Model Railroading > More C636 Pictures

I was asked to post some photo's of my Bowser C636's that I received Monday night. Unfortunately, I was on a two day business trip and was unable to do so until today.

Overall, they are very nice models. However, they sit way to high. I have not had the time to check the dimension on the fuel tank(s). The C630's with Hi-Ad's (the 4 C&O units and the last 5 RDG units (5307-5311)) had a large noticeable gap between the bottom of the tank and the top of the rail due to the fact that they had 4000 gallon fuel tanks. The C636's were equipped with 5000 gallon tanks. and this gap became much smaller.

I am not sure how to fix this at this point. Again, it will make a big difference depending on what if the fuel tank is correct or not.

---

---

---

Wow the images look better on my camera. Still, the give a pretty good view of the error.

Some more.

---

---

---

Two more. Sorry about the first three. Like I said, they give you the idea of what is wrong.

---

---

One list I'm on says the layer of paint on the frame pin (that fits into the truck) prevents said pin from fully seating. Try reaming out the hole in the truck. You might also investigate shaving the top of the truck some so the body sits lower.

Brian Ehni



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/02/14 07:47 by twin_star_rocket.

twin_star_rocket Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> One list I'm on says the layer of paint on the
> frame pin (that fits into the truck) prevents said
> pin from fully seating. Try reaming out the hole
> in the truck. You might also investigate shaving
> the top of the truck some so the body sits lower.
>
>
> Brian Ehni


I hope it is that simple!

Thanks

Boy those handrails look heavy to me.

If the paint on the frame is the problem then the coupler pockets will be way to high. So how do the model couplers match up to the KD height gauge?

I would probably leave the truck top alone and remove the paint on the frame. I do have 3 coming so a solution interests me.


twin_star_rocket Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> One list I'm on says the layer of paint on the
> frame pin (that fits into the truck) prevents said
> pin from fully seating. Try reaming out the hole
> in the truck. You might also investigate shaving
> the top of the truck some so the body sits lower.
>
>
> Brian Ehni

Posted from Windows Phone OS 7

Agree, the coupler height is pretty integral in all of this. So far all the photos have been of individual models on a flat surface.

4thDistrict Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> TCnR Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Agree, the coupler height is pretty integral in
> > all of this. So far all the photos have been of
> > individual models on a flat surface.
>
> On rails would be better. That would eliminate the
> extra height from sitting on the edges of the
> flanges. It's minimal, of course, but it does add
> some height.

Actually, it looks worse with the rail in your visual perspective. I did not have any track to use in my office for the photographs.

Posted from Android

At a minimum we need to know the answer to two questions. Otherwise we're speculating:

1) What is the prototype railhead-to-deck height?

2) What is the model railhead-to-deck height?

Can anyone provide these numbers? Thanks.

Drawings in Hol Wagner's 1972 BN Annual have the rail to deck height on the C-636 right at 6'.

That scales about .8276" which is close to 53/64" which is 1/64 over 13/16" in actual dimensions.


Geodyssey Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> At a minimum we need to know the answer to two
> questions. Otherwise we're speculating:
>
> 1) What is the prototype railhead-to-deck
> height?
>
> 2) What is the model railhead-to-deck height?
>
> Can anyone provide these numbers? Thanks.

Posted from Windows Phone OS 7



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 10/02/14 11:43 by fbe.

Judging by the numerous pic I have been looking at, the C&O engines are right. The rest have a fuel tank angle to increase capacity that starts at the end of the radius. Flat across the bottom of the tank is correct on C&O pics.
Adding a styrene sheet of appropriate thickness and sanding flush at a angle similar to a chisel blade looks like a easy solution.
Clear as mud?
Nowhere near pics to post. Will see tonight when I get home.
Anybody know when BN added the snow shields? I have one photo dated 1974 with them.

Posted from Android

SD45X Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Anybody know when BN added the snow shields? I
> have one photo dated 1974 with them.
>

That would be the year. Not sure if all of them were finished in 1974, though.

Best regards,

Rob L.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/02/14 14:26 by rob_l.

Does anyone have a timeline for BN green paint on the C-636's?

Would also be interesting to know when the snow shields were installed. Was it all at once or over a few years, or...?

Sounds like it was rather quick. It's a fine point but the way the Bowser numbers are set up it becomes a question. Will I be kicked out of the Club for running SP&S paint along with BN Green and snow shields?

Maybe I should re-phrase that...

> -----
> > Anybody know when BN added the snow shields? I
> > have one photo dated 1974 with them.
> >
>
> That would be the year. Not sure if all of them
> were finished in 1974, though.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Rob L.

TCnR Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Does anyone have a timeline for BN green paint on
> the C-636's?
>

This was a gradual process. 4365 was the first one in green, sometime in early 1973, maybe 2nd half 1972. I will guess all the rest were still in yellow as of late 1972. I think they were all green by 1975.

Best regards,

Rob L.

In this photo of the BN 4361 it looks like there is a lot of space between the top of the truck and the bottom of the frame but it also looks filled in as well, no huge gap you can look through as on the model. Wonder if you can just fill in the gap so it isn't so noticeable?

Brian Ambrose
Renton, WA

---

I think the trucks are the bulk of the issue. The pilots also seem to be far to high: ie the gap between the bottom edge and the rail is to large. Looks like the coupler can be adjusted.

Posted from Android

What's the deal with the front headlight? Looks like they forgot to paint it or something? Probably looks horrible when lit up.

Ted Curphey
Ontario, OR

If you are refering to the light on the nose, it is painted...the lens area just looks a little large.

It is Saturday afternoon an no one has had time to measure a model yet? Weather must be as nice elsewhere as it is in Montana.

We are looking for the dimensions of the height of the walkway above the rail. The prototype was 6' high so the model should be about 13/16" or 6 scale feet.

Rumor is the SP&S models will be in Spokane on Wednesday or Thursday.

Posted from Windows Phone OS 7