UP 2906, built 1920, streamlined 1937. The vanderbilt tender stenciled Union Pacific (extreme left, beyond the bathtub) is a better clue than the washed-out UP shield over the cylinder on the walkway shroud.
Unfortunately, the black and white film couldn't differentiate between the stripe and the lettering, so the 2906 under the cab window and Union Pacific on the tender are illegible.
Chuck (Modeling Central Japan in September, 1964 - sans streamlined steam)
Shock Control doctorwayne No, he's referring to this one: 7j43k Wayne I still would like to know what this engine is. Either no one knows, or they are not using the quote feature, or they are not saying "Shock Control, here is what this one is."
doctorwayne No, he's referring to this one: 7j43k Wayne
No, he's referring to this one:
7j43k
Wayne
I still would like to know what this engine is. Either no one knows, or they are not using the quote feature, or they are not saying "Shock Control, here is what this one is."
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
Shock Control,
It is a UP streamlined Pacific.
On the plus side, I see a whole lotta roller bearings evident.
Ed
We have two things going on, here.
One is that we've certainly found the world's ugliest steam locomotive. It neither has the intrigue of a visually complex locomotive, nor a hint of an interest of visual style or aerodynamic need.
As much as I admire Loree's work, I am considering comparing this one to his namesake, the 4-8-0. Both look as if they feel the need to cover up what they are. I do suppose that the Brit loco can claim the need for speed, something the LOREE did not aspire to.
ACY 7j43k GP-9_Man11786 Here's one from across the pond, the London & Northeaster W1. It looks like an A4 that spent too much time at Golden Corall. I hope nobody believes you, Ed. It was real. Fraid not, pal. That's one of those inflatable fake locomotives the Brits used to fool the Huns!!! Aside from the obvious balloon-curvature, note the free-floating extra trailing wheel--obviously added by a balloon artist who had no feel for the real thing. Although, I must admit, the guy did right good on the drive gear. Also note that the hold-down guy wires are practically invisible. Pretty good, what? Ed I hope nobody believes you, Ed. It was real.
7j43k GP-9_Man11786 Here's one from across the pond, the London & Northeaster W1. It looks like an A4 that spent too much time at Golden Corall. I hope nobody believes you, Ed. It was real. Fraid not, pal. That's one of those inflatable fake locomotives the Brits used to fool the Huns!!! Aside from the obvious balloon-curvature, note the free-floating extra trailing wheel--obviously added by a balloon artist who had no feel for the real thing. Although, I must admit, the guy did right good on the drive gear. Also note that the hold-down guy wires are practically invisible. Pretty good, what? Ed
GP-9_Man11786 Here's one from across the pond, the London & Northeaster W1. It looks like an A4 that spent too much time at Golden Corall. I hope nobody believes you, Ed. It was real.
Here's one from across the pond, the London & Northeaster W1. It looks like an A4 that spent too much time at Golden Corall.
I hope nobody believes you, Ed. It was real.
Fraid not, pal. That's one of those inflatable fake locomotives the Brits used to fool the Huns!!! Aside from the obvious balloon-curvature, note the free-floating extra trailing wheel--obviously added by a balloon artist who had no feel for the real thing. Although, I must admit, the guy did right good on the drive gear.
Also note that the hold-down guy wires are practically invisible. Pretty good, what?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LNER_Class_W1
Funny but I dont even find the experimental locos, in steam, ugly...
Jawn Henry was a rough looking turbine but it still had a beauty of its own...
C&O steam turbines look colourful but again they looked good...
The UP steam turbines looked more like diesels so they look ok...
I use to think that streamlined steamers where ugly, but in escence, they had a purpose for the covers and was still a steam engine underneath...
That being said, I did love the Gresley A3 (Flying Scotsman fame) was a beautiful loco, but the Gresley A4(Mallard) is very beautiful streamlined and very fast...
But I have enjoyed reading others opinions in this regard..
PS, the triplex does look odd tho, but still a nice steamer, pity they didnt succeed..
GP-9_Man11786 Here's one from across the pond, the London & Northeaster W1. It looks like an A4 that spent too much time at Golden Corall.
Modeling the Pennsylvania Railroad in N Scale.
www.prr-nscale.blogspot.com
Since we seem to be nominating facial beauty contestants, the later NYC Mohawks had that absolutely flat smokebox front with the 'half moon rising' door -
The Niagara raised that by having a stack about four inches tall, almost completely hidden by the Worthington SA feedwater heater. Side view, sleek, lean and mean. Front view -
Chuck (Modeling Central Japan in September, 1964)
C&O H-8 Allegheny.
Sorry, had been mentioned earlier, just responding to the post before mine.
challenger3980 Nope, not even close to as hideous as the facial view of the H-8, Granted they don't compete with the FEF, and GS classes for Prettiest Face, but still a far cry from that face not even a Mother could Love on the H-8, that is just PUG Ugly Doug
Nope, not even close to as hideous as the facial view of the H-8, Granted they don't compete with the FEF, and GS classes for Prettiest Face, but still a far cry from that face not even a Mother could Love on the H-8, that is just PUG Ugly
H-8 of what railroad?
Tom
Speaking of fugly front ends..........the huge bald, flat face of the Challengers and Pig Boys on the UP have to rate pretty high on the ugly scale if not on top.
Roger Huber
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.
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!
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
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
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.
Yes, that's the one. Anyone know what that is?
Ugliest steam locomotive? Isn't that like asking who the ugliest Dallas Cowboy cheerleader is?
There are no contests for ugly women, only Beauty contests. So the same should apply to steam locomotives.
RR
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!!!
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
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
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
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.
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!
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.