Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 13, 2014 8:20:35 GMT -8
Bowser just posted on Facebook that they will reproduce a new Larger fuel tank for the C636. It will be available on the 3rd run to be announced about 6 months out. Fantastic news, maybe the squeaky wheel does get the grease. We now return to our regularly scheduled gnashing of teeth.......the height issues...............  |
|
|
|
Post by edwardsutorik on Oct 13, 2014 8:59:14 GMT -8
The problem for me is that I don't have a milling machine so now what? How much are they? Sherline makes one. I have one. On Amazon, it's $650. As the man said: "It works for me." Micromark shows one in their catalog. It's about $900 delivered. It's "mightier" than the Sherline. You can also get a "milling vise" for about $65 on Amazon. But you'll need a drill press table to sit it on. These only go left-right back-forth. They don't do up-down (as a real mill does). You have to use the drill press spindle for that. Kinda un-fun, I think. But definitely much cheaper if you already have a drill press. I'll mention that having a milling setup does not translate into knowing how to use a milling setup. There's a lot of learning and thinking involved. But the world's got LOTS of people who can do it, so why not you, too? Ed |
|
|
|
Post by thebessemerkid on Oct 13, 2014 9:03:46 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by edwardsutorik on Oct 13, 2014 9:04:49 GMT -8
Bowser just posted on Facebook that they will reproduce a new Larger fuel tank for the C636. It will be available on the 3rd run to be announced about 6 months out. I feel sorry for "those consumers that actually run their model trains". The third run will likely be an absolute disaster for them. I do hope they pick up the good ones from run one and two before this problem shows up. Ed |
|
|
|
Post by edwardsutorik on Oct 13, 2014 9:08:00 GMT -8
Oh. A note about Sherline. I called the company and was connected to an actual techy who helped me solve my problem (worn out motor brushes). The mill is a kinda light duty little fella, but......
Ed
|
|
|
|
Post by bigblow69 on Oct 13, 2014 9:22:51 GMT -8
Bowser just posted on Facebook that they will reproduce a new Larger fuel tank for the C636. It will be available on the 3rd run to be announced about 6 months out. I feel sorry for "those consumers that actually run their model trains". The third run will likely be an absolute disaster for them. I do hope they pick up the good ones from run one and two before this problem shows up. Ed How so? |
|
|
|
Post by Mark R. on Oct 13, 2014 9:30:54 GMT -8
I feel sorry for "those consumers that actually run their model trains". The third run will likely be an absolute disaster for them. I do hope they pick up the good ones from run one and two before this problem shows up. Ed How so? Sarcasm .... Mark. |
|
|
|
Post by alcoc430 on Oct 13, 2014 10:13:05 GMT -8
Bowser just posted on Facebook that they will reproduce a new Larger fuel tank for the C636. It will be available on the 3rd run to be announced about 6 months out. Fantastic news, maybe the squeaky wheel does get the grease. We now return to our regularly scheduled gnashing of teeth.......the height issues............... I would not mill the frame until the new fuel tanks show up. |
|
|
|
Post by kcjones on Oct 13, 2014 11:25:25 GMT -8
Great news about the fuel tank. Now let's hope they offer it as a separate part for those who wish to change out the old tank.
JL
Vancouver WA
|
|
|
|
Post by theengineshed on Oct 13, 2014 11:37:23 GMT -8
So is the current tank wrong for all C-636s or just wrong for some roads that had larger tanks?
|
|
|
|
Post by carrman on Oct 13, 2014 11:42:37 GMT -8
"We are designing a new fuel tank for these that will be fatter and hang lower. It won't be available for some time though. The announcement of the 3rd run will come with the bigger tanks and the parts them selves should be available some time shortly after the announcement. Look for that announcement in 6 months or so."
|
|
|
|
Post by edwardsutorik on Oct 13, 2014 11:50:21 GMT -8
So is the current tank wrong for all C-636s or just wrong for some roads that had larger tanks? I've spent a little time looking at pix of the main owners: Alco, IC, PC, SP&S I can't see any difference between the fuel tanks. It CERTAINLY doesn't mean there isn't one. But it's pretty hard to believe that a significant difference in capacity wouldn't show up. For the C-424's and C-425's, the tank differences are visible "a mile away". I wonder if the concept of different fuel tanks on the big Alco's didn't arise of of someone's mistake. And, who knows? Maybe it'll turn out that SP&S was wrong when they said 5000 gallons. And they're really all 4000 gallons. Hard to believe, but........ Ed |
|
|
|
Post by thebessemerkid on Oct 13, 2014 12:04:00 GMT -8
At least the Penn Central/Conrail fans have the DL units to take measurements, as do Cartier modelers. For the followers of roads with no survivors, will have to rely on photo comparisons from the extant 636's once the field measurements are verified. As an aside, was out railfanning over the weekend and was checking out a couple of SD80MAC's at an engine terminal. Did notice an inch or two deck height difference between a pair of coupled units. Wished I would have had a tape measure to quantify it. Then again, the RR people already think we're half off our rockers. Not sure how I would have been able to explain this thread and what I was doing...  |
|
|
|
Post by markfj on Oct 13, 2014 12:35:05 GMT -8
At least the Penn Central/Conrail fans have the DL units to take measurements, as do Cartier modelers. For the followers of roads with no survivors, will have to rely on photo comparisons from the extant 636's once the field measurements are verified. As an aside, was out railfanning over the weekend and was checking out a couple of SD80MAC's at an engine terminal. Did notice an inch or two deck height difference between a pair of coupled units. Wished I would have had a tape measure to quantify it. Then again, the RR people already think we're half off our rockers. Not sure how I would have been able to explain this thread and what I was doing... Ha, that’s just too funny! You know you’re certifiable when you carry a camera to take pictures of trains “and” a tape measure to verify dimensions for your models. I’ve been there and done that, so I guess I’m a true train “nut”! 
Back on topic: The fact that Bowser is releasing a revised tank it great news. Squeaky wheel or not, we voiced our opinions and they (Bowser) listened. I would say that’s good customer relations. After all, they could have done nothing.
Thanks, Mark
|
|
|
|
Post by thebessemerkid on Oct 13, 2014 13:17:29 GMT -8
I did take a ton of pictures. NS is going to turn the 80MAC's into 70ACE's, I am told, and figured I better document them before the change. No idea what external differences if any the change will make.
Really, really, really nice having cheap digital storage. In the old days, Kodachrome plus developing worked out to 30-40 cents a shot. Thank goodness for large SD cards and extra batteries!
|
|
|
|
Post by redbaron on Oct 13, 2014 14:36:46 GMT -8
For the sake of comparison, I scanned (top to bottom) an Oriental Limited, an Overland Models, and a Bowser C-636. Yes, that was a lot of hardware on the scanner bed. While understanding that the fuel tank is "off", and arguably possibly a few other dimensions, I wholeheartedly applaud Bowser for their efforts and look forward to more. I've been waiting years for this one. I have two more on order, and will jump on the fuel tanks when they come out. I seem to recall the PC versions had a customer option of a differing number of battery box doors than that of the balance of the C-636 production run, but forget the details of that. Regardless, while I like the separate (not molded) door latches and the "overall look" (particularly the portion below the sill) of the OMI rendition the best, in my humble opinion the Bowser has by far the best detail levels of the three depicted, and likely (I say this without any of these having ever turned a wheel on my watch) best operating characteristics as well. Let's face it, neither of the brass versions even has window glazing. The Oriental version is totally wrong on the handbrake and lacks many of the hood details as found on the other two. Note how the frame detail on the OMI goes a long ways in filling up the gap that exists between the sill and trucks such as in the Bowser, particularly around the coupler pockets on either end. That said, I understand the problematic dimensional issues of the Bowser and the ensuing discussion of such, just my two cents. If there's any requests for specific close-ups of any of the three, I can haul out the Nikon for quality images. The scanner does create a bit of a parallax effect on the top and bottom models, but you get the idea.
Attachments:
|
|
|
|
Post by thebessemerkid on Oct 13, 2014 14:52:15 GMT -8
That's a pretty awesome first post! Welcome!  |
|
|
|
Post by redbaron on Oct 13, 2014 14:59:01 GMT -8
That's a pretty awesome first post! Welcome! Thanks.....and I just noticed it looks like the front of the Oriental needs some shop time...... |
|
|
|
Post by wmcbride on Oct 13, 2014 19:27:49 GMT -8
At least the Penn Central/Conrail fans have the DL units to take measurements, as do Cartier modelers. For the followers of roads with no survivors, will have to rely on photo comparisons from the extant 636's once the field measurements are verified. As an aside, was out railfanning over the weekend and was checking out a couple of SD80MAC's at an engine terminal. Did notice an inch or two deck height difference between a pair of coupled units. Wished I would have had a tape measure to quantify it. Then again, the RR people already think we're half off our rockers. Not sure how I would have been able to explain this thread and what I was doing... Ha, that’s just too funny! You know you’re certifiable when you carry a camera to take pictures of trains “and” a tape measure to verify dimensions for your models. I’ve been there and done that, so I guess I’m a true train “nut”!
Back on topic: The fact that Bowser is releasing a revised tank it great news. Squeaky wheel or not, we voiced our opinions and they (Bowser) listened. I would say that’s good customer relations. After all, they could have done nothing.
Thanks, Mark
Exactly, Mark. I had been waiting for these for a long time but that Modeltrainstuff video which showed the "short" fuel tank made this an engine I would not buy. I love my C430s and would just acquire another one or two of those. This Bowser announcement that a new fuel tank is coming puts the C636 (probably two) back on my buy list. Bill McBride |
|
|
|
Post by edwardsutorik on Oct 13, 2014 20:14:50 GMT -8
The last OMI C-636's certainly had window glazing. And were DCC equipped.
Ed
|
|
|
|
Post by kcjones on Oct 14, 2014 12:48:25 GMT -8
Since I don't post on Facebook, message to Bowser. Please paint at least one tank to match the demo units. I never can match the factory paint perfectly. Thank you.
JL
Vancouver WA
|
|
|
|
Post by carrman on Oct 15, 2014 7:46:02 GMT -8
More from their facebook page:
The motor is getting replaced but wasn't available for these production runs. The new motor will be first seen in an upcoming batch of C628's and the new GMD SD40-2's. We have just gotten samples and test run them and they will pull ( Drag) other brands of locomotive's whether running in the opposite direction or not running at all. We tested it running a 2% grade and it pulled an other brand backwards up the grade while the other was trying to pull it down the grade. We will not be posting any video of the test out of courtesy for the other brand. If you feel that your specific loco is running too slow or weak please call us at 1-800-327-5126 to discuss the issue so we can ensure there isn't another reason or cause that needs to be fixed in the loco.
|
|
|
|
Post by JohnJ on Oct 15, 2014 7:59:36 GMT -8
As far as the new fuel tank goes, I hope we can get the prototype height dimensions confirmed soon, and if the C636 is indeed too high, let Bowser know. If the units do need to be lowered by us modelers to get a correct height, it would be a shame to get the new fuel tank and have it drag on the tracks.
|
|
|
|
Post by bigblow69 on Oct 16, 2014 15:30:39 GMT -8
More from their facebook page: The motor is getting replaced but wasn't available for these production runs. The new motor will be first seen in an upcoming batch of C628's and the new GMD SD40-2's. We have just gotten samples and test run them and they will pull ( Drag) other brands of locomotive's whether running in the opposite direction or not running at all. We tested it running a 2% grade and it pulled an other brand backwards up the grade while the other was trying to pull it down the grade. We will not be posting any video of the test out of courtesy for the other brand. If you feel that your specific loco is running too slow or weak please call us at 1-800-327-5126 to discuss the issue so we can ensure there isn't another reason or cause that needs to be fixed in the loco. Impressive...Most impressive. May buy some GMD's after all. |
|
|
|
Post by carrman on Oct 16, 2014 17:04:31 GMT -8
I currently have 3 sound equipped SP&S versions I'm setting up for a friend. They don't run smooth, they jerk, they don't run in one direction or the other with the Back EMF turned off, and with it turned on they can stall out with the wheels stopped turning. I'm not impressed thus far. Love the body shells though.
Dave
|
|
|
|
Post by afbombers on Oct 16, 2014 17:11:53 GMT -8
More from their facebook page: The motor is getting replaced but wasn't available for these production runs. The new motor will be first seen in an upcoming batch of C628's and the new GMD SD40-2's. We have just gotten samples and test run them and they will pull ( Drag) other brands of locomotive's whether running in the opposite direction or not running at all. We tested it running a 2% grade and it pulled an other brand backwards up the grade while the other was trying to pull it down the grade. We will not be posting any video of the test out of courtesy for the other brand. If you feel that your specific loco is running too slow or weak please call us at 1-800-327-5126 to discuss the issue so we can ensure there isn't another reason or cause that needs to be fixed in the loco. Glad to know it's being fixed after already picking up a couple....on a side note I asked bowser and the tank sits .046 too high from a design error (they forgot to lower it) but that doesn't address the size however. Also a person on the diesel detailer website put some .06 channel on the frame in an attempt to hide the gap. |
|
|
|
Post by packer on Oct 16, 2014 18:54:14 GMT -8
afbombers, that was me. I just haven't gotten the pic of the painted frame with the extensions.  I measured the roof height on my model compared to the drawings published in the 1972 BN annual. Prototype measures 15' 1-1/4" or just under 53mm in HO. I got just under 53mm.  Looks like the problem is that the actual sideframes are too low. I don't know the prototype wheel size, but I'm wondering if it's possible the wheels are smaller on the model than the prototype. Maybe some larger NWSL wheels and filing the block on top of the trucks would "fix" it better than my fix |
|
|
|
Post by ambluco on Oct 17, 2014 2:17:54 GMT -8
Very interesting. So it doesn't ride high. A completely different problem. Now I know why Ed kept badgering for real measurements.
I feel bad for those that already lowered their engines, shaving off from the mounting pad for the trucks. Now their engines are doubly wrong.
|
|
|
|
Post by thebessemerkid on Oct 17, 2014 6:00:53 GMT -8
Wheels I believe are 40", but needs verification.
Consider parallax when using photos for comparison. Most prototype photo roster shots are from below the centerline of the locomotive (the loco is more than twice the height of the camera held by a photographer standing on the ground), while model photos are typically taken from above.
Also consider focal length and associated compromises in perspective.
There are optical methods for eliminating perspective distortion, but they require the use of specialized equipment. A telecentric lens could do it.
We're getting closer, but still need that field data.
|
|
|
|
Post by thebessemerkid on Oct 17, 2014 6:14:34 GMT -8
From ground level:  From above centerline:  (Just for clarification of my centerline comment) A side shot at ground level taken with a wide angle vs telephoto would have different distortion. |
|
