Bowser C-636's arrived on 9/26

[thebessemerkid]

Here is a 630-628 lashup (not finding 628-636, so comparing by inference)

[ambluco]

I'm confident it's the fuel tank. You can see in JohnJ's photo above the fuel tank is cut off early at the bottom. Might be right for a 4000 gallon tank but not 5000 gallons. On this photo you can clearly see it extending further down in its curvature.

www.rr-fallenflags.org/pc/pc6339g.jpg

Note too how the inset flat area where the fuel filler is in the photo (bad angle but you can see the shadows/highlights) extends BELOW the fuel tank a bit. Not so on the model.

[thebessemerkid]

Don't have my 636's yet, but guessing they are separate plastic from the frame, yes?

If so, should be a good opportunity for an aftermarket part. Still tickled to see the 430 and 636 in plastic after all these years.

[The Ferro Kid]

The PC C636s I occasionally saw coming into or leaving Buffalo in the 70s rocked so bad one almost expected to see the fuel tank scrape the rail. Perspective was a lot of it of course, but those tanks did "look" low, not that I'm saying they were any lower than any other builder's. The rocking I observed was in the 25 to 35 mph speed range -- don't know if they smoothed out at higher speeds or not.

[WP 257]

I'm pretty sure it was the miserable trackwork of that era, due to the deferred maintenance, and not so much the engines themselves. There were instances where PC engines (of other models) rocked themselves right off the track...have seen other videos that were shocking or disturbing as to how bad the track was--think I would have gotten seasick on them with the rocking.

In the Pentrex dvd of the Cartier Railway, the track condition is much better, and I do not recall seeing the Alcos rock...they had C-636's on the roster too.

[Deleted]

The height problem with the Bowser C-636 is most apparent on the right (engineer's) side, rear of the front truck. Look at the gap between the rear of the truck equalizer and the side frame/plate. Compare the demo scheme model with the BN and Conrail prototypes. The model has large gap- it looks to be about 4 to 6 inches which matches some people's measurements of the deck being about 1/16 inch too high. Hopefully an easy fix by trimming some material off the truck mounts. If this messes up the coupler height, that shouldn't be too difficult of a fix.

Photos here: www.bowser-trains.com/new/c636.html

The overall height (deck height) needs to be addressed before fixing any fuel tank height problems because the fuel tanks may differ on different orders.

[edwardsutorik]

Oct 7, 2014 7:15:28 GMT -8 eh49 said:

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.

AWRIGHT, A NUMBER!




The above table reproduced really small, yer gonna have to click on it.

The side photo that John produced earlier looks to me to indicate WAY too big a clearance.

I'll also note here the my old Alco Models (the first brass C-636's ever) are still totally presentable. Except for the gear noise.



Ed

[nsc39d8]

I Have been following this as I have several on order(not planning on canceling). From what I have seen in JohnJ pic and that in the Withers's ALCO 6 axles the fuel tank does sit a little high. However I some pics in the Withers 6 axle book showed various tank heights from the rail, more than likely dues to provisions as has been stated here. The one constant I have seen in all the pictures I studied including my own of DL 3462 is the lowest tank point is the same height as the bottom bar under the truck axle journal( don't know what else to call it)

[markfj]

Oct 7, 2014 11:44:05 GMT -8 nsc39d8 said:

I Have been following this as I have several on order(not planning on canceling). From what I have seen in JohnJ pic and that in the Withers's ALCO 6 axles the fuel tank does sit a little high. However I some pics in the Withers 6 axle book showed various tank heights from the rail, more than likely dues to provisions as has been stated here. The one constant I have seen in all the pictures I studied including my own of DL 3462 is the lowest tank point is the same height as the bottom bar under the truck axle journal( don't know what else to call it)

Yes James, that’s what I noticed straight away, but didn’t want to get into it with anyone regarding camera angles, optical illusions, etc. The tank bottom looks like it should be in line with that bottom bracket just below the truck journals.

My other thought was to post a link to this thread on the Reading Modeler and see if any members of the RCT&HS could get to their 1:1 C630 and measure the rail to tank bottom distance.

Thanks, Mark

[WP 257]

I'm not looking to get into any arguments either, and I pointed out above that anything I say could be considered to be biased...so I'll leave product review to others.

I just put a layaway deposit on a second IC unit this afternoon. I'm very happy with the first one.

YMMV.

[edwardsutorik]

No one has yet to slide some Evergreen under their Bowsers, so I scaled dimensions off of John's picture, above.

I get a tank clearance of about 13"--twice what it should be. Unless, of course, someone comes up with better numbers for the prototype than I was able to come up with.

Or does some Evergreen slip-slidin'.

I do wonder, also, about the coupler height at centerline. Things happen. My otherwise very nice new Walthers SW1 has too low couplers--double darn (two couplers, you know).



Ed

[Deleted]

Oct 7, 2014 11:44:05 GMT -8 nsc39d8 said:

the bottom bar under the truck axle journal( don't know what else to call it)

Pedestal jaw strap

[alcors32]

Oct 7, 2014 13:54:41 GMT -8 edwardsutorik said:

No one has yet to slide some Evergreen under their Bowsers, so I scaled dimensions off of John's picture, above.

I get a tank clearance of about 13"--twice what it should be. Unless, of course, someone comes up with better numbers for the prototype than I was able to come up with.

Or does some Evergreen slip-slidin'.

I do wonder, also, about the coupler height at centerline. Things happen. My otherwise very nice new Walthers SW1 has too low couplers--double darn (two couplers, you know).



Ed

Has anyone spoken to Bowser about the possibility of a retooled tank? 

[nsc39d8]

Thanks for the correct name, Jim. I did look at my C430's and by removing the screw holding the fuel it would be possible to place styrene between the frame and fuel tank. Have not done it yet though, not looked at enough 430 photos to see what else this might affect. No word on my 636's being at my LHS either, one demo and the DL unit ordered, would like a MK unit also.

[edwardsutorik]

Oct 7, 2014 15:07:51 GMT -8 alcors32 said:

Has anyone spoken to Bowser about the possibility of a retooled tank? 

While it does appear that the fuel tank is defective, it's still a little early to KNOW it. Or not, for that matter. I wouldn't call 'til I had some real hard data.



Ed

[kcjones]

Gentlemen,
Took these pics at "The Whistle Stop" in Portland OR this afternoon. I picked up my IC unit and put the Demo unit on hold. These are beautiful in every sense of the word...but one. Reminds me of an old Kennaeott engine.
Waaaaay too high!!! I slipped TWO .080 strips under the fuel tank. And an old cow could get under that snowplow. We've got to figure a way to lower this engine. About the tank...It "appears" to be the right size, but because it sits so high off the rails, it looks small.

JLoggans
Vancouver WA

[Deleted]

Oct 7, 2014 19:51:54 GMT -8 kcjones said:

Gentlemen,
Took these pics at "The Whistle Stop" in Portland OR this afternoon. I picked up my IC unit and put the Demo unit on hold. These are beautiful in every sense of the word...but one. Reminds me of an old Kennaeott engine.
Waaaaay too high!!! I slipped TWO .080 strips under the fuel tank. And an old cow could get under that snowplow. We've got to figure a way to lower this engine. About the tank...It "appears" to be the right size, but because it sits so high off the rails, it looks small.

JLoggans
Vancouver WA/quote]

Looks to be about 5 - 6 scale inches too high off the trucks. Approx. 1/16 inch. Next: how to lower the unit?

[edwardsutorik]

The deck is about 1/16" too high. If it were lowered that much, the gap under the fuel tank would be awfully close to right.

And, curiously, it looks like there's room to raise the couplers 1/16" to make up for the lowering.

Here's hopin' it's an easy fix.


Ed

[chuckc]

Measured my three that I received today.

Cab height is ~15' 6.5". That's 5.5" too high.

I measured the fuel tank height off the rail and got about 12.5" which again is about 5.5" too high.

What's strange is that the front air tank would hit the rear brake cylinder on the front left truck frame if one were to lower the body by the correct 5.5".

I'm guessing that's why the loco was made too high.

Unless I see some miracle cure to this problem, I will be sending mine back.

[lvrr325]

Oct 7, 2014 19:51:54 GMT -8 kcjones said:

JLoggans
Vancouver WA

Compare this picture particularly with the photos at dieseldetailer.proboards.com/thread/4381/alco-c636-detail-photos and it's pretty evident the entire engine sits too high off the trucks.  There is much less clearance between the top of the truck sideframe and the locomotive frame, plus that pipe (is that the handbrake chain and levers passing through it?).  

The one I opened today for inspection didn't even have the right sheet in with it, it had a sound guide for Baldwins and the engine was a non-sound, but seems to me the options to fix are to mill the frame surface where the trucks ride, or lower the top surface of the truck the frame sits on.  If it was like an old Athearn frame, the mod would be relatively simple with a rotary tool, although what a pain to have to take the thing all apart.  With these, I don't know how thick that portion of the frame is, if there's enough meat to it to grind some off without making it weak.

Closing up that clearance will likely make them more fussy about track conditions and changes in elevation and so forth. 

[enginseer]

Relying on still pictures to determine how prototypical a model is can be problematic.

Videos have issues as well, but often times seeing a locomotive in motion can change the variables of perspective that you can't get away from in stills.

I found a neat video that shows some ALCo's in action that offers some interesting views (and sounds!) which includes a c636.

[thebessemerkid]

Neat video!

[edwardsutorik]

Oct 7, 2014 20:46:02 GMT -8 chuckc said:

What's strange is that the front air tank would hit the rear brake cylinder on the front left truck frame if one were to lower the body by the correct 5.5".

Most or all of SP&S (and thus BN) C-636's had the front end of the front tank lifted up for extra clearance. I don't know if it was done at the factory--the proper builder's photo would show.

I wonder if it was done on other railroads' locos.


Ed

[markfj]

Hello Group,

Can someone provide an accurate measurement of the model’s “overall” height so we can compare it to either the drawing or the dimensions referenced in one of the Alco books?

My concern is that we don’t know what the true issue is (i.e. undersized fuel tanks, deck height, low bolster mounts, etc.) and if we jump into a discussion on lowering or raising anything we might be changing the wrong dimension.

It is my understanding that Alco’s with Hi-Ad trucks had a noticeably higher deck height (I think I even posted a picture showing that difference with the C630 when Boswer released that model).

I may make a trip to Hamburg, PA with a camera and measure the C630 stored there.

Thanks, Mark

[edwardsutorik]

Mark,

Nuthin' wrong with measuring the C-630. But, still, it ain't a C-636. Some dimensions may be the same, some may not. I note, for example, that it looks to me from photos of the Reading unit that it has much more clearance under the tank than a C-636. Why, it looks to be the same as on Bowser's C-636. Co-incidence? You be the judge.

My SP&S diagram shows a total height of 16'- 0 13/16". THAT IS TO THE TOP OF THE BEACON. I REPETE, TO THE TOP OF THE BEACON.

The plan in the BN 1972 Annual shows a height to the top of cab of 15'-1 1/4". THAT IS TO THE TOP OF THE CAB.

So, a mounted beacon would be about a foot tall. Incidentally.




Ed

[Deleted]

Oct 8, 2014 8:33:36 GMT -8 markfj said:

Hello Group,

Can someone provide an accurate measurement of the model’s “overall” height so we can compare it to either the drawing or the dimensions referenced in one of the Alco books?

My concern is that we don’t know what the true issue is (i.e. undersized fuel tanks, deck height, low bolster mounts, etc.) and if we jump into a discussion on lowering or raising anything we might be changing the wrong dimension.

It is my understanding that Alco’s with Hi-Ad trucks had a noticeably higher deck height (I think I even posted a picture showing that difference with the C630 when Boswer released that model).

I may make a trip to Hamburg, PA with a camera and measure the C630 stored there.

Thanks, Mark

An overall height measurement would be great BUT the height problem with the Bowser C-636 is most apparent on the right (engineer's) side, rear of the front truck. Look at the gap between the rear of the truck equalizer and the side frame/plate. Compare the demo scheme model with the BN and Conrail prototypes. The model has large gap- it looks to be about 4 to 6 inches which matches some people's measurements of the deck being about 1/16 inch too high. Hopefully an easy fix by trimming some material off the truck mounts. If this messes up the coupler height, that shouldn't be too difficult of a fix.

Photos here: www.bowser-trains.com/new/c636.html

The overall height (via deck height) needs to be addressed before fixing any fuel tank height problems because the fuel tanks may differ on different orders. Measurements have shown the deck to be 4 - 6 scle inches too high. A roof measurement won't change that.

[markfj]

Ok, I’m a glutton for punishment, so I took out my Bowser C630 (recent release with new tooling and corrected cab shape) and measured it with digital calipers.

Yes, this a C630 I’m talking about, but I’m assuming Bowser did not do dramatic redesigns to the frame, Hi Ad truck assemblies, or the cab for the C636. That being said, my measurements are just to satisfy my curiosity and have no other practical use when talking about the issues with the Bowser C636.

Using the drawing I posted as my guide, I measured an overall height from the top of the rail to the top of the cab roof at 186.06 inches or 15 ½ feet. The drawing shows this dimension should be 15’ 3”, so I concluded the overall height of my model is too high by about 3 scale inches (about the thickness of the ball in a standard ballpoint pen).

Fuel tank bottom to rail head distance was 1’ 3 and 1/4”, but I don’t know the prototypes dimensions yet. Also, I reexamined the drawing I posted and saw that the fuel tank bottom is not in the same horizontal plane as the pedestal jaw straps when Hi Ad truck are used.

So far, my conclusion is that Bowser’s model of the C630 seems dimensionally accurate based on the information I have.

What does all this mean for the C636? Well, we know the tank is new tooling since it is different from the C630, so that is suspect (and I have no drawings to reference or access to a prototype). But are the truck assemblies, frame, and cab new for the C636 as well? My guess is that they are not, so all the talk about height and how the locomotive sits is only relevant “if” Bowser made new tooling for the majority of parts on this model.

The comments way back on page two of this post seem the most valid: the fuel tanks are undersized. I believe their profile is too shallow and the radius of the curvature is not correct.

Just my 2 cents and that’s all it’s worth.

Thanks, Mark

Oh and omaharoad…"be seeing you number six".

[kcjones]

OK..I think I see the problem with the tank. After looking at several pics in my Wither's six axle book, I noticed that the profile is off at the bottom. Take a true circle and cut it in half and you have the profile on the Bowser model. Take that same half but increase the tangent towards the bottom..you've got the real engine. I guess the easiest way to say this is to take a quarter circle of 18" radius track and add it to a quarter circle of 22" radius track; with the 22 at the bottom of the half circle.
JL
Vancouver WA

[Mark R.]

IF you can lower the chassis down onto the trucks the acclaimed required amount, I'm sure you will end up with some limitations in truck swing and tilt from where they currently sit. I believe manufacturers have guidelines they follow for minimum radius and truck tilt allowed in their designs. If not, there would be just as much complaining from the other side of the fence that their new engine won't run on their 18" radius snap track with the abrupt 4% grades ! Same reasons model manufacturers of large steam use pivoted chassis, etc..

Mark.

[edwardsutorik]

Oct 8, 2014 18:14:54 GMT -8 Mark R. said:

IF you can lower the chassis down onto the trucks the acclaimed required amount, I'm sure you will end up with some limitations in truck swing and tilt from where they currently sit. I believe manufacturers have guidelines they follow for minimum radius and truck tilt allowed in their designs. If not, there would be just as much complaining from the other side of the fence that their new engine won't run on their 18" radius snap track with the abrupt 4% grades ! Same reasons model manufacturers of large steam use pivoted chassis, etc..

Mark.

Well, yes, you are describing "tinplaters".

But others of us are pursuing "scale model railroading".



Ed