Intermountain f unit improvements?

[cgw277]

Hello:
Can anyone comment on the improvements Intermountain has made to their latest run of f units? I was wondering about the new drive train and the body shells that sit at the correct height now.
I know the Intermountain/Kato body shell heights have been discussed here in a previous thread, but the fact that intermountain body shells appear to sit so high has always  been a major turn off. Looking at visible metal contact strips above the trucks just doesn't look realistic to me. If  body shell ride height has been corrected, I will re consider.
Thanks
Scot

[kiwi_al]

I haven't done these modifications on my F Units but here's a link, look for mark.hinds post.

https://www.therailwire.net/forum/index.php?topic=49574.msg663877#msg663877

[GM50 4164]

Though not as noticable of a gap as their SD40-2's, I feel there is a very small difference between the Kato and Intermountain locomotives with their latest F7 release. I am completely satisfied with this release versus the 40-2. The trucks are slightly smaller compared to the ones on the Kato F7 as well. There by allowing more of a gap shown on the Intermountain F7.

[Ed Kapuscinski]

Keep in mind, the Kato SD40-2 actually rides too low.

Well, not really, but the sill is too thick, and we've all just accepted it as "right". Because of that, other models look too high to us.

I wonder if the F Units have something similar going on.

[sizemore]

IMHO the IM F units sit like 4x4's with a 6" lift. I think this is also compounded by the body being shorter (height) on IM units (at least first run). I am pretty sure there was few if any changes to the body -it was all under the hood, however I haven't taken out the micrometer to get details to compare first and second runs.

HTH,
The S.

[thomasjmdavis]

According to my genuine really cheap Chinese made caliper, the (early run) IM unit is about 0.10" less in length than the Kato. As to height, the tallest I have are old Katos (early run F7s) which are 0.06 taller than the early IM. The newest Katos I have (DCC ready- in my case, the ATSF modified F-3s) ride about 0.10 lower than the (early run) IM.

I've never been able to put my finger on the "why", but the Kato shell has always looked a little more like a real F unit to my eyes.

[mark.hinds]

Hello:
Can anyone comment on the improvements Intermountain has made to their latest run of f units? I was wondering about the new drive train and the body shells that sit at the correct height now.
I know the Intermountain/Kato body shell heights have been discussed here in a previous thread, but the fact that intermountain body shells appear to sit so high has always  been a major turn off. Looking at visible metal contact strips above the trucks just doesn't look realistic to me. If  body shell ride height has been corrected, I will re consider.
Thanks
Scot

IMHO, the sort of answer you should be looking for here is one where someone actually carefully measured the height of the car body roof above the railhead, which should be very close to 14 scale feet, per dimensioned scale plans.  I don't see any such responses to your OP yet...  The Kato F-units are the correct 14 foot height, so maybe someone could photograph a Kato back-to-back with a recent-type IMR, to give you a rough idea.  EDIT:  @GM504164's image has significant parallax distortion (too close), isn't back-to-back, and seems to imply that the new IMR F-units lower than the Kato, meaning that they are too low.  So a better image would be helpful. 

I'd do this for you, but I only own the older 15-foot-above-railhead IMR F-units (which is why I had to lower them). 

[GM50 4164]

My apologies with the photos, why didn't I think of that! 🙄

OK, I have take the photos with a n scale ruler and for some reason every time I upload the photos they are upside down. Strangest thing. I have gone and flipped them upside down in my gallery before sending them thinking it would flip them back when I upload but they remain upside down.

[Mark5]

One question that I seem to recall in the 10,000 prior comparisons to the somewhat old Kato tooling is the actual dimension from the bottom of the carbody to the roof line. I vaguely recall that the IM shell is closer, but this is a vague recollection. 

[peteski]

OK, I have take the photos with a n scale ruler and for some reason every time I upload the photos they are upside down. Strangest thing.

Welcome to a fun world of computers.  Here is the explanation: https://www.therailwire.net/forum/index.php?topic=53677.0

[GM50 4164]

Welcome to a fun world of computers.  Here is the explanation: https://www.therailwire.net/forum/index.php?topic=53677.0

That's what makes it strange, I've been emailing myself the pictures and then uploading from the PC. Still flipped lol

[GM50 4164]

Let's try this again shall we?

[mark.hinds]

One question that I seem to recall in the 10,000 prior comparisons to the somewhat old Kato tooling is the actual dimension from the bottom of the carbody to the roof line. I vaguely recall that the IM shell is closer, but this is a vague recollection. 

Since the OP refers to whether "body shells" "sit at the right height", he would appear to be interested in the height of the whole model, rather than the height of just the car body.  So he's looking for rail head to roofline height (s/b a bit over 14 scale feet, derived from the full-scale height of 14 foot - 1/2 inch). 

[wm3798]

Guys, guys....  It's N scale.  The mechanism has to work, that's priority ONE.  If the calipers tell you that the proportions are off even a tiny bit, it's because the damn thing works.
When you're standing next to the layout with a bourbon in your hand, and the trains are whirring around the loop at speed, three feet away without a hitch, does it really matter a rat's patoot that there's a micro millimeter of light visible between the truck and the shell if, and only if, you're laying on the layout with one eye pinched shut?
If you're worried about your photographic efforts being sullied by such an afront, perhaps you should take some time and build a layout.

And let's not overlook the major gaffe which is the nose herald on the WM RWB unit if you want to bellyache about something you can actually see...

Sheesh.

You waited 12 years for the last run of F units from Intermountain.  12 years.  They aren't in a hurry to bend to your will.
Lee

[thomasjmdavis]

I agree with most of what you said, but it can't be that we've waited 12 years- IM remodeled their chassis in 2014 when they went to wires instead of little brass "feet" for the connections between the brush caps and circuit board/decoder. So...it's only 10 years.