Bowser C-636 Update?

Southern Oregonian Mar 9, 2014

  1. Packer

    Packer TrainBoard Member

    16
    0
    5
    Well I ordered a BN Unit. I'll keep it with my 2 Atlas/Kato/Atlas* C425s as a consist. Fairly accurate for inside gateway trains down to the WP.

    Bowser's site says Loksound, while all the shops I've seen say Tsunami. Hope it's the former.

    Regarding the SP&S one: Is it just me or does the background look a tad bit more orange than the other pics? The IC's background (and white) look a tad bit more orange than the Demonstrator?

    I'm curious if it's just be or does the whole unit look like it's riding kinda high? It also looks a bit shorter lengthwise than I though it'd be.

    I'll post some pics of mine when it gets here.

    *Atlas/Kato/Atlas = Atlas/Kato Chassis with a newer Atlas shell on it. Actually a very easy conversion
     
  2. BoxcabE50

    BoxcabE50 HOn30 & N Scales Staff Member TrainBoard Supporter

    67,560
    22,735
    653
    Please do. These several points you've raised have me wondering.
     
  3. swissboy

    swissboy TrainBoard Member

    646
    14
    21
    I had read somewhere, possibly on Bowser's Facebook page that they switched from Tsunami to Loksound. The reason given is that cooperation is facilitated as Loksound is located close to Bowser. But they gave another reason as well, I think, which I don't recall.

    I also think the models are riding way too high! Presently, it's easy to compare as they have some models shown next to originals for those where the models have not arrived yet. As for length, it could be the angle, or it's the effect of the too high models.

    Regarding SP&S color, it's also an easy comparison now because one prototype and one model are there. Definitely no effect of monitor/screen setting. (And yes, I also call CN engine fronts red, quite decidedly so.)
     
  4. PEIR

    PEIR TrainBoard Member

    88
    6
    8
    Bowser went to Loksound with the first run of the C430's. IIRC, when the C636 was announced they were still using Tsunami.
     
  5. Packer

    Packer TrainBoard Member

    16
    0
    5
    Got mine today. On a scale of 1-10, I give it an 8

    Pros: Sounds great, heavy (and I see places where I could add weight), has 2 speakers, beacon works out of the box (and looks really good for being an LED),

    Cons: Empty space between the frame and trucks, the horn is separate (the provided horn and stand is close enough, but not 100%), coupler pocket and area are kind of odd (it was a pain to take the front coupler off, I ended up trimming the lip of the box down to get it to slide in better; the plastic shim for the coupler keeps falling into the loco), and the motor looks cheap, a touch of red paint on the number board, and the rear light shines through the back of the rear truck (ala athearn BB F-units).

    Some pics, as promised.

    Coupled to one of my Atlas/Kato/Atlas C425s (I noticed the wheel on the ground after I took the picture):
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
     
  6. StickyMonk

    StickyMonk TrainBoard Member

    1,941
    129
    36
    That gap between the truck and frame is horrendous! I will hold off getting one of these until I can see if there is a fix for it...

    A massive shame, I have been waiting for a model of a C636 since I started modelling and this is a real blow after seeing the other Century series that they have done :(
     
  7. Alan

    Alan Staff Member TrainBoard Supporter

    10,798
    460
    127
    In these days of high technology it is difficult to understand how manufacturers can get anything other than perfect scale, detail, etc. This is not a model which was rushed into production, so no excuse, really.

    Alan
    www.andersley.co.uk
     
  8. Flash Blackman

    Flash Blackman TrainBoard Member

    13,326
    499
    149
    Strange. I don't recall the C630 had a gap like that.
     
  9. StickyMonk

    StickyMonk TrainBoard Member

    1,941
    129
    36
    Be good to see a side by side photo of their C630 and C636 to compare, it might be an easy fix but as the model is so new I guess that is an unknown at the minute.
     
  10. Packer

    Packer TrainBoard Member

    16
    0
    5
    I might be able to arrange a picture of a C636 and a C628 together. A fellow club member has a pair of C628s.

    Here's a C630M, it doesn't seem to have the huge gap...
    C630M.jpg

    As a whole, I believe the unit is at the right height. I think on the prototype the there is more "stuff" between the truck and frame. COuplers line up and the deck height matches the Atlas C425. I'm thinking a simple fix might be to get some styrene I-beam and glue it under the frame. Kind of like the N-scale fix for the life-like C425
     
  11. StickyMonk

    StickyMonk TrainBoard Member

    1,941
    129
    36
    Is there something that would foul on the trucks if it was the right height? Must be a good reason why they are like that, are the coupler heights ok for standard shank couplers?
     
  12. Packer

    Packer TrainBoard Member

    16
    0
    5
    The coupler height is right. Bowser included long-shank #5s.

    The only issue I can see if one added styrene I-beams, it might interfere with the trucks vertical pivot in a sharp turn..
     
  13. StickyMonk

    StickyMonk TrainBoard Member

    1,941
    129
    36
    Thing is even with the hight issue I still want one...

    Could you measure the total height of the loco?
     
  14. Packer

    Packer TrainBoard Member

    16
    0
    5
    56mm tall at the beacon...

    A piece of .125 x .06 (or maybe point .05) styrene on the frame would seem to close the gap nicely. I'll get a pic of my C636 coupled to the other club member's C628 before I do that.
     
  15. Packer

    Packer TrainBoard Member

    16
    0
    5
    UpdateHere is a picture of my Bowser C636 coupled to a Bowser C628:

    [​IMG]

    The C636 sits a good bit higher.

    But according to some stuff I am finding online, this may actually be accurate:
    http://www.trainorders.com/discussion/read.php?3,3535347
    http://www.trainorders.com/discussion/read.php?3,3537945
    Notes from above link:
    1. The BN C636 had a deck height of 6'
    2. Alco C630s riding on High-ad trucks were 5" taller
    3. C636s have a 5000 gallon tank versus the C630's 4000 gallon tank.

    Anyone here well-versed on ALCOs?
     
  16. StickyMonk

    StickyMonk TrainBoard Member

    1,941
    129
    36
  17. Packer

    Packer TrainBoard Member

    16
    0
    5
    Comapring points on the locomotive to the truck, it looks about right. Maybe a little high. The chain hanger and the steps look to be in the right spot compared to the trucks.

    From some more investigating, Bowser used the same frame on the C636 as they did on the C630. The C636 had a thicker frame; so I'm going to glue those pieces of styrene I made to the underside of the frame. But I'm not sure how I'm going to modify the fuel tank to a 5000 gallon tank.
     
  18. Southern Oregonian

    Southern Oregonian TrainBoard Member

    704
    4
    18
    I finally got mine today. I'll have to see how it looks next to my old and new centuries by Atlas and Bowser before I pass any judgement.
     
  19. Southern Oregonian

    Southern Oregonian TrainBoard Member

    704
    4
    18
    I have SP&S's C-636 #341 sitting next to SP's C-630 #3144 both Bowser, and there are some major differences. The C-630 is lower and sits closer to the axels. The 636 is also taller and it's gas tank is much higher off the rails then the 630. I'll post a pic when I can, but between the black frame of the SP&S and the SP grey, I'm not making any guarantees anything will turnout.
     
  20. Southern Oregonian

    Southern Oregonian TrainBoard Member

    704
    4
    18
    Figures, I got some of the last soundless SP&S locos. The SP&S locos seem to always sell out fast when they're on the open market.
     

Share This Page