|
|
Post by bigblow69 on Jan 17, 2015 10:24:13 GMT -8
 Big Blow, looked like an Alco Proposal to Milwaukee,that meant that they listened to Alco,but didn't bite. if Alco could have sent the C636 Demos to Milwaukee they may have had better results,but think this was before the Demos were built. guess Alco was relying on the group that had the RSC-2s rebuilt to sway the Odds in their favor ? Spikre  I checked with someone evidently it was mentioned in Xtra 2200 but beyond that nothing. |
|
|
|
Post by The Ferro Kid on Jan 17, 2015 11:31:18 GMT -8
Big Blow, looked like an Alco Proposal to Milwaukee,that meant that they listened to Alco,but didn't bite. if Alco could have sent the C636 Demos to Milwaukee they may have had better results,but think this was before the Demos were built. guess Alco was relying on the group that had the RSC-2s rebuilt to sway the Odds in their favor ? Spikre These "what might have been" purchase proposals are fascinating. There were probably more of them than we'll ever know about. I'd buy two or three C636's in fantasy Milwaukee paint were Bowser to do them. |
|
|
|
Post by Spikre on Jan 19, 2015 16:33:28 GMT -8
 a 1966 Alco Proposal to P&LE had 2 models involved: 22 C420s. or 22 C430s. but again P&LE went with 22 U28Bs instead. it was also odd that Alco didn't add the C424,C425,or C428 to the Proposal with all sorts of different prices. Spikre 
|
|
|
|
Post by roadkill on Jan 19, 2015 18:46:49 GMT -8
Looking at prototype pics, the couplers do stick out a way to clear the striker plate. I don't know a medium shank will fit in there now that I'm looking at it more. Tried it... and you're right . |
|
|
|
Post by The Ferro Kid on Jan 19, 2015 19:32:18 GMT -8
a 1966 Alco Proposal to P&LE had 2 models involved: 22 C420s. or 22 C430s. but again P&LE went with 22 U28Bs instead. it was also odd that Alco didn't add the C424,C425,or C428 to the Proposal with all sorts of different prices. Spikre I suspect they might've had better service out of the C430s, but maybe it was a toss-up. |
|
|
|
Post by carrman on Jan 19, 2015 21:31:45 GMT -8
Looking at prototype pics, the couplers do stick out a way to clear the striker plate. I don't know a medium shank will fit in there now that I'm looking at it more. Tried it... and you're right . Good to know. You still using offset shanks? Dave |
|
|
|
Post by lvrr325 on Jan 20, 2015 6:18:47 GMT -8
Hopefully they get the paint better on more what-if schemes. I think they got the "Lehigh Valley" C430s wrong - the scheme they gave them was what LV repainted units in, only, using leftover PRR paint. New units would either have come in Snowbird or some new scheme yet dreamed up. Even the final red scheme was an invention of EMD.
|
|
|
|
Post by WP 257 on Jan 20, 2015 7:27:07 GMT -8
PRR controlled the Lehigh Valley. They had a heavy influence, so I do not suspect it was merely "leftover" red paint. Bowser chose the scheme "in effect" at that time.
I myself would prefer the New Cornell Red of later units, and told Bowser so, but they believe, had the units been built, that they would have matched the color scheme in effect at that particular time--repaint or no. It was a couple years until the New Cornell Red came in.
I wouldn't let it deter me from getting one unit, but that's me...Besides, now we are disputing a total "what if", lol.
They may have erred to the darker red for the benefit of those who weather and prefer muted color tones, as LV Alco's were seldom what I would call "clean".
Lee also said there will be no more C-430 runs for many years after this run. They've done "every possible" paint variation, to their thinking. This last run will be "it" for awhile, and they will concentrate on other models.
|
|
|
|
Post by Spikre on Jan 20, 2015 10:23:21 GMT -8
would think that if the Valley had bought some C430s they would have come in the "Yellowjacket" scheme the C420s wore. and if they had bought C430s they might not have ever ordered C628s in the "Snowbird" scheme. but what trucks would have been under the C430s , Type "B", or the Hi-Ads ?? that would be the real question. Spikre
|
|
|
|
Post by roadkill on Jan 20, 2015 16:51:50 GMT -8
Tried it... and you're right . Good to know. You still using offset shanks? Dave Nope. Just filed the spacer until I got the height correct and installed whisker scale Kadee long shank couplers. |
|
|
|
Post by carrman on Jan 20, 2015 17:42:03 GMT -8
Tried that with the old couplers and I just couldn't get them raised enough.
|
|
|
|
Post by lvrr325 on Jan 20, 2015 19:45:35 GMT -8
Jeeze. I got my tank and trucks today and did the swap. No problem there. But I got the bright idea to put an 8-pin decoder in it as long as it was apart, no sense handling it like that twice.
Well, there's no socket for an 8-pin on the board. There's a spot for it, it's just not there, I'd have to buy one and solder it in myself. I did an internet search and apparently all of the non-sound units are like this. They have a 21-pin socket that you can plug the sound unit into, only.
Dropped an email to Bowser, will see what they say. Not sure that level of fine soldering is within my abilities -
As for the LV paint scheme, the PRR owned around 80-90% of the LV's stock from 1962 onward. 1964's C420s the LV held a contest to design the paint for, IIRC it was a priest from Sayre who's idea won. The C628s came in 1965-1967 and they too were radically different from PRR. The tuscan red/yellow stripe paint is certainly PRR influenced, right off their passenger power, but I'm 100% certain it was PRR paint made surplus as passenger operations rapidly declined. No new LV unit was delivered in this scheme, and every new LV order from 1964 up through the GP38-2's had a different paint scheme (although the -2's differ only slightly from the GP38AC's). As such, there's three equally likely options had the LV bought C430s - more snowbird units, tuscan red but with the same lettering as C420s (one C420 got painted this way), or some new invented scheme with who knows who's input. That small roman lettering is the same stencils that were used for the lettering on the previous bright red with black stripe scheme - used because they had them on hand.
By 1973, the bright red was made standard and a lot of engines that hadn't been painted in tuscan for all that long got repainted bright red; beyond that only four C628s and three C420s didn't get the bright red (one being the one repainted tuscan). So it's very likely that C430s would have been repainted this way too. Which would make some useful for me, as I've decided to focus on the 1973-1975 era.
|
|
|
|
Post by WP 257 on Jan 21, 2015 2:18:43 GMT -8
I believe Lee has stated, elsewhere on these forums, that the 21-pin decoder is required to support all the light functions that are coming, and that many manufacturers are switching to the 21-pin decoder in upcoming offerings.
As for me, I don't really care--I'm mainly DC only--but I do like cool lights.
|
|
|
|
Post by carrman on Jan 21, 2015 9:44:19 GMT -8
TCS offers a 21 pin to 9 pin adapter harness. I'll be using a pair of those. Well, at least until I figure out the Loksound woes on my friends 3 units, then I'll convert my pair to sound.
Dave
|
|
|
|
Post by lvrr325 on Jan 21, 2015 12:58:36 GMT -8
A Penn Central C636 only has headlights and number boards, no beacons, no ditch lights, no Mars lights.....
The board has the spot for the socket, they just saved themselves like 30 cents in parts and a dime or two in labor to solder it on.
But the website says it has the 8-pin, the box says it has the 8-pin, really I have more of a problem with this than the trucks and fuel tank because it amounts to false advertising, I either have to go spend more money on a different decoder or buy an adapter all the information says I don't need.
Or do what at least one has done, solder the socket on there myself. Probably the cheapest option but the biggest pain in the rear end.
|
|
|
|
Post by carrman on Jan 21, 2015 14:22:13 GMT -8
I'd just get the harness and save the grief.
Dave
|
|
|
|
Post by lvrr325 on Jan 24, 2015 20:42:21 GMT -8
Just FWIW, Bowser apparently agrees with me; while artwork on the flyer for the "LV" C430 shows small roman lettering, the display sample at Springfield has tall yellow lettering, it appears to be the same artwork used on their C628s. Not quite the same as the C420s, but it looks much much better this way. I might have to pick one up.
|
|
|
|
Post by WP 257 on Jan 25, 2015 9:26:49 GMT -8
Yes, the lettering looks good.
The last time I talked to them in person, several weeks ago now, they were saying it would be Tuscan Red, and I believe that is how they have been advertised.
Has the color changed at all since, that you are aware?
|
|
|
|
Post by wmrdgfan on Jan 25, 2015 11:16:33 GMT -8
Just FWIW, Bowser apparently agrees with me; while artwork on the flyer for the "LV" C430 shows small roman lettering, the display sample at Springfield has tall yellow lettering, it appears to be the same artwork used on their C628s. Not quite the same as the C420s, but it looks much much better this way. I might have to pick one up. Anyone have any pics of this? |
|
|
|
Post by craigz on Jan 25, 2015 15:28:04 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by Spikre on Jan 25, 2015 15:41:22 GMT -8
?? Craig, refresh me here,are we Raising or Lowering the C636s ? the loco on the left does look lower. Spikre |
|
|
|
Post by craigz on Jan 25, 2015 16:09:56 GMT -8
Lowering....
|
|
|
|
Post by llxlocomotives on Feb 16, 2015 20:14:16 GMT -8
Today I finally found the time to work on the 636 model. First off let me say what a first class model. They actually did a fantastic job of the design of the assembly of this engine. This is the first recently released Bowser engine I have had my hands on. Pleasantly, I think I could take it down all the way and put it back together with minimal effort. Realistically, things happen to ja model will need some mainanence. Being able to do it easily has to be a plus. I have had other brand recent engines down for repair and they do not compare to this one.
Obviously the exchange was easily acomplished. After removing the old trucks, I compared the rolling resistance between the new and the old. The old made a noise and distinctly demonstrated a resistance. I debated about running my base test before and after. In retrospect, it probably would have been OK, but I didn't want to run the motor near stall to accomplish the test process.l
After the change was complete, I did my usual test sequence on the model. First off, the motor is an excellent design. It has very little torque wobble. This is indicated by the steady current draw readings. The typical engine current draw tends to oscillate around the average. The over and under level tend to correspond to the torque wobble. This engine demonstrated virtually no oscillation once it reached the draw level.
Having said that, the motor seems to be mismatched for the task at hand. I can readily compare it to another "new" engine, that was actually produced 20 years ago. I won't say the brand. It is a eight wheel drive rather than twelve wheel of this one.
This models maximum draw bar force is 30 grams less than the old engine. In addition, the engine only 12 volt velocity is 10 SMPH slower than the older model. They are both less than the engines that they are representing.
To be short in capacity in both of these measurements is a little troubling.
The new engine has the advantage in stall current. At 12 volts it is 40 percent less than the old model.
The operating engine only current draws are nearly the same between the two models.
This corresponds to the draw bar force reduction. This choice helps keep the engine model noise quiet. This allows the sound system to achieve its maximum quality. This is counter to pulling realistic train weight at realistic scale speeds.
The numbers at low speed are very close between these models. The torque wobble favors the Bowser model.
For my tune up work, I have defined two performance charactic numbers. (I can't decide which is best)
In both cases, the older model in this assessment is significantly better than the new model. Both models achieve a level that I would consider excellent relative to other models tested, both new and older engines.
I will be posting more details and the data on my blog in a few days.
|
|
|
|
Post by carrman on Feb 16, 2015 21:04:52 GMT -8
The new motors will make folks much happier, I guarantee. One of my repowered C636's dragged a stock motor 636 in a tug of war. The repowered unit even had an ounce more weight.
Dave
|
|
|
|
Post by thebessemerkid on Mar 4, 2015 15:13:19 GMT -8
New 636's in at MBK www.modeltrainstuff.com/HO-Scale-s/2.htm630's and 628's too!  An aside: the variety and paint schemes we are seeing today were unthinkable a generation ago. Who would imagine seeing Cartier RTR locos?  Might have to be over 50 to truly appreciate this. It is mind-boggling! |
|
|
|
Post by roadkill on Mar 4, 2015 16:40:58 GMT -8
Hallelujah!!! They DID retool the C628 cab!!! I had heard a rumor that Bowser was going to fix the bunged-up cab roof profile on the C628 and C630 and after blowing up the SP C628 pic and a pic of the ex-LV CR patch I see they went ahead and did it! Thanks, Bowser! That messed up cab roof always grated on me. Now to see if Bowser will sell cabs so I can redo my small fleet of old Stewart Centuries that have been sitting awaiting rebuild.
|
|
