|
|
Post by kcjones on Oct 11, 2014 10:17:42 GMT -8
Close up of tank end  |
|
|
|
Post by edwardsutorik on Oct 11, 2014 10:19:01 GMT -8
Whatever your personal opinion, this is not a 1977 Tyco. The question is, when will the lines converge. Well, there's a coincidence. That is exactly what Bowser told me when I questioned them on problems with the GN Baldwin S-12. There was just nothing they could do--the darn guy in China was so willful and didn't take direction well. In this case, I DO have the Alco Models and OMI C-636's. So, if I forget, I can just wander over and look at 'em. I certainly agree that there COULD be problems. But both brass models "look" right. The Bowser "looks" wrong. And is. And I measured them at the request of a forum member. I don't necessarily hold their dimensions as absolutely exact. But that's no reason not to compare and contrast. Ed (who isn't ticked off, 'cause he didn't buy any) |
|
|
|
Post by WP 257 on Oct 11, 2014 10:19:05 GMT -8
Ed--
I owned one Overland C-636, and while it does look mostly right, and they run great with the tower gear drive, there were minor issues that I'm pretty sure aren't totally right. I enjoyed mine, for awhile. Am glad I no longer need to cut off or bend the way too long air hoses common with those models so they didn't short out on the track. I really didn't care for the side radiator "shutters" as rendered on the brass C-630's. The C-636's were indeed better than the others.
I do not speak for Bowser, but wrote my own opinions, only.
Please forgive me for trying to provide some kind of reasonable explanation, as that clearly is not "good enough" for some. I apologize--I'm out.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mark R. on Oct 11, 2014 10:24:25 GMT -8
Close up of tank end Yes, we get it .... two pages ago .... Mark. |
|
|
|
Post by edwardsutorik on Oct 11, 2014 10:25:22 GMT -8
And please forgive me for questioning some of your statements, as that is apparently unacceptable. I'm still here.
Ed
|
|
|
|
Post by WP 257 on Oct 11, 2014 10:26:48 GMT -8
You can question all you want, I was trying to provide a peaceable comment that apparently, from what I'm reading, is just not helping much at all. So for that I'm sorry; was attempting to be helpful. Questions are totally acceptable...just if you hate a model don't buy it, buy something you like instead. Life is too short!  |
|
|
|
Post by thebessemerkid on Oct 11, 2014 10:40:11 GMT -8
I remember when the Bachmann Spectrum passenger cars came out. Everyone was so used to the AHM Rivarossi heavyweights that the consensus was Bachmann messed up. Turns out the Spectrums were closer to scale. Then of course came the Walthers and Branchlines ( now Atlas, of course) are the standards. Luckily, I model Penn Central, among others, so anything off gets covered in a few buckets of 'deferred maintenance grime'  |
|
|
|
Post by Mark R. on Oct 11, 2014 10:41:33 GMT -8
Well, I'm going to leave you all with this .... I think Bowser did an incredible job on this engine. Sitting on the layout it looks just fine - on the bench under a 100 watt light, yes, there are some issues. Every model that comes out, the 2%ers will have something negative to say about it - that's pretty much what this forum revolves around.
But, at the end of the day, Bowser is going to do just fine with this model. And for those people who missed out on the pre-orders, they are going to be thrilled at your returns / cancellations. If you would like a C636 but are passing on this one because it's not perfect and you don't have the modelling ability to fix it yourself, then it's just going to be your loss and no one else's.
Mark.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 11, 2014 11:54:35 GMT -8
Wow, eleven pages of what? Has anything been determined, without a reasonable doubt?
We have the "good enoughers" trying to shout down the "prototype modelers" and the "prototype modelers" trying to shout down the "good enoughers". Then we mix in a few unnecessary barbs by some people along with the resident Bowser apologist and we have total deadlock. Hey, the elections are in a few weeks! This thread is better than the Democrats versus the Republicans!
Either you buy the stupid model or you don't. Is it right or is it wrong? That is to be left up to the prospective purchaser whether it is acceptable or unacceptable. If you can live with it....fine. Buy it and enjoy. If you can't live with it....fine. Don't buy it or buy it and modify it to your liking.
The bottom line is hammering away at the keyboard will neither make this model correct or incorrect. Short of fixing any perceived errors on your own, Bowser sure as heck isn't changing anything. Either you live with it or move on.
I'm sorry to inform all that there will be no winner declared in this donnybrook.
|
|
chuckc
Junior Member
Posts: 57 
|
Post by chuckc on Oct 11, 2014 11:57:19 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." I don't think that the model deck height is within 1 scale inch of the actual deck height. I think it's off by 4.5". My sources say that the proto deck height is little less than 72 actual inches and I measure the model's deck height to be a little bit more than 76 scale inches. I haven't read the entire thread but is their anybody here disputing the proto deck height. About the fuel tank it's worth noting that Bowser dared to put the fuel tank much lower on their c430's. |
|
|
|
Post by nsc39d8 on Oct 11, 2014 11:58:08 GMT -8
Mark,
Until you pointed it out I had not really looked at that picture well enough. I will "fix" my locos when they arrive, will chat with a friend of mine on how to accomplish it. He did modify one Bowser C630 to ride on Atlas TrainMaster trucks for a N&W loco. I am very happy to have this big ALCO model. I have ordered a demo, DL unit and a MK unit, with probably more to come in the Demos.
I agree in the end Bowser deserves a big thumbs up on this and any other ALCO's they produce. Great model.
I reread the Withers book on 6 axle Centuries and it states the 5000 gallon tank was an option but there is no list of which units got those tanks. Also a supposition the EL might have gone back for C636's instead of the SDP45 for the 5000 gallon fuel tank. I would be interested in hearing from historical groups and those that have railroad records as to the tank sizes.
|
|
|
|
Post by alcors32 on Oct 11, 2014 11:58:59 GMT -8
Well, I'm going to leave you all with this .... I think Bowser did an incredible job on this engine. Sitting on the layout it looks just fine - on the bench under a 100 watt light, yes, there are some issues. Every model that comes out, the 2%ers will have something negative to say about it - that's pretty much what this forum revolves around. But, at the end of the day, Bowser is going to do just fine with this model. And for those people who missed out on the pre-orders, they are going to be thrilled at your returns / cancellations. If you would like a C636 but are passing on this one because it's not perfect and you don't have the modelling ability to fix it yourself, then it's just going to be your loss and no one else's. Mark. Gary |
|
chuckc
Junior Member
Posts: 57
|
Post by chuckc on Oct 11, 2014 12:08:40 GMT -8
....I agree in the end Bowser deserves a big thumbs up on this and any other ALCO's they produce. Great model.... Moving on from my negative comments on the ride height and fuel tank I will add that the road (or phase) specific variations that Bowser did on these are indeed a big thumbs up. |
|
|
|
Post by Spikre on Oct 11, 2014 12:09:07 GMT -8
James, EL seemed very happy with the SD45 fleet. there seems no mention that EL considered any Alcos after the C-425 order. EL even let the C-425s go shortly before CR day,as CR didn't seem to care one way or another about Alcos. after the CR Startup they seemed to park Alcos with ailments. or when traffic was down. then CR leased CN M-636s instead of using the Alcos on hand, but that did stop around 79. one wonders why D&H didn't pick up more of the CR Alco Fleet ? Spikre 
|
|
|
|
Post by edwardsutorik on Oct 11, 2014 12:15:21 GMT -8
Wow, eleven pages of what? Has anything been determined, without a reasonable doubt? We have the "good enoughers" trying to shout down the "prototype modelers" and the "prototype modelers" trying to shout down the "good enoughers". Then we mix in a few unnecessary barbs by some people along with the resident Bowser apologist and we have total deadlock. Hey, the elections are in a few weeks! This thread is better than the Democrats versus the Republicans! Either you buy the stupid model or you don't. Is it right or is it wrong? That is to be left up to the prospective purchaser whether it is acceptable or unacceptable. If you can live with it....fine. Buy it and enjoy. If you can't live with it....fine. Don't buy it or buy it and modify it to your liking. The bottom line is hammering away at the keyboard will neither make this model correct or incorrect. Short of fixing any perceived errors on your own, Bowser sure as heck isn't changing anything. Either you live with it or move on.
I'm sorry to inform all that there will be no winner declared in this donnybrook. What 11 pages has done, regarding this model, is move from an observation that the model sits too high on the trucks, to a certainty that the model has errors in certain critical dimensions. And there has been a discussion of fixes for the problem. With that information, people can make a more informed decision about whether or not to make a purchase. Or fix what they bought. Or will buy. I think that's a good thing. Ed |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 11, 2014 12:31:30 GMT -8
Wow, eleven pages of what? Has anything been determined, without a reasonable doubt? We have the "good enoughers" trying to shout down the "prototype modelers" and the "prototype modelers" trying to shout down the "good enoughers". Then we mix in a few unnecessary barbs by some people along with the resident Bowser apologist and we have total deadlock. Hey, the elections are in a few weeks! This thread is better than the Democrats versus the Republicans! Either you buy the stupid model or you don't. Is it right or is it wrong? That is to be left up to the prospective purchaser whether it is acceptable or unacceptable. If you can live with it....fine. Buy it and enjoy. If you can't live with it....fine. Don't buy it or buy it and modify it to your liking. The bottom line is hammering away at the keyboard will neither make this model correct or incorrect. Short of fixing any perceived errors on your own, Bowser sure as heck isn't changing anything. Either you live with it or move on.
I'm sorry to inform all that there will be no winner declared in this donnybrook. What 11 pages has done, regarding this model, is move from an observation that the model sits too high on the trucks, to a certainty that the model has errors in certain critical dimensions. And there has been a discussion of fixes for the problem. With that information, people can make a more informed decision about whether or not to make a purchase. Or fix what they bought. Or will buy. I think that's a good thing. Ed But is it wrong? To some, Bowser included, its correct. To others its wrong. The only thing certain is both sides believe they are correct. |
|
|
|
Post by Spikre on Oct 11, 2014 12:57:00 GMT -8
 even though EL never seemed to consider the C-636 if Bowser does a Fantasy EL, one will likely end up here. [the C-636 didn't seem to have a Spec Number,DL-636 seems to be a possible Spec Number,any one know for sure ??] Edit -- Diesel Builders Vol-2,Alco and MLW does have the C-636 Spec listed as DL-636. should checked ALL the sources here before posting at times like this. Spikre
|
|
|
|
Post by edwardsutorik on Oct 11, 2014 13:27:13 GMT -8
But is it wrong? To some, Bowser included, its correct. To others its wrong. Bowser apparently said on their Facebook page (as quoted in an earlier post): "The fuel tank is a compromise so that those consumers that actually run their model trains can do so with out fear..." So, actually, Bowser says it's not correct, too. In matters of taste, there's no "wrong". I like Pepsi better than Coke--prove me wrong. People can like/love/accept the Bowser model all they want. But 76" will never be 71", no matter how much one wishes. Ed |
|
chuckc
Junior Member
Posts: 57
|
Post by chuckc on Oct 11, 2014 13:42:02 GMT -8
What 11 pages has done, regarding this model, is move from an observation that the model sits too high on the trucks, to a certainty that the model has errors in certain critical dimensions. And there has been a discussion of fixes for the problem. With that information, people can make a more informed decision about whether or not to make a purchase. Or fix what they bought. Or will buy. I think that's a good thing. Ed But is it wrong? To some, Bowser included, its correct. To others its wrong. The only thing certain is both sides believe they are correct. Numerous folks here have documented the prototype cab and platform heights and measured the model cab and platform heights and have demonstrated that both are 4 -6" too high on the model. I've seen nobody document the opposite. |
|
|
|
Post by nsc39d8 on Oct 11, 2014 14:35:53 GMT -8
Spikre,
The comment I was referring to is the last paragraph in the Wither Century six axle book of the forward on the C636, again a supposition on the writer's part. I believe EL was content with the EMD's as even the GE U33C's didn't stay long. At the time, EL was controlled by the N&W thru Dereco and even at this point N&W wasn't buying ALCO's either.
As for the Spec number, ALCO dropped the old Spec numbers with the Century series. Instead using the C to denote Century series and the first number denoting the number of axles and the last two the horsepower.
|
|
|
|
Post by thebessemerkid on Oct 11, 2014 14:36:02 GMT -8
But is it wrong? To some, Bowser included, its correct. To others its wrong. The only thing certain is both sides believe they are correct. Numerous folks here have documented the prototype cab and platform heights and measured the model cab and platform heights and have demonstrated that both are 4 -6" too high on the model. I've seen nobody document the opposite. I've seen sites claim different fuel capacities also: www.geocities.ws/guilford_350/alcocs6.html
Note that site lists 15'3" as the height for C628, C630 and C636 Maybe not:  So this would indicate that the only reliable way to ascertain actual measurements in the field. To date, the only one claiming field measurements is Bowser. They are within an hour or two of the last remaining C636's in the country, so it certainly seems possible. Can a locomotive vary in height with fuel? Yes. It can also vary with wheel size, they do wear. I'd expect new vs old springs might enter in also, although they may have more impact on equalization than ride height. Certainly other locomotives have had height issues. The Intermountain F-units come to mind. Can they be fixed? Sure. Anything can be fixed. Always depends on ease, time and wallet. So where this really leaves it is getting out and verifying the prototype. Then look at a sample of models and see if we are looking at systemic or some random variation. Machining can vary, parts can warp or twist, flash may be present etc. My 3 sound equipped units arrived today. I did note the Baldwin sound instructions in all three, Loksound instructions may be generic. Maybe someone else can confirm. One out of three handrails were loose, which I will take any day over excessive glue on handrails. BTDT. Paint and lettering was excellent. No "dipped in paint" look on the trucks. For $199 @ from MBK, am I happy? Oh heck yes. Most locos get a once over, cleaned and relubed anyway. Will I buy more? All the Penn Central numbers they make (ok, maybe not the lot, but 3 more, you betcha) I remember lusting after Alco models brass Centuries when young. These are orders of magnitude better. As for pricier brass, will defer to others. No way one could put together big lashups without a Wall Street wallet. The fuel tanks will be a nice little project. No impact on factory paint. |
|
|
|
Post by JohnJ on Oct 11, 2014 14:40:44 GMT -8
One other thing is certain - using the trimount truck gearbox to lower the unit as I earlier suggested won't work. I started down that path last night just for fun since I already had the unit apart and had the spare parts on hand. Guess what? I forgot the axle spacing is different on the trimounts vs. hi-ads.
Also, I called Bowser yesterday to see if I could order some hi-ad gearboxes to play around with. None of the hi-ad separate truck parts is in stock, though I believe the sales rep said you could buy the entire truck. Lowering the unit really doesn't seem like it would be hard at all, but I'll wait for 100% confirmation on the correct height before hacking away at my Alco. I'm happy that we have the model's dimensions recorded accurately, but there are a few too many different numbers floating around about the prototype's deck height for my taste.
|
|
|
|
Post by thebessemerkid on Oct 11, 2014 14:52:10 GMT -8
even though EL never seemed to consider the C-636 if Bowser does a Fantasy EL, one will likely end up here. the C-636 didn't seem to have a Spec Number,DL-636 seems to be a possible Spec Number,any one know for sure ?? Spikre DL640 was the 2400HP RS-27 predecessor to the C424, so a DL636 would be unlikely. DL600B was the RSD15 2400 HP six axle, older still. RSD7 was very similar. EL nomenclature I am not up on, but PRR called C628's AF27's. The 636's would have been AF36's I suppose. I do have the EL SD45-2's and that long loco and color scheme is the perfect match. I think I would do an EL SD80MAC before an EL C636. Maybe an EL SDP80MAC with 6000 gallon fuel tanks... (for that matter, if and when Athearn does the DD35, would grab an undec and gray, maroon and yeller it. IIRC, Erie had the clearances for all kinds of oversize locos.) ETA: LV, D&H, SP, UP, C&NW, SCL and C&O would make reasonable "shoulda been" C636's. GB&W and Rock Island too. Maybe New Haven third rail equipped models, with arcing damage on top due to low catenary For those looking, MB Klein restocked some models: $135 plain $199 sound. www.modeltrainstuff.com/C636-Locomotives-HO-Scale-s/3701.htm?searching=Y&sort=3&cat=3701&show=120&page=1
|
|
|
|
Post by markfj on Oct 11, 2014 16:32:08 GMT -8
Just wanted to add this photo of CR 6787.  Someone over on Diesel Detailer pointed out that the sill that extends down from the walkway should be wider on the model. If widened, this would help fill up some of visible gap between the truck and the walkway. His words, not mine, but I thought the picture was a good side view that can be used for comparison. Thanks, Mark |
|
|
|
Post by Spikre on Oct 11, 2014 16:47:08 GMT -8
 note that under the cab is different than the C-628 and C-630. also the C-420,C-424,C-425,and the C-430. Alco was doing a number of different things with the C-636,but they just ran out of time once Studebaker got involved. Spikre 
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 11, 2014 16:52:50 GMT -8
I've seen sites claim different fuel capacities also: www.geocities.ws/guilford_350/alcocs6.html
Note that site lists 15'3" as the height for C628(sic), C630(sic) and C636(sic) So this would indicate that the only reliable way to ascertain actual measurements in the field. To date, the only one claiming field measurements is Bowser. They are within an hour or two of the last remaining C636's in the country, so it certainly seems possible. Can a locomotive vary in height with fuel? Yes. It can also vary with wheel size, they do wear. I'd expect new vs old springs might enter in also, although they may have more impact on equalization than ride height. That site doesn't even get the model designations correct, so how good is the other info? Full vs. empty fuel tank changes a loco height maybe 1". Wheel wear approx max 0.5". Old vs. new springs? No change. |
|
|
|
Post by Mark R. on Oct 11, 2014 17:19:17 GMT -8
Well, I'm going to leave you all with this .... I think Bowser did an incredible job on this engine. Sitting on the layout it looks just fine - on the bench under a 100 watt light, yes, there are some issues. Every model that comes out, the 2%ers will have something negative to say about it - that's pretty much what this forum revolves around. But, at the end of the day, Bowser is going to do just fine with this model. And for those people who missed out on the pre-orders, they are going to be thrilled at your returns / cancellations. If you would like a C636 but are passing on this one because it's not perfect and you don't have the modelling ability to fix it yourself, then it's just going to be your loss and no one else's. Mark. Gary Yup - That's exactly what I'm saying. This is what Bowser has given us, whether you like it or not. Nobody is forcing you to buy it and / or fix it to your liking. I am certain a very high majority will buy this engine and be thrilled with it. I enjoy the bantering back and forth to determine WHAT the problem is and how to correct it, but I get really tired of the complaining that "if it's not perfect, I ain't buying it" .... then don't, nobody cares. Mark. |
|
|
|
Post by carrman on Oct 11, 2014 17:36:40 GMT -8
And some of us are tired of being told to just shut up and be happy with whatever crap is foisted upon us. Folks have a right to expect better for whats being charged these days for a new model. And for the record Mark, about your being tired of people complaining, "nobody cares".
Dave
|
|
|
|
Post by Mark R. on Oct 11, 2014 17:44:43 GMT -8
And some of us are tired of being told to just shut up and be happy with whatever crap is foisted upon us. Folks have a right to expect better for whats being charged these days for a new model. And for the record Mark, about your being tired of people complaining, "nobody cares". Dave Then I strongly suggest you start your own business, do all the measuring / design work, work with the fine folks in China and build the perfect engine and sell it for $100. That should make EVERYbody happy .... If you seriously think this engine is crap, I strongly suggest you don't buy it as it will continually make you miserable every time you look at. When you have a minute, please post a few pictures of the "perfect" engines you DO have - I'd love to see them. Mark. |
|
chuckc
Junior Member
Posts: 57
|
Post by chuckc on Oct 11, 2014 17:55:24 GMT -8
And some of us are tired of being told to just shut up and be happy with whatever crap is foisted upon us. Folks have a right to expect better for whats being charged these days for a new model. And for the record Mark, about your being tired of people complaining, "nobody cares". Dave Then I strongly suggest you start your own business, do all the measuring / design work, work with the fine folks in China and build the perfect engine and sell it for $100. That should make EVERYbody happy .... If you seriously think this engine is crap, I strongly suggest you don't buy it as it will continually make you miserable every time you look at. When you have a minute, please post a few pictures of the "perfect" engines you DO have - I'd love to see them. Mark. Nonsense. I own a business and I consider customer feedback important. If a customer tells me what makes them buy a product and what makes them not buy a product, I consider that valuable data. Folks here saying what makes them buy or not buy ALCOs from Bowser is a good thing. |
|
