Large Scale Central

Making an "annie" look more like standard gauge

Modeling
#1

This is a dumb newbie question. I don’t have any real experience, I was just curious

I have a bachmann annie which I’m very fond of. Seems to me this is the single best buy in G scale. Really nice detail, runs well, pulls surprisingly well

Most of our little layout is scaled to 1:29, and in general, I sort of prefer the look of standard gauge. I know 1:29 is the devil and not correct etc., but I was just wondering–what sort of general steps would one take to make an “annie”–which I think is in 1:24? less narrow gauge looking and more like a small mainline loco? Or is this just not do-able? A lot of guys seem to do the opposite–take it to 1:20.

I’m assuming cut the cab down, maybe shorten it overall. Are there any examples of this kind of mod?

#2

I run mine as it is and it looks fine, as long as I keep it away from the Mallet. A little hard to explain why the cab is bigger than the Mallet’s cab. It looks fine with my sierra coaches that are actually 1:24.

For 1:29, it’s a little wide and needs a smaller cab, smaller domes and shorter stack.

#3

I’ve always thought the three window cab version with the round domes could simply just pass as standard gauge as it is, just add a 1/29 figure to the cab, maybe the only major thing might be rebuilding or changing the tender out for something more standard gauge looking. Locomotives look pretty consistant from scale to scale only the driver changes sizes. I suppose lowering the cab could be an option, but if you lower the cab you should also lower the stack and the domes.

#4

I’ve heard comments from a handful of people thinking about doing such a conversion, but for whatever reason, they either never seem to get around to it. At the least, they don’t update us on their progress when they do get going on it. I’ve seen a few 4-6-0s “downsized” to 1:29, and the effect is quite nice. As others have said, new cab, lower domes, and it falls into place right nicely. One fellow turned his into a Reading RR camelback. The key things to look at are taking some of height down, and also narrowing it just a bit. If I were to do such a conversion, I’d make it just a touch narrower than Aristo’s 4-6-0/2-8-0.

Later,

K

#5

All the big hauler line is “G scale” 1:22.5. I mix mine with 1:24 and any size difference in undetectable. The ten wheeler is based on the ET&WNC ten wheeler still alive and kicking as a Tweetsie loco -

(http://i113.photobucket.com/albums/n214/altterrain/tweetsie4-6-0.jpg)

I have also thought about making it look more standard guage. Something like this -

(http://i113.photobucket.com/albums/n214/altterrain/forums/smCO10whlr.jpg)

Smaller domes, smaller bell, tapered stack, a redone cab, a slightly taller tender would go a long way to recreating the effect -Brian

#6

yes! That’s what i was thinking of. I have an old Big Hauler–maybe I could just rework that.

#7

Don’t use too old a Bug Mauler, I used a second generation for a 4-4-0 conversion just to see if I could do it, now I regret using it as its a terrible runner.

Looks like 90% of the work is lowering the cab height

#8

Mike,
as others have said, one needs to lower the outline to achieve a standard gauge look. I am informed that the driving wheels would scale out too small to achieve a believeable look. Maybe one could adapt a standard gauge cab from a known 1/29 scale manufacturer and rebuild the Bachmann superstructure to suit. It is not a simple matter of just lowering domes, smokestack, etc, as the rest of the loco, like running boards, air compressor, etc, need to be taken into account. There is then the need to address the tender, as a more standard gauge looking body is required.

   Most likely for the average modellor it is in the too hard basket.  There is a considerable amount of work involved.
#9

I’m not even the average modeler, just a curious guy. Just something to think about–thank you all for the replies. Meanwhile I’m loving the look of that unpainted, undecorated three window cab annie

#10
Tim Brien said:
Mike, as others have said, one needs to lower the outline to achieve a standard gauge look. I am informed that the driving wheels would scale out too small to achieve a believeable look. Maybe one could adapt a standard gauge cab from a known 1/29 scale manufacturer and rebuild the Bachmann superstructure to suit. It is not a simple matter of just lowering domes, smokestack, etc, as the rest of the loco, like running boards, air compressor, etc, need to be taken into account. There is then the need to address the tender, as a more standard gauge looking body is required. 
   Most likely for the average modellor it is in the too hard basket.  There is a considerable amount of work involved.</blockquote>

Tim, I disagree. You need only look for an appropriate prototype. For instance, the Maryland & Pennsylvania (and also Pacific & Idaho Northern–later Union Pacific) 4-6-0s are very close to the Bachmann loco, and would need minimal cosmetic work. Heck, the tender is even pretty darned close, including the archbar trucks. People who mistakenly claim the Bachmann loco is a standard gauge model often point to these locos as their proof. (Model Railroader Cyclopedia, vol. 1 pp. 112 - 113)

Granted, looking through the plans published in that book, the Bachmann drivers would be on the lower end of the spectrum, but 58" was not uncommon on the smaller 10-wheelers (as evidenced on the above examples and others). The larger ones rode on taller drivers, but even then, they were 69" at the largest. Yeah, transforming the B’mann 4-6-0 into a PRR G5s class 4-6-0 would be an exercise in futility, but beyond the same number of wheels, the locos have nothing in common.

Later,

K

#11

You now that’s interesting–I did a little searching and found a picture of something very like that, a baldwin 4-6-0, I think it was a B+O. Now I cant find it again. Not the same, but similar. It’d be interesting to do a little sawing and see what happens. I’ve never done that sort of thing before except in a very small way Ah,here it is–maybe more like this? (http://www.northeast.railfan.net/images/bo232s.jpg)

" /img>

#12

I have done many bashes on the taper boiler of the Anniversary and they all finish up with that typical narrow-gauge look. There is not enough ‘beef’ in the bulk of the body to make a believeable standard gauge loco, apart from a complete rebuild. If it was a relatively simple operation then there would be examples in abundance, as modellors are constantly crying out for standard-gauge prototype models.

#13

I have 2 spare cabs, may use them one day…1 3 window, one welded over front window (current Tweetsie #12)…would swap you for yours if it’s help accomplish what you are looking to do!

cale

#14
Tim Brien said:
I have done many bashes on the taper boiler of the Anniversary and they all finish up with that typical narrow-gauge look. There is not enough 'beef' in the bulk of the body to make a believeable standard gauge loco, apart from a complete rebuild.
I'm not going to argue matters of opinion, especially given Tim's experience with kitbashing Bachmann 4-6-0s. Suffice to say I don't agree with his assessment. In comparing my 4-6-0 to the drawings and photos of the Ma & Pa loco, it's a very doable conversion. The major dimensions are all within scale inches. You'd obviously want to replace the boiler fittings (headlight, air pump, etc) with smaller-scaled details. The hardest thing would be replacing the domes, but that's not a difficult task. The stock sand dome would work nicely as the new steam dome, and Trackside Details makes a sand dome which is almost perfect to replace the sand dome. The only "major" discrepancy is that the B'mann firebox is about 1/2" too wide, but that's hardly a deal breaker. You've still got plenty of leeway to build a proper 4" wide cab (9' 6" per the prototype) and still have room for cab doors. The tender need only be narrowed and shortened--hardly insurmountable steps for even a novice modeler.
Tim Brien said:
If it was a relatively simple operation then there would be examples in abundance, as modellors are constantly crying out for standard-gauge prototype models.
That argument assumes that modelers who cry out for a model would build one even if it were simple. I don't see that as being the case, at least not in general. Take a narrow gauge inside frame 2-8-0 as an example. The various fora are full of pleas for Bachmann (or whoever) to make one. Barry's Big Trains has had a 2-8-0 drop-in replacement frame for the Bachmann 4-6-0 for years. A few simple turns of the screw, and anyone could have a VERY reliable 2-8-0 running on their railroad. Not many people do. I could easily use one myself, but I've yet to order one.

When you look at raw measurements, many of our narrow-gauge prototype locos can be rescaled to standard gauge without too much difficulty. The catch is that the lion’s share of people in this hobby are “10-foot” modelers, so the scale discrepancy between a 1:22.5 locomotive pulling a 1:29 box car doesn’t bother them enough to break out the hacksaw. That–more than anything–is why I don’t think we see more examples of “downsized” standard gauge locos. It’s easier to accept the size compromise, or–if that’s unacceptable–to simply do without and run what is available in our chosen scale, waiting (and waiting) for someone to make what we want.

Later,

K

#15

Kevin,
yes it is my opinion, but considering the number of purists in standard gauge and considering the documented cases of modellors saying that they are going to do it, the fact is that few have succeeded. My latest ‘ten-wheeler’ could conceiveably be converted to a standard gauge looking loco. I have added a cylindrical section forward of the sand dome (aft of the smokebox). I have also added a flanged driver to the centre axle (much better looking). The effect of the additional section aft of the smokebox, has moved the steam dome further aft closer to the cab front wall. By lowering domes, cab and stack I could achieve something believeable, but the fact is that the project has little interest to me as I prefer to model narrow-gauge.

     A few minutes ago I looked at a B'mann Annie chassis and could see that the axle 'journal openings' could be filed down to lower the chassis over the axles with resultant lower body height a side effect.  One would then need to alter the gearbox locating (anti-rotation) pin and lower the saddle.  Ideally the cylinders need to be closer to the leading driver and the pilot truck wheelbase shortened.  At the end of the day is it all really worth the trouble?  This then explains your idea that many simply use the standard loco and ignore the maybe not so obvious scale differences.
#16

Cale Nelson said:
I have 2 spare cabs, may use them one day…1 3 window, one welded over front window (current Tweetsie #12)…would swap you for yours if it’s help accomplish what you are looking to do! cale

I don’t know what I’m looking to do! As usual. I have a lot of admiration for modelers like Kevin or Tim, who have such a great eye for detail and have such fantastic craft skills. It’s a real art. I’m in awe. I’m less interested in fidelity and more in the general “sense” that’s suggested. My wife and I have a smallish layout (400 ft., 8ft min. curves) that’s really a train in a garden–it’s decorative rather than operational. So I’m always thinking about the look in those terms. Also as a newbie, I can see now why people like narrow gauge. It looks better in smaller spaces. You get big trains with lots of “wow,” but they look better on small layouts. The “old West” look of narrow gauge always turned me off though, and I like the look of 20th century mainline. So now we have an Aristo pacific and an Aristo Mikado, both great engines, but too big really. They look great, people love it, but as I think about the overall “effect” something smaller would be better. Our “Annie” is in D&RG bumblebee (long story) so it’s as old westey as they come. But it scales better in our garden. If I were starting over today I’d probably either go with 1:32 or try to create a layout with smaller 20th century steam, like the 2-8-0 consolidation Aristo has coming or an “annie” reworked to look more standard gauge. Here’s a picture of one guy’s attempt from another forum

" /img> That’s kind of what I had in mind One of the pleasures of this hobby is continued evolution!

#17

Kevin Strong said:
[b][i]

I beg to differ - I follow the 8Ft Law on the C.V.S.Ry :smiley:

(http://www.cvsry.com/images/8Ft-Law.jpg)

#18

or this, Union Pacific Engine number 1826:

(http://memory.loc.gov/award/nbhips/lca/134/13432r.jpg)

" The image is available in a VERY high resolution version at the Library of congress: memory.loc.gov/award/nbhips/lca/134/13432v.jpg I don’t have a knowledgeable eye, but it looks to me like you could maybe approximate this. The pistons on the big hauler are all wrong, the wheels are too small, domes too big and there’s three on the UP engine, but if fidelity is not what you want it seems like you could approximate the “feel.” I’m not trying to start an argument, I’m just learning from the discussion. If anyone with a more educated eye want to point out what else is wrong, I’m listening

#19
mike omalley said:
My wife and I have a smallish layout (400 ft., 8ft min. curves) that's really a train in a garden--it's decorative rather than operational.
Mike,

Several times you have referred to your 400 feet of track as a small layout. That’s bigger than most layouts (and bigger than mine at ~350 feet). A survey on LSOL last year put 49% between 200 and 500 feet of track with a larger number of those in the 200 - 300 feet group. You are definitely in the medium size group. I think your perspective can get warped by what you see online or in the magazines.

-Brian

#20

Brian:

That’s an excellent point. So many of the railways you see online or in the magazine practically need their own zip code. I also may be wrong about the 500 foot thing–I pulled that figure out of the air after a very hasty estimate. I think it’s probably less than that by a good bit, as I think about it. maybe half that