Devon
Have you looked @ Trian-li’s rail clamps?
https://www.trainli.com/rail-clamps-61/tl-30013-p-508 Nickle plated
I use them , and I’m very happy with them … note no special tools just a screw driver…
Progress looks good!
Sean McGillicuddy said:
Devon
Have you looked @ Trian-li’s rail clamps?
https://www.trainli.com/rail-clamps-61/tl-30013-p-508 Nickle plated
I use them , and I’m very happy with them … note no special tools just a screw driver…
Progress looks good!
I have seen them, but they are code 332 and also are a dissimilar metal and I am concerned with galvanic reaction with my code 250 aluminum rail. Aluminum in most cases acts as a sacrificial anode. In my sailing days even a brass/aluminum connection was not great, the aluminum would erode at the connection. Not sure about nickle silver. Split Jaw does make code 250 Aluminum for Llagas track but at $2.00 each that is a bit hard to swallow at this point for every joint. So I will use standard rail joiners for now, buy a handful of clamps, and fix trouble spots as I go. Maybe eventually I will ge them all done, but for now to get it running, this is my plan.
On my previous layout, I used llagas regular joiners, and never once had a problem with a joint causing a problem. They worked great even, and I would use them again. Or if in a highly detailed scene use the plastic insulated joined a that have NBW detail on them.
Devon Sinsley said:
… Split Jaw does make code 250 Aluminum for Llagas track but at $2.00 each that is a bit hard to swallow at this point for every joint. So I will use standard rail joiners for now, buy a handful of clamps, and fix trouble spots as I go. Maybe eventually I will ge them all done, but for now to get it running, this is my plan.
Devon I did it the same way, twice. First was replacing the failed Aristo joiners with Hillman’s clamps. Second time around is replacing the failed Aristo joiners and cracked Hillman’s clamps with Split Jaws. And there are surprisingly quite a few Aristo joiners that haven’t failed, but those are the ones that have been out there for only 15 years now.
OK,
I already know that the gallery of nuts will accuse me of Devoning or daydreaming again for this post but it has a practical reason at this point in the construction. Changing the wye to use #4 turnouts caused me to have to reevaluate my turnout inventory. By using the #4s I now have extra #6s. Already in place is the sawmill turnouts and I know I will have 5 remaining switches tied up with the mainline and the depot passing siding. That leaves me with 2 RH #6s and a LH #4 switch and a RH #4 switch. So far industry wise I have the saw mill, the yard, and the tip of the wye which I am thinking of making into an ice house. The original plan was (and still is) to have a ore bin as the terminal operations for my layout. What I had not planned was what to do with the loaded ore. I figured that loaded cars from the saw mill and the mine would just come to the yard. After seeing shunting puzzles in action and wanting an operations orientated layout and it being a small layout I started brain storming how to make the most of what I have to work with. Right off I decided to make the ore loading facility an Ingelnook siding puzzle. I also figured I would try to cram in a time savor.
Now the newest development to this plan is the acquisition of 8 working side dump ore cars. I now really would like to have an unloading facility for the ore. Here is where the time savor comes in.
So here is what I came up with. Now the one limiting factor in this whole thing is the wye. It has to go where it has to go. I measured my wye and the one AnyRail and they are dang close to the same size. The center line tip of the wye is the factor here. So I had to see what could be done to the right of that fixed location. I have 24 feet to the right of center line. My ore cars are 15" end of coupler to end of coupler. That matters for sizing the puzzles. The Inglenook has quite a bit of room to play with where it is going. And a slight modification of the original design lead me to what is above. This is actually a reduced version of it that will use 6 cars instead of 8. But If I can get the longer sidings in I will. It uses my two #6 switches. The Inglenook will be the ore loading facility. The time saver will have to wait to be completed in its entirety until I can buy three more switches. But I have two. I will use the time saver as the ore unloading facility. The far left track of it which comes straight off the mainline will be used as an ore dump. I will use the second switch for a storage track for parking loaded or empty cars. The eventually I can build the rest of the puzzle, which would just be additional car storage.
I measured everything out and I have room for it all. And now I will be able to install my bench work and the rest of my ladder accordingly.
In addition I went out and did some clean up on the layout. Tomorrow I will go out and build the bents and see where I get but also start making the rest of the ladder.
Tallyho! 
I like the addition of the puzzles as a working part of the layout. I plan to do the same thing except I am going to build the timesaver first to test some construction methods. I also love the use of the bents for the benchwork. That really adds realism to the entire layout.
Dan,
With such a small layout, only a couple hundred feet of track, your limited to how many people can operate at one time. There will likely be only one to two people out on the main at one time. So my vision is to create opportunities to work the layout by more people. So one can be working the ore loading facility, one can work the unloading facility, another building trains in the yard, and then two on the main. With the puzzles that makes working those two areas fun and time consuming. When not in puzzle mode they still serve operational purposes for the railroad.
I hope the plan plays out and when the club comes over there will be plenty of interest. IT won’t be the typical chase your caboose session, not enough room for that. People will have to engage. Thats the plan.
Edit: One of the important aspects of having the puzzle tracks will be making sure that I have enough small cars and a couple of small locos available. That way they can play without need to supply the toys. I have my LGB Forney that will run the ore loading facility and I bought a B’man Lil Hauler that I converted to R/C that will run the unloading facility. I wouldn’t mind making one more, maybe a 6 wheel Porter for switching the yard. These will come out on play day when the puzzles are being worked.
I love the idea of the Inglenook puzzle for operating sessions. Then I was sad that I hadn’t thought of adding that to my layout. Then I looked at my track plan and figured out that I had at least 1 if not 2 of them :-). My layout is a similar size (< 200 feet). Guess I need to get a couple of small locos now. Had already planned the short cars (both logging and ore) so that box is checked. Good post (at least for this relative newbie)!
Switching puzzles are just that, puzzles, not real. Railroads avoid them, because there is work to be done. Puzzles induce a huge frustration factor. Puzzzles are “fun” at a show, but they are horrible on a layout. My not so humble opinion.
Find a **LAYOUT DESIGN ELEMENT **that toots your whistle, and use that. Here is a great treatise on YARD DESIGN.
I agree with Steve! Don’t build a puzzle, just because you found some extra turnouts. Build something that replicates the prototype. For example, you want to use your set of 8 ore cars. Two tracks, one turnout. Ops can be as simple as all 8 ore cars go on the two tracks( 4 spots each track), or as complex as having 8 separate spots still on these two tracks. Ore car 1 is grade x, ore car 2 is grade y. Spot 1 can only take grade y, while spots 4, 5 can take grade x. But empties are are ready filling these spots. Complexity can be build in if you need more “play factor” with something simple like this.
Jim Rowson said:
I love the idea of the Inglenook puzzle for operating sessions. Then I was sad that I hadn’t thought of adding that to my layout. Then I looked at my track plan and figured out that I had at least 1 if not 2 of them :-). My layout is a similar size (< 200 feet). Guess I need to get a couple of small locos now. Had already planned the short cars (both logging and ore) so that box is checked. Good post (at least for this relative newbie)!
If your sidings are to long for puzzle operation then you install moveable track blocks. If they are shorter than necessary for the full 8 car operation (5-3-3) you can shorten that to a 3-2-2 configuration.
Steve Featherkile said:
Switching puzzles are just that, puzzles, not real. Railroads avoid them, because there is work to be done. Puzzles induce a huge frustration factor. Puzzzles are “fun” at a show, but they are horrible on a layout. My not so humble opinion.
Find a **LAYOUT DESIGN ELEMENT **that toots your whistle, and use that. Here is a great treatise on YARD DESIGN.
The beautiful thing about the Inglenook is that it is not the track design that makes it a puzzle. It is simply three stub sidings. Used in operations it is nothing more than that. What makes it a puzzle is how you use it. Under normal operations it simply will be a place to load ore cars and store the loaded or empty cars. The main won’t be far away and without the limitations placed on it by the puzzle it will be operationally very useful. Now the time saver is a true puzzle and no real railroad would intentionally do it. But I think in regular operation with one or two guys you would simply back in and use it as an ore dump. You would not be required to negotiate the puzzle.
One of the guys in the NMRA group put a sort of puzzle on his 2 modules. I don’t switch there because it slows down the action, and the viewing public likes to see trains running. The other guys don’t switch there neither. And the owner of the modules regrets his decision in making it more difficult to switch the cement plant by making such a puzzle.
Most prototype industries are simple facing point or trailing point switches. As Steve said, "Railroads avoid them, because there is work to be done. Puzzles induce a huge frustration factor. " Railroads are usually designed for efficiency. Puzzles are the opposite of efficiency.
Craig Townsend said:
I agree with Steve! Don’t build a puzzle, just because you found some extra turnouts. Build something that replicates the prototype. For example, you want to use your set of 8 ore cars. Two tracks, one turnout. Ops can be as simple as all 8 ore cars go on the two tracks( 4 spots each track), or as complex as having 8 separate spots still on these two tracks. Ore car 1 is grade x, ore car 2 is grade y. Spot 1 can only take grade y, while spots 4, 5 can take grade x. But empties are are ready filling these spots. Complexity can be build in if you need more “play factor” with something simple like this.
Now this makes sense and would do what I want it to do. and would work with the two switches I have now. I have no issue with the Inglenook. But the time savor would require more switches than I have and would be of little use under normal operations. But as you suggest I can make a two track ore facility, using the turnouts I have, and then work in the complexity by placing car at specific points on those two sidings. Less track, fewer switches, and more useable. I like this idea.
Especially since I haven’t found any extra switches, in fact I would actually have to buy three. So I am liking this idea. It uses what I have.
Most yards simulate an “Inglenook” to a certain extant. You have a list of cars to make up a certain train, and sorting through the cars looking for the ones you need for that train can be a puzzle.
My own 2 cents.
I don’t believe that the railroad decides how to set up a switch area: industries are not always located where the railroad switching crew would like to have them. What starts off as a simple spur gets added to as more industries decide to build nearby and we soon have a complicated switching area.
I have a small layout, so I didn’t want a quick run for an operations session. I wanted a challenge. Something that might add some time so a run isn’t over in 30 minutes. My “solution” was to have a “problem” area - Jackson.
Here’s a quick look at Jackson…
There’s a passing siding up against the house, but you can see the main industries switched here.
L-R: Buchanan Tool & Die, the bucket coal building (next to the tree), Salmons Produce (accessible from the passing siding, and has two spurs as shown below), Mills Fuels (with all the tank cars) and finally, Matheson Textiles (with two spurs of track).
JMRI Operations Module would allow me to set up a train to just serve the trailing point industries, but I decided to let each train service all industries.
It can make for some challenging sessions, right Ken? (http://www.largescalecentral.com/externals/tinymce/plugins/emoticons/img/smiley-foot-in-mouth.gif)
I don’t think of it as a “created” puzzle, although it was certainly inspired by the TimeSaver. I like to think that the industries just built up and then requested rail service.
Either way, it ends up being fun for me…
If you want to see how tough Jackson can be, check out this thread on switching it. I took me a while to figure out the solution.
http://www.largescalecentral.com/forums/topic/23773/switching-puzzle-train-2-at-jackson
I’m also looking forward to see what your decide on rail joiners, since I’m a code 250 aluminum fella my self. I did notice some of the white fuzz, while removing my brass Split-Jaws after just over a year outside on the former layout. Wasn’t bad but it was there.
Edit for page… 44!!! , oh my, must be in one of Devon’s threads. (http://www.largescalecentral.com/externals/tinymce/plugins/emoticons/img/smiley-wink.gif)
Bruce Chandler said:
My own 2 cents. It can make for some challenging sessions, right Ken? (http://www.largescalecentral.com/externals/tinymce/plugins/emoticons/img/smiley-foot-in-mouth.gif)
Diabolical, even…(http://www.largescalecentral.com/externals/tinymce/plugins/emoticons/img/smiley-wink.gif)