Model Railroading > Bowser reply on C636

Bowser MFG CO INC Actually the ride height is with in 1 scale inch of the actual ride height. The design department has informed me they are designing a new tank for these that will hang lower and have a taller - fatter profile more correctly proportioned for this locomotive. It won't find it's way on to the model until the 3rd run which won't be announced for another 6 months or so in the future. The tanks will be offered as an upgrade some time shortly after the next production run announcement.

Just got this reply from Bowser after my posting on Facebook.

Stanley Jackowski
Valrico, FL

acltrainman Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Bowser MFG CO INC Actually the ride height is with
> in 1 scale inch of the actual ride height. The
> design department has informed me they are
> designing a new tank for these that will hang
> lower and have a taller - fatter profile more
> correctly proportioned for this locomotive. It
> won't find it's way on to the model until the 3rd
> run which won't be announced for another 6 months
> or so in the future. The tanks will be offered as
> an upgrade some time shortly after the next
> production run announcement.
>
> Just got this reply from Bowser after my posting
> on Facebook.

The truck to frame is much more than that at least in the pix posted of the model and full scale. No way is that an inch and as for ride height, Look at the spring coil space one each to see what is on each also. I find what I am seeing is about the same spring compression.

Well, that's a start in the right direction. The tank is what bothers me the most.

acltrainman Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Bowser MFG CO INC Actually the ride height is with
> in 1 scale inch of the actual ride height. The
> design department has informed me they are
> designing a new tank for these that will hang
> lower and have a taller - fatter profile more
> correctly proportioned for this locomotive. It
> won't find it's way on to the model until the 3rd
> run which won't be announced for another 6 months
> or so in the future. The tanks will be offered as
> an upgrade some time shortly after the next
> production run announcement.
>
> Just got this reply from Bowser after my posting
> on Facebook.


They can say anything they want. If you look at the real thing, which I did on Saturday, it is clear the models are too high. They need to stop being defensive or prepare the return department to handle the influx. The guy who did the red lines on the SP&S unit shows how far off they are. Good god, a Volkswagen could pass under the pilots unscathed!

They need to stop being in denial! Then again, if you put it on face-book it must be true.

Yes, I am afraid that they ride a good deal higher than a scale inch--just put them in consist with other units and it becomes clear what needs to be done--in addition to the tank. Still a nice model, they just need some tweaking, like an old Athearn blue box four axle. These a waaaay easier to lower. Having fun just the same. I know it might seem masochistic, but Its kind of refreshing, having to work on these units a bit--like the "good ole days" when we were all tinkerer/modelers.

I think it's admirable that a manufacturer responded so quickly to complaints by consumers, and offered the direct remedy that was requested and suggested.

It would seem like the prudent and respectable response from modelers -- if they want to encourage such actions by model manufacturers in the future -- is to say "thank you for being responsive."

It would be useful if someone with a C-636 and the right focal length camera lens could duplicate the photo angle of this Jim Evans photo:

http://www.trainorders.com/discussion/read.php?3,3546520

I tend to agree that the Bowser model seems to ride high on the bolsters. The fix also seems possible for reasonably skilled modelers. And the remedy in production may not be as easy for Bowser as retooling a fuel tank.

Three complaints: ride height, fuel tanks, motor strength. Bowser has almost immediately addressed one of those. That's good, not bad, and worthy of appreciation, I think.

This may sound like the Steam board now, but: if you've never brought a model to completion as a designer/manufacturer/importer, you have no idea how hard it is to "get things right" and how much is out of the hands of the researchers. Each model is a small miracle, and the ones with few apparent flaws are the exception, not the rule. But models in general are very, very good, and it's commendable that a manufacturer is being responsive to rabid fans and detractors... at all!

Walk a mile in their shoes, basically, is what I'm saying. :-)

~ BZ



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 10/13/14 12:24 by Notch16.

---

OK Guys. Let's remember who we are here and what we are complaning about. I think we can be civilized about this without going crazy. Besides, actions speak louder than words. Simply cancel your orders or return your model with a logical reason and Bowser will get the message. We don't have to go Hillbilly Psycho on them. And to those of you who are better modelers that I am (which should just be about everyone here), could we get some constructive methods on how to correct the problems if we want to keep the models? Like how would you replace the motor and with what? And how to lower the body so it's prtotypical. For those of you who miss the Athearn blue box models, now's your big chance. Thank you.

An earlier thread talked about the SP&S models having a motor issue and Bowser had instructions for that. Glad to hear them in the loop, bigger tank sounds right, suspect there's more to it though.

Sounds like a pia working with the overseas manufacturer (not the cast detail folks either). Any changes would take forever to implement. Maybe the SP&S returns can get the larger fuel tank as well??

I don't think anyone is going physco on them. I have been a big supporter of Bowser and have in fact bought five of the C636's with three more on order.

Still, it is irritating to say the least to hear that they are defending the most obvious issue that these models have - ride height. I will live with this and correct it. I also accept that mistakes are made and they deserve a chance to correct the issue. However, if they do not want to even acknowledge the issue, a correction is going to be a long time in coming. I took one of my models up to Cohocton, NY where there are two actual C636's on Saturday and the comparison was very telling. As I said, it the model was the real thing, it couldn't pass an FRA inspection. The pilot to rail clearance was unbelievable.

Risk? It is a considerable investment to make these models. The pre-orders for the C636's was much better than what they received for the C430's which sold extremely well. I doubt this would have been the case if the ride height had been this bad. The comment that the ride height is within one scale inch is absurd. Cohocton, NY is about 120 miles from Montoursville, PA. I suggest they make the trip if they truly believe that dimension is correct.

Lastly, a friend of mine who worked with locomotives but does not model said, what is wrong with them, they look terrible. "It's as if they are on jack stands waiting to have the traction motor leads connected!" If they want the public to support them, they need to be more open to correction.

Tanks, Bowser...

Bob

ATSF100WEST......Out

Not at that price.....

I wonder, looking at prototype the clearance between the truck and frame is tight at most 3-4" while on the model it seems like at least 8" on the generous side. My thoughts all along is that this is an operational tolerance for the model. Making sure the model will operate on tighter radius and less than perfect track. If it were built to exact prototype measures I bet the frame would limit the movement of the truck. This would be much in the same fashion that Athearn did with the sd40-2 with its 9" shorter wheel base. Difference is 9" over 65' is easier to hide than 4-6" on 3-4" space. Just a thought for those also looking to lower might want to check operation on your layout before making permanent changes.

Doesn't anyone have a set of caliphers to measure the model height with? Hol Wagner's 1972 BN Annual drawings show the walkway deck height to be 6' off the rail. This will vary with the fuel load and age of the suspension springs. The drawings may be slightly off due to being printed on paper which is not the most stable medium out there.

Anyway, we have the models and a good set of plans, how do these compare?

Posted from Windows Phone OS 7

Here is a picture of my OMI latest run on the right and Bowser on the left. The height difference is obvious, assuming OMI got it right.

Walt in Sausalito

---

> Doesn't anyone have a set of calipers to measure the model height with?

I posted these last Thursday to the dlist:

> Okay, here are some measurements. I bought the three SP&S units, so I'll
> list measurements by unit number. All measurements are actual inches. You
> can multiply by 87.1 or however many decimal places you want.
>
> SP&S # 330 335 341
> Front deck height (above railhead):
> 0.883" 0.883" 0.882"
> Rear deck height (above railhead):
> 0.872" 0.875" 0.873"
>
> The shell is attached to the frame by the coupler mounting screws. One
> complication to removing the shell is that the snowplow keeps the coupler
> box from slipping out. Since #330 had lost it's plow in shipping, it became
> the subject of frame measurements.
>
> Bottom of front coupler pad to railhead: .521"
> Bottom of rear coupler pad to railhead: .516"
> Thickness of shim between frame and coupler box: 068"
> Bottom of fuel tank to railhead clearance: .150"
>
> I've pulled one truck off the frame and there's a block that
> appears to have been cast onto half of the truck gear case
> between the truck gearcase and the bolster that the truck pin sits into.
> It's about .06"± thick.

steeplecab

wfre Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Here is a picture of my OMI latest run on the
> right and Bowser on the left. The height
> difference is obvious, assuming OMI got it right.
>
> Walt in Sausalito


Great shot Walt. This is what I was hoping to see. At the risk of opening a new kettle of fish, I think the green on the OMI looks better. Any chance of you putting up a photo of the respective noses?

Rick

wfre Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Here is a picture of my OMI latest run on the
> right and Bowser on the left. The height
> difference is obvious, assuming OMI got it right.
>
> Walt in Sausalito


Thank you very much. Yeah it is an issue!

Thanks, Dan. Six feet is 72" and divided by 87.1 gives a measure of 0.8266". That would show the models to be about .06" too tall or 5.2" higher than prototype.

Bowser may be correct about the model being within 1" of scale height for a unit with no fuel, oil and sand loaded up. The railroads used to pay engineers by the weight on drivers in a consist. It was agreed between the carrier and the unions this would be with the fuel tank 1/2 full, sand 1/2 full and crankcase oil full. That might lower the height from Alco design drawings. Modelers might want to reduce the model's overall height if Bowser used Alco design drawings or measured a display prototype with an empty fuel tank.

One gallon of diesel fuel weighs 8.93 pounds so a full 5,000 gallon tank will come in around 22 tons. Yes, that will cause the entire unit to depress the springs and lower the deck.


Posted from Windows Phone OS 7



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 10/15/14 09:13 by fbe.

wfre Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Here is a picture of my OMI latest run on the
> right and Bowser on the left. The height
> difference is obvious, assuming OMI got it right.
>
> Walt in Sausalito

I've got one OMI unit from the 1991 run. I bought it 2 years ago for $285 and had considered trying to sell it to buy a couple of Bowser units. We are talking about a 23 year old brass unit and it is so much better looking than this Bowser offering. I've got to find another OMI unit now!

Thanks for doing the math and your thoughts on the height, Al. I'm going to wait for the replacement tank before I make a final decision about how much to lower mine.
steeplecab