F3 Face-off: IM vs. Kato

Warbonnet-Fan Sep 2, 2005

  1. Warbonnet-Fan

    Warbonnet-Fan TrainBoard Member

    378
    0
    16
    Since Intermountain's new F3s arrrived, therre have been many discussion threads on their advantages or disadvantages compared to Kato's offering. This thread is offered as a detailed, objective, side-by-side comparison with Kato's 1996 release.

    Please bear in mind, there have been minor revisions made by Kato for their most recent F3 release, but I didn't have the newer loco to compare. Sorry, but it's not like they send me free stuff to compare, and I can't buy them all! Also, my Katos have been slightly improved (weathering, added wipers, silver Kato couplers instead of the big MTs on the pilots, Unimate couplers between the units).

    My rather crude addition of a second headlight underscores the fact the Katos were built with just one headlight, which is how the first units arrived on the Santa Fe. Within months, the second headlight was added by the shops.

    [​IMG]

    Okay, here are the photos: IM is always on the left and/or below, Kato on the right and/or top. Gentlemen, pull down your Optivisors and let's see how they compare!

    [​IMG]

    Both models have the extended parabola (red headress)used in the early F3 deliveries to the Santa Fe.

    [​IMG]

    Both are great looking units. The new IMs are a brighter red, which look more accurate for the Santa Fe warbonnet. Kato's truck relief is slightly better, with superior brake cylinder and brake hanger relief. The IM trucks are painted, which is a huge plus for prototypes with silver trucks, like the ATSF and WP. Marty told me they were pulling their hair out figuring out how to get the paint to adhere to the plastic sideframes, but image-conscious roads like the Santa Fe kept their sideframes fresh and bright...a nice touch very much worth the extra effort!

    The IM steps are finer, and the yellow is a bit brighter shade than the mustard-yellow on the Katos. The end of the stripe below the warbonnet's red 'headress' parabola should be round like the IM units, not slightly pointed as on the Kato units.

    [​IMG]

    The added detail on the IMs sets them off well, but examining these photos gave me a new respect for Kato's die work. The Kato glazing is a better finish, but is recessed slightly behind the window sill, where the IM glass is flush. The disadvantage with the IMs is that you see the red dash behind the glass, where the Katos have no dash...making their window openings completely dark. The fix is to remove the glass and paint the dash green, which takes away the 'squinting' appearance of the IM windshields. I did this with my FTs, and it paid off, but it's a bit tricky to pull of. Too bad they don't paint the dash green!

    [​IMG]

    The horns on the IM units both had minor deformities, the Kato horns are cleaner and better represented. I love the separate handrails on the IM units, and the overall finish is crisper. Note how clean the yellow/red mask is on the top of the nose on the IM unit, compared to the Kato. Outstanding!

    [​IMG]

    The Katos have slightly crisper end detail, not that you see it much! Body mounted couplers on the IMs are a huge plus.

    Stay tuned, more to come in the next post... :D
     
  2. Warbonnet-Fan

    Warbonnet-Fan TrainBoard Member

    378
    0
    16
    F3 Face-off continued:

    [​IMG]

    The radiator grill award goes to Kato. Both look good, but for reasons explained in later photos, the IM fans are a bit, well, odd. Both have good relief. There is a general rough texture to some areas in the IM tooling. The Kato surfaces are all silkly smooth, with wonderful tooling.

    [​IMG]

    This shot shows how fine the rivet detail is on the roof and sides compared to Kato's tooling. You have to really look to see them, and the light has to be just so. While they are harder to see, they are more realistic in my opinion...you wouldn't notice rivet detail on a locomotive when standing 50 feet away from it!

    IM's steam generator looks more like what I am used to seeing on my prototype than the Kato steam generators; also, IM A units don't have them (just like the prototype), unlike Kato's - another plus.

    [​IMG]

    The IM fan shrouds have very subtle facets to them rather than being perfectly round. It's only noticable when you really examine it closely under extreme magnification, but they should be round!

    [​IMG]

    Here's the shot that sold me: comparison of side grill detail, relief behind the grills, and rivet detail. IM wins here hands down. Very nice effect, which could be further enhanced with some washes to darken the recessed areas a bit.

    [​IMG]

    Both units run very well. In a back-to-back drawbar pull contest (standard DC, spanning block gap) it was pretty much a draw (pun intended). With two MRC Controlmaster 20 power packs, IM won with one power pack, and it was a stalemate stall over the gap with the other pack.

    At 6v, the IMs were rolling along close to a scale 50 mph drawing about 320 milliamps. At 6 v, the Katos moved at about 40 mph drawing over 500 milliamps, which pegged the ammeter.

    The Intermountain units are extremely smooth and quiet, better than the FTs. Someone has done their homework here! One B unit was noteiceably slower than the other three, but perhaps with break-in they will average out closer. The body mounted couplers work great, but coupling distance is too far between units. I will use Unimates to solve this, and the tips on close-coupling will be posted on another thread. I look forward to the day when perhaps we can buy new locomotives without having to screw around with their couplers! :mad:

    My Katos, which have served well, have found a new home in Sydney, Australia...and the IM F3s are pulling my passenger trains. Both are excellent locomotives, I would say the IM tips the scale in overall comparisons, but the Katos are really excellent locomotives in their own right. Of course, the recent Kato release is an even more fomridable competitor.

    Everyone has their preferences, I hope this has been an objective and informative review. [​IMG]
     
  3. WestCoastDon

    WestCoastDon E-Mail Bounces

    33
    0
    13
    Verne,
    Thanks very much for your extensive, informative and well documented (superb photos) 'review' which will allow folks to form their own opinions of what's available.
    The 'new' Kato F3s are pretty much the same shell but with a revised mechanism of couse and different couplers.
    I'm thankful for the choices we now have in the market!

    Thanks again,
    Don :D
     
  4. Flash Blackman

    Flash Blackman TrainBoard Member

    13,326
    499
    149
    Thanks, Verne. Both are very nice engines. Thanks to both IM and kato. [​IMG]
     
  5. Rossford Yard

    Rossford Yard TrainBoard Member

    1,203
    118
    34
    You don't mention how small and coarse the IM front windshields look. To me, many mfg/s have missed the nose and window contours of the F's over the years, and the IM unit fits that category, based on these photos.

    Do they look that way in person?
     
  6. Warbonnet-Fan

    Warbonnet-Fan TrainBoard Member

    378
    0
    16
    Thanks for your comments...

    Jeff, the windshields look better to the eye than in the photos. It's funny, but in the photos, I prefer the Kato windows, but to the eye, I like the IM.

    The plastic is indeed not smooth on the IM glazing, including the windshields. As for being small, that is an illusion created by the inside of the window sill and dashboard inside the windshield. I have a fix for this that I will share, identical to the FTs. It's actually an advantage, nobody else models anything inside the window line in N scale diesels...

    To be honest, I should say that since I wrote this reveiw I have chosen to go with the IM line of Fs. Others could certainly make the opposite choice and give perfectly valid reasons for doing so. Their overall detail, performance and DCC compatibility won me over. This thread is offered not to criticize manufacturers, but to provide a detailed comparison and offer suggestions to manufacturers to improve future releases.
     
  7. NP/GNBill

    NP/GNBill TrainBoard Supporter

    1,087
    232
    30
    Wow thanks for the comparison. I'm in the process of painting an IM ABB set into NP's Lowey passenger scheme. I also have an ABA set of NP Kato F3's. I found that the IM's run a little smoother and quieter, and the detail is certainly better in my opinion. Both are exceptional locomotives, and each person should draw his or her own conclusions.
     
  8. BoxcabE50

    BoxcabE50 HOn30 & N Scales Staff Member TrainBoard Supporter

    67,560
    22,735
    653
    Great review. The side by side photos, and descriptions are superb!

    :D

    Boxcab E50
     
  9. LongTrain

    LongTrain Passed away October 12, 2005 In Memoriam

    803
    0
    19
    I plan to buy some of the IM F3s and F7s that will follow. I'm hoping IM beats MP to market with a decent "hobby grade" FP7, too.

    What blew me away in your photos, Verne is how well a 10 year old model stands up to something brand new. Certainly, those who have the old Katos have nothing to be ashamed of.

    Bottom line, I will buy IM F3s, but I will not be selling the Kato F3s and F7's on my roster.

    While I am on the topic, I cannot resist the urge to point out the broad array of roadnames IM has announced, compared with the typical Kato selection of Santa Fe, UP, BN, and a couple of others. Yeah we had CB&Q, followed by yet another run of Santa Fe. And in the table top trainsets, we had Rio Grande, C&O, UP, EL, CN and two more Santa Fe's, but a single A unit is not very useful for most of the N Scalers I know.

    As long as the mechanisms, paint and detail were reasonably comparable, I would give IM the nod based upon variety and availability.

    One question for you, Verne: for those of us still running NTrak with analog throttles, are the older Kato units and the new IM's reasonably compatible in speed range if MU'ed?

    On the close-coupling: I have converted a large number of closeout FA1s to MT 1015s in the past year, so I have a pill bottle full of the dummy couplers from the nose of my LifeLike carbody units. I put them between an ABBA set of the LifeLikes, just to see what would happen. They not only gave me "closer" coupling than MT 1015s, but they also withstood the draft of a 120 car train across the humpity-bumpities on the NTrak layout. I'm now going back and installing drawbars on the LifeLikes, with the bar secured at the A-unit and a screw-in "post" on the B's, but the LL nose couplers might be an alternative for those other packrats among us who didn't throw them out..... :D
     
  10. traingeekboy

    traingeekboy TrainBoard Member

    5,677
    580
    82
    Thanks for the comparison. I have been dreaming about owning an F unit for a while now and your side by side has helped me decide for sure what one I'll be getting.

    I'm rather impressed with the Kato units. Especially considering they were made a decade before the IM units. I am sure much of the technology that went into the IM was originally developed by kato. i.e. split frame chasis.

    I personally need paint schemes not provided by IM or KATO, so I'll be taking the rattle can to any unit I end up purchasing.

    There are some things such as the pilot brake detail on the IM that despite it's correctness I sort of balk at it. I prefer a clean pilot on my models even if it is unrealistic. The pictures I have seen of F's and the times Ive been up close to them I just overlook those kinds of details. It's like my brain just wants to remember the overall sleekness of shape of the thing.

    Many will probably think i'm a nutbar for thinking this, but on N scale models too much detail can actually detract from the model. I find the separate grabs sort of clunky. They look like they stick out from the body way too far. They also seem slightly overscale. This is just my subjective impression.

    I feel this way about the Bachmann Consol too. It's a nice looking engine but the details are sort of way off scale.

    I think the kato has better rivet detail around the cab door and ladder. But I really like how lean the IM's stirrup steps are.

    I personally gravitate more toward the KATO than the IM. But I also think the Life Like E9 looks better than the Kato E9, I have both. The Kato is probably more to scale but I just prefer something about the life like better. I admit I am an oddball about these things. [​IMG]
     
  11. traingeekboy

    traingeekboy TrainBoard Member

    5,677
    580
    82
    Thanks for the Life like coupler tip. It's worth trying.
     
  12. SecretWeapon

    SecretWeapon Passed away January 23, 2024 In Memoriam

    5,121
    3,788
    103
    Hey Verne,
    Do I smell a preview for another great artical in NSR? :D [​IMG]
     
  13. cf7

    cf7 TrainBoard Member

    435
    14
    22
    Nice job on the comparison Verne! I really like the up-close photos.

    Now if anyone wants to get rid of a Kato F3, dual headlight, cheap, let me know!
     
  14. Powersteamguy1790

    Powersteamguy1790 Permanently dispatched

    10,785
    10
    115
    Verne:

    Thanks for the comparison. I have both Kato (new and old) and IM F-3's.

    I still prefer the Kato mechanism in comparison to the IM.

    Detailing goes to IM, but with added detail parts the Kato F-3's are comparable.

    Stay cool and run steam..... [​IMG] :cool: :cool:
     
  15. Warbonnet-Fan

    Warbonnet-Fan TrainBoard Member

    378
    0
    16
    Thanks for your comments, guys...

    Kirk Reddie has pretty much indicated he doesn't plan to run detailed product reviews...so this stuff is for my fellow Trainboard friends. Poor attitudes on the 'big board' have driven all future detailing clinics here. I will be starting a new thread on improving F3s, and hope others here contribute as well!

    Bob, the gearing is very different between the Katos and the IMs, the Katos draw tons of amperage and just won't slow down until you practically close the throttle. Momentum comes as standard equipment! Because of this, I wouldn't recommend it, but perhaps you would have better success at this! [​IMG]

    FWIW, I have a number of custom detailed ATSF Freight F7s for sale on my website at very reasonable prices! Jason from down under picked up the ABBA set featured in this comparison. He seems to be quite happy with them, if he will ever quit photographing his SP cab forward! :D Someone needs to get a hold of him and talk him out of STRIPPING the warbonnet paint off of them to repaint in SP black widow. [​IMG] [​IMG] That somehow just seems morally and ethically wrong, and an offense against the gods of the high iron... [​IMG]

    [ September 02, 2005, 12:40 PM: Message edited by: Warbonnet-Fan ]
     
  16. NorsemanJack

    NorsemanJack TrainBoard Member

    2,264
    946
    51
    I'll add my thanks for the photos/review Verne. If the IM F3's are anything like their FT's, I'll be very pleased with them.

    I may be in the minority, but given a choice between a) body mounted MT couplers and b) out-of-the-box close coupling; I'll take the later hands down. I wish IM had re-used their drawbar design from the FT's with these units. I'm also a bit concerned about the persistent reports of coupler problems and A unit shells that won't fully seat on the IM's, but I'm sure they'll get that resolved.

    As a CB&Q fan, I had the unexpected luxury of choosing between Kato and IM for the passenger version F3's; I went with the Kato units. Of course, for the "greyback" freight versions, IM will be the only game in town and I'll gladly pick up an ABBA set.

    Has anyone MU'd these yet with their IM FT's? Hopefully, the mechanisms (motor/gearing) are identical so that we can assemble some of those late era strings of mixed era F units. [​IMG]
     
  17. Pete Nolan

    Pete Nolan TrainBoard Supporter

    10,587
    237
    125
    Thanks for the review, Verne. I can't wait to start fiddling with Pennsy units, when released.
     
  18. verse2damax

    verse2damax TrainBoard Supporter

    1,079
    23
    27
    I have the IM FT A&B units on the way, what's your take on them? Have you done like a pulling test against the F3s? Let me know.

    I have this PA1 and that engine has crazy pulling power.

    [​IMG]

    Here it is face to face with it's rear end.
     
  19. NP/GNBill

    NP/GNBill TrainBoard Supporter

    1,087
    232
    30
    Norsman, I mu'd My NP Lowey Passenger Scheme IM F3A with some of my FT's and they worked perfectly. Also ran well with a MT FT set.
     
  20. LongTrain

    LongTrain Passed away October 12, 2005 In Memoriam

    803
    0
    19
    In track testing with my B&M FT's I pulled 90 cars on a relatively level NTrak layout (the only grade rises at a .75% rate across 4 modules - about 20 feet of track distance - just enough to drag them down to a crawl. With a LL split frame BL2 on the point, I pulled all the cars I had with me that day: 125 - and they could have pulled more. The IM FTs are the only locos I own that will out-pull my LifeLike Alcos.

    Some of the big modern Kato locos are good pullers, but for early stuff, the Kato PA and the LL Erie-builts are probably hard to beat. I don't own either loco, so I cannot give you a head to head comparison on the same train, but I bet the IM FT would give either loco a run for its money. Perhaps someone who has all 3 will post a TE comparison between a Kato PA, a LL Erie-built, and an IM FT?

    For Kato F's, I got you covered, though:

    I have an ABA of the mid-1990's release of Kato Santa Fe freight F7s. I've pulled 102 cars with the 3 units. They cannot pull 105 cars without slipping, so I cut them back to 102. The train is a solid train of 40' reefers with ice hatches. The MT reefers are slighly heavier than the standard MT 40' box cars I use for TE testing. In my own testing, the IM FTs are better pullers by quite a bit. If the F3s pull as well as my FTs, it is no contest.

    The recent DCC-friendly Kato units typically don't pull as well as the early Kato units. It takes 4 of the new ones to pull a train you can handle with 3 of the old ones.

    PS, I need to remind you of 2 things about my TE ratings. The number of cars I provided is the number the units can start without help, and pull at drag speed without slipping. So I'm not push-starting them, nor am I "flying" them over the challenging parts of the layout with the momentum of the train. If I say 90 cars - that means my loco started 90 cars and pulled them at 15-30 scale mph without slipping anywhere on the layout. I load them up until they slip, and then remove 2 or 3 cars and retest. The number quoted is also the number of cars pulled after the unit is broken in, and the blackening is worn off the wheel treads.
     

Share This Page