ModelRailroadForums.com is a free Model Railroad Discussion Forum and photo gallery. We cover all scales and sizes of model railroads. Online since 2002, it's one of the oldest and largest model railroad forums on the web. Whether you're a master model railroader or just getting started, you'll find something of interest here.
Can any of you fine gentlemen/gentlewomen forsee any problems with this set up for a crossover? I know that this is much more prototypical than a double-crossover. However, I am worried it might cause problems, they are Walthers #6 if you are wondering.
The green tape at the bottom of the picture indicates the beginning of a 24" radius curve, are the turnouts too close? The RH turnout furthest away cannot be easily reached if I move it any further down.
Should I just get a double crossover to save on space or will this arrangement work? Any advice is much appreciated, thanks.
Go with Stein's design, keeps the crossovers in your original configuration, and will work more reliably. And if space is still a problem, replace the right hand turnout in Stein's lower sketch, with a right hand curved turnout.
Go with Stein's design, keeps the crossovers in your original configuration, and will work more reliably. And if space is still a problem, replace the right hand turnout in Stein's lower sketch, with a right hand curved turnout.
The section of parallel tracks would be 'normal' blocks, and the balloon loops would be the reversing sections. Put the gaps at the beginning and end of each loop to isolate it. That particular example could be three blocks.
Go with Stein's design, keeps the crossovers in your original configuration, and will work more reliably. And if space is still a problem, replace the right hand turnout in Stein's lower sketch, with a right hand curved turnout.
Except that railroads usually tried to have the normal route going through the straight leg of the turnout, particularly on main tracks.
For this reason I would go with cuyama's illustration rather than steinjr's. The photo in the original post shows he's got plenty of room between the curves for the crossovers.
Except that railroads usually tried to have the normal route going through the straight leg of the turnout, particularly on main tracks.
For this reason I would go with cuyama's illustration rather than steinjr's. The photo in the original post shows he's got plenty of room between the curves for the crossovers.
Have to agree with Chris there - if there is space, doing the crossover as in Byron's sketch will look more prototypical. If the OP is short of space, using one turnout as I showed it saves space.
The section of parallel tracks would be 'normal' blocks, and the balloon loops would be the reversing sections. Put the gaps at the beginning and end of each loop to isolate it. That particular example could be three blocks.
That certainly works too. I've been running trains at a club which uses my example so that's what I'm more familiar with. The benefit I see with it is that in the parallel tracks you could have a directional toggle for "east - west", and a toggle for the reversing sections that says "clockwise - counter clockwise", and leave the actual throttle's direction switch alone. That way the directions on the toggles are always 'correct'. I'm not sure that the same would be true for the example you provided.
On my Central Midland Atlas HO-29 four #6 turnouts, 2 left, 2 right and a 19 degree cross were used on the two track yard entrance that calls for a double crossover. I operate the cross with 2 tortoise machines and tortoise remotes. No problem for the last three years. I operate SD-40's across them all the time with no problems. I paid closs attention to making sure there were no level issues or pinches.
Wayne
I'm doing a double crossover. I've done research and looked on Google Maps. Even rode on the D.C. Metro over a double crossover. There are plenty of them out there.
My specific reason for using one is because I want to have to ovals of track. Not perfect ovals, but simplified for this example. One inner loop and one outer loop. I want to be able to run them independantly (all 4 turn-outs set to the straight through path, use of insulated rail joints at the crossover, and two power packs). I also want to be able to join the loops and run one train around both (turn-outs set to the crossover, one power pack shut off, the other switched to power both ovals).
Bottom line: It works for me and there are many prototypical examples. Even if it wasn't prototypical, I would probably still do it anyway.
I use a double crossover at the entrance to a yard mainly due to the available space. In the picture, the locomotive is on the main line, and the track to the left is the yard lead. Just out of the picture is a bridge. The yard lead crosses the bridge alongside the mainline and is capable of holding a locomotive and 15 freight cars. Double cross overs are expensive, but are comparable, if not less expensive than four turnouts and do save a lot of space.
