It's been several years since this subject was raised, and I recently found a new candidate:
N&W W6 Class 0-8-0T
The available Google images are small, so a description.
Originally W and W1 class 2-8-0 locos (built 1899-1901) with 56 inch drivers, modified into 0-8-0T class W5, then re-classified W6 after some improvements in the mid-1940s. They had half a saddle tank (over the rear drivers) and half a coal bunker (fireman's side, to leave the engineer's sight line clear.) The front frame was not shortened, so the pilot beam stuck 'way out there' to clear pilot wheels that weren't present. With a couple of courses of skinny boiler and a long smokebox in front of the saddle tank they just looked ungainly, unbalanced and ugly.
N&W must have liked them. They survived (as shop switchers) until the end of steam operation.
Chuck (Modeling Central Japan in September, 1964 - with fairly decent-looking steam)
Like a car wreck I just had to look.
Homely to be sure, but I think the earliest engines were ugly.
Henry
COB Potomac & Northern
Shenandoah Valley
Anything with an exposed Coffin feedwater heater on the front of the smokebox...
IMHO, most camelbacks.
The problem with "ugly" steam engines are that some are ugly and will always BE ugly. For me, that would include a lot of streamlined steam like:
On the other hand, this ugly loco is, to me, quite a beauty:
Ah, well. Takes all kinds.
Ed
Well, I don't know how to post pictures but even without photographic evidence I nominate the P&LE 2-8-4 as UGLY!
Roger Huber
I'll see your P&LE loco, and raise you:
my eyes, my eyes.....
Thanks for the W6 photo, Henry.
I hadn't noticed the 'goatee' headlight position in the tiny photos I was looking at.
The really early locos suffered from the lack of knowledge of a very immature science. Notice the total absence of counterweights on B&O "John Hancock." And that vertical boiler isn't much bigger than my household water heater.
As for the 'inverted bathtub' streamlining, not only ugh but double ugh! I may be biased, but streamlining should admit that there's a steam locomotive underneath. Sort of like the difference between a knit dress and a burqa.
Chuck (Modeling Central Japan in September, 1964)
oldline1 Well, I don't know how to post pictures but even without photographic evidence I nominate the P&LE 2-8-4 as UGLY! Roger Huber
Is it this guy?:
If it is, my Bathtubs still win!
Ugliness, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. Nonetheless I would have to think many beholders would nominate the various Delaware & Hudson high pressure locomotives, which looked like they had been attacked by a mob of crazed sheet metal workers. This is just one of the bunch:
Dave Nelson
No matter what is said, somebody's toes will be stepped on.
Lackawanna put fake wings on some locos that had been pretty attractive before that "beauty" treatment.
Several candidates among 2-8-0's on the D&H. Leonore F. Loree made some engines whose unattractiveness was easily equal to their efficiency and power. Dave Nelson is reading my mind.
Erie's H-6 Camelback 2-8-0's were pretty attractive as built; but they became real monsters when the road rebuilt them as rear-cab engines.
I could go on, but beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
Tom
(edited)
ED,
That's the one I was thinking about.
Ugly is subjective, I know a guy that thinks all Wooten firebox engines are gross, another hates camelbacks, another thinks anything with a Belpaire firebox sucks and one guy doesn't like front mounted airpumps. Some hate anything with color like the Daylights, Southern Ry passenger steamers, T&P. Then there's the guys who are turned off by any sort of streamlining. Who knows......and really..........who cares?
I personally love lots of plumbing like C&O, GN and some others and dislike inside bearing trailing trucks or that "Alco look" of the UP Pig Boy or Challenger. I'm not a USRA engine fan either. Just makes my tastes different from a lot of other guys.
My favorites are WM Potomacs, Virginian PA 4-6-2 and BA 2-8-4, Norfolk Southern (original) F-1 2-8-4, N&W J-1 and J, N&W K-1, most Pennsy, B&O and C&O steam.
My 2¢,
dknelson Ugliness, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. Nonetheless I would have to think many beholders would nominate the various Delaware & Hudson high pressure locomotives, which looked like they had been attacked by a mob of crazed sheet metal workers. This is just one of the bunch: Dave Nelson
I know steam locomotives had horrible visibility to begin with, but could the engineer actually see anything relatively close to the tracks in front of him without sticking his head out the window. I would image there was a lot of praying about nothing being on the tracks in the way. Was there any regulations regarding forward visibility on rail equipment?
On the bright side, the excuse that "I didn't see that" would be a perfectly valid in a wreck for the engineer.
Kyle dknelson Ugliness, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. Nonetheless I would have to think many beholders would nominate the various Delaware & Hudson high pressure locomotives, which looked like they had been attacked by a mob of crazed sheet metal workers. This is just one of the bunch: Dave Nelson I know steam locomotives had horrible visibility to begin with, but could the engineer actually see anything relatively close to the tracks in front of him without sticking his head out the window. I would image there was a lot of praying about nothing being on the tracks in the way. Was there any regulations regarding forward visibility on rail equipment? On the bright side, the excuse that "I didn't see that" would be a perfectly valid in a wreck for the engineer.
If you think that's bad, check out the PRR GG1 or N&Ws 'Jawn Henry.'
Actually, there appears to be a micro-window below the running board, so down and forward visibility might not have been quite as poor as it seems.
In a number of weird and wonderful one-offs, crew comfort and operator visibility were treated like high-cost options.
The ultimate in no visibility were the Uintah 2-6-6-2Ts (aka 'Mantua Logger.') the bunker covered the entire back of the cab - NO visibility when running in reverse!
Chuck (Modeling Central Japan in September, 1964 - with a modified Mantua that has excellent reverse visibility)
Well i think this one beats most of the ones people have put here as ugly
Shock Control:
If you're referring to the N&W's one-of-a-kind experimental 4-8-0, I don't think it's ever been produced as a model, although the M-2 4-8-0 (from which it was rebuilt) has been produced as a brass import.
No, he's referring to this one:
7j43k
Wayne
The N&W M-2a was not a one-of-a-kind locomotive. They converted 2 of the M-2's into M-2a's #1100 & #1112. They were NOT failures as eluded to and were apparently quite successful as an automatic switcher needing little attention. The engines were pretty complex and were scrapped because the N&W bought a batch of nearly new C&O 0-8-0s at a great price and it was just simpler to use them rather than continue experimentation. They then built 45 almost identical engines to the C&O fleet in their Roanoke Shops. The #244 was the last of them and the last steamer built in the USA for a US rairoad.
The M-2a has not been imported at this time although it was considered by an importer at one time.
oldline1 The N&W M-2a was not a one-of-a-kind locomotive. They converted 2 of the M-2's into M-2a's #1100 & #1112. They were NOT failures as eluded to and were apparently quite successful as an automatic switcher needing little attention. The engines were pretty complex and were scrapped because the N&W bought a batch of nearly new C&O 0-8-0s at a great price and it was just simpler to use them rather than continue experimentation. They then built 45 almost identical engines to the C&O fleet in their Roanoke Shops. The #244 was the last of them and the last steamer built in the USA for a US rairoad. The M-2a has not been imported at this time although it was considered by an importer at one time. Roger Huber
OK, Roger. You're right. Two of a kind. But I never said they were failures. N&W did a lot of experimenting, with very few abject failures. Some folks would say there were N&W engines that came up short in their looks, but the J's and K-2a's certainly made up for that!
Of the later steam engines that saw significant mainline use, I must agree that the P&LE 2-8-4 is positively ugly!
Additionally, anything with the exposed coffin feedwater heater. Texas & Pacific had nice looking 4-8-2's that had the coffin feedwater heater inside the smokebox...but any exposed coffin feedwater heaters on berkshires are just plain ugly.
John
No, you didn't say it was a failure but others have said that in other posts and it just wasn't true. Yep....the N&W J and K-2 streamlined engines were well executed and the colors were just right to me. I sure wish they would have done that E-2 Pacific with the shroud too. Eventually one of my models will get a custom made shroud and thefull treatment.
Some particular features seem to be what make an othewise identical engine ugly to some. Take a typical USRA Mike/Pacific/Mountain/SantaFe and put an Elesco bundle heater on the front and someone just gets all bent about it or say the same engines with a Coffin on the front or mount 2 cross-compound pumps on the smokebox front. I don't know if that makes the "engine" ugly or not. I don't like the looks of the New York Co. cross-compound airpumps that were favoried by some roads like GN but otherwise I think most GN power was gorgeous but then again I like Belpaire fireboxes, front pumps and Vandy tenders which GN favored. I also like the somewhat spartan look of Western Maryland power. I think the D&H spartan look is a little too clean lined for me though but I had a customer that loved it.
Scullin drivers are gross looking to me as are the engines Mr. Dreyfus (sp?) had a hand in streamlining for the NYC.
BUT...........I still think that P&LE Berk is pure ugly! lol
I don't mind the P&LE Berk at all, although its looks would be improved by putting the headlight where it belongs, in the middle of the smokebox front.I'm not overly fond of the upside-down-bathtub streamlining used on some locomotives, but feedwater heaters of any type and airpumps in most locations add to most locomotives' appeal for me.
I recall a feature by Ed King in Trains magazine some time ago (February '85, apparently) showing ugly steam locomotives - it was entitled "The Rolling Mud Fence" and there were some real doozies shown - UGG-LEE!!!
There are no contests for ugly women, only Beauty contests. So the same should apply to steam locomotives.
RR
Ugliest steam locomotive? Isn't that like asking who the ugliest Dallas Cowboy cheerleader is?
doctorwayne No, he's referring to this one: 7j43k Wayne
Yes, that's the one. Anyone know what that is?
When I first looked at that picture, I thought the engine had been in a wreck! Yes, that is absolutely hideous from a design perspective.
That is Union Pacific's "49'er", there were two modified with that streamlining,
a 4-6-2 #2906 IIRC, and a 4-8-2 #7002.
Doug
May your flanges always stay BETWEEN the rails
I guess some people will hate me for this but I nominate all SP Cab Forwards and MILWs S-3 Northerns!
I know the Cab Forwards were probably the most user-friendly and practical steamers ever, but horrible from an aesthetical standpoint! And the MILW S-3...well, that flat face, that huge ovsersized pilot, that large distance between the pilot coupler and smokebox door, that large space between the pilot and the front wheels of the pilot truck, that small smoke stack...I mean the overall proportions as well as the tender a just a complete design-failure! Just take a look at the S-2 and S-1 classes! They look MUCH better!
With the second story pilot deck, The C&O H-8 Allegheny, was about as Ugly as a Steam Locomotive could get. A face that not even a Mother could Love.