|
|
Post by Mark R. on Oct 10, 2014 13:01:34 GMT -8
I believe everyone is finally seeing the larger radius at the bottom of the tank. (snip) View AttachmentJames Wall Rural Hall, NC Actually just the opposite .... from the pictures (even yours) it's clear the half-round portions of the tank ARE a continuous radius. It's the end plates that aren't. They have a larger bottom radius to align with the box portion of the tank being lower. Your picture shows this more clearly than any that have been posted. Also obvious (and I believe it's already been mentioned), the lead air tank on the left side is tucked up under the walkway further at the front for truck clearance. Mark. |
|
|
|
Post by kcjones on Oct 10, 2014 13:10:56 GMT -8
Echo...echo....brake chain pipe mentioned back on page 3. Ok, so do the tanks actually extend out past the frame sill? Or is it just an optical illusion? What we need is a straight down view. Let's see... Split tank down middle, add bottom to tank to widen, add end plate, paint to match. Done!
|
|
|
|
Post by edwardsutorik on Oct 10, 2014 13:33:14 GMT -8
Doubt they could get near 5000, which completely filled the undercarriage of EL's SD45-2's  From SP&S diagrams: C-424's and C-425's had 2900 gal fuel tanks-----and had a top speed of 70 MPH C-636's had 5000 gal fuel tanks-----and had a top speed of 79 MPH And the BN ones had the same fuel capacity-----top speeds?  ?? Ed |
|
|
|
Post by thebessemerkid on Oct 10, 2014 14:06:59 GMT -8
Won't say 5000 gallons is impossible. EL sure used up every available space to shoehorn them in. Will say there are enough different specs out there to confuse me. Not that it requires much...  |
|
|
|
Post by Mark R. on Oct 10, 2014 14:17:57 GMT -8
Yet other sites list the C636 as having 4000 gallon tanks. A 1000 gallon increase would be VERY noticeable !
Mark.
|
|
|
|
Post by edwardsutorik on Oct 10, 2014 14:39:53 GMT -8
Yet other sites list the C636 as having 4000 gallon tanks. A 1000 gallon increase would be VERY noticeable ! Mark. For the SP&S (and BN) C-636's, I am not getting my information from a site. I am getting it from a copy of an SP&S document. And I suspect that document would be quite accurate when referring to fuel capacity. An error would cause all kinds of problems for various employees. And, consequently, management. Perhaps other C-636's had only a 4000 gallon capacity. I suspect not. To my eye, all C-636's look to have the same fuel tanks. Paraphrased from the above quote, a 1000 gallon decrease would be very noticeable. Incidentally, the 424's and 425's DID have different fuel tanks. And someday, I'm going to have to redo all my Atlas teeny tanks into the proper SP&S/BN 2900 gallon tanks. Ed |
|
|
|
Post by bigblow69 on Oct 10, 2014 15:33:53 GMT -8
I have a mill, so I figure lowering the unit a tad is a 40 minute project. I wonder how easily that motor could be replaced with a Kato motor. Now I just have to convince myself I really need one. Enjoy! Kelley. Naw you don't need one. You need two. EVERY loco must be purchased in pairs or more. |
|
|
|
Post by elsdp45 on Oct 10, 2014 19:58:03 GMT -8
I don't think the front air tank is tucked up in front for truck clearance. If you look at the picture, you will notice all the air tanks have a slight slant to them. The middle tank slants down toward the rear of the engine and the rear tank slants down toward the front of the engine. I work with air brakes and the air tanks are slanted downward because of water that condenses out of the air as it cools. Most of the water vapor in the compressed air is removed at the air dryer, but some still remains. By slanting the tanks, the water will collect at one end of the tank and can be removed out through a drain valve in the low end of the tank.
I wonder if the end of the fuel tank was designed to act as a shield to prevent debris from damaging the tank?
Chris
|
|
|
|
Post by kcjones on Oct 10, 2014 22:02:10 GMT -8
Guys,
Check your instruction sheet. As noted earlier, I have discovered that I also have an instruction sheet for a BALDWIN. What gives? My IC unit is very stiff and I was just wondering about taking it apart so I could lube it and break it in. Is there an ALCO sheet at all?
JL
Vancouver WA
|
|
|
|
Post by kcjones on Oct 10, 2014 22:24:14 GMT -8
Years ago, I was in CA on vacation and was able to get up close and personal to the Delta Bulk 636. Unfortunately, the only camera I had was a Kodak insta-matic. I just found this old picture I took of the right rear truck. Gotta love those hi-ads. If you look at the back of the fuel tank at the very edge of the picture you can clearly see the tank radius plus the bottom tank. Also note the end plate. I think this will answer all the tank questions.  |
|
|
|
Post by The Ferro Kid on Oct 11, 2014 2:17:07 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by thebessemerkid on Oct 11, 2014 3:56:58 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by thebessemerkid on Oct 11, 2014 4:49:40 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by carrman on Oct 11, 2014 6:35:15 GMT -8
From Bowsers Facebook page:
"I looked through the forum link you provided and have few thoughts on the remarks from those who don't even have the item make about it's correctness. The deck height on this model is with in 1 inch of the actual deck height. Less than .012 inch. We measured both the model and the prototype. The fuel tank is a compromise so that those consumers that actually run their model trains can do so with out fear of bottoming out on uneven track and grade changes. The tank it's self is actually very close in dimension to the unit used for measurements. While we continue to improve products to make models accurately as possible concessions will always be needed for manufacturing purposes or ease of use."
|
|
|
|
Post by thebessemerkid on Oct 11, 2014 7:25:45 GMT -8
That sure seems to clear things up  Now we know, we can see what's involved with a scale fuel tank. Should make an excellent model exceptional! For those of us who don't Facebook, please pass along our thanks to the folks at Bowser |
|
|
|
Post by edwardsutorik on Oct 11, 2014 7:33:11 GMT -8
Wow.
They raised the bottom of the fuel tank 7 scale inches so the loco wouldn't bottom out on trackwork. This, in addition to the real 8 inches.
Someone out there must have some pretty crappy trackwork. Maybe they should just fix it. Naaaahhhhhhhh.....
Oh. I forgot. I'm not supposed to make remarks about the product because I didn't buy it.
Sorry.
Ed
|
|
|
|
Post by thebessemerkid on Oct 11, 2014 7:38:53 GMT -8
Someone out there must have some pretty crappy trackwork. I'll take modifying a fuel tank over milling a frame, just sayin...  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 11, 2014 7:41:52 GMT -8
From SP&S diagrams: C-424's(sic) and C-425's(sic) had 2900 gal fuel tanks-----and had a top speed of 70 MPH C-636's(sic) had 5000 gal fuel tanks-----and had a top speed of 79 MPH And the BN ones had the same fuel capacity-----top speeds? ?? Ed Since all of BN's C-424s, C-425s, and C-636s were ex-SP&S, they would have the same specs unless BN changed the gearing, which is unlikely. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 11, 2014 7:53:17 GMT -8
From Bowsers Facebook page: "I looked through the forum link you provided and have few thoughts on the remarks from those who don't even have the item make about it's correctness. The deck height on this model is with in 1 inch of the actual deck height. Less than .012 inch. We measured both the model and the prototype. The fuel tank is a compromise so that those consumers that actually run their model trains can do so with out fear of bottoming out on uneven track and grade changes. The tank it's self is actually very close in dimension to the unit used for measurements. While we continue to improve products to make models accurately as possible concessions will always be needed for manufacturing purposes or ease of use." That doesn't explain the gap 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. This has nothing to do with the fuel tank shape or size.We now know the model deck height is approx. 76.5 inches. Can someone provide an accurate measurement of the prototype's deck height over the rail head? Best would be a measuremnet from an actual unit since taking measurements off model magazine drawings are suspect and thus not useable. Photos here: www.bowser-trains.com/new/c636.html |
|
|
|
Post by Chad on Oct 11, 2014 8:04:57 GMT -8
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 11, 2014 8:14:23 GMT -8
The M-636 drawingshows the deck height as 71.75" But most important, what is the source of the dimensions on the drawing? Some (in black) say "measurements", but specifically? If from field measurements, great. If from Alco/MLW drawings, be skeptical. If from anything else, useless or worse. |
|
|
|
Post by edwardsutorik on Oct 11, 2014 8:55:03 GMT -8
From Bowsers Facebook page: "The fuel tank is a compromise so that those consumers that actually run their model trains can do so with out fear of bottoming out on uneven track and grade changes." So I got to thinkin' I wondered how much clearance was under the fuel tank of Athearn's SDP45. Because I sure haven't heard a lot of whining and complaining about it hanging up on its fuel tank. Or, if it did, perhaps those folks fixed their track (see above). Anyway, the Athearn SDP45 HAS LESS CLEARANCE THAN A PROPERLY DONE C-636 WOULD HAVE. Yeah, I know that all-caps is like yelling, but I thought maybe Bowser would like to see what those rascally folks at Athearn have done to the poor "consumers that actually run their model trains". Ah, yes. I see. If you read the quote from Bowser (above), they are addressing the "fear", not the actuality. My mistake, Ed |
|
|
|
Post by thebessemerkid on Oct 11, 2014 9:09:16 GMT -8
One could always go to N scale and use the Con-cor C636...   |
|
|
|
Post by WP 257 on Oct 11, 2014 9:14:06 GMT -8
Ed--
Maybe you actually have perfect trackwork, and mine is quite decent--but I've actually seen a lot of layouts that simply do not. Some were huge, and had real issues with vertical grade breaks ie they should have actually had a vertical curve but instead many folks (including some that have an awful lot of cash invested in their trains) use the Woodland Scenics Styrofoam risers to begin or end a grade. What this does is it puts a severe vertical kink where instead you should have a smooth vertical curve. A long wheelbase engine like a C-636 or Athearn's SDP45 would indeed have severe issues with this (either pilots or fuel tanks hitting, fuel tanks more likely to hit at crest of a grade).
As a manufacturer, Bowser has to try to make their product run for the majority of layouts; they basically have to try to idiot-proof the product. It's not some joke or "fear" on their part. Just as some want models to be as exact as possible, there are others out there that have little or no idea how to do good trackwork. Some of them will own these models and complain--loudly--if the models don't "work" on their layout.
At the end of the day, if you don't like the model, then just buy something else. There's even plenty of other Alcos out there!
To those who purchased them:
Another post said they run "a little stiff" out of the box. They are well-lubricated from the factory, as I can see a little grease peaking out of the gear tower assembly. They need to be run-in at varying speeds, forward and reverse. Then they run much better and the starting voltage will actually drop as they run-in.
|
|
|
|
Post by markfj on Oct 11, 2014 9:22:08 GMT -8
This was mentioned in a 10/7 post. the center “box” portion of the tank protrudes lower than the diameter or height of the semicircular sides. As usual, I’m many days late and more than a dollar short, apologies to all.  That is a very interesting comment Bowser made about the fuel tank being a compromise. I respect Bowser’s efforts to bring this particular model to market. However, I think we can all agree that they have “over compromised” the fuel tanks, which gives their model more of a “toy” appearance. If Bowser doesn't offer a new tank, I guess we should start a new thread on scracth building correct tanks once someone gets measurement from a surviving prototype. Thanks, mark |
|
|
|
Post by carrman on Oct 11, 2014 9:23:22 GMT -8
Then maybe Bowser should give us more serious modelers the option of the correct parts so damn thing looks right. Stop pandering to the lowest common denominator. If the engine won't run on a given layout, fix the damn track!
Dave
|
|
|
|
Post by WP 257 on Oct 11, 2014 9:39:54 GMT -8
As it is, sales of new diesels are, generally speaking, not all that far above the minimum possible build quantities, so now you desire to exclude even more prospective sales? Would that be wise? Would you rather have a model that is pretty freakin' good or no model at all?
Whatever your personal opinion, this is not a 1977 Tyco.
I'd like to remind folks that the brass models often held up as being "so collectable" and "so accurate" actually have far more egregious errors: It is well documented (by John Glaab in his book and in his lectures) that the PFM Crown Series contains numerous errors. For example, on the early 1970's production of Rio Grande M-75 4-8-2 PFM Crowns the entire boiler was built 10% too large by the Japanese builder in order to make the engine appear "more impressive"--and those things still bring big money. It is also not the only one where the boiler is 10% too large--there were others--that's just the only one I remember off the top of my head, because I once had one. Other times, the owner of United in Japan would actually rearrange dome locations on American steam pilot models just based upon what he deemed as being "more aesthetically pleasing". He changed it based upon his whims and that's what United delivered.
It is also unwise to assume the Alco Models/Oriental Limited/Overland Models versions of Alco/MLW Century Series models were much more "accurate" than the steam models that preceded them. They had their issues, too. It's just that in the intervening years, folks have "forgotten"...and yes, the Overlands were generally much more accurate than the other two importers' versions.
Now we've come an awful long way since the 1970's, and I'll just stop right there hopefully before anyone gets more ticked off...
|
|
|
|
Post by carrman on Oct 11, 2014 9:55:40 GMT -8
What about the sales they exclude by setting the bar so low? Just get the basic dimensions right!!!
Dave
|
|
|
|
Post by Spikre on Oct 11, 2014 10:06:17 GMT -8
enuff of C636s height issues !! this also affects the Baldwin AS616s,maybe even worse ? compare the Original Stewart AS616 to a recent example. the Originals used the Stewart-Ernst low rider C truck, and were very close to the correct height. the recent units used a version of the Century truck and were jacked up way too high. would bet its that same bolster block doing that. so maybe the top of the Bowser Gearbox needs serious work to get Correct Ride Heights in the C trucked units other than the Tri-Mount Century units. or just remove the block off the gearbox and use Underslung Kadee couplers. with the C630 and C636 the Cab Interior may need to go if the gearbox gets too high up,a small price to pay ? Spikre 
|
|
|
|
Post by edwardsutorik on Oct 11, 2014 10:09:01 GMT -8
As a manufacturer, Bowser has to try to make their product run for the majority of layouts; they basically have to try to idiot-proof the product... Hmmm. I see Bowser returning to pizza cutter flanges. Those also were huge to correct for people's faulty trackwork. And yet those bad boys at Athearn apparently DO NOT need to make their product run for the majority of layouts--see the SDP45. And DD40AX. It's a wonder Athearn is still in business, with an attitude like that. Ed |
|
