Did Lionel make a Fastrak double crossover?

Never saw a factory model - but...

I made one - I cut the 45° cross roadbed to fit into the switch turnout without the small track piece. I then removed the x bar from under the crossover, isolating one line from the other - the result is 8.5" center rail to center rail which I adjusted for at the nearest curve of the double main to bring it back to the factory 6" center rail to center rail - filling in between the straights of the cross is 8" to 8 1/8" of pieces or a custom cut straight piece

Looks like a great job. Thanks

As Moonman stated, Lionel doesn’t make one. In their Track and Power catalogue, they show plans for, what they call, passing sidings in different size curves. Not as compact as the double crossover, but it basically accomplishes the same thing. I installed two on my layout...

Here is a link to the catalogue (check pg. 19):

http://catalogs.lionel.com/16tp/html5/

Would/could a Ross crossover be adapted for your layout or is it too wide/narrow to fit, or would the change from Fastrak to Ross a too "jarring" visual change?

You can buy Rossbed for the double crossover. Paint it gray to match the FasTrack and it should blend right in. You should be able to space your FasTrack to fit.

Yes, I plan to use a Ross double crossover. Hard to not like theirs.

actually planning Gargraves track and Ross switches and crossover.

I did some work exploring unconventional Double-Xover designs using O72 'Y's rather than conventional turnouts, a few years ago, and updated this morning.

If you like the curving idea, these designs save more than 10" in length, and can have center-rail distances as small as 4.9" (compared to 6").

And the "S" curve joining turnouts is less, with 12.5-degree curves through the 'Y's, rather than 22.5-degree curves through the O72 turnouts.

I like designs 'C' and 'F', these include broad O84 curved sections of 12.5-degrees, with no roadbed trimming required.

GVDobler posted:

Just wondering.

I thought I saw one and then never saw it again.

Not to my knowledge. 

George

One more design (G) with the O72 'Y's, about the same length as a conventional O72-turnout design (E): 

Moonman posted:

Never saw a factory model - but...

I made one - I cut the 45° cross roadbed to fit into the switch turnout without the small track piece. I then removed the x bar from under the crossover, isolating one line from the other - the result is 8.5" center rail to center rail which I adjusted for at the nearest curve of the double main to bring it back to the factory 6" center rail to center rail - filling in between the straights of the cross is 8" to 8 1/8" of pieces or a custom cut straight piece

 

Nice work Carl!  Most of the workarounds I've seen use more space than we have to spare.

here is one using (4) O-72 switches and filler pieces, the resulting parallel tracks will be about 10.3" center to center.

may require cutting roadbed.

A couple more designs with O72 'Y' tracks, 5.5" and 6" track centers, "H" and "I":  These are the most compact of these alternatives.

Positioning a double-crossover at the end/beginning where the track begins its loop, can save space and work well:  "K" has only one path through the design with a reverse curve:

Ken-Oscale posted:

A couple more designs with O72 'Y' tracks, 5.5" and 6" track centers, "H" and "I":  These are the most compact of these alternatives.

Wow, Ken... you seem to have an option for every situation. I used E, but if I had to do it again, I think I’d use the option just below G. Spreading out the crossing points is rather elegant and reduces congestion. Thanks for all the ideas.

What X did you use in H and I? 45 degree? Thank you for the ideas.

Apples55 posted:

Ken-Oscale posted:

A couple more designs with O72 'Y' tracks, 5.5" and 6" track centers, "H" and "I":  These are the most compact of these alternatives.

Wow, Ken... you seem to have an option for every situation. I used E, but if I had to do it again, I think I’d use the option just below G. Spreading out the crossing points is rather elegant and reduces congestion. Thanks for all the ideas.

Great work, Ken.  Lots of good ideas.

While double cross-overs look great and take less space, they have S-Turns that slow the train down or it might derail.  So I also like the unlabeled diagram under G because there are no S-Turns. 

Hi. Great post and some good ideas. Ken I have a question: using that unnamed option below G, if the inner loop had 060 curves and the outer had 072 would you be able to match the straights up or would they be off due to difference in curve. My inner loops is 060 and outer is 072 and I was going to use option E with a larger space between but if it’s doable to option below G that would be even better! Thanks!