Model Railroading > Pictures posted of Bowser C636's in HO

Small pictures but it is a start!

Bruce

---

---

---

I think these 5 are the ones in the first batch. Bruce

---

---

Yay! Looks like the lettering is correct from the photos, the squared-off PC and elongated PC on the nose.

I placed a back-order for one of these when they were first announced; hope it's still on file (...just eMailed them)

Wow, they look nice. Should be a sell out.

Second section in 6 to 8 weeks.

Rick

Don't they seem like they are riding a little high. Or is it just the flat surface they are being presented on?

pal77 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Don't they seem like they are riding a little
> high. Or is it just the flat surface they are
> being presented on?

The best one to look at is the Demo with the gray acting neutral. It is very hard to judge based on the black underframes from these photos. Personally I think they look correct relative to the prototype but it would be nice to see the non-battery box side as well.

Rick

WoW I think Bowser hit it out of the park!

I have no need for any of them but I wouldn't
mind an SP&S, Demo and IC, if I can ever find a
too good to be true price on them since I have
no particular need for them.

Kris

pal77 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Don't they seem like they are riding a little
> high. Or is it just the flat surface they are
> being presented on?

Paul,

I think you your assumption is right. I guess Bowser will use the same gear for
their C-636 as they did with a few releases of C-630s f.e. Reading #5309.

See also:
http://www.trainorders.com/discussion/read.php?3,3067634,3067634#msg-3067634

Here are a few pics of Bowser Alco C-630 #5309 Reading to depict the space between
tank, trucks and frame.

Cheers
Franz

Check my blog:
http://leadengine.wordpress.com/



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/30/14 07:32 by V200.

---

---

---

Comparisons to prototype photos and actual measurements are great. I'd have to spend some time looking at photos v the model - and there are still C636s in existence, n'est pas? But I do know that the C630s and C636s on the Hi-Ad truck rode noticeably higher than those on tri-mount trucks.

Elizabeth

Here is photo of CR/PC 6970, of the engineers side. Likely no way a model could operate with the apparent tight clearances so I guess its a modeling operational tolerance. I do have RDG C630's and what I noticed most was how high the tank rides off the rail. Still great looking and running model.
http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=94520&nseq=73

I may have to have a look at my Oriental and OMI versions of the C636 again. Those ones did not have any problems with looking too high. To me they were perfect.

I know that in the days of the Stewart F unit, it was possible to lower that model enough to look more favourable. As mentioned the C636 is likely designed for the average layout across the world which will mean 22" radius were tested. Those with more privilege of space may wish to investigate and alter if possible.

Rick

They do sit to high. I received five of the last night. Not sure what to do to correct it yet.

Otherwise, great models!

Posted from Android



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/30/14 16:38 by NYSWSD70M.

>>Here is photo of CR/PC 6970, of the engineers side. Likely no way a model could operate with the apparent tight clearances so I guess its a modeling >>operational tolerance. I do have RDG C630's and what I noticed most was how high the tank rides off the rail. Still great looking and running model.
>> http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=94520&nseq=73

Seems like the frame depth is heavier on the prototype photo?

My observations based on comparing the above photos of the model Reading C630, the Demo C636 and my Bowser C430's. The C430's come with a complete frame rail which is not there on the C630 model. The lack of that frame rail emphasizes the gap and height of the model. From the Demo C636 photo it appears this model has all the same features as the 430 model, including the frame rails. So that problem was solved.

My 2nd observation is that the fuel tank does ride too high off the rails. My conclusion is that the model is the correct height, and the problem is with the fuel tank, which appears to be not deep enough.

Great model. It does suffer from two compounding problems: A small amount too high, and a severely anemic fuel tank. One or the other, but both? Some work will need to be done to get the right visuals. The tank is a tough one though.

Alco fuel tanks can be rebuilt using Evergreen tubing cut in half. I have rebuilt fuel tanks for my Atlas C424/425's and been satisfied with the outcome of the fuel tank.

Rick

Here's a recent SP&S/BN C636 photo for comparison:

http://www.trainorders.com/discussion/read.php?11,3533569,3534262#msg-3534262

Date: 09/27/14 17:21
Time For a BN Break
Author: TTM

Here are a few shots from my personal collection. May help.

Bruce

---

---

---

Judging by the last photo of BN (SP&S) 4366, the top of the tank should be about even with the top of the truck. But in the right side view of the Bowser model, the top of the truck is much lower relative to the tank. The tank looks to be about the right size.

Looks to me like the model sits too high above its trucks.

Best regards,

Rob L.