Having seen a lot of comments about "Puzzle layouts".....

[shortliner]

....and posts giving reasons why people shouldn't build them - boring, not prototypical, etc., I came across this one on FB, which to my mind proves that a "Timesaver" can be worth building. Very neatly done, small space model  - click on the picture and it will enlarge

 

 

Kim Nipkow

14 hrs
...
A little something from Switzerland. My latest layout. Actually a classic: John Allen's Timesaver. Took the original trackplan and put some scenery and structures around it. Thought I share it here.

 

Edited July 10, 2018 by shortliner

[Tove]

....and posts giving reasons why people shouldn't build them - boring, not prototypical, etc.,

 

 

Pahh...!

 

I would imagine the commentators/critiques would be more at home with something like this then.......

 

Brian.

[long island jack]

Pahh...!

 

I would imagine the commentators/critiques would be more at home with something like this then.......

72680Bigjigs Freight Train Set.jpg

 

Brian.

WOW!!!

 

what track did you use, who make are those trees, is the bridge scratch built or a kit!!!!!...………………...

[Regularity]

I’ve had this lot for over 50 years:

And this for nearly as long:

[Wendell1976]

The only things I have a problem with a Timesaver layout is the runaround and three of the sidings are way too short. The sidings that are to the left and right of the runaround can only fit the locomotive and one car(or two cars without the locomotive). That is not prototypical in real life. The runaround itself can only fit two cars on one side of it(or a locomotive plus one car) and only one car on the other side. This also isn't prototypical in real life. The runaround and most of the sidings need to be extended to make the Timesaver more authentic. John Allen never intended for the Timesaver to be based on real life switching; he only intended for it to be just a "puzzle."

 

Wendell

Idaho, USA

Edited July 10, 2018 by Wendell1976

[Joseph_Pestell]

The only things I have a problem with a Timesaver layout is the runaround and three of the sidings are way too short. The sidings that are to the left and right of the runaround can only fit the locomotive and one car(or two cars without the locomotive). That is not prototypical in real life. The runaround itself can only fit two cars on one side of it(or a locomotive plus one car) and only one car on the other side. This also isn't prototypical in real life. The runaround and most of the sidings need to be extended to make the Timesaver more authentic. John Allen never intended for the Timesaver to be based on real life switching; he only intended for it to be just a "puzzle."

 

Wendell

Idaho, USA

 

Yes, but we can't all have large layouts.

 

Sidings can, sometimes, be very short. I do agree with you about the overly short loop. It might be better to extend that into a staging area so the viewer can't see how short it is.

[2996 Victor]

It’s a nice-looking little layout, well put together, and with great scenery that disguises the fact that it’s a Timesaver.

 

I tend to agree with Wendell’s comments insofar as the loop and spurs are not of prototypical length, which is of course because its essentially a puzzle.

 

However, if an extra track were added running parallel to the main line from the cross-over and exiting stage left (or right), this would be the prototypical loop for appearances sake, and could end at a dual-track sector plate, thus:

The layout would then serve a dual purpose, either as a prototypical model railroad, or by ignoring the loop track, as a switching puzzle as the operator requires.

 

I’m doing something similar with my Ashover Light Railway layout: it’s basically an Inglenook with and additional kick-back siding and a small passenger station. I'll be able to either run it as a “proper” model railway or purely as a shunting puzzle.

 

Cheers,

 

Mark

[Regularity]

Yes, but we can't all have large layouts.

 

Sidings can, sometimes, be very short. I do agree with you about the overly short loop. It might be better to extend that into a staging area so the viewer can't see how short it is.

 

I think the point is, and I think you are alluding to this so I am agreeing with you, is that the Timesaver is not a brilliant basis for an authentic layout, unlike a much simpler arrangement of single spur with multiple spots.

But, not everyone's boat is floated by a desire for an authentic layout.

 

I mean, I never pretend that the Playcraft plastic train set from circa 1967 is authentic (it is more akin to a plateway!) but I have been able to have a surprising amount of fun with authentic operations on it. (My then 3-year old son was slightly mystified by it all!)

[Enterprisingwestern]

Also, if you are a stock builder, a timesaver type layout is a lot easier to get out and set up than a larger more "prototypical" layout for testing purposes.

 

Mike.

[Regularity]

That also applies to a single turnout layout (if not more so), such as this:

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/135372-new-shelf-layout-build-thread/

 

Timesaver was intended purely as a shunting puzzle, such as real railways go out of their way to avoid, and as a fun way to pass excessive time, which is precisely the way for a real railway to lose money.

 

Still, each to their own, as the onanist said.

[Wendell1976]

"Sidings can, sometimes, be very short."

 

I agree with this statement as long as a two-car capacity track is not touching either side of the runaround. I have seen very short siding tracks in real life here in The States.

 

Wendell

Idaho, USA

[Joseph_Pestell]

When we were in Provence earlier this year, I got to see quite a lot of the old standard-gauge Bouches du Rhone light railways. I could see that Spacesaver design, with a longer loop, working well in that context. Like in parts of the USA, most of the BdR lines were for agricultural traffic.

[Wendell1976]

For a more "authentic" Timesaver layout, check out Martin Hogg's HO scale Brett layout. Hogg had spread the runaround and sidings on his switching layout. The layout is a 1X8(1 foot by 8 foot) and it's modeled after Idaho. You can watch Hogg's video clips on YouTube(titled "Switching Brett").

 

Wendell

Idaho, USA

[mogtrains]

For a more "authentic" Timesaver layout, check out Martin Hogg's HO scale Brett layout. Hogg had spread the runaround and sidings on his switching layout. The layout is a 1X8(1 foot by 8 foot) and it's modeled after Idaho. You can watch Hogg's video clips on YouTube(titled "Switching Brett").

 

Wendell

Idaho, USA

 

Thanks for the mention Wendell :-) I don't visit RMWeb that often and when I saw this thread I was going to say that someone had recently commented that Brett was similar to a Timesaver .. this video gives a little insight into the planning and thinking behind the layout.. https://youtu.be/00vx8wc--rc

[puck]

Isn't Ashburton a Timesaver with a loading dock?