In this string of boxcars I’m making, I see that my FA unit, which is supposedly the same scale as the boxcars, Bachman boxcars (Linville River version and the refrigerated cars), is considerably taller, or sits higher you might say, than the boxcars.
In the real world, the FA locomotives appear to be actually shorter, lower, than the boxcars they pull.
Here’s some pictures, and my questions are: what is going on? and what can be done about this if anything?
Many people have lowered Aristo diesels, which very often ride too high.
Compare the top of the trucks to the bottom of the body between your model and the real thing.
Also in the picture above, you are comparing the too high loco to a smaller box car than the more modern ones in your pictures.
In your first picture, notice the height of the reefers behind the locos.
Greg
Yep, your green, “wooden” boxcar is a model of a much smaller boxcar (and probably based on narrow gauge, too). The boxcars in the prototype photos are more modern, all-steel, and larger.
John, the problem is your model diesel loco represents standard gauge (4 feet, 8-1/2 inches track width in real life) while your boxcar is narrow gauge (3 feet). Technically, gauge (track width) should have nothing to do with size or dimensions, but it does. If you want to see the difference in actual, prototypical size, I’m sure one of our guys who reads this will happily post some photos. Suffice to say, the difference is substantial and may appear even greater than that between your model loco and boxcar.
Standard gauge boxcar on left, narrow gauge cars on right
The older Aristo/REA F units were built too high off the trucks. If you lower the FA unit to its proper height, and use an actual 1:29 steel boxcar, you should get closer to the look you are looking for.
Bachmann cars are NOT 1:29, they are about 1:22.5, and based off narrow gauge cars, that were smaller then standard gauge cars by a wide margin.
Yes, I know, all this has already been said.
Gee,
I really like the green box car… The dino burner is ok… i guess…;-0
Actually the FA units are one of my favorite diesels. They have style.
Of course, it should be noted that even prototype boxcars were not all the same size, at least not during the period when F units were in use. Nowadays things are pretty standardized and there’s not much early rolling stock still on the rails, but back then there was a good mix of older and newer equipment.
Here’s a shot from 1942, note the different sizes (and styles) of boxcars:
That is a good picture Ray and a nice example of different sizes and styles, there are steel, outside braced, wood, reefers. Looks like my RR a real mismatch mess of everything.
This is a conundrum … While prototypically Standard Ga is larger than Narrow, in our scale because of One Track fits all Narrow ga. should overwhelm that dismal… or at least be closer to matching.
True car sizes grew with time and the 2nd pic could be an auto parts car which were taller to handle frames and bulky, light weight stuff.
My suggestion is really old car and a too high loco.
John
Joe Rusz said:
John, the problem is your model diesel loco represents standard gauge (4 feet, 8-1/2 inches track width in real life) while your boxcar is narrow gauge (3 feet). Technically, gauge (track width) should have nothing to do with size or dimensions, but it does.
…
One of the main reasons for NG was/is the smaller loading gauge (overall measurements in three dimensions) which results in tighter radii, lighter rail, smaller width for the RoW and considerably lower costs (not always, but certainly compared to SG in the same location).
I understand now.
I understand it, but I don’t like it. At first I thought it was another case of “That’s the way it goes in large scale.” Like, I really like the looks of the Shay and I have two, but it’s gigantically oversized by about at least 25% I would say. I put up with it because I like the looks of it. But now I see that I am trying to mix standard gauge equipment with narrow gauge equipment. In fact, after reading your responses I put some standard gauge modern steel boxcars next to the FA and they are much closer to looking right, although the FA is still too high really.
Lowering the FA seems like a good idea, but it would be a lot of difficult work. I lowered a couple of ore cars and put pictures of that up on the Rolling Stock forum http://www.largescalecentral.com/forums/topic/20497/modified-usa-trains-lionel-ore-c and it was a lot of work (but at least I wasn’t risking wrecking a $200 locomotive). I finished only about three out of a dozen or so of the ore cars, so far.
I looked around after reading your responses and found that George Schreyer has a great step-by-step description of how to lower the FA, along with a few other FA tips. Well, it’s http://girr.org/girr/tips/tips2/fa_tips.html#lower but, honestly, I don’t know if I could pull this off, all for a two-tenths of an inch difference. Maybe.
Knowing now what you all are telling me, I might be better off to use a road switcher, which I also had Kevin convert to onboard power a while back, and which seems more in scale.
If I get up the nerve to try and lower the FA body, I’ll post pictures of how it came out.
Thanks.
Sorry, the link to the ore cars is actually this:
http://www.largescalecentral.com/forums/topic/20497/modified-usa-trains-lionel-ore-c
John,
I might be stating the obvious but the other John pointed out that in a one gauge fits all scales playground (large sale railroading) a 1:20.3 Fn3 Scale box car should be proportionately much larger than a 1:29 G scale standard gauge box car. However as Hans points out on a 1:1 comparison of prototypes a standard gauge steel box car made in 1950-60 will be much larger than a 1880’s narrow gauge box car.
That box car in your picture is probably a 30’ prototype box car. A modern steel box car is 50+ so while John is right in that the narrow gauge scale is much larger in reality the modern equipment makes up for it by be proportionally larger.
So in the end that shabby old 30’ foot wooden box car really should be donated to someone that models late 1800’s American Narrow Gauge… wonder where you would find someone like that…
Just kidding a common practice was to turn them old woodies into track side storage sheds. Just a thought.
PS the arch bar trucks are a dead give away on that box car to its age. By the time your F unit was running the rails arch bars were obsolete.
Thanks Devon…so much for the road switcher idea, which switcher would be even later than the FA.
I guess I have to: (1) say to hell with eras and being standard/narrow gauge consistent prototypical, (2) pull them with a narrow gauge steam locomotive, (3) retire them to an old yard with abandoned track on the layout somewhere as a static display, or (4) donate about twenty old narrow gauge boxcars, all painted and weathered, to you!
Seems obvious to me: The prototype is wrong