I know, there have been a lot of discussions already on the new Walthers RTR turntables so I thought I would add one of my own. My observations are based on the 90' version but probably apply to both.
I had always thought (read) that the thickness of the lip of this turntable matched the thickness of the ties for Walthers/Shinohara track. I was therefore taken aback when I installed this turntable and then dropped a section of Walters (code 83) track on the rim (less ties of course) and found that the adjacent ties were up in the air.
Since this was such a departure to what I had been reading I pulled out my digital caliper and here is what I found:
Thickness of turntable lip plastic = 0.079Thickness of overall lip due to some amount of warp or angle from pit edge = 0.084
Thickness of Walthers code 83 ties = 0.059 - 0.062
Thickness of Atlas code 83 ties = 0.084 - 0.086
Thickness of Peco code 83 ties = 0.078 - 0.080
All measurements are averages of measurements taken in a number of locations.
SO...
Of course I don't know when my turntable was manufactured. Tooling may have changed over time. It was recently purchased but may have been old stock. I see what appear to be serial or run numbers on the packing box but they are probably meaningless.
At any case, I thought I would pass this along...for what its worth. Of course your mileage may differ.
-John
p.s. I have not worried about installing the bridge yet or checking rail heights between bridge and service tracks. That will come. Hopefully code 83 rail is still code 83 rail.
Thanks for the info! That was just what I needed. I ordered the 120´ version yesterday for my next layout and I'm still not 100% sure on what track to use. I've been wondering about the thickness of Peco track. You wouldn't happen to know the height of ME track or Fast track turnouts in comparison?
Magnus
Lillen wrote: You wouldn't happen to know the height of ME track or Fast track turnouts in comparison?Magnus
You wouldn't happen to know the height of ME track or Fast track turnouts in comparison?
I don't know about ME track but Fast Track specs say their ties (twist ties or individual) are 0.080 - essentially the same as Peco.
rustyrails wrote: Lillen wrote: You wouldn't happen to know the height of ME track or Fast track turnouts in comparison?MagnusI don't know about ME track but Fast Track specs say their ties (twist ties or individual) are 0.080 - essentially the same as Peco.-John
Thanks a lot! Why didn't I think of that. Or more correctly, I have checked it before and totally forgot about it. Thank you very much. This will help me decide between ME or Peco. I can get peco for 4$ a piece and ME for roughly 9$ plus shipping on both. Shipping feom the UK is cheaper to, decision time soon.
. . . . . or fill under the ties . . . . .
. . . . . only slight sanding would be required . . . . .
From the far, far reaches of the wild, wild west I am: rtpoteet
R. T. POTEET wrote:. . . . . . . . . . and your problem is?It seems safe to me that considering the measurements you describe that you are either going to have to fill or sand to get things to work.
No problem -- just reporting the facts.
Actually I am not going to do either. I am going to lower the turntable. A small amount of sanding of the layout base under the lip of the turntable will bring the lip down to match the Walthers/Shinohara track.
I have a lot of Walthers track left over from a previous layout that I plan to use in this area. Using Walthers track saves me a lot of ballast in an engine service are such as this where almost everything is buried in ballast and cinders.
0.020 difference in tie height X 980 square inches in the service/turntable/roundhouse area = 20 cubic inches of ballast saved.
Thanks,-John