Kato Gevo

[GaryHinshaw]

But here I am in the middle of Conrail territory complaining about Kato dissing western roads...   

At least the Canadiens are happy: 

[Ed Kapuscinski]

Us CR guys didn't do too bad on that run either.

They still have a bunch of the blue SDs too. I'm slowly building a fleet.

[sundowner]

But back to stupid stuff Kato does - I know... For example in the AC4400 line, they did the singularly least common version of the unit (ex-CNW) for UP - which could only be used in the most unusual paint schemes - and on a unit that was renumbered soon after it was on the roster.

Kato has actually done two different version of the UP AC44. The first release was the common two vent dynamic mid production version and then they did the CNW three vent dynamic early version.

[ljudice]

Sorry I should have mentioned that! I was just bringing up the oddballs - there are lots of pretty mainstream models they've done.

[u18b]

;D

Good question Chuck, but they have already done correct AC44 and -9 for all those of those roads.

I'm sorry, but this is a statement that is not accurate.

Out of all the CSX locomotives Kato has ever done over all the years, most have not been correct.

And as a case in point,  both of the two mentioned, the DASH-9 and the AC4400 were not done correctly- if that's the terminology you want to use.

I'm a fan of Kato locomotives, but it drives me crazy that they make so many errors when it comes to CSX.

The DASH-9 is not that big a deal if you like fantasy locomotives.  CSX DASH-9s came in DASH-8 carbodies.  So if you really want one, buy an Atlas model and give it a DASH-9 road number.  The fantasy Kato CSX DASH-9 was like when they Painted the U30C for Santa Fe when Santa Fe had none-- but they DID own U23Cs which looked very very similar and Kato figured lots of people wouldn't care.

But on the CSX AC4400s, Kato mistakenly saw dirt embedded in the sanded antislip surface on the nose in prototype photos and thus painted their model with a black "antiglare panel" on the nose where there should be none. I guess they didn't look at photos of a clean unit.  They did the same blooming thing with the CSX SD40-2.

They did a better job with the SD70s.  Hopefully they'll keep up the latest trend with the next two:  SD70ACe and GEVO.....

So no, those two models were not done correctly for CSX.  And that's not merely a headlight placement.

So every time Kato announces a new CSX locomotive, I hold my breath when it comes to accuracy in their paint job....... but I'm tired of turning blue...

[sundowner]

U18

So other than the antiglare panel on the the AC44, the rest of the locomotive is correct right? Paint can be fix.

Kato is not the only one that have mess up CSX locomotves with the wrong number or paint sheme. Atlas and IM have to. The Atlas YN2 GP38-2 are a good example, the numbers used are for ex SBD locomotive with nose headlight yet the model does not have that or how about one of the latest CW40-8, 7818 is suppose to have black number boards but the Atlas model has white ones.

Now for the -9, I was thinking about all the release since the SD70mac and totally forgot about the Kato CSX -9, so I do agree with you there.

But if you want a CSX -9 you can only use the Atlas -8 for the first three units 9000-9002 and you still have to change the radiator section and exhaust stack, same for the LMX and later Conrail units. for the other fortynine CSX units, 9004 -9052 you will need change the steps of the locomotive to because they have six instead of the five for the -8.

[Puddington]

But here I am in the middle of Conrail territory complaining about Kato dissing western roads...    

At least the Canadiens are happy:  

That's downright funny Gary.....but you're right on two accounts...

1. Algoma Central SD units did make some of us happy as they were great re-painting targets....

2. The "Canadiens" (as in the Montreal Canadiens) would love em 'cause, like Kato; they too, recognize a huge loss when they see one.....(as in the bath kato took on these...hehehehehehehe)

LOL !

....and here we go again; we can't get __________(fill in the blank with the unit of your choice) but we can have TWO companies make the the same locomotive at the same time....... :

[Philip H]

YEs, well . . .when FVM announced their KCS GEVOs, that sealed it for me.  No Kato purchase next year.

[SirTainly]

Just waiting for the FVM CP Gevos here, would rather give my money to a manufacturer that worries about details and phases.

[Ed Kapuscinski]

Just waiting for the FVM CP Gevos here, would rather give my money to a manufacturer that worries about details and phases.

Quoted because it should be repeated. (and tacked to Kato's door)

[Mark5]

Just waiting for the FVM CP Gevos here, would rather give my money to a manufacturer that worries about details and phases.

Quoted because it should be repeated. (and tacked to Kato's door)

Or tied to a brick and tossed through .... oh, nevermind.

[sundowner]

Just waiting for the FVM CP Gevos here, would rather give my money to a manufacturer that worries about details and phases.

The FVM CP GEVO is actually wrong for most of CP GEVOS. The number board are in the wrong places.

[u18b]

Hi Sundowner,

InterMountain..... Hmmmm I'd rather change the subject.

Atlas.  I agree,  if and only if there were other road numbers they could have chosen that did not have nose headlights.  Personally, I don't get bent out of shape over nose headlights if the model maker only makes one version.  Case in point is the Atlas U25B.  They only made one version--no nose lights.  But all the ones I want had them (from L&N).  So should Atlas never ever paint and sell a U25B in L&N/Family Lines/SBD System paint just because their model does not have a nose light?  Some might say so, but I don't agree.  That's a detail issue.

The same is true on the Fox Valley GEVOs.  The tail light won't be 100% in exactly the correct position for my loco.  It will be about a foot off.  Well, if I want it that badly, I'll make it myself.  But it will still be the correct locomotive and phase.  It is just one detail.

But I agree with you:  when a manufacturer has a locomotive in a paint scheme.  Let's see, what road number are we going to use?  This road had some WITH lights on the nose and some with out, and our model had no lights on the nose,  then when you have a choice, try to do a little research and be accurate.  I recently acquired a Kato SD40-2 in EMD Lease and they chose the ugly version with a plain white nose.  I thought- that's weird.  Did some research.  That's because the road number they chose was a former Rock Island unit that had nose lights and no nose herald.  Since Kato's model did not have nose lights, why not chose a road number with a pretty nose herald?

By my count and unless I'm mistaken, when it comes to Kato CSX locomotives, they have made 10 to date.  The score is 6 wrong and 4 right.  With the SD70ACe and the GEVO, maybe they will pass 50/50.  I'm rooting for them.  The SD70s are a good sign that they are trying harder.

[Matt G]

Just waiting for the FVM CP Gevos here, would rather give my money to a manufacturer that worries about details and phases.

The FVM CP GEVO is actually wrong for most of CP GEVOS. The number board are in the wrong places.

Can't talk in absolutes when that road has not been announced yet:)

http://foxvalleymodels.com/pics.html

Was supposed to be a surprise for later....well "Surprise"

[sundowner]

Just waiting for the FVM CP Gevos here, would rather give my money to a manufacturer that worries about details and phases.

The FVM CP GEVO is actually wrong for most of CP GEVOS. The number board are in the wrong places.

Can't talk in absolutes when that road has not been announced yet:)

http://foxvalleymodels.com/pics.html

Was supposed to be a surprise for later....well "Surprise"

That a nice surprise, I was going by the picture from the CP model you have on your website.