Utilize Switches or Switches and Crossover

[RR_Mel]

Just for kicks I drew up a double slip awhile back just to see what it would look like.  I used the Peco #5 as a go by and Atlas code 83 flex.  This is my drawing, should be pretty accurate.

 

 

I assembled them and slipped the dimensions in the drawing this morning, it’s shorter than I thought it would be.

 

When my arthritis gets so bad I can’t work on my layout I draw on my CAD.

 

 

Mel

 

 

My Model Railroad   

http://melvineperry.blogspot.com/

 

Bakersfield, California

 

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

 

[Southgate]

blue68camaro

 Thanks to richhotrain giving me detailed instructions on how to post an image.

 

Combine your two ideas. Use the crossovers from the top diagram, upper track to middle track, as they are.

Use the double crossover from the bottom diagram as it is, middle track to lower track. Otherwise, the 3 double crossovers from the bottom diagram are redundant, and uses 12 switches to do what 8 can do. This, in the same space as the lower diagram.

Another way to put it, use the lower diagram, but with single crossovers on the upper to middle track. Dan

[blue68camaro]

ATLANTIC CENTRAL

Well, I don't have any fancy track planning software on my computer, but this is what I would do:

Option 1 - It takes up the least space, it is only minimally complex with one slip switch, it puts a suitable straight section between the two crossovers.

Option 2 - is similar without the slip switch.........

Sheldon

 

 

Yes option 1 does take up less space, 62" using Peco SL88 and SL89's. More could be saved using Peco medium turnouts. Moving the Green line turnouts to the outside basically. I used fancy track planning software to redraw option 1. Sorry for the huge picture but the trial version of the fancy software :~) does not allow changing canvas size.

[ATLANTIC CENTRAL]

Well, I don't have any fancy track planning software on my computer, but this is what I would do:

Option 1 - It takes up the least space, it is only minimally complex with one slip switch, it puts a suitable straight section between the two crossovers.

Option 2 - is similar without the slip switch.........

Sheldon

 

[blue68camaro]

EDIT: Disregard this, internet hickuped during submission and double posted.

[blue68camaro]

richhotrain

 

 

richhotrain

We need to know two things.

Is the OP's track Code 83 or Code 100?

How far apart is the spacing of the mainlines?

 

 

 

Nothing?

 

 

Busy rebuilding boat dock that Hurricane Michael Decide to half destroy. Then add to that trying to watching 4014 and 844. Very fond memories of seeing 844 run in Cheyenne. Back on subject...

All are code 100. My 30 year old Marklins that I converted to DCC dont like code 83. Plus my 4014 Big Boy is happy with Peco turnouts and tempermental with Atlas.

Track spacing can be whatever it needs to be. I was able to secure more room for a layout extension. 

[cuyama]

richhotrain

Is the OP's track Code 83 or Code 100?

The part numbers he gave in the first post are Code 100.

[richhotrain]

riogrande5761

The Peco double slip are not cheap, especially the code 83! 

Gotta agree with you there. I bought 4 from MB Klein for $82 each for the four double slips including shipping, $328 total. But because I took advantage of the spring loaded points, I did not need to purchase switch machines (e.g., Tortoises) and if I simply built crossovers, the Peco Code 83 turnouts cost $25 apiece plus shipping. So, in the end, the double slips proved cheaper for me than other alternatives. And, the double slips are space savers.

Rich

[riogrande5761]

The Peco double slip are not cheap, especially the code 83!

[richhotrain]

richhotrain

We need to know two things.

Is the OP's track Code 83 or Code 100?

How far apart is the spacing of the mainlines?

Nothing?

[blue68camaro]

Yes the bottom is shorter. Using the Blue Line, turnout to turnout is 90" top one. Bottom one is 75". So 15" smaller.

[SPSOT fan]

carl425

 

 

blue68camaro

 

 

 

In option 2, the crossovers from the blue track don't need to be doubles.

Yes, I was about to say the same thing.

It looks to be that the top option would be cheaper, as you do not need to spend extra money on the crossings for the double crossovers, but if you use a double crossover from the black rail to the green rail, you can save space. I wouldn’t use the bottom option because it uses more turnouts that nessesary.

If it was my railroad I would use a double crossover from black to green and two single crossovers from black to blue.

Hope this was helpful!

[richhotrain]

We need to know two things.

Is the OP's track Code 83 or Code 100?

How far apart is the spacing of the mainlines?

I mentioned in an earlier reply that I use Peco Code 83 Unifrog Double Slips to connect between 2-inch on center mainlines. No need to bend any flex track. I operate the double slips with a flip of the finger, taking advantage of the spring loaded point rails. Works like a charm.

Rich

[Colorado Ray]

Byron's plan with the double slip switches would be option 3.  While more complex, the double slip switch option eliminates the reverse curves that you get in either option 1 or 2 when moving across all three tracks.  I've always considered that you needed the length of your longest wheelbase from truck to truck between the points of adjacent crossover tracks.  That would further extend the required length for options 1 or 2.

Ray

[carl425]

blue68camaro

In option 2, the crossovers from the blue track don't need to be doubles.

[BigDaddy]

richhotrain

Is the bottom design truly shorter? 

[cuyama]

By the way, terminology:

[cuyama]

Welcome to the forum.

blue68camaro

I do not want to use a Peco double slip since the lines will not be parallel without bending the flex track. What one do you think would be a better option Top or Bottom?

"Better" is subjective and it's impossible to answer without knowing what the rest of the layout looks like and what you are trying to accomplish. The option with only turnouts has fewer frogs overall and might be slightly more reliable. As you noted, the option with crossings will be shorter. Since the PECO Code 100 double-slips have the same diverging angle as the “Large” turnouts, I don’t believe that you would need to “bend” any flextrack. Double-slips can be a little more finicky and you may want to avoid them for that reason. But I think that they do work in your configuration.

If you provide more information about what you are trying to do and the rest of the layout, folks may have more pertinent comments and suggestions.

Best of luck with your layout.

Byron

[blue68camaro]

 Thanks to richhotrain giving me detailed instructions on how to post an image.

[RR_Mel]

This is my double crossover.

 

 

This is homemade from Atlas code 83 turnouts and their crossover.  You could make one using Peco turnouts being that you like their track.

 

I started out with a Shinohara code 83 double crossover and it wouldn’t clear my Rivarossi large flanges without problems.  The Rivarossi large flanges would clear all of my Atlas code 83 turnouts so I made my own.  Starting out with the Shinohara turnout locked me into 2” track centers causing me to kitbash the Atlas to fit my 2” center mainline.  You could do the same using Peco turnouts.

 

 

Rich

 

I really like your use of the slips.

 

 

 

Mel

 

 

My Model Railroad   

http://melvineperry.blogspot.com/

 

Bakersfield, California

 

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

 

[richhotrain]

[blue68camaro]

Still trying to figure out how to use this community forum, way different then others but a lot more inforamtive. I am still in approval mode so bear with me....

I posted the picture on https://ibb.co/Z2b4b4X

[richhotrain]

blue68camaro

Need to have all three lines have the ability to switch between any line in either direction. I realize that the second option would use a little less space. I do not want to use a Peco double slip since the lines will not be parallel without bending the flex track.

I have a series of four Peco Unifrog Double Slips to control the routes on my 4-track mainline. The four mainline tracks are 2-inch on center and the lines are parallel. No need to bend the flex track. How far apart are your mainlines?

 

Rich

 

 

[RR_Mel]

That’s not much info, a drawing would help.  I use a double crossover to go between my two mainlines with straight track.

 

Scale and physical layout size would help too.  My crystal ball crapped out many years ago.

 

 

Mel

 

 

My Model Railroad   

http://melvineperry.blogspot.com/

 

Bakersfield, California

 

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

 

[blue68camaro]

Not sure what is happening, my original post had a picture in it of the 2 setups. Why it is not there now or better yet not sure what to do.... Mod had to approve the post.

[blue68camaro]

Need to have all three lines have the ability to switch between any line in either direction. I realize that the second option would use a little less space. I do not want to use a Peco double slip since the lines will not be parallel without bending the flex track. What one do you think would be a better option Top or Bottom? Open to any other options as well and I will only use Peco switches and crossovers.

Thnaks………

 

Top one utilizes Peco SL-88 and SL-89’s

 

Bottom one utilizes Peco SL-88’s and SL-89’s with SL-93’s