Kato Tweets E5 pic. I'm officially concerned.

[wcfn100]

I'm not sure what Jason sees that is so wrong about this model.

And I'm okay with that.

I'll put my track record up against anybody when it comes to this type of thing.  I see what I see.  I'm disappointed that I'm not getting one and I'm worried that something like this will be reproduced on some model that I really want.

If anyone is really curious as to what I find so objectionable, I'm happy to share off forum. 

From now on if anything is wrong on something, I'll just tell it to this new older lady I meet with a huge rack.

Jason

[arbomambo]

I had a very hard time getting the pics from Kato to load yesterday...
I was able to finally load the pics today...I'll repost them here...
again, IMO, they've done an outstanding job...the loco LOOKS like the CB7Q E5...
 in order to specifically 'date' the loco, one has to add the proper details,,,i.e. roof grabs, nose handgrabs, pilot grabs...I have to assume that the locos had different details during their life span, similar to ATSF F and E units...again, I think, apart from the skirted trucks, Kato modelled a unit that can span the life history of the proto units with just a few detail adds! BLMA ultimate E & F setail sets to the rescue here!

[MVW]

From now on if anything is wrong on something, I'll just tell it to this new older lady I meet with a huge rack.

Jason

+1

That's a solution I think we can all live with.

Jim

[peteski]

And I'm okay with that.

I'll put my track record up against anybody when it comes to this type of thing.  I see what I see.  I'm disappointed that I'm not getting one and I'm worried that something like this will be reproduced on some model that I really want.

If anyone is really curious as to what I find so objectionable, I'm happy to share off forum. 

From now on if anything is wrong on something, I'll just tell it to this new older lady I meet with a huge rack.

Jason

Jason,
I don't think that anybody here is trying suppress your opinion. When posting on forums I often give my opinions on many things (both positive and negative). After all, isn't that what the online forums are for? If others disagree with me, so be it.  That won't stop me from presenting my thoughts (especially if I have facts or proof to back them up).

I guess that majority of people (including me) who are wondering exactly what is wrong with the shape of this model's nose just don't see anything wrong with it.  That is why I'm puzzled about this (and I suspect others are too).  Maybe you have some photos (or drawings) of both the  model and the real loco to compare and see the discrepancy, that would help in understanding the flaws that you see.

But please don't stop posing your opinions om my account.

[CBQ Fan]

I agree with Peteski, keep posting.  I have had several opinions that were not widely supported here, but I see that as a good thing.  Honest feedback is hard to come by these days.

[Puddington]

I could care less about an E5, never made it north of the border..

That said, I do not see what those that are so verbally unhappy see; and would really like them to tell me what I am missing. Maybe I am unable to see the finer points of the nose but, based on the evidence submitted; and without holding one in my hands, travelling to the prototype and spending multiple hours there, I think Kato (a company I rarely defend) has done a good job..... perfect is impossible; but "got it" is the standard, they "got it; to these eyes, from the pictures provided.....maybe they could have done better but I do not think they have missed the mark.

I am very willing to be shown the alternative................ please educate me.

[NorsemanJack]

I've yet to hear of a CB&Q fan (myself included) that has anything to glowing feedback on these.  I've gawked/drooled/admired Silver Pilot at IRM many times, and also walked through her carbody at Galesburg railroad days (thanks!), and I am just elated to have the opportunity to spend my hard earned cash on her and the other releases.  Those who are posting negative opinions are certainly entitled to thier opinions, but at the end of the day these may set a new standard for Kato success (i.e. $$$). 

[skytop35]

Jason,

I share your concern.

[wcfn100]

I am very willing to be shown the alternative................ please educate me.

I'm going to Chuck E(h) Cheese and hope my 4 year old doesn't kill someone with a Skeeball.  If I still give ***** about this when I get back, I will put something together and you can tell me what you think.

Jason

[sirenwerks]

I do have a dog in this fight, as I'm fan of Burlington's passenger trains and will buy.  And I think there is a certain roundness at the outer edges of the top of the nose, towards the windows, that's lacking.  The mold line doesn't bother me so much if it's the only way we're going to get this model, I'll take some sandpaper too them and touch up the paint and weather the damn thing.  I have to say though, and I know I'm a sore pessimist most of the time, it's silly comparing photos like that without openly acknowledging there's a difference between model and reality.  Consider the differing field compression factors of the macro lens used to photograph the model v. the likely telephoto used to capture that last nose shot. The dark cab interior of the prototype v. the glare on the model's windshield wreaks massive havoc on perception.  As well, the lack of flush side windows on the model v. the seamless surface created by the flush windows of the prototype.  I may wait until these show up at a better price (I got the Con Cor Zephyr and extra car on eBay for 2/3 of Kleins price of the basi set) but if Kato won't fix the intricacies, I'll either live with them or fix them myself (like flush the side windows and darken the interior).  If they bother me that much I'll run the train like Bob does, at full throttle so everything's a blur.    But the dims of the nose hood length in front of the windshield and rake of the nose form aren't off to any noticeable degree IMO unless you start really looking for something wrong.

[Mark5]

Ok, I've gotten some strong "reactions" for criticizing the mold lines on the Kato E & F noses ...

I was kinda hoping it wouldn't repeat on this new loco.

I have one Kato F7 that I will be sanding the lines off of prior to painting up as an ex-WAB N&W unit. No biggy for me as I bought the loco expecting to have to do some stuff to it.

In recent years though I've been tempted to buy some models outside of my core interest (N&W Pokey, and a lil WM). I went out and bought a Kato California Zephyr. And some WP F3s to pull it. The F3s have those annoying (to me) mold lines. Am I going to strip them down, smooth them up and repaint the F3s? No.

To say that Kato can not mold a E unit without these mold lines is suspect in my mind, as when I look at my IM F7s (WM) the mold lines are not an issue for me. I think Kato could have done better in this area.

This Burlington train is also a temptation for me as it is very unique. If I bought the E5 there is no way that I would attempt to fix the mold lines as I can only imagine what kind of ordeal it would be to match the Kato finish (which is excellent!). I don't have any other comments about the contour other than at a glance and with my limited knowledge of the proto it looks pretty good. The model still tempts me.

If we can't offer criticism to models without getting worked up then what does that say about us?

Mark

[CBQ Fan]

Just a bunch of UP fans complaining because it is not yellow and gray or a steamer!!   

Gotta have some fun!

[kornellred]

Mold parting lines notwithstanding, the Kato E5 model is as close to exact as it is possible to achieve in N Scale.

[u18b]

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

I'm going to take a stab at this.  Bear in mind that I think the Kato model looks great.  But in fairness to Jason, I've been looking really hard to see what he sees-

...and I think it must be the contour of the "cheeks".  At first, I assumed the problem was the angle of the line from the nose down to the track (where the point is.  But I don't think that is it.

It appears the point-line at the nose is not quite as sharp on the model as on the prototype.  But if that were the case, then that would mean the curvature leading to that point was just a tiny bit too broad.

So I asked myself- OK.  Where does the curve START.  On the prototype, it appears to start just about at the back edge of the sand hatch (is that what that is?).  But on the model, it appears to start in FRONT of that hatch-- which (if true) then the nose is just a tiny bit too wide in the "cheeks" area,

Personally, I think it looks great (it really is not terribly different from the prototype to my eye), but let's see if this is partially what Jason is talking about.

[up1950s]

All the hand grabs not being in the model effects the eye in comparing size .

The is a small increase in the crease and slight curve along the headlight to nose joint on the real deal .

The reflective area washing out the headlight grill on the model changes the eye comparison .