OK, the new F3s arrrived...here's
a side-by-side comparison with Kato's 1996 release. Please bear
in mind, there have been minor revisions made by Kato for their
most recent F3 release, but I didn't have the newer loco to
compare. Also, the Katos have a bit of advantage (weathering,
added wipers, silver Kato couplers instead of the big MTs on
the pilots, Unimate couplers between the units).
My rather crude addition of a second headlight underscores the
fact the Katos were built with just one headlight, which is
how the first units arrived on the Santa Fe. Within months,
the second headlight was added by the shops.
Okay, here are the photos: IM is always on the left and/or below,
Kato on the right and/or top. Gentlemen, pull down your Optivisors
and let's see how they compare!
Both models have the extended parabola (red headress)used in
the early F3 deliveries to the Santa Fe.
Both are great looking units. The new IMs are a brighter red,
which look more accurate for the Santa Fe warbonnet. Kato's
truck relief is slightly better, with superior brake cylinder
and brake hanger relief. The IM trucks are painted, which is
a huge plus for prototypes with silver trucks, like the ATSF
and WP. Marty told me they were pulling their hair out figuring
out how to get the paint to adhere to the plastic sideframes,
but image-conscious roads like the Santa Fe kept their sideframes
fresh and bright...a nice touch very much worth the extra effort!
The IM steps are finer, and the yellow is a bit brighter shade
than the mustard-yellow on the Katos. The end of the stripe
below the warbonnet's red 'headress' parabola should be round
like the IM units, not slightly pointed as on the Kato units.
The added detail on the IMs sets them off well, but examining
these photos gave me a new respect for Kato's die work. The
Kato glazing is a better finish, but is recessed slightly behind
the window sill, where the IM glass is flush. The disadvantage
with the IMs is that you see the red dash behind the glass,
where the Katos have no dash...making their window openings
completely dark. The fix is to remove the glass and paint the
dash green, which takes away the 'squinting' appearance of the
IM windshields. I did this with my FTs, and it paid off, but
it's a bit tricky to pull of. Too bad they don't paint the dash
green!
The horns on the IM units both had minor deformities, the Kato
horns are cleaner and better represented. I love the separate
handrails on the IM units, and the overall finish is crisper.
Note how clean the yellow/red mask is on the top of the nose
on the IM unit, compared to the Kato. Outstanding!
The Katos have slightly crisper end detail, not that you see
it much! Body mounted couplers on the IMs are a huge plus.
The radiator grill award goes to Kato. Both look good, but for
reasons explained in later photos, the IM fans are a bit, well,
odd. Both have good relief. There is a general rough texture
to parts of the IM tooling that is perhaps due to the CAD rapid
prototyping process, or perhaps some other reason (I am not
a manufacturing engineer). The Kato surfaces are all silkly
smooth, with wonderful tooling.
This shot shows how fine the rivet detail is on the roof and
sides compared to Kato's tooling. You have to really look to
see them, and the light has to be just so. While they are harder
to see, they are more realistic in my opinion...you wouldn't
notice rivet detail on a locomotive when standing 50 feet away
from it!
IM's steam generator looks more like what I am used to seeing
on my prototype than the Kato steam generators; also, IM A units
don't have them (just like the prototype), unlike Kato's - another
plus.
The IM fan shrouds have very subtle facets to them rather than
being perfectly round...probably an artifact betraying the use
of rapid prototyping CAD technology. Computers hate small, perfect
curves...it's only noticable when you really examine it closely
under extreme magnification, but they should be round!
Here's the 'money shot' IMHO: comparison of side grill detail,
relief behind the grills, and rivet detail. IM wins here hands
down. Very nice effect, which could be further enhanced with
some washes to darken the recessed areas a bit.
Both units run very well. In a back-to-back drawbar pull contest
(standard DC, spanning block gap) it was pretty much a draw
(pun intended). With two MRC Controlmaster 20 power packs, IM
won with one power pack, and it was a stalemate stall over the
gap with the other pack.
At 6v, the IMs were rolling along close to a scale 50 mph drawing
about 320 milliamps. At 6 v, the Katos moved at about 40 mph
drawing over 500 milliamps, which pegged the ammeter.
The Intermountain units are extremely smooth and quiet, better
than the FTs. Someone has done their homework here! One B unit
was noteiceably slower than the other three, but perhaps with
break-in they will average out closer. The body mounted couplers
work great, but coupling distance is too far between units.
I will use Unimates to solve this, and look forward to the day
when perhaps we can buy new locomotives without having to screw
around with their couplers! :eek:
My Katos, which have served well, are headed to a new home in
Sydney...and the IM F3s are pulling my passenger trains as of
tonight. Both are excellent locomotives, I would say the IM
tips the scale in overall comparisons, but the Katos are really
excellent locomotives in their own right. Everyone has their
preferences, I hope this has been an objective and informative
review. ;) |
Posted - 06/14/2005 :
00:50:18 
posted
: Logged | 