|
|
Post by carrman on Dec 22, 2013 15:56:54 GMT -8
So, who wants to share pics of their new units?
Dave
|
|
|
|
Post by trebor on Dec 22, 2013 16:01:14 GMT -8
WHAT WHERE WOO WOO My dopey apparently uninformed LHS dealer told me I'd be in hospice before they came in. This would be worthy of an Edwin R Morrow special report! So this is my X-mas present to me from Bowser?!!!!
|
|
|
|
Post by roadkill on Dec 22, 2013 16:40:53 GMT -8
I plan on getting 3 Penn Central non-sound units, and just maybe a Conrail patch (PC or RDG) or 3.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mark R. on Dec 22, 2013 16:57:25 GMT -8
My buddy got his right at Bowser this past Friday - got the Susquehanna version. Looks really good. The cab roof HAS been corrected and they even have an interior in them now !
REALLY nice looking unit. Sorry, no pictures.
Mark.
|
|
thb401
Full Member
Posts: 170
Member is Online
|
Post by thb401 on Dec 22, 2013 17:08:03 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by tom on Dec 22, 2013 17:50:04 GMT -8
I picked up my Penn Central C430 yesterday and I am pleased with it with some reservations. First the engine is a very smooth running locomotive.....runs just as good if not better than my Kato units. The detailing is pretty good but the horn looks undersized and the windshield wipers just a tad thick. The hi-ad trucks are done very well.
I am not quite as happy with the graphics though. The PENN CENTRAL is not quite right as is the PC logo. However at least for my unit (2059) the point is sort of moot since #2059 was basically just painted black and only had the small PC logos on the ends and the cab number. I will painting out the lettering and logos. The yellow paint on the handrails is pretty thick.
However I am still happy with the unit and Bowser really captured that "C430" look. It will probably be a awhile until I tweak, detail, and weather the locomotive so I won't have any photos until its done.
While this is a very rare engine even for Penn Central it is still one of those signature PC engines.
|
|
|
|
Post by roadkill on Dec 22, 2013 18:44:39 GMT -8
I see that I'll have to reletter the PC units I buy, I was afraid Bowser wasn't going to fix that wonky font. Oh well, I'm just damn happy to have a state-of-the-art C430. I do hope Bowser offers the retooled cab separately, as I have quite a stash of old Stewart C628's and C630's waiting to be built. Can't wait for the C636...
|
|
|
|
Post by Judge Doom on Dec 22, 2013 18:49:43 GMT -8
I see that I'll have to reletter the PC units I buy, I was afraid Bowser wasn't going to fix that wonky font. Oh well, I'm just damn happy to have a state-of-the-art C430. I do hope Bowser offers the retooled cab separately, as I have quite a stash of old Stewart C628's and C630's waiting to be built. Can't wait for the C636... Reletter? Nahh, just do it like what really happened: buy some NYC units and patch 'em.  |
|
|
|
Post by thebessemerkid on Dec 22, 2013 19:10:33 GMT -8
The black CR units are patched (2053 & 2056) - look closely www.bowser-trains.com/new/c430.htmlAll but the demos will need a healthy dusting of 'eau de Mingo' (rust & soot) :-) |
|
|
|
Post by trebor on Dec 22, 2013 20:34:10 GMT -8
At least there is not much masking on a PC unit. Just don't melt any plastic taking off the worm. Will be interesting to see PC font and worm on 636's. Weren't the worms squared off? U33C front-worms were schmooshed as built along with a few E-units with "flatworms."
|
|
|
|
Post by carrman on Dec 23, 2013 9:27:21 GMT -8
Hate to say it, but it looks like the front truck is set back too far, and the fuel tank is shortened up to compensate. www.bowser-trains.com/new/c430.htmlwww.rrpicturearchives.net/showPicture.aspx?id=559417Look where the spring pack on the front truck lines up under the jacking pad and the cab window on the prototype, but sits farther back on the model. The rear truck appears to be set a tad far forward also, not quite having it's spring pack lined up under the rear jacking pad when it should be. Also, not the fuel tank and how it's sits forward of the second hand rail stanchion behind the cab on the prototype, and on the model, it sits even with it. Dave |
|
|
|
Post by WP 257 on Dec 23, 2013 10:07:13 GMT -8
I went to the Bowser photo link provided by carrman, and the first thing I noticed is that most of the images were clearly taken on curved track--look at the rails in the photos.
Regarding the prototype Susquehanna unit photo shown, the angle from which the picture is taken is different from Bowser's photos. It is different enough that the image may appear to show something that is not true.
I respectfully suggest using actual dimensions--real versus model--rather than photographs taken from differing angles, to make comparisons--or at least use photos taken from the same angle so that dimensions may be scaled proportionally.
|
|
|
|
Post by carrman on Dec 23, 2013 10:14:39 GMT -8
Well the fuel tank certainly didn't move back because the model is on a curve.
|
|
|
|
Post by WP 257 on Dec 23, 2013 10:15:32 GMT -8
Yes--but the prototype photo is from in front of the fuel tank. It's enough that with the walk overhang, etc. the differing angle may actually distort relative position of the fuel tank versus the stanchion and air tank bracket.
I have yet to see one of these (from the underside--saw pilot model a few months back), so I have absolutely no idea how the fuel tank is attached versus whether it could be "adjusted" slightly, easily or not.
|
|
|
|
Post by thebessemerkid on Dec 23, 2013 10:26:48 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by carrman on Dec 23, 2013 10:29:01 GMT -8
Yes--but the prototype photo is from in front of the fuel tank. It's enough that with the walk overhang, etc. the differing angle may actually distort relative position of the fuel tank versus the stanchion and air tank bracket. I have yet to see one of these (from the underside--saw pilot model a few months back), so I have absolutely no idea how the fuel tank is attached versus whether it could be "adjusted" slightly, easily or not. I agree with your assesment. Let's get a proper side shot of the model to be sure. I won't get to see one in person at all unfortunately..... Dave |
|
|
|
Post by carrman on Dec 23, 2013 10:30:58 GMT -8
Don't get me wrong, these things look awesome in the pictures I've seen. I just hope they didn't hose up the wheel base. I'd give it a 95 out of 100 based on what I've seen. And, they DID do a nice cab.
Dave
|
|
|
|
Post by WP 257 on Dec 23, 2013 10:32:13 GMT -8
I don't think you can say by that photo of 2055 that the trucks were set "in". If you study the photo it is clear the photographer was standing near the front of the engine when he took it. The image thus makes the rear jacking pad appear behind the truck centerline, while the front jacking pad is more nearly lined up. It is dangerous to use photos because with these things being 60 some feet long, the angle from which an image is taken can be enough to distort.
|
|
|
|
Post by trebor on Dec 23, 2013 10:33:50 GMT -8
As a wheelchair critic, I: have to say that photos are risky references for dimensional assessment. Anything other than a dead on 90deg high telephoto shot starts to rapidly show parallax. Are any comments from actual modern in hand observations?
Still has to be a lot better than Tyco!
|
|
|
|
Post by WP 257 on Dec 23, 2013 10:38:57 GMT -8
I won't be able to see one in person until 12/26, and my digital camera is not a good one for this.
|
|
|
|
Post by tom on Dec 23, 2013 11:17:43 GMT -8
Before this argument gets too silly I will measure the wheel base on my unit and compare it to drawings that I have of the C430. OK?
|
|
|
|
Post by atsfan on Dec 23, 2013 11:20:27 GMT -8
It is the best plastic C430 model which will be available this decade.
|
|
|
|
Post by tom on Dec 23, 2013 13:00:42 GMT -8
OK I measured the wheelbase on my Bowser C430 and it measures 37' 1". An old issue of RMC had drawings and it shows the wheelbase as 36' 9" while a newer issue of Model Railroader shows it to be 37' 1". Take your pick but I would say that Bowser got it right.
My actual Bowser C430 looks correct and the jacking pads match up with the centerline of the trucks.
The Bowser photographs looks somewhat "off" but I guess as stated it was due to the camera's position. Like I have said earier Bowser has really captured the C430 "look" very well.
With some tweaks it will be an excellent model of the prototype.
|
|
|
|
Post by carrman on Dec 23, 2013 13:22:41 GMT -8
Tom, can you get us a good side pic of your model on straight track?
|
|
|
|
Post by eh49 on Dec 23, 2013 15:24:00 GMT -8
For those that can get on T.O., I did put up a broadside photo of my Demo.
|
|
|
|
Post by markfj on Dec 23, 2013 16:27:30 GMT -8
OK I measured the wheelbase on my Bowser C430 and it measures 37' 1". An old issue of RMC had drawings and it shows the wheelbase as 36' 9" while a newer issue of Model Railroader shows it to be 37' 1". Take your pick but I would say that Bowser got it right. My actual Bowser C430 looks correct and the jacking pads match up with the centerline of the trucks. The Bowser photographs looks somewhat "off" but I guess as stated it was due to the camera's position. Like I have said earier Bowser has really captured the C430 "look" very well. With some tweaks it will be an excellent model of the prototype. For anyone interested in looking up the RMC article/drawing Tom referenced, it appeared in the November 1985 issue, pages 76 to 80. The MR article/drawing appeared in the September 1986 issue, also on pages 76 to 80. Can I post the drawings from my copies of these articles, or does that violate forum and/or copyright laws? Thanks, Mark |
|
|
|
Post by ambluco on Dec 23, 2013 17:05:58 GMT -8
Technically you can post because it's just for hobbyist work and not for commercial work. All the drawings in the mags say that.
|
|
|
|
Post by trebor on Dec 23, 2013 20:16:47 GMT -8
Please be advised that magazine drawings of the era might be compared to Lascaux for anatomical studies.
|
|
|
|
Post by cnj3676 on Dec 24, 2013 6:38:07 GMT -8
I have the Morristown & Erie 16 on order with The Model Railroad Shop in New Jersey. I contacted the store yesterday and the shipment of C430s has not yet arrived there. Looking at the updated images on the Bowser website, I noticed the M&E models are painted in the later scheme with the black roof as opposed to the original all red livery pictured in the announcement. I prefer the black roof version so I'm happy they were produced this way.
Bob
|
|
|
|
Post by atsfan on Dec 24, 2013 9:05:01 GMT -8
OK I measured the wheelbase on my Bowser C430 and it measures 37' 1". An old issue of RMC had drawings and it shows the wheelbase as 36' 9" while a newer issue of Model Railroader shows it to be 37' 1". Take your pick but I would say that Bowser got it right. My actual Bowser C430 looks correct and the jacking pads match up with the centerline of the trucks. The Bowser photographs looks somewhat "off" but I guess as stated it was due to the camera's position. Like I have said earier Bowser has really captured the C430 "look" very well. With some tweaks it will be an excellent model of the prototype. For anyone interested in looking up the RMC article/drawing Tom referenced, it appeared in the November 1985 issue, pages 76 to 80. The MR article/drawing appeared in the September 1986 issue, also on pages 76 to 80. Can I post the drawings from my copies of these articles, or does that violate forum and/or copyright laws? Thanks, Mark Yes. The only thing you can't do is copy them and start selling the copies for money. |
|
