Staging- Do I need a double crossover?

Model Railroader General Discussion (Model Railroader)
1

Hi all,

I’m trying to decide if I really need the double crossover on the staging side of my layout (right edge). I can’t picture a train ever needing to use them in an opps session. What do you think? It will be a lot less hassle in the long run (maintenance) plus I’ll save $60. Any thoughts? Thanks in advance.

(click to enlarge)

2

You already have crossovers at each end around the bend. The yard is accessible from both tracks, don’t see a need to complicate things.

BTW a nice track plan.

3

[:)]

I agree. They don’t give you access to anything that the other crossovers don’t. I second the comment above that it’s a good layout. I’m pleased to see a double track main.

[:)]

4

Thanks for the replies.

I’ll just omit the crossovers, I can always add them later. I agree that they don’t really add much except potential derailments.

Thanks for the complements on the track plan but I can’t take much credit for it. It was an MR project railroad first (Appalachian Central, January and February 2000 issues), all I did was make it a double main and broaden the curves. Then some great members of this forum tweaked it to perfection.

5

I used a double crossover on my layout. I think if I had to do it over, I’d use a double slip switch (same result, less room).

6

I like your track plan. What size table is it and what scale? Thanks.

7

There is another alternative. I too have a double track main and am currently thinking hard about how it is all going to enter staging (which is stub ended like your plan, not continuous or through staging).

Obviously every turnout and crossover in a yard costs you car capacity – not just the cars sitting on the turnout but the practical need for a switcher to access and shift cars beyond the turnout. I am actually thinking of bringing the two tracks together for brief single track, and then branching out into the yard from that. While the yard throat could get busy at times, given my probable train scheduling I think this is managable. Given the slight chance of a congested yard throat over the 100% certainty of losing out on car capacity, to me the choice is clear.

Also under consideration is staging yard without a switcher, but switched entirely by hand in the British “fiddle yard” style.

I am thinking of the same solution at the other end of my layout which right now I am thinking will be a loop (the plan will be point to loop + point, rather than point to point or point to pure loop: only the passenger trains will take the loop while freights will terminate).

I think reducing the two tracks to one might not only eliminate spacing eating turnouts but also simplify some wiring issues although I think I need to spend an entire weekend curled up with Andy Sperandeo’s wiring book before I declare that to be the case.

Dave Nelson

8

Marlon, thanks for mentioning the double slip, I never would have thought of that. Unfortunately I don’t think I’ll be able to work it in. I would have to put it on a curve but then one of the staging tracks would be hanging off the side of the layout. Also the roadbed is already caulked down.

Tony, thanks for the complement. The table is 6’ 5.5" by 7’ 9". It is N scale with a minimum radius of 15" on the main and 12.5" on the branch line.