Double crossover using Atlas #6 turnout

[railandsail]

RR_Mel

Brian

 

The problem I had with the Shinohara double crossover was that it was a code 83 and my monster Rivarossi wheel flanges wouldn’t clear the frogs without either derailing or shorting out.  All of the rest of my locomotives worked fine.

 

My Rivarossi Pizza Cutter wheel flanges would clear my Atlas code 83 turnouts but not the Walthers/Shinohara.  Clearly a problem of the large flanges not the turnouts.  I tried every code 83 double crossover manufactured back in 1990 and none would clear the large flanges thus the Mel Double Crossover.

 

Mel

 

 

 

Thanks for that reply.

I have some code 100 Shinoharas, both double and single crossovers.
I was looking over the doubles yesterday and discover various gaps that had been cut into them by some previous owner, so electrically I must do further investigation.

But back to the derail potential problems. It did appear that most all the guard rail gaps were of a bigger size than many modern ones, but the tracks and the frog in these areas were straight in their basic form, and thus likely to not cause the point-picking I experienced with the curved diverging rails (and guard rails) of the Peco switches. So I'm inclined to assume that the guard rails and frog areas of the Shinohara are NOT their derail problems??

On the other hand I did discover a glaring PROBLEM,....the very short point rails on the double turnouts. I had laid the double Shin's out next to my custom Peco unit to see what overall lenght difference was,..

 

 

I decided to lay a Shinohara single out next to the double,...

Thats when I discovered this glaring difference in the point rail lengths. Those very short ones on the double turnout are just too short to maintain a nice even curve thru the turn, and even result in rail-to-rail dimensions in that area to vary quite significantly.        I wonder if this is the cause of many experienced derails that some folks speak of??

[RR_Mel]

Brian

 

The problem I had with the Shinohara double crossover was that it was a code 83 and my monster Rivarossi wheel flanges wouldn’t clear the frogs without either derailing or shorting out.  All of the rest of my locomotives worked fine.

 

My Rivarossi Pizza Cutter wheel flanges would clear my Atlas code 83 turnouts but not the Walthers/Shinohara.  Clearly a problem of the large flanges not the turnouts.  I tried every code 83 double crossover manufactured back in 1990 and none would clear the large flanges thus the Mel Double Crossover.

 

I didn’t try any code 100 crossovers as it is located very close the edge of my layout where the difference would standout like a bull in a China shop.

 

 

EDIT:

 

 

 

The turnouts look brass but they are NS, my lousy picture taking.

 

After 7 years I sitll haven't finished the scenery.  I removed the signal bridge earlier this year to replace the LEDs to get a better yelow.  Between my Arthritis and eye surgery I haven't got much done on my new signals.  I finally found a perfect tri-color LED so maybe next month I'll get back in the scenery.

 

 

Mel

 

 

My Model Railroad   

http://melvineperry.blogspot.com/

 

Bakersfield, California

 

I'm beginning to realize that aging is not for wimps.

 

[riogrande5761]

railandsail

Is it really that impossible to make the Shinohara doubles work,...on DCC??

 

I don't see why a double cross over made with Shinohara turnouts couldn't be made to work in DCC but you would need to modify the turnouts to isolate the point rails from each other and isolate the frog with gaps.

If Mel mentioned shorts, I wonder if it was due to using non-modified DC Shinohara turnouts. 

As far as derailments go, it will be interesting to see what the feed back is.  Shinohara turnouts should be pretty good unless the rails don't match the NMRA guage which is more the case with the curved turnouts from what I understand.

The other consideration is using #6 for a double cross-over with 2-inch centers; that is an S-curve situation and some equipment may have issues with S-curves.  I know when I do a single cross-over, I prefer to use #8 turnouts to keep the S-curve more gentle.  Of course limited space that isn't always possible.

Walthers/Shinohara code 83 turnouts were offered in DCC friendly configuration starting about 15 or so years ago so those could be used without modification I would guess.  But Shinohara code 100 turnouts, AFAIK, were never manufactured in DCC friendly versions that I know of.

[railandsail]

@Mel
You mentioned 2 problems with utilizing the Shinohara double X,....electrical shorting, and derailing.

Could you be a little more specific on what might have been the derail problem,...how and where it occurred?...guard rail gaps possible cause??

[railandsail]

RR_Mel

 

 

I made an Atlas double crossover using the #6 Custom Line Turnouts and the 19° crossover.

 

I originally was going to use a Walthers/Shinohara Double crossover which has 2” center to center mainline.  The Custom Line turnouts and Crossover have to be cut up to operate at 2”.

 

Here is a post on my blog on my modification.  It has worked great without any problems for over 5 years.

 

https://melvineperry.blogspot.com/2012/06/june-25-2012-my-double-crossover.html

 

I have full size drawings in both CAD format and PDF on my Google Drive.

 

 

 

Mel

 

 

My Model Railroad   

http://melvineperry.blogspot.com/

 

 

WOW, that was a VERY comprehensive documentation of the double crossover build. I bookmarked it.

Is it really that impossible to make the Shinohara doubles work,...on DCC??

I have, brand new, 2 doubles, and 4 singles that I had hoped to use,...all Code 100. I had also planned on the 2" centers in one application

[larak]

For what it might be worth, with linkages, you can use two or even one switch motor for these. It DOES get complicated though.

[RR_Mel]

Thanks Paul

 

I put a lot of effort into that project.  After trying so many manufactured double crossovers I was really in downer.  I just had to have a double crossover on my layout.  I was one of several things on my must have list when I started this layout.  I figured that it would be my last layout and wanted it to have everything on my list.  All the other items went perfect except the double crossover.

 

I think any of the manufactured turnouts would have worked OK if it wasn’t for my Rivarossi Cab Forwards and their pizza cutter deep flanges.  I could have replaced it with a code 100 double crossover but code 83 track was also on my must have list.

 

I figured if I could make it work on my CAD I could make it happen.  My Cab forwards never had any problems negotiating Atlas Code 83 # 6 Custom Line Turnouts or Atlas #4s for that matter.  It worked first time without a hitch and I haven’t had a single problem in seven years.

 

I want to urge all model railroaders to keep trying when things don’t always go right, if one wants something bad enough there is always a way to make it happen if you just hang in there.

 

 

 

Mel

 

 

My Model Railroad   

http://melvineperry.blogspot.com/

 

Bakersfield, California

 

I'm beginning to realize that aging is not for wimps.

 

[peahrens]

Holy smoke, Mel!  If you weren't an engineer you shoulda been one.  Incredible example of addressing a unique problem and solving all the unique issues. The easy way out would be to use the stock track with the track spacing that would create, add 4 Tortoises, etc.  Nifty approach and great documentation.

It's cool of you to document the details so others can draw on your innovations.  It makes me wonder what I am missing on various MR subjects where I am unaware of related blogs with quality information. 

 

[EMDSD40]

I have two built on my layout.....works fine. One uses Atlas switch machines and the other Caboose Industry ground throws. Since they are 30 years old, this is brass track. No problems running switchers to Big Boys and anything in between. All track joints are soldered together and blocks cut in wth a Dremel Tool.

[cowman]

Welcome to the forumss.

You will find "Snap" switches diverging routes are curved to match 18" radius sectional track.  Numbered turnouts do not match a curve.

Have fun,

Richard

[SeeYou190]

french_guy

Hello folks, First post here.

.

.

Glad to have you here. Please stick with us through the short moderation period and join the crowd.

.

-Kevin

.

[RR_Mel]

Well thank you Henry!

 

 

Mel

 

 

My Model Railroad   

http://melvineperry.blogspot.com/

 

Bakersfield, California

 

I'm beginning to realize that aging is not for wimps.

 

[BigDaddy]

to the forum.

Mel is the go to guy on this, so don't look for a lot of people to chime on this thread.

[RR_Mel]

 

I made an Atlas double crossover using the #6 Custom Line Turnouts and the 19° crossover.

 

I originally was going to use a Walthers/Shinohara Double crossover which has 2” center to center mainline.  The Custom Line turnouts and Crossover have to be cut up to operate at 2”.

 

Here is a post on my blog on my modification.  It has worked great without any problems for over 5 years.

 

https://melvineperry.blogspot.com/2012/06/june-25-2012-my-double-crossover.html

 

I have full size drawings in both CAD format and PDF on my Google Drive.

 

EDIT:

 

As a newbie to the Forum your first few post are monitored and will be delayed.

 

 

 

Mel

 

 

My Model Railroad   

http://melvineperry.blogspot.com/

 

Bakersfield, California

 

I'm beginning to realize that aging is not for wimps.

 

[french_guy]

Hello folks,

First post here.

I would like to test making a double crossover using four #6 Atlas turnouts using four -homemade- under the table switch machines.

I have an old Atlas layout book that says it can be done using four #6 turnouts and a 19 deg crossing. Now that book was before they had the custom turnouts line.

I read here there is a geometry difference between Atlas snap turnouts and custom turnouts. So my question is: can I make a double crossover using these #6 custom turnout switches and use a 19deg crossing in the middle?

Thanks