Who's with me? I can find it in Z, but don't want another scale. I can find it in O, but can't afford it and don't have room for an O72 loop at Christmas. Shouldn't it be Katos next GG paint Scheme?
It's certainly a fantastic paint scheme. I have no use for one, but I'd like to see it made. It would put rivet counters to the ultimate test. Jason
I'm in. Ok, I am REALLY In. I am so In that if I one was made available I would not buy another...Well, ok, I'm not that far in.
The body isn't correct. PRR 4800 has a riveted skin and looks noticeably different. Kato still has a number of schemes they can do on the current body before turning to non-prototypical releases. I'd like to see them correct the single stripe scheme they've already released, and then do the silver Congressional scheme.
4800, the bicentennial unit and the only GG1 to get a coat of Conrail blue would require new tooling for the body shell as it was unique being the first unit which had a riveted body instead of the welded one of the engines that followed. Pennsy fans might be able to tell us if there were other detail differences than the rivets but as it stands the Kato shell would be incorrect for 4800. Not to say they couldn't do a new shell though, they are missing out on perhaps the most colourful GG1.
Hear! Hear! The PRR single-striple scheme is my favorite scheme for a GG1, but Kato messed up the lettering font and the numbers... and not just a little. PRR used a Roman font on this scheme, whereas Kato tried to shoe-horn an ENORMOUS Clarendon font onto the side. Has anyone spoken with Kato regarding this? Are they planning to fix it?
The air inlets on the front of the right side of the model don't match the ones on "old rivets". And yes, I really, really would like Kato to be more prototypical!
Kato has produced numerous locomotives that didn't match the prototype exactly, the SD45s being a recent example. This would be no different. No doubt the Bicentenial would be a good seller. The Conrail paint scheme would probably do well also. Jason
If you ask real nice, you can have one custom painted... Sorry, not the rivet body but it's a close enough. I did this one on an old Arnold/Rivarossi along with a remotor to make a very smooth and strong runner. Rivals the Kato quite honestly, just a bit noiser.
Not wanting to reopen old wounds, but look at the reception the SD45's got. If Kato had any marketing savvy they wouldn't want to repeat that.
As a long suffering Pennsy fan forced to live with the paint only PRR models of the past (and more often than not even the color was way wrong) I was dancing in the streets to see the Mars and nose lights eliminated from diesels. So,regardless of "prototypical correctness" of the GG1...... at least someone has finally built a PRR model and I am greatful and will live with the minor proto problems. As a PRR fan I've learned to live with prototypical incorrectness . We PRR fans have a long way to go, We still need Steamers!!!!!! Mike
At least we are dealing with what I had in my hand the other day..... http://www.tycoforums.com/tyco/forum/uploaded/romcat/20100912205809_Tyco%20GG-1%20Side-top%20View.jpg A Tyco HO GG-1 which was a psudo GG-1 body stuck on a 6 axle diesel frame. I'm not a GG-1 fan and that thing was just an abomination.
so, Kato is turning into a better running version of Con-Cor? In that case, I'll take a 9-4400AC in Southern Pacific Black Widow with speed lettering
Please explain how that comment is even valid......????? It's one thing to overlook variations and put a time correct paint job on a loco that is the correct body with missing or altered details. It's something completely different to paint a loco in a the scheme of a road that never owned the loco and in many cases the road no longer existed at the time the loco was built. We are not talking about painting up a UP turbine in CSX, or a U50 in B&O (Both instances of something Con-Cor has done), we are talking about painting a GG-1 in a scheme that a GG-1 wore. I don't expect a manufacture to make a mold for a single locomotive. 4800 was a unique loco body, different from all other GG-1's and nobody is going to tool a new body just for it. Just as Marty didn't know about or at least worry about the variations, 90% of the people wouldn't either. They guy who I painted the Arnold unit above didn't care. I venture to say it would sell, even painted on the wrong body. You have to make compromises at some point.
Skipgear, I was pointing out that Kato is not as accurate as possible. Since 1989, they have been off, they put a number for a SP U30C phase II on a phase III loco, they are getting worse, as was pointed out with the SD45. As for the SP,they took delivery of 279 AC4400CW's, 100-378. Considering that their paintis not accurate any more, why not have some fun?
I did some googling. What I found interesting about the prototypical paint scheme: The star placement wasnt the same on both sides. I believe there where some other subtle differences in oppossing sides too. Just sayin.
Now.... I may have to change my signature to "Rivet... whats a Rivet? I thought frogs were those things in turnouts. Are we saying trains make Frog noises.. No, that's Ribbet.. Again whats a rivet?" I can just see Kato leaving 70 holes in the body and 70 colored rivets on a sprue... But seriously, I like the idea that locos are "correct", but the 2 times I showed a friend of mine a Southern steamer, he replied "too bad Southern never actually ran this". Whether he is right or wrong, I'm not gonna research, but it didn't take away from my enjoyment. In this case I'm going with a Tony Hines Custom job. I will post as many pics as he will allow. I think part of it boils down to the manufacturers do a pretty good job, unless they don't have what I want. It would be really cool if manufacturers could get all the details right, but to do so on niche models, they would have to retool on a livery by livery basis and charge a lot more as they wouldn't have the volume on any one body. On the other hand, Kato did a number of NW2 bodies, Concor did a number of body and tender variations on the 2-10-2, I'm sure theres are tons of examples. That shows me that they do think about these things. My perception is that the guys that really like the locos to be prototypical also weather to some extent. How much tiny detail can you discern when a weathered loco is moving? Again, prototypical should be what manufacturers strive for, but... I don't want it to look like garbage, or a toy, but when a guy that has a fussball scheme european loco crossing an Amtrak bridge, above a steam engine, in front of Mt Fuji Avatar asks about a shiny loco, chances are he hasn't checked the locos he has against the pictures he sees online. Still like the feedback,or I wouldn't post. Don't see why it is so contrivertial though.
