I am starting to install track for the roundhouse/garden tracks coming off the Walthers HO scale 130ft turntable. When I previously installed the 3 turntable inbound/outbound tracks I had noticed that the height of the turntable "code 83" track was noticeably lower than the Atlas code 83 and Micro Engineering code 83 track I have been using. I need to resolve this before I can make any progress. I tested with some surplus Peco code 75 track that I had from the prior layout and while it's still a little bit higher than the turntable "code 83", rolling stock seems to roll across fairly smoothly (compared to the giant bumps/hops trying to traverse the code 83 track on/off the turntable 'code 83' track.Have other people experienced this issue? How have other people resolved this issue the Walthers HO scale 130ft turntable?Is it feasible to replace the track on the turntable with code 100?Thanks.Atlas code 83 flex "head" end of the turntable (which is what I would prefer to use because I have enough track in stock) .Atlas code 83 flex "tail" end of the turntable. You can see both ends of the turntable track are equally low.Micro Engineering code 83 is even slightly worse than the Atlas code 83.Peco Code 75 ( I have ten pieces of this, but I would need another 10 pieces).
Modeling an HO gauge freelance version of the Union Pacific Oregon Short Line and the Utah Railway around 1957 in a world where Pirates from the Great Salt Lake founded Ogden, UT.
- Photo album of layout construction -
I have the 110' turntable and had the same height issues, however, my approach tracks are code 100 so it surprises me to see you having the same issue with code 83 and the 130' table. In my case, I noticed the last few ties of the approach tracks were actually raised up off the table by the rails resting on the lip of the turntable. To solve it, I carefully ground the bottom flange off the rails where they rested on the turntable pit lip until the tops sat evenly with the bridge tracks. Works like a charm.
Mike
I had the same issue but not to your degree. Fix was to use styrene shims, can be cut out of sheet goods and gotten in most every height. Just cut and tested, then caulked them in place when I caulked the turntable in.
rrebell I had the same issue but not to your degree. Fix was to use styrene shims, can be cut out of sheet goods and gotten in most every height. Just cut and tested, then caulked them in place when I caulked the turntable in.
Water Level Route I have the 110' turntable and had the same height issues, however, my approach tracks are code 100 so it surprises me to see you having the same issue with code 83 and the 130' table. In my case, I noticed the last few ties of the approach tracks were actually raised up off the table by the rails resting on the lip of the turntable. To solve it, I carefully ground the bottom flange off the rails where they rested on the turntable pit lip until the tops sat evenly with the bridge tracks. Works like a charm.
Thanks for the reply/info.
My approach track ties seem to be touching the homasote base. I could grind the bottom flange of all the approach tracks, but that seems rather tedious (20 approach tracks).
Check the height of the ties on your various flex track types. I know Atlas makes their so the different codes comes out to about the same height IIRC. Not sure about the others. I use all ME Code 70 and still needed to make various adjustments. But you do want thetracks to either be exact or lower than what's on the TT bridge, as you can shim up easily enough, but shimming down just doesn't work.
Aren't turntables fun?
Mike Lehman
Urbana, IL
Onewolf: I don't know the first thing about turntables, but as I look at your photos, it seems to me that the whole table is low.The one I attempted build years ago had a block of metal through which the axis ran while the turntable rested on the block. The table spun on that axis. But to reduce friction there was a washer between the block and the turntable. If there is a similiar arrngement in your TT, perhaps a thicker or additional washer would raise the whole turntable evenly?
P.S. Love that roundhouse!
Old Fat Robert
Just a thought, from what I've read on other forums and threads, you might have to use Walthers code 83 track as approach tracks.
From profile pictures I've seen, the Walthers track has a thinner tie profile than others.
But then again, your track rest right on lip, as it says to do in the instructions.
I probably would do what Mel suggest, get ahold of Walthers and see whats up.
Mike.
EDIT: I have to agree, your round house looks great!
My You Tube
Thanks for all the replies/opinions. I don't think the problem/solution is related to the height of ties on the approach tracks because the bare track is resting on the lip of the turntable so it cannot 'get lower' without using shorter code track.
It almost seems like the turntable bridge is too low but it's not as simple as raising the center of the bridge because the outside ends of the bridge have gears/rollers that support the bridge (seemingly too low).
The simplest (in theory, ha!) solution would be to replace the code 83 bridge track with code 100 track. But I'm not sure how easy that would be to implement without risking damage to the bridge.
I have a friend that had a similar issue. I can't remember what brand the approach track was but we dressed it down with a file and that made the bump only noticeable to those of us that knew there was a problem in the first place.
Brent
"All of the world's problems are the result of the difference between how we think and how the world works."
BATMAN I have a friend that had a similar issue. I can't remember what brand the approach track was but we dressed it down with a file and that made the bump only noticeable to those of us that knew there was a problem in the first place.
Onewolf BATMAN I have a friend that had a similar issue. I can't remember what brand the approach track was but we dressed it down with a file and that made the bump only noticeable to those of us that knew there was a problem in the first place. I just spent a few minutes with a Dremel and I faired down the last 1/2" of one of the code 83 approach tracks and I also created the Walthers recommended 3/16" tapers on the inside of the tracks. Rolling a box car across the transition is much smoother now (small bump), but the real test will be once I power the approach track and run some steam locos to see how smoothly/reliably they cross the bridge 'threshold'.
It was the smaller loco's that still had a (barely) noticeable bump going over 4-4-0s & 2-6-0s, The larger ones went over smoothly. Good luck.
I have a CMR turntable purchased off Ebay. The PO had a similar problem, looking at the instructions I do not know why, but the bridge sat low in the pit. He shimmed the base of the bogie wheel mounts and that brought the rails up enough.
I have not installed it yet so there maybe other surprises in store for me.
Henry
COB Potomac & Northern
Shenandoah Valley
I seem to recall, perhaps mistakenly, that the bridge rails are code 70..........?
I have a Code 100 lead to the pit's apron. Obviously there's a height disparity. My cure was to remove three or four ties at the end of the lead, use a thin stone on a Dremel and grind two parallel grooves in the apron's plastic, and then lay the rails in the grooves. That took care of the problem..................for me.
I have the 130 foot TT and have noticed the same issue. Not really tested yet, but I am becoming concerned. It looks to me that the bridge is about Code 70 size rail.
One issue that anyone using the current 130' TT should be aware of is that the board in the 130' TT bridge is defective, at least in a number of them. It looses it's place while rotating. It thinks it's where it isn't. Turns out the software in the bridge defaults to the 90' TT which is the issue. Trying to reset the software (or is it firmware) to the correct choice for the 130' won't work. It won't give you the correct choice.
Walther's discovered it in late 2017 and is planning on sending out new boards by early April.
If you have a turntable that looses it's place upon rotating, and you can't do the reset and select the correct software as explained in the directions, contact Walther's technical. They're trying to get the word out as much as possible. They gave me the choice of sending the TT in for them to change the board, or sending me the board so I can change it. I'm doing the latter.
Also, the Advanced Control Module is also defective on certain functions. Needs a firmware revision. They did mine and now it works perfect. The problem with mine had to do with running relays for stall power application.
I'm thinking the 130' TT is a real winner once the bridge bug is fixed, but we'll see. I like the rotation and accuracy in finding the stall. I think though that we're going to have to figure out this rail height issue.
selector I seem to recall, perhaps mistakenly, that the bridge rails are code 70..........? I have a Code 100 lead to the pit's apron. Obviously there's a height disparity. My cure was to remove three or four ties at the end of the lead, use a thin stone on a Dremel and grind two parallel grooves in the apron's plastic, and then lay the rails in the grooves. That took care of the problem..................for me
I have a Code 100 lead to the pit's apron. Obviously there's a height disparity. My cure was to remove three or four ties at the end of the lead, use a thin stone on a Dremel and grind two parallel grooves in the apron's plastic, and then lay the rails in the grooves. That took care of the problem..................for me
The Walthers documentation indicates the bridge rail is code 83. I measured with my digital micrometer and confirmed it's code 83. It seems like the bridge just sits a little low in the pit to line up properly with code 83 approach tracks.
I took another look at my rail height and it appears the approach rail is about 1/2 a rail height too high for the bridge.
Mel: I would assume many of those hits were the old turntables which were apparently total dogs. I'm not minimizing the current issues, however, as there have been too many that should have been caught in pre-production. I am happy to say they've been pretty good about straightening out the two I have encountered (not including the rail height issue).
Onewolf selector I seem to recall, perhaps mistakenly, that the bridge rails are code 70..........? I have a Code 100 lead to the pit's apron. Obviously there's a height disparity. My cure was to remove three or four ties at the end of the lead, use a thin stone on a Dremel and grind two parallel grooves in the apron's plastic, and then lay the rails in the grooves. That took care of the problem..................for me The Walthers documentation indicates the bridge rail is code 83. I measured with my digital micrometer and confirmed it's code 83. It seems like the bridge just sits a little low in the pit to line up properly with code 83 approach tracks.
This was my problem with the first digital and 'indexed' built-up Walthers ever introduced, the 2006 90' model. Mine always worked rather well, with a few indexing hiccups that went away, but the rail height disparity was only a problem insofar as I only had Code 100 on hand to fashion the lead. I no longer recall if the bridge rails were also a little shy of level with the lip, but they may have been. As I related earlier, by grinding two parallel grooves, each about 1 mm deep, into the flat plastic apron, or lip, I was able to get a good match. Good enough, anyway.
One tip for newer users of the Walthers built-up/digital turntables I can pass on: don't assume that, because you keep the pit free of bits of dust, dander, pet hairs, and the odd bit of migrating ground foam by covering it and/or vacuuming regularly, you can enjoy trouble-free use for a few years. I had occasion to take apart my drive mechanism at the end of the bridge to inspect the inner works after less than a year and found it surprisingly gritty and dirty in there. I had to clean all sorts of stuff out, and I vacuumed it quite regularly. Be warned.
Mark P.
Website: http://www.thecbandqinwyoming.comVideos: https://www.youtube.com/user/mabrunton
Onewolf I am starting to install track for the roundhouse/garden tracks coming off the Walthers HO scale 130ft turntable. When I previously installed the 3 turntable inbound/outbound tracks I had noticed that the height of the turntable "code 83" track was noticeably lower than the Atlas code 83 and Micro Engineering code 83 track I have been using. Have other people experienced this issue? How have other people resolved this issue the Walthers HO scale 130ft turntable?Is it feasible to replace the track on the turntable with code 100?
I am starting to install track for the roundhouse/garden tracks coming off the Walthers HO scale 130ft turntable. When I previously installed the 3 turntable inbound/outbound tracks I had noticed that the height of the turntable "code 83" track was noticeably lower than the Atlas code 83 and Micro Engineering code 83 track I have been using.
Have other people experienced this issue? How have other people resolved this issue the Walthers HO scale 130ft turntable?Is it feasible to replace the track on the turntable with code 100?
I would call Walthers for advice.
It should be possible to replace the bridge rails with Code 100 rail if need be.
Rich
Alton Junction
I'm inclined to believe a washer/spacer is missing from the rotation shaft, like some others have suggested. I have the original DC version...mine has a nylon spacer/washer.
Take Care!
Frank
I lifted my bridge off to check the support. It appears that the center shaft does not provide any support at all. It appears the bridge rides on the wheels under the bridge ends. Apparently the wheels carry the entire weight of the bridge.
The center has about a 1 inch wide hollow bearing protrusion from the base and the wiper surface pokes down through the 1" hollow protrusion. That's what keeps the bridge in place on the pan.
It's actually a pretty nice system. It just needs a little more rail height.
I spent two years trying to get one of these things to work correctly and reliably......all to no avail. Ripped TT and all supporting bench work out, never to return again. It lives in original shipping container under the layout....a waste of $250. I had only one lead track and that was a Walthers Code 100 to 83 transitional piece. The 10 other tracks where ME code 83. I did not have the problem you do. I agree with others, that something is missing from the bridge for the height to be so far off. I have read many posts about this piece of junk and this product has really turned me against buying anything Walthers. Was given 7 of their SD70ace locomotives and had to repair everyone of them out of the box. To summarize.....contact Walthers and demand a replacement......that TT is defective.
I have the DCC 130 from a few years ago. I just rebuilt my roundhouse/turntable area. The original install I used Shinohara track, the ties are thinner and everything lines up fine. The new install uses Atlas code 83 and I had the same problem your first photo shows—but in my case it turns out the rails were not actually laying on the lip of the turntable, it just looked like they were. I shimmed The turntable with some styrene under the lip (.040, I think), and though there is still a slight difference, all locos crawl on and off just fine. BTW, I think filing those angles in the track ends is more important to smooth crossing than perfect rail height.
I have notified my tech contact at Walthers of this issue and linked them to this thread. My experience so far with Walthers has been that they are anxious to solve any problems that exist with the TT.
EMDSD40 I spent two years trying to get one of these things to work correctly and reliably......all to no avail. Ripped TT and all supporting bench work out, never to return again. It lives in original shipping container under the layout....a waste of $250. I had only one lead track and that was a Walthers Code 100 to 83 transitional piece. The 10 other tracks where ME code 83. I did not have the problem you do. I agree with others, that something is missing from the bridge for the height to be so far off. I have read many posts about this piece of junk and this product has really turned me against buying anything Walthers. Was given 7 of their SD70ace locomotives and had to repair everyone of them out of the box. To summarize.....contact Walthers and demand a replacement......that TT is defective.
Same for the seven SD70ace locomotives, all of which you had to repair "out of the box". While I find that hard to believe, that all seven were faulty, I can accept your assertion that they all were faulty. If these locos were all NIB, you should have contacted Walthers.
For the record, I purchased and installed a Walthers DCC 90' turntable and it's been working well for the last 12 months. The installation and programming are a bit tricky, but it is a complex thing after all. The only issue I had was that the printed instructions were missing 4 pages (inner leaf) . Thank god for PDF instructions made available online. Took me a few weeks to figure out why the instructions were so bad.
In your case, if rail height is the only issue, I would say that's not bad and probably an easy fix through shims, grinding or changing rail type. I would certainly adapt the rails and not fiddle with the table itself.
And compliments for the roundhouse... Good luck!
Simon
As I see it at this point, there are only two practical solutions, both of which have been suggested, and both of which require the lead to have at least two, maybe three, ties removed so that the rails will lie flat on top of the concrete lip of the pit:
File or grind two parallel grooves deep enough so that the lead's rails meet the bridge rails at grade; or
Lift the entire pit via shim stock under the lip of the pit...except I don't see how you can get a rail height disparity nullified because the lead's ends lying on the pit's lip will be lifted commensurately...ergo, no change. You'd be further ahead to simply change to Code 70 for the lead.