In my experience, Atlas does not make a turnout that matches the degree of divergence of their Custom Line turnouts without an additional piece of curved track between the turnout and crossover; but they have one that matches their Snap Track switches.
ATLAS should have the answer to your problem:
I tend to doubt that Atlas doesn't make a crossing that matches their #6. I know they used to have a diagram for 2 RH + 2LH and matching Xing to form a double cossover - perhaps it was with #4's...anyhow the crossing is the key.
Since they don't specify angles for their #6 you need to call them to verify. They tend to match products so I have to believe one of their crossings works.
You may have to trim to fit - no biggie. An Atlas 'Zoning saw' works.
'Snap Switches' are unsuitable because they are designed on a curve, plus too sharp to work well enought, to justify the expense.
Walthers and Shinohara make products that integrate. I'm doing essentially what you're doing with a #6 double slipswitch, but at a higher price.
I posted a similar question back in March or April. Somehow many replies showed that they didn't understand my question. One or two seemed to get it and came up with a snap switch was about as close as I was going to get with my situation. I still haven't started on installing my crossing and siding. I've got to find the time.
Use a Peco turnout instead of Atlas, and there is a matching crossover track. Peco code 100 turnouts diverge at an angle of 12 degrees, and they make a 12 degree crossover.
cacole wrote: Use a Peco turnout instead of Atlas, and there is a matching crossover track. Peco code 100 turnouts diverge at an angle of 12 degrees, and they make a 12 degree crossover.
Good idea, Atlas makes a 12.5 degree crossing. (might match their #6).
Peco Code 83 (new) may not have crossings - yet.... Plus European turnouts use metric, and are designed to scribe a curve (or is that circumscribe?) . Be wary.
Don Gibson wrote: cacole wrote: Use a Peco turnout instead of Atlas, and there is a matching crossover track. Peco code 100 turnouts diverge at an angle of 12 degrees, and they make a 12 degree crossover. Good idea, Atlas makes a 12.5 degree crossing. (might match their #6). Peco Code 83 (new) may not have crossings - yet.... Plus European turnouts use metric, and are designed to scribe a curve (or is that circumscribe?) . Be wary.
-Dan
Builder of Bowser steam! Railimages Site
Gearhead,
I tried the #6's and 12 deg cross from Atlas and it didn't line up to do a double cross without extra track. However if you want the center to run parallel with the left and right lines it might just work. Can you do a test with the templates on the Atlas web site? Just a thought. J.R.
Jeff But it's a dry heat!
No one has yet mentioned...
On the real thing in the US (not here in the UK) the real RR will sometimes put a wiggle in one or more lines to get the angles to allow use of standard diamond components. This is usually as gentle as wiggle over as longer length of track as possible so as not to affect permitted line speed. Usually you would only need to adjust one outside track.
I would, however, be surprised to find that you need to do it to get from one track straight across another to a third track... maybe part of the issue is that US tracks are commonly further apart than either European or UK... which sor of assumes that the Atlas and Peco tracks are made for non- US standards...
The fact that we use metric measurement shouldn't make any difference at all as it is the angles that you need to attend to and they are the same.
Have you tried the job with actual bits of track yet?
When you find the solution please post it to inform us all.
GEARHEAD426 wrote: i know for certian that ill never need to get a train from track 3 to track 2 in this location.
OK, that narrows it down, but will you ever need to go from track 1 to 2 or vice versa? In that case, use a (voila) Single slip instead of a double slip switch. That may be the only thing you can find with the proper geometry to align everything with what you want to do with Atlas track. Personally, I'd try testing it Peco just to see if that helps. That may be your solution.
Brad
EMD - Every Model Different
ALCO - Always Leaking Coolant and Oil
CSX - Coal Spilling eXperts
GEARHEAD426 wrote:its HE. now that thats out of the way....
NeO6874 wrote: GEARHEAD426 wrote:its HE. now that thats out of the way....OK, it's he. got it. I'll forget in a week. Like others have said, the slipswitch might be a better option that a standard crossing. There might be that one time, on a cold night that a crew has to get from track 2 to 3, and they'll be grateful for said slipswitch, so they can make it to the next station on time....
RR don't spend money that way!
Given the very high first cost of the slipswitch (single or double), the extra stuff like (at a minimum) locked ground throws and all the cable to connect them up to the interlocking - unless you are working on Train Orders - and even then you are tieing up all three roads...
Plus they got to be maintained...
Switches are put in when they will be used regularly.
If they won't be used regularly you use a switch nearby and push a bit further.
On the modelling front I'm pretty sure that all Peco's - and probably everyone else's slips are the same angle as their diamonds... this would be logical as they would fit into the same track plans with just the added routes. This means that if the diamond won't fit a slip won't either.
I still think that you have to overcome the difference between European and US track spacing.
You need:
A Crossing that matches the turnout - no matter WHO makes it. Since Atlas & Peco do not specify angles in their lit. - better to call them direct before spending $$.
I'm using Shinohara /Walthers #6 double slip + 2 #6 turnouts to do this, I know it can be done - and on 2.25" - 2.50" spacing - whether Code 100, 83, or code 70.