Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
October 31, 2020, 06:53:57 PM
Home Help Search Login Register
News: Please read the Forum Code of Conduct   >>Click Here <<
  Show Posts
Pages: 1 2 [3]
31  Discussion Boards / Large / Re: NEWBIE NEEDS INFO ON DIFFERENCE IN BACHMANN G SCALES on: May 15, 2009, 04:04:11 PM
The "1:20" box car you have is not 1:20, despite what it says on the box. Bachmann--at one point--even said it and its flat car and gondola companions (all in the 95### series) were erroneously labeled as such. For whatever reason, they've never clarified. Now, there may have been narrow gauge equipment that measured 20' long and under 6' wide, but there's no way, no how that box car is 1:20, unless it ran on the Wonderland & Seven Dwarves Western. Change the scale to 1:24, and you're closer to c. 1870s narrow gauge equipment coming from the prominent carbuilders of the day.

If what I remember is true, the boxcar was based on a Cairo and Kanawha RR  prototype which was smaller prototype equipment than the norm.  It was modelled to 1:22.5 scale but the fittings inc ladders were to 1:20.3.  It was produced at a time when Bachman was preparing to move into 1:20.3 and I cannot help feeling that bets were being hedged.  I have an idea that the boxcar (Cairo and Kanawha boxcar #5 ?) drawings were published in from Carsten's Slim Gauge Cars" .   

The new 1:20.3 boxcars are a detailed model of a more typical size car built to the correct scale gauge combination for portraying 3ft ga on 45mm track.  Yer pays yer money & makes yer choice.

Sam E
32  Discussion Boards / Large / Re: New style sets with Davenport 1:20.3 switcher hidden under the radar!! on: May 15, 2009, 03:50:11 PM
Are there drawings and photos of the actual Davenport from which the model was made?  It is a bit difficult to gauge size from the photos of the model.

Sam E
33  Discussion Boards / Large / Re: Mallet comments on: February 18, 2009, 10:41:19 AM

Technically Uintah #50 and #51 are not a mallet, they are just an articulated locomotive.  A mallet is a compound locomotive that uses steam twice, first in high pressure cylinders and then in lower pressure cylinders. Uintah #50 and #51 used high pressure steam in all four cylinders.  So, technically speaking, Baldwin did not build any 3-foot gauge mallets.

Technically Uintah #50 & #51are SEMI - articulateds.  The rear engine unit is rigid with the locomotive and only the front unit is articulated.  The LGB model and the B'mann Logging locos are modelled as fully articulated as they have to cope with far sharper curves than the real thing. 

Anatole Mallet devised his semi articulated system in pursuit of 4 cyl compounding so a simple semi articulated using Mallets design is not a full Mallet according to his patent.

The Uintah locos I believe were the first fully simple locomotives to use Mallet's semi articulation,  being precursors of the Big Boys and similar.  I suspect that the Uintah locos were so designed for the extra power required by their extreme work load.  The big standard gauge locos adopted the simple system because the compound LP cylinders had grown so large that they imposed speed restrictions on the locos that carried them.  In order to continue to apply semi articulation to very large locos AND keep up freight speeds  use of the simple system was the logical next step.

34  Discussion Boards / Large / Re: New Fn3 Davenport Switcher? on: July 10, 2008, 03:33:37 PM
And there is a prototype for this a per DRGW # 50?  Citation please?  Is at a catalog loco or did it actually exist?

Sam e
35  Discussion Boards / Large / Re: OK Bach'man, whats next??? on: April 22, 2008, 12:40:06 PM
C &S done to death by L*B & Aster.  How about W & W no4; still with us and rather pretty.
36  Discussion Boards / Large / Re: Bachmann Forney- Now is the time to strike Bachmann on: October 05, 2007, 08:26:42 AM
Fine as long as it is NOT  a 3' ga version of an SRRL loco.  IIRC there were some 3'forneys made - failing that there were some small Mason bogies running on the Martha's Vinyard RR or some more modern ones on the Boston Revere Beach and Lynn.

Sam E
37  Discussion Boards / Large / Re: Large Scale Locomotive suggestions. on: August 01, 2007, 01:32:56 PM
lrparks & others
jeese guys I certainly didn't mean to insult anyone or ruffle your feathers.
As I said before I have never modeled in G scale RR and after some of the nasty and mundane remarks  from some of you guys I don't think that I will continue  participating in a forum where new ideas seem to make certain people  threatened

This seems to relate to the thread " Topic: Question for Tony or anyone else on RCS"  on the Large Forum.  Mr Parks asked after RC systems & New G reckoned he was going to make a system which ran the onboard (RX) part  from track power.  As it happens Mr Parks was enquiring in the context of battery power; others did raise questions about the proposal New G had aired.  New G seems to be affronted that his Big Idea was not greeted with rapture.  IIRC something like his system has been proposed before but AFAIK it has never made it into commercial production, possibly because of the success of DCC?

Sam E
38  Discussion Boards / Large / Re: Large Scale Locomotive suggestions. on: July 03, 2007, 04:57:33 AM
Updated Centennials with steel cab, 'straight' stack. optional old/new domes supplied, optional oil/coal fittings for tender, extended smokebox, air brakes and 'modern' oil/electric lighting.  Many older smaller locos made it into 1930s with these upgrades.  I would put out the 2-6-0 version first as I suspect that these may have been in the majority to be upgraded in real life?Huh?
39  Discussion Boards / Large / Porter 0-4-0 Cabs on: July 03, 2007, 04:51:41 AM
Has anyone released a  replacement cab for the new 0-4-0 Saddle and side tank locos?  I am looking for a replacement in wood or 'steel' to the pattern of the cab on the first Large Scale Porter  side tank.


Sam in UK
40  Discussion Boards / Large / Re: Forney? on: May 18, 2007, 12:05:00 PM
I believe the Accu will be a DSSP & R  loco.  Bachmann could use a more modern BRB & LRly loco see:-

Or one of the smaller ones such as the ones that  went to the Nantucket RR or the Martha's Vinyard RR

Sam E
41  Discussion Boards / Large / Re: Forney? on: May 18, 2007, 08:40:55 AM
What would be more sensible would be to produce a Mason/Fairlie.  These look like a Forney with a tank/bunker behind the cab BUT their engine unit is prototypically swivelled.  A reasonable number were used on the 3', most famously on the DSP&PRR and the Boston Revere Beach and Lynn RR.

Many are of the same era as the Spectrum Centennial Baldwins and were highly decorated.  The later engines for the B L & RB were rather more 'modern' in appearance but still ran with clerestory stock


Sam E
42  Discussion Boards / Large / Re: new locomotives on: May 10, 2007, 08:05:03 AM
I think a vital point is being missed here.  A non X- fitted loco can be fitted whith WHATEVER system after market, that the purchaser desires.  It therefore is more flexible and one is not paying for what one does not want or need.

By all means offer an OEM fitted version at extra cost for those that want it but I would go for a non fited version so that I could tailor the add ons to my specific situation. 

Fitting passive sockets for systems, providing that they do not interfere with the running of the loco if not required is one thing but.....I f I gather correctly not all control/sound systema are compatible (ah  standardised sockets).  Some one will most likely have their nose put out of joint whatever is done.

Sam E   
43  Discussion Boards / Large / Re: Retro-fitting the 36 ton Shay on: February 04, 2007, 10:09:35 AM
TD171 are brass pilot foot board brackets.  I think Dave is referring to these.  You will need to provide a board in wood or metal.

Sam E
44  Discussion Boards / Large / Archive on: February 03, 2007, 07:09:09 AM
Are there any plans to archive the old board ?  Some of the stuff on it was very useful


Sam E Smiley
Pages: 1 2 [3]
Powered by SMF | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!