EPA emmisions standards engines are ugly

[espeefoamer]

EMDs are still better looking than GEs,but I think that the second generation units were better looking than the new units.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by bnsfkline

Dougal, I REALLY dislike you about what you said about the SD70ACe, I would rather see SD70ACe's over AC4400CW's. If you call the SD70ACE ugly, thats like insulting your favorite hobby. Its also calling the entire railroad industry ugly. I love the SD70ACe because it may be the F unit of tommarow. Would you rather see more EMDS than GE's?

I know. I like EMD more than GE. I wanna see EMD make a comeback.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by bnsfkline

Dougal, I REALLY dislike you about what you said about the SD70ACe, I would rather see SD70ACe's over AC4400CW's. If you call the SD70ACE ugly, thats like insulting your favorite hobby. Its also calling the entire railroad industry ugly. I love the SD70ACe because it may be the F unit of tommarow. Would you rather see more EMDS than GE's?

I agree with bnsfkline the SD70ACe's are nice looking units but GETRASH ARE THE UGLESITS UNTIS AROUND

[bnsfkline]

Dougal, I REALLY dislike you about what you said about the SD70ACe, I would rather see SD70ACe's over AC4400CW's. If you call the SD70ACE ugly, thats like insulting your favorite hobby. Its also calling the entire railroad industry ugly. I love the SD70ACe because it may be the F unit of tommarow. Would you rather see more EMDS than GE's?

[AntonioFP45]

The new look is going to take a while to get used to. The flared radiators look good. While I don't like the new nose, it still looks better than the old "traditional" hood cab design.

I have to "partially" agree with CBQ guy regarding the Amtrak Genesis series units. But I must admit they've "grown" on me a little as they do look pretty sleek when hauling passenger trains at speed. I still miss the F40s and even more the SDP40fs.

[M636C]

Dougal,

I thought the SD70ACe had a modified 16-710, rather than any twelve cylinder engine. The GE (AC45CTE(?))locomotive has a 12 cylinder, but not the EMD. It looks to me as though they took the shell from the prototype "SD 89MAC" and modified that for the SD70ACe, athough they may have had another of the H engine prototypes incomplete and modified that. No other 710 engine unit has had the angled hood roof, that was used on the four stroke locomotives. I had assumed that this had to be removed or opened to change the big four stroke power assembly, while a 710 power assembly could be pulled out without needing the extra space, but I might be wrong.

Peter

[traingeek087]

The abbreviated depression in the middle looks too much like a GE. Come on EMD be unique.

[Anonymous]

Since most engines have 16 cylinders and the roof above the prime mover is lower, 12 cylinders give this part an abbreviated look.

[K. P. Harrier]

Did someone say ugly? I do not think they look that bad.

It is the number boards rising above the roofline that seems strange to me. Is that to keep wiring safely out of the cab and to avoid holes thru the metal in case a tanker truck is hit?

The higher frame (for easily accessible wiring underneath) looks unusual to me also. EMD is STILL owned by GM, is it not?

Perhaps this is all a case of practical functionality.

[Anonymous]

I prefer second generation diesels

[csxns]

Just go back to the 4-4-0''s of the 1800's.

[traingeek087]

I think they could look good if they made the nose look like the early ALCOs. And the flared radiators are too much.might as well make them at a 90 degree angle. The UP flares on their SD70MACs look fine. Hey CBQ_guy, Amtraks not that ugly, but I'll stick with the Burlingto E5's.

[espeefoamer]

The SD70s looked good ,especially before the EPA mandated flared radiators.Since then locomotive designs have gone straight down what the British call the loo.

[CBQ_Guy]

This is really gonna drive the alaskaman nuts then...

To me Amtrash has THE most butt ugly locomotives, BY FAR, I have ever seen on the rails. Maybe we're not picking out a girlfriend here, but like the right companion, most of us will have to LOOK at these things for the rest of out lives! (Maybe that's why I model pre-Amtrash in my basement.)

[csxengineer98]

a locomotive is a hunk of heavey equipment, its not ment to look like a work of art... its ment to do a job day in and day out for years and years...and miles after miles... besides..the days of form and function in the same package on the rail road died after the stream liner E and F units production runs where over..and the units where retired...besides...its whats in the cab is what is more importaint to me..not how the sheet metal is welded on the outside... the comfort while i work ..
csx engineer

[tree68]

I'm sure if the loco builders could figure out a way to eliminate sheet metal, they would. Unfortunately the sheet metal protects components from the elements and by maintaining controllable airflow. After that, it's just another expense.

[oltmannd]

It isn't the EPA related changes that make the locomotives look bad, it's just basic, keep-it-cheap, form follows function design by the builders.

I agree that the designs could be more eye pleasing, though. A good industrial designer could help.

It seems to me that the C40-8 and SD60 were pretty clean designs. No extra bulges, lumps or out-of-proportion features. This was a big improvement over the past, particularly the GE Dash 7s which were a mess.

-Don

[Anonymous]

Dear dougal,
I agree!!!! The new nose on the SD70ACe's looks worse than, well, a low GP9 nose, and a lot worse than a U25-B (whose nose nobody can rave about). As for the Evolution series, I thought those looked pretty much like DASH-9's (which look pretty good). But hey--why don't they take a lesson from the past, and make a locomotive resemble an RS-3 or something that looked really good. Of course, carbody diesels woule be hard to switch with, but those RS-3's and SD-9's look nice. Just stick a modern engine and equipment inside it, and voila!!! railfans and railroaders are happy!

Dear Alaskaman: we know that railroads don't care about looks (although they used to, resulting in the Warbonnet, Daylight, Armour Yellow, and a lot of other pretty things), but if you let us railfans complain here, the railroaders don't have to hear it in person [:)].

Of course, General Electric's P42 takes the cake for aesthetically challenged (other than that, GE diesels look very nice--at least to me. Then again, I am a railfan...).

Sincerely,
Daniel

[Anonymous]

Gosh! This is what drives me crazy. If a locomotive does its job right, its a good locomotive.Doesnt matter if it looks nice or not. Just get over it, you are not picking out a girlfriend here.

[Anonymous]

I have seen pictures of the new Evolution Series and the SD70ACe engines, both are extremely ugly. I can't believe that thanks to the EPA, this is what all of our new power is going to look like. On top of all of this, CSX said they were going to buy 20 SD70ACes, I would rather see a boom in CF7 reproduction!!