ModelRailroadForums.com is a free Model Railroad Discussion Forum and photo gallery. We cover all scales and sizes of model railroads. Online since 2002, it's one of the oldest and largest model railroad forums on the web. Whether you're a master model railroader or just getting started, you'll find something of interest here.
So a standard HO module seems to be 48" x 24". From what I can see it is impossible to make a timesaver (tymesaver) track plan that will fit that size.
I did see a reference to a timesaver module plan in this book:
"The Best of Model Railroading Magazine's Track Plans" Robert Schleicher, Eastwood publishing, 1983.
But I haven't seen the book, if anyone has it maybe you could comment on what the plan they included looks like, or even post a picture.
48" will typically work for an N scale timesaver and possibly for an HO one using very small rolling stock and small radius turnouts. Carl Arendt may have some examples on his site: http://www.carendt.com/
Typically I agree with the sentiment that the timesaver was designed as a very challenging puzzle and will not work for realistic operation, purely because it will end up making switching manouvers near impossible and will end up frustrating the operator.
None the less, I believe you could make a neat little switching layout on a 48" module using a few turnouts.
Without actually putting it into software, a 48" x 24" module has a diagonal of 53.66",
so in theory a 52" one should fit - but I'm guessing it is necessary to bend the sidings.
It will also depend on the loco and car length as to how much room you need - AFAIR it is something like 9X the length of the longest car/loco
I'll echo Ken's concerns about the idea of a Timesaver module as a switching layout. John Allen designed the Timesaver to be as difficult and frustrating as possible to operate so switching would require a large number of moves. The game was to find ways to reduce the number of moves and thus win the game. So, do you really want a switching layout based on a devilishly complicated railroad game? There are tons of good shelf and module plans that allow for switching, operations, and some scenery. Unless you want to build a puzzle, I'd be looking at them befor ethe Timesaver type plans.
I did want it for the puzzle aspect likely including a timer.
I was toying with the idea that some of the sidings would be longer than needed for the timesaver and shortened when used as a puzzle (road traffic at a crossing, gate etc.) so that it would be more usable when not acting as a puzzle. I suppose the shortness of the runaround might still make normal operation a little challenging.
I have seen depths of 36"-48" that contain scenery and maybe a siding or factory and industry set offs toward the back. These were basically fixed club layouts and not used for "traveling layouts".
Depending on your perception, peninsulas can be 48" deep also, as long as the peninsular module is a "walk-around". And one could make them even deeper if the "center" is scenery, like a mountain or town, ect.
I have modules that are deeper than the NMRA standard in order to facilitate my yard. I used all of the NMRA standards for track placement and spacing, however, measuring from the front of the table. Since my layout is "worked" from the outside perimeter(walk around) as well as the "middle", I have no problems reaching any trouble that should occur. It takes two to tangle, two to tango, and two to operate my layout. One of the reasons I keep the better half around. Besides, she's a pretty fair cook.
The Timesaver, as originally designed, was just a puzzle. But I have seen several layout plans where the overall design of the Timesaver was used as a small industrial area. These were in MR a couple of years after John Allen had died.
The runaround, which is the limiting factor in how easy/hard it is to switch, was lengthened to a more usable size, usually 8-10 cars long. One of the designers even stated that he included the design into each layout he planned and most modelers never even noticed.
I put a crude drawing below here to show basically what these guys did. One track on each end of the runaround was kept straight, and also did not have an industry on it. This allowed much easier switching of the other industries. The other tracks could curve off, or just go straight.
