hi Rayw.
you gave us a wonderful pic…but why in heavens sake do you call it a Inglenook"s arrangement? You are so innocent and sweet. And yes, language is difficult enough, keep away from spiritual and eternal absolute authority…
Inglenook is a nice game for a lot of people, use it in your layout if you fancy it…but please Inglenook arrangements… …big words are showing how small you are. .Just a double siding will do as well.
smile
Paul
I assume this is intended as sarcasm, but it’s hard to recognize because we don’t get alot of sarcasm on this forum. Oh, and I guess if a person can’t use vocabulary and grammar in a meaningful way that shows how big he or she is.
That’s my story and I’m stickin’ to it.
Ray
oh my star,
i was aiming for you, now you are so big, so hard to miss.
Smile
paul
Okay, everybody. I tried to be a calming influence in my last post and stay with the fun aspects of modeling and operating, but this thread seems to be degenerating into flaming and ‘why-I-oughtas’ and thinly veiled name-calling.
The old saying goes, ‘for every given activity, there will be some who take it too seriously’. Perhaps that’s how those folks get their enjoyment, but when they begin to condescend and lecture other modelers, that goes beyond what I consider acceptable in a hobby-related context.
So I’m outta here. Have a good time criticizing and demeaning each other’s preferences, grammar/syntax or worldview. I’m leaving this argument and going to go play with my trains.
Paul
(firebirds30)
I wish I could offer some words of facilitation and mediation that would help to overcome what I feel must be some fundamental disparities in interpretation, experience, and language here…but I can’t. I don’t know the topic well, so I can’t offer even my own interpretation if that would help.
Please, though, do step back a bit, maybe start at the beginning of the thread, everyone, and start reading again. Something, a wheel someplace, is off the tracks, and one of you will spot it. There is a gulf between the two 'camps" in this discussion which is bridgeable with some good will.
Maybe start, if there is still an interest in getting to the gold, in establishing some basic premises about Inglenook layouts. If you can agree to some basic terms and concepts, the rest should fall into place…? [:)]
Crandell
I think it would be sad if you left, firebird Paul. Your few posts so far has been the kind of levelheaded approach which is a boon to any forum.
Certainly there are plenty of people around here (including me) that are passionate about their hobby, and will discuss various modeling approaches up hill and down dale, and then back again. Perhaps even several times - boring others to tears 
But most of the time, people do not go quite as far as the last few posts in this thread - it is normally quite possible to discuss various modeling approaches, without starting to talk about supposed/perceived personal qualities (or lack thereof) in other posters.
Let’s try to not take (or make) things too personal here, eh?
Btw - if anyone wants to have a look at Brea track plan mentioned by Paul, it can be found here: http://www.carendt.com/scrapbook/page105a/index.html#PacificPlastic
Stein
I count at least 3 sides to the Inglenook controversy.
My planning efforts (not built yet) fall into the third group. I have deliberately lengthened a spur so that it can hold 5 cars, and made sure each portion of the runaround could be limited to 3 cars each. The turntable that completes the runaround (I know, another faux pas for the “must be prototypical” group) is ruled off limits if I want to do the puzzle. I can impose a similar limit on the lead to the 3 spurs to comply with the game rules when I want to play.
I see no downside to including the option to use my track as an Inglenook puzzle at times. I see the increased flexibility for different styles of operation as a real plus for a small layout, where repetitive operations may become boring.
The same is true for using the turntable to complete a runaround at one of my terminals. I can rule the turntable is only for turning engines and cars, which sets up a very different switching scenario than if the runaround is available.
In the end, neither practice is any different in principle fro
To be precise - The OP initially asked whether anyone else had incorporated an “Inglenook sidings plan” on their layout, and if so, asked to see pictures.
Javelina replied with some encouragement, and I did provide links to a page at Carl Arendt’s micro layouts web site showing various Inglenooks, as well as a link to Adrian Wymann’s excellent page on small layouts and shunting puzzles.
What created the controversy was that the the thread a few posts later got sidetracked (by me …) into a discussion about whether Inglenooks is a good way to introduce operations to a layout, following the OP’s statement “what I like about the idea of an inglenook in a layout is that regardless of whether it is contrived or not, it provides operational ideas for a beginner with no real knowledge of railroad functions.”
To me, an Inglenook is a specific switching game. The core of the Inglenook game is the short lead. The idea of deliberately introducing a very short switching lead, and then being constrained by this self imposed very short lead to shuffle cars back and forth between three short spurs until you have sorted out some specific cars and put them in a specific order, does not really (to me) have a whole lot in common with the concept of e.g. modeling interchange with another railroad. Or building a train at a yard. Or sorting cars into some specific order at some small auxiliary yard. Or whatever other prototype inspired moves people might mean when they talk about “operations” in the
Thanks for the thread despite the “stuff”. I have a bunch of scrap foam I use for practicing techniques before trying them on my layout. I never paid much attention to switching puzzles, but reading this made me realize that one of my bigger test scraps could be modifed to fit an Inglenook. Makes my experimentation more useful. [:)]
People… whoa. Geesh.
If you check an old Railway Modeller, I have it… I think it is in the year '67 (I will look it up later), you will find that after the original creation of Inglenook Sidings that Mr. Wright creates “The Wright Lines”. This is a small TT scale loop with two sidings that he uses and describes for use as an extension of his original Inglenook Sidings. You use a flat crossing (or sign, or whatever) as a “limit of shunt” which acts as the boundary line.
I have set my lay-out up this way and I love it. In this version, Mr. Wright goes to the limited 4-2-2 arrangment (as have I). This means you create a train of 4 cars. What I do is I also have an interchange track. I sort the cars in the inglenook format using the tiddly-wink computer he again describes in the Wright Lines article of Model Railroader and bring the 4 cars (leaving two) to the interchange track. I drop of the cars and the “five finger changer” drops off 4 more cars. These I bring back to the Inglewood sidings for the next morning’s work. Usually after running the train some. It is great fun! It is also a set-up that works very well with Atlas True-Track (or any railbed/track beginner track combo) and works easily with flat-bed scenicking. It’s nice and easy. It also allows me to rotate in all of my rolling stock. I have a freight station model (Model Power) that I built (my first one) at the Inglewood Siding as in my fantasy world that is reason to have all kinds of cars, etc there. Once I get it scenicked (it’s mostly plywood) then I will post pictures.
Thanks to the person who posted pics! Great Inglewood.
by inglewood… I meant Inglenook. Sorry, have Celtics-Lakers on the brain… lol
Here is a link for those interested in knowing more about the “Wright Lines/Inglenook Sidings” layout of Alan Wright as it works in an oval setting.
http://www.all-model-railroading.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?t=4359