After laying track on our small layout, my grandsons and I noticed that we can get from the “mainline” oval (for the younger grandson to run trains around) to the “branchline” oval and spurs (for the older grandson and me to do our switching, etc.) very smoothly with a dual turnout crossover. BUT, we can’t get back to the mainline without backing up. I see that Atlas makes a 19 degree crossing and they recommend that for a double crossover. BUT (another one), it is not stocked at local hobby stores so I cannot get a feel for how much room would be used. We used #6 Atlas Custom Line (Code 100) turnouts for the single crossover and I would like to maintain that size.
Does anyone know how much space, linearly, a double crossover would require and how close the two tracks would need to be?
Not sure exactly what the profile of your Atlas #6 turnouts are; but according to my XtrkCAD templates, you will need about 26" linear space and 3" separation between track centers.
Ken L, thanks for the estimate. I think I might be able to squeeze it in!
Rich, that’s a good question, and I did look at purchasing a double crossover. Here are my “assumptions” on which I made the “decision”:
*Checked out cost of double crossovers – looked like $75 to $100; unless you were interested in handlaid track.
*I have two #6 RH turnouts on the layout already that would be used and I know I have one more turnout that I didn’t use (I’m hoping it’s LH, but I’m scared to look); so the expense involved would be about $11 for 19 degree crossover and $15 for 4th turnout. That’s 1/3 or less the cost of a double crossover.
*My wife is threatening to buy a diamond tiara to ensure that I’m spending as much on her as the layout.
*I’m getting WAY too involved in this layout for a “small layout that my grandsons and I can have some fun with” – it’s getting so I’m expecting them to be off to college or in the Marines or something before we finish; let’s not get into handlaid track.
*A “purchased” double crossover would probably “fix” the distance between tracks yet I already have the track laid; may need the flexibility that four turnouts, a couple of straights, and a crossing would give – plus or minus some short pieces here and there.
But, it IS a good question. Would seem to be the easy way out, but. . . .
This pair of double corssovers is made with No. 4 turnouts, and I forgot what size the crossing was, but I have two more of them to convert single cossovers at Smith 9th Street.
Here is one that is built the other way around. The closer one is made with No. 4 turnouts, the other pair is made of snap track.
LION uses material on hand. The double cross over at 242nd Street is a purchased unit that cost around $50.00, but that was 15 years ago. LIONs need to be very frugal in its expenditures of money.
Fazby, most of the spurs for the inner loop are on the “other” side of the layout; away from the crossover. I had hoped I could find a spot for a “return” crossover on that side, but there’s not room – as you may have suspected. I might just look for a curved turnout that could solve my immediate problem, but I wonder if that wouldn’t cause additional issues with alignment, S-curves, etc.
LION, thanks for photos. I’ll have to look at the second approach you used for double crossovers – back-to-back turnouts, LH then RH, to the inside oval. That’s a bit of a “duh-huh, why didn’t I think of that”, but it might take more distance (length) than I can spare.
Blacktop, a couple of your objections fall into the “insufficient preparation” category. namely the ones about SWMBO (She Who Must Be Obeyed). I hope we’re being tongue in cheek here and that you didn’t undersell your participation in the hobby based on cost or time to your wife. That’s heading for trouble.
Back to the topic at hand, though. I have two double crossovers along the back run of my layout to enable access to various industrial spurs and sidi
A double crossover, although an expensive alternative, is not only the “easy way out” but also a well crafted alternative to piecing together four turnouts, a crossing, “plus or minus some short pieces here and there”. The double crossover will prove more reliable and less derailment prone.
Just buy your wife a slightly cheaper diamond tiara and use the savings to cover the cost of the double cross over.
Richotrain, regardless of the price I have to say that in this situation I would not recommend this particular crossover.
First it is built with #4 turnouts. Shinohara #4 turnouts are real #4s which means tight! A 6 axle diesel can very easily short and/or derail in the tight kink in the track. On one layout I operate on we had to ban all but shortest wheel base 4 axle diesels from the industrial area where such turnouts were installed. Atlas #4s are closer to #5s and the difference is dramatic. The original posters installation is a #6 and it sounds like it is working fine. I would hate to see the Original poster revert to a #4 size and suddently have problems due to the sharper angles/curves involved.
Second, Shinohara brand has hot frogs and closing rails. Unlike an Atlas or Peco Insulfrog that will drop right in, this might require special rail gaps to work without shorts. The photo looks like there are built-in insulators in all the right places for the crossing, but all of the Shinohara crossings I have purchased required the user to figure out how to gap or use insluated rail joiners around it. Further the photo does look like it has hot frogs in the 4 turnouts. I have found that to make them work reliably (electrically) one has to either put a pretty strong springed turnout actuator to feed it from the points, or run separate power to the frog. Gapping and wiring issues are more than doubled since this is a double crossover.
You guys are great! Thanks for all the comments AND the humor and fun. I checked with my wife (and I’ll have to admit that my preparation has been slack) about a slightly cheaper diamond tiara. Her response: “No way, Jose’!!!” So, I’m stuck. . . .
While I’m not trying to do this “on the cheap”, I have tried to stick to what my local hobby shop can supply or get for me. They have been very supportive and I’d like to continue giving them my business in most cases. Their line is Atlas.
I was asked to post a picture/drawing of the layout. I’m not sure how to insert an image on this forum, but maybe I can do one better – IF you promise not to laugh. . . . Here is a blog I started so I could refer folks at Clever Models (cardstock) to some structures I had made. It got out of hand after that. Look for the Layout post.
On further review, I might be able to insert a return crossing on the back, left side of the layout. I’m sticking with #6 Atlas Customline turnouts because I have a couple of large passenger cars that I would like to pull around on occasion. I might pick up my extra #6 at the hobby shop and check it out. If it doesn’t work there, then I can give the crossing a shot. There may not be room there, either.
I must admit that I’ve dug a deeper hole than I originally intended. This was to be a small layout with connection to the hometowns of my grandsons and of mine with the cotton theme. We were supposed to be able to get it up and running pretty quickly (we did) and then we could work on the rest of it “at our leisure.” Seems this thing is taking much of my leis
Aww geez, I didn’t realize that the turnout portions were #4’s. I agree with you, TZ, that this double crossover would not be appropriate.
I would have suggested the Walthers Shinohara #6 double crossover, of which I have three, but the OP uses Code 100 track and the Walthers Shinohara is Code 83.
That’s the problem with Code 100 track. It is too hard to match up with a lot of specialty track which is more often Code 83.
The link was helpful, and I see your problem with space limitations. Of course, if the layout were a little wider, you could slip in another crossover to return from the inner loop to the outer loop without having to back up trains. Otherwise, the double crossover would be the best solution.
I didn’t try to measure the dimensions of your layout but it appears to a 4’ x 8’ plan with 22" radius using sectional curved track. Is that about right. A crossover along the upper left side could possibly work, although space limitations may prevent a proper fit. Curved turnouts on the left and right side could be another possible solution but, again, you are working within a very tight and restricted area.
In any event, running large passenger cars on those tight dimensions may be a challenge. I use 30" radius curves on my layout.
I’m not gonna offer advice on how to deal with the tiara issue. You’ve rolled the dice, now pay the price! And I’m sure your solution will involve some degree of grovelling. Good luck with that. [:D]
I’ll also leave the subject of where to put the crossover… you’ve gotten some good advice there, and we’ll see if you can work it out.
Obviously, you’ve discovered (the hard way) that this hobby is addicting. But as long as it really is leisure (that is, fun) and you’re not heading for divorce court, who’s to complain.
CTValley, What good are you? I could probably figure out the track issue, but the tiara issue is the really difficult one!
I think I will try the second “single” crossover before getting too involved with double-whatervers, since I’ve had some indication that I can fit it in. I’m sure there will be some “adjustments” made. As may have been noted, my drawing of the layout shows some misalignment near the bottom, right side where the current layout didn’t quite “fit”. So, I’m used to “monitoring and adjusting”.
By the way, the whole layout is 4’ X 6’4". So it really is a tight squeeze. It was supposed to fit under a queen size bed so the tiara-wearer would be OK with it. Since then, I have been given clearance to use a rather small office area and it’s up on legs. I think that’s progress.
