Kevin...  I don't know how to post pix direct here, but I post everything on the Ballard Southern web site:

http://www.dickwightman.com/railroad/2012bs/diesels/60ton/60ton.html

I did another one yesterday...  shortened a Baldwin S 12 and put it on an HO SW 9 chassis to get a nice looking little short generic switcher.

If you are not going to use the S line helper SW shell, I would love to get it from you.   You can email me direct at:  rwightman@mindspring.com

Dick

When last heard from, the Ballard Southern  had converted an American Flyer/Lionel Baldwin S 12 to On30 by mounting the shell on an HO SD chassis.   That was successful, so I went looking for an SW 1...   

"... contacted MTH to see if I could buy an S scale SW 1 shell as a part but they are not willing to sell an engine shell unless you can prove you actually bought an engine and can show the damage to the it that makes it require a new shell.  I think they're missing a little niche market opportunity there."

I was able to locate an SW 1 by S Helper Service.   I guess I wanted an SW 1 really badly, as I bought the unit new just to get the shell.   It turned out to not be much trouble to reduce the overall size by taking the shell off the chassis base, where most of the mass was.  The electronics were mounted in the shell rather than on the chassis, and they had to be removed, as did the casting of the engineer.  However, that left the shell fitting quite well on an HO SW 9 chassis.  I had to put an extended coupler on the front end and will have to add a new deck, but otherwise, I have a nice looking small narrow gauge SW.   Pix at:

http://www.dickwightman.com/railroad/2012bs/diesels/sw1/swconversion.html

That gives me a GE 44 ton, a Baldwin S 12 and now an SW type.  My very loosely placed "somewhere between post-war and 1970's" diesel based narrow gauge operation is getting in shape to roll.

The conversions have been fun, but, man, Bachmann, narrow gauge existed in this period.  Please consider giving us something nice to work with.  Can't be that hard to develop a nice modern looking diesel shell that's a drop fit to one of your HO chassis.

Dick Wightman - Ballard Southern RR

I have one of the Mount Blue kits.   Unfortunately, once I got it I realized it is way beyond my ability to complete... old eyes and shaky hands and scores of tiny wooden parts.      I plunged yesterday for another American Flyer S 12... the whole engine this time... which I'll try to convert.  this is an older version, not the later Lionel one.   We shall see.

I also contacted MTH to see if I could buy an S scale SW 1 shell as a part but they are not willing to sell an engine shell unless you can prove you actually bought an engine and can show the damage to the it that makes it require a new shell.  I think they're missing a little niche market opportunity there.

RRinMiami....   
thanks for the report on the Yoder... first "I actually have one" I have seen and helpful.   I haven't ruled it out, in spite of the price.    I'd love to talk with you about your O conversions.   Could you contact me at:   rwightman@mindspring.com     

Sure hope this doesn't show up twice.   I typed it in and hit preview and it disappeared  :^)

Steve

I was where you are re the Yoder loco... didn't like the idea of one powered bogie, plus I read that it shared with the real world standard gauge conversions that immediate impression of massiveness.   I figured that if I was going to accept that, I could do it for less expense.   My S scale Baldwin conversion cost me $60 for the shell plus a used HO loco on hand (figure $30/$40 at a meet if you had to go find one) plus a set of long shank couplers for $5.

I'm very pleased with it.  I ran some tests today.   I'm getting ready for the addition of an extension that wasn't planned for and the connection is going to require tightening my curve standard.   I set up a 15" radius and found that the Baldwin took it well, though I'll admit it looked a bit silly.   However, I won't have to go that tight.  I have a 26" standard on the existing layout and the connection is going to have to go to 22".

The extension will also involve a grade.  The Baldwin pulled 5 Bachmann reefers up a 4% and, I think, could have handled a couple more but that's as long a cut as my sidings can handle.

I was so satisfied with my Baldwin conversion I know I will be doing others, even though I really don't need any more motive power.

In my dream world, Bachmann would issue a copy of that last diesel from the Maine 2', plus a modest to medium line diesel from present day foreign design.  That would put us diesel fanatics solidly past WW II and even into our imagined present day narrow gauge.

Hi, Ruby...   Someone singing my song!   I enjoy what I refer to as the "Late Narrow Gauge Period", after  WW II and projecting into something close to the present.   Any NG lines operatiing into the 50's and 60's were using some kind of diesels, often standard gauge conversions.

I'm currently building my Ballard Southern:

http://www.dickwightman.com/railroad/modelrailroadindex.html

and I'm basing my motive power on converted larger gauge engines.   I have a O scale GE 44 tonner that is actually a model of the last engine of the Oahu Railway and Land Co.  and I just finished converting an S scale Baldwin S 12 to On30.    If you prowl around on the links at the above site, you will find coverage of how I did this.   Or, if you want to contact me direct:   rwightman@mindspring.com

My S scale conversion came out quite nicely and, as I commented at the end of the page I posted on it, "Sorry, Bachmann, you had your chance!"    Seriously, we need to keep nagging at Bachmann to provide a properly scaled On30 full service diesel.  Narrow gauge didn't begin and end with mining and logging and the narrow gauge diesel world does extend beyond "critters".

Dick Wightman

I'm sure it would take bigger curves than most of us build, but if someone offers it, I'm sure the curves will come. My layout is small, but I still built to 26" curves... just because they look better and my friend goes for steam.  I kind of wonder what curves it could actually be built to take, even though I'm not a steam fan.

One of the things I like about On30 is that is a railroad home for imagination.   I like to imagine that narrow gauge continued in big way right into modern times.   I liked the idea of a modern national narrow gauge network presented in the last On30 pub.   This is why I keep campaigning for modern diesels.  We can't move into modern times if we don't get some real diesels.  They don't have to be exact copies of standard gauge ones, but appropriate size and scale for serious 30" narrow gauge railroading.  On30 SW's and RS's would get us started off right!   

Good thread.   I love On30 specifically because I can imagineer it any way I want.  I like to think of it as an opportunity to project the "history" of narrow gauge into modern times.  I'm another who would really, really (repeat as necessary) love to see some non-critter diesels, nice production models of equivalents of the SW's and RS's.   Likewise a wider variety of cars representing service in a wider variety of industries.   I'm fortunate to be here in Seattle, so I'll be at the narrow gauge convention in Sept, looking hard for new On30 possibilities.

Dick Wightman
Ballard Southern

I just got to this one....   for what it's worth, I built my first On30 with old Atlas HO and didn't like it much.  Guess at the time I felt I should have been more "correct".   Built my second with the Pico On30, which was OK, (worked real well) but I felt it looked oversize.   I got out of railroad for awhile, but just jumped back in and am working on On30 #3.   I happened to have 22 Pico HO Insulfrogs and a full box of matching flex, so guess what got used.   My layout is all small local yard and laid flat (no roadbed) so after graveling and dirt I don't think the ties will matter.  Right now, sitting on top of a full cork surface, I'm finding that I rather like them because they take away some of the "My gosh, those cars are small..." factor.

Dick in Seattle
Ballard Southern

Hello,    I'm very glad I just stumbled onto this thread and am going to go back and study it harder.  My problem is the opposite.   I bought the Forney thinking to try the sound feature.   I run busy yard operations and after a session with the sound, I'm ready to shoot the blasted thing      I want to get in there and see about disconnecting it.

Sort of aside, but if I could I'd disconnect the entire DCC function, don't need, use or like it for my own operations, but all the Bachmann's come with it now.  Being a DC lover I'm feeling kind of like a salmon trying to swim upstream.

Dick in Seattle

Thanks, guys.    That's the info I needed, if not the answers I'd like to have gotten.   Ah, well.  Fortunately, from earlier adventures in On30 I have a number of non-DCC steamers.   My best runner is a Bachmann HO three truck Shay that was On30'ized, followed by an On30 Climax.   I also happen to very much like diesels and used to have a number of conversions on HO frames that ran well.  They got away during the 8 years I was out of railroading.  I'm sure I'll work up a couple more of those.

The Forney runs OK, just not as nicely as the others, takes a much touchier hand on the throttle, and yes, I understand that it will run better on DCC because it was designed to.  It has no real trouble on my track.  The layout is dead flat and I built with 26" curves and Pico mediums. 

My problem with DCC (as with much of modern life) is simply "why?".   If there are those who like it, fine, but why head an entire activity toward more complication and expense by essentially closing out the DC option.   It  makes it harder for us to get youngsters into it, and I fear the majority of us are getting rather long in the tooth.   I have had too many talks with young folks who take one look at an explanation of wiring issues and run screaming to become stamp collectors.   On the other hand, I can explain the wiring of a stub yard with power directing switches to an 8 year old and they get it.  The reaction is, "Hey, I can do that!"   Unfortunately, as I've gotten older, I need (or at least appreciate) the same simplicity as the 8 year old!

There's also the problem of being an engine collector... If I went DCC in HO I'd have to equip at least 40 engines!  Yikes!  I did order the 4-4-0 with DCC but not sound.  It will be interesting to compare it to the Forney.

Ah, well, life goes on and continues to change.   

Thanks again, and if anyone is in the Seattle area, get in touch and come on by, the coffee is always on.

Dick in Seattle
www.dickwightman.com

Hi, Dick in Seattle here with a first post.  Just found the forum.

I guess I am swimming upstream, but my new layout (just finished track and wiring) is DC.  I'm sure DCC is great in many situations, but for as simple a layout as I run it's way over complicated and expensive.  Layout is a 13' x 28"  point to point yard switching.  Wiring consists of making all the stub ends hot.  I have one DCC loco, the Forney.  The sound was amusing for about 20 minutes of a 1 hour intense operating session.   By 40 minutes, it's aggravating.  By the end of an hour, I'm ready to shoot the engine.   Aside from the sound, it does not run as well as my standard DC locos.  ( I have a monster big DC power supply, so it has plenty of power.)  I'll keep it to show off the layout, the sound is great for that, but I wouldn't want to buy another DCC.   

Thee related questions: 

1.  Can the sound be turned on and off within the engine?
2.  If you can disconnect the DCC, does this improve the DC performance?
3.  Is (was) the later model steel cab 4-4-0 loco available non-DCC equipped?

That's probably a lot for a first post, but it's what's bugging me at the moment.   

Dick