Kato PC/AMTRAK GG-1s

[CBQ Fan]

WOW. Great comeback from that single-stripe abomination they just released. Looks like I have to throw a preorder in....

The S.

What was wrong with the single striop version?  I must have missed something.

The numbers arent as pronounced and the font used for the PENNSYLVANIA is incorrect, take a look at the S on the model versus proto photos.

The S.

I see what you are saying but then look at this..

http://www.spikesys.com/Bin/GG1/4903.jpg

But you can't use restorations as guides for this stuff. They suffer from the same problems model manufacturers are doing.

Ed,

I would agree.  I thought that picture showed something somewhere in the middle!  Taking your lead you could always make your single stripe unit a museum hack job!

[bbussey]

I see what you are saying but then look at this..
http://www.spikesys.com/Bin/GG1/4903.jpg

This is a restoration.  Yet it is still an better representation of the 1955 scheme than the Kato model.  The Kato artwork is nowhere close to this.  As Sizemore stated, the PENNSYLVANIA font is way off (Clarendon instead of RR Roman) and the numbers are a sans-serif font which are vastly different that the serif font of the prototype.

[sizemore]

I see what you are saying but then look at this..
http://www.spikesys.com/Bin/GG1/4903.jpg

This is a restoration.  Yet it is still an better representation of the 1955 scheme than the Kato model. The Kato artwork is nowhere close to this.  As Sizemore stated, the PENNSYLVANIA font is way off (Clarendon instead of RR Roman) and the numbers are a sans-serif font which are vastly different that the serif font of the prototype.

I agree with Bussey its a better representation than the Kato, even though it is wrong (but pretty darn close) had they followed the restoration I would've bought one. Heck even if they fixed the S, I would've probably opened my wallet for one to complete the overall "set". This has to go down in the botchbook for Kato almost as bad as the "RS-9's".

The S.

[bbussey]

Comparison pics, from BLW's site.  The PENNSYLVANIA and number differences are obvious.




A shame, since this probably was the most anticipated paintscheme on the model.

MicroScale still makes the decals (60-67), but they only feature engine number 4811, 4884 and 4881 with no other digits available.  It's almost tempting to commission MicroScale to print a GG1-only set with all the schemes on it and a healthy amount of numbers.

[Bob Bufkin]

And that's why I didn't get that one.  Too bad, I really wanted a decent single stripe.

[DrifterNL]

I wonder who will be the first to do this  -> http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=100067

[davefoxx]

I wonder who will be the first to do this  -> http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=100067

What the f%&* is that?!  Well, there ought to be a second "G1" around somewhere, too!   ;D

[sizemore]

I wonder who will be the first to do this  -> http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=100067

What the f%&* is that?!  Well, there ought to be a second "G1" around somewhere, too!   ;D

IIRC the G1 was previously a GG1 that had been in an accident. Instead of tossing good traction motors and equipment they made a handy shop switcher out of it.

The S.

[choochin3]

Actually,the G1 was made into a snow blower.
Check out the intakes at the rear of it.

[eric220]

I do believe that is usually referred to as the GG-1/2.  Goofy looking gizmo.

[Packer]

Shouldn't it be G-.5 or G-1/2?

[Ian MacMillan]

A ((-.5?

[Ed Kapuscinski]

Actually, it wouldn't be a G-1, PRR already had G-1s:
G1   4-6-0   formerly class D. 286 blt 1868-1875. 56" drivers.
http://www.northeast.railfan.net/images/prr189s.jpg
http://www.northeast.railfan.net/images/prr569s.jpg

[SkipGear]

Actually, it wouldn't be a G-1, PRR already had G-1s:
G1   4-6-0   formerly class D. 286 blt 1868-1875. 56" drivers.
http://www.northeast.railfan.net/images/prr189s.jpg
http://www.northeast.railfan.net/images/prr569s.jpg

Well...... it is a 4-6-0, just happens to be electric powered. I think the 4-6 / 6-4 wheel arangement is where they GG-1 nomenclature came from.

[Ed Kapuscinski]

Yep, that's the way PRR classed stuff like that (hence a GG1 was two "G" style wheel arrangements (4-6-0) back to back.

Also the reason why Dave's 2-8-8-2 is an HH (two 2-8-0 Hs together).