Could back-to-back turnouts cause a problem?

[mmagliaro]

As the subject asks, is there any problem with having two turnouts like this?


They are #7. The frogs are live.   They branch off just to two short sidings that will serve industries.
I don't see how this could cause any reliability or derailment issues, but I thought I'd ask.

I should mention that it would probably be rare for a train to have to back out of one siding, through both turnouts
and up onto the other siding, but if it did, it would be pushing 1 or 2 cars at most.  These are small industry sidings, not
long storage tracks.

Would there be any benefit from a short stretch of straight track between them, instead of putting them
dead back-to-back?

Thanks.

[Chris333]

I've done it before without problem. Maybe run a feeder to the upper most rail.

[eric220]

I sincerely hope not...

[bdennis]

Wont be an issue even with #5 Atlas Code 55 turnouts.. Can push 20+ cars through that sort of arrangement even with #5's and truck mounted MT's

[randgust]

I can think of some longer-wheelbase steam that would probably revolt if it had to go from diverging side to diverging side, mostly because the angle of attack on the point may be high enough to allow climbing.  That doesn't sound like your situation though.

You will have to do the power feed in from the point area between the two.

[ednadolski]

As the subject asks, is there any problem with having two turnouts like this?

I don't see much problem with that.  I would be wary if one of the turnouts were flipped to diverge toward the opposite side of the main track, as that could create a troublesome S-curve situation.

Ed

[MichaelWinicki]

I've got the exact same track configuration... 2 #7's, back to back, but instead of two industrial sidings I have two passing sidings– one on a curve no less! 

And no issues.  Run C630's, SD45's and have even run an 2-8-8-2 through them with no problems.

And to make it worse, I have a #5, butting into the 2 #7's, so it's a #5, #7, #7 in an unbroken string... And no issues with the #5 either.

[mmagliaro]

Thanks all.  That's about what I thought.
By the way, for the record, when we talk about troublesome or long-wheelbase steam,
articulateds don't usually count.  A 2-8-8-2 has two pivoting engine trucks, each of which
has small drivers (like a Mikado).  Those things can negotiate curves more easily than
a 4-coupled, large-drivered, rigid-frame steam engine like a 4-8-4.  If these were #5's, I would be worried
about shoving a 4-8-4 from one diverging route to the other.   But not with #7's.
And besides, I don't expect to be using a 4-8-4 for switching duties on two little industrial sidings!

Thanks again.  I wanted to confirm my observation of the situation before I plunked in that second turnout.

[nstars]

Thanks all.  That's about what I thought.
By the way, for the record, when we talk about troublesome or long-wheelbase steam,
articulateds don't usually count.  A 2-8-8-2 has two pivoting engine trucks, each of which
has small drivers (like a Mikado).  Those things can negotiate curves more easily than
a 4-coupled, large-drivered, rigid-frame steam engine like a 4-8-4.  If these were #5's, I would be worried
about shoving a 4-8-4 from one diverging route to the other.   But not with #7's.
And besides, I don't expect to be using a 4-8-4 for switching duties on two little industrial sidings!

Thanks again.  I wanted to confirm my observation of the situation before I plunked in that second turnout.

Your proposal with a left and right hand turnout should not pose a big problem. A situation with 2 right or left hand turnouts could indeed be a problem for long-wheelbased steamers, but also for f.i. MT heavyweights coupled together. The body mounted coupler may create a problem.

Marc

[rschaffter]

I sincerely hope not...

That arrangement makes a good case for making double-slip switches available...   

[nstars]

That arrangement makes a good case for making double-slip switches available...   

I agree. Unfortunately, the only reliable double slip I know is the Peco code 55. All the other commercial available double slips are not very good. Perhaps the Fasttrack Jig is an option if you like building turnouts yourself.

Marc

[ednadolski]

Looks to me like the tracks marked with the 'X' are redundant.   If you eliminate them, you could also eliminate four turnouts.

This presumes that the point-to-point turnouts aren't close enough to each other to cause operational issues, but if that is so then you have bigger issues

Ed

[CBQ Fan]

Looks to me like the tracks marked with the 'X' are redundant.   If you eliminate them, you could also eliminate four turnouts.

This presumes that the point-to-point turnouts aren't close enough to each other to cause operational issues, but if that is so then you have bigger issues

Ed

I think the tracks are set up that way for a passenger station.  It allows trains to go from one lead to the other side of the station.

[Cajonpassfan]

I think the tracks are set up that way for a passenger station.  It allows trains to go from one lead to the other side of the station.

And allow for simultaneous movements, something high density passenger stations require. I love it, and it's the redundancies that make it work! Of course I'd like it even better with slip switches....
OttoK.

[peteski]

And allow for simultaneous movements, something high density passenger stations require. I love it, and it's the redundancies that make it work! Of course I'd like it even better with slip switches....
OttoK.

I asked Eric few weeks back why no double-slips. He decided against them for several reasons (in another thread).