Could this be considered the doozie?

[Packer]

That's kinda my point, the loco release should be a multiple choice thing. I love the GS4 in Daylight colors just as much as the next guy, more so in WP black, but don't force feed it as the defacto AFT loco. Especially since it was the late-comer to the AFT roster and in and out of the shop so often while performing its duties.

Besides, it's a great excuse for someone to make a T1 finally (no, not me, for all those tempted to advise me to enter the N scale manufacturers ranks). They can paint it in Chessie System Steam Special colors for Lee, too. Actually, I won't bash the CSSS, it was what hooked me as a kid into MRRing, despite its LGBT paint scheme. Maybe they could even paint it in Reading colors for Rich.

The GS4 being in the shops alot is why the BN Bicentennials got to pull the train. Heck, I'd probably spring for the T&P 2-10-4 if they made one in HO in the freedom train livery. I know a guy who has an HO GS4 and T1 in the freedom train paint, and I have the SD40-2 and U30C bicentennials.

I may be mixing up my steam locos here, but wasn't the Reading T1 similar in design to a PRR loco (not the PRR T1)?

Are we allowed to critque Kato in this hobby.....? I mean; "can we"....? ;D

Yes. The 2 Katos I have were the worst runners of any of my locos until recently (athearn RS3 with a binding motor and broken gears). I haven't put the katos back together since I took them apart.

[Puddington]

You critique would be so much more credible if you actually identified the loco correctly......

The GS-4 is a 4-8-4; considered a "Northern".
A Mountain is a 4-8-2. Kato doesn't / hasn't made a Mountain.

Come on; take a pill; the "designation" isn't the issue. Ken is stating a valid point on the poor product he received. Kato gets a serious pass way too often. Yep; they are great; a lot of their stuff is number one but they are not perfect and they are far from infalable...They have been "caught" by some and they need to step it up or risk being "one of the gang"....... I know some will burn me for such a statement; the "Katoites" are everywhere but let's not judge a fair and measured response by a mistake in nomenclature.....really............ >

Wanna splash me for this ?  - knock yourself out..................

[SkipGear]

Come on; take a pill; the "designation" isn't the issue. Ken is stating a valid point on the poor product he received. Kato gets a serious pass way too often. Yep; they are great; a lot of their stuff is number one but they are not perfect and they are far from infalable...They have been "caught" by some and they need to step it up or risk being "one of the gang"....... I know some will burn me for such a statement; the "Katoites" are everywhere but let's not judge a fair and measured response by a mistake in nomenclature.....really............ >

Wanna splash me for this ?  - knock yourself out..................

Pudd,

You should know me better than that by now. I don't drink the Kato coolaid. As a matter of fact out of 100 or so locos, the only Kato locos I own are 4 Mikados, 1 GS-4, and the UP Heritage SD70ACe's.

The GS-4 is far from my favorite loco. In their effort to push the envelope and improve, Kato made the mechanism too complex. It is a very fragile loco in the wrong hands. If you read my initial review of the loco way back when in the N-trak steam handbook, I flagged it for quite a few things that I would have done different. That said, mine has run flawless for hours on end pulling the whole Daylight set, including add-on cars plus a half dozen extra cars for hours on end on our N-trak club layout. The loco runs fine.

I'm just tired of Ken's relentless attack on Kato and the GS-4, just as I am tired of the people flogging Bachmann, IM, or whoever the whipping horse of the day is. Any time the GS-4 is mentioned, on any forum, he get's out his "axe to grind" and starts sharpening it. Ken, just let it go, you got a lemon. As far as your treatment by Kato customer service, I have never heard a similar experience as your's, ever, so I begin to wonder where the breakdown in communication started.

My first 3 SD70ACE's all had problems, even to the point of missing gears in the trucks. Within a couple days, replacement parts were in my mail box. I don't constantly chastise anybody that want's to buy an ACE now because mine had problems.

All the GS-4 problems I have seen so far come through our shop (which total 3 since the loco has been released) were operator error. Mostly by customer sliding the loco on the rails to re-rail it. You can't do that with this loco, the traction tires are too sticky, something is going to have to give, usually disloging the tire.

[James Costello]

I don't think anyone on this forum drinks the Kato koolaid.....

[FloridaBoy]

Skip,

First, I apologize for the misnomenclature, for I am human and capable of erring, and names at my age often escape me.

Second, you don't know me, so knocking me personally has zero creds.  If you did your homework, you would see that I am an active participant on forums since 2002, and in that time, I have knocked only 2 products, which by comparison is pale to many others.  In 2003, I rapped the Model Power Pacific, which led to a nation wide boycott of the first production and significant improvements on later runs. The other is the Kato GS4 which was a nightmare in itself.  Note I stick to the issue and not knock other people just because they disagree with me.   

I will probably agree that my axe that I ground is ground up a lot, but if you are tired of reading it, just simply don't read it.  I am continuing my raps because I had very high expectations of Kato's routine quality, but ended up getting a Northern worse-built than old Bachmanns.  At least old Bachmann Northerns jsf all drivers geared.  Second, it cost a lot of money. Third it didn't last a lap. Fourth, Kato has yet to buy into any glitches this loco has and defends it, despite their population market acknowledges some of its shortcomings.

Sure, I will go off on this loco, and when Kato makes a better platform for this highly desired steamer, I will shut up. 

You also read what you wanted to read and ignored the gist of my message.  I endorse practically all of their locos, and out of my fleet of 25+ years and 650 locos, the majority are Kato produced and/or powered.  I think I earned the right to identify a bad apple, or in their words a very tempermental locomotive.

I don't want to be responsible for turning this otherwise interesting thread into a Kato rap, so this is my final post.  I expect to be flogged by a few for my opinion, it comes with the territory.

Ken "FloridaBoy" Willaman   

[One of One-Sixty]

Into the Iron Maiden with you!!!   ;D

[Dave V]

I may be mixing up my steam locos here, but wasn't the Reading T1 similar in design to a PRR loco (not the PRR T1)?

Nope.  The T1 was a 4-8-4, a wheel arrangement the Pennsy never owned.  Moreover, the T1s used the famous Wooten firebox, whereas almost every Pennsy steam locomotive used a Bellpaire.  Cabs, tenders, smokebox fronts, etc. were all dramatically different between the Reading and the PRR.

Incidentally, the T1s were built by splicing together obsolete 2-8-0s.

[Ed Kapuscinski]

I think he's confusing the RDG T1 with the C&O T1, which was the basis for the PRR's J1s.

[DaveB]

Nope.  The T1 was a 4-8-4, a wheel arrangement the Pennsy never owned.  Moreover, the T1s used the famous Wooten firebox, whereas almost every Pennsy steam locomotive used a Bellpaire.  Cabs, tenders, smokebox fronts, etc. were all dramatically different between the Reading and the PRR.

Incidentally, the T1s were built by splicing together obsolete 2-8-0s.

IIRC Pennsy had a 4-8-4, but it was electric, not steam.  It was the R1 prototype that was considered along with the GG1, which of course was the one that they went with.

[FrankCampagna]

IIRC Pennsy had a 4-8-4, but it was electric, not steam.  It was the R1 prototype that was considered along with the GG1, which of course was the one that they went with.

Terminology for electrics. The electric equivalent of a 4-8-4 was 2-D-2, I believe.

Frank

[Dave V]

IIRC Pennsy had a 4-8-4, but it was electric, not steam.  It was the R1 prototype that was considered along with the GG1, which of course was the one that they went with.

I was guessing we were talking about steam.  So technically the PRR did not own any reciprocating steam locomotives of the 4-8-4 wheel arrangement.  Point is, Ed's probably right, the confusion is over which T1 we're talking about.  The PRR J1 class was an almost exact match to the C&O T1 2-10-4.

Incidentally, J1s usually did not work east of Altoona on the PRR because they would not clear the duckunders on the western flyovers for Rockville Bridge to gain access to Enola.

[Packer]

I think he's confusing the RDG T1 with the C&O T1, which was the basis for the PRR's J1s.

That's probably it. Steam locos aren't exactly my strong suit.

[DaveB]

I was guessing we were talking about steam.  So technically the PRR did not own any reciprocating steam locomotives of the 4-8-4 wheel arrangement.  ....

Fair enough. I just find it interesting that Pennsy used the same letter classifications for steam and electric.  R was 4-8-4 (or 2-D-2), whether steam or electric.  There was also an electric equivalent to the Hudson, the P1.

[sirenwerks]

I think he's confusing the RDG T1 with the C&O T1, which was the basis for the PRR's J1s.

Well, actually, when I said T1 I was referring to Arnold (as in gov of Cali)