|
|
Post by ambluco on Oct 17, 2014 8:01:42 GMT -8
Measurements were made and posted in other forums. Model is correct height and correct deck height.
|
|
|
|
Post by edwardsutorik on Oct 17, 2014 8:29:22 GMT -8
Measurements were made and posted in other forums. Model is correct height and correct deck height. What other forums? What were the numbers? Any info on how the numbers were attained? Ed |
|
|
|
Post by kcjones on Oct 17, 2014 8:48:21 GMT -8
Speaking of distortion, are my eyes playing tricks on me or is the body bowed? Or is it the frame? Look at my pic of the IC unit on SPF and the entire cab appears to droop. Picked up a demo unit and I could tell in the package that the entire unit is bowed. Look down the body from the rear and you can see the bow. The cab on the BN unit above defiantly has a droop.
JL
|
|
|
|
Post by ambluco on Oct 17, 2014 9:28:09 GMT -8
Diesel Detailers has a whole dissertation. More on TO. Another too that's slipped my mind that I read but don't frequent.
Plus a page back someone has the hood measurements.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 17, 2014 9:30:24 GMT -8
Measurements were made and posted in other forums. Model is correct height and correct deck height. It does ride 4 - 5 inches too high. The model deck has been measured at about 74 - 75 inches, the proto is about 70 inches. Quite a few model measurements have been made & posted, here, TO and elsewhere. Where are the measurements you refer to posted? Actual links would be most helpful. |
|
|
|
Post by canrailfan on Oct 17, 2014 9:34:34 GMT -8
Speaking of distortion, are my eyes playing tricks on me or is the body bowed? Or is it the frame? Look at my pic of the IC unit on SPF and the entire cab appears to droop. Picked up a demo unit and I could tell in the package that the entire unit is bowed. Look down the body from the rear and you can see the bow. The cab on the BN unit above defiantly has a droop. JL In the large picture of the BN unit, the shell doesn't appear to be sitting correctly on the frame. In the smaller photo, the small plate ahead of the cab appears to be a separate part and is canted slightly, giving the cab that droopy look. Hopefully, that's all you're seeing. David |
|
|
|
Post by afbombers on Oct 17, 2014 9:35:20 GMT -8
Speaking of distortion, are my eyes playing tricks on me or is the body bowed? Or is it the frame? Look at my pic of the IC unit on SPF and the entire cab appears to droop. Picked up a demo unit and I could tell in the package that the entire unit is bowed. Look down the body from the rear and you can see the bow. The cab on the BN unit above defiantly has a droop. JL I noticed that too, I saw right away the front of the frame is bent at a downwards angle but is fixable however the step boxes on both sides of the cab have a definite angle up towards the cab now if they come off is a different story....I only opened it up to take a peak inside but the diagram sheet on browsers site shows them to be cast on which I hope they are not. |
|
|
|
Post by edwardsutorik on Oct 17, 2014 10:01:18 GMT -8
Diesel Detailers has a whole dissertation. More on TO. Another too that's slipped my mind that I read but don't frequent. Plus a page back someone has the hood measurements. I just read the Diesel Detailer discussion. There's nothing there, to me, that says the Bowser dimensions you describe are correct. Nor does anyone list dimensions other than the plan in the 1972 BN Annual. Said numbers I have mentioned on this forum. Please be more specific if you believe I have missed something. Ed |
|
|
|
Post by packer on Oct 17, 2014 10:18:23 GMT -8
Ed, I think ambluco means this, which was posted (well, really a link on the page in the link), on page 14: trainiax.net/drawings/18-mlw/m6/dim-18-mlw-m636-cp-2-m.GIFAccording to that, the height should be 180.75 inches. Equates to 15' 3/4", just half an inch lower than my BN annual. I'd scan it, but I don't know if it's legal to scan a page from that book. I'll measure the wheels and take a picture of the truck when removed from head-on in the coming days. I'm thinking it's either 1. Sideframes too small 2. Sideframes too low and not centered on the axles horizontally 3. Wheels too small, and the bolster block was added to compensate On the model, it doesn't appear the space between the sideframe and rail is as large as the prototype. |
|
|
|
Post by edwardsutorik on Oct 17, 2014 11:18:45 GMT -8
Thanks, Packer
But there are no numbers for the model. So I'm not seeing how Ambluco can assert that the specified dimensions are the same.
I've got the Annual, so I don't need a scan. It would be great for others, of course. If you're in the mood, you could compare the two drawings. If the one in the Annual has the same dimensions as the trainiax drawing, then reproducing the Annual one would be unnecessary.
The SP&S diagram book says the wheels were/are 40". It's hard to believe wheel diameter would be the cause, since any height difference would have to be generated by wheels having TWICE that difference in wheel diameter.
Ed
|
|
|
|
Post by ambluco on Oct 17, 2014 11:26:54 GMT -8
Well, packer measured it back on page 15 and says the model and the drawing are the same:
"Prototype measures 15' 1-1/4" or just under 53mm in HO. I got just under 53mm."
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 17, 2014 12:28:34 GMT -8
Well, packer measured it back on page 15 and says the model and the drawing are the same: "Prototype measures 15' 1-1/4" or just under 53mm in HO. I got just under 53mm." Measurements need to be made of the deck height from top-of-rail. This removes any variables with the hood or cab heigth. The deck sits about 4-5 inches too high off the rails. |
|
|
|
Post by edwardsutorik on Oct 17, 2014 12:32:59 GMT -8
Well, packer measured it back on page 15 and says the model and the drawing are the same: "Prototype measures 15' 1-1/4" or just under 53mm in HO. I got just under 53mm." And chuckc measured it on page 6 and got 15' 6.5" So, Houston, we have a problem. Ed |
|
chuckc
Junior Member
Posts: 57 
|
Post by chuckc on Oct 17, 2014 13:27:58 GMT -8
Well, packer measured it back on page 15 and says the model and the drawing are the same: "Prototype measures 15' 1-1/4" or just under 53mm in HO. I got just under 53mm." The cab height on the model is not 15' 1-1/4". It's about 15 7". |
|
chuckc
Junior Member
Posts: 57
|
Post by chuckc on Oct 17, 2014 13:32:50 GMT -8
Ed, I think ambluco means this, which was posted (well, really a link on the page in the link), on page 14: trainiax.net/drawings/18-mlw/m6/dim-18-mlw-m636-cp-2-m.GIFAccording to that, the height should be 180.75 inches. Equates to 15' 3/4", just half an inch lower than my BN annual. I'd scan it, but I don't know if it's legal to scan a page from that book. I'll measure the wheels and take a picture of the truck when removed from head-on in the coming days. I'm thinking it's either 1. Sideframes too small 2. Sideframes too low and not centered on the axles horizontally 3. Wheels too small, and the bolster block was added to compensate On the model, it doesn't appear the space between the sideframe and rail is as large as the prototype. The trucks in that drawing on the C636m are dofasco trucks. Hi-Add's are about 1 -3/4" higher. That would take the proto cab height to about 15' 2-1/2". That's about 4.5" short of the model. |
|
|
|
Post by kcjones on Oct 17, 2014 13:54:59 GMT -8
WOW!!! 16 pages soon to go to 17. What's the record?
|
|
|
|
Post by packer on Oct 17, 2014 14:54:12 GMT -8
Well, packer measured it back on page 15 and says the model and the drawing are the same: "Prototype measures 15' 1-1/4" or just under 53mm in HO. I got just under 53mm." The cab height on the model is not 15' 1-1/4". It's about 15 7". Our models must be different then*. I measured the my Bowser C636 on tracks, and from the top of the rail to the top of the cab, I got just under 53 mm. The part that is 0 on my ruler happens to line up perfectly with the top of the rail on the unknown manufacturer's track I used (Marked GT, made in Italy)
The deck height on mine is 21mm. Equates to a smidge over 72" (72.01181102362205). According to the drawing of the M636, it's 71.75" from rail to deck. add the 1.75" for the high-ads that chuckc mentioned, and that makes the prototype's deck height at 73.75".
I got 55mm at the top of the snow shield from the rail. That equates to about 5'7". I also get 55mm if I measure from the bottom of the wheel flange to the roof.
The aforementioned drawing says 40" wheels. I missed that the first time around, but that may not apply to hi-ad trucks.
Ever since I posted the measurements of mine on their facebook page along with the picture I posted, it's been really quiet over there. lol
*I know there was a mid-production change regarding the electronics. Is it possible there was also a production change to the frame, chassis, or trucks that causes us getting different measurements? I'm using a set of engineering/drafting rulers to get my measurements, sometimes the cheap rulers are off.
|
|
|
|
Post by edwardsutorik on Oct 17, 2014 15:04:36 GMT -8
I have found that measuring the height of a piece of rolling stock is a bit difficult to do accurately. Holding a scale up near a model and attempting to sight across it to the model leaves open the possibility of sighting errors.
When I do it, I use a surface plate. I have built a u-shaped frame that goes up, over, and down the model. Then I can measure down from the frame with my caliper, and subtract that number from the height of the frame.
This leaves out what might be called parallax problems.
I recommend this method.
Ed
|
|
|
|
Post by packer on Oct 17, 2014 15:24:47 GMT -8
The first time I used 2 rulers, one resting on top of the cab with the edge down and the other like I mentioned. Where the horizontal ruler crossed the vertical is where I measured.
I tried it again, this time using the end of a piece of track that has some of the ties cut out and a T-square. I put the track on a level surface, then measured where the rail crossed the ruler part with the T on the roof of the loco. Still got the same measurements.
I don't have a surface plate, calipers, or a scale rule. When I go to my MR club tomorrow I will try the scale ruler they have.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 17, 2014 15:36:34 GMT -8
The cab height on the model is not 15' 1-1/4". It's about 15 7". Our models must be different then*. I measured the my Bowser C636 on tracks, and from the top of the rail to the top of the cab, I got just under 53 mm. The part that is 0 on my ruler happens to line up perfectly with the top of the rail on the unknown manufacturer's track I used (Marked GT, made in Italy)
The deck height on mine is 21mm. Equates to a smidge over 72" (72.01181102362205). According to the drawing of the M636, it's 71.75" from rail to deck. add the 1.75" for the high-ads that chuckc mentioned, and that makes the prototype's deck height at 73.75".
I got 55mm at the top of the snow shield from the rail. That equates to about 5'7". I also get 55mm if I measure from the bottom of the wheel flange to the roof.
The aforementioned drawing says 40" wheels. I missed that the first time around, but that may not apply to hi-ad trucks.
Ever since I posted the measurements of mine on their facebook page along with the picture I posted, it's been really quiet over there. lol
*I know there was a mid-production change regarding the electronics. Is it possible there was also a production change to the frame, chassis, or trucks that causes us getting different measurements? I'm using a set of engineering/drafting rulers to get my measurements, sometimes the cheap rulers are off.
I think you are measuring incorrectly. Your conversion of a scale 21mm to proto Imperial is off. In HO scale 21mm = 72" exactly. |
|
|
|
Post by edwardsutorik on Oct 17, 2014 15:45:41 GMT -8
21mm divided by 25.4mm/inch equals .8268. Multiply by 87.1 and get 72.014. That's not exactly 72. But it's awfully close. So is 72.01181102362205. Which is a few too many numbers too long.
Ed
|
|
|
|
Post by edwardsutorik on Oct 17, 2014 16:30:45 GMT -8
The first time I used 2 rulers, one resting on top of the cab with the edge down and the other like I mentioned. Where the horizontal ruler crossed the vertical is where I measured. I tried it again, this time using the end of a piece of track that has some of the ties cut out and a T-square. I put the track on a level surface, then measured where the rail crossed the ruler part with the T on the roof of the loco. Still got the same measurements. I don't have a surface plate, calipers, or a scale rule. When I go to my MR club tomorrow I will try the scale ruler they have. packer, Looks to me like you're doing a proper job. But, my, it's going to be interesting resolving the differences. Ed |
|
|
|
Post by Judge Doom on Oct 17, 2014 18:10:11 GMT -8
Ed, I think ambluco means this, which was posted (well, really a link on the page in the link), on page 14: trainiax.net/drawings/18-mlw/m6/dim-18-mlw-m636-cp-2-m.GIFAccording to that, the height should be 180.75 inches. Equates to 15' 3/4", just half an inch lower than my BN annual. I'd scan it, but I don't know if it's legal to scan a page from that book. I'll measure the wheels and take a picture of the truck when removed from head-on in the coming days. I'm thinking it's either 1. Sideframes too small 2. Sideframes too low and not centered on the axles horizontally 3. Wheels too small, and the bolster block was added to compensate On the model, it doesn't appear the space between the sideframe and rail is as large as the prototype. You realize that's an M636 right? And, the Bowser unit is a C636? Because, unless someone has plans or measurements for a C636, any kind of conclusions on ride height based on M636 measurements with the different trucks are invalid.  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 17, 2014 18:14:40 GMT -8
The other thing that seems to have gotten passed on is the space under the pilot. Another thing is that on the prototype, the bottom step is almost in line with the bottom of the axle journal. On the model, that step is in line with the top of the journal. Were there that many compromises made on this thing?
|
|
|
|
Post by Judge Doom on Oct 17, 2014 18:20:31 GMT -8
The other thing that seems to have gotten passed on is the space under the pilot. Another thing is that on the prototype, the bottom step is almost in line with the bottom of the axle journal. On the model, that step is in line with the top of the journal. Were there that many compromises made on this thing? That's in interesting point - maybe since the fuel tank was made higher to clear bad track the pilots were too. The steps on the real thing are tall and narrow, but on the model the look relatively shorter. The handrails don't join the steps where they should on the prototype either, they seem longer (or, the right size...): (Then again, the shot of the BN unit does seem to be a bit stretched or distorted...)  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 17, 2014 19:14:04 GMT -8
21mm divided by 25.4mm/inch equals .8268. Multiply by 87.1 and get 72.014. That's not exactly 72. But it's awfully close. So is 72.01181102362205. Which is a few too many numbers too long. Ed 21mm does equal exactly 72 inches in the USA. This is because: 25.4mm = 1" exactly per National Institute of Standards and Technology: www.nist.gov/pml/wmd/metric/length.cfmand HO scale is 3.5mm : 1ft per NMRA Standards S-1.2. NMRA also rounds HO to 1:87.1, but 3.5mm : 1ft. is the original and current definition (being half ye olde 0 scale of 7mm : 1 foot) www.nmra.org/index-nmra-standards-and-recommended-practicesYou are left with simple math to finish the conversion. I'm eating pizza. |
|
|
|
Post by edwardsutorik on Oct 17, 2014 20:31:14 GMT -8
You are left with simple math to finish the conversion. I'm eating pizza. Simple to you, sir, but multiplying by 6 can be a little difficult for some of us. Me, I had tortillas and margaritas. Ed |
|
|
|
Post by afbombers on Oct 17, 2014 20:42:43 GMT -8
Found my digital calipers and measured the deck height I get an average of .0860 to .0863 inches from the top of the deck to the rail head from the rear platform (note I said earlier that the frame in front was bent so I didn't measure that. And assuming the 72 annual is correct the plan shows average of .0832 inches. According to the conversion chart .0313 is 1/32
As for the wheels they are .0458, front step is .0657 (plans call for .070)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 17, 2014 20:43:02 GMT -8
You are left with simple math to finish the conversion. I'm eating pizza. Simple to you, sir, but multiplying by 6 can be a little difficult for some of us. Me, I had tortillas and margaritas. Ed Unless there's a calculator involved, I'm lost. Miller Lite's right now. |
|
|
|
Post by edwardsutorik on Oct 18, 2014 7:34:09 GMT -8
Found my digital calipers and measured the deck height I get an average of .0860 to .0863 inches from the top of the deck to the rail head from the rear platform (note I said earlier that the frame in front was bent so I didn't measure that. And assuming the 72 annual is correct the plan shows average of .0832 inches. According to the conversion chart .0313 is 1/32 As for the wheels they are .0458, front step is .0657 (plans call for .070) Some of the dimensions above are off by a decimal point. That said, it looks like the wheels are a proper 40" diameter. I'm not sure what "front step is .0657 (plans call for .070)" means. I get, from the plans, the height of the lowest step of the end steps above the rail to be .14 above the rail. When I measure the plans and correct for the plans being very slightly enlarged, I get a deck height of .825, or 71 7/8". Which is strikingly close to 72". Especially in HO. And when we take the above model deck heights of .860 to .863, average them to .8615, we get a deck height of 75". Or a difference of .034--3" in HO. That is, of course, for the one model cited above. Other dimensions are still coming in. There does seem to be quite a bit of variability. Ed |
|
