Laying a double crossover?

Model Railroader Layouts and layout building
1

Hi folks:

I want to install a double crossover using Atlas Code 83 #6 Customline switches. What is the correct angle of crossing track to use between the four turnouts? I’m guessing that the 19 degree crossing is correct. Am I right?

Thanks,

Dave

2

Yes, that is the closest one. #6 angle is 9.46 degrees, x2 is almost 19.

–Randy

3

Dave, have you considered the Walthers Shinohara double crossover?

Rich

4

Dave you’re on the right track! I built my own double crossover after having problems with all of the manufactured crossovers. I had problems with every code 83 double crossover except Fast Track. Fast Tracks worked good but the wiring was too complicated for what I wanted, the rest wouldn’t pass my deep flange Rivarossi articulateds without problems.

I didn’t have any problems with standard code 83 Atlas Custom Line turnouts, they all passed my Rivarossis. Check out the post on my blog about the construction of my double crossover.

http://melvineperry.blogspot.com/2012/06/june-25-2012-my-double-crossover.html

http://melvineperry.blogspot.com/2014/07/july-27-2014-revisiting-my-double.html

It has been in and operating for almost 6 years without failing. I can run my Cab

5

I do use the W/S version of the #6 double crossover. It isn’t perfect, but it works reasonably well. Contact between metal and metal is important, as is making sure all eight rail ends at the extremes of the appliance get solid electrical feed.

One other consideration, and that is that the surface on which you will build this contraption has to be close to perfectly planar. If you allow sags or humps anywhere in the area, you could end up with no end of grief. I would use at least 5/8" G1S ply as a base, and not cut from an old sheet left out stacked under the eaves either. I would be careful to support the midpoint with a single riser if necessary, just to discourage any humping or sagging. A straightedge with backlight will tell you if you have done a good job.

6

Peco makes a #6 crossing that i have found matches up to the Atlas #6 turnout better than the Atlas 19 degree crossing.

7

Please disregard my previous post. The Peco is a better option than the Atlas 12 1/2 degree crossing for crossing a parallel track. The nineteen degree crossing is what you want for a double crossover. Momentarily confusion on my part, sorry

8

Dave, here is someone who has done what your looking to do. http://melvineperry.blogspot.com/2012/06/june-25-2012-my-double-crossover.html

9

Hey Mel!

Thanks for sharing your methods. Lots to consider. I like the linkage mechanism.

I will ask your opinion (and others of course). When I lay out the double crossover using Atlas Code 83 #6 Customline switches and an Atlas 19 degree crossing, I calculate that the distance between track centers will be 3". That is if I don’t trim either the turnouts or the crossing. Is it really worth all the work to reduce the track spacing to 2"? How bad will 3" look? In your case I can see the need because of the tunnel, but we don’t have any such restrictions.

Dave

10

The 3" spacing is exactly why I would buy a Walthers double crossover if I really needed one.

What Mel did turnout out great, but it is a lot of work.

It is not so much how the 3" spacing looks as it is how it effects the position of other trackage entering and leaving.

Sometimes the prototype has/does space parallel tracks wider than necessary, but it always has a reason or a history of reworked trackage.

But mainly, just like they avoid double slip switches, the prototype avoids double crossovers if they can. So two seperate single crossovers is much more prototypical if you have room.

Sheldon

11

Except that the Walthers Shinohara double crossover is 2" on center.

Rich

12

Rich, I know, I’m refering to the 3" spacing of the basic Atlas pieces being unacceptable. I would have to have the 2" spacing.

Sheldon

13

ahh, I agree

Rich

14

Dave

I was committed to the 2” center. When I designed my layout I had a “must have list” and the double crossover was #1 on the list. My LHS had a code 83 Walthers double crossover in stock so I bought it and it was the first piece of track that I laid. I ended up with a 2” center mainline because of the starting point of the Walthers double crossover.

I had all 120’ of my mainline installed and working when I found out the Walthers wouldn’t pass my deep flange Rivarossi Cab Forwards without problems. I ran a SD-9 durning the original track install, things might have been different if I had run a Cab Forward to test my track durning construction.

I tried every code 83 double crossover made and the only one that would pass my Cab Forwards was a Fast Track. I didn’t like the wiring complexity of the Fast Track, I try to follow the KISS principle as much as possible (Keep It Simple Stupid).

I have 21 Atlas code 83 turnouts from #4

15

The adjacent trackage isn’t an issue. On one end the tracks go in different directions after about 12" or so, and on the other end the double track leads shortly into a 36" outer radius curve where the track has to be more than two inches apart anyhow.

The original plan called for a double crossover, but we thought we could reduce that to a single crossover and still retain functionality. Unfortunately we realized that doing so eliminated access to one end of a passing siding, so we had to bring back the double crossover. (Who designed this mess you ask - that would be me![D)][(-D])

Thanks for the suggestions everyone.

Dave

16

Dave, sounds like the 3" centers would not be a problem.

On a seperate note, how much are you increasing the spacing on the curves?

In my experiance, contrary to popular opinion, I have never increased parallel track spacing on curves that large, 36" radius and larger, which has been my bare minimum for many years now.

Admittedly - I don’t own or run any UP Big Boys, brass or plastic, and the other large locos I have are all modern plastic “double hinged” articulated locos, the largest being Proto 2-8-8-2’s, the rest being 2-6-6-6, 2-6-6-4, and 2-6-6-2’s.

I have never had any clearance issues with passenger cars of any length.

Just my thoughts…

Sheldon

17

Hi Sheldon:

We are going by NMRA RP 7.2 using the ‘Early Modern and Modern’ recommendation of 2 9/16" for a 32" outer radius curved double track. That is probably generous but it is also safe. Straight track will be 2" on center.

Dave

18

OK, just wondering. In that case it will be easy to blend smoothly into the crossover, sounds good.

Sheldon

19

Precisely why I am designing all mine to be single crossovers. Thus far I haven’t hit a situation where the extra length of two single crossovers is causing a problem.

–Randy