Large Scale Central

Double crossover with LGB 1600 series switches?

Track and Trestles
#1

I’d like to create a double crossover to join what are now two separate lines in our railroad. Our track is USA Trains, minimum 8-foot diameter turns, which we’ve been pretty pleased with, and the switches are LGB. I have 4 LGB 1600 series switches (“R3, 22.5 degree”) which fit the 8-ft turns, and would need a 45 degree crossover to join them all up. Two questions:

  1. Would such a construct actually work okay? I know most people use much shallower switches ("#6" or even longer) for creating these, but I’d like to use what I already have.
  2. Does anyone make a 45 degree crossover? I can’t seem to find one.
    Thanks in advance.

Peter

#2

Welcome Peter. This doesn’t answer your question, but simply shows a different way of going about it. This was my solution for joining two lines using R1 switches and no crossover. Not impressive, but works and I was able to use the materials I had. Ralph

(http://www.lscdata.com/users/cabby/_forumfiles/PVRYARD008Medium.jpg)

#3

Hi Peter - Welcome to LSC. I don’t know of a 45 degree crossing, but I played around with LGB turnouts in RR-Track software and found that you can do this equivalent function track with no crossing…

(http://lsc.cvsry.com/Post/LGB-X.JPG)

#4

Gee Ralph - Great minds think alike :smiley:

#5

Hi,

Thanks for the replies! The photo and diagram are great and I like the dog in the background :slight_smile: What I’m looking to do is not just allow trains to move from one line to the other, but let them do both loops in one go-round. There doesn’t seem to be a way to do that without a cross (an “X” rather than a “D”) to join them. Like this (not as fancy as RR-Track!):

____ _ _____ With the switches properly set, I can start on the inside, transfer to the outside, come back and return to the inside.
       \  /
____/_\_____ If set differently, both lines stay independent.

Any thoughts?

Peter

#6
Jon Radder said:
Gee Ralph - Great minds think alike :D
Yes Jon. We both offered the same solution...........that didn't address Peter's needs :D

I believe we may have both worked for the government in a previous life :lol:
Ralph

#7

Mine doesn’t quite meet Pete’s needs as well, but I think this is what he wants. However, mine is made up of 4 LGB 1800’s and a 22.5 crossover.

(http://www.lscdata.com/users/jebouck/xover.jpg)

#8

John-with-an-H,
The picture looks nice and does match what we had in mind. Isn’t the crossover a 30 degree though? The LGB 1800’s say they’re 15 degrees so I’d think that means the setup would need a 30 degree cross.

Ralph and Jon-no-H: LOL on the employer clue!

Since I originally posted I did find one vendor who makes a 45 crossover (Sunset Valley). It’s beautiful (much fancier than our line!) but code 250 so he also sells adapter clamps to connect to regular rail. We may try it.

#9

Peter,

I understand your desire to have trains travel both loops, but using the turnouts so close together you are eliminating the possibility of using the distance between turnouts to be a place to store one train or to allow the track area to also be used as a passing siding. Maybe that is not all what you want, but the option is there with the ideas the guys are showing you.

Welcome to LSC.

#10

Pete,
It’s an LGB 22.5 x-over.
The 30 is too wide.
jb

#11

Number 5’s have a 11.4 degree departure angle. A crossing twice that (22.8 degrees) would be perfect, 22.5 degrees is close enough.

#12

Peter,

I’m sure I saw a photo in an LGB catalog I used to have of just what you describe. The angle however couldn’t have been 45 degrees though. I believe LGB had/maybe still has a smaller degree crossing that was used between the switches. The crossing increased the distance between adjacent tracks thus assuring proper clearance.

Perhaps if someone has an older LGB catalog (approx. 2003-4) they can confirm what I remember.

#13

Richard,

May I use your quote? I could apply it in so many ways. :wink:

“Perhaps if someone has an older (fill in the blank) catalog, they can confirm what I remember.”

#14

The solution is this as a kit.

Or as a ready-to-use item

#15
Ric Golding said:
Richard,

May I use your quote? I could apply it in so many ways. :wink:

“Perhaps if someone has an older (fill in the blank) catalog, they can confirm what I remember.”


Hehe! You’re going to upset ol’ Red Box Hans with that…! :wink: As for my memory…can there be any doubt ???

#16

The “D” configuration is really useful, but the “X” is what we’re after. Here’s why. Our original line is essentially a glorified figure-8, over and under. Around and outside this line we’ve (today! My 16 year old son and I!) just finished a separate, large circumferential line. It’ll allow us to run two trains simultaneously and/or use the outer line to run a live steam Mikado we’re hoping to get.

When not used this way, we’d like single trains to be able to traverse both circuits in one long trip-- outer, switch to inner, do the inner, switch back to outer-- and that’s why we need an “X”, as in John’s picture. It’s just that the switches we have are 8-foot diameter not 10 (or whatever the 1800’s are). I think Hans-Joerg’s crossing would work, as would the Sunset Valley RR crossing. It’s funny that this isn’t a more commonly done thing!

Thanks all. This has been a terrific discussion. LSC is a great place-- I’m glad I found it!

Regards,
Peter

#17

Peter -

I don’t think X style crossovers are uncommon, but building them out of tight radius switches might be. A crossover, by design, creates an S curve. Building S-curves with tight radius curves, while possible, will give you trouble with longer rolling stock. It will work fine with short wheelbase cars and engines, but forget long engines and passenger cars.

I’m not going to talk down tight radius. I still have R1 switches in my indoor yards. So long as you realize the limitations going in - go for i t :smiley:

#18

Jon,
Thanks, that’s good advice. It’s funny to think of 8 foot diameter curves as tight radius when even 4 foot diameter is sold! And here we thought we were totally planning for the future using curves so wide…

I do see how the generated S curves would become the problem. I guess we just need to decide if we can buy 4 R5 switches on top of everything else, or should buy one of the (not inexpensive) 45 degree crossings that are sold and see if it works. Dilemmas, dilemmas! But good ones. :slight_smile:

Peter

#19

Peter, Even though the ‘D’ is really no more than a spaced out ‘X’ and will accomplish the same run I can understand your desire.
That said before you spend money on things you don’t/won’t need why not lay a large sheet of paper under the 4 switches placed on the track you have in place and draw the connecting rails and switches. Use this so you can see and even check the degree of crossover you need,or show you what you need to do with the existing track to help it conform to pieces that are available. i.e. 45degree 30degree 22 1/2degree

Dave

#20
David Marconi said:
Peter, Even though the 'D' is really no more than a spaced out 'X' and will accomplish the same run I can understand your desire. [i][/i] Dave
No, it really won't. For a continuous run on both loops without employing spring switches or throwing switches, you need the crossover. This allows all switches to be in the diverging route position and the circuit will not run up against a improperly thrown switch.

I didn’t realize that until Peter pointed it out early in this thread.