Well i think this one beats most of the ones people have put here as ugly
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.
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
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)
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¢,
Roger Huber
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)
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
Well, I don't know how to post pictures but even without photographic evidence I nominate the P&LE 2-8-4 as UGLY!
Is it this guy?:
If it is, my Bathtubs still win!
Ed
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)
I'll see your P&LE loco, and raise you:
my eyes, my eyes.....
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.
Anything with an exposed Coffin feedwater heater on the front of the smokebox...
IMHO, most camelbacks.
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
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)