Skip to main content

Originally Posted by TurtleLinez:

I appreciate everyone's advice about how a Timesaver and Inglnook layouts are games or a wrong direction.  I think it would be enjoyable.  

My opinion is that the approach you're seeking is exactly what the hobby should be:  An individual pursuit of an objective that brings personal satisfaction.  Others can express their personal opinions, of course, but all that matters in the long run is you doing what you want to do for your own enjoyment.

Originally Posted by TurtleLinez:

I appreciate everyone's advice about how a Timesaver and Inglnook layouts are games or a wrong direction.  I think it would be enjoyable.  My problem has been coming up with anything better that will fit into my 144" x 30" space.  I am open to suggestions.

 

Secondly, I really do not plan on switching with the DD40.  I would likely just run it up and down the tracks.  Better than having it collect dust.  So I am not really caring about it being "goofy" in terms of switching.  I most likely will just exercise it as opposed to switch with it.

I think an Inglenook and/or a Timesaver could be a totally worthwhile layout, *if* you are really into the type of puzzle action they provide. (I certainly am!!)

 

The criticism of each is that they aren't necessarily realistic representations of actual railroad track plans (not entirely true in the case of the Inglenook), and, if included as part of a larger layout, may in fact inhibit the simulation of realistic railroad operations.

 

But regardless, if you're trying to get maximum switching action into the kind of space we're talking about here, whatever you come up with is going to be similar in some ways to an Inglenook or Timesaver... i.e. if you include both facing and trailing spurs you'll need a runaround loop, and because space is limited, spurs will only hold so many cars, etc.

 

So really it's just a question of degree, like with anything!

 

I think the DD40 could be totally satisfactory as the simulated long distance locomotive that might be delivering freight consists for switching and/or hauling off built-up trains for "points beyond."

 

Maybe you can even include a de-mountable staging track for this purpose?

 

Steve

 

Originally Posted by Allan Miller:
Originally Posted by TurtleLinez:
I appreciate everyone's advice about how a Timesaver and Inglnook layouts are games or a wrong direction.  I think it would be enjoyable. 
My opinion is that the approach you're seeking is exactly what the hobby should be:  An individual pursuit of an objective that brings personal satisfaction.  Others can express their personal opinions, of course, but all that matters in the long run is you doing what you want to do for your own enjoyment.


I would be happy to be more "realistic" Just seems like my layout search is like trying other hobbies...you try to find something else but you always come back to trains!!!
OriginMaybe you can even include a de-mountable staging track for this purpose?

Steve


You know Steve, what would be fun is to invite people over for train play/op session.  Have the DD40 on the track with some falsified documentation showing the UP used it for switching at the end of it's life or something.  Boy that would get the crowd going.
Originally Posted by surfimp:
Originally Posted by sinclair:

Here's my 2 bits.  First, have you read this about Timesavers?  I believe it's a valid point, especially for someone new/renewed to model railroading.  The Timesaver is a puzzle game, not a real switching layout.

 

That's a good point. I think the author of that article is a little over-the-top with his criticisms.

 

So you could make the case (as its proponents do) that an Inglenook, unlike a Timesaver, is a reasonable subject for an attractive and reasonably prototypical small layout.

 

Steve

 

 

The Timesaver can be a reasonable subject for a small layout and prototypical examples do exist. The Timesaver is made up of a track plan and rules designed to make the session challenging (such as limiting the number of cars on a siding.) Toss out the rules and focus on how the track plan can serve the industries it is there to support. The Timesaver is heavily compressed (compared to prototype track) and does not offer an interchange with a mainline.

 

Here is a counterpoint article from The Model Railways Shunting Puzzles Website. At the bottom of the webpage are two links to examples.

 

Was the Timesaver designed as a game? Yes. Can you enjoy a rowdy night of operations on a Timesaver? Yes. Can the Timesaver be integrated into a switching layout or into a larger layout? Yes!!!

Originally Posted by TurtleLinez:
Originally Posted by AGHRMatt:
We use Ross 11-degr

 

 I cannot get a nice parallel runaround like yours no matter what I do.

 

 

12.0x2.8_Switching.bmp

postogr

 

Originally Posted by TurtleLinez:
Originally Posted by surfimp:
Looks more like an issue with how SCARM wants to layout the track than anything else?



Boy Steve, If I find out it is a Scarm issue that I have been pulling my hair out over I will ....well I don't know what I will do.  It is not just a little off if that is the case it is way off!  I hope you are wrong but I must admit, I thought about that.

 

RA,

 

To bring the Ross #4 turnout (14 degrees) back to parallel, you need to use the correct Ross curved section #'s TR435, TR440, or TR445. When you hover the mouse over the track sections, the information for the turnouts and curved sections will appear.

 

 

ross4wcurves

Attachments

Images (1)
  • ross4wcurves

I think the toughest part coming up with what you want is the 12' of length, because it sounds like a lot, but it's really not. As I mentioned earlier, 3 40' cars plus an engine will take up 4'. Take that for each end and it only leaves 4' in the middle, so you have to make the end tracks about 2' at each end, and that gives you 8' in the middle to play with. There are many industries that are 1 and 2 car spots. It's just a matter of selecting your industries and then design a track plan around them. 

Originally Posted by TurtleLinez:
Originally Posted by AGHRMatt:
We use Ross 11-degr


Matt,

Here is what always messes me up.  If your pic of the layout below is using 11 degree regulars it lines up parallel.  If I try it with 11 or #4's look what happens to mine.  The red circles indicate where the angles go wrong on my plan.  I cannot get a nice parallel runaround like yours no matter what I do.

 

What is your clearance between the runaround tracks?

12.0x2.8_Switching.bmp

postogr

I used RR-track. The curves off the diverging turnouts are flex track bent to 11-degrees to fit a specific separation (3.5"). I don't know if/how SCARM handles flex track. In RR-track, you lay out the parallel tracks, then fit a "general curve" between the exposed ends. If the radius is too sharp, move the adjacent track's end back and try again.

One of the tricks to getting TimeSaver to look "right", you need four Wyes and one LH turnout. Note how the three on the left are laid-out back-back-back. This one is done all in 072, but there's no reason why it shouldn't work with larger radii.

 

If you're using Ross switches, you'll want their transition curves matched to the radii to get your tracks back to parallel.

 

 

TimesaverWye_SHR

Attachments

Images (1)
  • TimesaverWye_SHR
Last edited by Gilly@N&W

I don't know if you have to follow any rules or standards or just build one for fun.  I was looking through one of those pocket book size Lionel "Model Railroading" from the 1950's and they had some drawings of switching track designs. 

 

I took photo's of the page and I like the track diagram #1 (top).  It looks very interesting incorporating a "Y" into the track plan.

 

Steve, Lady and Tex

 

 

100_1749

100_1750

Attachments

Images (2)
  • 100_1749
  • 100_1750
Originally Posted by TurtleLinez:

Well I was just granted 16 feet instead of 12  Must have been my Valentines day dinner

Back to the drawing board...Ideas welcome.

Oh, you shouldn't have said that.

 

This one is a Free-Mo inspired variant on a plan I stumbled across a few years ago and stretched to 16 feet. It's designed using MTH ScaleTrax, but could easily be done using Ross turnouts with Gargraves flex track. It's 16'x3' with 32" ends for compatibility with a proposed O scale US Free-Mo standard.

16.0x3.0_gw_branch-ScaleTrax--FreeMo--Tapered_Ends--Industry_Changes7

 

 

This one is a straightened out version of an oval layout I had designed (and partially built). It's designed using ScaleTrax #4 and #6 turnouts. The gray structure at the top right is a dimensional stand-in for the Atlas Ice House and doc.

16.0x3.0_Straight_Version_of_10.8x7.0_Oval-3-2-track--4.5_spacing

 

 

This one is an old design with the idea of a more realistic looking Timesaver. This was done with Atlas track and #5 turnouts. Here again, it could easily be done using Ross 11-degree turnouts and Gargraves or Ross track.

Timesaver_Module_Set-Assembled

Attachments

Images (3)
  • 16.0x3.0_gw_branch-ScaleTrax--FreeMo--Tapered_Ends--Industry_Changes7
  • 16.0x3.0_Straight_Version_of_10.8x7.0_Oval-3-2-track--4.5_spacing
  • Timesaver_Module_Set-Assembled
Originally Posted by Bluegill1:

Matt,

 

All three look impressive

Thanks. The top one is the one most likely to actually get built. As much as I like the Free-Mo standard, it's not really practical for O scale unless you have access to a very large area. However, for switching modules, it poses a lot of interesting design challenges for something smaller to take to train shows or exhibits, or for one wall of the garage.

Originally Posted by TexSpecial:

I don't know if you have to follow any rules or standards or just build one for fun.  I was looking through one of those pocket book size Lionel "Model Railroading" from the 1950's and they had some drawings of switching track designs. 

 

I took photo's of the page and I like the track diagram #1 (top).  It looks very interesting incorporating a "Y" into the track plan.

 

Steve, Lady and Tex

Amazing how things stay the same over time.

Some pix of the layout.  This thread was very helpful as were all who participated.  I want to keep it up to prove answering all my questions and getting all of your help was not for nothing.

 

As you can see I am going with the mid Sahara desert scenery   with random junk laying around in the sand.  Also note the Dollar Store blue swimming pool noodle cut to size as an end of track bumper until I can get mine built

 

Point is I was told to get something running which, was good advice.

 

 

 

photo 4

photo 5

Attachments

Images (2)
  • photo 4
  • photo 5
Post
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×
×