Is it possible to keep to the double track spacing of the pre-fabricated double track while using a crossing track 20-300 or 20-301. It doesn't seem compatible with those crossing sections? Anyone else encountered this issue? Thanks Alan
I don't see how you could use those two crossing tracks. Are you looking at a true cross over or would the 20-210 work for what you want to do? A sketch of what you want to accomplish might help
The 15 degree crossings would only work with 49.5mm spacings if you're trying to cross a double track with another line. Kato's double track is on 33mm spacings At the bottom of Kato USA's sample track plans page, they have several links that describe their geometry. http://katousa.com/track-plans/n-plans.html If you have serious intent, it's just plastic and metal. You can cut them to make your own double track crossing if you're willing to risk screwing it up. It's not like they're $50 pieces. The other option, if you have the room for the bigger turns, is to use the 90 degree crossing. See the same page for how to combine two of those to cross double track.
Alan, As Jimil stated, cutting the crossovers should not be a major problem and you would need to cut a couple of short straights.
I had resigned myself to the fact that I was going to have to alter the crossing in order to keep my 33mm spacing. It seems a bit crazy on kato's part that their own double track geometry is not compatible with this piece (unless i am using it in a manner for which it wasn't intended, which i probably am). I had looked at the geometry referred to by Jimil, but only after my original post (in fact I printed the pages for reference). I was ultimately looking for the track to crossover the first track of the double and intersect with a #6 rh point on the other. Only at the planning stage at the moment and my first venture into unitrack. Thanks for the responses guys. I will post the layout plan for critique when I have a draft I'm happy with.
greetings Alan, using 20220 in combination for a single crossover from one track to another is the only possibility in keeping the center to center spacing. but, as I understand, that is more prototypical than the double crossover 20210 which except for sometimes used in passenger station areas was not found very often in 1:1 what is disappointing is that the larger turnout with more ease of turnout curve does not provide for that center to center spacing the other possibility is incorporating other code 80 turnout outs with adjusted cork roadbed in places you wish to have a crossover sincerely Gary
Paul The middle example is similar to I was looking to achieve. It demonstrates clearly how much needs to be cut from the 20-300 to make it work. Thanks Alan
I laid it out in XtrkCad. If I got the layout right, using a #6 turnout would require both surgery to the crossing and surgery to the turnout. The diverging leg of the turnout ends inside the diamond of the crossing otherwise. You also will end up slicing the edges on both which will probably mean you need to shim underneath. A #4 requires less work and will probably be more stable. Both options require either cutting straights to fit too or use of the adjustable track (which I don't like near curves). It may be worth exploring a different manufacturer for this bit. The work to make it blend in may be less.
As they say on the cooking shows, here's one I prepeared earlier. I just trimmed the crossing a bit at a time until it fit.
Westfalen, that is exactly the sort of thing I am looking for. Thank you. Seeing it in the flesh, so to speak, saves having to try to visualise how it will look. Alan
The Kato #4 and #6 turnouts have curved turnout legs of 15 degrees arc. If you alter the length (shorten) of the #6 to try to achieve less than the 49.5mm spacing when adding the 15 degree crossing, you will end up with non parallel tracks. Shortening the arc will reduce its arc to perhaps 11 or 12 degrees. When that is combined with a fixed 15 degree crossing (no matter how much you shorten its legs), the crossed track will no longer be parallel to the original straight track of the turnout. With the #4 it may be possible to shorten the crossing without altering the turnout and achieve the 33mm spacing. But I doubt that the same can be achieved with the #6.
