Understanding C19 vs Connie

[mickeykelley]

I have one of the Connies from before the C19 was released.  I freely admit that I'm not the most knowledgable on trains so I'm trying to learn what the real difference between them from a real world, not just the model perspective. Are they the same size, time era, etc? 

[Kevin Strong]

They're similar, but represent different eras in locomotive development.



The C-19 is of a design built by Baldwin in the 1880s. It was "state of the art" at the time it was built, with a large boiler and long, rectangular firebox tucked between the frames. It's of an "inside frame" design, because the frame of the locomotive is between the drivers, with the connecting rods attached to the drivers themselves. The "C-19" designation is specific only to the D&RGW RR. Locomotives built to these Baldwin drawings operated on many railroads in the US, Central America, and even Australia. This loco has "Stephenson" valve gear, which was common on most steam locos up until around the 1900s - 1910s. Stephenson valve gear was fairly simple, but most of the components were located between the frame, it was a bugger to work on.



The "Connie" is also a Baldwin locomotive design, but about 30 years younger (1912). This is mine, which has been modified with a wood cab and fluted domes--throwbacks to an earlier era. The "stock" Connie has a steel cab and rounded domes--much more in keeping with c 1910 design:



The key differences are that it's an "outside frame" locomotive. That means the frame that supports the locomotive is actually outside of the drivers, and the rods, etc. are connected to flycranks (also called counterweights) on the axles. The wheels are inside, between the frames where they're harder to see. The other difference is that the firebox on the "Connie" is behind the last set of drivers, and is wider, but not nearly as long as that of the C-19. This locomotive also has what's called "Baker" valve gear, which--while uncommon--had the advantage of having all the rods and links located outside of the locomotive where it was much easier to maintain. The prototype for Bachmann's model is a 30" gauge locomotive originally built for operation in Central America.

From a performance standpoint, both locomotives have similar tractive effort, which is a measure of what a locomotive can pull. The C-19 generates around 19,000 pounds, while the "Connie" generates around 20,000. I'm not sure what the tangible advantages of inside- vs. outside-frame locomotives might have been. I'm not sure it really made all that much difference. Railroads like the D&RGW tended to gravitate towards outside-frame locos in the early 20th century, as did the Oahu RR and many Central American railroads. At the same time, railroads like the East Broad Top and East Tennessee & Western North Carolina had considerable success with similar-sized locomotives, but built with inside frames.


The models themselves are built to the same scale (1:20.3), so the comparison in size between them would be the same on the prototype.

Later,

K

[Chuck N]

It is my understanding that the Bachmann Connie never ran on an American railroad, such as the D&RG and its successors.

But that didn't stop me from lettering it for the Rio Grande.  I did give it a non-existant number, 365, however it does say C-21 on the cab.



Chuck

[mickeykelley]

So the Bachmann model of each, are they both about the same physical size (length, width and height)?

[Chuck N]

I have a Bachmann Connie, but my C-19 (1:20.3) is by a different manufacturer.  The Bachmann is a little shorter about 0.5"  about the same height at the stack and about 0.5" wider at the cab.

The basic frame is about the same length, but the cowcatcher on the Bachmann doesn't stick out quite as far.  The boiler is a little shorter on the Connie, but the pilot deck is a little longer giving it the same overall length.

The Bachmann tender is shorter (about an inch), a little wider (0.5") and about 1.5" lower.

I would assume that the two C-19s are probably quite close as they are based on the same engine design.

Chuck

[Ted Yarbrough]

Maybe Bachmann could re-introduce the Connie with the better running of the C-19. Paint scheme like the D&RGW C-21 would be an excellent addition, too. I know several that would buy that loco very quickly!

[Chuck N]

Ted:

Good suggestion, I'd go for a C-21.  Prefer a higher numbered K, but a C-21 would be nice.

Chuck

[Kevin Strong]

I just measured my "Connie" and my C-19. They're almost identical in length and height. The cab and tender on the "Connie" is wider by not quite 2cm at the cab, owing largely to the fact that it's an outside-frame loco, and those are almost universally wider in stature than their inside-frame counterparts. The C-19 looks narrower than it actually measures, partly because the tender is narrower than the cab, but also its inside frame construction gives it a slimmer look.

A D&RGW-ized "Connie" would be cool. I did one for a friend of mine a while back:



More photos can be seen here:http://forums.mylargescale.com/15-model-making/7962-d-rgw-350-b-mann-2-8-0-bash-w-pics.html

One could make a strong argument for not worrying about just re-doing the "Connie" with new gearing and electronics, but do a C-21 or C-25 instead. There was considerable grousing when the "Connie" first came out that it wasn't a C-21 or C-25, and those complaining said they wouldn't buy it simply for that reason. I tend to like the more generic look of the "Connie," as it looks pretty good as is, but can easily be changed into a number of different looks with minimal effort.

Later,

K

[Loco Bill Canelos]

I remember the griping from the Rio Grande followers when the Connie first came out, but it soon proved to be a sales success.  There were enough of us freelancers who loved it and as you can see from the pictures of modifications and lettering it was a great loco for customization and custom lettering.   I bought two right away, it somehow just looked right to me.  I lettered mine for my Missouri Western, and they are both operational after 13 years on the roster. After 12 years I had the gear problem on one of them and had to replace it, and on one of them I had the tender truck side frame problem, but other than that they are great runners and look at home with my other locomotives. I wish I had an automobile that ran for even ten years without a major repair and was as reliable as my Connies.

Having said all that it is part of the fun of model railroading to learn about the prototype locos, rolling stock and operations aspect, but it is not the be all and end all either.   The great thing about this hobby is that you can make it what you want it to be.    Some just want a circle of track in the garden with not even a single switch and run a European locomotive mixed with U.S. style cars, while others want to follow a specific prototype with every rivet in the exact correct place and operate exactly like the prototype.   

My thing is to use the Bachmann narrow gauge products as if they are standard gauge, and model my fictional Missouri Western in a way where it blends in and connects with actual prototype standard gauge lines. 

To each his or her own, but have fun no matter what you like to do!!
 

[Chuck N]

Bill:

"Some just want a circle of track in the garden with not even a single switch and run a European locomotive mixed with U.S. style cars,..."

That is what I had to do in the early 80's, when I first started in "G".  Only my circle was inside.  LGB only had European engines when they started making North American rolling stock.  Then they came out with an "Americanized" Stainz with tender.  I just couldn't warm up to it.   It was several years before they started producing the Mogul.  That was my first American style engine.

Chuck

Added-- my early loop did have some switches and sidings.

[Chastity]

An outside frame allowed the boiler to be a bit bigger around and sit lower for a lower center of gravity to help stability. 

One could never have done say something like a K-36/37 size locomotive with inside frames and not have it be very top heavy.

For example No 33 Consoldiation of the C&NW was an enlarged version of her sisters 31 and 32, all inside frame.  She was considered an example of taking a good design too far and many of the crews considered her too top heavy and unstable. 

[Loco Bill Canelos]

Chuck,

My start in Large scale was in 1968.  I was stationed in Germany and bought an LGB Starter set for the low price of around $78 USD.   I ran it on a circle of track and later bought additional track and a couple of European gondolas and flat cars.   At christmas it ran around the living room and my kids used it to deliver small presents.  I never warmed up to european prototype,  and since I was in HO scale I never bought anymore LGB.  It was Bachmann that got me back into Large Scale.  I just couldn't resist the Big Hauler 4-6-0 and the Spectrum 2-6-0.    It took me over 15 years to sell 90% of my massive HO collection! The money went into Large Scale!!! Model railroading has sure changed over the last 67 years when I first got started in 1947 with an American Flyer set.  Folks say Large Scale is too expensive, but you can buy an Anniversary 4-6-0 for less than a lot of HO scale locomotives these days.  I would have never believed it!!  I have been a big fan of Bachmann ever since. 

[mickeykelley]

Bachmann is what got me into it too.  The big stuff was just easier for my young son to get set on track.  We started with an affordable Big Hauler and then I fell in love with the Shay ands its detail. Was hooked after that.