I am working on a couple of shelf switching layout designs and each has a crossing of two spurs that include very shallow angle crossings. One is a 12.5 degree crossing and the other works out to 19 degrees. I am using Atlas code 83 crossings as the components in the design as they seem to be the only ones available in these angles. The locomotives used on these layouts would be 0-6-0 steamers with tenders and first generation 4 axle diesels. I am concerned with power pickup on these shallow angle crossings using DCC. I suppose these could be hand built, but I think the prospective modeler might balk at that idea. I am not doing the design work for money, just as a favor. I would appreciate any experience with these if you have it. Otherwise, it is back to the drawing board (or screen). thanks.
Frankly, I would special order these crossings from Railway Engineering or Cream City. The Atlas shallow angle crossings tend to have uneven heights through the crossings, causing derailments. This is in addition to the long dead sections from the shallow insulated frogs. The companies mentioned will build them to NMRA spec with all metal powered frogs. Wiring won’t be quite as simple as Atlas, but it’s not that hard to figure out.
Based on these, I avoid Atlas crossings smaller than 25 degrees.
my thoughts, your choices
Fred W
Ditto Fred.
The 4 axle diesel might do okay on the 19, as long as it is longer than a switcher. My Athearn, Proto, and Bachmann switchers all stumble over anything less than a 30 degree Atlas crossing, and I run DC. I would think they would cause more problems for DCC.
I believe the 12.5 is compatible with the #6 turnout (crossing a parallel track from the turnout) and I think either Walthers or Peco makes a “#6” crossing. Not sure if the angle for their #6 crossing is exactly the same as the Atlas, however. You might want to check them as an alternative.
If I recall correctly, the Atlas 12.5 degree crossing is the correct crossing for a #4 turnout on parallel tracks. A 9.5 degree crossing is the correct crossing for a #6 turnout on parallel tracks. Atlas doesn’t make a 9;5 degree crossing although Shinohara does, but only in Code 100.
Rich
Rich,
You are correct. A basement experiment confirms it. My spare Atlas code 83 #4 and 12.5 degree crossing line up perfectly to cross a parallel track.
I think the OP would be wise to go with a different brand of narrow crossings, but I don’t have first hand experience with any other brands to share or know if they prevent a stall any better than Atlas.
Thanks everyone for the great feedback. I sat down and reviewed each situation and here’s what I came up with based on what you all said.
For the 12.5 degree crossing on the first layout, I simply eliminated one of the industry spurs and thus eliminated the need for the crossing. That industry spur held two cars and eliminating it as a rail served customer allowed the building to be shortened in size, moved a few inches, and become a backdrop building. This allowed the adjacent rail served building to be increased in size to handle three cars, instead of two, and be moved also. This movement allowed an adjacent set of team tracks to double in capacity from two to four cars. The net of all of this is more operation capability and a more prototypical looking area. I don’t know why I didn’t see it before. I guess the moral of this one is “just because you can do something, doesn’t mean you should actually do it.”
The layout with the 19 degree crossing is another matter, however. The spurs off of this crossing lead to two Layout Design Elements (LDE) that are signature scenes from the prototype. To lose one of these would spoil the look and the operation of the layout. The crossing itself existed on the prototype, so it sort of belongs. Space prohibits eliminating the crossing, so I guess the remedy here is to go with a custom made crossing, either from one of the vendors mentioned above or perhaps a Fast Tracks solution might work.
Thanks again for the insight folks.
Jim,
Let us know which way you decide to go.
I am interested in the Fast Tracks solution because that may be the most logical way to solve my probem. I need a 9.5 degree crossing in Code 83. Shinohara makes it but only in Code 100. So, I may need to make one myself.
Rich
I need to add more detail to my experience with the Atlas 19.5 degree. It was an older, brass code 100 version. The inner diamond was made with solid black plastic filling the entire diamond. Like I said, the plastic was slightly warped, causing derailments. Carefully fastening it down, and filing the obvious high spots eventually got it working pretty well.
I recently purchased an Atlas code 83 25 degree crossing for my switching micro. Although not installed, it is considerably different in design from the old 19.5 degree. The insulated frog sections are fairly short. I imagine a 4 wheel diesel or steam tank switcher might still stall due to rigid frames lifting a wheel or two out of contact occasionally. 8 wheel diesels or steam with tender should do fine. The center diamond and guard rails are still plastic, but they are plastic strips that sort of resemble rail. No obvious warping, and the length of each leg is much shorter than that old 19.5 degree. I have higher hopes this time around.
So I would look very carefully at the Atlas product before buying.
That said, for the time to order and wait for delivery, the custom builders I cited in my earlier post will deliver an all metal, very nice crossing for you to install (of whatever angle you like). Cost will probably be around double what the Atlas will cost you.
my thoughts, your choices
Fred W
Although forums like these are usefull for getting info, a “real world” check never hurts. The Atlas crossing is pretty cheap, why not just go buy one and try it out and see if your equipment works OK with it or not??