What are the parameters of or what constitutes a switching layout ? Is it always in an urban setting ? Is it always compact with mostly industry/spurs ? Is there a rural, bucolic place for a switching layout ? How is main line in and out depicted if veyr truncated benchwork, say ? Related: Would creating a ' MRR dictionary ' catagory in TBoard be allowable, useful, worthwhile ? Or, would it be too vast ; all the 'A's, 'B's, 'C's , 'D's ?......Perhaps not include proper names of RRs, stations and persons; only mechanical/physical things...
A switching layout is just that. It does not feature run through trains. It focuses upon local switching action. Assorted industries, yard work, a steel mill, a saw mill, cement plant.... Layout size can vary. There have been many locations in what seemed like a "rural" setting, where a switcher was assigned, as there was enough business to merit such a placement.
This seems like a fool's errand. The definition is variable and determined by the builder/operator. If the activity is primarily switching rather than mainline running, most people would call it a switching layout. I've designed them for as little as 7 square feet in HO and as large as 600 square feet in HO. Each of those was a switching layout and the builders were happy with them. They aren't always urban. They are not always freight only. They aren't always compact. The mainline is not always depicted -- although sometimes it is active and fed by staging.
I consider my "Lighter Than Air Railroad" as a switching railroad. It is entirely set on a Naval Air Station as the on-base switching trackage. It has an access to an (unmodeled) trunkline through a security gate. Unlike most "switching layouts," it has a continuous oval but that is NOT a "mainline." It is a circulation loop to access spurs in different areas, and to make runarounds by running around the entire loop. There are some prototype industrial in-plant railroads with loops like this. Besides the switching, I can run an engine and cars roundy-round on the loop for test running AND to allow pre-schoolers to run the layout. I did this at a train show and let adult modelers run a switching problem and let little kids run a train. I am building a "main layout" representing an end-of-the-line seaport terminal where switching will be the major activity of operations. However it will also allow operation of mainline trains into and out of the terminal to and from staging. Has only about 10 feet of mainline running outside the terminal-- all in one "block." I do not think this falls in the category of a "switching layout." If I had to name it as a type, I would call it a terminal layout.
A switching layout can be small or large, and either urban of rural. I live in Montana, and grew up here and model the area where I live. I have a decent size room for the layout, and instead of having a long main line run, I chose to have a switching layout. The main line only passes through the layout once, leaving me more room to model towns and the industries in them. I am a lone wolf operator, and really enjoy switching. It can take over 2 hours to take a local train from one end to the other and perform all of the switching duties. This picture shows perhaps half of the layout.
Thanks for all the responses. Kenneth, I might call your naval base RR a belt line, but still a switching. I've seen your seaport terminal schematic many times before and always liked its layout and the way you get allot of activity worked in..Hope you get it all built..Maybe it's a belt line ,too ! Montanan, my RR ,though much smaller is similar to yours scenically. Or, will be one day..Mine is point to point, no continual, and being it's a switchback, as locos/trains reverse direction once in SB tail, a turntable thus does not help me . I try to be realistic this way and not let the TT attraction aspect rule my thinking..I might have a wye at other, unfinished upper end of line more so for loco of parent road to turn than for 'my' branch engines..I'll wind up with a live interchange at both ends and so maybe will call myself a bridge instead of branch. I think a bridge would also justify many dif types of cars traversing the road due to we transferring whatever shows up at said interchanges. Anyone have any thoughts on a MRR dictionary or encyclopedia in Tboard ? A newer member might want to know what a 'telltail' is/was, or what 'diamonds' are...Plugdoor box car...bobber.. Mars light.... Admin. could monitor validity of entries accumulating throughout the alphabetical additions from/by members..No names such as Pennsylania or Janey (couplers),...B&M,..Allen, Atlas..PFM,......etc. But, 'mikado'/'Mike' would be good for obvious reasons.. Example: Aspect= position of (usually) 3 lights on a trackside target signal which inform train crew/engineer to proceed, slow or stop train. Target signal= bla bla...
I'm surprised nobody has yet mentioned the time-saver layout! This is the ultimate switching layout... I have seen it stand alone and also incorporated into larger layouts. My father and John Allen were friends so perhaps that is why I am so familiar with this concept. Its a shame really because it can be quite entertaining, and it is just as fun as a stand alone or incorporated into a larger layout system. gdlines.com/Timesaver.html en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timesaver
All and good, except time-savers are not based on any real railroad, reality. They are not for doing switching, as in the real world of railroading. So that is why no one mentioned time-saver layouts.
As noted in the gdlines website that was referenced, John Allen himself did not view the Timesaver as a layout. I have spoken with more than one person who operated with Mr. Allen for years and they have told me that he viewed the Timesaver as a parlor game, wholly separate from the layout downstairs. In fact, operators put money into a pot for the fastest player to win. As I noted elsewhere, I had the chance to operate one of the original Timesaver boards at PCR events. Neat piece of history, but I personally found it to be just a frustrating puzzle, even if I did eventually record a decent time. It's instructive that John Allen did not use that configuration in any part of his actual layout and he himself might be surprised at the way folks venerate it today. If someone wants to build a restricted-length Timesaver puzzle for himself, that's fine, of course. But the evidence seems clear that John Allen himself never considered it "The ultimate switching layout"
While I agree that John himself did not incorporate this into his layout, and devised it soly for the puzzle aspect of it, the article written in the October 1974 issue of Model Railroader blurred the lines on this concept as solely a 'parlor' game. The author explains how it can be a stand alone layout or even incorporated into a larger one. While this may not have been John's original intent with the idea, people have adapted it over time. And with regards to the real world switching, that comes down to personal preference. Some people build consists with order cards and timetables for operating sessions with fast-clocks. I don't. I think its great that this hobby has room for people who want to get that detailed, and people who just want to run. John Allen never said its the ultimate switching layout - I did. And I never said he did either. Why all the hostility towards the timesaver?? I even found a whole thread dedicated to bashing it, and in there, people take aim at the timesaver and at the first-timer's 4x8 layouts. Its sad really to see such negativity towards any aspect of the hobby. It all comes down to personal preference - I like it, others don't. I don't have a problem with others not liking it, so why do people have a problem with me liking it? seems counterproductive...
Did you have a chance to review the clinic slides and the referenced web pages in the thread you are criticizing? They are simply pointing out that there are better alternatives to the conventional thinking. Many newcomers to the hobby think that Timesavers are perfect because of the John Allen cachet and that HO 4X8s are perfect because they are fed a steady diet of them by the hobby press. You posts do suggest otherwise, but to each his or her own, of course.
Those are my two posts - please ponint out where I am critizising anything. The closest I came, I believe, was me saying "Its a shame..." - and if you took that as criticizing, then please let me be the first to apologize. And with regards to the long PDF (not PowerPoint) file, yes I did. And even in that thread, I didn't criticize others, just wondered aloud why all the criticism for the timesaver. Yes, that PDF had some good designs, some that might even be better depending on your opinion, and some that even pre-dated John's idea. Nowhere in my post there, or here, did I criticize others choices. I simply lamented the absence of the timesaver, and then tried to understand the open hostility towards it. However, this is quite off topic now. If you feel the need to further debate my word choice, then PM me or bring it up with the admin.
This was any interesting thread until the Time Saver was thrown into the discussion and people decided to they had to prove their points. This is especially sad as there is already a thread discussing (not bashing) time savers ... I may have to stay away for a few days as there seems to be an increase in sniping of late ...
Here are a couple examples of a "time-saver" in real life HOBOKEN SHORE RR EFFINGHAM RAILROAD COMPANY
Neither of these real-life railroads incorporates the key feature/limitation/frustration of a true Timesaver, in which the whole point is a restriction in length so that one is moving an empty slot around. Folks use the word "Timesaver" to describe any switching layout with a runaround, which is not the way John Allen used it. Even the compact Effingham Railroad Company had room to work in real life. To put the thread back on topic, the Hoboken Shore is an excellent subject for switching layouts, as seen on this page, describing the layouts below.
