Does Bachmann make a HO scale double crossover track?
No.
I did see one for sale in a hobby shop at least 15 years ago. So Internet or eBay search might possibly find one.
I would love Bachmann more if they would produce the double crossover in the EZ track format. But alas, it may not happen in my lifetime. So, what did I do to alleviate this issue..., Checkout the image below.
(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/33/fd/e0/33fde0ee44e0479af2ef68bd1a21c4ec.jpg)
The caption may be a little blurry so I'll recap here:
These are two crossovers one by unknown and the familiar ones (3) by Bachmann EZ track 44575 and 44576. Something to note, the Bachmann track transfers direction on a single track. It allows space for at least one car or locomotive that the train can travel around. The other manufacturers double crossover there is no space for a car to allow the train to travel around.
Disadvantage of Bachmann is that it takes up more track space. Approx. 41 inches of track as compared to the approx. 19 inches of track to complete a double crossover. The disadvantage of the other is stated above.
The Bachmann double crossover only works if there is 1 left and 1 right crossover. The preference to which left or right is first is up to you. Just note that 2 lefts or two right (not shown) crossovers will only get you a single crossover (see middle EZ track).
One thing I will mention is that it makes it easy to relocate train cars on a train. Say a consist engine is not needed, it can be pulled or on its own move into that short siding and the head engine can then back cars around that engine and reconnect to the remaining cars behind that sided engine. It's cool operations in my book.
Dear All,
We make a left and right #6 single crossover.
the Bach-man
Here's one using #4 turnouts. It's not the greatest either. It has 1/3 18" curves in the middle. It's 28 1/4" long and 8 1/4" wide. Track center to center is 6 7/16" wide. 45 degree crossing
(https://scontent-ord5-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/350114181_922616312283741_2281315360207990740_n.jpg?_nc_cat=101&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=730e14&_nc_ohc=hMN96vdQOScAX94bjJ1&_nc_ht=scontent-ord5-1.xx&oh=00_AfD1ET52I7ILjM6mFqp9pGpoPd40omojZM1yKIUH8xYRZA&oe=647A192F)
Here's one using #5 turnouts. It's not the greatest. It has 1/3 18" curves in the middle. It's 31 1/2" long and 8 1/4" wide. Track center to center is 6 7/16" wide. 45 degree crossing.
(https://scontent-ord5-2.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/350129089_6530647493653477_8985040465286541840_n.jpg?_nc_cat=104&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=730e14&_nc_ohc=vFhRc3YPuMwAX-TLb7c&_nc_ht=scontent-ord5-2.xx&oh=00_AfChwVNOdxJ4QsEKNQL8ARaOm0yiCYxYLotj2CcR9Y2uZQ&oe=647AD733)
It (#4) could be done with a 30 degree crossing but you have to do a little fudging. It would eliminate the the 1/3 18" curves in the two others. It would take the length out to 30 15/16". 30 degree crossing.
(https://scontent-ord5-2.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/350792347_1402078820610963_7190039472855120552_n.jpg?_nc_cat=104&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=730e14&_nc_ohc=_T6xgqy4wvIAX-O10Qq&_nc_ht=scontent-ord5-2.xx&oh=00_AfD4CDGXE8A3Kk9spukXH68vRZTm5xJRh20n-RRa5vTpug&oe=647ADD9B)
#5 with 30° crossing. This is the only way I could figure out how to do it. It has small curves on the outer tracks. They won't be parallel coming out.
(https://scontent-ord5-2.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/350272944_1642019039603125_6671236140096502948_n.jpg?_nc_cat=100&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=730e14&_nc_ohc=Brnm7dxlR7YAX9KEn2v&_nc_ht=scontent-ord5-2.xx&oh=00_AfBwAj6LFQdz-09YN7MHMDbF8b1bKtYjVojW13j7dMp1Jw&oe=647A3D49)
#4 turnouts with 60° crossing.
(https://scontent-ord5-2.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/349924765_204300338697140_7009945709426303078_n.jpg?_nc_cat=107&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=730e14&_nc_ohc=zKCpxEcufhgAX_Hpyor&_nc_ht=scontent-ord5-2.xx&oh=00_AfBRokmKMNbCqWrEY9Nzfss73_gJou1ykYJ4Xa9pqBiwFQ&oe=647AEDE3)
#5 turnout with 60° crossing.
(https://scontent-ord5-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/350348348_263977479506678_8956283259336529610_n.jpg?_nc_cat=106&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=730e14&_nc_ohc=kDn7vg1Egv0AX-E1L91&_nc_ht=scontent-ord5-1.xx&oh=00_AfA-cRunGoJs1D4IFEQzpvtiZ0HUrs8BZrNgLPV39RzrxQ&oe=6479E81A)
Shinohara did #4 and #6 Code 100 double crossovers at one point. The #6 is roughly 19.25" long, the #4 is a bit shorter. You can still find them here and there on-line. Some type of roadbed/shims would be needed to bring them up to the same height as EZ-Track.
Len
For what it's worth, You can make the double crossover you want out of Atlas CUstom Line components easily. A #4 double crossover takes up 20" with the mains on 3" centers. A #6 takes up 26" with the same 3" centers. The center crossings would be 25 and 19 degrees respectively.
Just a thought, but us old heads used to take these switches and trim the unnecessary straight track off them to get them to fit custom situations. EZ track switches have a LOT of extra track length. If you're willing to sacrifice the interlocking roadbed feature of these switches, you could trim them to fit the same 3" centers as the Atlas track, and probably get close to the dimensions I listed.
It all depends on what you'd rather do, modify your track plan to fit the component pieces, or modify the pieces to fit the track plan.
I've made a few stub turnouts out of E-Z Track ones by cutting them down.
Oh my Bejesus!
I can't believe one would cut up, cut down, cut crossways, sideways a good EZ track. Cutting track is for the plain non-roadbed track, like Atlas and pre-EZ Bachmann track (which frankly was Atlas track restamped for Bachmann). I'm not touting that EZ track is the best, but it's the greatest track for maintaining its connections, if one track section moves the entire section or length of track will move. Let's face it, the EZ track roadbed is a bit thick, but if you change your roadbed as often as I have done and planning to do and expect to continue making track layout changes, the EZ track is the easiest to do that with.
QuoteSome type of roadbed/shims would be needed to bring them up to the same height as EZ-Track.
I agree totally on using shims to adjust that non-roadbed track to meet up with EZ track. Most of the connections are actually short sections of track. My longest shimmed connection so far, is approx. 2 inches. The EZ track does have that short of a connection but to keep the EZ track connector (interlock) from inferring, the span of the splice of track needs to be at least three-quarters of an inch long. Having to remove that interlock would void the ability to use that section of track elsewhere when my brain tells me, to reconstruct my layout.
The Fleischmann 3-way track (conversed in another thread) I will be using 4 sections of shimmed non-roadbed track with 3 sections very close together in order for each to meet up with the EZ track. Once I get that perfected, I'll share an image of the finished product. And ,as stated earlier, my preference is to modify the pieces to fit my track plan.
:) If Bachmann made stubby turnouts, I wouldn't have had to do it.
I used EZ Track on the main line of my present layout for speed in construction. I found it to be rigidly fixed in its geometry. Not every track arrangement works out perfectly with every premade piece. Especially with passing tracks, I found out. I had to cut several pieces to fit in some locations. Others were so short that I bridged it with a short custom fit piece of roadbed-less track of another brand, and filled in the void beneath with stuff.
All that being said, most of it holds true for every brand of sectional track as well. Sooner or later, you will have to cut a piece of track to fit an odd place somewhere if you want to do anything beyond published track plans designed specifically to use whatever brand of track they are promoting.
I used EZ Track on the entire layout without cutting down any track. ended up using 3 each 44575, H0 Bachmann E-Z Track, Left crossover #6, 21.25". (remote), and 3 each 44576, H0 Bachmann E-Z Track, Right crossover #6, 21.25". (remote). for one double crossover, and one triple crossover. However, the triple crossover is 7 feet long, this stuff eats up a lot of real state.
(https://images20.fotki.net/v1684/file3Bcv/1b0d8/4/4125954/16375553/TripleCrossover.jpg)
You were lucky. Passing tracks in particular on my layout never had all the stock pieces fitting right. There was always a gap of some kind. One passing track almost fit correctly, but there was about a 3/32" gap where it just didn't quite finish right. Some would have filled those gaps with styrene. Since it was on a fairly deserted stretch of line not often visited, I just let it go.
I did four basic steps in building this layout.
1. AutoCAD for the design.
2. installed the EZ track loose.
3. Run trains at top speed for a week let the track slide around and find neutral.
4. tack the EZ track down to the benchwork deck.
No luck involved, just four years of planning.
I'm a retired architect, I desiged my layout with Autocad too. Just like I always found in 45 years of real projects, reality on site doesn't always align with projections perfectly. Uncontested fact, EZ Track passing tracks with no.5 switches, with perfectly aligned track and fitted section on the main left gaps in both of my passing tracks. I model a 15 mph branch line and my layout is short, so high speed testing was irrelevant in my case. Mine got tacked down and glued down with ballast as well, but I'm here to say that no planning of any kind could have avoided the gaps I encountered on the passing tracks. I even knew about the flaws and accommodated them in the work. Off of my main line, I have quite a bit of flextrack and sectional track by other manufacturers, but painting and ballast makes all of them blend together indistinguishably.
None of this really matters, I have flawless operation and cannot remember the last derailment I had wasn't caused by pilot error like an incorrectly thrown switch or inadequate switching clearance.
In any case, my next layout will use code 70 and code 55 flextrack with number eight switches where possible, affording a realism that no sectional track would ever be able to provide.
Quote from: trainman203 on June 09, 2023, 09:40:29 PMI'm a retired architect, I desiged my layout with Autocad too. Just like I always found in 45 years of real projects, reality on site doesn't always align with projections perfectly. Uncontested fact, EZ Track passing tracks with no.5 switches, with perfectly aligned track and fitted section on the main left gaps in both of my passing tracks. I model a 15 mph branch line and my layout is short, so high speed testing was irrelevant in my case. Mine got tacked down and glued down with ballast as well, but I'm here to say that no planning of any kind could have avoided the gaps I encountered on the passing tracks. I even knew about the flaws and accommodated them in the work. Off of my main line, I have quite a bit of flextrack and sectional track by other manufacturers, but painting and ballast makes all of them blend together indistinguishably.
None of this really matters, I have flawless operation and cannot remember the last derailment I had wasn't caused by pilot error like an incorrectly thrown switch or inadequate switching clearance.
In any case, my next layout will use code 70 and code 55 flextrack with number eight switches where possible, affording a realism that no sectional track would ever be able to provide.
And all of the above are the reasons I handlay my own track. I can build switches to a much higher standard than any commercially made track I've ever seen. And I can curve them any way I see fit, or build them to fit specific locations on the layout. And all the critical tolerances, points, flangeway width, track guage, will be dead on. All of the tune ups others have to do on their switches are moot, because those flaws in the pre made switches are engineered out of the ones I build myself.
I would lay my own track if I knew I was going live in the same place for the next 20 to 30 years. There is no doubt that it looks a lot better, as Jeffrey says, all operational issues are taken care of in careful construction.
When I was still working, relocation was a constant possibility that could emerge at any time. When I started my present layout, relocation was a very real possibility within 18 to 24 months. Also, some people really enjoy layout construction. I don't. I've always been operations centric, and in my case, with the very short anticipated layout life, I wanted to get off the launch pad as fast as I could, and get something out of the layout before I had to move. Relocation did not happen, of course, and my layout is approaching 16 years old, twice the average . If I had known this, I would've hand laid some of the most visible foreground track with code 70 and code 55 rail on staggered wood ties stain to look like decaying wood.
We are now looking at an eventual old age related location to be near adult children. The question now is, do I bring this layout with me? Which I could, it was designed from the beginning to be portable. Or start over, knowing that I don't have decades to complete a new one.
QuoteWe make a left and right #6 single crossover.
the Bach-man
This was a puzzling reply. I had to really think about what you meant by it. If I'm not mistaken, the double crossover is basically a no 6 turnout combined. So I painstakingly when through my collection of track turnouts and crossovers and found that I have only two no 6 turnouts. One left and one right. Get this, its model no 44559 for the left hand, and model 44560 for the right hand. On a side note, after going through my collection of EZ track, I found myself creating an inventory of all my track on my computer. In the old days it would just be put on paper.
Anyway,
This is good news, since if you put these two back to back (44559 and 44560) , one can reduce the length from approx. 41 inches down to approx 31 inches. Of course it eliminates the ability to create that short siding.
I don't think I have the patience to hand-lay track (other than use of EZ and short connections). To build my switches, well... that's way out of my capability.
QuotePassing tracks in particular on my layout never had all the stock pieces fitting right. There was always a gap of some kind. One passing track almost fit correctly, but there was about a 3/32" gap where it just didn't quite finish right.
In instances like this, I'd use a shorter EZ track so one of my modified (no roadbed) track could fill the gap. If that gap was in a curve, I'd just cut a piece of curved atlas rail to make that connection. This I've gotten pretty adept at, making the roadbed match, well, let's just say I'm no artist.
double crossover, aka scissors crossover has 4 switches and a crossing in the middle. Single crossover has two switches and no crossing. A scissors crossover saves alot of space by allowing two crossovers to occupy slightly more space than just one would.