Best switch configuration for a crossover between parallel tracks

Ross switches are the best for main line operation. I use Margrave only on siding or the yard.

I would use a #4 or #6 Ross Switches. If you are going both directions in and out, I would look at their double crossover switch. They are a little pricey but they work real well.

Matt;

I have two of these on my layout. I find them great for moving from one track to another in a fairly compact space, while allowing access to a train coming in either direction. They use O-72 Fastrack switches, so they are probably a bit big for your space (6.5 in. between center rails), but some other type/size switch might fit your needs. 

for a track crossover, numbered switches (e.g. #4, #6, #8, etc) are a much better choice than a standard curved switch.  i believe a #4 switch has the exact same frog angle as an O72 switch, but can accomplish the same crossover in a shorter distance and with closer track spacing.

cheers...gary

Have to agree with Overlandflyer and WAPD above.  Using the numbered switches eliminates the S-curve built in to any Oxx type switch.  O72 crossovers may be "gentler" than O60 or O54 crossovers, but they still create the problematic S-curve.

Chuck

FYI, here are some RR-Track diagrams of different switches used to make crossovers and the track distance center rail to center rail (c-c) of each combination.  This measurement is taken from the RR-Track tool, so it may not be accurate but it is close.

The Atlas O72 switch, cut to 19.5 degrees, is from the RR-T files so not sure how this was done.  The Fast Track (FT) switches have a 1 3/8' straight because that is the only way to connect them in RR-Track.

There are a couple of combinations that get you close to your 4-5" centers, but like the others I would use a numbered switch combination.  To me the best option is using the Ross #4 switches; they are compact and mine work well.  You can add a short piece of straight track between the switches to get the c-c you need.

4 1/4" centers on the (5) rails pictured.  Ross 204 three way, #4 switch, pictured connected to Ross #5 switch(es). Some custom work on this remodel project to accommodate the existing 4 1/4" track spacing.  We (Fort Pitt Highrailers) owned the #5 switches, and purchased the three ways at a later date for this project. 

Ross also has the double 4s which are connected to make for 3.5 inch center to center.  I just bought one of these and am pleased.  I wired them to throw at the same time. 

Here is a shot of my 0-96 Ross Crossover

Lewrail

Matt Kirsch posted:

The yard lead runs parallel to the mainline, on a 20' long straight stretch nowhere near a corner, and I want to put in a crossover for trains exiting the yard.

Tracks are quite close to each other, 4-5" apart IIRC, and there is several feet of linear distance to work with.

For the situation you described, an AtlasO double slip with a #5 turnout would work for your situation. This will result in a 4.5 spacing on the mainline. Check out the picture below for a comparison. The top track plan is a #5 crossover with a #5 turnout to the yard. The middle track plan is a #5 with a double slip turnout. The bottom track plan is an O-72 crossover with an O-72 turnout to the yard. As you can see, the #5 with the double slip is about the same length of the O-72 configuration, but without the S curve.

with a 20' run, it sounds like you are building an around the wall layout. Please post more information about the area available for your yard. How deep can you build it? Will the yard be just for storage, or will you run switching operations on it? Will the yard be accessible from one end or both?

Here's an example of a yard that is 20' long by 3' deep. It uses the #5 turnouts with double slips, is accessible from both ends, has one arrival/departure track, a caboose track and four classification tracks.

Matt,

From your description, I thought you had a single track mainline.  If you have a double track mainline, I agree with Stewart; a double slip works great in a limited space plus eliminates the S curve of back-to-back regular switches.

I had both Atlas and Ross double slip switches on my last layout.  I had the original Atlas ones which were nothing but trouble, so I sold them.  I would have stayed all Ross on the layout I'm building now but I needed #5 switches, not the #4 switch that Ross has.  The newer Atlas double slips work better, but I still need to limit speed on them.  Part of the issue is I'm mating them to Ross Regular switches, which are closer to #5.5.  I'm still working their position on my in-progress layout so hopefully they will get better.

I've never had any issues with the Ross double slips.  They work well and take up less room.  Here is a comparison of the two:

Be careful what you wish for with a double slip switch.. They  are hard to get wired up and  it's very difficult to see what route the train is going to take.   Yeah we have one and have  had more derailments  at that location  than any  other part of the layout.   They look neat though.    Definitely  need track signals  for this  one indicating route.

My K Line Track layout last year was in "O", not 0-27.  I used 4 Ross # 4 Tinplate switches, wired both L H  together and both R H together. I could run my MTH trains at 50 MPH thru them with no problems.

I have a lot of crossovers on my layout, 22 to be precise. My track spacing is 4".

That 3 track left crossover using a Ross double slip is one of my favorites. Cappilot posted the diagram, here it is on my layout.

This is 4, single #8 crossovers. It's about 12' long. It's fun to watch the trains snake across.

My advice, use numbered turnouts for crossovers, the longer the better, as much as you have room for. Double slips and double crossovers are space savers. Double slips take some getting used to, but they look great.

Something that GarGraves achieves over Ross is the smooth transition in curvature on the diverging route.  Ross puts 90% of its curvature within the point rail area, creating an actual kink that is potentially troublesome in high speed operation.  See the switch at the lower left corner of Elliot's first picture...at that viewing angle it illustrates clearly what I mean.  Every Ross switch has this characteristic.   But then, hundreds will attest to Ross' high quality and I won't argue the fact.  Still, the few of them I have on hand will be employed where slow speeds are the norm.

Bruce

Bruce, that switch is neither Gargraves nor Ross. That happens to be a very old Right of Way #6 leftover from my Mall layout. Those #8's in the second picture are Curtis, just after he and Ross parted ways. All are vintage 1992.

I think what you are really seeing in that shot is some of my less than perfect track laying. I try to follow my lines, but sometimes there are little jogs. That's a yard ladder, and it won't effect operation.

Elliot,

Now that the identity of that lower left switch is known, it does appear to have an exaggerated anomaly as compared to current Ross offerings.  It has nothing to do with your track laying, it's in the the construction of the turnout.  Look again at the diverging rails...they have no curvature after passing the pivot point of the points.   Ross's are a definite improvement on this, but still exhibit a sudden kink at the point tips, with most of the degrees in curvature confined to the area along the point rails.  GarGraves spreads the degrees of curvature evenly along the diverging rails, to the frog and, depending on the turnout size, beyond.  Numbered turnouts, like your #8's are so shallow that the anomaly is hardly visible.

I believe there's a reason Ross builds them as such.  It aligns wheels into a straight path before they cross over the frog, preventing flanges from catching the angular join.  Since tolerances in 3 rail wheel travel are not very exact, the guard rail can only do so much in preventing this. 

Back on track, there are caveats about Gargraves too.  You need to do additional electrical wiring to fully tie them into the layout.  The diverging center rail will be dead without running a power wire to it.  In the case of a crossover, wire both switch machines to fire simultaneously to prevent derailments.

Bruce

Bruce,

Interesting observation on the Ross switches. On my old layout I was able to run my large steamers (Lio PRR T1, MTH T1, J, and Q2)  through their Regular (about a #5.5) at speed without issue, even a crossover.

Have you had problems with your switches?  What size are they? While I've gone to mostly #6s for my crossovers, I'm using some #4s to save space in one area so I hope they will not be a problem.

Ron,

First off, I doubt any problems will happen using Ross numbered turnouts in a crossover.  The angle of the diverging rails is just too shallow to cause ill effects at speed.

On the other hand, the 2 Ross turnouts I have are smaller than numbered turnouts, the RH one being #100M and it's LH equivalent.  They're probably just at the edge of usability in a crossover situation, but won't be used on my layout as such.  I already have the LH installed as the cutoff for my engine facility.

 GarGraves 100's are used on the 2 crossovers I have on the new layout, which I plan to traverse at relatively slow speeds.  I felt the smoothness of curved rail transition on these smaller than numbered GG switches might perform better.   Although the layout will be able to handle any sized loco, I've restricted the roster to nothing larger than a big Hudson.

If the GG 100's are indeed the equivalents of the Ross 100M then there is one more reason to go GG.  Today, when doing a comparison I noticed the GG 100 is a longer turnout.  Check it out.  GG 104 top, Ross 100M bottom

Bruce

Ross switches left, Gargraves switches right.