On the left... hailing from Tucson, Arizona and weighing in at 5.5 oz (96 kg)... the reigning champion of the GS-4 class.... the one, the only..... ConCor GS-4 On the right... hailing from Schauberg, Illinois and also weighing in at 5.5 oz (96 kg)... the new top contender in the GS-4 class... the Kato GS-4. I'll let the audience do the play by play analysis of the bout in terms of: 1) Overall appearance (color, dimensions etc) 2) Running quality (various common measure of performance) 3) Level of detail (correct location, missing or inappropriate details) 4) Intangibles (trust in manufacturer, life expectancy etc) I'll withhold my analysis until I see comments from others who have both of these engines. Did I just hear someone say this is like a fight between Tiny Tim and Kimbo Slice?
Just looking at that photo makes the ConCors rods look like they came off a switch engine, compared to the rods of the Kato, that look like they mean business.
I just weighed the two engines and... while I thought the ConCor engine was heavier... the digital scale indicated that both are 5.5 oz (96 kg). I was asked about doing a tractor pull with both of these engines... I'll pass on that one.
Is this thread really necessary? ConCor vs. Kato - what a mismatch. Let's not forget the MSRP of the two. Better quality at a lower price, this is a no brainer.
I think your metric conversion is a bit out, 96 kg (kilograms) equals about 212 pounds, 5.5 oz converts to about 156 grams or .156 kg. Even from that distance in a photo there's no contest, I always thought the ConCor rods looked ridiculous, seeing them next to what they should look like they're even worse. I hope Kato continue making steam engines for us to compare with others.
Hmmmm... I wonder what that number was I read? Well... we now know how much I learned of metric measurements in school... :embarrassed: I was reading the measurement off of a digital scale and pressed the button for metric weight and thats was I think I read. Let me check again. Yep... I obviously need to get new eyeglasses... it reads 158 grams for the Kato GS-4. The scale indicates "Kg/Lb" on the conversion button... well... I showed my ignorance of metrics. :huh: Of course... I could have said that I was weighing it on the planet Mercury... ... but then... I really don't know anything about the gravitational effects on Mercury either!!! Let me just stick to model trains... I know just a little more about them.
Driver comparisons This is the Kato GS-4 drive wheel and rod configuration: > > This is the ConCor GS-4 drive wheel and rod configuration: And... this is what happens in your science class when you accidentally miscalculate kilograms for grams..... I think I see a GS-4 in there....
I'm not typically a rivet counter but someone has to notice. The rivets and detailing on the ConCor appears to be better. Weighing in at the same weight that can't be a good thing. My GS4 ConCor (before I ran the traction tires through WD40) pulled 20 passenger cars up my 2% grades. A mix of Rivarossi, ConCor and Kato passenger cars. Now I'm lucky to get ten cars up the grades. I agree with Jerry, the side rods on the Kato do look like they mean business. This may be a first but I've yet to operate a steam locomotive where the side rods had enough punch to drive the locomotive. I will be standing by to hear from those of you who own the GS4 to share your findings. One thing about Kato, they usually set the standard for pulling power and smooth operation. We shall see if that's the case...this time around. Have fun!
I pulled out both engines this weekend at DesPlaines Hobbies (I can't justify a GS4 for my midwestern Galesburg & Savanna so will not be buying one). The Con-Cor locomotive holds up very well. Overall dimensions and proportions are very close. There are differerent renderings of various details which would require a comparision with published plans and photographs to determine which are closer to the prototype. The Kato has the Train Indicator Number Boards in the middle position while the Con-Cor has them next to the stack. The largest difference between the two is the diameter of the boiler and overall width... the Con-Cor is bigger in these aspects. I believe that, for future purchasers, the Kato will edge out the Con-Cor because of the newer, more advanced mechanism. But for those that have the Con-Cor on their roster already they can continue to work alongside any Katos that are added to the railroad without feeling intimidated. For a locomotive that was designed 25 years ago and tooled over ten years ago the Con-Cor holds up very well to its Japanese cousin. Charlie Vlk
Rick, I thought it was just me. Maybe it is just the picture but the rivits do look finer on the CC version. Still think I'll stick with the Kato though.
Though I own neither, and have not seen them close up except for photos, the CC's appearance to me is a little better. I think though, that the real clincher for the Kato is the price point.
The train number board was located adjacent to the smokestack, originally. It was moved to a more central location after WWII, 1946-1947. Thus the CC model is an as built version and the Kato is a post war version. However the CC loco appears to have the same paint scheme as the Kato. The as built loco should have the name "Southern Pacific Lines" in much smaller letters located in the upper red stripe. The post war scheme of "Southern Pacific" in large letters located in the orange stripe is correct for the Kato version. Kato makes a similar mistake with the triple unit diner. Kato modeled the as built 1941 version of the car. Namely, it includes a small square window on the forward end of the coffee shop car for a crew washroom. The washroom was removed and replaced by a storage locker and the window plated over during the post war shopping 1946-1947 of these cars. Thus the window would not be there when the car was painted in the version Kato did. It would only be appropriate for the car to have on the name board "Southern Pacific Lines" and still have the window. Neither mistake is very bothersome to me, but they are there.
The both look good but I give the edge to Kato. The side rods on the kato replacates the roller bearing unit that the prototype had. Rob
I believe the photo of the Kato is closer in and there is a lot more flash glare so the rivets seem larger. Regardless, the valve gear and pilot truck are correct on the Kato while the ones on the Con Cor are carry overs from the tooling for the S-2 Northern and are not correct.
I just got my GS-4 today, and I've already had the concor next to the Kato. I don't have a GS-4 CC, only the warbaby (which is wrong in its own right, as the warbaby's didn't have 80" drivers, but the smaller 73" drivers). The detail on the skyline casting as well as rivit detail are better on the CC. The applied details are better on the Kato, and it also has more of them wheras the CC has the items molded on. The boiler is definatly larger on the CC as well as the the slope of the skyline casting is greater on the CC. The Kato tender does a better job of detailing the overall oil bunker, and various electrical fittings, the CC does a better job with the oil bunker fittings themselves. The pilot on the Kato is the clear winner here. I have noticed that Kato molded the fittings under the skirts, will anyone be carefully cutting these off?. Both locomotives run at mach 3 at top speed. Overall, the kato wins, but neither are perfect in their execution.
I like the Kato rods better. They even got the star thingies on the axle ends. I do like the white rims on the CC model and they make the CC model look better under the 3 ft rule. I was always tempted to get a CC model but the $250 prices steered me away.
A while back, I put a series of 4 1.6V diodes inline with the motor of my CC GS-3 to keep it somewhat under control since it likes to break the N scale sound barrier, well as chance would have it, it doubleheads nearly perfectly with the Kato GS-4. Who would have known!! Plus with the cruddy lightboard design that CC did, the single headlight also blinks like a Mars Light!!! Gotta fix that one.
Did CC model the "warbaby" off the GS-3 or GS-6? If it was the GS-3, the driver size is correct:tb-wink:, But, it would not be a true "warbaby." As GS-2,3,4,5 kept their skirts during WWII, just painted black,.
