Bachmann FT-A and F9-A

[ABC]

Incidentally, these are not completely interchangeable as far as shells go without doing the slightest bit of work. I have since learned that the F9s only have two screws that fasten the loco to the shell whereas the FTs have 4 screws that fasten to the loco. Well my FT was DCC and I decided to switch it with my F9, so I had to cut out the two extra ones in order for the FT shell to go on top of the F9 loco and then I had two screws that I no longer needed. Just for future reference if you ever are considering switching an F9 shell with an FT shell now you'll know to remove the two extras screw mountings first.

[riff99]

Not sure if this question is similar to what was written prior, but would anyone know if you can exchange a DCC GP 40 shell with a DC GP 40 shell?  I can't seem to find a specific DCC engine I want for my son, but we did find a DC version of it.  We have a similar DCC GP 40 but in colors he doesn't like as much.  If I purchase this other DC, can I just swap the shells?

Thanks for any reply.

[jward]

i would think that the wheelbase of the ft would be shorter than the f9.

as for interchangeability of gp40 shells, i'd say yes they will swap. i'd also bet that the gp50 and possibly gp38-2 shells would fit.

gp30 and gp35 shells are also interchangeable.....

[riff99]

I had hoped so...excellent add-on info as well.

Thank You, jward

[ABC]

i would think that the wheelbase of the ft would be shorter than the f9.

That's what you would think, but there is hardly a difference, you can't really notice it in HO scale unless you were explicitly looking for it.

[Jim Banner]

I agree with ABC that the error is barely noticeable, even if you are looking for it.  If memory serves, the FT wheel base is 8 ft. compared to the F7/F9 9 ft.  And the truck centres are slightly closer together as well.  Some years ago I upgraded some old Tenshodo brass FT's and F3's with Athearn F7 super powered chassis (the ones with the weights.)  They out pull everything else on the layout.  I had to limit them to a maximum of two in a consist because they visibly bend one of the long, high bridges.  Most of the guys like to run these locomotives because they are real power houses and not one has ever complained or even commented on the slight errors.

Jim 

[wjstix]

The FT was very different from all the later F series (F2-F3-F7-F9). The body sat differently on the chassis, the rear truck was very close to the end of the body while the front truck was set in similar to later versions. This is particularly noticeable on B units, where there is a long overhang on one end. On later F units, the trucks were spaced out evenly so they were the same distance from the front or the rear of the engine.

http://research.nprha.org/diesel%20diagrams/emd%20ft%205400a-5410d.jpg

[jward]

there were actually two versions of the ft-b. those intended for a-b sets had the overhang at the end where the coupler was. the other end and the rear end of the ft-a were designed to be drawbar connected  and run as a single locomotive rather than the later practice of having couplers on both ends of each individual unit, and mixing them with other locomotives. the a-b sets were intended to be a single 2700hp locomotive, two a-b sets could be combined a-b-b-a to make a 5400hp locomotive.

the other version of the ft-b was designed to be run ias the middle unit in a-b-a-sets, with drawbar connections at both ends. railfans refer to this one as  the ft-sb, or "short" b unit. it lacks the overhang on both ends, and is noticeably shorter than the standard ft-b. i don't think anybody has ever done this one except in brass.

not all ft sets were drawbar connected, emd made modifications to the fts to allow couplers in place of the drawbars, but many of the drawbar connected fts ran that way until retirement.