Dan,
if going in the direction indicated by your red arrow, the middlerail needs to be the left rail of the smaller spoor. (not the right one)
like in the pic from Hollywood above.
Korm Kormsen said:
Dan,
if going in the direction indicated by your red arrow, the middlerail needs to be the left rail of the smaller spoor. (not the right one)
like in the pic from Hollywood above.
Devon
I believe the following diagram is what you are looking for. The only difference is that the third rail is not needed on the left past where its point is since it is not dual gauge in past there. Branching of the smaller gauge when the third rail is on the side you are branching is much more difficult then branching when the third rail is on the oppisite side. I just completed my third Dual gauge turnout. They are not hard to build but very time consuming because of all the frogs toads and guardrails needed.
Stan
Dan, you only missed it by ‘this much’ …
I’m surprised I got that close, Bob (https://www.largescalecentral.com/externals/tinymce/plugins/emoticons/img/smiley-laughing.gif)
I was about to point out that a check rail was all that is needed to force the 2’ gauge to turn left, but Bob beat me to it. And he pointed to the other check rails that all crossings need.
While Stan’s dual-gauge switch will also do the job, it is overkill as there is no 2’ on the straight past the escape. [That’s its offical name - an ‘escape’ where the dual gauge splits and the 2’ escapes to the left.]
I attached a couple of pics of the dual gauge. The first is where the D&RGW narrow crosses from one side to the other on a wye (think about it,) and it clearly showes how you force the narrow gauge to go where you want it with a check rail. The other is a multi-gauge switch with all sorts of shenanigans, but it will show you where check rails are needed. Finally, an “escape” that I built for Clem’s Warrior Run layout where he had a standard gauge spur and we wanted to have dual gauge on it. Again, it shows the check rails necessary.
Pete,
looking at the last pic:
why are the two short checkrails around the frog necessary?
are not the longer checkrails on the outer sides of straight and of escape enough for the job?
Wow …you guys need a hobby or just start building stuff instead of dwelling over it !
I agree with you rooster and I’m the one who started it. It went way deeper than I wanted/needed/expected.
I have abandon the entire idea after looking at my layout and pondering plan B. I like using my other spur for the dual gauge intertie and building a new bridge that has a double track. One 45mm and one 32mm. Easier, meets the need, and has more visual interest
Korm Kormsen said:
Pete,
looking at the last pic:
why are the two short checkrails around the frog necessary?
are not the longer checkrails on the outer sides of straight and of escape enough for the job?
They are primarily there to guide the wheels arriving from one of the tracks on the right. If they weren’t there, the wheels could (theoretically) bump into the point rails near the frog.
Devon Sinsley said:
I agree with you rooster and I’m the one who started it. It went way deeper than I wanted/needed/expected.
I have abandon the entire idea after looking at my layout and pondering plan B.
So, after all that, we’ll have to wait another 5 years before you come back and ask again? (http://www.largescalecentral.com/externals/tinymce/plugins/emoticons/img/smiley-cool.gif)
Actually, the first page of answers had no pics - you know what they say . . .
Pete Thornton said:
Devon Sinsley said:
I agree with you rooster and I’m the one who started it. It went way deeper than I wanted/needed/expected.
I have abandon the entire idea after looking at my layout and pondering plan B.
So, after all that, we’ll have to wait another 5 years before you come back and ask again? (http://www.largescalecentral.com/externals/tinymce/plugins/emoticons/img/smiley-cool.gif)
Actually, the first page of answers had no pics - you know what they say . . .
I make no guarantees about anything. What this thread did was make me reexamine what I am trying to do and I was making it more difficult than it needed to be. But that’s why I ask these questions so that others can brain storm with me. I do understand why we went where we did because you are correct i did not add a picture which would have helped save a lot of unnecessary explanations. This is my way of thinking out loud. It usually ends with the answers i need. Now getting the gumption to implement them. . . well you all did not invent the term Devoning without reason. Its the reason I renamed my fictional railroad the Procrastination, Day Dreams, & Unfinished Projects Railway Co. I have more ideas and schemes than time, money, and energy. Maybe we can look at it this way. A lot of what I do is theoretical modeling, or imagineering. I get much enjoyment pondering this stuff even if its ever only an idea or a dream. And maybe just maybe it will go to completion.
Bob Cope said:
Dan, you only missed it by ‘this much’ …
And not that it matters anymore since I have gone another direction. But for those still pondering this. . .Dan the idea I had is that the 2 foot would NEVER go the way of the red arrow and the 3 foot would NEVER take the left (as seen from this view) turn. This was going to be where they diverged.
This was going to be where they diverged.
Escaped!
Pete Thornton said:
This was going to be where they diverged.
Escaped!
that too
Devon Sinsley said:
Pete Thornton said:
Devon Sinsley said:
… I have more ideas and schemes than time, money, and energy. Maybe we can look at it this way. A lot of what I do is theoretical modeling, or imagineering. I get much enjoyment pondering this stuff even if its ever only an idea or a dream. And maybe just maybe it will go to completion.
I resemble this remark (https://www.largescalecentral.com/externals/tinymce/plugins/emoticons/img/smiley-laughing.gif)