Hi all,
I’ve been reading up on layout design lately, just to improve my knowledge on the subject, and I’ve come across wildly differing views of the ‘timesaver’ switching puzzle designed by John Allen. One one side, the articles I’ve read in magazines such as MR present it as an interesting challenge, while some others describe it as ‘evil’. Has anyone incorporated the timesaver (or a variation) into their layout, and what were their experiences with it?
Cheers,
tbdanny
It is not “evil”. But the timesaver is a switching game, not realistic trackage for an industry area or town scene.
If you want to incorporate a timesaver in your layout plan, go ahead. Your layout. And it has been done before - some of them even by pretty good modelers.
But it might be a just as good an idea to do what John Armstrong Allen did - and make the timesaver on a separate little board, so you can bring it along to friends or club meets or whatever and play a fun little game of timesaver together.
Another switching game is the Inglenook. You can read more about these games on Adrian Wymann’s “Small Layouts and Shunting Puzzles” web page: http://www.wymann.info/ShuntingPuzzles/
Smile,
Stein
John Allen, who popularized the Timesaver, viewed it as a parlor game and not part of layout. He never seems to have incorporated anything like the configuration anywhere in his layout. It’s unlcear to me why people think it should be included in a layout. I guess it’s the mystique of anything associated with John Allen.
The true John Allen Timesaver is extremely tight and basically involves moving an empty slot around with no room to spare. This is nothing like real railroading.
Some people add length to the runaround to make it more realistic – or call any configuration of a passing siding with spurs in each direction a “Timesaver”. These aren’t Timesavers, if we use John Allen’s definition and example as a guide.
IMHO, a more useful and interesting switching layout configuration is Linn Westcott’s “Switchman’s Nightmare”, which predates the Timesaver by about 10 years.
While the time saver is an interesting game it’s not really feasible as a good switchyard design for layout operations. You would likely end up taking more time getting through it on regular switching operations than you want.
In the Timesavers (and it’s variants) defense, if you do want to learn how to switch in close quarters it’s kind of a kick. A 1 x 12 board 6’ long, 5 turnouts and about an hours work and you can try it out. If you don’t end up liking it, just recycle the track in your next layout and use the board in benchwork. By the way, if you get bored with the original configuration, just turn it around 180 degrees. Different game altogether. Decide to use differing routes through it as the “main” and try to put a train together without fouling the main too much. The Timesaver and the Switchman’s Nightmare are learning tools. Have fun.
Lou
The original Timesaver was designed to be a 1 or 2 person challenge game. record the number of moves or the time it takes to solve the puzzle. I can be incorporated into a layout if planned correctly. The original was designed used 40’ boxcar as the standard unit. You could update it to 50’ boxcar lengths, angle some of the spur tracks, even length them. Remember that if it is incorporated into a layout you won’t be playing the game during an operatiing session, just using them as industries to be switched.
I’ve built one that folds up, has a handle and setups in less than a minute. All you do is unfold it and plug in your throttle and its ready to go. To touch on another thread, it uses 1/4" plywood as the base and a layer of ceiling tile on top. Track is glue to the ceiling tile.
I want to build one in G scale.