Inglenook and Time Saver switching puzzles

I had an Inglenook on my old layout and will have at least one on my new layout.  Lots of prototypical examples make it easy to incorporate one or more on any layout. 

A Timesaver isn't really prototypical as designed - mostly due to compression.   A prototypical example would be the Hoboken Shore RR:  http://www.wymann.info/Shuntin...aver-US-Hoboken.html

Personally, I got more operational satisfaction out of an Inglenook (from online puzzles) and it certainly adds a lot of prototypical operational opportunities when running your trains.

Regards,

Greg

We have a version of Inglenook on a separate 2x16 layout. We tag the cars with colored tabs and have a box of similar tabs that match.  Operators pull 5 to 7 tabs out of the box and, in order of selection, make up a switch list. No matter where the cars are originally there are always new consists to build.  The engine (and caboose and a couple of cars if you want to add interest) arrives and builds the train.  It can even be played by two persons with one playing engineer and the other throwing switches and uncoupling cars. We use a simple bamboo skewer to push open the different types of "cut levers" on the various styles of couplers.  It is a big hit with visitors and introduces them to today's remote control systems.

Earl Trygar

Anthracite Hi-Railers 

Glenn, I had a small 4x11 switching layout which was loosely based on the Timesaver. I enjoyed it. When we moved 5 years ago I had to take it down. 

 Tom 

I have a Tmesaver, it is roughly 2' X 12', can stand alone or be combined with a modular layout.  I recently rebuilt it to accommodate 50' cars.  I would recommend the Inglenook and use the random generator program.

NCT President saving time while I operate the switches via an iPad:

Most of the Timewaster:

This piece attaches to the near end of the above picture:

The entire puzzle during reconstruction. The track continues another 18"-20" beyond the turnout:

Steve

I placed an Inglenook on my layout plan.

I think "operating interest" depends a lot on your personality. What is your interest in puzzles in other contexts? Do you actually like puzzles and brain-teasers? Or do you derive more pleasure from completing straightforward tasks?

This is something I learned the hard way. I never work the puzzles in the newspaper, or do brain-teasers, or solve riddles. I will happily work toward a solution to a problem, but not to an artificial problem. So why did I design that complicated industrial area for the layout at my parents'? With a run-around, a facing-point spur, cars spotted on the run-around track, and all the tracks generally too short to do what you want? I find that I use it infrequently, and never to its potential. Adding too much "interest" led to a loss of interest, because I simply don't like switching there. No one else does, either, so the track plan is going to get a re-design soon (luckily, no scenery yet).

So, don't include a switching puzzle unless you actually like puzzles! And certainly don't think you have to have one in the name of realistic operation. Railroads don't build complicated switching arrangements unless they need to, and they try to 'block' cars when building trains so that a lot of shuffling is not needed later. A simple switching arrangement is as realistic as a complex one, so just model what you like.

Why not make both of them. Make them interchangeable modules so swap them in and out of the layout.

If you are real clever, Put one on one side of the module and on the other. All you would need to is flip the module.

gftiv posted:

Why not make both of them. Make them interchangeable modules so swap them in and out of the layout.

If you are real clever, Put one on one side of the module and on the other. All you would need to is flip the module.

The reason for the rework of my timesaver was from a conversation with another club member that wanted to build an Inglenook then shuttle cars between the two puzzles. The Inglenook uses a mix of different length cars, I stretched the sidings to accommodate the longer cars.

Steve

Nickaix brings up an interesting point about complicated puzzles versus real RR switching operations. With only a floor layout and space limitations, I alernate between setting up an Inglenook puzzle and a twice around track for running trains.  I love the operations side of model railroading and both layouts offer that.  

One caveat about the Inglenook: it can be fun to work out the logistics; and I've created a simple dice-based and paper log system for setting out the cars, determining the new train's car order, and also a work sheet for figuring out complex moves. But some days after work at my brain-intensive job, there are moments when working the puzzle seems like work and not play. Seconds later, when I'm connecting a nice O gauge-sized engine to the next car, that lack of fun vanishes and the sense of play returns. But even then, the experience can swing between the two extremes -- and wouldn't it be better I then think, if playing with trains was more about play?  Of course, if sharing the puzzle with others is on tap, that adds a new dimension to the activity. 

Since it sounds like you have the space to set up a puzzle and have run to run, then why not do both?  But I like the prior suggestion of keeping a puzzle simple. If some type of realistic operations brings you joy, it needn't be too complicated.

Tomlinson Run Railroad

Good thread... I just put together a make shift inglenook together this morning on the air hockey table.  Both my son and daughter love it.

I'm going to build a module separate from the main train layout.  A small porter train set would work nice.

Having fun!  Ron

Here are a couple of pictures of the Inglenook under construction:

Steve

Excellent thread. For us less informed - what is the difference between an Inglenook and Time Saver Switching Module or plan?

Thanks,

Paul

Paul---the only real difference is the size and design.   A Timesaver is typically larger of the two and is designed to hold more rolling stock and to require more switching moves to complete.   Ie:

I've attached a short pdf with some well illustrated examples.

Here are two other good websites to check out:

http://www.carendt.com

http://www.wymann.info/ShuntingPuzzles/

- Greg

Greg beat me to it, so let me second that: the Wymann.info site is really informative.  Be sure to click on all the links on the header or elsewhere because it has a rather old-style of information presentation and it's easy to overlook a useful topic.

Best,

Tomlinson Run Railroad

Thanks Greg and Tom, 

Very cool links, if real estate permits this would be a fun extension on a layout or incorporated into a new layout. Thanks again.

Paul

Greg Houser posted:

Paul---the only real difference is the size and design.   A Timesaver is typically larger of the two and is designed to hold more rolling stock and to require more switching moves to complete.

- Greg

The Timesaver is only 5 cars, the full (Classic) Inglenook is 8 cars.  The 8 car Inglenook needs about 10.5' of length, the Timesaver about 9.

Steve

I want to build a classic inglenook and wondering if anyone had built one with atlas track.  If you have what was the overall length and width and what  radius turnouts did you use?

David

dws posted:

I want to build a classic inglenook and wondering if anyone had built one with atlas track.  If you have what was the overall length and width and what  radius turnouts did you use?

David

I'll dig through my RR-track files tonight when I get home from the club. I think I have a couple of Inglenook examples. I've designed a few 12'x32" switching layouts designed along a proposed Free-Mo O scale standard which were reasonable to switch using the RR-Track simulator with a GP9 diesel and 40-foot cars (would be easier with a 44-tonner). Here's an older one:

Here's a more recent design:

I briefly tinkered with street running and came up with this one. At some point I want to revisit street running as it's rapidly disappearing across the U.S. The rub with modeling street running is that model railroad in-street turnouts don't look right unless you custom-build single-point turnouts with girder rails to guide the flanges (note that the turnout points aren't in pavement).

Found the Inglenook plans. Both are 12'x32" The second one was designed to be integrated into a larger layout.

I got the Timesaver out this weekend to add a little static grass. Here are some pictures of it as a stand alone.

The modules in the foreground are 15.5" wide. The far end is 24" wide.  The track looks wiggly because it was installed that way, on purpose.

This view is from the opposite end. A piece of track gets installed in the gray area on the left hand side, straight if it is a stand alone, curved if it is being added to a modular layout. The whole thing could be done in less width but I wanted to be able to add buildings.

Steve

Where would one place the electric uncouplers for the Inglenook? 

Assuming you mean electro magnetic uncouplers, here is the placement:

If you are using kadees, I believe you only need one as once decoupled they will stay that way and you are able to push rolling stock to the proper place.  Here is where you would place it:

I don't use Kadees so perhaps someone who does will be able to confirm/deny my understanding of their functionality.

-Greg

The Kadee needs more straight on both sides of magnet the cars have to be inline with each other, so  in that diagram the straight will work, the curve will not. And you are correct, only need one. 

Thanks Clem!

-Greg

Push?  No 0-5-0's allowed.  ��

Greg,

Thanks for confirming where I thought the uncouplers should be.

One uncoupler may work for the lobster claws too. It's tough to get them smooth enough to close without using a bumper. Just slower to get out to it every time.

AGHRMatt posted:

I briefly tinkered with street running and came up with this one. At some point I want to revisit street running as it's rapidly disappearing across the U.S. The rub with modeling street running is that model railroad in-street turnouts don't look right unless you custom-build single-point turnouts with girder rails to guide the flanges

Matt, I'm with you. I would like to incorporate a brief area into the PFRR (Pauls Future RailRoad) for street running. Loosely based on the Jack London Square area of Oakland where I believe street running prevails to this day. The scene is still remarkable to me in that cars and pedestrians figure it out without an incident everyday.

I have no idea how to "bury" my traditional Lionel track into "asphalt" looking roads. Where else is street running as busy as Jack London?

I was railfanning in JL Square one day and caught from about 100 yards away two young (15?) boys placing rocks on the track. Before I could get there Amtrak came by and it made a horrible noise. I went to those boys, pointed towards a window, and told them they were on video. (they weren't). After much pleading and an education about train safety they were "allowed" to retreat down the street.

Anyway street running is interesting and as I said I will look into incorporating it into the PFRR.

Paul

While I an still working on stage 1 of my layout, someday (I hope) I will get to stage 3.  Stage 3 includes an industry and small town yard using a variation of the timesaver.  I guess the yard could be considered a variation of the Inglenook too.  Here is that area:

Both of the puzzles in the photos I posted above will be at Fall for Fairfax this weekend in the National Capital Trackers layout.  If you are in the area, stop by and see them in operation.

Steve

Here is a picture of the Timesaver in a modular layout. In the distance you can see the Inglenook.

Steve