# Two tracks crossover?



## hobodano (Nov 25, 2018)

I’m trying to add to my 30yr.old Atlas Brass track for my grandson. The two parallel ovals are 1 ½ inches apart between facing rails. I would like to insert a double crossover the two parallel tracks on straight sections with manual switch points to start off with this year. My question is…..what do I use, turnouts, switches, or wyes plus an X crossing (diamond). I see #4 and # 6 turnouts and a 19 degree Atlas crossing for sale on eBay. Excuse my ignorance but this HO track terminology is very confusing. Will definitely upgrade track, remote switches, and DCC next Christmas. Any suggestions would be appreciated, Thanks in advance!


----------



## Dennis461 (Jan 5, 2018)

you need a Double Crossover Switch HO Scale 
This will take up the least amount of space IMO.
You need some straight sections of track to install it
I'd plan on 9" straight on either sidee of the crossover

There are of course other ways to accomplish this.


----------



## Shdwdrgn (Dec 23, 2014)

With the tracks that close together a double crossover may not fit. And you certainly won't find one available in brass. Depending on other suggestions here, you may have to resort to using a pair of left-hand turnouts to transition in one direction, cutting the turnouts so they will butt up to each other and fit between your tracks. Then you would add a pair of right-hand turnouts to transition back in the other direction, again cutting to fit if needed.


----------



## hobodano (Nov 25, 2018)

Shdwdrgn said:


> With the tracks that close together a double crossover may not fit. And you certainly won't find one available in brass. Depending on other suggestions here, you may have to resort to using a pair of left-hand turnouts to transition in one direction, cutting the turnouts so they will butt up to each other and fit between your tracks. Then you would add a pair of right-hand turnouts to transition back in the other direction, again cutting to fit if needed.


As usual, I didn’t make myself very clear. Yes, both layouts “Ovals” have 2 (9”) straight track sections each where the crossover would go. And, I would like to build it myself. So, 2 RH and 2 LH “switches” or “turnouts” are needed? Are they the same terminology or are they different? I see both for sale on eBay plus an Atlas 19 degree x crossing. Sorry, drove the tall rails for 40 years……….7days on HO scale…just a rookie.  Thanks again Dennis461 and Shdwdrgn! 

. .


----------



## Dennis461 (Jan 5, 2018)

hobodano said:


> As usual, I didn’t make myself very clear. Yes, both layouts “Ovals” have 2 (9”) straight track sections each where the crossover would go. And, I would like to build it myself. So, 2 RH and 2 LH “switches” or “turnouts” are needed? Are they the same terminology or are they different? I see both for sale on eBay plus an Atlas 19 degree x crossing. Sorry, drove the tall rails for 40 years……….7days on HO scale…just a rookie.  Thanks again Dennis461 and Shdwdrgn!
> 
> .  .


Can you post a sketch?

If your ovals are made of many curved sections, and two 9" straight sections per oval, you do not have enough room. Which is why I suggested the double crossover. Once you decide to connect the the ovals, your existing track plan must be modified.

I also suggested the double crossover (without a name brand) because it seemed to me you have limited experience with track planning (forgive me if I speak out of turn.)

Get the Atlas track planning software, it's free.
It does not seem to have a double crossover, but you can try your new layout in virtual space.

The image below shows a 38" section of track, two each #6 left hand turnouts.
And here is a link to the already answered design question
http://cs.trains.com/mrr/f/11/t/201740.aspx

Oh, and good luck.


----------



## Shdwdrgn (Dec 23, 2014)

"Turnouts" and "switches" are interchangeable as long as you are certain you are talking about the same thing. Switches is rather ambiguous and can also refer to electrical switches using to control the juice to the layout. Even worse is when you're trying to talk about both in the sentence -- "I need a switch to control my switch." In the hobby most folks will refer to the track piece as a turnout, which helps clarify the previous sentence. Of course when you see listings on ebay they can called just about anything.

Yep, as Dennis said a pre-built double crossover will require less space than the multiple crossovers that I suggested. Even so, you still will not be able to fit a double crossover within the length of a single 9" straight. I don't have the measurement, but the Peco double turnouts I've seen are pretty close to two feet in length, so no matter what route you choose you're going to have to lengthen the oval.

One thing I'm not certain of... you said there is 1.5" between opposing rails on your ovals? I think standard Atlas curves are 18" and 22" radius (unless your inner loop is 15"?) which means there would be 4" between the centerline of each track. Can you clarify what you are working with?

One more thing to keep in mind that has changed with the hobby since brass track was available... You also need to know what code your rail is. This identifies the height of the rail, and in your case you have code 100 track. Today you can also commonly buy code 83 and code 70 track (shorter sizes, more correctly in scale for older railroads). If you go to the store to buy anything like the double crossover, make sure you get one made of code 100 track (or even take one of your track sections with you and ask the clerk for help).


----------



## lajrmdlr (Apr 25, 2014)

hobodano 
How big is the outside oval (length & width)? There's probably 2" between the two centerlines of the ovals so that be plenty of room to put a Xover. Double Xovers are very expensive & like the real ones, maintenance headaches. Use two Xovers instead. If they can be separated a few feet then the two Xovers can be used like a siding to switch cars around or the cross over a train between the two ovals. If there's only room for one Xover on each side that's OK as the siding just has a curve in it.


----------



## gregc (Apr 25, 2015)

hobodano said:


> My question is…..what do I use, turnouts, switches, or wyes


you switch the points of the turnout to align them with usually 
one of two routes thru ithe turnout.

of course you may use an electrical switch to control a switch machine to switch the turnout.

see Turnouts


----------



## CTValleyRR (Jul 26, 2014)

hobodano said:


> As usual, I didn’t make myself very clear. Yes, both layouts “Ovals” have 2 (9”) straight track sections each where the crossover would go. And, I would like to build it myself. So, 2 RH and 2 LH “switches” or “turnouts” are needed? Are they the same terminology or are they different? I see both for sale on eBay plus an Atlas 19 degree x crossing. Sorry, drove the tall rails for 40 years……….7days on HO scale…just a rookie.  Thanks again Dennis461 and Shdwdrgn! .


Unfortunately, you were clear enough. 

The terminology isn't that bad, once you get used to it. "Switch" vs "turnout" was explained well by Shadowdragon. The # on a turnout is just the mathematical expression of the diverging angle: a #4 diverges 1 unit of distance for every 4 traveled forward, etc. Diverging track is straight, not curves as with an Atlas Snap Switch.

Dennis 461 has a good idea to use track planning software, but I wouldn't use the Atlas version. The features are limited, and it only includes a library for Atlas track. Several other products, both free and paid are available. I prefer Anyrail, which goes for $60, but I think it's the best combination of features and ease of use. Beware the 3D versions -- they add complexity without adding much useful functionality -- you don't NEED pretty 3D renderings to visualize a layout. But that's what you need to be able to do.

What you're contemplating is NOT feasible in the space you have available. As others have pointed out, you have 9" available, which isn't enough for ONE turnout, let alone two (you need one on each track, and they have to be end to end, not side by side). Your roughly 2" track spacing (always measured to the centerline) is also an issue, as it would require a very narrow crossing angle, thus increasing the length of the adjacent turnouts. Even a commercial double crossover, which is much more space efficient than building your own, needs about 20" of space, and might be too wide for your track centers. Using the layout software as described above will help you get a handle on space requirements.


----------



## DonR (Oct 18, 2012)

The Forum members have done a very good
analysis of your need for a double crossover
to connect your two ovals.

No one seems to have brought up the question
of how these two ovals are powered. 

If you have 2 DC power packs, one powering
oval A and the other powering oval B you will
need to use insulated joiners where the two
ovals are connected through turnouts. When you
run a train from oval A to oval B you will need to
make sure both oval power packs are set to the
same direction so your train will continue across
the crossover. If set wrong you would have a short
circuit.

Don


----------



## Shdwdrgn (Dec 23, 2014)

Another free option for layout software is xtrkcad, and there is plenty of support for Atlas sectional track built into it. However I wouldn't call it immediately intuitive, you do need to go through their documents for a quick tutorial because just laying down pieces of track requires combinations of the mouse, shift key, and space bar.


----------



## hobodano (Nov 25, 2018)

Dennis461 said:


> Can you post a sketch?
> 
> If your ovals are made of many curved sections, and two 9" straight sections per oval, you do not have enough room. Which is why I suggested the double crossover. Once you decide to connect the the ovals, your existing track plan must be modified.
> 
> ...


Sorry, don’t know how to post pic right now. I used my old plywood that measures 48” wide 60” long with outer oval 18” radius (2) 9” straights on each side and (1) straight on each end. Inner oval has 15” radius (2) 9” straights on each side and (1) 9” on each end. So it basically covers the outside perimeter of board. The tracks are 2” center line apart. I think you may be right; I might need a board stretcher?  I will checkout Atlas layouts. Thanks again!


----------



## hobodano (Nov 25, 2018)

Shdwdrgn said:


> "Turnouts" and "switches" are interchangeable as long as you are certain you are talking about the same thing. Switches is rather ambiguous and can also refer to electrical switches using to control the juice to the layout. Even worse is when you're trying to talk about both in the sentence -- "I need a switch to control my switch." In the hobby most folks will refer to the track piece as a turnout, which helps clarify the previous sentence. Of course when you see listings on ebay they can called just about anything.
> 
> Yep, as Dennis said a pre-built double crossover will require less space than the multiple crossovers that I suggested. Even so, you still will not be able to fit a double crossover within the length of a single 9" straight. I don't have the measurement, but the Peco double turnouts I've seen are pretty close to two feet in length, so no matter what route you choose you're going to have to lengthen the oval.
> 
> ...


You’re right..my bad, using 18” and 15” radius with (1) 9” straight rail for 45” outer oval width and (1) 9” for 39” inner oval. Yes, 100 code and 2” center line between parallel rails. I read where Peco has good frog connectivity on their switches. Trying to use what I had this year for grandson, will upgrade next year to better track, layout, dual flywheel locos and of course DCC. Thanks again!


----------



## hobodano (Nov 25, 2018)

CTValleyRR said:


> Unfortunately, you were clear enough.
> 
> The terminology isn't that bad, once you get used to it. "Switch" vs "turnout" was explained well by Shadowdragon. The # on a turnout is just the mathematical expression of the diverging angle: a #4 diverges 1 unit of distance for every 4 traveled forward, etc. Diverging track is straight, not curves as with an Atlas Snap Switch.
> 
> ...


Sorry about the thread hijack..lost my place on the forum. Read your reply as relevant and a wealth of information. I’m still trying to digest all the good suggestions and files, maybe I can find a board stretcher…
Been reading on the net about your ideas and companies..like single crossovers, turnout #’s, snap switch, Custom Line, Peco frogs, Shinohara, and insol frogs. Your post was a wealth of ideas and future reading of “How to train your train”. Thanks again for your indispensable info.


----------



## hobodano (Nov 25, 2018)

DonR said:


> The Forum members have done a very good
> analysis of your need for a double crossover
> to connect your two ovals.
> 
> ...


You bring up a good point, just using what I had from 30 years ago, one original Power Pack. Been looking at Tech 11 transformers and others on eBay for next year. Yes, crossovers and connectivity sounds like planning is important, direction of trains, power, insulated frogs, and wiring. Thanks again! I think everything I got is a “short circuit”.


----------



## Shdwdrgn (Dec 23, 2014)

Peco makes an excellent double crossover, however if you plan to upgrade all the track anyway then you may want to consider if you want to switch to code 83 track or not. The double crossover is rather expensive so you won't want to replace it if you decide to switch the rest of the track. There ARE options to connect code 83 track to code 100 track, so that's an option in the interim... The two main considerations for going to code 83 track are that it looks more realistic, and whether your existing equipment (especially the locos) will work on the shorter rail. Most likely it will, I actually have a Tyco 0-4-0 from the 70's that works just fine on my code 70 rail.

If you have 18" and 15" radius curves then you should have 3" between the centerlines of your track, but note the Peco double crossover uses a 2" centerline. Adding the double crossover, you should still be able to fit everything on a 4x6 board, so you don't have to go much larger than what you already have, but board stretchers are hard to come by this time of year. 

[EDIT] By the way, speaking of double crossovers... I was searching for info on the Peco version and ran across this ebay listing. It's a double crossover merged with a pair of double slips on one end and all built from original Peco parts. Not that I have use for such a creature, but it is an amazingly complex piece.


----------



## hobodano (Nov 25, 2018)

Shdwdrgn said:


> Peco makes an excellent double crossover, however if you plan to upgrade all the track anyway then you may want to consider if you want to switch to code 83 track or not. The double crossover is rather expensive so you won't want to replace it if you decide to switch the rest of the track. There ARE options to connect code 83 track to code 100 track, so that's an option in the interim... The two main considerations for going to code 83 track are that it looks more realistic, and whether your existing equipment (especially the locos) will work on the shorter rail. Most likely it will, I actually have a Tyco 0-4-0 from the 70's that works just fine on my code 70 rail.
> 
> If you have 18" and 15" radius curves then you should have 3" between the centerlines of your track, but note the Peco double crossover uses a 2" centerline. Adding the double crossover, you should still be able to fit everything on a 4x6 board, so you don't have to go much larger than what you already have, but board stretchers are hard to come by this time of year.
> 
> [EDIT] By the way, speaking of double crossovers... I was searching for info on the Peco version and ran across this ebay listing. It's a double crossover merged with a pair of double slips on one end and all built from original Peco parts. Not that I have use for such a creature, but it is an amazingly complex piece.


Good advice! I think I opened Pandora’s Box with this endeavor to upgrade next year. Many considerations, Track Code 83, Peco double-crossovers with different angles, dual flywheel loco’s, “frog” connectivity, and DCC. Oh, I ask my “meat head” son-in-law where to buy a board stretcher, he said Home Depot! :dunno:Thanks again, you’re very helpful!


----------



## CTValleyRR (Jul 26, 2014)

DonR said:


> The Forum members have done a very good
> analysis of your need for a double crossover
> to connect your two ovals.
> 
> ...


Since the physical space is the governing constraint, I didn't think it really mattered.


----------

