FYI IM FP-7's now out.

[davefoxx]

Kudos to Intermountain for taking responsibility for an error and making it right for their customers.  Since I recognize that mistakes sometimes happen, I won't be upset with a manufacturer if they timely fix the problem.  Intermountain will still get my business.

Dave

[pedro]

IM said they were "sorry" ...

Here's one of my FP7s nose to nose with a Kato E8:

As with all IM F series units, I like the etched side panels (when they're not wavy) with the visible frame members behind, but I can't get past the important part, which is the overall "look" of the EMD covered wagon. Kato Es and Fs (and MTL's FT) are still the only ones who have it right in my opinion. I know it's a highly subjective area; just like color, everyone is going to see it a little bit different.  I just don't like the way the IM units look. And the air between the trucks and the body plus the highly visible contact strip is a major distraction. Crooked shells that don't sit right and the vast coupling distances between units have been a problem from the very first FT to the latest FP. Look at the height of the fuel tank and the 1.5" pipe grabs and railings. I can't get past those things. I'll take my almost 20-year old Katos with their molded on details.

It is nice to have FPs and yes, Kato should still be criticized for lack of availability and lack of paint scheme variety, but the above picture really brings home IM's execution problems to my eye.

Pete D.

[Mark5]

Crap, I shoulda posted the FP7 nose to nose with one of my Kato F7s ...

[Cajonpassfan]

A question about these: I recognize the FP A unit is longer than the F3/7 to accommodate boilers, but are the B units identical? That is, could I plop an older IM F3/7 shell onto a new IM FP B unit chassis? (IM just sent out an announcement to release additional FP sets, in new schemes, and I'm thinking the new DCC sound equipped B unit mechanism could be used to convert some of my older, legacy IM units)?
Otto K.

[arbomambo]

As with all IM F series units, I like the etched side panels (when they're not wavy) with the visible frame members behind, but I can't get past the important part, which is the overall "look" of the EMD covered wagon. Kato Es and Fs (and MTL's FT) are still the only ones who have it right in my opinion. I know it's a highly subjective area; just like color, everyone is going to see it a little bit different.  I just don't like the way the IM units look. And the air between the trucks and the body plus the highly visible contact strip is a major distraction. Crooked shells that don't sit right and the vast coupling distances between units have been a problem from the very first FT to the latest FP. Look at the height of the fuel tank and the 1.5" pipe grabs and railings. I can't get past those things. I'll take my almost 20-year old Katos with their molded on details.

It is nice to have FPs and yes, Kato should still be criticized for lack of availability and lack of paint scheme variety, but the above picture really brings home IM's execution problems to my eye.


I couldn't agree more...
I love that IM decided to detail their units to a high degree, but I just can't get around the contours of their F units bulldog nose...
Bruce

Pete D.

[davefoxx]

A question about these: I recognize the FP A unit is longer than the F3/7 to accommodate boilers, but are the B units identical? That is, could I plop an older IM F3/7 shell onto a new IM FP B unit chassis? (IM just sent out an announcement to release additional FP sets, in new schemes, and I'm thinking the new DCC sound equipped B unit mechanism could be used to convert some of my older, legacy IM units)?
Otto K.

Otto,

There is no such thing as an FP7B.  Those booster units are F7Bs, whether sold by EMD in conjunction with F7As or FP7s.  You should be able to swap the IM bodies on your models.

Hope this helps,
DFF

[Cajonpassfan]

That's what I thought, but wanted to make sure. Since my roads didn't own any FP's, I haven't paid much attention to them before. Having a swappable mech sure seems useful.
Thank you for the confirmation.
Otto K.

[gdmichaels]

So A-Units can be F7 for FP7 but B-Units are always F7-B?

[davefoxx]

So A-Units can be F7 for FP7 but B-Units are always F7-B?

Yes,  there's the F7A, the FP7 (which was four feet longer than the F7 to add room for water tanks), and the F7B (which was a booster used with both F7As and FP7s).  By the way, the same holds true for F9s and FP9s.

In short, there is no such thing as an FP7B or an FP9B.  This is because the B-units, lacking a cab, already had sufficient space for additional water tanks and steam generators, if a railroad so desired, so they didn't need the additional four feet added to their length.

DFF

[brokemoto]

There were a few standard length F-7s that had steam generators.  Minneapolis and St. Louis had a few.

When ALCo put out the FA-1, it did advertise that there was room in the B unit for the steam generator.  I do not know if any railroad bought any FB-1s with a steam generator, but it was available.

For you EMD experts, on the passenger FT, was the steam generator in the B unit, only?   Could this be the source of ATSF practice where its F units had no steam generator in the A units, but only in the B-units? .........or did ATSF not start that practice until the F-3s?

B&O had some A-A pairs of dual service geared F-3s where one had the steam generator, the other the water tanks.   As the railroad needed fewer and fewer passenger locomotives, they were used more on freight, so it did not matter that the pairs were separated.   I do not know if the railroad ever removed either the water tanks or the steam generators.

[Cajonpassfan]

For you EMD experts, on the passenger FT, was the steam generator in the B unit, only?   Could this be the source of ATSF practice where its F units had no steam generator in the A units, but only in the B-units? .........or did ATSF not start that practice until the F-3s?

I'm certainly no EMD expert, but I do know my Santa Fe pretty well
ATSF tested one of its FT freight sets (167 LABC) in passenger service in early '46. It did so well that ten additional four-unit sets were converted for transcon passenger service (158-166 LABC). This involved installation of boilers and water tanks in B units, regearing to 95mph, and of course new "Warbonnet" paint jobs. The F3's and F7's that came later followed the same pattern started with the FT's, boilers in B units only. That's why on the ATSF one would not see AA or ABA passenger F unit sets, though ABBA's and ABB's were common.
Otto K.