I noticed on the Kato website that the road number
of its new N-Scale GG-1 is 4935.
http://www.katousa.com/N/GG1/index.html
The original now resides at the RR Museum of PA.
http://www.rrmuseumpa.org/about/roster/gg1.htm
http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=61935
Dave
Beautiful looking model, here’s hopping that it comes out in HO scale eventually as well.It’s a good choice of prototype I think because alot of people like the GG1 and there are alot of Pennsy fans as well should be a win-win for everyone.
Rob
Truly a remarkable locomotive, in the article it states these were basically 2 locomotives in one shell, and later some were cut in 1/2 and called GG1-1/2’s is that true??? does anyone have a photo of the GG-1/2 .
The so-called GG1/2 was a one of a kind animal. It was used in the Wilmington shops (where it was created) as a snowmelter to keep the all of the track switches clear of snow and ice.
-George
Rob, the GG1 is already offered in HO by three different manufacturers: IHC, BLI, and Trix. Those last two have DCC and sound.
Previous to the Kato announcement the bast one could do in N was the old Arnold/Rapido GG1. While a good model at the time it was made in the 70s (it could be run off of overhead catenary), it suffers from a number of ailments common to older N scale locos. I have one. It tracks poorly, it has overly deep flanges, has poor electrical pickup, and isn’t DCC-friendly. All those issues are forgivable in the context of when the model was designed, but it doesn’t hold up well in this day and age when N scale is expected to run just as well as HO.
The Kato GG1 announcement is… well, I can hardly contain myself! I CAN’T WAIT!!!
The HO market is saturated. The Rivarossi which is still a fine running engine has been out for over thirty years. Pemco did a cheaper version that runs ok. IHC still offers it with one or two motors. BLI offers it with sound and DCC. Marklin is offering one. It has been done in brass several times. I have 28 GG1’s but then I am modeling the corridor and freights that use 2-3 apiece are what are causing the large numbers. I have to say that the higher priced ones just aren’t worth it in my opinion. This isn’t like a steam engine. It is a smooth body with no detail that doesn’t justify the expense. It is very easy to add the missing steps under the carbody at the doors and there is plenty of room to add sound and a decoder. Sound seems like an overkill to me on this engine. It hummed in service, ran where there were no grade crossings and blew its horn infrequently at best. It would be a mistake for Kato to do this engine in HO in my opinion. What could they possibly add to what has been done?
Not quite so. It is only recently that all of the grade crossings (and there were many) on the NEC have been removed. Back in the day, the horn of the GG1s got quite a work out.
Also remember that in freight service the Gs ran on secondary low grade routes like the Atglen and Susquehana, the Port Road and the Trenton Cut-off - all of which had grade crossings.
An authentic good sounding horn would be a good addition to a GG-1 in any scale.
-George
I may have to respectfully disagree with a very minor point. I may be wrong, but I don’t believe the Atglen and Susquehanna Low Grade Line had a single grade crossing. Every road it crossed, it crossed above grade on a stone arch, a concrete overpass, or a steel bridge (the ones at Safe Harbor and Martic Forge), or ducked under an underpass. Southern Lancaster County is pretty rugged, so the line was always in a cut or on a fill, except for where it paralleled the mainline from Atglen to Parkesburg.
I’ve traced the A&S line in person and via arial photos as I’ve considered modeling it. My father’s cousin has a farm just a few miles up Marticville Road from the A&S. I remember when Conrail still used it. Now it’s abandoned… Sad. Such a well-engineered line, too.
But I know the Philly-Harrisburg main had at least two grade crossings in Lancaster County; one at Irishtown Road and another at Eby Chiques Road.
Not sure about how many grade crossings are on the Trenton Cut-off. I know the P&T (Philadelphia and Thorndale) lies abandoned from THORN Interlocking to Whiteford, but the Cut-off is still active.
Another place for grade-crossings for the elctrified lines is on the west side of the Susquehanna from the Shock’s Mills bridge along the York Haven Secondary to Enola. There still are a number of grade crossings on that line, though nowadays the catenary poles are devoid of their wires.
Its a shame about the low grade routes. When I was growing up we used to ride our bikes down to Whitford Station to watch trains - but even back then the Whitford bridge only had one track on it - the other had been removed. Later, when my sister got married she moved into a house just down the road from Thorndale. I never complained when my folks wanted to go visit her! [(-D]
At one time I had planned to model the Columbia and Port Depost.
Small world, eh? (uh, pun intended!)
-George
Hey Dave yup I know but for some of us the sounds ( I prefer making my own LOL [(-D] not really ) not so important.I would think that the Kato will come in cheaper than the two sound equiped ones and will look alot nicer than the IHC one and be as detailed as the other two ( less said about it the better )A good friend coined the phrase that the cost of the Trixx and Broadway one could gag a healthy maggot. Still I’m a juice lover so the more the merrier [tup]
Hopefully they retool and use proper flanges,overhead operation is fine but alot of people don’t like stringing the catenery at least live stuff a little built in switch which allows for both modes of pick-up rail and overhead would be the best sollution. Spectrum’s done that with their recent Peter Witt streetcar in HO it aas the little dip switch on the underframe which is not visible accept when you flip it over. My experiance with N is limited but at least the Arnold stuff had decent overall looks from what I could tell dated by today’s standards to be sure but I’m sure that they are a worthy satrting point for a new model.
Rob