Not in 1:22.5 it won’t, unless it can be regauged down to 32 mm. Even then the scale dudes will shun it.
TonyWalsham said:What's a scale dude?
Not in 1:22.5 it won't, unless it can be regauged down to 32 mm. Even then the scale dudes will shun it.
David Russell said:AquaManTonyWalsham said:What's a scale dude?
Not in 1:22.5 it won't, unless it can be regauged down to 32 mm. Even then the scale dudes will shun it.
TonyWalsham said:I don't know about that. It's got great lines, and seemed to me to be fairly popular when first introduced despite the featherweight drive train. The non-scale-minded folks will probably be quite receptive to it. Even the scale folks may in all likelihood be drawn to it for the same reason. It's a small loco when measured in 1:20.3, but small locos were common on narrow gauge lines. I can easily see this one being "upsized" to 1:20 with perhaps a larger stack and maybe a slightly taller cab, though I'd have to see how it scales out to make that call for myself. The 4-6-0 scales out rather well in 1:20 with similar changes; it's a large locomotive in 1:22.5, but a solid medium-sized loco in 1:20.3 even without significant cosmetic changes.
Not in 1:22.5 it won't, unless it can be regauged down to 32 mm. Even then the scale dudes will shun it.
Later,
K
I’m pretty happy with mine…haven’t run it in awhile since it isn’t converted to Batteries and R/C yet, but it was a strong runner on track power…
Aren’t the old 2-4-2s nothing more than 0-4-0’s with pilot and trailing axles? If so, then my guess is that this offerring will be the current Porter with the extra wheels. As seen in the photos I posted the only difference in the old and new 0-4-0 versions is everything above the frame. Wheels, rods, cylinders and frame are the same.
The old Spectrum 2-4-2T LYN locos had a motor block that bore more of a resemblance to the old trams than anything else. They performed about as well. A racehorse to put it mildly.
There have been three versions of the 0-4-0T’s.
The first version had a plastic idler gear that chopped out quite regularly.
The second version had a three point suspension and ran particularly well. They had the Annie type drive.
The third version was the saddle tank and did away with the floating front axle and fixed it so the chuff timer had something stable to work with.
They ran OK but not as well as the 2nd version.
I believe the latest side tank version is still the same.
Thanks for the info Tony. I haven’t the chance to tear apart the 0-4-0 my friend sent me. All I want from it are the wheels and axles. The rest goes into the scrap box.
TonyWalsham said:Ah, but beeing UK-esque and frankly being an "export" engine, there are more than a few of us that are happy it fits well with our "German Brand Red Box" stock.
Not in 1:22.5 it won't, unless it can be regauged down to 32 mm. Even then the scale dudes will shun it.
Jon Radder said:Works for me!
Or just average it out and call it 1:21.4 :)
Actually, from the test shot pix on Facebook, it appears to be a bit bigger and has better proportions than the previous version. The drive looks better also:
http://www.facebook.com/album.php?aid=308311&id=182658255760
And does anyone else get the idea that the drive gears might actually be brass, or is it the lighting?
Gears do kind of look like greased brass.
Hard to say, but the new one looks to have slightly bigger dimensions. Certainly the side tanks are a little deeper.
Pity is that it will definitely NOT be re gaugeable down to 32mm for the British 16 mill market.
Tony if you point out the L&B Lyn ran on a 23.5 inch track gauge other people might understand why you refer to a 32mm gauge track.
mickb
michael benton said:Would be obvious enough....but the flip side is how many SM32 railways use track power? I have dabbled in SM32 modelling since the mid 1980s and know of none.
Tony if you point out the L&B Lyn ran on a 23.5 inch track gauge other people might understand why you refer to a 32mm gauge track. mickb
Who needs track power?? 
Garrett said:
Actually, from the test shot pix on Facebook, it appears to be a bit bigger and has better proportions than the previous version. The drive looks better also:http://www.facebook.com/album.php?aid=308311&id=182658255760
And does anyone else get the idea that the drive gears might actually be brass, or is it the lighting?
So this is where the hobby has gone…Facebook, are you serious? I can’t locate any of the photos on the Official Bachmann Corporate website, but they’re on Facebook? What did I miss, is the entire world upside down or what (no offense Tony)? This hinges on insane, I’m nearly speechless.
Garret, thanks for posting the link, it looks like a beauty!
did you see this posted below the photo:
Quote:[b]Is Bachmann admitting some of the earlier releases are less than desirable?[/b]
. . . Bachmann Trains We've done alot of On30 over the last couple of years. Time to give the Large scale guys something nice. Wednesday at 6:09pm . . .
http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10150110319325761&set=a.10150110316800761.308311.182658255760
cale
Well, Social Media is the way of the world…the prediction is that email may be going the way of snail mail shortly.
Cale, I would not put much spin on it, they have done a LOT of On30 releases lately, (reply to a post about if the loco was On30) but not so much for Fn3/G. I think that is the point of the comment.
I think the main improvement on the body is to make the rear coupler swing much wider than the old one did. That alone would make the new loco a much more desirable proposition for use on other (narrower) track gauges.
I guess that the very active British engineering aftermarket will come up with a replacement drive so that it can run on the 32mm gauge track for 16 mill customers of the British and other markets.
Such a large body will make it a snip to install battery R/C.
Garrett said:
Well, Social Media is the way of the world…the prediction is that email may be going the way of snail mail shortly. Cale, I would not put much spin on it, they have done a LOT of On30 releases lately, (reply to a post about if the loco was On30) but not so much for Fn3/G. I think that is the point of the comment.
[url=http://www.cool-smileys.com/the-classic-wink-smiley]
(http://www.cool-smileys.com/images/Winking-Smiley.jpg)
[/url]