|
|
Post by thebessemerkid on Oct 4, 2014 14:54:11 GMT -8
Thank you for the pix. Ordered mine today (PC). Many are sold out already at MBK www.modeltrainstuff.com/HO-Scale-s/2.htmThe bright yellow handrails will need toned way down. Penn Central's Alco's were filthy  Waited a looooong time for these. Can't wait!!! |
|
|
|
Post by ambluco on Oct 4, 2014 14:58:03 GMT -8
Maybe it's the fuel tank. The thing you see in photos is the (don't know the technical name) horizontal part below the journal that is parallel with the tracks - the bottom of the fuel tank should be down at that level. But the tank is half way up the journal.
|
|
|
|
Post by thebessemerkid on Oct 4, 2014 15:03:02 GMT -8
Walkway height will tell the tale. An aftermarket mod for a lower fuel tank should be pretty easy, if the walkway is right.
|
|
|
|
Post by Judge Doom on Oct 4, 2014 15:37:15 GMT -8
Walkway height will tell the tale. An aftermarket mod for a lower fuel tank should be pretty easy, if the walkway is right. Unscrew tank, remove tank, insert washer or washers or piece of styrene with hole in it to get correct height, screw fuel tank back on  |
|
|
|
Post by edwardsutorik on Oct 4, 2014 16:39:26 GMT -8
Unscrew tank, remove tank, insert washer or washers or piece of styrene with hole in it to get correct height, screw fuel tank back on And then you will have a too-small fuel tank mounted lower--not my idea of the proper solution. Perhaps the wizards at Bowser will make proper sized replacement tanks that one can pick up for a few bucks. Or perhaps not. I'm still waiting for Atlas to produce the right fuel tank for my UP SDP35's. I'm sure they'll have it done in the next few weeks. Ed |
|
|
|
Post by edwardsutorik on Oct 4, 2014 16:42:34 GMT -8
Walkway height will tell the tale. An aftermarket mod for a lower fuel tank should be pretty easy, if the walkway is right. Yup. A proper replacement tank would be nice. For that matter, I'd sure like to see the proper fuel tanks for the SP&S/BN C-424/5's. And also, see above note re: SDP35. Maybe there's an opportunity for a new manufacturer to make them. In a quality manner. For the Alco's above, I have hopes/plans on making mine from brass--to add weight!!!!! Ed |
|
|
|
Post by thebessemerkid on Oct 4, 2014 17:51:22 GMT -8
If it wasn't curved, it would be cake to knock one out on a 3D printer.
As step size decreases, I expect to see parts like this appearing on Thingiverse. Gotta get more young computer whiz kids into trains.
|
|
|
|
Post by edwardsutorik on Oct 4, 2014 20:29:10 GMT -8
Smoothing out stepping on curves for 3D printing.
A year. Maybe two.
Where there's a dollar, there's a way!
Ed
|
|
|
|
Post by espeenut on Oct 5, 2014 5:56:10 GMT -8
...after all the time I've been waiting for these monsters to arrive, they go and screw up one of the main things that makes them "monsters", those humungus fuel tanks jutting out and, seemingly, almost touching the rail head. Sorry, but they missed the boat with these, they just don't capture the "look" well enough for the money they want now that you have to look into aftermarket tanks or jury rig something yourself...
...sorry about the rant, but I'm ticked off after all the anticipation to find this out...
|
|
|
|
Post by alcors32 on Oct 5, 2014 6:03:02 GMT -8
...after all the time I've been waiting for these monsters to arrive, they go and screw up one of the main things that makes them "monsters", those humungus fuel tanks jutting out and, seemingly, almost touching the rail head. Sorry, but they missed the boat with these, they just don't capture the "look" well enough for the money they want now that you have to look into aftermarket tanks or jury rig something yourself... ...sorry about the rant, but I'm ticked off after all the anticipation to find this out... Well Said. |
|
|
|
Post by WP 257 on Oct 5, 2014 7:00:26 GMT -8
Really, how do you know that anything is "screwed up"?
I just re-read Withers Publishing's "Alco Century Series in Color, Volume 2" for the umpteenth time and I don't think it says anywhere that all C-636's had the same fuel tank. They do discuss variations in fuel tank size among the Alco Century series--that they were more of a "custom" design where Alco actually varied the depth and curvature of the tank whereas EMD went with the same tank shape but varied the length of the tank.
How about actually looking at one in person before you simply reject it based upon a few photos? Or perhaps it seems some folks might be looking for any excuse not to buy a given model?
Note: I do not have plans for these beasts and I most certainly do not have the kind of measuring equipment to accurately verify things like fuel tank curvature, etc. By necessity, I leave that to others.
Generally speaking, I buy models that I like, preferably after seeing them up close in person, and I enjoy them and am happy. (I could actually have just as easily purchased a beautiful new Athearn SP SD45T-2 Kodachrome the same day that was also in stock).
If I heard correctly Bowser had unrestricted access to climb all over, photograph, measure, etc. real Alco C-430's and a C-636. I don't know that Overland Models had the same access more than 25 years ago when their models were made (and their C-636 had its own minor issues and compromises partly due to manufacturing/painting limitations of the day).
If it looks good and you can afford it, buy it and be happy, and if not, there's plenty of other neat trains out there to buy instead.
Maybe perhaps try to be thankful for what we now have access to that we never had before. I've personally waited 35 years for an IC C-636...and it is easily better than the Overland Models brass Conrail one I once owned which reflects some of the modeling and etching limitations of the day.
Just in factory paint thickness we are light years beyond where we were in the 1980's. Today's builders can get opaque coverage with a much thinner, more consistent paint film than back then. This means those Alco battery box vents can be more nearly modeled to "scale" than ever before.
|
|
|
|
Post by edwardsutorik on Oct 5, 2014 9:05:26 GMT -8
Really, how do you know that anything is "screwed up"?...I just re-read Withers Publishing's "Alco Century Series in Color, Volume 2" for the umpteenth time and I don't think it says anywhere that all C-636's had the same fuel tank. From the Bowser site, the model C-636's all have the same fuel tanks. So then they REALLY would have screwed up by missing the possibility that you just pointed out. Right? Ed |
|
|
|
Post by kcjones on Oct 5, 2014 9:27:45 GMT -8
I'm kinda in the same ball park as NdeM. Of all of the photos I've seen of the models, something just does not look right. Yet, I can get out my copy of the same Wither's six axle alco book and notice the same "screw ups" on the real ones. The biggest problem I see is camera angles and lighting. On the IC units, if you are looking at a 3/4 angle, the fuel tank looks like it is touching the top of the rail. However, if looking from the side, the smae unit appears to have the tank 2 ft off the rail. The Demos also look to have a smaller tank. From now on, I will hold all comments until my IC 636 is in my hands!!!
JL
|
|
|
|
Post by thb401 on Oct 5, 2014 9:53:38 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by edwardsutorik on Oct 5, 2014 11:01:23 GMT -8
Those are indeed nice pix!
Scaling off of the best one (to me), I get a distance from bottom of tank to top of rail of 7". That means a strip of .080" Evergreen should be a pretty good fit. Just slide a piece between the tank and the track and see what happens.
Ed
|
|
|
|
Post by Judge Doom on Oct 5, 2014 13:57:49 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by Canadian Atlantic on Oct 5, 2014 14:30:15 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by ambluco on Oct 5, 2014 16:51:19 GMT -8
I have the cab. Looks very nice. I was the first to order one.
|
|
|
|
Post by WP 257 on Oct 5, 2014 17:20:10 GMT -8
Look--it has happened before and it will happen again--folks come on these forums and say, based upon one photo or two that manufacturer XYZ made a mistake. Guess what--it later comes out that the manufacturer did not make a mistake but actually did things correctly.
I'm not here to defend anybody for their mistakes, especially because as an (unfortunately not locomotive) engineer I know that no matter how hard you try mistakes get made.
All I'm saying is try to have a little patience and where possible actually look at them and check them out...get all the facts, as photos can mislead. In the model world we lack the oil soaked terminal trackage that adds additional shadows to low angle photos...
Perhaps I'm not a "real" modeler because I have no Evergreen plastic on hand of any size or thickness at all, and there is nowhere nearby where I'm likely to find much of it in stock, either.
|
|
|
|
Post by thebessemerkid on Oct 5, 2014 17:32:09 GMT -8
If they sit too high when I get them, I'll just do what the prototype does:   |
|
|
|
Post by theengineshed on Oct 5, 2014 17:43:04 GMT -8
If they sit too high when I get them, I'll just do what the prototype does: Can you still do that with the new crappy motors?  |
|
|
|
Post by thebessemerkid on Oct 5, 2014 19:00:08 GMT -8
If they sit too high when I get them, I'll just do what the prototype does: Can you still do that with the new crappy motors? Of course! With no weight they will sit there and spin wildly, even with no train and a tailwind. Check it out! |
|
|
|
Post by markfj on Oct 6, 2014 13:08:36 GMT -8
The only thing I can add to this thread is a copy of the C630 drawing done by Win Cuisinier for his August 1984 RMC article. You can make some judgment calls on the spacing between the tank and the rail, but 1) it’s a C630 drawing, not a C636, 2) if tanks were different per order or customer specs, then having a “generic” drawing is useless as a point of reference. Alco C630 dwg.pdf (441.16 KB) Has anyone contacted Lee and mentioned their concerns about the fuel tank? I’m sure he’ll give a honest answer. Thanks, Mark |
|
|
|
Post by edwardsutorik on Oct 6, 2014 14:07:46 GMT -8
...if tanks were different per order or customer specs, then having a “generic” drawing is useless as a point of reference. Since Bowser appears to have used a single tank design, then Bowser would have made a big mistake. To save y'all some time, the C-630 drawing mentioned shows an approximate 9" clearance. My drawing of a C-636 has a 7" clearance--the same as I mentioned earlier that I independently derived from a photo. How about someone who has one sliding the . 080" Evergreen underneath and seeing what happens? If there's a gap, keep gently sliding plastic in until it's filled. Measure the thickness of the stack. THEN, once we have some actual data, a call to Lee might make sense. Who knows, maybe the .080" will slide in nicely with little extra clearance--thus indicating a 7" gap. THEN, no need to call. Ed |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 6, 2014 15:16:01 GMT -8
Here's some great detail photo's of D-L's C636. Now if someone can post some Bowser model photo's, that would be great. dieseldetailer.proboards.com/thread/4381/alco-c636-detail-photosOne other thing I noticed about the model is the Hi-Ad truck gear box. It's the same truck used under the C630 from Bowser. The gear box looks to angle upwards so as to clear the internal gear setup. If that's the case, that would explain why it sits too high-the bolster point is higher than it should be thus creating the jacked-up look. These are just my personal opinions, but I stand by them for myself and myself only. If you have any better ideas on why it sits so high, lets here it. |
|
|
|
Post by edwardsutorik on Oct 6, 2014 16:31:31 GMT -8
We don't KNOW it sits high, because no one has measured the model yet. And reported the number here. Same goes for the fuel tank.
And, I'll add, I suspect there ARE height problems.
Ed
|
|
|
|
Post by ambluco on Oct 7, 2014 6:42:03 GMT -8
Someone on trainorders said these should have 5K tanks and not the 4K tanks that were on the C630.
|
|
|
|
Post by JohnJ on Oct 7, 2014 7:15:07 GMT -8
As depicted earlier, the C636 appears to sit at the same height as the Bowser C630 hi-ad. So, if there's a problem with the C636 in terms of overall height off the trucks, that problem also applies to the C630. I believe the prototype C630 hi-ad and C636 sat at the same height. I'll save any editorial opinion here on the fuel tank and let you be the judge. The curvature in the pic is caused by my camera, not the model. And, as they always say, camera angles can deceive.  |
|
|
|
Post by eh49 on Oct 7, 2014 7:15:28 GMT -8
We don't KNOW it sits high, because no one has measured the model yet. And reported the number here. Same goes for the fuel tank. And, I'll add, I suspect there ARE height problems. Ed I came up with 7/8 from the top of the rail to the top of the deck which would put it about 1/16 to high. |
|
|
|
Post by thebessemerkid on Oct 7, 2014 8:14:02 GMT -8
Found this C628 C636 lash-up picture on trainweb:  |
|
