Kato Tweets E5 pic. I'm officially concerned.

[packers#1]

I'm seriously late on the convo, but the major difference to me looks like the model has a lot more of a defined curve area between the top/side of the nose, while the proto has a more "dome-like" curve to it.

Yes, that light reflection will totally screw with that shape sometimes.

However, to me, if the proto and model had the same curve, then on the proto the reflection of the overhead lights wouldn't be as curved as it is...

But I also concede final judgement will be made by those who purchase the model...I would, except for my lovely shoestring budget etc

[Lemosteam]

Maybe this overlay will help too.  I think the upper curvature of the windshield produces a shorter frame on the outside.  The proto in other pics makes the upper and lower frame look nearly parallel and on the model they are clearly not.  Almost like they a squinting...

Agree pateski, but the nose angles shouldn't change much due to elevation.  This looks pretty close even the flare on the plow looks good to me.


Original background image by mcjaco

[wazzou]

It does look like the top of the nose drops off too far on the KATO model and the parting seam doesn't help.  I think it is reflected some in the area of the headlight/nose transition also.
Additionally, I have always thought that the model's nose is just a shade too long.  I am driven to that conclusion by how far the fluting extends past the A pillar, if you will, seemingly further on the model.  Other than that, I think the omission of the step on the plow in front of the lead truck is a key omission.

I'd buy it if I needed one. 

[mcjaco]

To me it's hard to tell with the difference in angles.  I do think the mold line is very distracting.

[MVW]

This just in: Model railroaders abandon their hobby en masse after discovering their models aren't perfect replicas of the real thing. Huge upswing in stamp collecting expected.

 

Jim

[kalbert]

Maybe this overlay will help too.  I think the upper curvature of the windshield produces a shorter frame on the outside.  The proto in other pics makes the upper and lower frame look nearly parallel and on the model they are clearly not.  Almost like they a squinting...

Agree pateski, but the nose angles shouldn't change much due to elevation.  This looks pretty close even the flare on the plow looks good to me.


Original background image by mcjaco

All this photo chop confirms is that the original unit and the modeled unit were photographed from different perspectives. 

Again... It looks a hell of a lot more like an E5 than it does something else. No one is going to come over to your layout and say "Wow, that's a nice AC4400, where'd you get it?". Know why? Because it doesn't look like an AC4400. It's not supposed to, it's an E5.

[skytop35]

Correct me if I'm wrong but I don't believe the title of this topic or any of the replies said the Kato E5 looked like a AC4400 or anything else.

A concern was raised by a forum member, you either agree or disagree. Discussion is welcome but insinuating other theories just degrades this topic and board in general.

After reading this thread, I doubt I would ever raise a question because of the off topic and made up ridicule that is almost sure to follow.

Honestly, others seem more concerned about jumping all over the original poster more than the topic at hand. Give it a rest!

[CBQ Fan]

Until you can get a photo of each from the exact same perspective to compare it is completely pointless to compare.  This argument is really a laugher.

[mcjaco]

My added photos were not to incite more arguing.  It was for my own reference while killing time at work.  Hence, my comment of "for my own reference." 

I think everyone needs to take a chill pill.

[SkipGear]

The curve of the nose is off. Look at the curve around the headlight fairing. The real loco is one smooth curve from the bottom of the headlight to the peak of the nose. The model is a straight line to about half the height of the headlight, then is curves sharply. The angle of the picture is not going to change this fact very much at all because the sharp curve is continued across the whole nose. That is the problem most people are complaining about. The real loco nose is a much more gentle curve than the model. If you can't or don't want to see it, that is fine. I am still going to buy a set because I like the train and it is not a road that I model so I won't get too worked up over it. If I was modeling CBQ, I would probably either pass or get out the sand paper and fix the nose.

What we need to compare the model to is one of Bill Denton's beautiful renditions. I think his look much more right compared to the real thing but also probably can't be had for what this loco and whole consist will sell for.

[skytop35]

What we need to compare the model to is one of Bill Denton's beautiful renditions. I think his look much more right compared to the real thing but also probably can't be had for what this loco and whole consist will sell for.

Thanks but just for the record, I didn't produce the E5 shell. However I have painted some of the Greg Scott made E5 resin shells. Don't see how that comparison would help though. Also of note, there were two phases of E5. The Greg Scott shell is neither but rather a combination of phase I and phase II although it most closely resembles phase II unit.

Phase I 9909-9912
Phase II 9913-9915
Major differences include roof grills, side cab vent, steam generator vents, front pilot/anticlimber/coupler arrangement and the rear bulkhead ribs.

[Lemosteam]

Sorry to make more concern.  I just thought a superimposed version would be easier to compare the main angles of the nose, not necessarily the compound curves.  I'm a PRR fan and could care less about this model, but I was genuinely interested as a designer regarding the discussion about the shape.

I was struggling trying to compare between the two images that mcjaco originally posted and thought my image would benefit others.  Apparently not.

My apologies for trying to assist.

[skytop35]

No need to apologize for trying to assist. Photos and discussion should be what this is all about. In the end, each will vote with his dollars. I think I will wait until I see one at the local hobby shop before voting although I'm leaning toward getting one but need a red stripe version.

[kalbert]

Until you can get a photo of each from the exact same perspective to compare it is completely pointless to compare.  This argument is really a laugher.

Exactly!

[MVW]

Sorry to make more concern.  I just thought a superimposed version would be easier to compare the main angles of the nose, not necessarily the compound curves.  I'm a PRR fan and could care less about this model, but I was genuinely interested as a designer regarding the discussion about the shape.

I was struggling trying to compare between the two images that mcjaco originally posted and thought my image would benefit others.  Apparently not.

My apologies for trying to assist.

Actually, I thought your superimposed image was one of the most helpful posts in this thread.

And kalbert's comment about the AC4400? I don't think that's out of bounds in a thread where the original poster puts up an image of the model with a caption that says: "I don't know what this is."

Jim