Kato Tweets E5 pic. I'm officially concerned.

[wcfn100]

An incredibly beautiful effort, and I believe the latest photos should put 'to rest' the concerns with the 'nose' contours!

Well the nose either has issues, or the E5 isn't as good looking of an engine as I thought.

Either way it makes the buying decision easy which is what I was trying to figure out, so I won't belabor the point any further.  Thanks to everyone for the input.


Atlas, any chance for an E7? 


Jason

[robert3985]

After looking at the Kato photos I've got three things to say.

(1) After comparing the high-angle shots of Kato's E-5 to comparable prototype photos of U.P. #904-A taken at Green River from the pedestrian walkway over the yard in 1947, it appears that Kato has the nose exactly correct.  What is especially nice about the new Kato model is the window "glass" looks to be properly positioned rather than incorrectly recessed like their E-8/E-9's, and the window openings appear to be perfect.

(2) The Overland HO model photos posted here appear to be incorrect, with the size of the window openings being noticeably too large and the rake on the windshield area being too angled back.  I notice that Overland's imports in N-scale of E-8/E-9's also appear to be too steeply "raked" (I have several).  However, a second shot of the U.P. #904-A, taken later and at a trackside level makes the windshields look larger and more steeply raked than the overhead shot.  Odd.

(3) If you don't like the way these models look, then ya don't like the way the prototype looks either.  Sometimes our perception of something as complex as the curved surfaces on the nose of diesel cab units is just that...a "perception", not fact.

I have a strong tendency to assume Kato took actual measurements from the prototype as well as took many technical photographs.  Believe me, it isn't all that difficult to get the angles and curves correctly for very complicated objects nowadays, as opposed to what others here may incorrectly believe.  The days of "guessing at it" are over if the technicians working for a company have any competence at all, particularly if you have a static prototype to work from, and Kato has shown itself to be one of the most competent companies in the N-scale model railroad business, even if they can't seem to eliminate the very noticeable parting lines on their cab units!

Cheers!
Bob Gilmore

[CBQ Fan]

I know that Charlie Vik provided Kato with detailed drawings of both the A and B units.  When delivered the nose grills where etched and painted metal panels attached to the nose.  They were later removed and the grilles were painted directly on nose when they added MU doors.  Much easier than attaching and reattaching the plates as was done for some time.  I think the way Kato is offering this product is brilliant!  As delivered with skirts in the set and two A's configured for running with the CZ or other Q trains.  The lack of a B unit is a little mistifying but one can only hope they offer A units with red nose striping and B units would work with either release.  I have heard talk of a Texas Zephyr with A & B unit.  They again could do skirted and unskirted trucks.  Now if only BLW would post their offering so I could order mine!!

[sirenwerks]

I know that Charlie Vik provided Kato with detailed drawings of both the A and B units.

He's actually asking for overhead shots of the B units on a CB&Q Yahoo! list, so I wouldn't be so sure about the B unit.

[Sokramiketes]

I have never been disappointed in a Kato model...especially in the accurate shape category...this one continues with that tradition!
An incredibly beautiful effort, and I believe the latest photos should put 'to rest' the concerns with the 'nose' contours!
absolutely beautiful...AND in more than one number/name...
I'm not a Burlington (CB&Q) modeller, but I'll buy this set for the historical significance AND the just plain beauty of this loco and consist!
Well done, Kato!
Bruce

So I shouldn't tell you that the dome windows on the CZ are all screwed up?   

[Sokramiketes]

I know that Charlie Vik provided Kato with detailed drawings of both the A and B units.  When delivered the nose grills where etched and painted metal panels attached to the nose.  They were later removed and the grilles were painted directly on nose when they added MU doors.  Much easier than attaching and reattaching the plates as was done for some time.  I think the way Kato is offering this product is brilliant!  As delivered with skirts in the set and two A's configured for running with the CZ or other Q trains.  The lack of a B unit is a little mistifying but one can only hope they offer A units with red nose striping and B units would work with either release.  I have heard talk of a Texas Zephyr with A & B unit.  They again could do skirted and unskirted trucks.  Now if only BLW would post their offering so I could order mine!!

Charlie took the Nick Muff drawings from Mainline Modeler (eek!) and made some corrections (whew...)  But even he doesn't know if Kato actually visited the prototype. 

[jmlaboda - RIP]

"So I shouldn't tell you that the dome windows on the CZ are all screwed up?"

What???  Don't tell me I am going to have to dig through photos to find out what's wrong...

[wcfn100]

(3) If you don't like the way these models look, then ya don't like the way the prototype looks either. 

No, actually, this looks hot.



I would have bought that.

I don't know what this is.



I'll add it's not just the nose.  There are several other issues that aren't worth addressing at this point.

I won't buy Broadway Limited E7s either and they have less issues than this model.

To each their own.


Jason

[Dave V]

I don't have a dog in this fight, but for the life of me I'm not seeing any significant difference (besides windshield wipers, truck shrouds  and grabs) between those two pictures.

Maybe it's my lack of knowledge of the prototype.  Whatever it is, those two pics are not self-explanatory to me.

[DKS]

I don't have a dog in this fight, but for the life of me I'm not seeing any significant difference (besides windshield wipers, truck shrouds  and grabs) between those two pictures.

Maybe it's my lack of knowledge of the prototype.  Whatever it is, those two pics are not self-explanatory to me.

+100

I think some people lose sight of the fact that tooling is an art form, not a science; they don't just pop blueprints into a scanner and get tooling out of the other end. Some features just can't be tooled. Others are subject to the skills of people not at all familiar with trains; all they can do is interpret photos and drawings to the best of their ability. To expect perfection--or even near-perfection--would invite a cost increase proportional to the research and consulting performed. It doesn't come for free.

That Kato has chosen to produce railroad-specific (even train-specific) models I think is quite remarkable. I dare say you won't be seeing these locomotives lettered for, say, AT&SF, NYC, or any other foobie name; meanwhile, nearly every other major manufacturer is busy slapping every roadname in existence on their eastern- or western-style cabooses, as but one example.

I applaud those modelers seeking the highest level of prototype fidelity possible in their modeling; at the same time, I simply cannot condone some of the remarks hurled at Kato, in light of what they are doing. They are going as far as they can from a practical standpoint to offer highly-accurate models of equally high quality. Personally, I think they've gone well beyond the level of "good enough" and brought it to a degree of accuracy rarely met by most other manufacturers (although the trend for better fidelity is generally increasing across the board, for the most part).

What irks me is the expectation of perfection from modelers who seem perfectly capable of making those corrections they deem necessary. And so I must again raise the point: perfection comes at a price. So how much are you willing to pay for it?

[arbomambo]

I don't have a dog in this fight, but for the life of me I'm not seeing any significant difference (besides windshield wipers, truck shrouds  and grabs) between those two pictures.

Maybe it's my lack of knowledge of the prototype.  Whatever it is, those two pics are not self-explanatory to me.

Same here...
IMO, they've done a great job in capturing the contours of the real deal..those comparison photos convince me all the more...the photos posted here have actually sealed the deal for me...I'll do my best to add any details that may have appeared on this loco/train circa 1957...so I can start researching now!

I wish they'd do THIS version!...otherwise, it would appear I'm gathering a couple of spare mechanisms to repower these...



Respectfully,
Bruce

[Sokramiketes]

"So I shouldn't tell you that the dome windows on the CZ are all screwed up?"

What???  Don't tell me I am going to have to dig through photos to find out what's wrong...

The side and top dome windows should be the same size.  They tooled them with smaller windows at the top because someone didn't understand the forshortening on a 2D drawing.  It bothers me everytime I look at the cars.  Crooked picture frames bother me also... though my wife doesn't notice.  And that's probably the jist of this whole conversation.  Some people just arn't going to be able to spot the differences.  Some can see it but don't care.  But not seeing it or not caring, doesn't make it magically correct.

[DKS]

But not seeing it or not caring, doesn't make it magically correct.

Nope. That's why there are tools and materials at the disposal of modelers who care.

[peteski]

I also don't have stake in this but I'll take stab at comparing Jason's photos. Still, while close, the photos are from slightly different angles. The angle at which the model photo was taken makes the angle of the front of the nose appear less steep.  I suspect of the photo of that model was taken from the same angle as the 1:1 loco, the nose wold be slanted by the same amount.

First, as expected in a plastic N scale model, the strips at the panel's edges and rivets are a bit oversize. Most of the grabirons are missing from the model and one horn is different.

I the fake grille on the nose seems a bit larger on the model than on the loco (but the model represents a different loco - maybe that particular loco had larger grilles?)

The coupler doors have different hinges - different loco?

The side edge of the plow is has a different profile and the model doesn't have a stirrup. But again - different locos?

The trucks have different front journal covers.

The model windows look to be slightly smaller than the real loco. But after examining the photos I think that the 1:1 loco's windows appear larger because of what looks a rubber gasket is surrounding them. The model has that detail molded. If it was painted black then the windows would look spot-on.

None of these details look like a huge problem to me. I'm not sure what Jason sees that is so wrong about this model.

[Sokramiketes]

Just to be clear, David and Peteski, I'm talking about the overall shape of the nose... the curves.  I think that's Jason's concern also.  We both know that grabs and plates and add-ons changed over the life of the locomotive.  And those details can easily be added by the modeler.

The nose contour is much harder to "fix" and the outstanding Kato finish is even more difficult to match.  So, "If you care, fix it" isn't really the point either.