Can you increase an inglenook puzzle?

[jc_92]

just a general question I'm pondering. The default is 5-3-3 with a 3 wagon headshunt. it can be scaled down to 3-2-2 with a 2 wagon headshunt, which is proven to work.

The question is, can you scale it upwards with the extra space N affords, even on a small layout? in theory as long as the proportions are maintained, then it should still work, and and actually be more difficult with more variations. noone seems to have done this, presumably as the aim is normally to occupy minimal space.

would 7-4-4 with a 4 wagon headshunt work for instance?

[AlexanderJesse]

You could make a simulation with pieces of paper to check.

Or design a nice station and reserve places for 5-3-3 on the station, if necessary block pieces of track according to the timesaver plan... when you want to puzzle.
Or add enough track to the right and left to puzzle the ultimate timesaver: from both sides a passenger train arrives, they must cross on the timesaver-station

[zwilnik]

Feasibly upping the size of the sidings and the number of wagons will work, but you'll probably also want to increase the length of the train you're creating. The downside of this is it turns it from a relatively fun and quick puzzle to something that takes a long time to complete. Which might not be so fun.

An easy change that uses extra space though is to make the 5-3-3 sidings and head shunt long enough to shunt coaches or bogie wagons. The game's the same, but you end up with longer and more visible rolling stock. It doesn't quite make as much sense to be shunting coaches though, so the bogie wagons may be more prototypical.

Another alternative is to double the width or length and do TWO inglenooks, side by side or opposite one another and make it a 2 player game. Now it's a race to see who can complete first

[Belly]

I wasn't sure what an "Inglenook Puzzle" encompassed and so went looking on the web.

At the risk of duplicating your fine efforts, I found the following website which may provide some assistance and has also encouraged me to seriously consider incorporating something similar on the next BendTrack module I build.  I found the site very interesting.

http://www.wymann.info/ShuntingPuzzles/Inglenook/inglenook-trackplan.html

Cheers,

Geoff

[elmo]

There is no reason why it cannot be scaled up but you will simply be doing the same thing but in a larger area. I have inglenooks in three scales, N, OO and SM32 in the garden and have hours of shunting fun. Do not forget that the inglenook came about due to lack of model railway space. If you have extra space the above web link has (I believe) a double inglenook layout.

[Steven B]

The size constraints are what make the Inglenook enjoyable to use. Make the sidings longer and add more wagons makes it loose some of that appeal in my eyes.

If you want to use more space then I'd take one of two options:

• Keep the original 5-3-3 layout as part of a larger goods yard - you can add additional sidings (in other directions, including a run-around?)
• Rather than use single wagons, either switch to carriages (parcels depot?) or represent one wagon in the puzzle with a set of two or three depending on length

You can find some other ideas for modifying the basic inglenook plan here:
https://www.carendt.com/micro-layout-design-gallery/inglenook-designs/


Steven B.

[Belly]

JC,

I've continued researching this and the answer is yes you can increase the siding length and if you're bit of a maths geek (and I'm inferring nothing about myself) a paper has been published on this very subject.

Refer to this site:  http://www.wymann.info/ShuntingPuzzles/Inglenook/Blackburn2019-InglenookShuntingPuzzles.pdf

I can be very sad puppy on a Sunday morning with a coffee in hand!!

Cheers,

Geoff

[Platy767]

Like Steven B suggests above, you could incorporate an Inglenook into a larger scheme.

I put together this one a few years ago because I like to run some on a continuous run, some in and out of a terminus and some on an Inglenook. 4ft * 2ft board, mixture of Setrack and Code 55. Hmm, another one I avoided ballasting...

Mark