Eric220's Free-moN modules

[M.C. Fujiwara]

Whoa!
Not "pushing"!

Just saying that from a practical and useful Free-moN perspective, something like this:



would allow more options.

(yellow crossovers could be "farther down" on other sections of double track too).


But if you just want two railroads crossing with derails, then do two railroad crossings with derails.

The reality is that, until we get our "membership" up to more than a kindergarden classroom and more double-track modules, that a "crossing only" module will never have two railroads crossing it (unless we curve around and cross over it ourselves, hmmm...)
Whereas with turnouts / interchange it can be used as a wye and have traffic going all 4 directions depending on modules and setup space.

But there's nothing, nothing wrong with building it the way YOU want--perhaps it might encourage more double-track modules!
(and now that we have the correctly-spaced "official" double-track spacing jigs...) 

[35tac]

If I lived out there in SanFrancisco I would give up Free-mo HO and join MC and his buddies with Free-moN. They are just having to much fun.
Wayne
Western Reserve Free-mo
Medina, Ohio

[railnerd]

I'd ditch one of the red connections… the "fully connected" version is too much track for visual balance— keeping the tower is way more interesting visually.

-Dave

[C855B]

I'd ditch one of the red connections… the "fully connected" version is too much track for visual balance— keeping the tower is way more interesting visually.

My sentiments exactly. Here is a more prototypical crossing-with-interchange situation. Derails on the interchange track will typically be manual ramp types rather than the ultimate protection of split rails.

[M.C. Fujiwara]

I'd ditch one of the red connections… the "fully connected" version is too much track for visual balance— keeping the tower is way more interesting visually.

-Dave

Yes, and we've NEVER done anything that was non-prototypical, "fully connected" and symmetrical but useful:



 

The single track connection looks good and keeps the tower, but it's whatever Eric wants to rock.

I'm just mentally starting to plan out building the detachable wings (or perhaps making them permanent might be better) and looking forward to all the angled mitre saw cuts 

[railnerd]

My sentiments exactly. Here is a more prototypical crossing-with-interchange situation. Derails on the interchange track will typically be manual ramp types rather than the ultimate protection of split rails.

Love that idea, although I might suggest continuing the interchange track to an adjacent module.

-Dave

[eric220]

OK, I meant "pushing" in the nicest possible, positive reinforcement kind of way.  You bring up an interesting point about having an interchange on each side.  It does increase the operational possibilities.  That said, it strikes me as totally unprototypical.  Generally, you'd only need an interchange on one side.  Some time when I'm not running off to bed, I'll have to sketch out what I'm envisioning as a module setup for a live crossing.  For now, I go off to ponder the possibilities in dreamland.

[eric220]

Are there already 2 track to one track conversion modules out there in the SV Free-moN collective?

[M.C. Fujiwara]

Don't forget there's also "space" on the second 18"x4' module that will be flipped and sandwiched on top of this one with endplates.

Any interchange yard / extension can spill over onto that one.

[M.C. Fujiwara]

Are there already 2 track to one track conversion modules out there in the SV Free-moN collective?

Yes but they were made with the wrong spacing jig (too narrow) so "no."

[eric220]

OK, here are my thoughts as far as setup goes.  I think a lot of people are envisioning this:



In this configuration, the usefulness of MC's suggestion becomes clear.  With the crossover acting as a big double slip, trains could run over all four legs in a single "lap", making a nice, long run.  This design requires four turnarounds, or three if the staging yard is put at one end.

I had in mind something like this:



Other possible configurations include MC's "crossing over ourselves":



And two lines fed from a common staging yard:

[James Costello]

It does increase the operational possibilities.  That said, it strikes me as totally unprototypical.  Generally, you'd only need an interchange on one side. 

The SP / ATSF crossing at Colton, CA had interchanges both sides....

http://goo.gl/maps/soHov

[conrail98]

Eric, could you stick with a PRR theme and do, say, Alliance, Oh?


Source

or in later PRR/PC days with the yard:


Source

Just a thought but gives you a good idea on an in-railroad crossing,

Phil

[eric220]

The SP / ATSF crossing at Colton, CA had interchanges both sides....

http://goo.gl/maps/soHov

As with so many things, Ed's Law applies. In situations where there's a lot of traffic moving from one railroad to the other the double interchange tracks make sense. My impression is that those represent the vast minority of such crossings.  This arrangement doesn't allow any different movements than a single-sided interchange, it simply allows the movements to be made without backing. If the traffic density dictated that the increased efficiency of the extra trackage was worthwhile, it would be installed.

[eric220]

Phil - That's some awesome PRR style inspiration there. I don't think it translates very well to a single module, but there are elements from the second diagram there that I've been pondering.