# Cross over vs. 2 turnouts



## richs75 (Jan 21, 2016)

I need to do a cross over from my double main line. I was just going to use 2 Left Hand turnouts facing each other. Or should I use a single cross over instead?

Will 2 turnouts fit together and allow enough clearance between the 2 main line tracks with out adding a small piece of track between? I don't want to add any more solder joints than necessary.

I plan on using Peco Code 83 turnouts and wanted to use #8, which I can't seem to find a cross over (if they even make them). I see a #6 cross over, just not a #8. 

What do you suggest, going with the #6 cross over or 2 #8 turn outs?


----------



## thedoc (Oct 15, 2015)

I believe that most HO equipment will run through a #6 turnout and crossover without a problem, so it all comes down to appearance. If you want it to look realistic the longer the turnout the better, on the real railroads the speed through a turnout that diverged from a straight track was twice the turnout number in MPH. So a #6 turnout would have a 12 MPH speed limit, a #20 would have a 40 MPH speed limit. How realistically do you want it to look and operate on your layout? I believe that with the PECO #8's you will need to add a section of straight track to get the proper spacing.


----------



## fcwilt (Sep 27, 2013)

I don't believe the Peco Streamline Code 83 line has any crossovers.

I know they have #5, #6 and #8 straight turnouts, #4 wye, #7 curved turnouts and a #6 crossing.

I saw an announcement for a double-slip but I have seen anything since.


----------



## tr1 (Mar 9, 2013)

*cross over vs. two turnouts.*

Your question about what too to use for turnouts. I think it all depends on how much space there is on the layout you have. I believe the cross over takes much less space.
Not being familiar with the number system for turnouts... For mainline operations, you will need the gradual transition off/on the mainline in order to maintain higher speeds found on the mainline. So... you will have to choose. What works best for you? 
I think it comes down to three questions. 1.) cost. And 2.) the space you have there. And,3.) prototype operations
Good luck with your decision.
Regards, tr1


----------



## richs75 (Jan 21, 2016)

thedoc said:


> I believe that most HO equipment will run through a #6 turnout and crossover without a problem, so it all comes down to appearance. If you want it to look realistic the longer the turnout the better, on the real railroads the speed through a turnout that diverged from a straight track was twice the turnout number in MPH. So a #6 turnout would have a 12 MPH speed limit, a #20 would have a 40 MPH speed limit. How realistically do you want it to look and operate on your layout? I believe that with the PECO #8's you will need to add a section of straight track to get the proper spacing.


The speed at which the train will travel through the diverging cross over from the straight through mainline is not so much the issue with me, as I would slow down the speed to get off the mainline. My layout staging side track and yard to one side of the double mainline, hence the need for the cross over (so the west bound train can get across the east bound track to get into the yard on the south side of the tracks),

What does concern me would be the extra solder joint for the little piece of track to get the right spacing. Smoothness of operation is my number one concern. Thanks


----------



## richs75 (Jan 21, 2016)

fcwilt said:


> I don't believe the Peco Streamline Code 83 line has any crossovers.
> 
> I know they have #5, #6 and #8 straight turnouts, #4 wye, #7 curved turnouts and a #6 crossing.
> 
> I saw an announcement for a double-slip but I have seen anything since.


I know they make a #6 double cross over and I thought I saw a #6 single cross over. When you say #6 crossing, I don't want just to have the 2 mainline tracks to just cross each other, but to be able to switch tracks like the picture below










Now, I would just order the double crossover like above but I am, as stated above, mainly concerned with smoothness of operation. It just seems like the more switches, frogs, joints and connections than absolutely necessary just complicates the problem and could result in derailment issues more than it is worth. A simple single crossover is all that I need.

*Has anyone installed a double cross over and had good luck with it's operation?*


----------



## richs75 (Jan 21, 2016)

tr1 said:


> Your question about what too to use for turnouts. I think it all depends on how much space there is on the layout you have. I believe the cross over takes much less space.
> Not being familiar with the number system for turnouts... For mainline operations, you will need the gradual transition off the mainline in order to maintain higher speeds found on the
> mainline.
> So... you will have to choose. What works best for you?
> ...


Thanks, but the first and foremost concern of mine is function-a-bility. Not sure if that is a word or not but I want it to function properly and smoothly.

Cost, not a big issue in the whole scheme of things.
Space, my layout will be 16 x 12 x 13 ft along 3 adjacent walls of a room, mostly 30" out from the wall. Space for the cross over will not be a problem.
Prototype operations,. Now that is why I would like to find a #8 crossover, so it would look a little more realistic in the gradual cross over from one track to the other.

Thanks to everybody for all the replies and discussion. It helps to get all the information and other opinions before I actually start to lay track so I don't have to do it twice or repair a section of previous laid track, especially on the mainline. That would disrupt the train crews and throw off the whole schedule.


----------



## Cycleops (Dec 6, 2014)

Peco do make a code 83 double slip part SL 8363. Its $100 though.


----------



## fcwilt (Sep 27, 2013)

That double crossover you have posted appears to be from their N scale Code 55 line.

Peco makes different lines of track.

Their Streamline Code 83 line is based on American standards.

I am not familiar with their other lines.


----------



## fcwilt (Sep 27, 2013)

Cycleops said:


> Peco do make a code 83 double slip part SL 8363. Its $100 though.


Now I have the part number - thanks.

But it does not appear to be available yet.


----------



## Cycleops (Dec 6, 2014)

I saw it on a uk online sellers site, out of stock but available to order which may not be correct. I believe the code 75 version is available.

http://www.gaugemaster.com/item_details.asp?code=PESL-8363


----------



## richs75 (Jan 21, 2016)

fcwilt said:


> That double crossover you have posted appears to be from their N scale Code 55 line.
> 
> Peco makes different lines of track.
> 
> ...


I just used that picture to show what I was looking for. I know it is not HO, but wanted to know if there is an HO single crossover out there and if anybody has used one.


----------



## richs75 (Jan 21, 2016)

Cycleops said:


> Peco do make a code 83 double slip part SL 8363. Its $100 though.


No, a double slip is not the same as a crossover.

I have 2 parallel tracks that I want to be able to cross over from one to the other while still maintaining the straight part of the parallel tracks.

And the double crossover, even though it is over $100, is cheaper and easier to install than 4 switches at over $30 each to accomplish the same.


----------



## Cycleops (Dec 6, 2014)

richs75 said:


> No, a double slip is not the same as a crossover..


Yes its true, sorry.


----------



## richs75 (Jan 21, 2016)

Cycleops said:


> Yes its true, sorry.


No, no need to apologize. I love all input, as it brings different perspectives to the conversation and may just create a new solution.

I think I just may go with the double crossover, as it will create a change of tracks for both directions of travel while keeping the 2 mainline tracks at the same clearance as the rest of the mainline.

I did find a Peco Code 100 double crossover for $60 that should do the trick. As I stated earlier, just hope it provides smooth operation as this will be right on my main line tracks and will get a lot of use.


----------



## fcwilt (Sep 27, 2013)

I thought you were going with Code 83?

Mixing Code 100 and 83 will take a little more work and care.


----------



## thedoc (Oct 15, 2015)

I believe some railroads used heavier rail for turnouts and crossings so using code 100 for these would be OK, and there are transition rail joiners to keep the rail tops even. It is also my understanding that all track is made with the same distance from the bottom of the tie to the top of the rail, but I could be wrong.


----------



## richs75 (Jan 21, 2016)

fcwilt said:


> I thought you were going with Code 83?
> 
> Mixing Code 100 and 83 will take a little more work and care.


I would like Code 83 but I haven't been able to find a Crossover in Code 83. If anybody has a lead on a Code 83 that is great quality (doesn't have to be Peco but would be preferred), let me have a link please. Thanks

Also, since I am new to track laying, so to speak (back into Model Railroading after almost 30 years), advise me on what it will take to transition from Code 83 to Code 100 and back again. Thanks


----------



## thedoc (Oct 15, 2015)

Code 83 rail is .017" shorter than code 100 rail. If the difference is made up in the thickness of the ties there is no problem, just use the transition rail joiners. If the code 83 ties are the same thickness as the code 100 ties, you will need to shim the code 83 track .017", and use the transition rail joiners.


----------



## fcwilt (Sep 27, 2013)

Walthers makes a Code 83 double crossover but I cannot speak to the quality.


----------



## richs75 (Jan 21, 2016)

fcwilt said:


> Walthers makes a Code 83 double crossover but I cannot speak to the quality.


Yeah, OK. That would work. I don't know why I didn't find that before. Made by Shinohara, which should be good quality. Thanks. Found one in stock for $75, which isn't bad considering it takes the place of 4 switches.


----------



## Dirtytom (Jan 13, 2014)

Confused? Thought crossovers were to cross? A double switch allows you to cross over and take the next track.

Here is a picture of crossover.


----------



## richs75 (Jan 21, 2016)

Dirtytom said:


> Confused? Thought crossovers were to cross? A double switch allows you to cross over and take the next track.
> 
> Here is a picture of crossover.


 I think it can be called different things in different parts of the country/world. I call that in your picture a crossing. Two tracks crossing each other. 

A cross over is one track crossing over to a different track.


----------



## DonR (Oct 18, 2012)

Oh my. We''ve found another case of term preference similar
to the Turnout vs Switch bruha. I haven't seen a listing of
terms for the hobby that truly defines the devices.

Without a word guru to guide us, we've sorta been winging it,
a lot of the times using the terms of device manufacturer.

For the most part. when there has been a situation where two
parallel tracks have 4 turnouts connecting them it was referred
to as a DOUBLE CROSSOVER, if only two turnouts, a SINGLE CROSSOVER.

The track device that permits a train to cross another track has
been referred to as a CROSSING, not to be confused with
the pavement over the rails for a road that is also a crossing.

The main point is to have clarity as to what a guy is referring to
and so the need for consistency in terms.

Don


----------



## Dirtytom (Jan 13, 2014)

Here is picture of two no. 6's that allow you to cross to another track. That is what great about model railroading. It is your trains and track and if it works for you,,,,everything be alright 

DT


----------



## richs75 (Jan 21, 2016)

Dirtytom said:


> Here is picture of two no. 6's that allow you to cross to another track. That is what great about model railroading. It is your trains and track and if it works for you,,,,everything be alright
> 
> DT


WOW. That yard looks like a real mess. Some of those tracks look like there is not enough clearance for trains side by side.

Much easier solution to what I want is right here. Here, trains coming on the closest track (the bottom of the picture) can cross over the other mainline to get to the yard (at the top of the picture). This is what I know as a single crossover. (Sorry,stolen picture from the intraweb. Not my layout, but what I am trying to accomplish.)


----------



## CTValleyRR (Jul 26, 2014)

4 turnouts may be more expensive, but it is also more prototypical. Real railaroads almost always use the much simpler approch of two turnouts with their diverging points facing one another. A little ways further down the track, the arrangement would be reversed, thus allowing trains to move back. If there is enough distance between the two sets of turnouts, it can double as passing track.


----------



## fcwilt (Sep 27, 2013)

CTValleyRR said:


> 4 turnouts may be more expensive, but it is also more prototypical.


True - complicated track work is avoided whenever possible.


----------



## Dirtytom (Jan 13, 2014)

Trains pass just fine. Modeled the track found between Ville Platte la and the turn around in Oakdale La. The tracks in Oakdale was in downtown and very tight for car and truck traffic. As a kid in the 40's after we finished after school chores we rode our bikes to town to watch the steam engines come thrum town and drop off empty cattle cars and pickup full ones. Cattle cars carried sheep, pigs and old horses plus the cattle.

Old memories.

DT


----------



## Magic (Jan 28, 2014)

I used a Shinohara code 83 double crossover and ended taking it out, the problem wasn't with the crossover but my bad track laying. 
I ended up using 4 Pico #6 turnouts and liked them much better. These are code 100 but 83 would work the same.

Here is how they came out. This way you can crossover from either direction. 








Because I have grade changes I put them close together but they can be separated by any amount you have room for.

Magic


----------



## traction fan (Oct 5, 2014)

*Crossover?*



richs75 said:


> I need to do a cross over from my double main line. I was just going to use 2 Left Hand turnouts facing each other. Or should I use a single cross over instead?
> 
> Will 2 turnouts fit together and allow enough clearance between the 2 main line tracks with out adding a small piece of track between? I don't want to add any more solder joints than necessary.
> 
> ...


 richs75;

Normally two turnouts back to back are a crossover. From reading through this thread it looks like you may mean, "two turnouts or a double crossover"(like the one in the photo) am I understanding your question correctly? I would not recommend the cost or complexity of a double crossover, (much less Cycleop's "double slip" which is a bit different) at all, unless you absolutely need it to operate your railroad. Fancy trackwork looks cool, but is a maintenance headache. Keep it simple. Save money and frustration. 
As for solder joints, you may want to make the joints between the divergent legs of the two turnouts, insulated, not soldered. Otherwise, you may be creating a short circuit.
As for straight track between turnouts, that's not necessarily bad. A crossover would be an 'S'-curve if you were using "snap track" turnouts that contain curved track. Then if you could fit a full car length of straight track between the two turnouts(rarely possible) that would overcome the reverse curve effect. Since you plan to use Peco #8 turnouts, which don't contain curves, then adding a bit of straight won't hurt anything as long as you can keep the entire length of the, "crossing over" section very straight. Weather you'll need a section of track between, at all, depends on how close you are spacing the tracks. In any case keep the crossover straight to avoid problems.

Traction Fan


----------



## cid (Jul 3, 2014)

My favorite factoid about a double xover is: it allows your train to make a complete and recurring circuit of both the inner and outer loops without having to move the switches!! So, those among us who just like watching the trains run can just sit on a stool and watch! :eyes:


----------



## fcwilt (Sep 27, 2013)

cid said:


> My favorite factoid about a double xover is: it allows your train to make a complete and recurring circuit of both the inner and outer loops without having to move the switches!! So, those among us who just like watching the trains run can just sit on a stool and watch! :eyes:


True for certain brands of double crossovers.


----------



## richs75 (Jan 21, 2016)

traction fan said:


> richs75;
> 
> Normally two turnouts back to back are a crossover. From reading through this thread it looks like you may mean, "two turnouts or a double crossover"(like the one in the photo) am I understanding your question correctly? I would not recommend the cost or complexity of a double crossover, (much less Cycleop's "double slip" which is a bit different) at all, unless you absolutely need it to operate your railroad. Fancy trackwork looks cool, but is a maintenance headache. Keep it simple. Save money and frustration.
> As for solder joints, you may want to make the joints between the divergent legs of the two turnouts, insulated, not soldered. Otherwise, you may be creating a short circuit.
> ...


I have decided to NOT do the double crossover.
Here is a picture (not a very good one) of my layout. 


I am now planning on installing a single crossover (2 turnouts facing each other) near the entrance to the main yard (top green circle) and then installing another set of turnouts farther down the line (near Lucasville). That should be easier than trying to do the double crossover or trying to squeeze it into the area at the top green circle.

And as for the insulated joiners, I did buy Insulfrog turnouts and will be running DCC. Do I still need to insulate sections of track (other than the yard)?


----------



## Magic (Jan 28, 2014)

I like this much better than a double crossover. 
I would have done it this way but where mine are at now is the only place the two mains lines are at the same level.

Magic


----------



## CTValleyRR (Jul 26, 2014)

The only time you absolutely NEED an isolated track section is if you have a reversing loop. You can also divide your track into isolated, independently powered sections, but that doesn't buy you much for the work involved unless you have a big layout.


----------



## DonR (Oct 18, 2012)

Rich75

You do not need to use insulated joiners with Insulfrog turnouts.
If they are Peco they will, however, be power routing. You may
need to add a track drop from the frog rails so that you don't
lose power on connected tracks. If the connecting track is a dead end
spur some like to allow it to go dead so they can 'park' a loco
or lighted passenger cars on it, for example. Simply setting the
points to the diverting will restore power.

Don


----------



## Chet (Aug 15, 2014)

Railroad really don't like double crossovers because they are high maintenance but do use them in certain places due to space limitations. I have two double crossovers on my layout and in my case, it was also due to space limitations. 

My layout is all code 70 and I used Shinohara double cross overs as they were readily available. In the photo below the Alcos are sitting on top of the crossover, which is a number six. When laying the track in this yard and engine servicing area, I took my time putting down the track and have no problems with it at all. Before scenery went in, I backed 20+ car trains through every possible combination of turnouts and have no derailment problems at all. I can also back 85 foot passenger cars through them without and problems either. 










You probably did the right thing as you do have room to do it more portotypically. I would have preferred using a pair of turnouts spaced apart, but I didn't have the room.


----------



## richs75 (Jan 21, 2016)

Thanks, Guys, for all the advice. 

And Chet, that is a very nice shot of your yard. Love the backdrop. The way you tied it in to the scenery and buildings is amazing.


----------



## Shdwdrgn (Dec 23, 2014)

You say double-crossovers aren't used often, would the same hold true for double slips?

I want to model something around 1900, and I've included a few double-slips on my mainline for the flexibility in routing, but I've had to really work around them for my narrow-gauge line (since there isn't room for all the points in a dual-gauge line). As I've been looking more into the details, it seems like there *might* be a possibility in building a dual gauge double-slip by using stub rails instead of points. Anyone ever seen such a beast built?

[EDIT] Color me surprised, but I just found a couple short videos of testing on what looks like an HO double-slip that is running dual-gauge on all four legs. It's a massively complicated piece of machinery though, and doesn't appear to be finished yet.


----------



## Chet (Aug 15, 2014)

Double slips are very common especially in and around large city passenger stations. Again, they do save a lot of space. I ended up having to use one in the same yard to save space and they can be complicated. I have to be very careful as to which way the switch is thrown before running a train through it.


----------

