Bowser C-636 Update?

Southern Oregonian Mar 9, 2014

  1. Mike VE2TRV

    Mike VE2TRV TrainBoard Member

    3,057
    4,328
    75
    I found this in the Illustrated Treasury of the MLW - it shows a view of the bottom of the frame of a C630/M630 being built at the plant in Montreal. There is indeed a lot of space between the bottom of the "visible" frame (walkways, etc.) and the actual bottom of the frame itself (where the fuel tank is mounted). The height perceived on the Bowser loco is prototype, it's just that Bowser didn't fill it in like the 1:1 folks did - hence the see-through space underneath.

    [​IMG]

    In the background one can see one of the trucks waiting.
     
  2. Southern Oregonian

    Southern Oregonian TrainBoard Member

    704
    3
    18
    I was looking at photos and the top height seems correct, but the gas tank height off the rails is still to high. I still like them though.
     
  3. Alan

    Alan Staff Member TrainBoard Supporter

    10,794
    416
    127
    Looks like the gap could be a fairly easy fix - but should that be necessary on a brand new, quite expensive model?

    Alan
    www.andersley.co.uk
     
  4. Southern Oregonian

    Southern Oregonian TrainBoard Member

    704
    3
    18
    Bowser commented on Facebook about the dimensions. They said everything is correct, except for the gas tank which was a concession. Also, despite what the box says, some DC units do NOT have 8 pin plugs, but instead have 21 pin.
     
  5. StickyMonk

    StickyMonk Staff Member

    1,941
    104
    36
    The fuel tank could be a nice little job for someone like shapeways
     
  6. swissboy

    swissboy TrainBoard Member

    646
    14
    21
    Do you have any other SP&S Alcos? I wonder whether the yellow of the body is really correct. On the Bowser page, it looks way too dark, at least compared to the prototype pictures they used to have on. And those fit very well with my Atlas model that I wanted to combine. (My own SP&S C636 is waiting at my son's place in Chicago, whereas I live in Switzerland. He'll bring it in December, in time for Christmas.)
     
  7. Southern Oregonian

    Southern Oregonian TrainBoard Member

    704
    3
    18
    SP&S green and yellow is generally a ballpark when it comes to factory paint. The C-636s are close to what BLI used on Hobbysmith's special run of #750 and the switchers, but a little off of what Tru-Color is. I use Tru-Color as the go to correct color because they matched their paints to the paint chips from the SP&S Historical Society and also because every bottle I've gotten of both colors are the same color.
     
  8. Southern Oregonian

    Southern Oregonian TrainBoard Member

    704
    3
    18
    So, Bowser got the SP&S batch right. #335 and #330 have the correct black numbers on white number boards and #341 has the white numbers on black number boards. Yeah, Alco delivered the first batch with inverted number colors.
     
  9. swissboy

    swissboy TrainBoard Member

    646
    14
    21
    Thanks, good to know that it should be correct. Looking at some prototype pictures, I have also wondered whether that yellow was a fast fading orange.
     
  10. Southern Oregonian

    Southern Oregonian TrainBoard Member

    704
    3
    18
    Well, it's close enough. Depending on the light the Bowser yellow looks dark or perfect next to the BLI guys. At 26k they match but the BLI green turns black. At 56k the greens match but the Bowser Yellow gets a little darker. Like any paint, it changes color slightly under florescent, incandescent, and direct sunlight.
     
  11. swissboy

    swissboy TrainBoard Member

    646
    14
    21
    Same problems as I often encounter when touching up some factory painted models. Never a guaranteed match under all light conditions.
     
  12. Packer

    Packer TrainBoard Member

    16
    0
    5
    I made a modification to the bottom of the frame of my C636:

    A piece of .06 x .125 filler for the gap in the undersized channel for the frame:
    [​IMG]

    Then a piece of .06 I-beam was glued to the frame. I made it a U-channel towards the end to clear a notch in the frame:
    [​IMG]

    A test of truck clearance. As long as there are no sudden horizontal kinks in the track on a very tight turn, it should be fine:
    [​IMG]

    Here are pictures of the 4 corners:
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]

    Paint will come tomorrow
     
  13. Alan

    Alan Staff Member TrainBoard Supporter

    10,794
    416
    127
  14. Flash Blackman

    Flash Blackman Staff Member TrainBoard Supporter

    13,326
    361
    149
    N scale had the same issue with a tunnel motor a long time ago. Similar solution, too, IIRC.
     
  15. Packer

    Packer TrainBoard Member

    16
    0
    5
    Someone on the diesel detailer forum took a picture I took of my unit and compared it to a picture of a Conrail C636. Looks like the deck, roof, and middle step match. But it looks like the sideframes are too low...

    [​IMG]

    According to my 1972 BN annual, the model should be 15' 1.25" at the cab roof. No height is given for the deck. I measured the roof of mine. 15' 1.25" in HO equates to 52.85591274397245 mm. I measured just under 53mm from rail head to cab.
     
  16. Southern Oregonian

    Southern Oregonian TrainBoard Member

    704
    3
    18
    I did my best to compare the height, but the 636 isn't to much taller then the 630 by bowser and the new and old Atlas C-424s seem to be short enough.
    IMG_1488.jpg IMG_1504.jpg IMG_1481.jpg IMG_1482.jpg IMG_1502.jpg
     
  17. oregon trunk

    oregon trunk TrainBoard Member

    142
    19
    12
    I finialy got my SP&S 636 with sound. The sounds are realy nice, and it was nice to be able to program on the programming track without a booster. Out of the box it was stiff so I ran it on the main (about 350') with grades of 1.5% and 2% grades. I found it cuts out alot and a few times it went through the whole start-up which is trouble if its in a consist. After cleaning the wheelsets and checking gauge it still quits often. When I was cleaning the wheelsets I noticed than the loco stalls easy, and I havent had a chance to see what it will pull. After adjusting the CV's I did get it to consist well with the Broadway limiteds, Athearns And Atlas' using Decoder Pro. Decoder Pro made it easy to adjust the CV's and sound. But the problem with it cutting out causes me issues in a lash up, and the other locos dont cut out at all. But the rest of the loco looks good (I also saw the gap on the trucks...but Ill live with it as it is), and the sound once adjusted sounds as good as my Broadway Limiteds.
     
  18. Southern Oregonian

    Southern Oregonian TrainBoard Member

    704
    3
    18
    This first batch has been a mixed bag of problems. Both of my sound units run great and sound good, but one doesn't have a functioning headlight. You could always test it in DC if you can.
     
  19. oregon trunk

    oregon trunk TrainBoard Member

    142
    19
    12
    I was disapointed in the motor that they put in the locomotive. My Atlas and Athearns has double the pulling power. I could pull only 10 cars on a flat layout and half that on a 1.5% grade. The Atlas have the pulling power of about 15 cars on the flat and eight on the incline. On my layout my C-425 and 424's, RS 1,2,3, are rated 2 cars per axle on the 1.5 % grade, and I had to put the 636 at a 1 1/2 cars per axle. It sure is alot of money for a locomotive that cant its weight. The motor is about as good as a Athean ready to run series. This will be upgraded as soon as I find a motor for it.
     
  20. Alan

    Alan Staff Member TrainBoard Supporter

    10,794
    416
    127
    I do wonder how a new model in these technical days can be put into production with shortcomings - and these are not cheap models! Simple testing would have shown sub standard haulage capabilities, surely.

    Alan
    www.andersley.co.uk
     

Share This Page