Conrail Windsor St Yard (York PA) Engineering Report

[OldEastRR]

That's a beautiful crossover, and really prototypical. A lot of guys would have had the mains come out of the curve, then on the tangent use a S-crossover (I see that a lot), thus making a snaky course instead of one smooth curve for the crossing train.

[wm3798]

Ah yes...  There was such a crossover at North Junction that served that very purpose...  Glad you were able to work that out.

Lee

[Ed Kapuscinski]

Ah yes...  There was such a crossover at North Junction that served that very purpose...  Glad you were able to work that out.

Lee

Yep. I saw it on Facebook today, actually!

I'm quite pleased with the way the arrangement works out. Now to actually do the work...

[Ed Kapuscinski]

The old North Junction crossover has been recreated:
http://conrail1285.com/adding-a-crossover-to-cp-loucks/

Luckily, the curved turnout and #7 turnout fit like a glove.





This crossover gave me the ability to make two important moves: allowing southbound trains to enter the Yard without having to run wrong main all the way from Hanover Junction and allowing me to cross northbound trains over for backing into staging without having to run wrong main over 60% of the layout.

[davefoxx]

I like the crossover, but, ew, get rid of those plastic rail insulators that are causing kinks in both tracks to the right of the crossover.  Install metal rail joiners, solder the joints, and then go back in and cut gaps in a spot where the track won't kink.

DFF

[Philip H]

I like the crossover, but, ew, get rid of those plastic rail insulators that are causing kinks in both tracks to the right of the crossover.  Install metal rail joiners, solder the joints, and then go back in and cut gaps in a spot where the track won't kink.

DFF

What he said!

[C855B]

Wow. Tough crowd.

But I agree. Plastic joiners have their place, but stressed joints ain't one of 'em.

[wazzou]

It looks like a lot of the issue is the angle of the point end of that TO does not match the radius in the curve of the flextrack.
To me, it looks as though the route is headed more toward the outer main.

[Dave V]

What I'd do is use a half segment of sectional in a very broad radius (to simulate an easement curve) coming off those insulated joiners, then solder the flex to the end of the sectional.  That way you needn't move the location of the insulated gap but you have no kink either.

[Ed Kapuscinski]

Oh, I also forgot to mention, one of the things forcing that situation is that section of track is removable so I can work on the bridge itself and the scenery under it.

I agree though, I want to try and come up with a better solution.

In the meantime though... it's TORTOISE TIME! I picked up my six pack today, my extra throw wire came, and I grabbed some additional tubing to facilitate wire runs.

[seusscaboose]

That kink should work itself out after a season or so of run-in time 

[conrail98]

Get yourself a straight section of sectional track for there, like a 1/2", 3/4" or 1" and have the flex go into that instead of directly into the curved turnout. Solder the joiners from that short section to the flex track and use regular joiners for the turnout,

Phil

[VonRyan]

Oh, I also forgot to mention, one of the things forcing that situation is that section of track is removable so I can work on the bridge itself and the scenery under it.

I agree though, I want to try and come up with a better solution.

In the meantime though... it's TORTOISE TIME! I picked up my six pack today, my extra throw wire came, and I grabbed some additional tubing to facilitate wire runs.

If you intend to control your turnouts with DCC, you want DCC Concepts "Cobalt IP Digital" instead of those bulky Tortoises. I installed one on a module and the thing was as easy as pie to install and even easier to program.
DCC Concepts products are pretty dang awesome. Give 'em a try.

[Ed Kapuscinski]

If you intend to control your turnouts with DCC, you want DCC Concepts "Cobalt IP Digital" instead of those bulky Tortoises. I installed one on a module and the thing was as easy as pie to install and even easier to program.
DCC Concepts products are pretty dang awesome. Give 'em a try.

I had thought about doing something newer than Tortoises, but since the existing layout already uses them, I wanted to keep things uniform (it makes long-term support easier by meaning that I can keep a stock of replacements for when that critical one dies in the middle of an ops session).

DCC Concepts stuff does look awesome though.

[Philip H]

it makes long-term support easier by meaning that I can keep a stock of replacements for when that critical one dies in the middle of an ops session

Dude,
while my DMV operating chops were limited to John and Eric's masterpeices (once Lee's empire got parted out) I don't ever recall replacing a machine DURING an operating session.  Is this really the issue?

If the DCC Concepts stuff has similar hookups I"d be tempted to go with that, mostly because it's smaller and light weight . . .