Friends don't let friends build Timesavers

I appreciate his observations. I think we sometimes overlook what the prototype does when designing our layouts in an effort to cram as much as we can onto our layouts. I've been working on a smaller switching trackplan for a few months now that elimiates unnecessary things. We have to make some concessions since we're modelling and have small spaces to work with, but utilizing the "less is more" approach and making sure there is a reason for what we're doing translates into a more realistic layout. There's a reason the prototype lays tracks the way it does--it's because it works. Utilizing some of the suggestions in this PDF helps eliminate design frustration which translates into better operations.

 

I am glad that you found it useful. Can you help me identify which group you mean?

Personally, I think the slides are incomplete without the verbal discussion that went with them, but others seem to be finding them worthwhile.

You mean from this page:
"Before you choose an HO 4X8 layout, consider this: thousands of newcomers have built an HO 4X8 model railroad as their first layout. But almost no one ever builds an HO 4X8 as their second model railroad layout."

Just stating the facts ...

 

Yes, it seems to always be the obvious and intuitive first step, but in fairness, it is what a lot of newcomers to the hobby see by way of friends who have also done this, or what appears so often at their first train show. They build one, often keeping it as their current layout...well beyond their 'best before' dates. They look at a 4X8 and tell themselves, "Well, if ol' Billy here can do this, darned if'n I caint." Also, they don't really understand how a railroad works and all the solid history and engineering that have gone into rail design, metallurgy, appliance construction and usage, limitations, load limits, factors of adhesion, coupler design, etc, etc, Our hobby makes it easy to buy a train set that goes together quickly with a minimum of thought OR anxiety. It isn't until a lot later that our newcomers look at what they have been playing with (yes, we all play...) and soon see the limitations of their geometry. Then....comes all the real and hard lessons. Been there....:uhoh:

 

I don't see very many HO 4X8s at train shows (more often modular layouts), but you are right, that is what newcomers see all the time in the commercial press. Which is really my point -- why should the HO 4X8 continue to be held up as the ideal beginner layout?

Nearly anyone with room for a 4X8 in their basement or garage likely could also fit a 5X9 or 5X10 (or something else that isn't a monolithic rectangle).

Starting with something other than an HO 4x8 would provide broader radii to work better with the more modern equipment that many newcomers prefer. I think that would hold their interest longer and avoid the sad situation I have seen of dusty and neglected HO 4X8s abandoned because they weren't much fun to run.

I won't belabor the HO 4X8 point any more, I've done enough of that on my website. I do wish the commercial press would do a better job of offering alternatives, rather than just cranking out more and more HO 4X8s for most beginner projects.

 

The Heart of Georgia layout is a good improvement over the traditional HO 4X8, but I think another good alternative is to place one or two sides of the doughnut against a wall for staging and add backdrops to separate scenes, something like this very rough sketch:

 

Puzzle / Point to Point / Switching Layout - Call it what you want.
My "first" layout was:

• 2'x4'
• N Scale
• Point to point
• Switching
• With yard

From 101 Track Plans by Lynn Wesscott.
A few years ago I saw a version of the "Time Saver" in Model Railroader that was:

• HO Scale
• L Shaped
• About 18"s deep
• About 10 feet long, (maybe more)

Me? I'd at least call it a kinetic diorama and it could be the foundation of a full layout.
Ya, I get it. It is just a time saver. Ok. if you say so.
And your point?

 

Every small switching layout is not a Timesaver. A Timesaver is a specific puzzle that involves moving an empty slot around. I'm not in favor of those.

I've designed dozens of small switching layouts for myself and others, none were Timesavers. Based on your description, I wouldn't call yours "Timesavers" either. Describing things with the right terms seems important to me, but not to everyone, I guess.

I believe that small switching layouts can be much more than puzzles like a Timesaver and can instead provide interesting realistic operation.

Like this one



And this one




So "my point is" that there are better ways to build small switching layouts than simple move-the-empty-slot puzzles.

Linn Westcott's Switchman's Nightmare is likewise not a "Timesaver". It's interesting to note that it predates John Allen's Timesaver by a decade or so.





Did you happen to look at the presentation?

Edit: By the way, I've had the privilege of speaking with a number of folks who actually visited John Allen and operated at his layout. They've told me that John did not view the Timesaver as anything more than (literally) a parlor game. He had no such puzzles on his real layout in the basement. So I try to use the term as its originator did -- to describe a particular rail-themed puzzle -- not to apply it to every small switching layout with a runaround and spurs in each direction.

 

cuyama,
I respect your position on this. Yes, if a person sticks strictly to the original layout by John Allen including the minimal amount of space and no scenery to speak of then there is only: THE "Time Saver".
But if:
One was to build a larger layout with a few switchbacks, main line and perhaps a "yard" then that could side step the stigma of being a "time saver".

or the same plan along a wall:

 

I agree. That's why I personally wouldn't call what you've shown a "Timesaver".

I developed a very similar HO switching layout by curving Westcott's Switchman's Nightmare back on itself. This was for a client who had already built his 4X8 table and also wanted to display a few engines.



It was only much later that I realized how much it resembled the plan you referenced, #10 from 101 Track Plans.

The John Allen cachet of the Timesaver (and the catchy name) I think can lead people astray who don't realize that it was never part of his layout. That's why personally I am careful to draw a distinction between a "Timesaver" and small switching layouts designed for more realistic (and interesting) operation.

 

It looks like there is room to work in N scale -- in other words, you aren't just shuffling one empty slot around. For that reason, I personally wouldn't call it a Timesaver, in which the artificial restrictions on moving cars was John Allen's intent in creating the puzzle.

The original Timesaver was something very specific and limited in John Allen's mind -- so that is the definition I use as well. I don't think that John Allen ever would have suggested his original limited Timesaver parlor game as a basis for someone's only layout; at least based on what folks who played the Timesaver game with him have told me.

I have tried John Allen's original Timesaver (which survived the fire that destroyed his layout since it was upstairs and not in the layout room) at PCR meets and I found it frustrating personally, even though I scored a reasonably good elapsed time.

If you wish to call yours a timesaver, that's your choice, of course.

 

By the way, anyone who wishes to can play the Timesaver on-line for free, as well as the slightly more-realistic (in my mind) Inglenook, thanks to Neil Machin. A few minutes with these on-line versions might illustrate the artificially limited nature of the track arrangements.

 

Wow, I had forgotten how many junk links the robots add to posts on this forum. The many off-topic ads and ebay links that were added to my posts are not my doing, sorry for any of you who wasted time clicking on them. Annoying!

 

I fall into the catergory of small witching layout which I don't consider a timesaver or aything else. I've used various things from other switching layouts I've seen and made the operations as close to prototypical as possible in my compressed space. I appreciate your comments Byron and actually have learned a lot from the original posted links and your page as well as examining other layouts and design elements.

I agree that unless you actually copy the original "timesaver" in all its elements, your layout whatever the configuration is is not what the original game was meant to be. So we can have our inglenooks, our micro layouts, our switchmans nightmare, our timesaver or whatever else we want. When it all gets to the end of the day, we're all still doing what we like which is running, modelling and operating trains at whatever level we feel gets the job done and makes us happy.

 

The model railroad elitists that speak out against the 4x8 first layout are forgetting several things. A 4x8 is a simple, manageable way to build that first layout, and it is small enough that a beginner can complete it before he gets discouraged because he bit off more than he could chew. Also, depending on the chosen scale, not all 4x8 layouts are the same, a 4x8 in Z or N can't be fairly compared to one in HO. Are there better design choices? Yes, but at what level of complexity? If it's too much, the modeler is likely to lose interest early on.

Just as there is no such thing as a layout that is ever finished, there is also no such thing as a perfect layout, especially a first layout. After many years in the hobby business, I'm willing to bet that a lot more 4x8 layouts get built to a satisfying level of completion than bigger, more complicated (and more expensive) layouts.

Unfortunately, the model press likes to showcase the mega layouts that actually make it to some level of completion, while at the same time promoting the 4x8 beginner's layouts with annual series of "how to" articles, which seems to be contradictory. We all enjoy seeing the mega layouts, but that doesn't mean that they are for everyone, or that anything less isn't worth doing.

Bill in FtL