|
|
Post by Mark R. on Oct 8, 2014 21:15:20 GMT -8
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 You might be surprised. I work part time in a hobby shop and there's way more guys who just "play with trains" than there are "scale model railroaders" that come through the shop. These guys like the big pretty engines that make noise, but couldn't tell you an RS3 from a GP40 and don't understand why things don't run well on their kinked brass Snap-Track .... Mark. |
|
|
|
Post by WP 257 on Oct 9, 2014 4:39:31 GMT -8
I'm not trying to start any arguments here, so please do not take this as me being argumentative, or anything like that at all...just take this for what it's worth.
The simple fact is were it not for the "tinplaters"...ie those folks who pretty much just buy it, take it home and run it, and enjoy it, often without any additional modifications at all, models like this one would not get made at all, period. They buy the lion's share of any new model.
Actual production quantities are very low...how low, they will never divulge publicly, but I think people would actually be surprised at how few of these things actually get made nowadays.
(Of course they still build a percentage above pre-orders, but if the pre-orders are small, the added-on amount can blow out quickly).
|
|
|
|
Post by John Sheridan on Oct 9, 2014 4:53:38 GMT -8
Actual production quantities are very low...how low, they will never divulge publicly, but I think people would actually be surprised at how few of these things actually get made nowadays. (Of course they still build a percentage above pre-orders, but if the pre-orders are small, the added-on amount can blow out quickly). I'll give you a tip...the amount run has little to do with the amount of pre-orders in the queue. How many locomotives do you think are made in a run ? Go ahead & take a wild guess.... i'll wait. |
|
|
|
Post by bnsf971 on Oct 9, 2014 6:35:51 GMT -8
Actual production quantities are very low...how low, they will never divulge publicly, but I think people would actually be surprised at how few of these things actually get made nowadays. (Of course they still build a percentage above pre-orders, but if the pre-orders are small, the added-on amount can blow out quickly). I'll give you a tip...the amount run has little to do with the amount of pre-orders in the queue. How many locomotives do you think are made in a run ? Go ahead & take a wild guess.... i'll wait. I remember a couple of decades ago, Bachmann released their dash 8 in HO scale, limited to one thousand units per road number. They seemed to be everywhere forever, at that figure. I still see handfuls of them at every swap meet, still new in the box. |
|
|
|
Post by ambluco on Oct 9, 2014 6:55:25 GMT -8
Considering NdeM, I think, WAS affiliated with Bowser, he may know more than you think. Actual production quantities are very low...how low, they will never divulge publicly, but I think people would actually be surprised at how few of these things actually get made nowadays. (Of course they still build a percentage above pre-orders, but if the pre-orders are small, the added-on amount can blow out quickly). I'll give you a tip...the amount run has little to do with the amount of pre-orders in the queue. How many locomotives do you think are made in a run ? Go ahead & take a wild guess.... i'll wait. |
|
|
|
Post by The Ferro Kid on Oct 9, 2014 7:31:10 GMT -8
Actual production quantities are very low...how low, they will never divulge publicly, but I think people would actually be surprised at how few of these things actually get made nowadays. (Of course they still build a percentage above pre-orders, but if the pre-orders are small, the added-on amount can blow out quickly). I'll give you a tip...the amount run has little to do with the amount of pre-orders in the queue. How many locomotives do you think are made in a run ? Go ahead & take a wild guess.... i'll wait. I'm thinking low hundreds, per roadname/road number. |
|
|
|
Post by WP 257 on Oct 9, 2014 9:14:15 GMT -8
I think they look at it more on a per paint scheme and road number basis, as each roadname is a separate set of artwork. They have to sell so many units to make the artwork "worthwhile" to do. Some roadnames (like for example Reading) are an easy sell and get made 3 times as much within a given run as others do.
In the case of these, BN and SP&S are reputedly so popular that, combined with the Demonstrators and IC, they basically made the entire project worthwhile to do.
Total in a run? I have no idea.
I saw less cases than they used to receive in one run of Atlas/Kato engines, when they were a distributor of those, many years ago.
|
|
|
|
Post by thebessemerkid on Oct 9, 2014 10:25:22 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by wmcbride on Oct 9, 2014 12:07:30 GMT -8
M B Klein/Model Train Stuff has posted a video of the new C636s including some side shots. I love my C430s but I must say that it looks like the fuel tanks are really high off the rails on the 636's Modeltrainstuff video of C636Bill McBride |
|
|
|
Post by alcors32 on Oct 9, 2014 12:27:44 GMT -8
M B Klein/Model Train Stuff has posted a video of the new C636s including some side shots. I love my C430s but I must say that it looks like the fuel tanks are really high off the rails on the 636's Modeltrainstuff video of C636Bill McBride The model rides to high and the fuel tank is for sure to small. |
|
|
|
Post by wmcbride on Oct 9, 2014 15:36:50 GMT -8
I was planning on two units from the next group but that fuel tank is a deal breaker for me. One of the things that made the C636 interesting and "attractive" was the large fuel tank.
Bill McBride
|
|
|
|
Post by GP40P-2 on Oct 9, 2014 15:44:02 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by bigblow69 on Oct 9, 2014 15:45:14 GMT -8
If anyone knows where to find a IC OMI C-636 please let me know.
|
|
|
|
Post by GP40P-2 on Oct 9, 2014 15:46:57 GMT -8
Come to think of it, wasn't DBT one of the road names that Bowser had originally announced for the second run? I now see no reference to it anywhere on the Bowser site.
This whole height issue is the poster child for why I didn't / don't pre-order.
|
|
|
|
Post by bigblow69 on Oct 9, 2014 15:49:29 GMT -8
Actual production quantities are very low...how low, they will never divulge publicly, but I think people would actually be surprised at how few of these things actually get made nowadays. (Of course they still build a percentage above pre-orders, but if the pre-orders are small, the added-on amount can blow out quickly). I'll give you a tip...the amount run has little to do with the amount of pre-orders in the queue. How many locomotives do you think are made in a run ? Go ahead & take a wild guess.... i'll wait. Some roads I know are low as brass quantity numbers of a few years ago. |
|
|
|
Post by bigblow69 on Oct 9, 2014 16:01:44 GMT -8
Well, yes, you are describing "tinplaters". But others of us are pursuing "scale model railroading". Ed You might be surprised. I work part time in a hobby shop and there's way more guys who just "play with trains" than there are "scale model railroaders" that come through the shop. These guys like the big pretty engines that make noise, but couldn't tell you an RS3 from a GP40 and don't understand why things don't run well on their kinked brass Snap-Track .... Mark. That would describe me with my Bachmann EZ track layout BUT most rolling stock and locomotives I run are not the most detailed.I have care from Train man to Tangent and locos from Bachmann to Overland |
|
|
|
Post by bigblow69 on Oct 9, 2014 16:03:57 GMT -8
Come to think of it, wasn't DBT one of the road names that Bowser had originally announced for the second run? I now see no reference to it anywhere on the Bowser site. This whole height issue is the poster child for why I didn't / don't pre-order. I follow the rule shame me once shame on you, shame me twice shame on me when It comes to pre-orders. |
|
|
|
Post by jlwii2000 on Oct 9, 2014 17:33:11 GMT -8
Holy high rider! You can fit an HO scale car under that fuel tank! The gap between the trucks and body is also noticeable.
|
|
|
|
Post by Chad on Oct 9, 2014 17:47:04 GMT -8
I really wanted one of these and if I felt it easy to remove 1/16" off the truck mounting pad on the frame I would. But unless you have a milling machine I do not see how you would take 1/16" off the frame and keep it level so the unit won't tilt. Plus you would need to make sure the amount removed from one end is an exact match to the other end.
|
|
|
|
Post by carrman on Oct 9, 2014 18:26:10 GMT -8
Here's the results of some measuring done by Dan Stinson on the D-List:
Okay, here are some measurements. I bought the three SP&S units, so I'll list measurements by unit number. All measurements are actual inches. You can multiply by 87.1 or however many decimal places you want.
SP&S # 330 335 341
Front deck height (above railhead):
0.883" 0.883" 0.882"
Rear deck height (above railhead):
0.872" 0.875" 0.873"
The shell is attached to the frame by the coupler mounting screws. One complication to removing the shell is that the snowplow keeps the coupler box from slipping out. Since #330 had lost it's plow in shipping, it became the subject of frame measurements.
Bottom of front coupler pad to railhead: .521"
Bottom of rear coupler pad to railhead: .516"
Thickness of shim between frame and coupler box: 068"
Bottom of fuel tank to railhead clearance: .150"
I've pulled one truck off the frame and I'll be damned! There's a block that appears to have been cast (or perhaps bonded?) onto half of the truck frame between the truck gearcase and the bolster that the truck pin sits into.
I'll try to get a photo of this detail if I can get enough light on it and a focused shot. it's about .06"± thick.
|
|
|
|
Post by alcoc430 on Oct 9, 2014 18:33:54 GMT -8
I like that faded blue paint job. I wonder if the original conrail paint was that faded before it was traded away |
|
|
|
Post by carrman on Oct 9, 2014 18:37:01 GMT -8
Oh yeah, Bowser posted this on their FB page:
For those of you who purchased our new C636 Locomotives in DC with the intent of installing your own DCC or Sound board you will note that a running production change has eliminated the 8 pin plug from the main board. Some units appear to have still come with both plugs. If your unit does not have the 8 Pin plug, you will need to use a decoder with 21 pins or acquire an adapter harness for 21 pin to 9 pin conversion.
For DCC (non sound) use
ESU #53614 decoder
TCS #T-1 21 pin to 9 pin wire harness and T-1, T-4x or T-6x decoders.
Other decoder manufacturer's are currently developing their own adapter plugs / harness' that should be available very soon.
If your unit has both the 8 pin and 21 pin just remove the sub board from the 21 pin and install your 8 pin decoder as normal.
|
|
|
|
Post by carrman on Oct 9, 2014 18:38:48 GMT -8
Why are they shoving the 21 pin set up down our throats? Also, my retailer told me today that the non sound versions will spin their wheels in a stall. The Loksound versions all stalled and the wheels stopped turning. Unknown if this is just a matter of altering decoder settings or what. Be warned.
Dave
|
|
|
|
Post by alcoc430 on Oct 9, 2014 19:00:35 GMT -8
My measurements taken from drawing in the Jan 85 RMC of the C636 using HO Scale Ruler shown in red below and using the 87.1 for conversion. Here's the results of some measuring done by Dan Stinson on the D-List: Okay, here are some measurements. I bought the three SP&S units, so I'll list measurements by unit number. All measurements are actual inches. You can multiply by 87.1 or however many decimal places you want. SP&S # 330 335 341 Front deck height (above railhead): 0.883" 0.883" 0.882" [ 6'-2" (+/- 1 inch) or converted 0.8496"]Rear deck height (above railhead):
0.872" 0.875" 0.873" [6'-2"]
The shell is attached to the frame by the coupler mounting screws. One complication to removing the shell is that the snowplow keeps the coupler box from slipping out. Since #330 had lost it's plow in shipping, it became the subject of frame measurements.
Bottom of front coupler pad to railhead: .521"
Bottom of rear coupler pad to railhead: .516"
Thickness of shim between frame and coupler box: 068"
Bottom of fuel tank to railhead clearance: .150" [8", +/- 1" or 0.0918]
I've pulled one truck off the frame and I'll be damned! There's a block that appears to have been cast (or perhaps bonded?) onto half of the truck frame between the truck gearcase and the bolster that the truck pin sits into.
I'll try to get a photo of this detail if I can get enough light on it and a focused shot. it's about .06"± thick.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 9, 2014 19:30:48 GMT -8
My measurements taken from drawing in the Jan 85 RMC of the C636 using HO Scale Ruler shown in red below and using the 87.1 for conversion. Here's the results of some measuring done by Dan Stinson on the D-List: Okay, here are some measurements. I bought the three SP&S units, so I'll list measurements by unit number. All measurements are actual inches. You can multiply by 87.1 or however many decimal places you want. SP&S # 330 335 341 Front deck height (above railhead): 0.883" 0.883" 0.882" [ 6'-2" (+/- 1 inch) or converted 0.8496"]Rear deck height (above railhead):
0.872" 0.875" 0.873" [6'-2"]
The shell is attached to the frame by the coupler mounting screws. One complication to removing the shell is that the snowplow keeps the coupler box from slipping out. Since #330 had lost it's plow in shipping, it became the subject of frame measurements.
Bottom of front coupler pad to railhead: .521"
Bottom of rear coupler pad to railhead: .516"
Thickness of shim between frame and coupler box: 068"
Bottom of fuel tank to railhead clearance: .150" [8", +/- 1" or 0.0918]
I've pulled one truck off the frame and I'll be damned! There's a block that appears to have been cast (or perhaps bonded?) onto half of the truck frame between the truck gearcase and the bolster that the truck pin sits into.
I'll try to get a photo of this detail if I can get enough light on it and a focused shot. it's about .06"± thick.
The average of Dan's accurate measurements of the model deck is 0.878" or 6' 4.5". Alco430's measurement of a drawing is 6' 2" so the difference is 2.5". But frankly drawings published in model magazines are often lacking. Sometimes way off. Someone else came up with a prototype deck height of 6' 0". That would make the model-proto deck difference 4.5". Now that we have good model dims someone needs to validate the deck height of the prototype. |
|
|
|
Post by elsdp45 on Oct 9, 2014 19:48:21 GMT -8
I am not sure if this link will work, but it is a photo of the Bowser C636 Alco Demonstrator test unit I found on the internet when searching for pictures of Alco C636's. Here the model looks like it is sitting just fine on its trucks. The tank is still wrong. Did something go wrong in assembly of the final model?
model-railroad-hobbyist.com/sites/model-railroad-hobbyist.com/files/users/JeffShultz/img_5343r.jpg
Chris
PS I got my Penn Central C636's yesterday. They do sit way to high off the trucks and the fuel tank curvature looks wrong. From all the pictures I have seen, I would describe the side to the bottom of the tank transition as more of an ellipse on the real locomotive. |
|
|
|
Post by kcjones on Oct 9, 2014 20:14:35 GMT -8
 bowser on left...oriental on right |
|
|
|
Post by thebessemerkid on Oct 9, 2014 20:29:10 GMT -8
The old forum had some pix of the c630 hi-ad truck forum.atlasrr.com/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=64250&whichpage=2Wondering if the same hi-ad is used on the 630 and 636. After that, wondering what is different between 630 and 636 frames? Anyone have both and willing to do a quick comparison? ETA: It sure does look high, but the 636's were taller than anything I remember from that era. Hi-ad 630's too  I need to dig around and find a 630 hi-ad / trimount lashup to verify if hi-ads sat higher or not.  |
|
|
|
Post by thebessemerkid on Oct 9, 2014 20:53:06 GMT -8
bowser on left...oriental on right  |
|
|
|
Post by thebessemerkid on Oct 9, 2014 21:03:40 GMT -8
This is showing an SP&S C636 as higher than the trailing C425  The D-L 636 showing the deck height with a person for reference  |
|
