# Does this kind of track piece exist? N scale needed.



## Mushtang (Aug 27, 2020)

I'm curious if something like this is even possible. Basically it's a turnout except the trains NEVER turn out, they only go straight, and if they come in from the side track it allows the train to continue. No switching needed. See below, the circled areas are what I want.

When I was a kid I had an HO scale and we learned the turnouts would behave this way if you just left them in the straight position. The trains could enter the side and the wheels would push the closed track out of the way. My N scale cars are too light, and if the switch isn't turned correctly the cars derail.

Ultimately what I'm after is a length of track that will allow trains to pass each other without needing to flip switches. Obviously the timing would have to be right but on a long enough track that is easier to deal with just by adjusting the speed. If there's another way to accomplish this I'd love to hear about it. 

Can manual turnouts be altered by removing a part perhaps? I wouldn't expect completely removing that moving part would work because it seems like those pieces are needed to support the train. But maybe if the moving part was stuck in place, and only a couple of small gaps were cut, I think it could work. Before I destroyed on I thought I'd ask for any better solutions.


----------



## Homeless by Choice (Apr 15, 2016)

Yes they do exist in real life. I don’t know the name of that type of crossing but they were used at the end of a street car route to turn the car around and continue back home. They are spring loaded for the right turnout route and the wheel flanges on the truck force them open for the return.

Walt Disney World uses them to provide a passing track and a turn around for their horse drawn wagon rides on Main Street. The track is a single main line opening to a pair of passing tracks in the center section and a circle at each end. There are two wagons that are on the track at the same time. They start out together on each end, pass at the middle section, go to the far end and circle around back.

LeRoy


----------



## Mushtang (Aug 27, 2020)

To clarify, I mean do they exist for an N scale railroad, so that N scale cars can be directed to the correct track without derailing when coming in from the side?

N scale cars are too light to push the moving track out of the way, or at least the ones that I have are.


----------



## Homeless by Choice (Apr 15, 2016)

Mushtang said:


> To clarify, I mean do they exist for an N scale railroad, so that N scale cars can be directed to the correct track without derailing when coming in from the side?
> 
> N scale cars are too light to push the moving track out of the way, or at least the ones that I have are.


Yes, I understand about trying to model this action in N scale. I have been unsuccessful in doing this in HO scale. Let me know how you accomplish this so I can maybe do the same.

LeRoy


----------



## DonR (Oct 18, 2012)

Sttreetcar amd tram systems around the world use these spring 'loaded' turnouts to this day. I see them regularly when I take the many
Tram tours of various world cities on Youtube. You could make your own by simply removing
any locking springs on your turnouts and creating a very light spring to move the points back to original position after a train has gone thru.
It would seem to be difficult for N scale since the cars weight so little, their wheel flanges would likely 'jump' the point and derail instead of 'pushing
the point' aside as intended. Perhaps tiny springs made for watches could be utilitzed for the point return. And, you could add weight to
your cars to make point jumping less likely.

Don


----------



## Old_Hobo (Feb 20, 2014)

I think they call those “slip switches”......

This site may be of interest, or informative, to anyone who is wondering.....

Railway Turnout Types


----------



## cv_acr (Oct 28, 2011)

No it's not a slip switch. That's something else entirely.

Spring switches do exist that can be run through in reverse, but making one work reliable in N scale might be a bit of a problem.


----------



## 65446 (Sep 22, 2018)

What's the big diff ? You got 2 left hand switches forming a passing facility of sorts and is perfectly fine to create..
Also, if sprung, they're called 'spring switches'; quite diff from single and double 'slip switches'...
Coincidentally just yesterday I was watching a video where the modeler said he could not get a certain spring switch he'd developed to operate correctly no mater what he tried...
I hope, if you are planning this, you have better luck than he... 🛤🌄


----------



## Homeless by Choice (Apr 15, 2016)

I made Replies #2 and #4 above. I am modeling in HO Scale. I tried removing the spring from the turnout but my engine couldn’t even switch the turnout without jumping the track. So with that much weight, I couldn’t get that idea to work. But I got to thinking and made the following diagram. Basically I started to think of the junction as a one sided “diamond crossing”. Nothing moves and the trains stays on track by use of the black Guard Rail. 

What are you thoughts?

What improvements would be beneficial?








LeRoy


----------



## Maddog (Jan 14, 2016)

As noted before spring switches would be very difficult in N scale. You'll probably want to go with an automated system like this: https://www.dallee.com/Two-Train-Automation-691 or Model train detectors, crossing signal systems, railroad layout automation and more Model railroad automated exhibit controllers


----------



## 65446 (Sep 22, 2018)

*LeRoy*, you said "I tried removing the spring from........". Perhaps you're talking about the spring in a Peco switch...If so, that's not what is meant by a 'spring switch'..
A spring switch in real life allows a train to enter it from the double track end and push the otherwise wrongly thrown points away as each wheel hits them...That's not what the spring in Peco switches is replicating..THAT spring is there to hold the points in whichever route you flip them to to insure the model doesn't derail entering it from the single (toe) end..
Making a model of a 1:1 scale 'spring switch' is different than that..Leave alone I heard they are impossible to get to work correctly, anyway...
Also, the black line in your schematic actually represents a 'tongue switch'..where only one blade is thrown..They are or were found in middle of streets in city industrial areas..
There used to be a bunch of them in the middle of Alameda st. in Los Angeles. But they've all been removed now...
Hope I haven't confused the issue...M


----------



## Maddog (Jan 14, 2016)

How about using gauntlet track? That's where two sets of track occupy the same roadbed. You would only have to deal with two frogs. No points needed.


----------



## Maddog (Jan 14, 2016)




----------



## Maddog (Jan 14, 2016)




----------



## 65446 (Sep 22, 2018)

This and post #13 have nothing to do with the subject at hand. This is a gantlet track (or switch if you must) and looks like it may have a crossover in the distance..
LeRoy may be able to employ it. But it's not what the thread has been referring to...


----------



## 65446 (Sep 22, 2018)

*Homeless by Choice*, LeRoy..
If you really are homeless how do you possess a train layout ? Or, do you not and only chose to, say, ponder its existence ? This would be OK..But am just curious as to your moniker's implication....


----------



## Maddog (Jan 14, 2016)

telltale said:


> This and post #13 have nothing to do with the subject at hand. This is a gantlet track (or switch if you must) and looks like it may have a crossover in the distance..
> LeRoy may be able to employ it. But it's not what the thread has been referring to...


telltale...the post has everything to do with the thread. Mushtang is attempting to create a way for two trains to pass each other. Spring switches are one way, electronics another, and gauntlet track is yet another by eliminating moving points. telltale...maybe you can open up your mind to consider all options and not just the ones YOU deem worthy.


----------



## Mushtang (Aug 27, 2020)

Maddog said:


> telltale...the post has everything to do with the thread. Mushtang is attempting to create a way for two trains to pass each other. Spring switches are one way, electronics another, and gauntlet track is yet another by eliminating moving points. telltale...maybe you can open up your mind to consider all options and not just the ones YOU deem worthy.


I actually don't see how the piece you showed does help. It's probably because I don't understand how it works, or how it can help trains pass each other. But if two tracks occupy the same space but trains can't pass between them wouldn't that just make the situation worse? If you can use this gauntlet track to do what I'm asking for please please please explain with more diagrams. That would rock.

My main goal is to avoid electronic or manual switching for this passing lane, and just have passive track which directs trains in the correct direction. If that kind of piece is not available, and I'm starting to think it's not, then I'll go with electronic switching for those intersections. I'll have 10 powered turnouts elsewhere on the layout so it's not the end of the world if that's the final answer.


----------



## cv_acr (Oct 28, 2011)

Maddog said:


> telltale...the post has everything to do with the thread. Mushtang is attempting to create a way for two trains to pass each other. Spring switches are one way, electronics another, and gauntlet track is yet another by eliminating moving points. telltale...maybe you can open up your mind to consider all options and not just the ones YOU deem worthy.


It really does NOT remotely achieve the same result.

The poster wants to add a passing siding to single track without moving switch points (can't really be done).

Gantlet track is used on double track to squeeze through a bottleneck like a bridge or tunnel without actually using switches to make a short section of single track.

I don't think he wants to gantlet the entire rest of the layout in order to make a small passing siding in one spot.


----------



## Maddog (Jan 14, 2016)

cv_acr said:


> It really does NOT remotely achieve the same result.
> 
> The poster wants to add a passing siding to single track without moving switch points (can't really be done).
> 
> ...



cv_acr YES IT DOES.

This is what the poster asked for:









And this will give him what he wants:










Two trains can pass each other using gauntlet track which eliminates the points. He'll have to handlay the track, and figure a way of timing the two trains so that they hit the passing track at the same time.

Most model forums encourage discussion and the sharing of ideas...this is not one of them.


----------



## Mushtang (Aug 27, 2020)

Maddog said:


> cv_acr YES IT DOES.


I still don't see it.




Maddog said:


> Two trains can pass each other using gauntlet track which eliminates the points. He'll have to handlay the track, and figure a way of timing the two trains so that they hit the passing track at the same time.


What you're showing is two sets of tracks that are overlaying each other and separate briefly. Why not just keep the tracks separate to begin with? 

What I'm asking for is for a single track to split into two tracks to be used as a passing area, for it to be passive without needing to throw any switches, and then to rejoin the two tracks into a single track without needing to throw any switches. The rejoining seems to be the problem.

If this can be done with an X crossing it should be possible to do this with a Y shape too.


----------



## cv_acr (Oct 28, 2011)

Maddog said:


> Two trains can pass each other using gauntlet track which eliminates the points. He'll have to handlay the track, and figure a way of timing the two trains so that they hit the passing track at the same time.


Again you're missing the point that your suggestion requires him to lay gantlet track for the ENTIRE REST OF THE LAYOUT just to make this passing arrangement. I doubt he wants that.


----------



## CTValleyRR (Jul 26, 2014)

That would achieve the same visual effect, of two trains passing one another, but the fact remains that a gauntlet track is two separate tracks -- typically when a double tracked area must temporarily neck down to the space occupied by a single track. The fact remains that the trains are then, and would be in your solution as well, always on SEPARATE tracks. That's not what he's looking for. He basically wants to bring two single tracks together with an overlapping passing section.

The best solution I could come up with would be to wire two turnouts with one control switch so that they move in unison(but in opposite directions).


----------



## 65446 (Sep 22, 2018)

*MADDOG* 
1) It's GANTLET, not GAUNTLET !
2) The OPer is inquiring about spring switches only...He asked not about gantlets or how to accomplish it without points at all. And he's right ! A gantlet will not accomplish what he wants...
So open up *YOUR* mind an read what the OPer Mushtang said in post #18 "I actually don't see how......", *directly after* your chastising me in post #17, sir !! Ha !


----------



## prrfan (Dec 19, 2014)

Gantlet vs. Gauntlet Track.
Actually both terms are correct.








Gauntlet track - Wikipedia







en.m.wikipedia.org


----------



## 65446 (Sep 22, 2018)

OK, both terms are correct..It still is not what the OPer is asking to do, nor will a gauntlet allow it...
A gantlet still has 2 separate tracks on either end leading up to and from it..The OPer does not have this track arrangement...


----------



## Mushtang (Aug 27, 2020)

telltale said:


> ...is inquiring about spring switches only...


To be pedantic here, I'm asking about no moving parts at all. No springs, no switches, just a merging track which needs nothing to make it work.

If it doesn't exist, it should. And it can be called a Mushtang connection and for years people will try and come up with reasons for it being named that. Haha.


----------



## cv_acr (Oct 28, 2011)

Mushtang said:


> To be pedantic here, I'm asking about no moving parts at all. No springs, no switches, just a merging track which needs nothing to make it work.
> 
> If it doesn't exist, it should.


It doesn't because it can't.


----------



## Mushtang (Aug 27, 2020)

cv_acr said:


> It doesn't because it can't.


Oh no! That stinks. I was sitting here thinking about how I'd need to try and alter one of my manual turnouts to make what I'm looking for.

Can you explain why it can't exist before I waste a couple of turnouts trying to get them to do this?


----------



## Mushtang (Aug 27, 2020)

I took a picture of a turnout, and edited it within Paint to hopefully show what I'm thinking. No moving parts. I don't know where I'll get the extra guardrail on the right side (it's copied and pasted within the picture) so I hope I don't have to chop up two turnouts in order to make one. 

The switchpoint rails will have to be epoxied in place from below so they don't move, and I think I'll also have to solder in a connection to them from below so that they're powered. This is for DCC so if there's a short between some of the inside rails and the nearby wheels it'll all be the same phase so it won't cause an error.

Thoughts?


----------



## Lemonhawk (Sep 24, 2013)

The wheel will drop down at both places were there would be point and be force to climb back up. also the guard rail would need to be extended beyond the short stubby point rail on the top or you will end up on the wrong side of the guard rail. I think your stuck with doing normal turnouts, especially N scale. The proto87 stores has a lot of street and trolley track (Its HO) but maybe there are some ideas in there.


----------



## Mark VerMurlen (Aug 15, 2015)

Mushtang, I think your idea has a chance of working. As Lemonhawk says, you need to stop the wheels from falling down into the gaps you’ve made. I would take some thin styrene and build up a support like you see at the frog above the ties so the wheel flange will ride on it rather than drop down to the ties. I also agree that you need to extend the guard rail you’ve added. If you have any scrap pieces of flex track, you may be able to pull some rail out and reform it to make your guard rail. Otherwise, I’d try to make the guard rail out of thin pieces of styrene.


----------



## Mushtang (Aug 27, 2020)

Thanks for the tips. You're both correct. So I made some modifications to the edited picture to something that I'll never be able to recreate in reality, but this is what I'd love to have two of.

I'll probably start working towards this and come up with something workable. Maybe a friend with a 3D printer might have to be employed to help create some specialized guardrails.


----------



## Lemonhawk (Sep 24, 2013)

The top frog ahs to do 2 things. When a train enters from the right, it needs to hold the wheel so that the straight path is taken and when the train enters from the left on the curved track it needs to allow the wheel to follow that curved path, unfortunately they are not same geometry, it can do one or the other, just not both. Keep at it, maybe some more ideas might succeed.


----------



## scenicsRme (Aug 19, 2020)

If I might play devil's advocate here. Seems to me to be a whole lot of effort and expense (destroyed switches etc) just to reinvent the wheel. Just what is the ultimate goal, where is the differences and advantage over a common passing siding (with offsetting the leads at each end if that look is the real objective) and why not use off the shelf wheels? You are already dedicating two switches and have DCC on the layout why not simple add DCC controller for the two switches? You could then program them to operate automatically using route setting or block detectors. A few black boxes, some wire and pushing a few buttons and LOOK MA, NO HANDS! from then on, an automated passing siding. If you insist on building this bridge, I might suggest putting it near the front of the layout right at the point where your throttle is and add some good electronic circuit breakers, as I foresee a lot of derailments and shorted track events.


----------



## Mushtang (Aug 27, 2020)

scenicsRme said:


> If I might play devil's advocate here.


Please do. Whenever. Maybe I'll be able to learn something discussing it.



> Seems to me to be a whole lot of effort and expense (destroyed switches etc) just to reinvent the wheel. Just what is the ultimate goal, where is the differences and advantage over a common passing siding (with offsetting the leads at each end if that look is the real objective)


My ultimate goal is to have the passing track available to use when I want to, to add something cool looking to my newly created layout because I have the space on top of my tunnel to do it, and to have maximum fun while making this happen. There's already two tracks that don't intersect that I can use to pass two trains to opposite loops (I have two loops and two trains), one transfer inside the tunnel and the other on top of it so it's not really necessary. Doing it with non controlled turnouts would be fun to watch and maybe if the lightweight trains and cars wouldn't derail on normal spring loaded turnouts I'd likely have done it that way and never dreamed up this likely dead end that I'm heading down.



> and why not use off the shelf wheels?


This confuses me. Wheels? As far as I know my train wheels aren't anything special. Are they keeping my trains from doing something, or causing something?



> You are already dedicating two switches and have DCC on the layout why not simple add DCC controller for the two switches? You could then program them to operate automatically using route setting or block detectors. A few black boxes, some wire and pushing a few buttons and LOOK MA, NO HANDS! from then on, an automated passing siding.


In the end I may end up having to go that route. It's nothing I refuse to do, there's no absolute objection to it, but if I can do it in a way where I way overbuild and spend way more time having fun coming up with the solution than is necessary then I'm okay with that. If it starts to no longer be fun then I'll be done and just go with powered turnouts.


----------



## scenicsRme (Aug 19, 2020)

"wheels" the ones you're trying to reinvent. Should have put it in quotes. Seems that it would be more fun to see the switches move automatically and the trains safely pass than to keep cleaning up carnage, especially when you say on top something implies they can also go "down" to additional destruction. I believe in the KISS principal, there's plenty enough to diddle with already with all the new electronics and stuff coming out all the time. Realize I come from an era where you hooked up two wires from a "transformer" turned the knob and watched the one train go around in an oval over and over again, and thought that was fun!


----------



## Mushtang (Aug 27, 2020)

scenicsRme said:


> "wheels" the ones you're trying to reinvent. Should have put it in quotes.


Ahhh... makes sense now. You did a fly by.



> Seems that it would be more fun to see the switches move automatically and the trains safely pass than to keep cleaning up carnage, especially when you say on top something implies they can also go "down" to additional destruction.


I agree, that will definitely be fun to watch. Other than those two I have 8 other turnouts on my plan and there will be plenty of button pushing and electronic switch throwing to watch. Go to this thread and look at some pictures of the tunnel. It's just barely over 2" high, above a 2" thick foam table top, and the tunnel itself is 4" wide. So a train is not very likely to fall off and if it does it wouldn't fall far. 



> I believe in the KISS principal, there's plenty enough to diddle with already with all the new electronics and stuff coming out all the time.


Me too, and I agree. I'm having a blast with the DCC controller, programming the locomotives, and I'm looking forward to wiring up these turnouts to buttons, wiring in a couple of auto reverse controllers to some reversing loops, and possibly blocking the rest of the track if needed and wiring all of those. This side project of finding the right track to make this happen is just one of the fun steps I'm taking on the path. 



> Realize I come from an era where you hooked up two wires from a "transformer" turned the knob and watched the one train go around in an oval over and over again, and thought that was fun!


Yep, same here also. I'm 52 and when I was a kid I had a few train sets and there wasn't much to it. All the new controls, sounds, building materials, etc. are what pulled me into this hobby recently. It's great so far. And as I said before, when it stops being fun I'll just throw some powered switches on it and move on to the next thing on my railroad.


----------



## scenicsRme (Aug 19, 2020)

I got you beat all ways! I'm 74 going on 20, the current layout I'm building has 2 levels, 2 helixes and 48 switches all in a "laying on it's face E shape" covering 8 x 18'


----------



## Cosmo706 (Mar 13, 2017)

So... the problem is your engines/cars being N-scale are not heavy enough to push through a commercial switch/switch machine.....
...but can they make it through ONE point? Seems it would be easier to leave ONE point intact and shorten the opposite point.
These switches EXIST. As mentioned before, single-point switches were commonly used in street trackage and some are still out there functioning to this day.
So with that in mind, go back to the (literal) drawing board with your photo shopping efforts!
BUT- the point should be for the DIVERGENT (curving) route! So a train entering from the straight route pushes the point aside and continues on, the point snaps back, and a train entering in the opposite direction takes the CURVE. 

Or just keep trying different "weaker" springs on the switches.
But do keep us posted!


----------



## Cosmo706 (Mar 13, 2017)

From Wikki... Railroad switch - Wikipedia

*Single-point switch*
 

A single-point switch on the Toronto streetcar system

Single point switches, known as Tongue and Plain Mate switches, are sometimes used on freight railways in slow speed operation in paved areas such as in ports. In the United States, they are regulated by provision 213.135(i) of the Federal Railroad Administration Track Safety Standards.
On streetcar (tram) systems using grooved rails, if the wheels on both sides of the car are connected by a rigid solid axle, only one switchpoint is needed to steer it onto one or the other track. The switchpoint will be on inside rail of the switch's curve route. When a streetcar enters the curve route of the switch, the wheel on the inside of the curve (the right side of the car on a right turn) is pulled into the turn, and through the axle, directs the wheel on the outside to also follow the curve.[15] The outside wheel is supported for a short distance by its flange running in the groove.
Some low floor streetcar designs use split axles (a separate half-axle for the wheel on each side of the car). Such streetcars are unsuitable for use with single-point switches as there would be no mechanism to transfer the force from the inner to outer wheels at switches.[15]
A single-point switch is cheaper to build, especially in street trackage, as there is no need to link to a second switchpoint.[15]


----------



## Monon (Feb 8, 2013)

Mushtang said:


> I'm curious if something like this is even possible. Basically it's a turnout except the trains NEVER turn out, they only go straight, and if they come in from the side track it allows the train to continue. No switching needed. See below, the circled areas are what I want.
> 
> When I was a kid I had an HO scale and we learned the turnouts would behave this way if you just left them in the straight position. The trains could enter the side and the wheels would push the closed track out of the way. My N scale cars are too light, and if the switch isn't turned correctly the cars derail.
> 
> ...


The quick answer is yes, it can be done with any of the switch machines with weak springs, i.e. Kato Unitrack or Bachman's roadbed track, etc. Atlas and Peco switch machines tend to have stronger springs and would be unreliable in your scenario. The problem with a spring switch in two-rail models is the dead short you get when the locomotive hits the closed point rail. Your scenario would work if there was no power on the rails; if you were using battery-powered locomotives for example.


----------



## Mushtang (Aug 27, 2020)

Cosmo706 said:


> So... the problem is your engines/cars being N-scale are not heavy enough to push through a commercial switch/switch machine.....
> ...but can they make it through ONE point? Seems it would be easier to leave ONE point intact and shorten the opposite point.


To me it would seem more difficult with only one wheel pushing against the force of the spring, not easier.

The two points are connected by a moving bar, which is connected to the spring. So the force of the spring is either going to be pushed by two wheels so each wheel needs to only push half the force, or one wheel which would need to push with the entire force. And if the cars derail with wheels pushing against half the force of the spring then doubling the force needed wouldn't help.

Maybe I'm looking at it wrong, but that's what I see in my head.


----------



## Cosmo706 (Mar 13, 2017)

Mushtang said:


> To me it would seem more difficult with only one wheel pushing against the force of the spring, not easier.
> 
> The two points are connected by a moving bar, which is connected to the spring. So the force of the spring is either going to be pushed by two wheels so each wheel needs to only push half the force, or one wheel which would need to push with the entire force. And if the cars derail with wheels pushing against half the force of the spring then doubling the force needed wouldn't help.
> 
> Maybe I'm looking at it wrong, but that's what I see in my head.


That's a good point, I hadn't thought of it that way. Theoretically, the difference is the force spread between two connected points or against a single, concentrated point.
Also, single-point switches tend to have a shorter, sharper base/curve than mainline switches, so I would say your best bet is to try modifying the spring action on an otherwise intact switch.
I can maybe think of a few ways to spring such a switch to allow for easier action, such as a single-strand of spring wire as opposed to an actual coil spring, which could be hidden/disguised with a non-functioning switch stand.


----------



## Maddog (Jan 14, 2016)

telltale said:


> *MADDOG*
> 1) It's GANTLET, not GAUNTLET !
> 2) The OPer is inquiring about spring switches only...He asked not about gantlets or how to accomplish it without points at all. And he's right ! A gantlet will not accomplish what he wants...
> So open up *YOUR* mind an read what the OPer Mushtang said in post #18 "I actually don't see how......", *directly after* your chastising me in post #17, sir !! Ha !



Telltale...you sound mad, or maybe angry, or maybe you're just a democrat.


----------



## cv_acr (Oct 28, 2011)

You just had to turn this into a stupid political thing...


----------



## gunrunnerjohn (Nov 10, 2010)

Guys, please dial it back! There's no reason to start with the personal insults, this is supposed to be a fun hobby.
The other option is...


----------

