double crossovers

[Terry Toenges]

  If Bachmann made stubby turnouts, I wouldn't have had to do it.

[trainman203]

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.

[Desert Rose]

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.

[trainman203]

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.

[Desert Rose]

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.

[trainman203]

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.

[jward]

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.

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.

[trainman203]

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.

[Ralph S]

We 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.   

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.

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.

[jward]

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.