Locomotive aesthetics

Triplex

Active Member
Call me shallow, but aesthetics is a big part of the appeal of railroads and modelling. I've studied my own reactions to locomotives particularly - almost have it down to a science. Unfortunately, that means that I can't summarize them. It would take a small book. Maybe I'll post some of that when I have more time.

Anyway, I don't recall this forum having a thread like this recently, so...

Which locomotives are attractive or just "look right" to you? And which are completely the opposite? And why? Ignore paint schemes if you can.
 

pgandw

Active Member
Any GP diesel without a high short hood is plain ugly, IMHO. I guess that locks me into the early years of diesels, which is fine by me.

There are a few steamers with ugly proportions.

But there is nothing prettier than an 1870s 4-4-0 coming through the woods with 4-5 varnished open platform passenger cars.

just my opinion
 

steamhead

Active Member
Steamers..??...A Y6...It's so monstrous...it's beautiful..!!
Diesel...F3's...Beautifully proportioned with just the right dose of "streamlining"....
 

shaygetz

Active Member
:thumb:An N&W Y6b, massive ugly that's just too cool, any shay because of their monkey motions and GG1s because of their "State of the Art Deco" look.

Amtrak's GE P42DCs:cry:...just what were they thinking---or---when Congress streamlines a locomotive, it looks like it's still in the box.
 

Mountain Man

Active Member
The designs of Henry Dreyfuss remain the most classic for locos at any time. No offense to you modern guys, but diesels just don't have it.
 

ytter_man

Member
The appearance of a locomotive and its function are closely related to me.

A 4-8-4 pulling a log train would look very stupid and odd to me, as would a shay pulling a passenger train (unless it were some old broken down combines).

Diesels can haul most anything, and probably have, which is why i tend to stay away from them. If it's diesel for me, it's probably a shortline engine or a switcher.

However, that doesnt mean i cant appreciate covered wagons pulling a streamliner at full speed!

This is something modern high-dollar tourist railroads probably should take into account. The Rocky Mountaineer in Canada, for instance. Those spartan cabs just dont look right, i've seen it like that throughout my childhood, and i think they need to invest in the restoration of some C-liners or E-units. It would just feel right.
 

nkp174

Active Member
Basics:
French & Italian steam = Ugly
British & German steam = Attractive

Streamlining varies from outstanding to putrid. The worst streamliners were typically in the south...while midwestern streamliners were the best (Dreyfuss '38 century, PRR S-1, MLW 4-4-2s and 4-6-4s, etc).

Several things I've noticed:
-smoke box fronts: geometric shapes matter. modern NYC power was putrid (that's an understatement). Perhaps the ugliest locomotives ever built were their P&LE 2-8-4s.
-cast trucks without visible leaf springs are far more attractive than fabricated trucks or USRA style (with visible leaf springs)
-electric box headlights were the work of the devil
-extended smokeboxes were frequently a step down in appearance
-high mounted boilers, typically for the purpose of allowing a wider firebox without a trailing truck were barf inducing. If you're going to do without a rear truck, you better accept having a narrow firebox that sits in between the rear drivers...just like the fine looking ng 2-8-0s.
-large numbers on the tender are ugly
-solid black is bad. Driver tires should be striped. Running boards should be striped. The locomotives class should be labeled in small letters on the tender
-only two basic families of stacks are nice: straight and large balloon/nesmith/cogden...diamond stacks are bad.
-Green boilers are the next best thing to Russian iron...the finest color for a boiler. Wood cabs should be varnish, not painted.
-solid pilots are ugly...give me some sort of spokes or lattice!
-smoke deflectors can act like brown paper bags...great for covering the ugly mug of an otherwise fine looking locomotive (see NYC Niagaras for example!)
-electric headlights should have visors...pyle national being the best
-illuminated numberboards look great

Ok...I'm picky...
 

Mountain Man

Active Member
Now why is Italian steam ugly? This is the nation that brought us some of the most beautiful machinery in the air, on the seas and on the roads. Couldn't they extend that talent to steam engines?

Besides, these aren't that ugly:
 

Attachments

  • I_FS_D_Gr672.gif
    I_FS_D_Gr672.gif
    3.6 KB · Views: 105
  • I_FS_D_Gr683c.gif
    I_FS_D_Gr683c.gif
    4.7 KB · Views: 145
  • I_FS_D_Gr743c.gif
    I_FS_D_Gr743c.gif
    4.9 KB · Views: 96

nkp174

Active Member
Now why is Italian steam ugly? This is the nation that brought us some of the most beautiful machinery in the air, on the seas and on the roads. Couldn't they extend that talent to steam engines?

They clearly didn't...all of the best designers must have been working for Ferrari. I say clearly as I puked the first time I saw Rivarossi's complete catalog. :mrgreen:

There are exceptions to the rule...this British engine was putrid...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SR_Class_Q1
peasoup
 

Mountain Man

Active Member
Certainly "no frills", I'll give you that. However, this is really ugly, and it's Italian to boot:
 

Attachments

  • bredabelluzzo1.jpg
    bredabelluzzo1.jpg
    24.5 KB · Views: 61

Triplex

Active Member
However, this is really ugly, and it's Italian to boot:
You'll find that most highly experimental engines from anywhere draw bad reactions.

smoke box fronts: geometric shapes matter. modern NYC power was putrid (that's an understatement). Perhaps the ugliest locomotives ever built were their P&LE 2-8-4s.
It's interesting just how different we are. I count J3s, S1s, L4s and A2s all among the most attractive.
high mounted boilers, typically for the purpose of allowing a wider firebox without a trailing truck were barf inducing. If you're going to do without a rear truck, you better accept having a narrow firebox that sits in between the rear drivers...
This I can agree on. The worst offenders on this aren't American; the loading gauge in steam days wasn't high enough. Some classes of Russian 2-10-0 had so much airspace under the boiler you could almost walk through.

solid pilots are ugly...give me some sort of spokes or lattice!
For me, solid or footboard pilots look best. Cowcatcher-style pilots are alright if they don't extend too far. The most consistently ugly are pilots made of horizontal slats; these tend to ruin Argentine, Uruguayan and Paraguayan steam.

Most British and Italian steam looks too... well, clean, and I particularly don't like most British smokeboxes. German and French steam somehow looks finely engineered.

I tend to prefer semistreamlined steam to fully streamlined. I like, for example, CP steam with recessed headlights - the barely-streamlined Royal Hudsons and Selkirks, but actually more so their late heavy 4-6-2s and 2-8-2s which weren't even rounded off. Skyline casings are another weakness; favorites here are unstreamlined SP GS-series and AC-9s and East German 01.5s. Among unambiguously streamlined steam, those that still don't try to hide the shape (NYC Hudsons, N&W Js) come off much better than earlier shrouded efforts. In fact, it's questionable which are worst: the ugliest messy engines, or the most strained efforts to hide them.

EDIT: Just remembered what I was trying to, an example of what I'm talking about. DRG class 05 4-6-4s. The shroud made them unrecognizable as locomotives. I hate when streamlining hides the wheels.
 

Mountain Man

Active Member
You'll find that most highly experimental engines from anywhere draw bad reactions.

It's interesting just how different we are. I count J3s, S1s, L4s and A2s all among the most attractive.
This I can agree on. The worst offenders on this aren't American; the loading gauge in steam days wasn't high enough. Some classes of Russian 2-10-0 had so much airspace under the boiler you could almost walk through.

For me, solid or footboard pilots look best. Cowcatcher-style pilots are alright if they don't extend too far. The most consistently ugly are pilots made of horizontal slats; these tend to ruin Argentine, Uruguayan and Paraguayan steam.

Most British and Italian steam looks too... well, clean, and I particularly don't like most British smokeboxes. German and French steam somehow looks finely engineered.

I tend to prefer semistreamlined steam to fully streamlined. I like, for example, CP steam with recessed headlights - the barely-streamlined Royal Hudsons and Selkirks, but actually more so their late heavy 4-6-2s and 2-8-2s which weren't even rounded off. Skyline casings are another weakness; favorites here are unstreamlined SP GS-series and AC-9s and East German 01.5s. Among unambiguously streamlined steam, those that still don't try to hide the shape (NYC Hudsons, N&W Js) come off much better than earlier shrouded efforts. In fact, it's questionable which are worst: the ugliest messy engines, or the most strained efforts to hide them.

EDIT: Just remembered what I was trying to, an example of what I'm talking about. DRG class 05 4-6-4s. The shroud made them unrecognizable as locomotives. I hate when streamlining hides the wheels.

I think we're going to need photos. :needpics:
 

Mountain Man

Active Member
You'll find that most highly experimental engines from anywhere draw bad reactions.

It's interesting just how different we are. I count J3s, S1s, L4s and A2s all among the most attractive.
This I can agree on. The worst offenders on this aren't American; the loading gauge in steam days wasn't high enough. Some classes of Russian 2-10-0 had so much airspace under the boiler you could almost walk through.

For me, solid or footboard pilots look best. Cowcatcher-style pilots are alright if they don't extend too far. The most consistently ugly are pilots made of horizontal slats; these tend to ruin Argentine, Uruguayan and Paraguayan steam.

Most British and Italian steam looks too... well, clean, and I particularly don't like most British smokeboxes. German and French steam somehow looks finely engineered.

I tend to prefer semistreamlined steam to fully streamlined. I like, for example, CP steam with recessed headlights - the barely-streamlined Royal Hudsons and Selkirks, but actually more so their late heavy 4-6-2s and 2-8-2s which weren't even rounded off. Skyline casings are another weakness; favorites here are unstreamlined SP GS-series and AC-9s and East German 01.5s. Among unambiguously streamlined steam, those that still don't try to hide the shape (NYC Hudsons, N&W Js) come off much better than earlier shrouded efforts. In fact, it's questionable which are worst: the ugliest messy engines, or the most strained efforts to hide them.

EDIT: Just remembered what I was trying to, an example of what I'm talking about. DRG class 05 4-6-4s. The shroud made them unrecognizable as locomotives. I hate when streamlining hides the wheels.

I think we're going to need photos. :needpics:
 
Top