Bowser steam engines

The catalogue shows both the blind drivers and the flanged drivers as being the same diameter (not that that necessarily means much) :rolleyes: - perhaps the bearing seats in the frame are deeper where the blind drivers are installed. If this is so, new drivers won't be any better for touching the rails. Check your loco's frame before you order new drivers - you could use brass shimstock, in the appropriate thickness, to fix this problem, although the exact method would depend on the bearing style.

Wayne
 
After some internet searching I found a close-up photo of the I-1 decapod drive wheels and it is clear that only the third (middle) axle has blind drivers. So, if I replace the 2nd and 4th axles (18080 blind drivers) with 18000 axles (flanged drivers) I'll have a correct configuration on my Bowser model except that the tires on the middle axle will not be touching the rail. I can ignore that small detail!

-Edtbdrivers.jpg
 
well,i've settled on the USRA light mikado as a starter from bowser.it comes with the super detail kit :thumb: so by the pictures it rivals brass.and for 135.00 bucks i cant find anywhere that beats it.so itll be a christmas present from the wife :mrgreen: (which i really dont think is a fair trade for a new necklace :rolleyes: ) so stay tuned folks for the update to my acquisition of my first bowser super detailed engine :thumb:.--josh
 
Ditto to NKP174's and Wayne's suggestions, especially Waynes, as I think that'll most affect the operating characteristics of the model, regardless of what the prototype did. That said, the prototype modifications usually have some bearing (no pun intended) on how we balance and equalize our locos. This was big in the 60's-70's, especially around the time Odegard did his brass scratchbuild articles. Springing your drivers may be a better solution for the best traction, but will involve a lot more work. Shimming could work just fine...but if you have grades to deal with and a long, rigid wheelbase loco, the vertical curves at either end of the grade may cause you more trouble. Springing will possibly avoid some of that, and make curves easier as well by providing a bit more give when necessary.
 
nkp174 said:
That's the I-1 at Buffalo.
I'd seriously check on this stuff with some people whom bleed tuscan red.
Click to expand...

Naw, a lot of us bleed DGLE.:rolleyes:

But sorry, I don't know the correct answer. I do seem to recall the three center drivers were blind. I must be getting old, instead of saying "This is the way they did it"... I find myself saying "I seem to recall... but I'm not sure...":mrgreen:

Dave
 
doctorwayne said:
The pictures of the prototype I-1 in the Bowser catalogue look like the second and fourth driver sets are blind, but the main appears to be flanged.

Wayne
Click to expand...

ed acosta said:
After some internet searching I found a close-up photo of the I-1 decapod drive wheels and it is clear that only the third (middle) axle has blind drivers.
Click to expand...

That certainly makes more sense that what I thought I saw. :rolleyes: :oops: :-D

ocalicreek said:
Ditto to NKP174's and Wayne's suggestions, especially Waynes, as I think that'll most affect the operating characteristics of the model, regardless of what the prototype did. That said, the prototype modifications usually have some bearing (no pun intended) on how we balance and equalize our locos. This was big in the 60's-70's, especially around the time Odegard did his brass scratchbuild articles. Springing your drivers may be a better solution for the best traction, but will involve a lot more work. Shimming could work just fine...but if you have grades to deal with and a long, rigid wheelbase loco, the vertical curves at either end of the grade may cause you more trouble. Springing will possibly avoid some of that, and make curves easier as well by providing a bit more give when necessary.
Click to expand...

Good point, Galen, especially with such a long rigid wheelbase. NorthWest Short Line offers a variety of loco springs, but note that for applications other than obtaining matching replacements for factory-installed springs, their softest (they call them "wimpy") springs would probably be the best choice. Most model driver springs are so stiff, given the weight of the loco, that they might as well be rigid.

puddlejumper said:
But sorry, I don't know the correct answer. I do seem to recall the three center drivers were blind. I must be getting old, instead of saying "This is the way they did it"... I find myself saying "I seem to recall... but I'm not sure...":mrgreen:

Dave
Click to expand...

Heck, I seldom can recall correctly, and it appears that I don't see too well, either! :rolleyes:;):-D

Wayne
 
Haha, about the Bigger Boy...you said you wanted to see the prototype.

THERE ISN'T ONE! No boiler back then could have produced enough power/steam to drive that and still get decent power out of it! Not without going BOOM in a HUGE way, that is...

Nowadays, it *might* be possible with the newer materials and stuff, but still highly unlikely to have enough power to pull anything more than maybe a short passenger train.

And as for the 18" radius, as long as the Bowser Big Boy can, so can this. I'm just basically turning the tenders into their own locos and using drawbars to connect them to the "boiler."
 
Bowser 4-8-8-4

Spawn of Chaos said:
I have a plan...to one day buy three (yes three) Bowser Big Boy kits and use them to create...THIS!

2xbgboy.gif


Image created by, and courtesy of, Berlinerwerkes.

Wish me luck ppl...XD
Click to expand...

I think Bowser recently discontinued production of their 4-8-8-4 Big Boys Kits. The last time I visited the Bowsers website it said discontinued when I looked up this kit.
Larry
HO Train Reference and Resource Site
 
So Bowser discontinued the Big Boy. That doesn't mean that the monstrous project must come to a tragic conclusion. All it means is that the project must be scaled down a bit to use three Challenger
4-6-6-4s which are still in production!

I want to see step-by-step photos!
-Ed
 
nkp174 said:
They sell the tenders on the a la carte...which would save $100+
Click to expand...

I don't think Bowser ever sold the tenders for the Big Boy. If I remember correctly, Bowser just sold wheel sets, trucks, and a tender frame for the Big Boy. You had to buy one of the cheap Monogram static display models of the Big Boy and use the tender body from that kit to make your tender. I think the same procedure was used for the tender with the Bowser Challenger. I'm not sure if any of the other manufacturers of Big Boys or Challengers offers their tender separately or not.
 
You are correct in that they never did offer the centipede tender. Instead they always sold a semi-vanderbilt tender to use with them. If I remember correctly, the tender is correct for the early Challengers...but not the Big Boys. They do sell the tank part of the tender separately...but you monogram tender suggestion would probably make more sense for this kit bash.
 
A customer used to come into the local hobby shop and buy smoke units for his Bowser kits. Has anyone added smoke units? I have never built one myself but I can see tremendous advantages over plastic. Years ago, I had a couple of Mantuas' and really liked them except for lack of detail. But I have questions about Bowser kits. What if I wanted to add sound? How hard would that be? I'm really looking at the b6 0-6-0 but what other RR used them? Thanks for your time.
 
If the tender is hollow, which I believe they are, then it might be easier than other locomotives to add sound...since you don't have to disassemble it. Of course, building it is more work than disassembling most rtr locomotives.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom