|
|
Post by prescottpete on Nov 14, 2014 12:46:20 GMT -5
Since the other C-636 thread is locked, here is an update from a friend of mine on Trainorders. Bowser is taking responsibility for the problems (height, gears, fuel tank (the motor will be later)) and will fix them soon.
Peter Arnold
Email from Lee English. I am glad I didn't send mine back in a huff.
"News about C636 trucks, fuel tank and couplers
New molds for the fuel tank should finish in a week.
I will run the mold here, assemble and paint.
The all new gearbox with new gears and lowered bolster height are
already in the air with Fedex.
Couplers should be shipping to us by Kadee today or tomorrow.
New couplers are needed when i dropped the height of the deck.
The loco will be very close to the height of other Century locos.
Anyone with a demo unit please let me know so i can ship the correct color.
I will ship as soon as we can. The new gearboxes are design using the C430 gears.
Thank you
Lee English
Bowser Mfg
1302 Jordan Ave, PO Box 322
Montoursville, PA 17754
570-368-2379"
|
|
century
Probationary Member
Posts: 7 
|
Post by century on Nov 20, 2014 16:57:50 GMT -5
Thank you for posting the update. Is there a "proper" way to contact Bowser to request these upgrades, such as e-mail, phone or surface mail? I'm excited about the prospects of acquiring these parts, and Kudos to Lee English for prompt and affirmative action to correct a glitch on these nice Alcos. Doug Wonders p.s., here's a little view of the Hi-Ad under the C-636 I scratch-built over 30 years ago. There were no commercially-made exposed roller bearing axle caps available as a detail part back then--maybe I'll put them on the trucks one of these days!  |
|
|
|
Post by prescottpete on Nov 21, 2014 13:06:24 GMT -5
The Bowser Facebook page has the most up-to-date info. I'm sure there will be instructions there when the parts are available. He has already posted the part numbers for the update kit. Also, for those on this board who claimed there wasn't a problem, Lee English has admitted the gears and truck bolster height were wrong and he is fixing them. He also says that with the new gears the motor will now slip it's wheels, which it wouldn't do before!
Peter Arnold
|
|
rnjmgo
Probationary Member
Posts: 22
|
Post by rnjmgo on Nov 22, 2014 2:04:28 GMT -5
Yes, he stated that the walkway height was 1/32" (~3" HO) too high. But no one has put all the new parts together yet. From his statement on the Atlas Forum the new big fuel tanks won't begin to be cast until around the 24th (assuming everything goes well). So it might be a bit early to celebrate. 1/32" still leaves the truck sideframe tops a couple of HO inches low from my estimate of where they should be but it might be enough to make it a belly-dragger with the new big fuel tank. Hopefully, it all hasn't gotten compromised into a corner.
|
|
century
Probationary Member
Posts: 7
|
Post by century on Nov 24, 2014 11:03:49 GMT -5
Yes, he stated that the walkway height was 1/32" (~3" HO) too high. But no one has put all the new parts together yet. From his statement on the Atlas Forum the new big fuel tanks won't begin to be cast until around the 24th (assuming everything goes well). So it might be a bit early to celebrate. 1/32" still leaves the truck sideframe tops a couple of HO inches low from my estimate of where they should be but it might be enough to make it a belly-dragger with the new big fuel tank. Hopefully, it all hasn't gotten compromised into a corner. I think the worries about the new tanks scraping the railhead is unwarranted. I lowered the first-run Bowser tank to approximately scale proportion for the prototype fuel tank, and there is still a lot of room underneath. If the entire frame gets dropped 1/32" it shouldn't be a problem--in fact it should look pretty awesome. In my view the visual problem with the first-run tank is that the curvature of the tank sides didn't mate with the rectangular part of the tank at a full half-circle (180 degrees), so if the new one does, and at the proper dimensions for a 4000 gallon tank, I'm a happy camper. |
|
rnjmgo
Probationary Member
Posts: 22
|
Post by rnjmgo on Nov 25, 2014 14:04:51 GMT -5
From what I understand from Web boards Bowser used the same fuel tank from their C628 and C630 models and didn't make a tank specific to the C636. Also FWIU, the old tank was a 4000 gal. tank and the new one is a 5000 gal. tank. www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=262401&nseq=57Few, if any, of the C636 in the US had the smaller tank which sort of leads to some head scratching as to why Bowser did it that way. The new, larger tank should not have a full 180 O circle side profile but should taper out from the true circle about 3/4 of the way down. www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=94520&nseq=78So a low tank on the model may clear on regular track but might high-center the unit at grade crossings and turnout closure rails as well as snag on switch machine linkage poking up a bit too high. The Trainiax drawing show the tank clearing the railhead by about 3" HO or 1/32" real life, but Trainiax drawings could be termed "free advise" FWIW. If Bowser had measured twice before cutting once this thread, and many others wouldn't exist. I wouldn't blindly trust the source of several errors to get it right the second time just on faith. When it's all done everything should line up about like this: www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=2155&nseq=99 |
|
century
Probationary Member
Posts: 7
|
Post by century on Nov 26, 2014 11:51:53 GMT -5
The new, larger tank should not have a full 180 O circle side profile but should taper out from the true circle about 3/4 of the way down. www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=94520&nseq=78So a low tank on the model may clear on regular track but might high-center the unit at grade crossings and turnout closure rails as well as snag on switch machine linkage poking up a bit too high. The Trainiax drawing show the tank clearing the railhead by about 3" HO or 1/32" real life, but Trainiax drawings could be termed "free advise" FWIW. If Bowser had measured twice before cutting once this thread, and many others wouldn't exist. I wouldn't blindly trust the source of several errors to get it right the second time just on faith. When it's all done everything should line up about like this: www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=2155&nseq=99When you walk right up to the fuel tank on the prototype C-636 and examine it, you will see that the side profile of the tank is semi-circular. This can be confirmed by viewing the tank profile from the rear, and also at the split where the fuel filler necks are located. The "taper" 3/4 of the way down seen from the frontal view of the tank is created by a piece of sheet metal that follows the curve of the tank and then straightens out to meet the bottom of the rectangular portion of the tank bottom. This sheet metal creates a slight lip that extends beyond the curvature of the tank on both ends. The sheet metal at the rear of the tank follows the curve of the tank all the way around without a "tapering" as is the case with the front.  |
|
rnjmgo
Probationary Member
Posts: 22
|
Post by rnjmgo on Nov 27, 2014 11:05:12 GMT -5
Ah, that clears up a few mysteries. They just did a simple Point A to Point B straight cut on the end plate rather than get fancy with a profile cut.
|
|
century
Probationary Member
Posts: 7
|
Post by century on Nov 29, 2014 9:53:14 GMT -5
Pretty much--it's deceiving looking at prototype photos with the lower portion of the fuel tank obscured in shadow. Those sheet metal tank ends certainly make the fuel tank look even bulkier, though!
|
|
