solutions to this type of switching operation. The larger the Inglenook(for example: 4-3-2, 5-3-3), the more solutions the layout will have.
Reply 0
David Husman dave1905

This cycle of operations is

Quote:

This cycle of operations is very prototypical! Make believe that the local four-axle locomotive has already pulled all the empty boxcars from all five aforementioned "spots." The four-axle locomotive has just brought in five loaded boxcars from the classification yard or interchange with another railroad to the visible staging area(industry track and switching lead combined). Using car cards or index cards that state the boxcar color, number and/or roadname, switch the boxcars to all five spots in order of draw(in the first draw, the boxcar goes to Spot #1, the second draw to Spot #2, and so on).

What makes you think this is prototypical?  I have never seen a real railroad switch anything in this manner.  Its a great game and would be fun to do.  Its just not "prototypical" and that's OK, nobody says fun has to be prototypical.

Dave Husman

Visit my website :  https://wnbranch.com/

Blog index:  Dave Husman Blog Index

Reply 0
pschmidt700

Randomness is not prototypical

Prototype railroaders do not carry car cards, hence they do not draw cards to randomly determine which car is spotted at which time. That's inefficient and inherently unsafe. Inglenook as originally designed is fine as a switching puzzle; like the Timesaver, it's a game. Distorting the Inglenook's design and intent does not work. Either have a three-track stub-ended track plan with prototypical operation using a switch list and stop calling it an Inglenook, or have an Inglenook switching game and stop imposing artificial operational constructs on it.
Reply 0
Wendell1976

Using switchlists

To Paul Schmidt: I never intended to create only one way to operate this type of layout. There are many ways to operate this layout and using switchlists is a way to operate. Wendell
Reply 0
Wendell1976

This layout is not just some "game"

To Dave Husman: The second cycle of operations is highly prototypical! It involves putting the boxcars in their proper spot or place which is similar to the one-turnout layout by Lance Mindheim.
Reply 0
Wendell1976

August 2017 Model Rail magazine

Last week, I had purchased for the first time, a Model Rail magazine. Model Rail is based in the United Kingdom, but it is sold here in The States at Barnes & Noble Booksellers stores. I had bought the August 2017 issue and this is a special issue about Inglenook layouts. There are lots of good articles about Inglenook layouts in this issue. Get this magazine before the end of August. Wendell
Reply 0
rrfaniowa

Inglenook synonymous with 3-track stub setup

The word "inglenook" has come to be used for any 3-track configuration. Maybe this is unfortunate, maybe not. In the grand scheme of things, I think if a modeler is having fun that’s the important issue. 

I would fall in the same camp as what Paul Schmidt was trying to point out, but at the same time it’s not worth sweating over.

One of my favorite YouTube videos of action on a 3-track stub setup is this one of the Chicago Terminal RR. They’re even using a GP10 which is a major bonus! Just look at all that operation. Very cool!

Scott Thornton

rebanner.png 

Reply 0
Wendell1976

Chicago Terminal video

Scott, I had seen this video before. This is a good example of a Inglenook-like track arrangement. Thank you for sharing this video. Wendell
Reply 0
Wendell1976

Modification of the thread

Folks, I had modified and updated my thread. Happy New Year to everyone! Wendell
Reply 0
Reply