# Bachmann 1:20.3 Forney



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

With little (read "no") fanfare, Bachmann set out some very nice looking 1:20.3 Forneys on their table at the NGRC. They tell me "November" delivery. They look to be upscaled versions of their 0n30 Forneys, and are just beautiful. AND they're real forneys! The drivers are rigid under the boiler (actually, they have about 1/8" rotational play) and the rear truck swings. My camera was elsewhere, so I didn't get photos. I'll try to remedy that on Friday if someone doesn't beat me to it first. Two versions--inside frame with wood cab, and outside frame with steel cab. Yeah, the Maine forneys were 2' gauge, so technically these are gauged incorrectly. But they definitely capture the look of the locos far better than LGB's version of the same. I can definitely see one of these in my collection at some point. 

Later,

K


----------



## vsmith (Jan 2, 2008)

But will they be R1 capable he wonders....???


----------



## altterrain (Jan 2, 2008)

Great news for us upscaling 7/8's types. 
But K, where are the pics??? 


-Brian


----------



## CCSII (Jan 3, 2008)

Here? 










Hope the link works.


----------



## CCSII (Jan 3, 2008)

Baldwin 2-4-4 Forney steam locomotive. Sandy River & Rangeley Lakes. Also available painted but unlettered. Outside or inside frame, custom-wound motor with flywheel, plug-and-play control electronics, and magnetic knuckle couplers. $1,150. Fall 2009. Ready-to-run. Spectrum series. Bachmann


----------



## vsmith (Jan 2, 2008)

*HOW MUCH????????????????







*


$1150????????[/i]
FOR PETES SAKE!!

I could buy *3 LGBS* Forneys for THAT kind of COIN!
















Jeezuz Christmascookies!!! Are they NUTS? that MSRP price would put the street price near the *SAME* for a Goll Freakin' *K-27 *!!! 

Gee Thanks for a big *nothing* Bachmann...
















"...Ready to Run..." I chuckles!


----------



## CCSII (Jan 3, 2008)

I failed to credit "Model Railroader Magazine" at : 

http://www.trains.com/mrr/default.aspx?c=a&id=3323 

for the photo and the brief description.


----------



## stevedenver (Jan 6, 2008)

dont freak out too much- 
real price is typically about half 
and 
if they follow the On3 version it may include sound and dcc for that price 

i am excited-i love that loco- 
i hope they put all the On3 models into f scale 
but im with you too on R1 

but it does make the price on the later LGB forneys look pretty low


----------



## tj-lee (Jan 2, 2008)

> for the photo and the brief description. 

I think the photo is the On30, which may be a perfect representation, but I'd like to see K's pics from the NGRC. 

Best, 
TJ


----------



## Robbie Hanson (Jan 4, 2008)

The photo was taken on Bachmann large scale track, so I will assume that it is of the real deal. 

For $200, I'd take one, but for anywhere over $350, I would rather have another LGB Mogul.


----------



## vsmith (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By stevedenver on 09 Jul 2009 12:28 PM 
dont freak out too much- 
real price is typically about half 
and 
if they follow the On3 version it may include sound and dcc for that price 

i am excited-i love that loco- 
i hope they put all the On3 models into f scale 
but im with you too on R1 

but it does make the price on the later LGB forneys look pretty low 

The thing is that I dont want DCC or sound, I would rather have a basic engine that I could choose what to add to it rather than have there propriatary system pushed onto me. What gets me is that even at 1/2 off, thats still over $500 bucks for an engine thats basicly a saddletanker with a tender glued on! And the sadie was never more than $150 at the most, so yeah $200 i might be very tempted, $300 I'm looking at buying a LGB Forney, if it ends up retailing for around $600 with sound and their DCC...I'm looking at* two* LGB Forneys and toss this one!


----------



## Steve Stockham (Jan 2, 2008)

Sorry guys but this time I have to disagree with you. I have seen both versions and they are drop dead _gorgeous!!_ The detailing on these engines reminds me of the first time I saw a Connie! We finally get an engine that we have asked for and they did it right!! Granted, the prototype is a two foot narrow gauge but everything else about this engine just feels _right!_ It has been a long time since I actually looked at an engine and said to myself, "I'm going to _have _that!!" Let them get it out and take a look at the two engines before you condemn them (the picture doesn't do them justice.) Personally, I'm giving Bachmann two big thumbs up!


----------



## TonyWalsham (Jan 2, 2008)

I wonder if Bachmann were smart enough to make the thing dual gaugeable. 
Running on 32mm gauge track it would have a big market in Europe. 1:20.3 is not all that far from 16 mm scale (1:19)


----------



## vsmith (Jan 2, 2008)

Tony I'll be amazed if it runs reliably straight out of the box...


----------



## zubi (May 14, 2009)

Wow Wow Wow, Mind boggles!! A piece of B-junk twice the price of LGB Forney, and not nearly as good looking as the fabulous LGB machine... and I just cannot stop giggling about the entire scale/gauge context, this is just hilarious!!! Best wishes from Tokyo, Zubi 
PS this is how a 16mm SR&RL Forney should look like


----------



## Rod Hayward (Jan 2, 2008)

Maybe its the camera angle, but those cylinders look awfully high to me in realtion to the axles.


----------



## Rod Hayward (Jan 2, 2008)

Interesting comparison with an ex Sandy job. Ditto the footboard and the air tank under. Also the cab height looks uncomfortable IMO to Maybe the transition from 2ft has gone a bit awry? 










Bridgton & Saco River 8 - Portland, Maine. More at http://parkengines.railfan.net/ME/


----------



## Rod Hayward (Jan 2, 2008)

Oh and lastly , some good stuff here by Scottychaos. Its On3 vs On2, but the principle is the same. 

http://gold.mylargescale.com/Scottychaos/On2-SRRL9/index.html


----------



## Fritz (Jan 11, 2008)

I wonder if Bachmann were smart enough to make the thing dual gaugeable. 
Running on 32mm gauge track it would have a big market in Europe. 1:20.3 is not all that far from 16 mm scale (1:19) 

Best wishes, 
Tony Walsham 

I wonder which of the 48 European states you are thinking about. 16 mm scale / 1:19 is not known too well or used outside the UK. 

Of course a Sandy River 2-footer would look better on 32 mm track than on 45mm. But the world market for larger narrow gauge still seems to be dominated by the 45mm folks. 
In Continental Europe probably by the (claimed) LGB scale of 1 : 22,5. 

I am sure, I will take a closer look at the Bachmann offerings, once they are in the shops over here. I never liked the LGB variants with the pivoting chassis. 

Have Fun 

Fritz / Juergen


----------



## Spule 4 (Jan 2, 2008)

It appears that the On30 guys are at least getting a mallet that existed in the real world. 

http://narrowmind.railfan.net/2662_Ingenio_9.JPG


----------



## Steve Stockham (Jan 2, 2008)

I will get detailed photos of the two at the NGRC today. I do know that the electronics are packed under the coal load (which is removeable) and that the trailing truck is capable of moving back and forth or being locked into the center position where the wheels would prototypically be. My suspicion is that this is to accomodate R1 curves.


----------



## digger (Jan 2, 2008)

There's probably still a damp spot on Bachmann's display table from where I drooled on it while looking over the two Forneys. They are beautiful, and though I seriously doubt that they'll navigate R1 curves graciously, I'm willing to bet that many of them will find good homes. After all the work I did on rebuilding my LGB model, I still didn't reach near the level of detail and proportions that they have produced. Granted, there's a lot of electronic stuff crammed in there that I could function without on my simple track-powered layout, and the price put a catch in my throat. Not to say, however, that I haven't started thinking about what to put in hock to get one of the outside framed versions. 

My biggest concern, which is born from the fact that I built my RR to accommodate LGB Moguls and the other small locomotives available back in Y2K, is that the back end may swing out too far to allow it to pass through some of the narrow clearances I have. That's the primary reason I can't run a K-series loco or even a Connie. Will have to hope somebody else gets one first so I can try it out! My R3 curves (minimum) shouldn't be an issue, but "swing width" of the locomotive may call for re-engineering the R.O.W. and bridges. That's just more than I care to do.... 

That said, I hope we don't quench B'mann's interest as we did with the fabled Vulcan.


----------



## vsmith (Jan 2, 2008)

This things only caviet is the MSRP thats going to put it out of reach of alot of people. I wish these dam manufacturers would remember that not everyone wants sound, or DCC or stupor-sockets they just want simple affordable models. 

Now in regards to this model. Keep in mind... Not all Forney's were two foot gauge and roamed the woods of Maine , those are just the most commonly known, many many were 3' gauge, some even standard guage and ranged from Louisiana plantaions to Cuban cane fields to Appalacian logging lines to Washington State saw mills to even the New York City's elevated railroad. 

Disneyland has an operating 3' gauge Forney thats very similar to this model. I just wish this one was more affordable


----------



## Fritz (Jan 11, 2008)

Hi, 

Nail a trailiing truck to a 2nd hnad LGB Stainz, mount a cardboard cab und scrounge some coal for the tender. Thats an affordable Forney which even works on tight radius curves with overseized golden track. 

Of course I´d wish, all those Bently, Jaguars or Daimlers were cheaper. They re not, so I simply don´t buy any and travel by Volkswagen. 

Have Fun 

Fritz / Juergen


----------



## Rod Hayward (Jan 2, 2008)

Nail a trailiing truck to a 2nd hnad LGB Stainz, mount a cardboard cab und scrounge some coal for the tender. Thats an affordable Forney which even works on tight radius curves with overseized golden track. 


Funny you should say that, well it was an Otto actually. I think it cost me £30 in all.


----------



## SlateCreek (Jan 2, 2008)

Regardless of sticker shock, etc, this project isn't going to be killed. If they've got production samples, and photos of production run locos sitting on their own 45mm track, they're already into making them far enough that it's too late to stop it. 

Whether you'd want to do that is another question. 

Ok. So, it's not Sandy River #12. (Or Bridgton and Harrison #8) and nobody in their right mind is gonna pay $1100 for it when you can get a K-27 for under $700.00 now, just like nobody paid $1250 for a 2-6-6-2, $1150 for a 3 truck shay or (cough) $285 for an Annie. Anyone who still believes these prices have anything to do with what you'll actually pay for the locomotive isn't paying attention, period. My guess is the street price will be around the $400.00 mark (much like the 3 truck Shay, which shares the MSRP) which, while still a bit expensive for a one motor, four driver smaller locomotive, is at least more in the ball park. 

I was gonna post some Forney photos of "Non-Maine" forneys, but I keep getting some kind of "unable to load the thingamawhatsis" error when I try to use anything other than "quick response" so I guess I can't really illustrate this ... but I guess the final point I'd be making is this: If you can buy a 2-8-0 which was actually a 30" gauge engine, and feel at home with it pulling your 36" gauge rolling stock, and modify it to fit what you like, look like you want, and sound like what you want.... why not a forney? Edaville did the same thing in 1:1 ... they bought what is now WW&F #11 when it was still 36" gauge from its Louisiana plantation days, and shrunk the gauge to 24" .... and then discovered it was a bit small for their purposes, and only carried JUST enough water to make it around their then 5.5 mile loop, so it didn't see much daylight. There's a rumor that they'd considered modifying FCM #12 from 30" to 24" to pull trains at Edaville, but eventually decided against it and left the engine as a display. 

Now, the strict constructionalists like Zubi will jump all over me for this. He prefers a universe where everything is in perfect scale to the prototype (except of course for the gauge, which in 1:22.5 is too wide for 3' prototypes) God bless him. If I were modelling 2' gauge, I'd probalby want 32mm track and 1:19 prototypes so that it 'looked right." (or even 1:20 on 32mm, which still looks right to many.) 45 mm under a 2 foot prototype isn't going to pass for 2' gauge any more than 45mm under a 1:22.5 scale model passes for 3' ... you can "see" right away that the track's too wide. 

But ... if you're like me, and wonder ... what if someone had visited Baldwin to choose a new locomotive, had seen B&H #8 under construction, and said, "Geez, I'd like one of those.... can you make it for 36" gauge track?" I'm certain Baldwin would have accomodated the order, and we'd have nothing to argue about here. 

What concerns me more is this: WILL IT RUN WELL? What kind of liberties have been taken to accomodate those who want an engine to be able to take curves with a radius less than twice the engine's length? In order to pull cars, did the manufacturer find it necessary to make couplers that swing from one corner of the end beam to the other? Does the engine slide sideways on its axles, to where the superstructure can strike lineside objects? Will the internal wiring handle the current and voltage necessary to operate the locomotive? Will the gears be sturdy enough to pull trains, and not split, crack, or fail? How about the truck sideframes and suspension? Will it crumble to dust, or will it function well and hold up to reasonable use? 

As for me, having sworn off new Bachmann forever after the Mallet, I have to say I'm tempted.... sorely tempted.... to go and order one. The configuration is one of my favorites, and I really like the look of the engine in the photo. It would certainly have a home on the Slate Creek. But I do not want another turkey, with all kinds of liberties taken to accomodate christmas tree style operations and untested technology. 

So, we'll see. 

Matthew (OV)


----------



## Cougar Rock Rail (Jan 2, 2008)

Have you guys seen this new item flyer yet? It has pictures and description etc: 

http://www.bachmanntrains.com/newsi..._sales.pdf 

Keith


----------



## toddalin (Jan 4, 2008)

Seems a bit $$$ seeing as how I only paid $250 for a new B'mann Connie.

Unforetunately the Connie won't make many of my clearances and I expect the forney would be the same way.


----------



## Dennis Paulson (Jan 2, 2008)

Here locally the ES&N railway had a standard gauge Forney loco , and in the ghost Railroads of Indiana book there are photos of it . Perhaps they built them to what ever gauge was required . 

ES&N loco #5 link
http://southernindianatrails.awards...s/esn9.jpg


----------



## David Buckingham (Jan 2, 2008)

Hi Folks 

I would like one but will wait till a certain EX Submariner who cant be named gives a report on it that I can believe. 

Bought a 2-6-6-2 goes OK after I screwed one of the main drive rods back on one end fell down and jambed in the sleepers/ties luckily indoor system so I 
could find the screw good job it was not grass 

Also glued part of the brake gear back on. 

Might still have to rip out all the fancy electronics if I cant get the QSI DC system to work 1/2 volt stop to full speed with inertia so make it uncontrollable. 

Having another goe this weekend with someone who know!!! 

Frustrated DC user Dave


----------



## tj-lee (Jan 2, 2008)

David, 

> I would like one but will wait till a certain EX Submariner who cant be named gives a report on it that I can believe. 

Got to go along with you on that. "Won't spend a dime, until TOC says it's fine!" 

Best, 
TJ


----------



## peter bunce (Dec 29, 2007)

Hi, 

Thanks for the PDF link, most interesting, I like the skidder 0n flatcar and the skidder by itself! I await with interest to see what priice the are when they finally arrive in the UK! 

The G scale stuff starts with the Forneys on page 10.


----------



## Schlosser (Jan 2, 2008)

The Chicago elevated system, a four foot eight and a halfer, started out life with Forneys. Gauge does not dictate wheel arrangement, but tight curves certainly have a say in the matter. 

Art


----------



## SlateCreek (Jan 2, 2008)

The Durango Dan site (http://www.120pointme.blogspot.com/)has a bit on the flatcar/skidder ... looks like the photo in the Bachmann document is of the HO model they released to go with the HO shay.... a 20 foot flatcar would probably look a lot shorter than that! I hope they make the flatcar available by itself! 

Matthew (OV)


----------



## SlateCreek (Jan 2, 2008)

Oh, and here's one of those elevated train forneys... 

http://www.discoverlivesteam.com/magazine/42/SoSide.jpg 

Interesting! 

Matthew (OV)


----------



## Robbie Hanson (Jan 4, 2008)

Fascinating--the Chicago elevated railroads used Vauclain Compound forneys? 

Question: Does the Bachmann Forney appear to use Connie counterweights and bells or am I just dreaming? And jeez, those wheels on the inside frame one are ugly...


----------



## farmerted (Jan 2, 2008)

Maybe it's just me, but do the photos of the Forneys look like digital rendering a la Annie, Clarabelle, and the TroublesomeTrucks in the flyer? There's something about the lighting on the cab/tender and rear trucks that make it look like a digital rendering to me. Looking forward to seeing pictures from the actual display rather than catalog pics. 

-Jon (aka Farmer Ted)


----------



## Pete Thornton (Jan 2, 2008)

The Bachmann 'flyer' has interesting stuff. I was about to remark that the On30 guys should be seeing a fictious 2-6-6-2 any time now, but No, they get a different 2-6-6-2, perhaps one that really existed. 

Hope we'll be seeing that cute little 4-4-0, even if it is the 2' gauge Mt Etna loco.


----------



## SlateCreek (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By farmerted on 10 Jul 2009 03:02 PM 
Maybe it's just me, but do the photos of the Forneys look like digital rendering a la Annie, Clarabelle, and the TroublesomeTrucks in the flyer? There's something about the lighting on the cab/tender and rear trucks that make it look like a digital rendering to me. Looking forward to seeing pictures from the actual display rather than catalog pics. 

-Jon (aka Farmer Ted) 

If it follows the usual practice, a la the shay and the 2-6-6-2, it's a photo with digital editing for things like trim and roadname/number etc. The locomotive itself is most likely real.

Matthew (OV)


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

I just shot a bunch of pics with a ruler for scale, etc., including one with the On30 version in front of it. I'll get them downloaded tonight. 

Interesting technical note - the loco "swings both ways." The front chassis locks so the rear truck can swing side to side, but then the rear truck can be locked in the center so it pivots only, and the front chassis unlocked so it pivots a la LGB's Forney. I asked if it would take a 2' radius, the rep said "we hope so." 

Later, 

K


----------



## TonyWalsham (Jan 2, 2008)

A loco that "swings both ways". 

How kinky!!!


----------



## SlateCreek (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By East Broad Top on 10 Jul 2009 07:26 PM 
I just shot a bunch of pics with a ruler for scale, etc., including one with the On30 version in front of it. I'll get them downloaded tonight. 

Interesting technical note - the loco "swings both ways." The front chassis locks so the rear truck can swing side to side, but then the rear truck can be locked in the center so it pivots only, and the front chassis unlocked so it pivots a la LGB's Forney. I asked if it would take a 2' radius, the rep said "we hope so." 

Later, 

K Oh, my! And if you unlock both at once, you don't need a turntable....


----------



## Scottychaos (Jan 2, 2008)

oh wow..
this is very interesting news! 
Looks like I might be dropping my 29n2 scale concept,

and instead switch to Fn2 scale!  veeeery interesting..

If these locos will indeed be larger versions of the Bachmann On30 Forneys..(which they probably will..

Bachmann is known for keeping things generally very similar when going from F to On30, or vice-versa)

then these should be very accurate replicas of Sandy River & Rangeley Lakes locomotives number 8 and 9.
Number 8 for the inside frame, and number 9 for the outside frame. (if they do both versions in Fn3 scale)


Bachmann calls the On30 versions "Baldwin catalog engines" and does not claim they are models of specific prototypes..
(they probably did that just to avoid the whole "wrong gauge" issue..) 

but when the On30 models came out, it was determined they were VERY accurate models of the real SR&RL numbers 8 and 9..

very accurate in all respects, except for gauge.. looks like we can count on the 1/20.3 versions being the same, as to prototypes..

here is some info on the prototype SR&RL #9, from my On30 to On2 project:
http://gold.mylargescale.com/Scotty...index.html 


I can see myself doing the same regauge from Fn3 to Fn2!  fun! 




Posted By altterrain: Great news for us upscaling 7/8's types. -Brian


sorry..but these models will be mostly useless for 7/8n2 scale..they will be FAR too small..
although they could be used as a frame for MUCH smaller (prototype) locos in 7/8n2..critters maybe..

but they wont make good models of actual 2-foot gauge forneys in 7/8n2..because the scale is all wrong..
way too small..


but they will be an amazing boon for Fn2 and 16mm scale! 
(which is modeling 2-foot gauge on 32mm "O-scale" track..) 





Scot


----------



## Tom Leaton (Apr 26, 2008)

Scot, 

So, would you predict that these locos will be bigger than an LGB forney, or smaller, or the same size?


----------



## Rod Hayward (Jan 2, 2008)

Did you miss page 2 Scotty ?


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

Photos, phinally!!! Lighting was crap, so I used a diffused flash. Still ugly, but better than direct. I need to get a decent remote flash for this kind of thing. 

These are pre-production samples, so some details are likely to change. 






















































A few quirks - the cylinders do not line up with the center of the drivers, and the journal lid on the front pilot needs help. 









This is the pin that locks the rear truck in the center of the frame, so that it can handle tighter radius curves. 









If you lock the rear truck, you need to pull the locking pin on the front chassis, which extends into the steam chest. Do that, and it pivots around the motor, which is roughly in the center of the motor block. 









The motor block itself is rather narrow, so it may be possible to narrow the gauge to 32mm. The rep didn't know for sure, but there looks to be a goodly amount of space there (at least on the outside frame version. I didn't look at the inside frame version). 










Later, 

K


----------



## TonyWalsham (Jan 2, 2008)

Thanks a bunch Kevin. 

That coal load looks to be mounded up higher than it logically would be. With a bit of luck I can fit one of my PnP R/C systems under it. 

I don't think it is going to be possible to narrow down the gauge of the front divers to 32 mm. The more creative engineers among us might be able to. 

But overall. It looks good. I would like to have read a report on how well they run.


----------



## Rod Hayward (Jan 2, 2008)

Maybe its the camera angle, but those cylinders look awfully high to me in realtion to the axles. 

Thanks Kevin, I thought that was the case. I also find the position of the running boards odd, notice they obscure the makers plate, which does nt appear to be tha case in the pic of No8 on page 2. 

Also agree with Tony, these locos were designed to run cab at the front as often as not, so you would nt want to pile up the bunker over the line of sight.


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

The socket butts up against front wall of the tender (sorry, I forgot to photograph that). I couldn't really tell how much airspace there was above the board, but if it doesn't fit, a new coal load is sufficiently simple to build. Seems illogical to me to design a socket so that others can be plugged into it, then not leave any airspace for 3rd-party sockets, but since when has a lack of logic stopped anyone? 

I agree on the regauging. The eccentrics for the reverse gear are located between the driver and the gear box on the rear driver, so they'd have to be sacrificed. I couldn't tell without taking things apart whether the power pick-ups could be moved inboard, so track power may have to be sacrificed as well. But most importantly, the motor may get in the way of the forward drivers. Still, anyone who's looking to do that kind of conversion would probably not shy away from finding a way to mount a narrower motor. So long as the shaft size is the same... 

Oh - it doesn't show in the photos, but the pre-production sample of the inside frame loco currently lacks counterweights on the drivers. The rep believed the final version would have proper counterweights. On the bright side--if they forget--Bachmann has practice sending replacement counterweights out.  

Later, 

K


----------



## bruce a m (Jan 2, 2008)

The loco looks good to me . Later Bruce


----------



## Rod Hayward (Jan 2, 2008)

\o/


----------



## Gary Armitstead (Jan 2, 2008)

Nice looking locomotive, but I agree with Rod regarding the high placement of the cylinders. Something doesn't look quite right......


----------



## Steve Stockham (Jan 2, 2008)

Here are some more pics that I was able to take:




























Here's a higher resolution picture: http://1stclass.mylargescale.com/st...rney/9.jpg

Some cab detail differences:



















Some valve gear shots:


----------



## Del Tapparo (Jan 4, 2008)

Holy cow Batman! Looks like we got a little carried away with the factory electronics here. I hope it does it all, cause it doesn't look like there's room to add anything else in there. Can you say "Cut'n throw"?


----------



## TonyWalsham (Jan 2, 2008)

Thank you Steve. 

It looks like another deviation from the measurement specs (designed by Mr Ames) Bachmann themselves "adopted" for their own K-27 and subsequent socket pcb's. 

These specs were: an area 2.6" x 1.4" was to be reserved for clearance around the mounting pins. Vertical clearance was supposed to be 1.4" 

I don't believe a pcb designed to fit those tolerances will actually plug into the socket.


----------



## David Buckingham (Jan 2, 2008)

What is under this mess is it only space for a speaker or is that in the ashpan. 

Can it be lowered or do we have to scrap it 

Battery people where do they put the batteries the blurb said suitable for batteries 

Somebody give one to TOC so we can get the actual gen 

Dave


----------



## Fritz (Jan 11, 2008)

Battery people where do they put the batteries the blurb said suitable for batteries 

The boiler looks large enough to house many batteries. My Bachmann Climax seems to have similar dimensions and has 13 AA batteries plus all the (tiny) electronic RC stuff inside. 










The above loco went through the hands of Gerd Ziller (batteries) and Mac McCalla (weathering) many summers ago. 

Today´s state of the art for batterie / RC probably is 2,4 GHz and Li-Po or Li-Ion batteries. The components are very much smaller (and cheaper) than the stuff normally offered for larges scale trains by the trade. 

Have fun 

Fritz / Juergen


----------



## David Buckingham (Jan 2, 2008)

Hi Fritz 

What is that behind the Climax 

Dave


----------



## Fritz (Jan 11, 2008)

Hi, 

That´s a modified Confederate Torpedo boat (CSS David) on its way to the local museum 










Built after a free paperkit download, enlarged to approx. 1 : 24 

Have Fun 

Fritz / Juergen


----------



## Scottychaos (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By Tom Leaton on 11 Jul 2009 08:38 AM 
Scot, 

So, would you predict that these locos will be bigger than an LGB forney, or smaller, or the same size? 

Probably close to the same size..but the Bachmann will likely be larger..(because its 1/20.3 while the LGB is 1/22.5)
although LGB isnt known for exact scale fidelity..so the size of the real Eustis engines might not exactly translate to the LGB forney..
LGB takes a lot of liberties..

here are 1/20.3 dimensions of a model of SR&RL #9..
this will probably be very close for the Bachmann engine:









I dont have any measurements for the LGB forney..
but its a 1/22.5 scale model based roughly on the "Eustis Engines"..
which were three identical sisters built for the Eustis railroad (a 2' gauge Maine logging railroad)
that was later incorporated into the SR&RL..they became SR&RL #20, 21 and 22..
They are roughly the same size as #9.

Anyone have dimensions for a LGB Forney?

These two forneys (the LGB and the new Bachmann model) represent "medium" sized power of the Maine 2-footers..
the earlier forneys (the early Portland and Hinkley Forneys) were quite smaller, and the later Baldwin 2-6-2's and the last of the Maine Forneys
(such as SR&RL #10 and B&H #7 and #8) were larger..

About the cylinders..
On the real #9, the cylinders really were higher than the center line of the drivers!
not by much..based on the actual Baldwin drawing, (not the drawing above) its only about 2"..
which is only 1/10th of an inch in 1/20.3..so Bachmann might have overdone it, raised them too high..
but technically, the cylinders really are supposed to be higher than the driver centerline!

Scot


----------



## vsmith (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By Del Tapparo on 12 Jul 2009 09:34 PM 
Holy cow Batman! Looks like we got a little carried away with the factory electronics here. I hope it does it all, cause it doesn't look like there's room to add anything else in there. Can you say "Cut'n throw"? 

Thats why its MSRP is almost as expensive as a freaking K-27 IMHO. Too much propriatary stuff that not everyone wants, if you want batteries, better plan on a trailing car.

I'm done with these guys, lost serious interest in anything Bmann does or plans in the future cause they'll just end up being too freaking expensive. I'm convinced that the major manufactures are completly kicking guys like me to the curbside, pay up or go home, so I'll go home.


----------



## David Buckingham (Jan 2, 2008)

Thanks Fritz 

Good name for me David


----------



## CCSII (Jan 3, 2008)

Mighty strange timing for introducing a +$1000 MRSP loco. (Strange timing by AMS to start selling cars in four piece sets as well.)


----------



## Steve Stockham (Jan 2, 2008)

What's interesting is the jump in the MSRP! When the 3-Truck Shay was introduced the MSRP had risen to $800 if I remember correctly. The Connie was $700 and the 4-4-0 and Mogul were $600. By the time the K-27 came out the MSRP was $1200 (?) or so. Of course, an _Accucraft_ K-27 was going to set you back $3000 (with everything) so when the _actual _street price came in around $700 it seemed a bargain. Why $1100 for the Forney? It's a much smaller locomotive. The MSRP is always about twice the actual street value but even at $550 the Forney sounds a bit steep! $500 seems to be a dividing line. Anything over is considered expensive while anything under it is (at least somewhat) acceptable. We're used to _Spectrum_ engines costing $475 when they first arrive so it's not a big deal. The price eventually drops to somewhere near $300 and that is about right. Demand will fuel the price. If it's too expensive it will not sell and the retailers will have to slash prices to get them off of their shelves. Either way, the prices _will_ come down eventually! 
What will make or break this engine is the quality! (Oh _please_ let Bachmann have someone beta-test these units _before_ they are let out on the public!) I'm not so much worried about the board as I'm sure it can be retro-fitted for r/c battery, as I am about loose engine mounts, crappy plastic, improper valve alignment, etc... you know, all of the "little" details that can trip up an otherwise decent locomotive! I will say this though, Bachmann can really design a sweet looking engine!!


----------



## tj-lee (Jan 2, 2008)

K, 

Thanks for posting the pictures! 

Best, 
TJ


----------



## toddalin (Jan 4, 2008)

This is a lot of stuff to pay for to just sit it on the track, put power to the wheels, and watch it go around.







They should make a "bare-bones" version, though that would probably cost more to make because it varies from the "norm."


----------



## CCSII (Jan 3, 2008)

Aha - Rev: A and Rev: H1 (H1 !!!) 

They expect possible need for upgrade. 

I see what all of those terminal points on the left are for (M+, M- motor etc.) What about the ones on the right (unlabeled ?)


----------



## SlateCreek (Jan 2, 2008)

Unless something's changed (always a very real possibility) they don't do anything but hold the board on there and keep it lined up; no electrical function as yet. 

H-1 .... You sunk my Battleship! 

I know this will probably get me in trouble, but I gotta say it anyway: The number of wires on the left hand side of that photo is .... interesting. 

The locomotive has one motor, one headlight, one smoke unit, and a firebox flicker (which probably has a couple of LED's driven from the H-1 board) It's also got the optical chuff logic, and the power feed to light up the optical chuff.... and track pickup. (maybe there's a light in the cab?) 

Even for a DCC equipped locomotive (something I'm learning quite a lot about lately,) that's still just a LOT of wires. I'm reminded of those thriller movies with the super complex bomb detonation circuit that has to be sorted out and isolated .... and the little pair of screw terminals that are marked for "Batt1 Input" in the bunker ... assuming a decoder in the socket (or PnP radio unit) and a speaker under the board, where do the batteries go? Between the front of the firebox lighting unit and the rear of the smoker (removing the weight, of course, which will negatively impact the 'tractive effort' so highly valued by some for derailment prevention .... I'm just not sure there'd be room. 

I will be interested to see what this beast is like when it arrives, and how many folks fromr BOTH sides of the DCC/RC canyon end up having to resort to major surgery. That said, the model still looks GREAT as far as I'm concerned, and I'm looking forward to figuring out a way to lower the cylinders, and rewire it to suit my needs. Hopefully that's tame and politically correct enough to keep me off the radar.... 

Matthew (OV)


----------



## tacfoley (Jan 3, 2008)

Just measured my LGB #21 'Fairlie-Forney' 

Overall length excluding rear hook & loop coupling = 14.5" = ~ 1:23.3

Height to top of cab, excluding rear light = 5.8" = ~ 1:20 

Maximum width = 4.3" = ~ 1:20

Uh, right. So it's about the same scale as the Bachmann loco in height and width, but slightly shorter in scale length. 

Nothing new to learn there, then, eh?

Mind you, since it's a 0-4-4 it's a different loco to the Bachmann model as well, which might have something to do with it.

And since we are talking technically here, the idea in steam locomotive design is that the vector of thrust - in other words the centre-line of the piston rod - passes directly THROUGH the precise centre of the crank pin on the driven axle, not offset either above or below the centre line of either component. 

At least this is the case on all the steam locomtoives I've seen. Mr Forney may have had other ideas, of course. But the likes Stevenson, Churchward, Collet, Sir Nigel Gresley, Thompson, Peppercorn, Ivatt, Bulleid, Chapelon and most others I can recall, who can be said to know a fair bit about steam locomotive design between them, seem to share my obviously unpopular notion in the motion...

tac 
www.ovgrs.org


----------



## tacfoley (Jan 3, 2008)

Man walked on the moon with less computer assistance than this.

tac
www.ovgrs.org


----------



## TonyWalsham (Jan 2, 2008)

TAC. You have it spot on. 

Some years ago AristoCraft made the C16 with the centreline way too high. 
If the cylinders need to be placed higher they are usually tilted to maintain accuracy of the centreline.


----------



## Fritz (Jan 11, 2008)

Man walked on the moon with less computer assistance than this. 


Quite true, it only took them a camera plus a trick film studio. The Lumiere brothers and Ed Wood sowed the way. 

Suppose the Bachmann Fornies are only static pre-production samples. I doubt that they re running yet.Let´s see, what they offer in the shops, if they ever make any. 

Have Fun 

Fritz / Juergen.


----------



## Steve Stockham (Jan 2, 2008)

Ummm......sorry but I think that those two that were at the NGRC definitely weren't just "static' models (too much on the inside!) They _are _pre-production models according to the Bachmann rep. that was at the show. An interesting item that hasn't yet been mentioned is that the coupler for this Forney that adapts to body mounted height goes _UP _rather than down! This would seem to mean that the Forney was designed first for using _truck mounted_ couplers and then using an adaptor coupler for body mounted _Spectrum _cars. What is notable is that the adaptor couplers in use so far have been ones that were designed to mount to _Spectrum_ Fn3 (1:20.3) cars and go _DOWN_ to adapt to truck mounted couplers! If this is so then this new adaptor coupler will work on the Porters, the Annies, the Connies, the Shays and Climax's and any other Fn3 _Spectrum_ engine that was designed to have couplers at truck mounted height!


----------



## norman (Jan 6, 2008)

I thought nothing interesting was happening right now in large scale! Really neat engine. However, the price? I was hoping that the Indy would be released again as a Forney variant in the Indy price range. I won't pay 600.00 for this engine no matter how much I like Forney engines. If the model was die cast then 600.00 or 800.00 would be ok. 

As a comparison the initial E&P price was 400.00 even with the complicated intricate painting and real brass steam cylinders. The E&P 4-4-0 engines were later cleared out a couple of years ago for as low as 250.00 !! Now there aren't any 4-4-0 s available at the mail order dealers. I guess Bachmann overproduced the 4-4-0 s. 

Possibly the Forney electronics is adding to the price. I think we have been spoiled by the previous clearances. Even the LGB Forneys are presently availabe at far below their true value. To demand 600.00 or 800.00 Bachmann should have made a die cast Forney. 

Norman


----------



## Rod Hayward (Jan 2, 2008)

Incined to agree, here are some inclined cylinders on an incline.


----------



## zubi (May 14, 2009)

Posted By tacfoley on 14 Jul 2009 09:02 AM 
Man walked on the moon with less computer assistance than this.

tac
www.ovgrs.org 

;-) walked, yes. But to get him there the computer used was somewhat more complex than the Forney board (which is not a computer, but a controller, unless it is programmable btw;-) For a nice interview where you can see the actual computer used, please poke here the computer in the lunar module Best wishes from Tokyo, Zubi


----------



## myline (Dec 6, 2008)

I'm in for one. I have 5 LGB forneys. I do wish I could get it without all the bells and whistles. I recal measuring out an LGB forney and thought that if you put it on O gauge track it might be perfect 2 foot gauge scale. 
Little Paulie, [email protected]


----------



## ETSRRCo (Aug 19, 2008)

Umm is it just me or is the inside frame model missing something....................where in the **** are the counter weights on the drivers??????? Other then that very good looking locomotive. I have an On30 version and would like to get this one but for that price I can get the On30 4-6-0 and a downpayment on the 2-6-6-2.


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

The rep said those were pre-production samples, so one can certainly hope they remember to put the counterweights on. That and the cylinder misalignment. We'll find out "in November." 

Later, 

K


----------



## Dylanfreeski123 (Apr 13, 2008)

Is it just me or is that coal load a bit stiff and perfect?


----------



## Steve Stockham (Jan 2, 2008)

The coal load is more like an upside down cup. It's _really_ thin! My guess is that they are trying to utilize the area underneath as a heat sink.


----------



## Al Sauer (Jan 3, 2008)

Does anybody want to guess how many cars these forney's will pull up a 4% grade? I think I am one of the few that is really excited about these locomotives, and considing changing the focus of my railroad because of them. I have some pretty steep grades though, so I was wondering if they could realistically be expected to pull even 3-4 cars on my railroad.

I'd really apprecaite anybody's thoughts or gusses on this......

Al


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

I would imagine so. The Aristo-Craft C-16 is fairly light-footed, and mustered 4 cars up my 4% test grade. The miniscule Davenport managed two Accucraft passenger cars, which aren't exactly the world's most free-rolling things. Figure the Forney will fall somewhere around that group. I'd think three to four cars should't be an issue. 

Later, 

K


----------

