For those of you who model double mainlines and/or large passenger station complexes, which do you prefer? A double crossover or two single crossovers?
Double crossovers are more expensive, retailing for around $100 and discounted to around $80, whereas turnouts can be had for as little as $15 each.
Double crossovers take up less space, 20 inches or so versus 39 inches or longer for two pairs of single turnovers.
Double crossovers are more complex in terms of rail segments, jumpers, and overall wiring compared to the construction of a single turnout.
I am torn between the two forms of track work as I contemplate making a modification to my current layout. I have had double crossovers in the past, and it has been a love/hate relationship for the reasons mentioned.
What are your thoughts and what is your experience?
the question is not what a modelrailroader would do, but the prototype. The answer is rather simple - real railroads avoided double crossover switches like the devil shunning the holy water. Double crossovers were expensive to built, deailment prone and costly to maintain.
Real estate would be my concern, but after seeing Howard Zane’s layout, I feel cheap and unworthy [;)] However if you’ve had issues before, why go there again?
I studied the double main line of the UP across several states. There were many paired crossovers (usually high speed #20) and no double crossovers.
Passenger stations that will have crossovers at all tend to be in confined areas. I have seen plenty of double crossovers in that situation. Frequently in the company of a number of double slips.
So the general case is that railroads will use paired crossovers when they have the room.
I did see a curious exception (seems there’s ALWAYS curious exceptions): a new commuter line in Chicago where the design wizards put in double crossovers near stations when they had plenty of room to avoid it. That said, they also could be extremely clever lads/lasses who are privy to info that explains the decision.
I built my own double crossover from Atlas code 83 #6 Custom Line turnouts and a 19° crossover. It works great! I had tried four or five commercially made turnouts but everyone gave my deep flange Rivarossi locomotives problems. I’d never had a problem with any locomotive using Atlas code 83 turnouts so I setout to build my own.
Thanks, Ulrich. Yeah, at one time, I had three double crossovers on my layout, now only one. One of the most serious problems with a double crossover is the eventual loss of power to one or more rail segments due to the embedded jumpers. This causes locos to stall at slow speeds. However, derailments have not been a problem.
Thanks, Ed. You raise some good points. For one thing, I do have the room for two pairs of single crossovers, so maybe that should be the rationale. The location of the track in question is the pair of lead tracks into and out of my downtown passenger station. So at least a double crossover would be prototypical in that sense.
I built my own double crossover from Atlas code 83 #6 Custom Line turnouts and a 19° crossover. It works great! I had tried four or five commercially made turnouts but everyone gave my deep flange Rivarossi locomotives problems. I’d never had a problem with any locomotive using Atlas code 83 turnouts so I setout to build my own.
Rich, years ago Atlas published a track plan book with all the geometry of their track components. I still have my fathers copy…copyright the year I was born, 1957. Custom Line track geometry has never changed in all this time.
A #6 double crossover made with the 19 degree crossing and no cutting yields 3" track centers with an overall length of 26 inches. It requires 2" straight sections between the straight legs ofthe turnouts.
Two #6 turnouts back to back yields the traditional 2" track centers - another reason I like Atlas turnouts…
If you do the cutting like Mel, the overall lenght is 24" at 2" track centers.
I went out to my layout and measured mine and it is 20” end to end. It’s been so long I can’t remember much about the difficulty but I would think if it was a really hard task I would remember. I normally remember the real toughies.
The one thing I do remember is I only made one error in the entire project, I made one cut on the crossover 1/16” too short. I filled the gap with solder and now It’s very hard to find it.
The end to end rail measurement is 20¼”. I went to my Google Drive and the PDF drawing has been removed for being a corrupt or outdated file. It’s been there since 2012. I uploaded an actual size AutoCAD DWG drawing. I can’t get the new version of Adobe to except a large drawing. ??
Mel, now that I think about it, you likely had to make the straight legs ofthe turnouts a little shorter as well. That would make it less than the 24" of two turnouts.
I had tried three code 83 Sinohara type turnouts early on (1992-4) and non of them would pass my new at the time Rivarossi Cab Froward so I reverted to a pair of Atlas #6 Custom Line forming a single crossover. All of my locomotives pass the Atlas code 83 turnouts without any problems.
Before I built my own I bought a Fast Track Double Crossover but the wiring was more complex than I wanted to get into. It did pass my deep flange wheels very good. I sold it on eBay. I like to use the KISS policy on everything I can (KEEP IT SIMPLE STUPID).
I wouldn’t hesitate to build a second one, mine works perfect using one Tortoise.
Mel
Modeling the early to mid 1950s SP in HO scale since 1951
Back to when and where a double crossover would be appropriate.
A club I once belonged to had a requirement for a four track passenger station fed from a double track main, and very litttle track length for a throat. The ‘double crossover’ I built had double slips at the end closest to the platforms. Every rail fragment had its’ own drop, so losing rail contact never happened. As for what happened after I was reassigned , I have no idea.
In my fairly immediate future is an asymmetrical double crossover with a double slip at one corner. The prototype, at a place called Higashi-Shiojiri, allowed for meets and passes on a single track where there was only a very short space between the abutments of a high bridge and the portal of a long upgrade tunnel. Mine serves the same purpose on my coal-hauler, since the Yamamoto station occupies a narrow shelf at a #4 frog angle to the through track.
