Has anyone else incorporated (and runs) an "Inglenook Sidings" plan into their oval (or otherwise) layout? I am planning to do this on my first layout (under-construction) and would love to see pics of what others have come up with.
No Inglenooks but my current "layout" (if you can call it that, no pics) is a small oval with switching layout origins. Inspired by a trackplan from www.carendt.us it features a switchback spur inside the oval along with 2 single spurs on opposing ends. I like the idea of incorporating an Inglenook or Timesaver type segment into a layout so easy solo ops or friendly competitions are possible. It's just fun sometimes. You're not going to find much love on this site for such things however. According to current layout design dogma, those things are too "contrived" or "non-prototypical" for serious consideration. Fie. Do it if it pleases you I say. Besides, any small "yard" automatically qualifies as an Inglenook. Just pretend the lead track or main line has only so much capacity and play the game as if it did.
Lou
Javelina Besides, any small "yard" automatically qualifies as an Inglenook. Just pretend the lead track or main line has only so much capacity and play the game as if it did.
Besides, any small "yard" automatically qualifies as an Inglenook. Just pretend the lead track or main line has only so much capacity and play the game as if it did.
For a true Inglenook, you would also need to limit the length of your yard tracks - a true Inglenook is a switching game, with specific rules (including track lengths 1+3-5-3-3 cars), not just any collection of two short random spurs off a main.
A discussion of nooks from Adrian Wymann's Small Layouts and Shunting Puzzles website: http://www.wymann.info/ShuntingPuzzles/sw-inglenook.html
A set of Inglenook layouts from Carl Arendt's web site: http://www.carendt.com/microplans/pages/shelf/inglenook/index.html
Would I want to deliberately design in an inglenook on my layout? Nah. I would rather just add a couple of longer spurs and have some more varied fun. But to each his own.
Smile, Stein
My point was that one needn't design a switching puzzle into a layout on purpose. It can come about quite naturally. The example of a small "yard" was given because even for fairly long storage tracks, there's always a limit. One could leave enough cars on the tracks to limit capacity to only the few being manipulated, define an artificially short lead to match and still be able to play the game or puzzle. A siding with 20 car capacity and 17 cars not participating in the game has on 3 "open" spots. While I wouldn't design in too many "challenges" on purpose, I still think it's a useful ploy to have at least one, especially in limited space layouts or as a device to maintain enthusiasm while the majority of the main is being constructed. Unless the tracks are set in concrete, things can be changed as tastes and opportunities develop. Besides, if the OP is like many of us, sooner rather than later he'll end up with way too many cars for whatever layout he has. Might as well get used to tight quarters switching now.
thanks to the both of you for the ideas/feedback. What I like about the ideal 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. It provides this with ease. I also like the history of the whole thing. The Wright lines and all.
hoboblues75 thanks to the both of you for the ideas/feedback. What I like about the ideal 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.
thanks to the both of you for the ideas/feedback. What I like about the ideal 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.
Err, no it doesn't. The Timesaver and the Inglenook are switching games. "Operations" is a bit bigger concept than "cherry pick single cars from various spurs and sort them in a different order".
If you are interested in realistic switching, then these links might give you some ideas:
Dave Hill's O scale New Castle Industrial Railroad - simple track plan, but a good discussion of realistic switching: http://oscalewcor.blogspot.com/2010_10_01_archive.html
A discussion on cherry picking in yard on Byron Henderson's web page: http://home.earthlink.net/~mrsvc/id20.html
A discussion from the Trains Magazine general forum on organizing cars in a local for switching industries: http://cs.trains.com/TRCCS/forums/p/184943/2022200.aspx
And of course - realistic switching is only a very tiny corner of operations - the biggest part of operations is running trains over the road, routing cars and things which cannot sensibly be simulated on a small switching layout.
Here is Richard Schumacher of the St. Louis (Gateway) chapter of the NMRA's take on starting operations: http://www.gatewaynmra.org/designops.htm
By all means - enjoy your Inglenook - it is a fun game. But "operations" it ain't.
When I said operations, I meant in the sense that it gave a purpose (or something to do) with the model railroad.
The Inglenook pattern seems to happen quite often in the real world. There are may examples shown on various websites. Unliek the Timesaver, which IS purely just a game, there is some bit ot prototypical backing to an Inglenook setting. The rules of the 'game' limit the siding lengths to certain numbers of cars, but nothing says those three tracks have to be exactly parallel to one another in a purely contrived relationship. They don;t even have to be int he same order - the longer one can be in the middle,
--Randy
Modeling the Reading Railroad in the 1950's
Visit my web site at www.readingeastpenn.com for construction updates, DCC Info, and more.
hoboblues75 When I said operations, I meant in the sense that it gave a purpose (or something to do) with the model railroad.
Yeah, I understood that.
To me, there is a difference between just moving some cars picked at random back and forth on some spurs, and moving those cars for a purpose - because they are loaded with something that needs to go somewhere to be delivered.
Your mileage obviously varies - that's fine. Feel free to call moving random cars around on an Inglenook "operations".
Grin, Stein
I like Inglenooks a lot and have incorporated them into several previous layouts. On one, a 5-3-3 'Nook ran along the front edge of my benchwork , and the longest track left the layout at one end and connected to my staging tracks, thereby making it not only a fun switching exercise but my interchange yard as well.
My little freelanced shortline interchnged with the New York Central, and the interchange agreement between the two railroads stipulated that all cars delivered to the NYC must be pre-blocked to simplify switching in the Utica yards. The order in which the cars were blocked was determined by the random draw familiar to all 'Nook operators. So whenever I finished my pickups from local industries, it was necessary to play the Inglenook game and shuffle the outbound cars into order before the NYC local arrived.To me this seemed plausible and 'railroady'.
I had a blast operating that layout, and although there's no 'Nook on my currently-under-construction model railroad, I do a have a little 3-2-2 bookshelf switching layout upstairs in the den. In fact, I had an operating session just before writing this post.
Firebirds, thanks for that post. I like the idea of the inglenook setting the order for the cars to be switched over to the NYC. I am kinda heading in that sort of direction with my own layout... and it might just be the NYC that picks them up. Interesting coincidence.
I think Inglenook and Timesaver style track arrangements are (or were) a lot more common than we would like to think. When you consider these are "schematics" of track arrangments that covered whole blocks, you can see the similarity. Just within a few miles of where I grew up, I can point to several track arrangements (that existed until about 80s) that if I modeled them everyone would tell me are not prototypic. Heck even the town I'm in today had a couple of businesses that were still rail served within the last ten years where the building was almost smaller than the boxcar serving it.
For operations, if we can forget about the "game" for a minute, the Inglenook or Timesaver can represent, in schematic form, an industrial district served from somewhere else. That somewhere else can be as simple as a visible staging track where the train starts from, does it's work, and ends up at. At some level all of model railroad operations is a game. It is only the specific rules that separate the levels of the game.
Couldn't agree more, jmb. The prototype usually shown as an example of the Inglenook style of spurs/sidings/yard is over in Cornwall, in the west of England. But a couple of years ago on Carl Arendt's site there was a post from an engineer on the Central Connecticut. He showed a picture of the sidings at a trash plant (if memory serves) in East Hartford, Connecticut. It was an absolutely perfect Inglenook--and he gets to switch it with 12"-scale freight cars...
And of course, just about any tank town in the Midwest with spurs radiating off a passing siding looks like some variation of a Timesaver--John Allen was perceptive as well as imaginative when he designed that one, since he obviously recognized what a common trackage arrangement it represented.
One final note--very happy to hear from hobo that his new layout may well interchange with the NYC. Since I see your avatar is a pic of the McGinnis Boston & Maine herald, thought I'd mention that my new layout will probably be based on the B&M in "Our Town", Thornton Wilder's fictitious town of Grover's Corners, New Hampshire--and if I have room, the staging tracks will form a 3-2-2 'Nook!
Best to all,
Paul
(firebirds30)
These are sidings at Giles Chemical in Waynesville, NC which are an inglenook arrangement and easily adaptable to a model railroad or as a stand-alone micro layout
Ray
rayw46 These are sidings at Giles Chemical in Waynesville, NC which are an inglenook arrangement and easily adaptable to a model railroad or as a stand-alone micro layout
It seems to me that quite a few people confuse track plan fragments having a three-tined fork track schematic with an Inglenook.
Having two single ended trailing spurs off a main is perfectly normal. As is having two single ended facing spurs off the end of a line, where the long stem points back towards the rest of the line.
What makes the Inglenook a puzzle more than a realistic operation is the limited length of all spurs and the switching lead.
Here is an illustration of an inglenook game (from Adrian Wymann's excellent web page http://www.wymann.info/ShuntingPuzzles/Inglenook/inglenook-trackplan.html)
The point of the game is to pick five out of eight cars and sort them into some order decided in advance (by drawing cards or whatever). It takes quite a bit of extra jockeying around to get the 5 cars into order using the three short spurs, since your switching lead is so short and the spurs are so short.
By all means - play the inglenook game. It is a fun little game in itself. But severely limiting the switching lead length and spur length does not necessarily add all that much realism to the game.
You can get a lot more realistic play value from the same type of three-tined track schematic by not limiting the length of the switching lead and all spurs quite so much.
Any of the first three of these will be more realistic than an Inglenook:
The first two would be the absolutely most common.
steinjr rayw46: These are sidings at Giles Chemical in Waynesville, NC which are an inglenook arrangement and easily adaptable to a model railroad or as a stand-alone micro layout It seems to me that quite a few people confuse track plan fragments having a three-tined fork track schematic with an Inglenook. Having two single ended trailing spurs off a main is perfectly normal. As is having two single ended facing spurs off the end of a line, where the long stem points back towards the rest of the line. What makes the Inglenook a puzzle more than a realistic operation is the limited length of all spurs and the switching lead. Smile,Stein
rayw46: These are sidings at Giles Chemical in Waynesville, NC which are an inglenook arrangement and easily adaptable to a model railroad or as a stand-alone micro layout
Smile,Stein
The information you posted is informative and correct but I am not confused. I understand the concept of an Inglenook switching puzzle, as I'm sure others following this thread do. In fact I have built a 2 x 4 ft 3-2-2 Inglenook layout myself.
What I wrote was that the spurs in question are an, "Inglenook arrangement," that is they are, in fact, a three tined fork arrangement. But search as we may I doubt that anyone will find an actual prototype of an Inglenook switching puzzle, 5-5-3 or 3-3-2 spur car capacity. What we have to do as model railroaders is adapt track arrangements, etc. that we find in the real world to our limited spaces, modeling talents, finances, etc. This holds true whether you're modeling Union Station in New York or the sidings at Giles Chemical in Wayneville, NC.
rayw46 What I wrote was that the spurs in question are an, "Inglenook arrangement," that is they are, in fact, a three tined fork arrangement.
What I wrote was that the spurs in question are an, "Inglenook arrangement," that is they are, in fact, a three tined fork arrangement.
Lemme see - mainline continuing through the scene. Runaround to the west. Three single ended spurs off the main between Miller Street and Depot Street, two on the north side, one on the south sid.
This is best modeled as a three tined fork?
How about a continous main with two short spurs off on the backdop side of the main and one longer spur off the main on the aisle side of the main?
How about a four tined fork, with the main being cut short at Depot Street?
How about the main being cut off at Depot Street with the runaround transplanted eastwards, so it runs parallel to main on the south side, parallel to the two spurs north of the main, with the spur originally on the south side of the main now branching off the south end of the runaround?
Lot of ways to model this area. Here are some possible plans for two scenes roughly based on this area (I've used some modeling license to make industries a little interesting to switch):
H0 scale shelf layout - 6 x 1 foot, can be built as one 4x1 foot and one 2x1 foot section:
Btw - good looking Inglenook you built.
If you are just counting any stub ended tracks breaking off a main track as an "Inglenook" then every spur track is an "Inglenook"
I agree with Stein that an Inglenook is a specific concept (which I will confess I don't really understand).
I have a branch on my layout that probably could be considered an Inglenook, but it was not concieved that way, its just a branch that terminates in 3 spurs, 2 belonging to EI Dupont and one for a flour mill. The local will have to shove cars down the branch and then switch the various industries as required. There would be very few cars, if any that would move between the spurs. It would mostly be inbound cars swapped for outbound cars.
Dave H. Painted side goes up. My website : wnbranch.com
steinjr rayw46: What I wrote was that the spurs in question are an, "Inglenook arrangement," that is they are, in fact, a three tined fork arrangement. Lemme see - mainline continuing through the scene. Runaround to the west. Three single ended spurs off the main between Miller Street and Depot Street, two on the north side, one on the south sid. This is best modeled as a three tined fork? How about a continous main with two short spurs off on the backdop side of the main and one longer spur off the main on the aisle side of the main? How about a four tined fork, with the main being cut short at Depot Street? How about the main being cut off at Depot Street with the runaround transplanted eastwards, so it runs parallel to main on the south side, parallel to the two spurs north of the main, with the spur originally on the south side of the main now branching off the south end of the runaround? Lot of ways to model this area. Btw - good looking Inglenook you built. Smile, Stein
rayw46: What I wrote was that the spurs in question are an, "Inglenook arrangement," that is they are, in fact, a three tined fork arrangement.
Lot of ways to model this area.
I was just making an innocent contribution to this thread and for that I get a condesending, "some people seem confused," and an, "It's either my way or the highway," attitude. An Inglenook is not a matter of objective truth. There is not a spiritural, eternal absolute authority behind it that must be obeyed. So what if the prototype trackplan you found on Google Maps or whatever had other sidings, a through mainline and a runaround half a mile away. That's not the point; I wouldn't model those in an Inglenook trackplan To repeat, I'm not saying that the photograph I posted originally is an prototype Inglenook Switching Puzzle. That would be pretty stupid. All I'm saying is that in the real world we may find a particular area that interests us that we would like to model and we may use a variety of techniques, selective compression and our imaginations being the most notable. Gunny Highway said it this way, "Adapt, improvise, overcome," and if I might be so bold, get over it.
Stein's got it right--the limitation on the siding lengths--and especially on the length of the headshunt, or yard lead, is what makes it an 'Inglenook'. And for me at least, those limitations are what make the game fun.
For a different sort of fun, take a look at the Brea Industrial Lead on the UP in southern California (again, I'm indebted to Carl Arendt's superb micro-layout site for tipping me off to this prototype). The end-of-track includes a plastics plant which receives two covered hoppers every time they switch the branch, an unused spur (which I'd reactivate if I built this LDE) and a lead track--actually the main--which was cut off short past the plastics plant switch, by abandonment of the branch beyond this point. It ends just short of a former road crossing and resembles the 'spurs off main' sketch in Stein's very detailed post.
This looks like it would be waaayyy too much fun to incorporate at the end of a branch. I've sketched it, and if the truncated 'yard lead' will accommodate a Genset locomotive and a couple of four-bay hoppers it would be a blast to switch. The reactivated spur off the main could be a bottling plant, with spots for tank cars and one unloading door for boxcars.
Noted layout designer Lance Mindheim really puts it well in his books--he states that the number one design consideration when starting a layout is what will bring you the maximum enjoyment. Fortunately, we have a lot of choices and means for building an enjoyable layout.
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
Paulus Jas 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.
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.
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
firebirds30 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.
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 from using (or not using) the continuous run option on most larger layouts.
FWIW, the OP didn't ask whether incorporating an Inglenook was right or wrong, realistic or unrealistic. He asked for photo examples from those who had chosen to do incorporate an Inglenook.
my thoughts, your choices
Fred W
fwright FWIW, the OP didn't ask whether incorporating an Inglenook was right or wrong, realistic or unrealistic. He asked for photo examples from those who had chosen to do incorporate an Inglenook.
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 context of a model railroad.
Incorporating an "Inglenook Sidings plan" (to use the OP's exact words) into a layout means, at least to me, including a track arrangement specifically designed to play the Inglenook game, consisting of three three single ended spurs whose length has been adjusted to allow exactly 3-3-5 cars (or 2-2-3 cars).
There might be buildings and scenery by the tracks, but the tracks are not really there to serve industries or to function as a a small interchange yard or whatever - the tracks are there specifically to play the Inglenook switching game.
Any track arrangement which can be used for playing the Inglenook game is not necessarily (again, at least to me - YMMV) an "Inglenook track arrangement" as such.
As Javelina qute correctly pointed out early in the thread (and as you also have pointed out in your example with the runaround and turntable) - it is not all that hard on most layouts to find a few tracks that can be used for playing the Inglenook game, if you feel so inclined.
Most layouts, as long as they have at least one track (including the main) long enough to hold at least five cars, two tracks of trailing switches long enough to hold at least three cars, and a track that can be used as a lead long enough for at least one engine and three cars, could be used for an inglenook game by adding various rules on where you can and can not leave cars during switching.
Javelina mentioned using a small yard. You mentioned using a runaround as part of the Inglenook. Dave Husman mentioned some spot on his layout where he had three spurs. The example of using two out of three spurs at a prototype location in North Carolina for playing the Inglenook game was mentioned by Ray. Paul (the non-rude one) mentioned the Brea industrial spur in California.
The only one of these track plans which actually have a fairly constrained switching lead in real life is the Brea industrial spur. And even that one does not have a switching lead nearly as short as on an Inglenook, relative to spur length.
Here is a track arrangement from my layout which in theory fairly easy could be used for playing a 3-3-5 Inglenook game, even though it was not designed specifically to be an Inglenook:
And if you don't have room for 3-3-5, you probably could find room for the 2-2-3 variant of an Inglenook. It is fairly easy to do on most layouts.If nothing else, you could always swap to short ore cars and doing a 2-2-3 variant while playing the game.
Finding the room to play the Inglenook (at least the 2-2-3 version) game somewhere on most layouts that has a couple of trailing spurs that can hold at least 2 or 3 cars off a main usually shouldn't be all that hard.
It may sometimes take quite a bit of imagination to come up with more or less contrived "reasons" for why you cannot use the whole lead or the whole spur length, if you want to try to preserve (at least in your own mind - it won't really fool anyone else) the pretense of the Inglenook shuffle being "realistic operations".
OTOH, if you just cheerfully acknowledge that you are not "operating" right then, but just playing a switching game, then it doesn't even take those "reasons".
So to me, it makes more sense to build a track plan for serving industries or whatever, and then just re-purpose some of those tracks for playing the Inglenook game if/when you should get an urge to play the game, instead of designing a track plan for playing the Inglenook game, and then try to come up with some more or less contrived operational purpose for doing the Inglenook shuffle.
A loop with industry spurs looking e.g. like this (from Byron Henderson's web page - http://www.layoutvision.com/id49.html) is clearly designed for operations:
On this track plan there is an apparent purpose to each track - they are not just put in there to give you three spurs of length 3-3-5 or 2-2-3.
And yet you can play the Inglenook game in several places on this layout - using e..g the yard at upper left, using the main, the siding and the Robles plant, or using the main, the siding and the freight house track - just adding limits on how much of each track you can use.
Anyways - I'll stop flogging this more or less dead horse now.
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.