The following website (http://www.wymann.info/ShuntingPuzzles/Inglenook/inglenook-trackplan.html) says the the following: "Carl Arendt, the late master of micro layout design, subjected the Inglenook formula to some practical testing and found that it can be cut down to 3-2-2 with a 2 cars plus loco headshunt and still provide operating interest, forming a four car train from a total of six cars randomly placed in the sidings." However, Carl Arendt's own Inglenook web page (http://www.carendt.com/micro-layout-design-gallery/inglenook-designs/) appears to say something different: "In a series of experiments, I’ve found that you can have fun shunting in a very small space by making the spurs hold as few as 3, 2 and 2 cars respectively. The yard lead should hold two cars and your loco. The basic operating idea in this “minimalist” version is this: randomly scatter five cars on the sidings, leaving Track 3 open." I've found for myself that having six cars in a 3-2-2 layout only gives me one "open" slot. I'm having a lot of trouble solving some configurations. Is it possible something is mis-typed on the initial website I linked? Can you truly solve every possible four-car train configuration with a 3-2-2 Inglenook and six total cars?
I would think that a small N scale Switcher like the old MDT. And a bunch of Iron ore cars would make for a tiny layout. Of course Z scale would make it even smaller. But It seems that breaking the rules is implied by what is posted on Carl Arendt's site. You could just go to his site and email him and ask though.
No, no I'm sorry to say he couldn't. Unless you know of an email séance service... Or did you mean Wymann's site? zaulden, I think I'd take Carl's word for what he meant. Meanwhile, if you figure out how to solve six cars on a 3-2-2 layout, more power to you!
Yeah, After I posted I realized Carl had passed on. But, it seems obvious that he had to be a bit fast and loose with the design.
Well, maybe I have a bad attitude. But I figure if it doesn't involve the dreaded Giant Hand, it ain't cheatin'!
Yeah, you're right, I suppose. I just find it confusing because the Wyman site spells out three different levels of complexity in a table, very official looking, in which the Carl version is spelled out as 3-2-2 with six cars and a four car train again. Seems more than a mistyping. Carl's version as described on his own site is described on Wyman's site as the micro version and is how Wyman describes it. I just can't find on Carl's site where he describes this "minimal" (not micro) version that Wyman describes with 3-2-2 and 6 cars....
