Diamond Cross over with Express points

[PJ_model_trains]

 

I am considering scrapping my layout!!! And starting again!

That may surprise some, total restart fishing lake and the lot will go!

 

So I am playing with various options designing a new layout.

 

I am looking for a diamond cross over to work with Express points but Hornby only seem to do the R614 which is designed for standard points?

 

Any suggestions guys?

 

 

[dynax]

there are other track manufacturers, but i do think that Hornby should have a serious think about producing more track options, especially points and crossovers, as people are now building more complex layouts which is easy with dcc, the current points and crossovers limit what can be achieved and Hornby are losing out to their competitors,

[PJ_model_trains]

Well said dynax

 

It doesn't make sense to me to have a cross over for standard points and not for express points.

 

I am certainly curious what other people have used. Peco possibly but which ones and what do people think that have installed other manufacturers points and cross overs?

 

[dynax]

peco have an unsurpassed range, 3 way points, double slips, vast amount of points with varying radius turnouts, crossovers that have different degrees, they even have a 90 degree crossover, so why can't Hornby produce these,

[PJ_model_trains]

 Hornby ran into financial difficulty a few years back and probably at that time halted all new stock other than locos.

 

Bachmann had similar diffuculties prior to Hornbys, market changes affect everyone at some stage. It is understandable a company would cut back in difficult times and not keep creating new stock, but times goes on and whilst it does, competitors move forward and before they realise the game has changed.

 

I agree, may be it is time they should at least review these things. A large percentage of us will no doubt agree, when we came back to model trains we came to Hornby, starting with the basics, a train set and some track! Then, as we progress, if Hornby do not have what we want or do not have stock, we then start looking elsewhere. They are missing out.

 

[dynax]

the problem is trying to run before they can walk, intoducing a few new items at a time rather than going ahead with a complete new range would be the most appropriate way, the way i would do it would be to have a poll, have a list of 10 items that are in the pipeline for being produced, and then produce top five, then once those are in production have another poll with some new items, and with the study data you will see a picture of what will be desirable in the future, so come on Hornby produce what we want not what you think we want, hope i'm not being too harsh,

[Yelrow]

PJ, new layout, re wiring signals. Are you bored. Have you thought how you will raise/ lower yet. Happy new year. At least you still have your locos in RM. john

[PJ_model_trains]

Hello John. Happy New Year.

 

As you know my wife, even with help from a friend is struggling to cope lifting my layout when we have visitors, I am not happy seeing her do it and knowing how she struggles yet, does it because I can't. How much longer I don't know but it is not good and not fair on her.

 

Pulleys from the ceiling is a no no. The room is nicely decorated and the ceiling papered and emulsioned so we do not want to damage it. My wife would not be happy with my our daughter and one of the grandchildren sleeping under it, it would also mean changes to the lighting. So I have been thinking, I am not designing and my wife is saying something like... 'What more money'. I am deaf, even more so when she makes such comments.

 

So, what I have come up with, presently running a feasibility, it a hinged layout, set of front bedroom wall 6". Looking towards the front window I would have 5' by 2' to my left, sidings and fiddle yard. 4' x 4' to my right, triple loop. and 3' by 2' 6'' in front. All bolted together to make one piece and hinged on the 6'' offset, so it will raise partly over the window when up but will be easier to lift and easier to work underneath.

 

At present I am trying to get a reverse loop coming out of the loop to my right but also have all the cross overs and turn outs I need to run about 7 sidings and have them go into any other on return. Very tight with express points but I am nearer today than yesterday.

 

All signals and decoders, speed limit signs etc will go on the new layout (if I do it). There will still be room for some of my houses, lighting, street lighting and cars and even a fishing lake ;~D

 

It will not be a round and round layout and should be better than an East to West layout as it has a loop and will double back on itself. It will be bigger also so that suits me. I cannot talk sums with the wife or it will be a definate no no, I still have to get it past her accepting it covering the window partly when in the up position, buut there are blinds and curtains so I don't see a problem. But I wouldn't would I  ;o)  Time will tell, meanwhile back to my feasibility to make such a layout work as I would want.

 

Your wife was very kind giving you her computer John.

 

[Yelrow]

PJ everything comes with a price. Look at my downsizing post, under other topics. I had a hinged layout, in kidderminster, its fine, if you dont have to raise/ lower it, cos if you do, everything has to come off each time, and it becomes a pain. My parents had a drop down bed, which hinged to the wall, taking up, little space and had a counterweight so weighed nothing to raise and lower. How often is your spare room occupied. If it is only say 40 days a year, a bed like my parents, would be a perfect solution, meaning your layout could be up for most of the year. My parents had their bed in our lounge, so the room doubled up for joint use. I am very against spare bedrooms that look pretty , but are rarely used. We have 2, at the moment, but in my case, with the Table tennis room, they are not an issue. My friend in the states has his layout hinged to the wall, in a box, say 6x3x 1 foot, also on counter weight. Just drops it when he wants to play. I think you should look to think outside the box. john

[NormanQ4]

I'm also in the process of planning to rebuild my layout with the help of SCARM.

For those who don’t know, one of the features of this program is the large selection of points / diamonds from many manufacturers.

I think I'll probably use Peco electrofrog large radius SL-E88 and SL-E89 together with electrofrog diamond SL-E94.

As far as I can see these are the best match although they don't match exactly.

The points are 258mm long and have an angle of 12° while the diamond crossing is 249 or 251mm long depending on which page on their web site you look at .

As near as I can calculate on SCARM, I will need to cut a piece of flexitrack approx. 74mm long to join the points and diamond to maintain 67mm centre to centre spacing between the tracks.

Also since I plan to link two up tracks and two down tracks I will need to cut a piece of flexitrack approx. 65mm long to join the straight ahead end of the points to the other leg of the diamond.

This isn't ideal but at the moment is much better than anything Hornby has to offer.

If anyone has a better idea I would be happy to hear from them.

[PJ_model_trains]

@yelrow

 

The trains are in the small bedroom John. 10' x 9'6'' with wardrobes on one wall so space is very limited, hence the reason the layout was built over a 3' divan bed. The divan is a dual, with pull out base and second mattress which makes two 3' wide beds so there is only just enough room for the layout to stand up at one end. My daughter and grand daughter go in that room whilst grandson goes on an airbed in the dinning room. Easy to lift through the day.

 

The bed was new when we moved in as was a lounge suite in the lounge so there is no way we would change these they are two and a half years old. I have to be careful due to mobility issues keeping areas clear where I can hobble around. I will keep at it, still playing around with track design and seeing if new option is feasible.  ;o)

 

[PJ_model_trains]

 @NormanQ4

 

Hi Norman, good luck with your new layout ;o)

 

It is good to put everything we have learnt into a new project, hopefully the good gets better ;o)

 

At present I am designing with Hornby Track Designer but also have SCARM. Due to issues mentioned above SCARM will no doubt be my next step I think.

 

[LCDR]

 Hornby has a problem, they make a magnificent range of locomotives and carriages, and a few good wagons too, but the track system hasn't really changed in decades, but has, by default,also become to be the standard for all train set based model railways. Peco, and Bachmann both make compatible track pieces using identical geometry under the generic title of 'Set-track'.  (Historical note, - the geometry is identical to that introduced by Tri-ang for Super 4 in the 1960s).

 

On the other hand Peco has been making track for a long time too. Their 'Streamline' track is aimed at the more advanced modelling market where scale appearance matters.  The points come in three radii, Small 2' 0", Medium 3' 0", and large 5' 0". There are matching diamond crossings with angles that match the angle of the turn-outs.  However they do not make straight or curves (other than the aformentioned 'Set-track') but sell plain rails in yard lengths that you cut to length and bend to desired radius yourself. The Peco product will join to Hornby, Peco or Bachmann Set-track'.

 

So you have a choice, stick to train-set compatible Set-Track, and follow layout designs limited by the clever but simple Geometry, or start to design it yourself which will require some cutting and bending.

 

With an existing market leader of OO scale track already established I don't think it would be worth Hornby's time and cost to try and develop a whole system to replace the tried and tested Set-track / System 6 geometry.  So I don't think we need an express diamond crossing, because it would duplicate and be less useful than a Peco Medium radius point and crossing combination.

 

However there is still scope to develop the Hornby system further.  Some while ago the need for a diamond crossing  which has a straight leg and a curved leg was discussed on this forum. That would allow a double junction to be made which fits inside a third radius oval, however it needs to be in 3rd radius, and some third radius points would also needed. So that is left and right hand third Radius points, and left and right handed diamond crossings on the curve to match required.

 

Another potential space saver would be a scissors crossover. There are Japanese verions about but not 100% compatible with Set-track geometry. So there are five possible additions to the Hornby track range that should be possible.

 

And what about single and double slips? Well the Peco versions are fine, but I don't think that they would work that well on Second radius, however might be worth a try in third radius if Hornby bit the bullet on that one. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[PJ_model_trains]

Thank you LC&DR a great reply as always

 

Peco I think will be where I look next.

 

I find the curved points frustrating, they are very good and space saving, but they only make curved points to join neatly work with two radius. This is where I use flexi track to try keep bends running as neatly as possible.

 

[2e0dtoeric]

Diamond crossing with a curved leg - that was me!

I was referring to the 'express' range of points, but a grammatic slip-up caused me to type 'standard' when I was referring to the radii. I meant, of course, the 'express' range, and I amended that a few posts later. I think it was in the 'suggestions' thread.

[LCDR]

Diamond crossing with a curved leg - that was me!

I was referring to the 'express' range of points, but a grammatic slip-up caused me to type 'standard' when I was referring to the radii. I meant, of course, the 'express' range, and I amended that a few posts later. I think it was in the 'suggestions' thread.

Yes it was,I remember it well,  but my point was that it isn't practical within the existing geometry to adapt the concept of a double junction to Express points, which are not actually made to fit into any of the currently available curved radii (except, a huge circle 1.7 metres (5 feet 7 inches) diameter  using 31 x R628 pieces) but if it was made with new third radius points you could insert a double junction into the standard geometry on a curve  no greater than 1010mm  (3 feet 4 inches) diameter without the subsequent need for non-standard track pieces, flexible track  or excessive use of short straights to link it up.  The 'Y'; point and express point introduces certain limitations on what you can do with standard components. The turnout angle of standard points is 22.5 degrees of arc, but that of the express point is half that.

 

Express points allow crossovers  maintaining 67mm centres

[2e0dtoeric]

I can't argue with you - all my trackwork except the points IS flexi!

[LCDR]

 I have just posted a diagram in the Wish List forum showing what I think WOULD work for 3rd Radius. I have had to conceed that it would probably need a new short 3rd radius curve to make it fit, and still permit the point to be used for 67mm interval track in crossovers.  When it is moderrated and displayed I would like to know if anyone could use such an arrangement.

[Western Fan]

It is easy to forget that model railways turnouts are one of the great compromises that make our hobby possible. The PECO large radius points are, I think, at 5 foot the biggest mass produced 00/H0 points by a big margin but are about the MINIMUM radius that a mainline steam engine could be persuaded to squeal around slowly and are far tighter than anything that would be encountered on the mainline.

The standard Hornby points allows us to represent quite sophisticated track work in impossibly small locations but they vie with couplings as the least realistic feature of mass produced models. It is getting hard to tell if a photograph shows a real engine or a model but mass produced turnouts are not convincing. Apart from anything else the gap between the stock rails and the blades is far too big. Rather than squeezing complex track work on a small board why not think about a very simple track layout? There is a lot of pleasure to be had in quite cross country lines.

[PJ_model_trains]

I agree with what you are saying WF but, trouble is so many of us are limited for space and try put into that space as much as we can. 

 

Having said that I find myself maybe in the middle of the road, my first layout, my current layout, 7' by 4'6'' over a single divan bed has a lot of standard points in the sidings in the middle (space issues). Due to my disability I having to rely on my wife and another person to lift the layout twice a year when we have visitors, or asking for it to be  lifted when I need to work on the underside. For me it is hard replying on others but worse when I see my wife struggling lifting it and putting it back down. This is brought me to a complete rethink and a complete new layout. Running on 3 walls, hinged on the longer wall. But, more importantly no small/tight/unrealistic points, only curved and express points. Hopefully with quiet, smooth changing point motors not click/click solenoid ones.

 

I guess many coming into model trains will experience similar problems, what can they get in the space they have, (hence the reason the standard tight points were made) , and after a period of time we learn and think... I wish I had done things a different way and avoided them or other issues.

 

[walkingthedog]

My layout is 8 X 8ft with lots of points and not a standard/set track one to be seen. 

[Western Fan]

It's not a falling out point PJ, I was just trying to put the problem in perspective. We all struggle with it. If you have got 50 years to spare, win the lottery and assemble a first rate team you can try to rival Pendon. Otherwise we have to compromise and as I have got older I have found simple models more satisfying.

The very well known track makers from Devon are not market leaders by accident and I am not sure that there would be much point in Hornby competing with them for more than basic track parts.

Enjoy your new railway and tell us how it progresses.

 

 

[PJ_model_trains]

It's not a falling out point PJ, I was just trying to put the problem in perspective. We all struggle with it. If you have got 50 years to spare, win the lottery and assemble a first rate team you can try to rival Pendon. Otherwise we have to compromise and as I have got older I have found simple models more satisfying.

The very well known track makers from Devon are not market leaders by accident and I am not sure that there would be much point in Hornby competing with them for more than basic track parts.

Enjoy your new railway and tell us how it progresses.

 

Hi WF no fall out and not meant in any way to sound as such.

 

I agree also with your comments regarding competing with the company in BEER.  ;o)

 

Making use of the space we have is so important, we would all love a Rod Stewart wallet, I mean space and layout. Compromise comes in many different options.   ;-)

 

Getting things past the wife or getting them to see things as we do is not always easy.

My situation is probably made worse because the room I have for my trains WAS her craft room!

 

[PJ_model_trains]

My layout is 8 X 8ft with lots of points and not a standard/set track one to be seen. 

 

I saw asome of your pictures WTD

Very nice and very impressive.   ;o)

 

[Tony57]

 Hi

Having read LC's interesting coment, in view Hornby does a 4th radius is there not a need for a 4th radius point and diamond crossover as I can think of several senarios where such size curves would be needed?