Hi,
Planning my switching-oriented small-steam layout in which a double slip swithch will be a centerpiece, at the yard mouth with much operation, and very visible.
Peco’s in code 75 or Walthers/Shinohara #6 in code 83 seem to be the main competitors.
For space (length and angle), the Peco would suit me better, but I might be able to work the Shinohara in if it would give better operation – or look better.
One problem is, I have no exact mesures of the Shinohara, nor any real-good picture of it.
Where could I find that? (have no nearby shop where I could take a hands-on look)
Something else you need to consider is ground throws or switch motors. A Peco does not require any, but the Shinohara will require two ground throws or switch motors.
Hi, my Peco C-75 dbl-slip requires 2 sw-motors or throw mechanisms, 1 for each end.
I also noticed that it has less horizontal travel than the rest of my Peco fleet. (It’s the only dbl-slip I have… maybe manufacturing tolerances?), so have opted for a pair of remote magnet assemblies with some springiness in the linkages to keep the violent nature of the twin-coil magnets from damaging the switch. If I were not using a probe-&-stud method of picking the magnets, I’d recommend something less violent like a pair of Tortoises. The latching action of the Peco vs other makes made them my choice.
No personal experience, but several posters have reported good experiences with ebay-bought turnouts, especially double-curved ones, built using the FastTracks method. So, assuming you’re not inclined to build one yourself (and a double-slip would be a bit ambitious for a first try!), you might see whether anyone is offering one on ebay, or even contact some builders for a custom unit - might cost no more than the stock W/S one.
I have two Peco code 75 double-slips on my home layout and I love them. I have had NO problems what-so-ever.
Our club has some Walthers / Shinahora double-slips. Some have some problems and some don’t. Our Peco double-slips haven’t given us any problems that I know of.
I think the main thing is that you have to be careful installing and ballasting them. You have to have a good level foundation for them, whether mounted on roadbed or sub-roadbed. They can be more finikey to get mounted right than regular turnouts.
I’ve always wondered what the fascination with double slip switches is on model railroads. It is probably the most overused thing that people do. Unless you are modeling Grand Central Terminal or Penn Station or any other location like that, it most likely isn’t all that prototypical. Even double crossovers are overused. I’m not saying they should never be used at all or can’t be used outside of stations if you want them. I just don’t know why so many are fascinated with them when they are so rarely used.
Yeah, you raise several good points. But the thing is, they’re fascinating and they’re killer good lookin’ on a layout! Total eye candy. I’m building a new layout and intentionally looking for some place I can fake or make a reasoin for a double-slip! Everything else I’m doin’ by the book as far as prototypically correct, but the double-slip, aw, c’mon, I just wanna play a little bit. . . . pulleeeez?
Whether they are overused or not, whether they are all that prototypical or not, there is a very practical use for double slip turnouts on a model railroad.
If a crossover between two parallel tracks is used in combination with a turnout to a third track, a rather sharp S-curve is formed, resulting in possible derailments of longer cars, 6 axle diesels and many types of steamers unless extreme care is taken.
In such an instance, a double slip switch in combination with a single turnout will provide a much smoother crossover arrangement.
Thanks for all advice,
and for the discussion for and against double-slippers!
By now I’m all for them, especially after I realize the good work they can do in providing two entrances to a yard mouth, one for the drill track and one from the a/d tracks, compactly and without s-curves.
From the picture of the Walthers/Shinihara #6 (thanks Crandell!) it is clear it’s too big for my space, especially because of its shallow intersection angle (10°) – I need the tracks to diverge faster.
Glad to hear the Peco is working fine, its geometry fits me much better (about 12°).
Has anyone tried or know anything about the Tillig (code 83) dblslip?
See it at: http://www.tillig.com/index-2.htm
It has a different type of geometry, even more space-saving at 15°, nevertheless the radii of the curved routes are very generous, about 42".
But how does it work?
Obviously, you come to the points first when entering the switch and the frog later, and the two curved routes never overlap in the middle. But how is that middle straight-looking rail made? In the picture it doesn’t look the same material as the other rails. Does it flex a little to keep up the gauge on the curved route in use? Or what? And how reliable is that?
Sverk
OOPS! What happened to the font when I pasted in the ° symbol?
The toolbox doesn’t seem to have any button for font size . . . .
My last layout was in TT scale. Because of that, turnouts and other ready-made trackwork was hard to find. Tillig makes a lot of TT scale track items and I used them. I had a couple of Tillig TT scale double slips and they also worked very well and were well made.
I would expect no less of the Tillig HO double slip switches and I would not hesitate using them.
Fred – measure your layout. Do you really have prototypical spacing between your stations or freight terminals / sidings? If so, you have a very big layout, considering that a mile in HO scale is 60-odd feet.
The use of double slips and double crossovers allows prototypical-style operations in a much smaller space than would otherwise be possible. Just one more example of the selective compression required for all model railroads.
Nope I don’t have that much space. I selectively compressed my n scale passing siding past the station to a mere 7 feet long and use #6 switches at each end. The small country station platform itself only services 4 passenger cars but the track could probably hold 10 and still allow another train to pass through on the mainline.