# Bachmann Porter or 45 Tonner?



## paintjockey (Jan 3, 2008)

I was looking for a switch engine for my yard and am trying to decide between the Bachmann 45 tonner or the Bachmann porter. I'm not real familiar with either engine so i have a few questions. 
1. Are both 1/20.3 scale? I know the old porter wasn't but was wondering about the new and the 45 tonner? 
2. Are they both decent runners? 
3. Is there room for batteries and electronics in either of them? I run battery power with airwire so i would need some room inside. 

The 45 tonner would be a little to modern for me but i'm willing to accept that if it would work better for me. Any help would be great. 

Thanks, 
Terry


----------



## Dougald (Jan 2, 2008)

Both locomotives have their strong points and either can be a good choice provided you get past the usual B'mann QC foibles. Lots of folks reported wiring problems out of the box with their Dizzies and their Porters but for battery power this should not be a problem for you. 

First off on the question of size. Both are 1:20.3 models but the Porter is a model of a very small prototype. The prototype of the centrecab or Dizzie as we call it is a catalog loco that was built in all gauges up to standard gauge. It is a huge loco among the largest models around in terms of width and bulk. 

If you have large Fn3 rolling stock, then I have no doubt that the Dizzie will in the long run be the smoother and much more powerful runner. It has two motors and an enormous amount of room under the hoods for electronics after you cut and toss the existing boards. 

On the Dizzie, the motors need hardwiring to get rid of the flimsy contacts B'mann provided ... and rewiring the lights is also not much of an issue. Otherwise it is about as simple a mechanism as there is ... and most of us with Dizzies find them to be smooth and powerful. 

The Porter is a charming but tiny locomotive with just a single motor. For light switching it is perfectly in place. I do not own one - it is too small for my liking - but the ones I have seen have run well. They are much more at home to my eye with the more traditional fleets of 1:22.5 rolling stock than with the larger Fn3 stock but that is just my opinion. 

Regards ... Doug


----------



## Steve Stockham (Jan 2, 2008)

Hmmm.....interesting dilemna! Of course, I'm predjudiced! There's NO contest when it comes to narrow gauge steam vs _anything_! Still, the question has been asked so I'll give it a shot. 
The Porter in 1:20.3 is slightly larger than the original in 1:22.5 as you have noted. Here's a couple of comparison pictures: 



















Now, the Porter (the 1:20.3 version) is indeed large enough for r/c battery and sound all contained in the engine. Dave Goodson has already been informed that the next engine I'm sending him is _my_ Porter!/DesktopModules/NTForums/themes/mls/emoticons/satisfied.gif 
A lot depends upon what you want to do with the switcher. Is it just a yard engine pushing rolling stock around? What are your mainline engines? Do you have LGB Moguls and Bachmann Big Haulers or do you go for larger engines like the new K-27 or the Connie? If you tend towards the smaller engines then the 45 tonner will dwarf them. It's a BIG engine (which also answers your question about room for all of the electronics.) 
It ultimately is _your_ decision of course but you _did_ ask for our input! For what it's worth, I'd say get the Porter! Stick with the proper era! Stick with steam!


----------



## paintjockey (Jan 3, 2008)

Hmmm, i didn't realize the 45 tonner or dizzie, was such a large loco. The largest loco i run is a LGB sumpter Valley Mallet scaled up to 1/20.3 My next largest is a connie. I really don't want the loco to dwarf my regular fleet, i just want something to shove cars around the yard. Hopefully when i save some cash I wanna get the B-mann k. But I assume thats gona be awhile. 

When the porter is listed as a "spectrum" is that the 1.20 version or the older smaller one? 

Terry


----------



## Spule 4 (Jan 2, 2008)

The current edition Spectrum porter is the 1:20.3 version. There are two, the side tank with wood cab and saddle tank with steel cab. I have and like both for different reasons.


----------



## SlateCreek (Jan 2, 2008)

Dunno if this helps, but here's a few comparison shots (terrible, blurry cellphone photos) of a 45 Tonner or two with a Bachmann 2-8-0. And one or two with a railtruck and an LGB caboose. The gray boxcar is the AMS navy one. 

http://www.lscdata.com/users/slatecreek/141628247_463441666_0.jpg 
http://www.lscdata.com/users/slatecreek/141621134_463416272_0.jpg 
http://www.lscdata.com/users/slatecreek/141628247_463441665_0.jpg 
http://www.lscdata.com/users/slatecreek/7145 c1.JPG 
http://www.lscdata.com/users/slatecreek/7145goose.JPG 

You can see an LGB stock car behind the 45 tonner in the one wtih the goose. 

Matthew (OV)


----------



## nkelsey (Jan 4, 2008)

I have the new Porter, R/C, Battery with Airwire and Pheonix sound, and its a nice running little loco.


----------



## Guest (May 20, 2008)

I have the Saddle tanker and the 45'er (Huge)....Have you considered the LGB #50 Diesel Switcher? Not what you mentioned, but I just finished one w/ RCS, and I love it (14.4v NiMh from TOC)....they say it's close to Fn3..... 
cale


----------

