Turntable extensions

I have read a little bit about the extension as per the PRR one.    From what I read, they drainded the water weigh down in the tender to reduce weight.     And they did not run the loco over those ramps.

They would/could have tracks going off the TT onto a running track in either dirction.    It would not have to be a full 180 degrees.     There is one like this at the German Steam loco museum near Kulmbach.    In that case it is to save space, not get more length.    The table is level, but it only rotates about 220 degrees.    The pivot is offset, not in the center and one side of the pit is much shorter to center than the other.   There are not ramps but it works the same way.

@Richie C. posted:

I did not select the Forum on which the original topic was posted and suspect it was posted in error.

Nope. You have apparently confused the topic "What size turntable did you decide for your layout" which has been running on the "3-Rail Traditional Toy Trains" Forum, with the "Turntable extensions" topic, first posted about 2 1/2 years ago, here on the "Real Trains" Forum.

The original post referenced a model train "layout" - a term not generally associated with a "Real Train".

Yes, and THAT topic was, and is still on the "3-Rail Traditional Toy Trains" Forum.

The original post also referenced a 22" turntable, which is probably too short for a "Real Train". It also requested information or pictures of real train situations that would help the poster find a solution for extending the turntable on his model layout.

All THAT was over on the "3-Rail Toy Trains" Forum!

Finally, it was you who posted, "Except,,,,,,,,,,as soon as a locomotive moved onto the turntable track, that one inch of rail would break right off, since it would be unsupported by the turntable bridge structure"  to which I was simply responding and offering a potential solution.

Except THAT was on the incorrect thread!

So, please tell me, what does your comment about  "one inch of rail" have to do with real trains ?

Maybe try reading and comprehension.

@Hot Water posted:

 

I did not select the Forum on which the original topic was posted and suspect it was posted in error.

Nope. You have apparently confused the topic "What size turntable did you decide for your layout" which has been running on the "3-Rail Traditional Toy Trains" Forum, with the "Turntable extensions" topic, first posted about 2 1/2 years ago, here on the "Real Trains" Forum.

Nope - the only one confused is you. My response was to your post on the thread, so if I posted it incorrectly, then you did first.

The original post referenced a model train "layout" - a term not generally associated with a "Real Train".

Yes, and THAT topic was, and is still on the "3-Rail Traditional Toy Trains" Forum.

And that was the topic in which I responded to your previous post which, apparently, you do not comprehend.

The original post also referenced a 22" turntable, which is probably too short for a "Real Train". It also requested information or pictures of real train situations that would help the poster find a solution for extending the turntable on his model layout.

All THAT was over on the "3-Rail Toy Trains" Forum!

Finally, it was you who posted, "Except,,,,,,,,,,as soon as a locomotive moved onto the turntable track, that one inch of rail would break right off, since it would be unsupported by the turntable bridge structure"  to which I was simply responding and offering a potential solution.

Except THAT was on the incorrect thread!

Well, if it was, then you posted incorrectly and should be chastising yourself - all I did was respond to yours.

So, please tell me, what does your comment about  "one inch of rail" have to do with real trains ?

Maybe try reading and comprehension.

I did and it sure is in short supply with some posters in this thread.

Ritchie, I selected the forum to ask the question, and I correctly selected Real Trains because I was looking for something which might have been done on real railroads.  And the query did unearth some real railroad responses. The reference to a layout was to provide a frame of reference, to impart to readers the reason for my question.  I have a feeling that I am not the only person who looks to prototypes for ideas.

The responses here seem to be the focus on prototypical application. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but was this inquiry about prototypical practice that can be possibly applied reliably to a modeling application. I get it that in the real world, some railroads did apply ingenuity to there specific needs. I'm more interested in how we can reliably apply similar ingenuity on a modeling level. One TT that comes to mind that seems to be easy to install, is reliable, fun to operate but just a tad short, is the Atlas O 24" TT. At a price in the range of $300.00, that's a bang for the buck that's tough to beat. If it were 1" or 2" longer it would open up quite a few more possibilities.

@RJR posted:

Ritchie, I selected the forum to ask the question, and I correctly selected Real Trains because I was looking for something which might have been done on real railroads.  And the query did unearth some real railroad responses. The reference to a layout was to provide a frame of reference, to impart to readers the reason for my question.  I have a feeling that I am not the only person who looks to prototypes for ideas.

Correct and I have zero problem with that, RJR - it's certainly an acceptable way to do it and I found it interesting to read and many of the responses enlightening. But somehow, the discussion got turned back to a model railroad setting through someone else's post (not mine) and I simply responded a few posts down.

My personal opinion is that rules are rules, but sometimes we get too hung up on the technicalities of whether someone is posting on the wrong forum or not, rather than focus on the issue being raised by the poster, i.e., elevating form over function.

That's a discussion for another day, but if someone inadvertently posts a response in the wrong place or goes off-topic (and if I did, then mea culpa) , then there's a polite and courteous way of pointing that out to the offending poster by simply stating something like, "I think you posted on the wrong forum, it belongs in the _________ forum" or "Let's keep the posts relevant to the original topic/forum" , rather than blasting the poster with a discourteous post with capital letters and repetitive punctuation marks.

At any rate, I'm out of this thread.

Here are some answers to questions on the strength of the 1 inch section.

The one inch of track rail would most likely support only one wheel of coal tender 4 or 6 wheel truck or the "none engine weight supporting" front wheels of a steam locomotive.  There would only be 1 inch of unsupported track and most truck and wheels load is supported on more than that length.

Also a 2 inch length of finish nails (with head cut off) could be inserted in the the two outside rails that expend out 1" to strengthen the rails.  Many two inch finish nails will fit tightly inside 027 track but other sizes may be needed for O gauge track.  Coat hanger wire could be used but finish nails are stronger.

Charlie

I'm out of the thread also.  It produced several answers, and eventually I solved my problem by extending the Gargraves track on the TT 1" past the TT on each end. Thanks for all the Real Trains info.

Well, l got my question, (which possibly was posted on the "tinplate" forum), asking about a 180° TT, answered by the Deutscher Kulmbach posting above, over and beyond those other extension efforts . " There is a prototype for everything" (almost).  Would like to see photos, or better, plans, of that.  Which has me visualizing half a turntable , saving space and accessible, at the edge of the layout where l can use the "big hook" (my hand) to fish locos out of the pit, or hand operate an Armstrong TT.

This has not been done...in some model magazine, scale, sometime, somewhere?

One of the old posters was Wyhog.