Size

[trainstrainstrains]

This is a coment on a topic called Car sizes? A  very informative  topic that has not been posted in for at least 120 days so I was advised to open a new topic.

I'm  just starting on G, my first ebay acquisition was a rather expensive LGB OLUMANA, the auction bids just rocketed towards the end.  I was so disappointed when it arrived to see it was so small, really tinny.  It is very beautiful, has a grand story  and runs great so I like it alot  even though it is so small for a G.  My second ebay win was an LGB Circus Loco it is bigger, what a relief! It is in perfect condition and very strong. My third ebay winning was a Bachmann big hauler,  Swannee River Special with tender, uncredibility cheap on ebay , I could not believe how big it is. It is troublesome and delicate but I'm enjoying fixing it and I love the size and looks. My latest is a Spectrum 38 ton Shay that has not been delivered yet,  I hope it's big. If the cars for it are the biggest I suppose it must be. Big is wat G is all about. Is it not?

[Chuck N]

This is/can be a complicated issue.  The size of your model train that runs on our 45 mm track, depends on the real, 1:1 prototype used as the basis for the model.  There are many scales that run on our track.

Maine 2' narrow gauge scales out to a little over 1:13, not much ready to run in this scale

North American 3' narrow gauge scales out to 1:20.3, Bachmann and Accucraft make trains in this scale, some kits are available

European meter gauge 1:22.5 scale.  LGB and Piko are major players in this scale

Cape gauge 3' 6" is 1:24, this is where it really gets confusing, Bachmann, LGB, USAt, delton, AristoCraft, all make engines and cars of North American Narrow Gauge (3') in this scale.  

North American and European standard gauge (4' 8.5") scales to 1:32, this is correct for modern standard gauge trains.  MTH and Accucraft make RTR trains in this scale.

Several manufacturers make standard gauge engines and cars in 1:29, LGB, AristoCraft, USAt, and Accucraft.  These are about 10% larger than a similar car in the correct 1:32 scale.  This was done for the WOW factor.

In the real world Narrow gauge rolling stock is almost always smaller than similar stock made for standard gauge railroads.  In  our "G" world, 1:20.3 NG rolling stock is significantly larger than 1:32/29 rolling stock.

You need to find drawings of your engines and compare the real length to the scale length of your engines.  This should help you get a better understanding of the scale issues in our hobby.

Lastly, I strongly recommend that you make contact with a local garden railroad club.  Talk with them and visit local layouts.  Seeing the engines and cars and asking which trains are standard gauge and which are narrow gauge will also help you get a clearer picture of what is out there and which scale you like better.

I have 1:20.3, 1:22.5/24, and 1:29 trains.  When running I usually bring out only one scale to run in a single session.

Chuck

PS:  I suggest that you go over to mylargescale.com and post in the "beginners forum" a request to Scot Lawrence (AKA Scottychaos) and ask him to post his latest version of his "Scale/Gauge" illustration.  As they say "one picture is worth a thousand words".  I think that this is the best example out there for explaining our Scale/Gauge situation.

You will probably have to register as a guest.

[trainstrainstrains]

Thank you indeed,
I intend to run each loco with cars designed for it, the circus loco with its circus cars only, the Olumana with smallish gondolas, the Swannee River with Swannee river passenger cars, And I expect the  Spectrum loco with spectrum gondolas.
I intend to get Scot Laurence's Scale/Gauge Illustration, sound like something really worth having, thanks for the recommendation.
P.S.You seem to be a real Bachmann expert, I wonder if you can give me a solution to a problem  I posted on a message about the Swannee  River Special that stops running. It has been viewed over 30 times and no replies yet.

[Kevin Strong]

There are two issues in play here. First would be the variety of scales that all run on the same track, based on the gauge of the prototype as Chuck described above. Here's the chart Chuck mentions:



(The forum software here resizes all images, so here's the URL so you can see it larger:
http://www.mylargescale.com/1stclass/garyArmitstead/Large-scale-scales2.gif

That in itself can be enough for a newcomer to wrap their head around, but it's only half of the issue. In the case of the three locos you mention, you're running into what I sometimes call the "Goldilocks effect." Trains--particularly narrow gauge ones--came in a wide variety of sizes.





All three of these locomotives are the same scale (1:20.3). It's just that the prototypes for these locomotives were very different in size. That's what you have going with the three locomotives you purchased. All three of your locos you have on hand are 1:22.5 scale models of three very different 3' narrow gauge prototypes. (Note, at 1:22.5, the gauge on the models scales out to 1 meter (39.4"))

The Olomana is a model of a small plantation locomotive. Plantation railroads were built with very light construction, often with tracks quickly laid directly on the ground with little grading or significant earthwork. Because of the nature of the track (lightly constructed with very lightweight rail) the locomotives and equipment that ran on them could not be very heavy at all. The cabs sometimes looked almost disproportionate to the rest of the loco, because it had to be tall enough to keep the crew out of the elements, be it sun or rain.

The LGB Circus loco is a repaint of a model they did of a 1884 vintage narrow gauge mogul built by Cooke Locomotive Works. While the "real" narrow gauge railroads were certainly built with much better engineering than their industrial counterparts described above, they were still limited by the laws of physics. In the 1880s, the rails were made of iron. Typical weights (measured in pounds per yard of rail) were anywhere from 40 to 60 pounds. Locomotives had to be kept on the small side so not to overload--thus break--the rail. The mogul--at the time it was built--was on the "large" end of the spectrum in terms of locos that could be safely run on the rails of the day, but much smaller than what would come from the locomotive builders over the next 40 years. (The December 1998 issue of Model Railroader has a good article on these moguls.)

As technology improved, iron began to be replaced by steel. Steel rails are much less brittle than iron rails of the same size, so they could support heavier loads. Steel rail was becoming available in larger sizes as well. The standard gauge railroads were pushing 100 pounds per yard (modern rail is around 120 pounds). The narrow gauge lines gravitated towards the 60 - 80 pound range. The Bachmann 4-6-0 is a model of a Baldwin locomotive built for the East Tenneessee & Western North Carolina RR beginning in 1907. By that time, the strength of the rail wasn't quite the limiting factor it had been in decades past, and locos grew as railroads wanted more powerful locomotives to handle their "typical" trains. This 4-6-0 would by the standards of the early 20th century be considered a medium-sized loco compared to the others the builders were turning out, but it was a definite giant compared the 1880s vintage locos--roughly twice as powerful as the mogul.

Your Shay is 1:20.3, so it's going to be a bit "larger" than your other locos in terms of overall proportions (notably the width and height) because it's built to a larger scale. Having said that, it's a model of a "medium"-sized locomotive, so it's not going to be nearly as overpowering as other, larger prototypes may be. Certainly given the size discrepancy between the three models you have on hand, it will not look any more "out of place" than any of the others.

Later,

K

[Chuck N]

Trains x 3:

You may get a lot of looks before someone will see your post and have a helpful answer.  I don't have a Bachman ten wheeler, so I can't make any suggestions based upon experience.

My only suggestion would be turn the engine over and apply current to a pair of wheels.  See if you have the same problem when there is less weight on the drive wheels.  There might be something binding the drive that causes the motor to heat up.  

Bachmann has replacement motor blocks for these engines and they aren't very expensive. It might be easier and cheaper to just replace the drive train.

Chuck

[trainstrainstrains]

K, thank you so much for the very thorough explanation on the size and history behind my Locomotives, and the photos and charts, really fascinating.

Chuck, I guess you're referring to my post on the 4 0 6 that stops. I'll try the power to individual pairs of wheels tomorrow, is the drivetrain the same part Bachmann calls the Loco chassis? They are indeed inexpensive right now. But before I buy one I'd like to be sure it isn't the wires or the motor or the power supply.

[trainstrainstrains]

About the locomotives depicted in the Chart: 
In  the real locomotives part of the chart the 2 foot gauge as well as the 7/8 n2 scale on the  Model locomotives part of the chart look very unstable because the track looks very small for their size. I suppose both the real and the model must be rather prone to tip over?

[Chuck N]

Yes, I was referring to your 4-6-0.

I know several people who model the Maine 2' railroads.  I'm not aware of any stability problems.  The 1:1 railroads ran through the Maine woods for many years.  If there were problems, those railroads would have changed gauge very quickly.

Chuck

[NarrowMinded]

Locomotives are very heavy with a relatively low center of gravity in most cases, they will tip if run two fast through curves but they wont tip too easy.

[trainstrainstrains]

Kevin, The three Black  locomotives of the same scale (1:20.3). On the two photos. The larger one RioGrande, Are they all Bachmann?  What are the model names?

[Kevin Strong]

The Rio Grande loco (#491) is an Accucraft K-37.
The middle loco is a Bachmann outside-frame 2-8-0 that's been cosmetically customized with new domes and a few other things.
The small loco is a mostly scratchbuilt 0-4-4, built on an Accucraft "Ruby" boiler and chassis.

Later,

K

[trainstrainstrains]

Chuck, I've posted the events of a small catastrofe on my 4 0 6 thread.

[Chuck N]

T3

Back to your comment about the stability of the 2' railroads.

In the Alps of Austria is a working railroad, with very narrow gauge track, the Zillertalbahn. 

The Zillertal Railway or Zillertalbahn is a 760 mm (2 ft 5 15⁄16 in) gauge in the Ziller (Zillertal) valley from Jenbach to Mayrhofen within the Tyrol area of Austria.

This railroad has been operating successfully since about 1900.

LGB has produced a number of pieces of rolling stock from this railroad.

Chuck

[scottychaos]

About the locomotives depicted in the Chart:  
In  the real locomotives part of the chart the 2 foot gauge as well as the 7/8 n2 scale on the  Model locomotives part of the chart look very unstable because the track looks very small for their size. I suppose both the real and the model must be rather prone to tip over?

Not at all unstable!   In fact, the locomotive I chose for that chart is SR&RL No. 1, pretty much the smallest of all the Maine 2-footers.
So she should have been the *least* prone to tipping, due to her small size..The largest was SR&RL 23! check out the Number 1 compared to the number 23:



The 23 was 7.5 feet wide! on 2-foot gauge track. I have virtually every book there is on the Maine 2-footers,
and I am not aware of one single documented instance of a 2-foot gauge locomotive tipping over due to it being wide in comparison to
the track gauge..it simply never happened. (sure, they had derailments, but for the same reasons any other railroad has derailments.)
I agree, they do look unstable! but they were not in reality..low center of gravity, they stuck to that 2-foot gauge track just fine..

Scot

[Chuck N]

Thanks for your comment, and again for your illustration!  I was out at a friends layout this afternoon, helping get ready for an event this weekend.  He his into Maine 2 footers on our track and is knowledgable about the prototypes.  His thought was that the RRs were ahead of their time and used Gyro-stabilizers in all the engines and cars. 

A technology later developed for ships.

Chuck