Quote from: eddierools on June 28, 2007, 06:40:10 PM
Wait, i've been thinking.  Does anybody know where to get the Body Kit?  I've looked on Google, but with no luck.......

Salty is based on the British Railwailways 07 class shunter that operated at the Southamton docks. Siver Fox models make a resin kit of the 07. They have a website and it can be ordered from them. The 07 is listed under trams/shunters.  (Google Silver Fox Models).

You will need to provide your own face!

There is  also a metal kit for the 07 made by Craftsman Models, but the resin kit is probably the easier approach.

Have fun if you attempt the project!

Hamish

Quote from: jakuma on June 28, 2007, 02:29:19 AM

There is little, if any, 3ft track in Australia, but there has been and still is much 2ft 6inch track both on private now tourist railways and cane fields although the cane fields have converted to 2ft track. (All diesels on concrete ties)

Incidentally the most commmon 2ft 6 inch track locos used in Australian tourist railways are Baldwin 2-6-2 tankers cc 1902

The canefields railways in Queensland were always 2 foot  foot gauge, the only 30 inch gauge near the canefields I know of was the Buderim Tramway,  but that was a general purpose line, not a cane tramway.
2 foot gauge was probably the most common sub 42 inch gauge in Australia, due to the large number of cane lines, and also the Tasmanian mining tramways as well as others. 30 inch gauge was the next most common. The most well known 30 inch lines were the 4 (plus one horse drawn) Victorian Railways (VR) lines, one of which survives as the Puffing Billy Tourist Railway and part of another survives as the Wallahalla Goldfields railway  Baldwin 2-6-2ts were the most common VR 30 inch gauge loco, they also had a couple of Garratts.  There were other 30 inch gauge lines, these were mainly timber lines.

3 foot gauge existed, but was not common.  The Poweltown Tramway, a timber and common carrier line was possibly the best known. There were some industrial lines, e.g. steelworks.

42 inch gauge was adopted as the main gauge by some States and thus is not really narrow gauge in the Australian context, although in South Australia 42 inch was used as a secodary gauge (5 foot 3 inches was the main). Also some private 42 inch gauge industrial lines existed in the States where  standard (NSW) or 5 foot 3 inch  (Victoria, South Australia) was the main gauge. These could use second hand equipment from the 42 inch gauge States, and this may have contributed to 3 foot being rare in Australia.

On30 would mainly be used to depict 30 inch gauge lines in Australia, although it is sometimes used for 2 foot.

Hamish

Quote from: ebtnut on June 25, 2007, 04:20:05 PM
O scalers have had to live the too-wide gauge for about the last 80 years.  It was a compromise based on the toy train manufacturers who decided to make the gauge a nice round 1 1/4".  By the time the NMRA got into establishing standards in the 1930's that was what O gauge (not scale) was, and still is.   

Actually Royce was right. The gauge came first. O gauge is 32mm or 1 1/4 inch in the USA, Britain and Europe and, as far as I know, elsewhere. The scale varies. In the USA it is 1:48 , which makes 32mm too wide for standard gauge. In the UK O scale is 1:43.5 which makes 32mm too narrow for standard gauge. In parts of Europe 1:45 is used, which is about right. The difference in scales seems to be a result of ease of measurement, 1:48 being 1/4 of an inch to the foot which is why it was adopted by American (and only American) manufacturers. 1:43.5 is 7mm to the foot, a peculiar mix of measurement systems, but one used in the UK for modelling.  O gauge was used in europe prior to the USA settling on 1:48 as the scale.

However I agree that Royce was rivett counting in extreme to object to an American O scale Lincoln train on those grounds. In any case if Bachmann did a Lincoln train I would expect it to be HO and possibly N as well. I can't see them introducing an O scale standard (or 5 foot gauge) line just for the Lincoln train.

Hamish

Quote from: randerson on June 22, 2007, 06:06:32 PM
I thought Bachmann was going to announce new on30 in May?

Did I miss it?

Didn't happen?

Cheers,

Rich

I don't think that Bachmann ever promised new ON30 announcements in May. May was mentioned as announcements are now being made roughly each quarter, and thus, if there were to be some announcements, May was a likely time. Some Large Scale announcements were made, and there probably should have been an ON30 announcement, i.e. the pulpwood cars that have arrived in Britain but for some reason have not been officially announced. (The Bach Man has confirmed that they will be coming to the USA in summer).

Given that new  ON30 locos seem to turn up just before Christmas, under the new policy (3 to 6 months ahead)  an announcement of a loco would not be due for a little while yet, making the Narrow gauge convention a possibility.

This is at least how I see it, but who knows?

Hamish

The Bach Man has several times indicated that they are aware of the interest in a Heisler for On30. He can not say more until an official announcement is made. No announcement of a new ON30 locomotive for 2007 has been made yet, but I expect that there is one coming. My guess is an announcement at the Narrow Gauge Convention, but that is only a guess. Will the next ON30 loco be a Heisler? -  may be but may be not. A Heisler is my guess, but I have no inside information and I am often wrong.

On a related matter, there is still no official announcement of the pulpwood cars, even though they have actually arrived at some shops in the UK and I think Hong Kong.

Hamish

This thread does seem to have wandered off topic! Given the proliferation of light rail systems in North America (and elsewhere) in the last couple of decades a model of a modern light rail car could be a good idea. As for which prototype - Bachmann would probably want a fairly generic design, one that could reasonably represent light rail running in quite a few different (USA and Canadian) cities. I don't know what that might be, some light rail enthusiast on this board might know the most common type of modern North American light rail car.

Hamish

Eric

This was mentioned on tis board a little while ago. This was the Bach man's comment (9 May, in the I am not trying to be a pester........... thread)

Dear All,
The pulpwood cars will arrive early in the summer.
Someday, maybe, I'll get to be the first to announce something...
; )
Have fun!
the Bach-man

It seems as though Tower Models jumped the gun on this one. Strange though, if they have indeed actually arrived, that no official announcement has been made either in the US or the UK.

Dear Bach Man

When will an announcement be made, and will other items be announced as well? (I am not asking you to spill the beans, just to indicate whether the pulpwood cars are the only new items to be announced in the near future).

Hamish

Quote from: ap0317ah on May 28, 2007, 04:39:29 PM
who would want that over a us heavy mike. no offence

Given that Bachmann China already make this loco importing a batch modified to resemble those in US service would be a lot cheaper than developing a new model. Therefore it is not a question of it being an alternative to a new US model. I am sure that Bachmann would not develop a Chinese tourist loco primarily for the US market, but to modify a loco produced primarily for the Chinese market to resemble one in US service makes sense. It was done for the SY, so it seems surprising  it is not being done for the QJ.

Bachmann does seem to have appointed another company (Models 11) as US dealer/distributer for the overseas Bachmann ranges (UK, German i.e. Liliput and China). QJs are listed on their website (Chinese versions of course). This could help the individual, but may  not help dealers such as Hobyhaven.

Hamish

The use of ON30 as a relatively inexpensive way of modelling USA 3 foot gauge lines is an important part, but only part, of the entire ON30 scene.

Kitbashers and the like will prefer ON30 to ON3 because of the ability to use HO equipment as a basis for modification. There are quite a few kits available now to do this, and of course many do their own conversions.

ON30 can be built in a smaller space  (as a result of tighter radius curves being possible) than ON3. Tight curves may be derided by some as unprototypical, but they are a  necessity for some of us. 40 " radius curves are out of the question for me. Also, if modelling industrial lines,  tight curves can be prototypical.

Of course for those modelling 30 inch gauge lines, either prototype (US or other countries) or freelance, ON30 will be preferred.

Relative cost is not the only factor in ON30 vs ON3

Hamish

I have just returned from Spain, where I travelled around by train. Went on the AVE (high speed train similar to the French TGV), various sorts of Talgos and others. All impressive, comfortable and often fast.  Perhaps the most interesting was the Altaria. These are a type of locomotive hauled tilting Talgo train. They are used for journeys that are part on the high speed lines and part on normal lines. The high speed lines are standard gauge whereas the normal lines are Iberian gauge (5 foot 5 1/2 inches).  At the connection points the locomotive comes off and the train is pushed through an adjusting station. This unlocks the wheels from the axles, moves them to the new gauge and locks them again. Then a locomotive of the new gauge is attached, and off you go. The process took about 10-15 minutes (I didn't time it). The passengers stay on board during the gauge change.

There are also unit trains (with attached power cars) that change gauges, but I didn't travel on one of those.

Unfortunately I wasn't able to experience Spanish narrow gauge or preserved steam, maybe on another trip.

Hamish

Quote from: kendoitall on April 22, 2007, 07:55:53 PM
As far as I can see, the only thing missing from ON30 is a nice, small 0-4-0 or 0-6-0 siderod steam switcher w/tender. I was planning on converting a Mogul, using a Backwoods Miniatures slope-back tender, but the drivers are too large. Anybody have any suggestions for a conversion from an existing HO (Isn't that a breakfast cereal?) loco in case Bachmann  does not come through?

The Bachmann Spectrum HO 0-6-0t has been used as the basis of a variety of ON30 conversions, some kits are available. Miniatures by Eric http://www.miniaturesbyeric.com has an 0-6-0 conversion which is a tank. but they  also make a tender to go with it, They also have a 2-6-0 with tender, looks the same as the 0-6-0 aprt from the truck and a slightly different cab. Of course the Backwoods Minitures select-a-kit conversion for the same loco, with rear entry cab, can be used with a tender, however it is still more obviously a tank than the Miniatures by Eric versions.

A relativly inexpensive ready-to-run ON30 loco based on the Spectrum 0-6-0t chasis along the lines of any of the above locos would be nice. Backwoods Miniatures  have  made a few such ready-to-run locos, but, while good value. they are not cheap compared to the small Bachmann locos.

Hamish

Quote from: japasha on April 21, 2007, 06:04:29 PM
Hamish,

Excellent suggestion

I will add that there are a pir of 2-6-2 prototypes that could be even better as they were both narrow gauge and built by Baldwinb. The first is the Puffing Billy down under which is 30 inch gauge, I believe. The second is a similar locomotive used by the American Expeditionary Forces during WWI on two-foot military railroads in France. 

I would welcome either of those 2-6-2ts,  but The Puffing Billy Locos are considerable larger, larger than the Forney 2-4-4t for example. So they would not fit the small and inexpensive category! They are 30 inch gauge and were a  Baldwin stock design, some Maine 2-6-2 tender locos were similar, apart from not being tank locos and gauge that is! (Yes a Maine 2-6-2 tender with a tank variation would be nice, but it would not meet my small and relatively inexpensive suggestion).

The WW1 locos were about 18 tons (US) I think and had small drivers, they might be possible as small and inexpensive locos, possibly on an existing HO mechanism, I am not sure. If so, it would be a good choice.

I suggested the Porter locos as a possibility for small and inexpensive locos using existing parts - the 2-4-0 tender loco would probably need a new boiler casting, could it fit the motor - again I don't know.

Essentially I was suggesting  more small and relatively inexpensive locos, especially steam. I am not concerned about which prototype they are based on, anything that is practicable is fine. Glover locos if they can be made on the basis of exsiting mechanisms and thus kept inexpensive would be good. 

As I said before, I do not see these as an alternative to further larger, and necessarily more expensive, locos but as an addition.

Hamish

Sorry about the extra bit at the bottom of my previous post - the board slowed up on me a messed up my editing.

Hamish

Dear Bachmann

There has been a lot of discussion about future ON30 locos, Heislers, 4-4-0s, 2-6-2s, 4-6-0s 2-8-2s and so on have all been suggested. These are all relatively moderate to large locos (for narrow gauge, especially 30 inch). Certainly there is a demand for such locos but I would also like to see further additions to Bachmann's small and less expensive locos such as the Porters and the Davenport. Some time ago a 2-4-2t Dinsey loco, which could be based on a modified Porter mechanism was suggested. Another possibility is a small 2-4-0 tender loco, which could also be based on the Porter mechaism. There were real life narrow gauge Porter 2-4-0s as small as 7-8 tons!

I am sure that more variety in the ready to run small "steam kettle" and critter fields would be much appreciated.

I am not suggesting this instead of producing some of the larger, and more expensive, options mentioned above, but as an addition. Given that it should be possible to adapt existing mechanisms the cost of making them shouldn't be too high.

Hamish

I am sure that further variety in the small ready to run critter and especially the small steam  "tea kettle" field would be much appreciated. I am not suggesting this instead of some of the more expensi I am sure.

Dear Bachmann

This is a great feature! I hope we will see more added as time goes by.

Hamish