# What scale is this is?



## Skeeterweazel (Feb 11, 2014)

Thought i'd ask. Says Bachmann China on the bottom. 14.5" long, 3.75 wide, top about 4" above rails. Wheel diameter is 1.170"

Thx for your help.


----------



## vsmith (Jan 2, 2008)

1/22.5 but it will work with 1/20.3


----------



## chuck n (Jan 2, 2008)

As far as I know the prototype of this car is supposed to be 30 feet long.

The model is 14.5 inches long.

14.5/12=1.21 feet

30/1.21= 24.8 (scale)

The scale length is closer to 1:24 than it is to 1:22.5. This is true for most LGB, Bachmann, USAt, Delton, Aristocraft freight cars based upon Colorado Narrow Gauge. The scale calculated from height and width may be different.

If the car is 1:22.5, the length of the prototype would be:

1.21*22.5= 27.2 feet.

Go to some drawings and find the real length of this car and do a more exact calculation.

Chuck

PS to my eye these cars look small behind the larger 1:20.3 locomotives, K27 or 28, and the Bachmann Connie. I'm sure that they would be fine behind some of the smaller 1:20.3 engines. It is all in the eye of the beholder.


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

chuck n said:


> As far as I know the prototype of this car is supposed to be 30 feet long.


There's not really a specific prototype for this gondola. Most of the early Bachmann freight equipment uses the same underframe, so they're all the same length. (The same is true for many of LGB, Delton, etc.'s freight cars.) While the 4-6-0 and bobber caboose are clearly models of East Tennessee & Western North Carolina prototypes (and pretty accurate to 1:22.5), the early freight cars are a bit more nebulous in terms of pinning down a specific prototype. There's no gondola on the ET&WNC roster that comes close, as their "high side" gondolas still only had 24" tall sides. It's closer to gondolas used in Colorado, but the details are such that it's not specifically a model of those, either. 

That's actually a good thing. With no specific prototype for all but a handful of Bachmann's freight car prototypes, the question isn't so much "what scale is this," but "what scale would you like it to be?"

Model: 14.5" x 3.75" x 4"

1:24 = 29' x 7.5' x 8'

1:22.5 = 27.2' x 7' x 7.5'

1:20.3 = 24.5' x 6.3' x 6.8'

The car measures very well in 1:24 and 1:22 to prototypical cars from about the 1890s forward. It's very easy to find examples of 28 - 30' gondolas with widths between 7' and 8' on a variety of narrow gauge lines covering a wide range of years of operation. In 1:20.3, it's still plausible for a narrow gauge car, but only for very early-vintage (c. 1870s) equipment. If you're modeling the 1920s forward, this equipment would long have been scrapped. 

Later,

K


----------



## Dr Rivet (Jan 5, 2008)

Kevin
To me it sure looks like they tried to represent the D&RG 1500/1600 series gondola, the same car that the LGB model is based on.


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

The D&RGW prototype may well have provided the inspiration with regard to overall proportions (I've yet to find a gondola on an _eastern_ narrow gauge railroad with such high sides), but the details--the number and placement of the stakes, grab irons, etc.--aren't remotely close to any of the D&RGW's gondolas. (The D&RGW cars are 32', but it wouldn't at all be out of character for a model manufacturer to shorten the model to fit a prescribed length compatible with existing components or other models.) 

The gondola and flat car (Bachmann's first two freight cars) are virtual twins from the deck down. Either they designed the flat car first then built the gondola on top of it, or designed the gondola first, then cut it off at the deck and called it a flat car. Given that the 4-6-0 and caboose are pretty accurate models of their respective prototypes, it strikes me that if Bachmann were looking to produce a model of a specific D&RGW gondola, they could have easily done so. It wouldn't surprise me if Bachmann intentionally went generic on their model so it would be different from LGB's D&RGW gon. (That, and Lee Riley had a reputation at the time for eschewing Colorado narrow gauge.) 

I think the generic nature of Bachmann's rolling stock is a strong selling point. It's "close enough" to known prototypes (such as the D&RGW gons) to where if you're not a nit-picker, it will work very nicely. But most are also generic enough to where they've got a different look to them that makes them stand out from other similar products from other manufacturers. This allows the modeler the opportunity for a bit of variety on the roster. "Uniformity" and "Narrow Gauge" were historically very strange bedfellows.

Later,

K


----------



## Treeman (Jan 6, 2008)

If it looks good to you, run it.


----------



## Skeeterweazel (Feb 11, 2014)

Thx guys.
For a given scale are cars about the same width? Wondering if there is some parameter that i can use to figure out scale. Or like Mike said just run it i guess. I'm not that picky, just want my stuff to be ballpark. Supposedly my loco is 1:22.5, but it is a little 0-4-0 and the gondola looks big to me behind it. Anyways....
Have a couple more cars to ask you about. Will post pics/specs later.
Marty.


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

You will find the railroads were not nearly as concerned with aesthetics as we tend to be as modelers. So long as a railroad car could earn them money, it ran on the rails. Narrow gauge railroads in particular (especially the shoe-string ones) had very eclectic collections of equipment as they bought new, bought 2nd-hand, and built what they needed over the years. This was especially true around 1900 - 1910 as railroads began replacing the older, smaller equipment as it wore out or couldn't easily be retrofitted with safety appliances like air brakes or automatic couplers. 

In terms of determining "scale," it really is a matter of picking which scale you wish to focus on, and measuring each piece of equipment you want to consider for your railroad with a scale ruler of that scale. Granted, most of the 1:20.3 stuff from Bachmann's "Spectrum" series and AMS's stuff is going to be too large for 1:24 and 1:22 railroads, but a lot of the 1:24 and 1:22 stuff can work well for smaller equipment in the 1:20 world. 










In this scene, everything is modeled accurately to the prototype in 1:20.3. However, most of the rolling stock "started out" with another scale stamped on the box. The box car is a stock Bachmann box car (1:22.5) with new siding. The oxide red hopper car is a Delton/Aristo wood hopper (1:24). The black hopper behind it is a Bachmann ore car (1:22.5). The flat car is a Bachmann "Spectrum" 1:20.3 car. The caboose is scratchbuilt, but scales to a mere 6' wide x 23' long--the smallest piece of equipment on the train. 

Later,

K


----------



## Jerry Barnes (Jan 2, 2008)

Cars still vary in size on modern railroads. I live by the UP line and see many older boxcars in trains with the new hi cube giants. So like Mike said, if it looks good to you, run it.


----------



## Semper Vaporo (Jan 2, 2008)

Skeeterweazel said:


> Thx guys.
> For a given scale are cars about the same width? Wondering if there is some parameter that i can use to figure out scale. Or like Mike said just run it i guess. I'm not that picky, just want my stuff to be ballpark. Supposedly my loco is 1:22.5, but it is a little 0-4-0 and the gondola looks big to me behind it. Anyways....
> Have a couple more cars to ask you about. Will post pics/specs later.
> Marty.


For a given scale, for a given track gauge, and depending on the era, for a given railroad, the width (and height, too) of cars was limited to what is called the "Loading gauge". This is the distance between the track and line-side structures, such as passenger/loading platforms, bridges, tunnels and other things, though most structures other than platforms are often set a bit further from the track (called the "Structure gauge"). There is also a height consideration for fitting into tunnels, under signal bridges and highway/RR overpasses and under electric catenary (don't want to run a double-stack container train under electric catenary if the catenary is not at a height that won't strike the cars!!! PSZAPAROONI!)

Cars cannot be any wider than what will fit next to the closest structures. Cars can be (and are) narrower than that, but most will be that size to maximize the capacity of the car (or comfort of passengers and to facilitate loading and unloading safely).

One must also be mindful of car overhang on curves so that they don't strike structures either by the ends overhanging on the outside of the curve or the middle on the inside of the curve.

In North America today, the loading gauge is 10' 8" except for certain cars where it is considered 9' 11-3/8" (how's that for "precision"? It ain't no liaise-fare subject in the real world, and could need to be precise in the model world as well... creaming the sides your $$$ passenger cars on the loading platform can be heartbreaking!).

For more info that you likely really want to know, see:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loading_gauge

(Offered with the usual caveat about the accuracy of Wikipedia.)


----------



## Totalwrecker (Feb 26, 2009)

Railroads bought cars as needed, coupler height was the only uniformity necessary....
Even passenger trains were made up on the fly, unless they were name trains with matched or mostly matched, more revenue trumped style, equipment. 
Different loads brought their own load restrictions, auto frames are big, boxy and light, Hi-Cubes handled the volume with out going over axle loads... iron ore cars are short because the ore is heavy and so on....
John


----------



## SD90WLMT (Feb 16, 2010)

Thru all the comments presented here, there is a pattern ...one of non-uniformity in cars...

What the OP will need to do is become more relaxed about cars and their sizes...

They are not all the exact same width....or height...or even length....

Not being so precise in car sizes will take time to grow into....and adjust ones own mental images of what is what..

Jerry has a very valid point here....he watches trains nearby often, as do I have the opportunity to see them all day long every day....there are a few basic guidelines....but it is not as ridgid a world as we modelers try to make it....

So ...enjoy your hobby...try not to get so worked up over things beyond our control....

If you have to fit an image, scale or fit some defined idea in a box...
..you may need to discover the world of "Scratch-building"....building cars as your minds eye sees them....

Good luck n have Phun with your Trains! !

Dirk


----------



## SD90WLMT (Feb 16, 2010)

If you'd like to try a different look with the same BM gondola...

Very carefully cut off the top board only...finish it off to the next board down....
...the looks will change alot....yet...the same car..
Weathering....beat it up...even repaint....will turn it into a silk purse....in no time...

D


----------



## chuck n (Jan 2, 2008)

We all have a vision of what we think an engine and cars should look like, as far as relative size. Here are a couple of pictures from a book on Minnesota's logging railroads. The engines in both pictures are dwarfed by the attached car. In one case it it a bobber caboose, not a usually large car.





















Chuck


----------



## Semper Vaporo (Jan 2, 2008)

chuck n said:


> We all have a vision of what we think an engine and cars should look like, as far as relative size. Here are a couple of pictures from a book on Minnesota's logging railroads. The engines in both pictures are dwarfed by the attached car. In one case it it a bobber caboose, not a usually large car.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Hee hee heee... they couldn't even get the scale right way back when in 1:1 Railroading!


----------



## chuck n (Jan 2, 2008)

Yup, Semper if you look long enough you can usually find a prototype for practically anything.

Chuck


----------



## Amber (Jul 29, 2011)

Oh man, look at those pictures! They're doing it WRONG! LOL


----------



## SD90WLMT (Feb 16, 2010)

One tough little loco! !

Standard gauge...

What is it John - TW....a 2-6-0 baby loco...with a BBT drive...

.. ;-)
.


----------



## Totalwrecker (Feb 26, 2009)

Porters were smaller industrial locos, often a construction loco rather than a mainline loco....
They could be strong work horses and take abuse when used for hauling. Of course there were exceptions and my knowledge is limited.

John


----------



## Amber (Jul 29, 2011)

I guess as long as they have the necessary tractive effort for what they're expected to pull, the engine doesn't have to be very big.


----------



## chuck n (Jan 2, 2008)

Amber, that is the bottom line. For all we know, the little engine could have been switching and moving the cars one at a time in preparation for a larger road engine, especially if all those log cars are going to be part of the train.

Chuck


----------



## Totalwrecker (Feb 26, 2009)

I think I can, I think I can ......

Story was a small engine wouldn't scare horses on the street....


----------

