|
|
Post by Randy Earle on Nov 5, 2014 19:59:26 GMT -5
Not trying to be negative, but the prices of this stuff has pretty much stalled me out in this hobby. I can't afford it. For what they charge for this stuff, there should be "0" defects.
|
|
|
|
Post by tjmfishing on Nov 5, 2014 20:30:00 GMT -5
I sort of agree with Sean.
Myself, I tend to look for the major spotting features on a model - once those are met I am a happy camper. When I built my RSC-13 I was cautious to show it off at first as I knew there were serious flaws in it when compared to the prototype. A good friend told me I can always say "where's your RSC-13" or "too bad we don't have another one to compare it to" if someone really lays into it.
The difference that I find with Lee is that he encourages advice when he's in the preproduction stages. He really appreciates it when people chime in and offer advice/criticism/corrections that he can incorporate into the final model - not something many of the other manufactures will do.
I've only got a handful of Bowser engines at home (C630M's) and I am happy with them. I thought Lee really filled a huge void in the HO market and I feel like he did the same things with the C430's and C636's.
|
|
|
|
Post by prescottpete on Nov 6, 2014 19:11:31 GMT -5
Your picture of the above Bowser model is distorted so you have it biased toward Bowser's viewpoint. Look closely at your GREEN line as it lines up with the center of the prototype, BUT it is above the centerline of the Bowser making it seem that the Bowser is close. BUT it is NOT. If you drop the green line it shows how HIGH the Bowser is. And you theory about the side frames being low is not true, as the center of the axle is the center of the journal. They MAY be undersized though, which could be part of the problem. So your own photos (when corrected), clearly show that the Bowser steps and pilot are too high.
Peter Arnold
|
|
century
Probationary Member
Posts: 7 
|
Post by century on Nov 7, 2014 11:57:05 GMT -5
I made an entirely scratch-built HO C-636 from ABS and brass over thirty years ago. There were no C-636 scale drawings available then, nor were there any accurate scale models in production at the time. My overall measurements for the locomotive above the walkways were based on a C-630 drawing, with appropriate modifications to the cooling fan, radiator section, and other areas. I went over every square inch of the prototype C-636 with painstaking scrutiny. I had the opportunity to examine C-636s up-close at Naporano Iron and Metal, and made numerous detail shots of the locomotives in various states of dismantling which revealed insights into the way these beasts were constructed, and which do not show up in drawings or roster photos, including the Hi-ad trucks partially disassembled and views of the underframe. I scratch-built the Hi-ad external bolsters and related parts that were added to heavily re-worked ROCO SD35 truck side frames. The air reservoirs and fuel tank utilized plastic tube stock of correct diameter, and the fuel tank is the 5000 gallon dimensions as found on the prototype. In short, my observations of the Bowser model tell me that the shell rides a bit high, the Hi-ad truck side frames are slightly off, and the fuel tank is not proportioned correctly, which makes it look like a lifted Subaru!
My plans for a minimal "fix" to improve the looks are thus:
-slightly lower the pilot footboards/m.u. hose pockets at each end and leave the shell height as-is.
-Modify the fuel tank. The C-636 tank is basically a rectangular box, with cylindrical extensions added to the sides to increase fuel capacity. The cylindrical side pieces do not meet the box flush at the bottom edge, they meet slightly above the bottom of the box. So i will add a thin sheet of plastic stock to the underside of the tank to the size and shape of the rectangular portion of the tank, which will give it an increased sense of bulk. I will also lower the tank slightly on the frame, as I think it meets the "under frame" a little too high anyway. The prototype has sheet metal plates welded to the ends of the fuel tank, presumably for reinforcement/puncture resistance. On the rear of the tank the sheet metal follows the contours of the cylindrical sides, with a slight "lip" extending past the curve of the tank. On the front, the sheet metal follows the contour of the cylindrical curve until a point where it straightens out somewhat from the curve until it meets the very bottom of the tank (the rectangular bottom). The shape of that metal plate makes the tank look even beefier when seen at an angle. I think the model's fuel tank is mostly what gives the illusion of the locomotive sitting too high. When I look at the former Reading C-630s with Hi-ad trucks, I can see the additional "clearance" under the 4000 gallon fuel tank created because the unit sits higher than C-630s with conventional Trimount trucks. The Bowser C-636 looks that way to me, but even more so.
|
|
|
|
Post by prescottpete on Nov 7, 2014 12:42:48 GMT -5
Thanks for your observations, Century; I agree with them. You might want to wait on the fuel tank as Bowser has promised a new 5000 gal one soon. I don't understand how Bowser got it wrong with the prototype so close to them to measure in person. Unless it was an intentional compromise trying to appeal to the Tyco-Toy Train market! When we started Detail Associates back in 1974, I (like you) went out an personally measured the parts we were going to make, and they came out correct. It isn't that hard! A little history for rnjmgo. Back when Athearn came out with the first Genesis GP9, they made compromises and used existing tooling and got some parts wrong (air intake grills and windows). They were heavily criticized in forums like this one. And guess what? They fixed the problems and now have a accurate model! So if we sit back and say it is close enough like you, we are stuck with it. On the other hand if we point out the problems, there is hope the will fix it. If you can't see it is wrong, then you have blinders on; and YOU are the silly one! And your distorted drawings are what is silly. I hope Bowser will listen to the uproar, I am just trying to help to get it right. In fact, long before production began; I sent them many images to use from my Photo CD of BN Alcos. www.rrimages.net/ They even used them in their advertising (BN green #4363). And they didn't even ask if it was OK to use it and I didn't even get a thank you from them! It was OK with me to use it, but I would at least like an acknowledgement . Peter Arnold |
|
century
Probationary Member
Posts: 7
|
Post by century on Nov 7, 2014 13:32:52 GMT -5
If Bowser releases a new version of the tank, I hope it will be available as a separate part. In fact, it would be awesome for them to have a "tank exchange" program--send them the first-run tank in exchange for the new improved one! That would convince me to buy more C-636s in the future!
My Scratch-built 636 has quite a few Detail Associates detail parts on it--those were the days when a lot of details had to be hand made, but DA really helped with amazingly high quality pieces that added a lot of realism to the project.
A couple additional little nit picks on the Hi-ads, though I do not wish to get on Bowser's case too much because these are really minor and the Hi-ad is no easy task to produce in HO: The bracket that bolts to the bottom of the truck's lead wheel brake shoe hanger is incorrect--it should angle up and behind the the side frame bolster spring seat rather than straight across to another bracket (this is correct for the mid and trailing brake hangers). The external bolster casting on the prototype has a bracket on it between the spring receivers, with a retaining bolt/nut visible at opposite ends of the bracket. These appear on only one side of the proto truck, the model has these brackets on both sides of the bolster casting.
|
|
|
|
Post by MitchGDRMCo on Nov 7, 2014 17:09:32 GMT -5
There's three different angles in that image you posted, that alone is enough to simply throw it out as 'evidence' due to a lack of exactness. If we're being scientific about it....
|
|
|
|
Post by iomalley on Nov 7, 2014 21:46:41 GMT -5
Just email Lee English at Bowser and be done with it.
|
|
|
|
Post by prescottpete on Nov 7, 2014 22:43:16 GMT -5
I've given up e-mailing him, no responses over the last several years on various subjects.
Peter Arnold
|
|
rnjmgo
Probationary Member
Posts: 22
|
Post by rnjmgo on Nov 8, 2014 0:24:13 GMT -5
There's three different angles in that image you posted, that alone is enough to simply throw it out as 'evidence' due to a lack of exactness. If we're being scientific about it.... That's pretty close to saying you should stick a fork in your left eye because its view doesn't exactly match the right eye's view. There's a surprise. |
|
|
|
Post by MitchGDRMCo on Nov 8, 2014 6:38:40 GMT -5
Uh, when nothing lines up due to angles how to do you expect to get an accurate comparison of heights? A flat 2D drawing vs different angled pictures is just asking for a stuff up.
|
|
rnjmgo
Probationary Member
Posts: 22
|
Post by rnjmgo on Nov 8, 2014 9:32:33 GMT -5
Oh they lined up very well when the wheels in the images were all scaled to 40". If there was as much distortion as you seem to think, then you would see the top of a walkway or step in one and not in the other. Same goes for the cab ends, hood tops, and hood ends.They appear pretty close to flat in the photos and, of course, flat in the orthographic elevation (you know what orthographic means, right?). Pete seems to think there is some sort of magic lens that can make things appear bigger and smaller selectively in the same area of a photo in the same picture. He stated that I was distorting the images to make my point which I didn't do. I just scaled them to match on the same page, side-by-side, in my graphic software. I guess we're not supposed to use drawings, or photos of prototypes and models in our modeling and just rely on Pete's say so. Although I'm not sure now if the prototype is a valid in his estimation either.
So, since I'm not interested in answering the same questions over and over again for folks who only skim the last couple of posts in a thread before jumping in and this is not a "How to Use Photos and Drawings" thread I pulled my posts. You guys can continue to struggle with the obvious as you please.
|
|
|
|
Post by iomalley on Nov 8, 2014 9:50:49 GMT -5
Where's a mod when you need one...lock this thread...
|
|
|
|
Post by Randy Earle on Nov 8, 2014 23:28:45 GMT -5
Will the owner do? I see no problem with this thread, I appreciate seeing what's wrong with an over priced model. These are models....ie replicas. If it's got problems, I wanna see them. As a Mod/Owner, I can restrict those that want to censor posts that point out the obvious.
|
|
