So, I'm perusing the latest Model Railroader. There is a two page article on John Allen's "Time Saver". But instead of the usual small bare switching layout it is an elongated and wrapped around a corner. How many others have seen that and said: 1) Why didn't I think of that? 2) Hmmm, wonder how I can incorporate it in my layout even if I "stretch it out over 10 or more feet of main line? Just when I was wondering how I would do the GandG on table 2 and 3 along comes the answer. Edited based due to the very interesting and positive responses. have started a new thread to discuss building “switching puzzles” into a layout as that was my original thought but I am only now realizing it. http://www.trainboard.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi/ubb/get_topic/f/33/t/000713.html? [ June 11, 2005, 12:37 PM: Message edited by: Grey One ]
The John Allen Timesaver is world famous. It's one of those designs, that somehow worked perfectly from the start. And is right for so many uses. That guy was so far ahead of his time....! Boxcab E50
I first saw the time saver in a issue of MR back in the early seventies. What I have read about time savers is that John Allens original design had specific car lengths for each section. The most critical track is the one car run around. Though it is possible to duplicate the arrangement, it is a much different thing entirely to get all the car lengths right. If you follow all the arrangments for it in N scale, it is possible to create the time saver on a three foot long board. That's pretty portable. John Allens TS's were made with handlaid track. There were two Y switches on it for the run around track. I think they were about five feet long in HO scale. I have one I made with Atlas C70 in HO scale and it is about six feet long. I made mine slightly longer to accomodate a switcher with a tender, so it is slightly stretched.
I don't remember where I read it, but someone has a very strong opinion about the "Timesaver". The main point was that people forget that it was a switching puzzle, a novelty, and is not meant to be "realistic". It was not meant to be a part of an operations based layout. He wished that magazines would make that clear, since he thought that people would put it on their layout, and then be frustrated that they could not switch their industries!
Two very good points. I guess in my mind I would have lost the intent of the time saver by making my spurs and run – a – round as long as I felt “fit the space”. Hmm, Well, the one thing the article did for me was give an idea of possible industrial sidings.
Well, I think the time saver is worth doing even if it's stretched and altered, I just think you should realize the reason it is interesting is because of the constraints. Since you are using Unitrack, why not set one up and play trains for a while?
here you go grey: http://www.wymann.info/ShuntingPuzzles/sw-timesaver.html and... [ June 02, 2005, 12:28 PM: Message edited by: traingeekboy ]
Thanks geek, I could but I would rather be working on the main layout. Still, that is good to have info.
Here is a link to the article I had read. Take it for what it's worth. http://www.housatonicrr.com/timesaver.htm
Thats kind of funny. I see his point, but C'mon guy we're playing with toy trains here, lighten up ok? lol
Because of the time saver I have always maintained that a small layout had to have atleast five switches to make it interesting. My early layouts were all based on the concept that one could design an interesting layout with only five switches. It was an interesting excercise to design and build layouts like that.
In the highlighted article, it states one was built by John while alive. Another after his death. Which is incorrect. There were two while he was alive. And a photo in the book Lynn Westcott wrote, page 138, shows them both in use. With John standing right there. Boxcab E50
From looking at that article, I guess John Allen was one of the four horsemen of the apocalypse . I think the timesaver is a good base for an industrial switching layout and can be used to add switching interest when space is limited. You can adapt something like it as has been said and come up with interesting trackplans for small spaces. I think the guy that wrote the article probally failed at his attempt to complete the timesaver so he decided to bash it. I agree...lighten up and lets' just play with our little trains!
I was able to operate on one of the original timesavers at the 1995 NMRA convention in Los Angeles. It still had a little smoke color from the fire. More info: http://www.wymann.info/ShuntingPuzzles/sw-timesaver.html [ June 04, 2005, 09:25 PM: Message edited by: sapacif ]
A small switching layout that is properly laid out is always fun to run. Shunting cars around is a great exercise.... Stay cool and run steam.......
Folks, Just a couple more comments for this thread -- sorry this is a little long. The title of the thread is misleading. Although they are often confused, "The Switchman's Nightmare" is not John Allen's Timesaver, which he developed in 1966 as a railroad-themed puzzle. Instead, it is the name of a layout the late Linn Westcott designed at least 10 years earlier which was published as Plan # 6 in 101 Track Plans for Model Railroaders . Since both are based on a runaround with both facing- and trailing-point spurs, it is perhaps an easy mistake to make. IMHO, it's also a common misuse of the term Timesaver to use it to describe any runaround-plus-spur configuration, as Mr. Vondrak did in the MR article cited above. One of the key characteristics of the original Timesaver puzzle is that it is truly a game. It's not a simulation of railroading. Mr. Allen and his operators actually wagered a small pot on the outcome of each contest, apparently based on guessing closest to the correct amount of time it would take to complete the puzzle most efficiently. (Because the time it takes to complete the puzzle varies completely based on the starting locations of the cars, there is a real degree of randomness to the outcome.) Lots of people seem enamored of the Timesaver, perhaps because of its connection with John Allen. But it's worthwhile noting that he viewed it as a parlor game. None of his three versions of the famous Gorre and Daphetid layouts used a similar scheme where one is essentially moving an empty slot around a defined track configuration. There is certainly challenging switching in areas like Austin Street in West Divide and the Port yard, but those areas aren't a Timesaver. (That was upstairs on the kitchen table.) By contrast, Linn Westcott's "Switchman's Nightmare" offers the opportunity to enjoy some simulation of railroading in a modest space. This is my sketch of the design from 101 Track Plans ... This version of the Switchman's Nightmare is a little larger than the original Timesaver, but is designed with custom #6 turnouts and broad curves to allow it to be used more easily in a larger layout later. Smaller versions based on commercial turnouts and smaller radii are certainly possible and many have been built over the years. The key difference between Westcott's design and the Timesaver is that the Switchman's Nightmare is actually a lot less of a nightmare, despite its name. There is room to work, with short leads at the upper left and lower right. Of course, it's still pretty tight and if there's a little extra room to extend those leads it would be helpful. It's very likely that John Allen had seen Mr. Westcott's design before building the Timesaver (since it came a decade before), but it's not recorded if he was influenced by it. One good way to operate Westcott's layout would be to assume the small "yardlet" at the right is an interchange yard with another railroad. Although Mr. Westcott placed engine service on the tracks in the lower left, I would designate them as serving a large multi-track, multi-spot industry (like a paper mill) that would require particular cars to be spotted in specific places. The tracks at the top right could be a another large industry with "sure spots". With this configuration, traffic could flow from interchange to industries and vice-versa by using car-cards-and-waybills or some other car movement generator. (Of course, one should not overcrowd the layout with cars or it's back to a "move the empty slot" puzzle). This is much more like real railroading and for me personally, more engaging than the sequenced puzzle challenge of the traditional Timesaver. I find the combination of a little yard switching and a bit of industry switching a lot of fun. One can also add imagined industry shift changes, seasonality, and other real-world considerations to a layout like this, as I mentioned in the Ops Fun for One article on my website. For all of these reasons, I think this or similar configurations that provide simulated railroading challenge are better choices for inclusion in a layout than the traditional Timesaver that offers only puzzle challenge. Some of you folks were pretty hard on my friend Craig Bisgeier, who said the same thing in the web page cited above. And those of you who claim to want to "just play with our little trains" may make fun of me, too. But Craig does have his history correct. Only one of John Allen's Timesavers was salvaged from the fire that destroyed his layout after his death. The second was built by Bill Corsa, one of the G&D, operators shortly after John's death and the subsequent fire. So Craig's correct about the second extant one being built after John's death. Allan Fenton, another of John's G&D operators, ran switching contests using these two Timesavers at NMRA Pacific Coast Region events until his death a few years ago. A great guy and very devoted to model railroading. After Allan Fenton's death, the original John Allen-built Timesaver went to the NMRA museum and the Bill Corsa-built copy to the San Diego model railroad museum. Here are a couple of references: PCR story on Allan Fenton and the Timesavers Web page on Timesaver disposition with photos A replacement Timesaver was built and is still being offered as a contest at NMRA PCR events. I believe that there are better switching challenge configurations than the classic Timesaver for use in operating layouts. Whether one wants to include an old-school example like Westcott's Switchman's Nightmare, or a more-current design that's based on a simulation of real railroading, these offer more engaging long-term operation and will better hold a builder's interest. I also think it's worthwhile to keep the history of our hobby straight and calling things by the correct names is important. Regards, Byron http://www.modelrail.us [ June 11, 2005, 01:14 PM: Message edited by: cuyama ]
Byron, Thanks for the information. Always good to know. Hmmm, never thought such a simple idea / concept would be controversial. I guess it is not so simple.
Steve, You are correct that it is a simple idea/concept. But remember what Byron said, the Timesaver is a parlor game. No doubt that John Allen was one of the greatest model railroaders of all time and as Byron stated, John didn't include the Timesaver in any of his layouts. I build the Timesaver in a previous layout and became frustrated with the manuevers just to get some simple switching chore done. That layout is no longer in existance because of that. Keep in mind that real railroads will do everything possible to keep switching manuevers as simple as possible. One term to keep in mind is "grand pull". A configuration like the Timesaver (and many published track plans) do just the opposite. But Byron has realy covered this point well so i won't belabor it. If you enjoy the Timesave you might want to build it on a seperate board. Heck, it can be stored in a closet with ease!
I run on a chaps layout that if you saw the layout schematics, you'd think it was too simple - I did. The first time I ran it, it took me almost 3 hours to get around it - the owner still tells that story to visitors. I will give you one example on his layout that looks very easy, but I've seen guys take over an hour leaving and taking cars from it. And the most cars you ever take is three. First is the mainline with a siding. Attached at one end is a zig zag up the hill (a switch back). There is one zig and one zag. At the top of the Zag, proceeding down that track is two tracks branching off for switching. That's it, that's all there is - yet this location is one of the "dreaded" ones and operators are always happy when they don't have to drop off or pick up cars here. Very simple, yet very hard.
I couldn't edit this in so I'll say it in another post. If you look at the sentence in my signature below my name; it was this chaps layout that inspired me for this particular signature.
