code 70 #6 diamonds-who makes them??

[electrical whiz kid]

I have a situation that will need a #6 crossover that matches up with a Shinohara code 70 double-slip, and do not seem to find it.  The closest thing I have found is a Peco #6 diamond that is code 83; it looks just great and would match up to a tee, butthe rail height is off way too much and would cause problems that I do not want.  The short crossovers are incompatible.  I have looked on a lot of sites, and I come up with nothing.  would appreciate  knowledgeable answers.

[Len]

Are you looking for a crossover, e.g., move from one track to a parallel track, or a crossing where one track crosses the other, but there's no way to move from one to the other??

If it's the crossover, the Shinohara 669-312 Code 70 Double Crossover from Walthers is about it, unless you want to build your own. There are several kits available from various suppliers for single and double crossovers using code 70 rails.

If you need a crossing, what angle in degrees are you looking for?

Len

[Doneldon]

whiz-

Do you need a crossing or a crossover? They are not the same. People on this board aren't unreasonable about terminology (well, there are a few who will have a conniption if you use "switch" for "turnout"), but you do need to be clear in order to get good answers. However, that's not the case here because your solution may be the same regardless of what track component you need.

Solder the top of your Code 83 rail joiner to the bottom of your Code 70 rail and then slide it onto the Code 83 rail. The height of the rail joiner and solder will bring the top of the Code 70 rail up even with the top of the Code 83 rail.
                                                                                                                                                           -- D

[J3a-614]

Whiz Kid, you specifically mention a "diamond," which to me means you want a crossing.  

It sounds like you want double track level junction, in which a switch has its diverging or "curved" route cross a parallel track, much like what the double slip does but without the double-slip's route changing ability (and its complications).  This combination is possible with Atlas No. 4 (really a No. 4 1/2) switch and the same firm's 12 1/2 degree crossing.

My guess is that you want is something like this:

http://www.f-lohmueller.de/rails/track_geo/im/Geo_SwitchB_Level_Junction_00.jpg

Your problem is, you want this with a No. 6 turnout, which is going to make for a pretty shallow angle at the crossing itself.  This can be a problem with both model and prototype, as you can have a long stretch in the crossing frogs in which both wheels on an axle might be in the centers of both frogs, with the possibility that a pair of wheels can go down the wrong route (recall that in most crossing angles, only one wheel is in a frog at a time, and it is guided by the opposite wheel, which has its flange between a running rail and a guardrail).  The real roads get around things like this with movable point frogs in such a situation, but I don't think you want that complication, which as far as I know isn't even made commercially.  In fact, most real double slips have movable point frogs in their centers for this same reason (which means two more switch motors!), rather than the "K-frogs" that are common in models.  At the same time, those longish crossings and double slips are offered commercially, so maybe the manufacturers know more about the geometry than I do. . .

Full-sized double slip; note how the center of the switch has those movable point frogs, not the rigid cast K-frog common in models:

http://acm.jhu.edu/~sthurmovik/Railpics/03-07-11_NYCS_BRONX_TRIP/ZOO-Berry-Treck-K-Ladder.jpg

Another example, in this case at Viaduct Junction in Cumberland, Md., on the former B&O; the route straight ahead is to Sand Patch, Pittsburgh, and Chicago, the route diverging to the left is to Keyser, 17-mile grade, Grafton, and at one time to St. Louis.  Amtrak's Capitol Limited rolls through this daily, along with CSX freights:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/jonroma/910666202/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/jonroma/910667736/

Be sure and check the other photos in that set; there is some fascinating detail in them of this mechanical interlocking that is sadly no more, but was around until fairly recent years.  Such details, such as the pipe line control rods, rollers for same, bell cranks, locks, and so forth, were once common at junctions.

Rapid transit and some commuter roads often use a fair amount of "special work," due to a combination of heavy traffic and and sometimes cramped locations.

http://sturmovikdragon.livejournal.com/44143.html

Still, you want something for this situation, so let's see what we can find (although I'll admit there is a possibility you've already found this).

First thing is the layout of Peco's "No. 6" crossing.  One of the nice things I see about Peco is that they have available a full-sized drawing template for some of the track components; printing at 100% will give you an accurate, full-sized drawing of the piece.

"No. 6" crossing:

http://www.peco-uk.com/imageselector/Files/Track-templates/c83/SL-8364.pdf

No. 6 turnouts:

http://www.peco-uk.com/imageselector/Files/Track-templates/c83/SL-8361%20&%20SL-8362.pdf

This still leaves you with the same problem of rail height difference, of course, so you may want to look at Doneldon's suggestion about how to match up rail heights.

Alternately, you could look at having custom components made.  Below is one site that offers such work, but be forewarned, it may not be too cheap, and you still have to spike the thing down on wooden ties (which doesn't look to be too onerous, based on how the components come to you):

http://www.railwayeng.com/

http://www.railwayeng.com/turnouts.htm

Alternately, it might be possible to combine the above custom trackwork with modified Central Valley tie strips, which would give you at least most of that spike and plate detail we like to see:

http://www.cvmw.com/index.htm

http://www.cvmw.com/cvt.htm

http://www.cvmw.com/turnouts.htm

At this point, this is the best I can find; I hope it is of some help.

I am a little curious about what you're building.  Code 70 in HO is a relatively light rail section, representing 100-pound rail.  Such rail sizes are fairly common on branch lines today, but you're working with a double-slip switch in that size, and those would normally be used in something like a cramped station throat in a city of some size.  That combination suggests a main line railroad set between--1900 and 1920?

That would certainly be a different railroad from what most people do today!

Addendum:  Did some checking in regard to trigonometry, and (re)discovered that our frog numbers--No. 4, No. 6, and so on--are tangent values for angles; they are the ratio of how far you have to go forward along the tangent or straight side of our turnout in whatever measurement units you're using--which could be inches, millimeters, feet, or any other arbitrary unit--to reach a point where the diverging side is one measurement unit away.  In the case of a No. 6 turnout, this means that at a point 6 units (feet, inches, whatever) beyond the point of the frog where the rails cross, the diverging rail is now one unit away--a ratio of 1 to 6.  This goes for No 4s (diverging 1 unit sideways against 4 units of measurement along the straight route), or No. 8s (diverging 1 unit sideways against 8 units of measurement along the straight route).  

I had to use an on-line calculator to come up with the angle, and it works out to 9.46 degrees for a No. 6 frog; that would be the angle of your diamond crossing, and of the double slip as well through its straight routes.  

Now, how accurate are our commercial components?  

[rogertra]

A diamond is two tracks crossing each other in the shape of an X.

A crossover is used on parallel tracks to cross from one track to another.

Assuming right hand running this is a facing crossover: -

_________________<
>________/________

While this is a trailing crossover: -
__________________<
>________\_________

While this is a double junction: -

                /    /
________/__/_____<
>_________/______

The double junction is made up of two switches and one diamond.

Excuse the awful ASCII "art".

What are you looking for?

[electrical whiz kid]

Hi, Roger;
You pretty much nailed it.   I have a Shinohara #6 double slip; and want to use a #6 diamond to get across a main line to an inside or passing siding-whatever you choose to call it-the double slip will be mounted into the inside (siding line, allowing a line from another area to get accross to the siding, being able to switch into a small yard, or to switch onto the siding line.  The siding will converge into the main line some distance from either end of this location.  It obviously is critical that the tangent between the slip and the diamond be consistent, with no cotangents to factor in, which would lead to a rather poor construction of track-I will not invest that kind of money into a disaster!
In my investigation, the closest thing I have found, is a Peco #6 code 83.  I am not above incorporating code 83 with code 70, but if I don't have to, then I would muchly rather not. The rather "LONG" angle to be had using these components will not create a spacial problem for me.   
Thank you for the help; and a very happy father's day!
Rich

[rogertra]

Rich.

I just did a little searching on Google for a 9 degree diamond crossing (No.6) and it looks like Peco, as you've found out,  is the only one that makes such a beast and that's only available in code 83.

That's probably because double junctions are very common in the UK due to the extensive use of double track mainlines.   There used to be four double junctions within a couple of mile radius of my UK home, Farlington Triangle (Wye) was double track and thus used three double junctions and my local station, Havant, also had a double junction where the London line branched from the Brighton line.  As most of North America is single track, I guess no North American focused track maker would make a 9 degree (No. 6) diamond.  :-(

[jward]

double track junctions are common here in the states as well, but most use crossovers rather than crossings. crossovers allow much more flexibility. most north american railroads prefer to have a way for a train on any track to access any other track. bi-directional signalling is the rule here, even on multi track lines.  the uk, in contrast, seems to only provide access for routes normally used in their junctions. non standard routings, such as running wrong main, seem to be rare. here in the us we run wrong main all the time. an example i see often is amtrak or a mail train to get around a coal train climbing the 1% grade by my house. the coal train got a run for the hill because it didn't have to wait at the bottom for the mail train to pass. and the mail train doesn't have to get stuck behind a heavy train climbing the hill, only to be further delayed by the stop at the top while the coal train drops its helpers.

[electrical whiz kid]

Roger and Jeff;
I also, have not seen-at least in the Northeast-aq maqinline that wasn't at least double-tracked.  In Southern New England, the New Haven had double track from Providence to New haven, and a four-track run-the viaduct-to GCT in New York City.
In the lesser populated areas, single track may be expedident; I only am familiar with here.  It looks like I will have to build a diamond-I will sort of use the double slip as a template for doing so.
Again, thanks for the help.
RIch

[jward]

if you are going to try to handlay a crossing, take a look at this site:

http://www.troutcreekeng.com/bkho.html

they offer pre-built frogs and crossing kits. being a person who handlays my track, i can tell you building a crossing without a jig is not for the faint of heart. and jigs are very expensive. they only pay for themselves if you build alot of pieces with the jig.

another option is to use templates printed out from this site:

http://www.handlaidtrack.com

remember also that all rail crossings require special wiring, and probably an autoreverser (i hope you're using dcc.)  good luck.

[rogertra]

Rich.

As people have pointed out, even in the Northest, where double/multiple track is more common it seems that double junctions are still rare as they prefer what is called a single lead or ladder junction, depending on how it's laid out.  i.e. A series of crossovers giving access to all tracks.

Best of luck with your diamond.

[electrical whiz kid]

Thank you Roger;
You are quite correct; the New Haven had laid out their viaduct trackwork in such a way that one train could cross over to the adjacent trck to facilitate track maintenence, etc, and as such, had what I would consider to be a control device nightmare!  Considering the potential for accidents like the "Jenkins Curve" pileup in 1955; which although was caused by the engineer having a heart attack, would give me sleepless nights if I were involved in the wiring on the viaduct
Jeff:  I looked on the "fastracks" site and, although stubborn, I am not crazy.  I will have to think long and hard.  At this writging, it wold almost seem better to install two double-slip turnouts and call it a day; or even (gasp!) use peco's code 83 and somehow cobble it together.  I know enough bad words as it is...
Rich

[Len]

whiz-

Solder the top of your Code 83 rail joiner to the bottom of your Code 70 rail and then slide it onto the Code 83 rail. The height of the rail joiner and solder will bring the top of the Code 70 rail up even with the top of the Code 83 rail.
                                                                                                                                                     -- D

Like Don says, it's not that hard to transition between code 70 and code 83 rail using this trick. It also works for going from code 83 to code 100. Once the ballast is in place, the code 83 rail isn't all that noticable.

Len

[electrical whiz kid]

While browsing through Peco's selection of track, I found code 75 track, turnouts, ec; among which was just the diamond I was looking for, only it was .005" higher than my other rail (code 70).  I think, with a little finnageling, I can get these two differences to be pretty smooth.  Again, thanks all for your help.
Rich

[jward]

code 75 is a good compromise between 83 and 70. if your rail joiners are loose enough, you can align the tops and inside edges of the rails and solder the joint. that would make a smooth solid trainsition betwen the different sizes of rail.