# Loco Size



## Rodlloyd (Oct 21, 2018)

I am a relatively new user. I inherited a HO layout about a year ago which was DC only. 

I decided to upgrade to DCC and purchased an NEC Power Cab. Then I needed a DCC loco and decided to buy a DCC installed loco 
*Bachmann HO Baldwin 4-6-0 Steam Locomotive With Tender, Union Pacific No. 1429*
I was please with the DCC system but was shocked how small the new loco is compared to my existing loco's. Is there a different size I have happened upon?


----------



## MichaelE (Mar 7, 2018)

A 4-6-0 is not a large locomotive. I have one that is smaller than my smallest electric or Diesel locomotives.

The blue locomotive in the background on the second track is a very large electric.


----------



## mesenteria (Oct 29, 2015)

The 4-6-0 version of steamer in N. America preceded the 2-8-0 by several years, maybe 20. Very few of them were made after 1905 or so because the demand to move increasingly heavy consists required new larger locomotives, notably the 2-10-0 and 2-8-2 varieties. If you place a 2-10-4, say the Santa Fe 5010 series or a Pennsy J1a, next to your modern locomotives, you'll see an entirely different photo. Now place a H-7, and H-8, or a Challenger nearby and the new picture changes dramatically.


----------



## Murv2 (Nov 5, 2017)

I have three Ten-Wheelers, all older but
The Bachmann has 52" drivers
The Tyco has 61" drivers
The Aristocraft has 76" drivers.
So Ten-Wheelers are many different sizes.


----------



## Rodlloyd (Oct 21, 2018)

The loco definitely seems undersized against the carriages. So 52" refers to the wheel diameter and presumable is a good indication of size, Is that correct?


----------



## MichaelE (Mar 7, 2018)

What railroad name is on that coach?


----------



## CTValleyRR (Jul 26, 2014)

Wheel size is generally correlated with loco size, yes, but it's not a sure fire indicator. There are several issues that make the loco seem out of proportion to the coach. You have a model of a fairly early Ten Wbeeler, which would normally be pulling a much smaller coach -- a 45 to 50 footer rather than the longer, later period coach you have there.

Secondly, the couplers are way too long -- there is far too much room between the loco and the tender (remember, the fireman had to be able to turn around and lift a heavy shovelful of coal from the tender into the firebox on the loco. And the coach is too far away. A lot of this is probably a deliberate design choice on the manufacturer's part to allow them to use tighter curves.

Lastly, the model of the coach is sitting several scale feet too high. If the height were more accurate, the size mismatch wouldn't be as bad.

All of this conspires to make your loco look small. If I were a betting man, I would bet that the loco is actually the truest to scale of all of it.


----------



## MichaelE (Mar 7, 2018)

I'm thinking he inherited OO equipment.


----------



## Rodlloyd (Oct 21, 2018)

You are correct, that coach is Hornby OO and will not be used on that Loco


----------



## Old_Hobo (Feb 20, 2014)

That coach looks like a Hornby model, and if that is correct, it is OO scale, which is bigger than H.O. and will look larger....because it is.....

The locomotive looks to be H.O. scale, as does the track.....


----------



## MichaelE (Mar 7, 2018)

Rodlloyd said:


> You are correct, that coach is Hornby OO and will not be used on that Loco


I thought it looked rather European.


----------



## Old_Hobo (Feb 20, 2014)

British, actually.....


----------



## MichaelE (Mar 7, 2018)

I guess it is now.


----------



## Stumpy (Mar 19, 2013)

Old_Hobo said:


> That coach looks like a Hornby model, and if that is correct, it is OO scale, which is bigger than H.O. and will look larger....because it is.....
> 
> The locomotive looks to be H.O. scale, as does the track.....


OO & HO track is the same. 

OO = 1/76
HO = 1/87


----------



## Old_Hobo (Feb 20, 2014)

I know, but the rolling stock is not.....


----------



## 65446 (Sep 22, 2018)

I am also NCE PowerCab, love it and my Bach HO 4-6-0 DCC/Sound... This is the earlier in US RRing type, closer to the days of the American type 4-4-0 of the late 19th into early 20th century issues by Baldwin, Rogers, and other loco builders of the time.
This smaller driver-ed ten wheeler that you have in post #5 is a little gem in all respects. She runs like honey, is detailed elegantly, and is correctly in scale for what she was made for...
~ But, hey ! Schmageggy ! If you don't plan the Brit 00 behind her, why'd ya put it behind her ? 
(just joshin' wid ya'). M

(Btw. the newer issue of this loco has a headlight that could near burn out your retina !! The older issues had thee worst in the entire Bach stable..You thus can tell which one you have by this..)


----------



## Murv2 (Nov 5, 2017)

Rodlloyd said:


> The loco definitely seems undersized against the carriages. So 52" refers to the wheel diameter and presumable is a good indication of size, Is that correct?
> View attachment 554223


Yes, I listed wheel diameter. It's complicated but generally smaller wheels generated better traction but slower speeds so freight engines would have more smaller wheels and passenger engines had fewer bigger wheels. After the turn of the century the typical passenger engine would be a Pacific 4-6-2 while the equivalent freight engine was the Mickado 2-8-2 with more smaller drivers. 
I'd like to say age plays into it too, as older engines tend to be smaller but the engine with the largest drivers was the Crampton 6-2-0 with 96" drivers which predates the Civil War. They were common in the UK and France but had no favor in the US because our track was rougher.
Your engine probably would have been a general purpose engine for use on secondary lines for both freight and passenger service in the late 19th Century. It is too big to be a switcher and premium passenger trains would be pulled by Americans or Ten-Wheelers with larger drivers. 
Ten-Wheelers weren't popular to build after the turn of the century but continued service to the end of the steam era on secondary tasks.
Or I could be all wet...


----------



## Stumpy (Mar 19, 2013)

Baldwin Ten-Wheeler along side a 2-8-0 Consolidation.











And with a 4-6-6-4 Challenger in the background.


----------



## mesenteria (Oct 29, 2015)

There's also the matter of superheat. A slide valve steamer, with the box atop the cylinders, can't use superheated steam. At least, not for long, and not without risks of seizure and a lot of periodic maintenance. Whereas the smaller, earlier engines, the 4-4-0 and the 2-6-0, and the above-discussed 4-6-0, have boilers capable of delivering about 500 hp at the drawbar, the Challenger was good for upwards of 4000 hp. It's larger heating surfaces and superheater meant that the boiler was able to move much more tonnage, even with substantially larger driver diameter.


----------



## J.Albert1949 (Feb 3, 2018)

*OP:*

Show us some pics of the locomotives you inherited.
Even if dc, they might be easily converted to dcc.

Was that yellow coach a part of the inherited equipment?
If so, as others have said, it's probably "OO" instead of "HO".
I'll take a guess that the locos you have are OO as well.

Just wondering, are you in the USA/Canada/elsewhere...?


----------



## Old_Hobo (Feb 20, 2014)

I would say his locomotive is definitely H.O......

And he has an American flag beside his name, so.....


----------



## Rodlloyd (Oct 21, 2018)

My main loco Oliver Cromwell [and carriages] is - Hornby 00. My layout design is 1960 England at the end of the steam era. The Oliver Cromwell was the last running steam loco before the steam system was retired, and this loco was preserved for history.
My track is 100 HO. This loco is currently at the shop being converted to DCC which is not an easy install. Power comes from the large loco wheels but the motor is in the tender.
I also have another couple of modern US HO loco's


----------



## CTValleyRR (Jul 26, 2014)

As others have noted: despite the size difference, HO and OO use the same track (16.5mm gauge). So they are compatible from that perspective. But OO is 1/76 scale, HO is 1/87, so there's roughly a 10% difference in relative size. British products tend to be OO, most everyone else uses HO. Many structures, especially those produced innthe UK, are sold as HO/OO, and are perhaps 1/82 scale -- little undersized for OO but slightly oversized for HO.

If this mismatch doesn't bother you, then there's nothing wrong with mixing the two scales together.


----------



## Old_Hobo (Feb 20, 2014)

Many items can be used with any scale, even though they are not exact dimension ratios.....I know that O scalers have been using 1:50 and 1:43 scale vehicles with their 1:48 trains to great effect, and the difference in size would be difficult for most people to determine.....


----------



## mesenteria (Oct 29, 2015)

Old_Hobo said:


> Many items can be used with any scale, even though they are not exact dimension ratios.....I know that O scalers have been using 1:50 and 1:43 scale vehicles with their 1:48 trains to great effect, and the difference in size would be difficult for most people to determine.....


I agree. I unfortunately am one of those whose eye is a little too critical, and I notice those kinds of inconsistencies. For me, the typical HO offering for ground throws are too large by a factor of two. N Scale ground throws are much closer to the correct size. Also, many of the human scale 'people' offered by Woodland Scenics are too small by about 18-20% in my estimation. There is also a lot of variance in those W/S items.

I do subscribe to 'forced perspective' because, if done right, on a sufficiently large layout, it can greatly increase the believability of the implied distances a layout attempts to portray. But, not always. An HO scale Hudson next to N Scale telephone poles, for example, ain't gonna work. They have to be some distance behind the Hudson, and then the illusion works.


----------



## Rodlloyd (Oct 21, 2018)

To digress a little, I am now ready to add some turnouts to my layout. I have a stack of used Atlas switches in good condition. Can these be used for DCC? [I know the wiring will need to be correct] or is it better to always use new switches for reliability? I have no problem having the motor exposed on the layout.


----------



## CTValleyRR (Jul 26, 2014)

Well, there generally isn't a problem with using used track, even used turnouts. Any track piece that works in DC can also be used for DCC.

The problem is that an Atlas Snap Switch in good condition still isn't a good quality turnout. Yes I know turnouts are expensive, and it seems wasteful, but I'd get new ones: Peco, Walthers, or MicroEngineering.


----------



## 65446 (Sep 22, 2018)

Deleted by me/Became obsolete with later pics posted.


----------



## 65446 (Sep 22, 2018)

Rodlloyd said:


> To digress a little, I am now ready to add some turnouts to my layout. I have a stack of used Atlas switches in good condition. Can these be used for DCC? [I know the wiring will need to be correct] or is it better to always use new switches for reliability? I have no problem having the motor exposed on the layout.
> View attachment 554384
> View attachment 554385


I wish you well with Snap-Track switches which have non-powerable fully plastic frogs, notorious for stall-outs.
Also, don't hold the switch push-button down too long. You can burn out the solenoid type 'motor' !
If not too late I strongly advise you to consider moving into Atlas CustomLine switches with metal, powerable frogs. Same for Peco and couple others... 
But yes, you should be OK using these with DCC as well..They are what are called "All Live" switches/TOs. M


----------



## Lemonhawk (Sep 24, 2013)

Another thing to consider is that Atlas Snap switches have an unusual geometry so when you replace them (likely) you will have to modify the track connected to the curved part.


----------



## MichaelE (Mar 7, 2018)

And, that is not a turnout. It's a wye.


----------



## Lemonhawk (Sep 24, 2013)

Besides being a "Y" I could not find a "Snap Switch" label on the ties.


----------



## CTValleyRR (Jul 26, 2014)

Lemonhawk said:


> Besides being a "Y" I could not find a "Snap Switch" label on the ties.


You won't. You have to look at the part number, which I don't see on that piece, but it's usually near the ends.


----------



## 65446 (Sep 22, 2018)

MichaelE said:


> And, that is not a turnout. It's a wye.


*Michael*, It is still a T.O. / switch track. The configuration/curvature of the double ends makes no Diff.
It just happens to be a 'wye' type switch as opposed to a LH or RH switch.....M


----------



## 65446 (Sep 22, 2018)

Lemonhawk said:


> Another thing to consider is that Atlas Snap switches have an unusual geometry so when you replace them (likely) you will have to modify the track connected to the curved part.


Correct. That too ! Nothing like the geom. of their CustomLine or SuperTrack which, to me, especially after being weathered, look the most US proto of the commercial switches, except for ME. I've lots Atlas C-Line #6s and I think they look terrific ! Powering the frog is a cinch, too, if you think you need to. ~ M

PS. I am though, thinking of all ME track for my small L-shelfie I've talked about; if I ever stop procrastinating !!!


----------

