9 volt battery?
in the tender?
that is the battery for the sound..

Are the wheels metal? If so, you have an older track-powered "Big Hauler"..
depending on its "generation" it could be worth $10 to $50 or so used..
but dont worry about "ruining" it..its not a valuable collectible!
paint it, modify it, do whatever you want to it..

see here for help in identifying the "generation" you have:

http://www.girr.org/girr/tips/tips1/big_hauler_tips.html

What does "DD" mean? 
no idea what you are saying there..

Scot

What are the upgrades?

It could certaintly be done! although in the end it might look a bit weird for 1/20.3 scale..
IMO the main problem is that a 2-8-8-2 is simply too large, and especially *long* for 3-foot gauge..
but if you happen to have an Aristo mallet and want to cut it up, then go for it!

The hardest part IMO is that the Aristo 1/29 scale 2-8-8-2 is a model of a locomotive that is SOOO very "Standard Gauge"! and it has so many standard gauge features..you have to change all these features.
To do this conversion, you would really need to remove and completely replace with new parts:

the cab
the running boards
the smoke stack
the domes
the headlight
the pilot
and I would also re-do the smokebox front..

just for kicks I worked up a very crude "photoshop kitbash"



Thats a rough estimation! im not even the sure the cab and other details are the exact "right size"..I just eyeballed it..

Converting the Aristo mallet to 1/20.3 scale would be MUCH easier than attempting to convert the Bachmann 2-6-6-2 to a 2-8-8-2..Starting with the Aristo engine, you dont need to modify the running gear, motors, or boiler at all..you are only changing details..but converting the Bachmann loco to a different driver set would be much more difficult IMO..

and yes, as Kevin said, there is no need to regauge anything..the 1/29 scale Aristo standard gauge mallet and the 1/20.3 scale 3-foot gauge conversion built from it run on the same track..running gear can remain completely unmodified, which is really the easiest way to handle a kitbash like this..change everything except the wheels!

Scot

Quote from: Loco Bill Canelos on July 26, 2011, 10:35:04 PM
All Bachmann 4-6-0 Big Hauler Locomotives made since 2000 have the version 5 chassis, and all Anniversary Edition 4-6-0 Locomotives have the version 5 Chassis.   Also all sets made from 2000 on have it as well.  If buying a set get one that is in the current catalog to be sure you are getting the latest version 5 chassis.  Annies are high end Big haulers with metal siderods, Metal handrails and piping and metal detail parts as oppose d to the plastic parts on the Big hauler version.

" Also all sets made from 2000 on have it as well."

Bill, are you sure that is true?
I think there were many sets made after 2000 that had the latest "non annie" version in them..
Christmas sets especially..

I recall several conversations over the past few years about Sam's clubs and Costco Christmas sets that did *not* have Annies in them..then it was a big deal around 2007 or 2008 when a Christmas set came out *with* an Annie in it..so im pretty sure that "Also all sets made from 2000 on have it as well." is not correct..
there were non-annies being made up to 2007 at least..

in fact, I think non-annie sets are *still* being made even now..
check Bachmann's own page:

http://www.bachmanntrains.com/home-usa/products.php?act=viewCat&catId=75

there are clearly some non-annies in there..

Scot

Here are the photos of the locomotive and cars in question..
photos are from Ed "Trainman2"..who agreed to let Bill forward them to me, so they could be posted!
thanks all..
Scot

Here are the photos of the locomotive and cars in question..
photos are from Ed "Trainman2"..who agreed to let Bill forward them to me, so they could be posted!
thanks all..
Scot

This might help with understanding all the scales too:



opps..the Bachmann forum resized it smaller..click here for the full-size version:
http://1stclass.mylargescale.com/scottychaos/Large-scale-scales2.gif


Scot

I dont think anyone has a C-415 in the works..
and when a Large Scale Alco Century is eventually offered, it would make NO sense whatsoever to make the first one a C-415..
the most obscure and ugliest, by far, of all the Century models:
http://www.rrpicturearchives.net/pictures%5C5233%5C2382.jpg

a classic C420, C424, C425, C628, etc, would make WAY more sense..
MUCH better looking than their unfortunate little sister..(the C415)

and when one is eventually offered, it wont be made by Bachmann..not their area of interest..so this thread makes no sense on many different levels..

I cant WAIT for an Alco Century to come out!  
been hoping for one for 10 years now..(as long as I have been in the hobby)
I will have to have about 6 of them..
Lehigh Valley Alco C420 set.
Lehigh Valley Alco C628 set.
Livonia Avon & Lakeville set.



Scot

Quote from: RGS Goose on March 29, 2011, 06:23:25 PM
Hi Guys,
I thought you might all have something better to do with your time than post what has been posted on this thread; like getting on with your model railroading. Everyone may have a different idea about how the different scales/gauges should be described, but at the end of the day what does it matter, and why should anyone be directed to follow the dictates of ANYONE else.
Leave it alone and get on with enjoying your railroading.
RGSGoose

I thought you might  have something better to do with your time than post about what has been posted on this thread; like getting on with your model railroading. 

reminds me of a Monty Python sketch, "I'd like to complain about people who hold things up by complaining about people who complain" 

Scot

There is actually a fairly random mix of inches and feet in common use:

On30 - inches
On2 - feet
On3 - feet
Gn15 - inches
HOn30 - inches
HOn3 - feet.
Sn3 - feet.

etc, etc..
What makes one the "best choice" over the other is probably just simplicity..
"Oh n two" is easier to say and spell than "Oh n twenty four"
likewise "Oh n thirty" makes much more sense than "Oh n two and one half"!

If there is some archaic rule that says "the designation must ALWAYS be only in feet" then its a stupid rule!
and the masses have long ago spoken to reject it, in the case of On30.

I would argue that On30 IS the official name for the scale, in the sense that nearly everyone accepts it, and the primary manufacturer of the scale (Bachmann) calls it On30..so thats that..its offically On30!
Its seriously WAYYY past due that Model Railroader magazine should give up the pointless and ridiculous On2 1/2.

Scot

Quote from: Royce Wilson on March 28, 2011, 05:04:36 PM
So if the whole world has changed from On21/2 to On30, then why do these two magazines do this? there has to be a motive.


Royce

IMO its probably just stubbornness..
they have been calling it On2 1/2 for so long, they simply have to keep calling it that just to "save face"..
if they started calling it On30, like the other 99.9% of the hobby, they would look like they "lost the argument" or something I guess..thats the only rational explanation I can think of..because otherwise it makes no sense whatsoever..

Scot

IMO, I dont think manufacturers should offer *anything* from famous model railroads..
because..who owns the G&D name?
even if its not "trademarked" or copyrighted in any way, how can we know John Allen would approve of his railroad's name being used on random rolling stock?
and since its impossible to get his permission, IMO, out of respect, it simply should not be done..

If an individual model railroader wanted to letter one boxcar for the G&D for his own railroad, because he is a huge G&D fan, thats not a big deal, and John Allen would probably feel honored..but to have a mass-produced G&D line..it just seems wrong to me..disrespectful.

Scot

Ok, here is a "photoshop kitbash" I did of the Indy a few years ago:



I just took a photo of the Indy, cut and paste bits and pieces in photoshop, to see how it might look as a forney..
as I said, it really makes an unrealistic, rather gangly and not terribly pleasing forney..
mainly because the drivers are FAR too large in proportion to the boiler..

the Indy *can* be  made into a decent forney, but it really needs a new drivetrain to look "natural"..
as-is, its not so good for a forney..

Scot

I converted an Indy into a Forney:



although I also regauged it, to 29n2 scale..(2 foot gauge in 1/29 scale)
and IMO its the regauged wheels that really go a long way to giving it the "Maine 2-foot forney look"..

but if the wheels had to kept "wide" out to 45mm, it would lose much of that "forney look"..
but still, I think the Indy could be converted into a somewhat decent forney..the extra-small boiler helps.
although I did do some "photoshop kitbashing" of the Indy into a Forney when I was messing around with the idea that eventually led to my model, and keeping the full-blown Indy running gear does result in a bit of an awkward forney, that doesnt really resemble anything from real-life forneydom..

(I will see if I can find my old photoshop 'bashes and post them here.)

the new Bachmann Fn3 SR&RL forney is about as good as its going to get IMO..
you cant make a better looking forney IMO! 
they took the classic Maine 2-footer and simply converted it to 3-foot gauge..which IMO worked great.
I plan to buy one someday and perhaps convert it to Fn2 (32mm)..
(if the price ever becomes remotely reasonable on them..  )

the full story that led to my Indy bash:
http://gold.mylargescale.com/Scottychaos/29n2/

I havent done anything new with 29n2 scale in awhile, but I do still plan to lay some
2-foot track alongside the 1/29 scale standard gauge track..eventually..
(my Garden railroad is just getting started)

Scot

UP power is VERY common on CSX trains here in Western NY!
some trains run all the way across the country and simply dont switch locomotives when they cross onto a new railroad..its just more efficient for everyone that way.
CSX would then owe UP "hours" for using their locomotives, and those hours could be repaid by CSX locos running on UP..

Scot