Carnej1 , quote > Beauty, or lack thereof is truly in the eye of the beholder <<
It's not that simple and not that vague . The field of aesthetics has well known axioms which have to be observed , or without it there will be no aesthetic result in whatever you are trying to shape . There are certain relations length to width of bodies that are known since the gilds of master builders of the large cathedrals of middle ages that we still adore as master pieces of aesthetics . Interesting also , field studies by anthropologists have shown that certain proportions of figures abstract as well as concrete find universal appeal or rejection by people of vastly different places over the world and vastly different societies . There obviously are laws to aesthetics as there are laws to mathematics . A lot of modern car styling violates most basic aesthetic axioms for the sake of 'excitement' - what it's worth really shows when the design becomes of age and is no more en vogue or 'fashionable' . This is 'designed in aging' aimed at stimulating new car sales . However , there have been cars in the history of the automobile which have risen above the average and have become timeless valuables . I will not offer examples to avoid this thread becoming a mess of fighting Ford Mustang and Chevy Corvette and Mopar devotees , ending up in a 5h foggy morning duel showdown . So let's go back to dreary draggy diesels that dispense with aesthetics as something potentially dangerous and distracting ...
>> and I have yet to read a convincing argument for what benefit the railroad industry would derive from expending additional capital on "prettier" freight units <<
... although I'm convinced attractive locomotive styling *would* advertise the railroad when people who may be executives of a chemical or steel company and thus potential customers encounter them out on the road ...
Likewise an impossibly grotesque looking locomotive tells everyone along the line "Look , these guys really don't know what they're doing and they don't care neither - better contract some other carrier for your cargo !"
Now , if that's no reason for a carrier to appear appealing in public then I quit .
Regards
Juniatha
Ok , since there is at least one individual participant in here who obviously is extremely touchy about diesels I delete my little two-picture story ''As time goes by ' . Sorry , to all others , however we should be considerate and not overstrain someone .
= J =
Two people looking at the same elderly steam locomotive in Japan in 1964. Both were American, newly arrived in-country.
Person #1. That has got to be the fugliest thing I've ever seen.
Person #2. Pure power is its own excuse.
Person #3 (Moi) Just another 9600 class.
http://www.kurogane-rail.jp/sl/e9600.html
Chuck
tomikawaTT Two people looking at the same elderly steam locomotive in Japan in 1964. Both were American, newly arrived in-country. Person #1. That has got to be the fugliest thing I've ever seen. Person #2. Pure power is its own excuse. Person #3 (Moi) Just another 9600 class.
But, with reference to the current topic -- not anywhere near as attractive as this other (albeit not-quite-as-elderly) steam engine:
and no inherent technical reason why the smaller 2-8-0 arrangement could not be attractive either...
Overmod,
I agree that the C62 is a very handsome machine. It was, after all, the ultimate development of Japanese mainline steam.
When the 9600 class 2-8-0s were new they were lean and clean. They also had buffers, vacuum brakes and were devoid of smoke lifters and feedwater heaters. When air brakes replaced vacuum brakes the compressors and tanks were stuck on seemingly at random. Elephant ears or earmuffs of several different patterns were added. Some got Elesco heaters, also in odd places, and no attempt was made to have the new plumbing look neat. By 1964 a typical 9600 resembled a pit bull after a few too many fights.
OTOH, I visited Roanoke some years ago and heard a woman (I cannot in good conscience type lady) refer to, "That ugly old thing." She was pointing at 611...
Chuck.
Obviously no one was considering aesthetics when they designed the new cab for the rebuilt NS SD60E "uni-brow" locomotives. Personally, as an NS locomotive engineer I do think appearance counts when presenting a pleasing Corporate image to all Stakeholders, which includes the public. A clean locomotive goes a long way here but from someone who's office resides in the cabs of these behemoths I look for comfort and functionality. Not only is the SD60E one of the ugliest models out there, although not as ugly as the old BQ23-7 of Family Lines days, they are extremely loud inside.
Here are some things I like when it comes to modern day US freight locomotives....
The looks of a UP SD59M. The cab layout of a UP ES44AC with a great standard control stand (We engineers loathe desktop control stands, keep them on subways where they belong!). The seats found in BNSF ES44ACs. A snazzy paint job like the Pennsy heritage unit or a classy one like the Savannah and Atlanta heritage unit.
Just my two cents...
tomikawaTT Overmod, I agree that the C62 is a very handsome machine. It was, after all, the ultimate development of Japanese mainline steam. When the 9600 class 2-8-0s were new they were lean and clean. They also had buffers, vacuum brakes and were devoid of smoke lifters and feedwater heaters. When air brakes replaced vacuum brakes the compressors and tanks were stuck on seemingly at random. Elephant ears or earmuffs of several different patterns were added. Some got Elesco heaters, also in odd places, and no attempt was made to have the new plumbing look neat. By 1964 a typical 9600 resembled a pit bull after a few too many fights.
I tried to find a good picture of an original-condition kyuroku but could only get one of the Aster model:
This has the air paraphernalia, but you can fairly easily 'backtranslate' to what they looked like as-designed...
This does bring up a new category in the original discussion: locomotives that looked good as-built, but were cut up in unusual ways -- I nominate those FP-45s with the nose mods as one example, and RI's Christine as another. Usually aftermodifications were more 'ad hoc' and not intended as having aesthetic value, but some were done with more care (or perhaps less expediency) than others. At the risk of starting a foaming contest: which locomotive MODIFICATIONS show the spirit of the original thread. (And, my schadenfreude clearly showing... which ones are the most awful...
Troll, troll, TROLL!!!! ;-}
Seriously, I would actually have agreed with her, many years ago. I thought the J had drivers much too small and a boiler much too fat to wear the streamlined clown costume.
As I said in another thread, I have learned different, and now see with better eyes.
OvermodWhich locomotive MODIFICATIONS show the spirit of the original thread. (And, my schadenfreude clearly showing... which ones are the most awful...)
IMHO:
The bad: CNW's Crandall cabs, frogeye lights, UP's SW10s, lowered short hoods on RS-2s and RS-3s (or EMD hoods on them)
The good: MILW RSC-2s with RS-36 short hoods, IC's angular roofed SW14s, MK's GP40FH-2 and GP40WH-2 (call me crazy, but I think they look good)
The debatable: the Beep, the CF7s, CN's Sweeps.
Just to get the conversation going...
NW
EMD#1
>> Just my two cents. <<
Someone who actually runs these locomotives all day long in sunshine or rain or in the dead of night through the 'small hours' when the country lies fast asleep is always welcome to comment .
Good industrial design and safety does not exclude each nor need it be a choice of either one .
I might want to comment on some things coming to my mind when seeing photos of cab layout , controls arrangements and - most of all - space for legs , or rather : lack thereof in - I feel - appallingly many classes of diesels , modern sometimes no better than older ones .
I'd like to read more specific requests you might have concerning cab layout , safety and accessibility – or emergency evacuating in case of trouble approaching .
Well now, I don't pay attention to this topic for a few days and look at what I missed.
Let's see now, that Japanese locomotive, specifically the one with the elephant ears. OK, it doesn't have the awesome majesty of the "Yamato", not the zoomy good looks of the Mitsubishi Zero-Sen, or the sinsister beauty of a samurai sword, but you know what? I'll bet riding one is as much fun as a Godzilla movie!
BANZAI!
Newly refurbished engines were to be supplied to the SF Bay Area's rosters after the UP consumed the SPT, my alma mater.
Subtle torture ensued: the engr's cab chair was lined up so that the engr.s looked straight ahead at the cab wall bordering the left edge of the front window.....ya' had to lean over to get the full view......do that for hours while sitting. Talkin' the 2500's of the end of the 20th- century.
Other complaints and complements about locomotives......got 'em....ask, no problems.....
Juniathia:
I appreciate your concern concerning locomotive engineers like myself. I started at NS back in 1996 as a Frieght Train Conductor, was promoted to Locomotive Engineer in 2000 and even spent seven years as an officer in Customer Service and Car Management. Four years ago I exercised my seniority and went back to the cab. For me there is no other place I would rather be, especially when I have the opportunity to get some good power on one of our hotshot Intermodals. I work on the Greenville District which is part of the Crescent Corridor and during that time I have spent numerous hours in the cabs of all types of locomotives. Some are what we call"Cadallacs" and some are just plain ole junk.
Myself along with every other train service employee really like the UP C45ACCTE and the BNSF ES44AC units the best due to their comfortable cabs and powerful tractive effort and dynamic brakes. The NS ES44AC units are weighted at 432,000 lbs which I suppose gives them greater pulling power but they are definitely not speed demons and unlike their western counterparts do not have as nice of a cab. The BNSF units have high backed Dentist office chairs and they like other BNSF units even have windshield washer fluid! Another couple of things I appreciate about the BNSF and UP units are the angled steps which makes it a lot easier to board the engines and the nose mounted headlights which eliminate the glare on the top of the nose created by the top mounted headlights that are on our units.
I like the SD70ACe units, especially since they have isolated cabs now but the control stand has places where one can bang their knee if not careful. Also the position of the throttle and dynamic brakes are offset compared to their normal position.
The engines I dread the most are the former Conrail units, especially the Dash 8-40CW units. We call them "Trash-8s". Most, like the rest of Conrail power were poorly maintained and suffer from excessive lateral movement which makes for one scary ride when you have a locomotive banging side to side at 60 mph. Go across a high bridge when they do that and you may need a new pair of shorts! Also, they have that horrible desk top control stand which all my fellow engineers hate with a passion. I'd like to slap the person who thought that was a great idea. Obviously they had never ran a train before. I'm glad to see that all new locomotives today have the standard North American control stand!
For switching cars around in the yard or spotting them at industries nothing beats a good running SD40-2. They move when you want them to and they have the power to get it done. They may not be as comfortable as the youngest horses in the stable but they are still loved and appreciated by every engineer I know. A few months ago I was running one of our hottest Intermodals on the railroad when I lost two of my units halfway into my trip. I ended up getting an SD40-2 from a local, tacked it on the headend and away we went! I would say it had probably been quite some time since that old girl had stretched her legs pulling a mile and a half of pigs on the high iron. But she did it with pride and the rest of the way I couldn't wipe the smile off my face. With the windows open and that big Leslie 5-Chime blowing for the crossings and that turbo charged 645 she was definitely drawing attention to herself. It is times like that when I think to myself I have the best job in the world!
Tim
EMD#1 Juniathia: I appreciate your concern concerning locomotive engineers like myself. I started at NS back in 1996 as a Frieght Train Conductor, was promoted to Locomotive Engineer in 2000 and even spent seven years as an officer in Customer Service and Car Management. Four years ago I exercised my seniority and went back to the cab. For me there is no other place I would rather be, especially when I have the opportunity to get some good power on one of our hotshot Intermodals. I work on the Greenville District which is part of the Crescent Corridor and during that time I have spent numerous hours in the cabs of all types of locomotives. Some are what we call"Cadallacs" and some are just plain ole junk. Myself along with every other train service employee really like the UP C45ACCTE and the BNSF ES44AC units the best due to their comfortable cabs and powerful tractive effort and dynamic brakes. The NS ES44AC units are weighted at 432,000 lbs which I suppose gives them greater pulling power but they are definitely not speed demons and unlike their western counterparts do not have as nice of a cab. The BNSF units have high backed Dentist office chairs and they like other BNSF units even have windshield washer fluid! Another couple of things I appreciate about the BNSF and UP units are the angled steps which makes it a lot easier to board the engines and the nose mounted headlights which eliminate the glare on the top of the nose created by the top mounted headlights that are on our units. I like the SD70ACe units, especially since they have isolated cabs now but the control stand has places where one can bang their knee if not careful. Also the position of the throttle and dynamic brakes are offset compared to their normal position. The engines I dread the most are the former Conrail units, especially the Dash 8-40CW units. We call them "Trash-8s". Most, like the rest of Conrail power were poorly maintained and suffer from excessive lateral movement which makes for one scary ride when you have a locomotive banging side to side at 60 mph. Go across a high bridge when they do that and you may need a new pair of shorts! Also, they have that horrible desk top control stand which all my fellow engineers hate with a passion. I'd like to slap the person who thought that was a great idea. Obviously they had never ran a train before. I'm glad to see that all new locomotives today have the standard North American control stand! For switching cars around in the yard or spotting them at industries nothing beats a good running SD40-2. They move when you want them to and they have the power to get it done. They may not be as comfortable as the youngest horses in the stable but they are still loved and appreciated by every engineer I know. A few months ago I was running one of our hottest Intermodals on the railroad when I lost two of my units halfway into my trip. I ended up getting an SD40-2 from a local, tacked it on the headend and away we went! I would say it had probably been quite some time since that old girl had stretched her legs pulling a mile and a half of pigs on the high iron. But she did it with pride and the rest of the way I couldn't wipe the smile off my face. With the windows open and that big Leslie 5-Chime blowing for the crossings and that turbo charged 645 she was definitely drawing attention to herself. It is times like that when I think to myself I have the best job in the world! Tim
I find it very germaine to the subject we are discussing that the poster above gives kudos to the crew comforts and operational capabilities of the current North American mainline freight offerings from the Big 2 locomotive builders, the same models that were derided earlier in the thread by other posters...
If the crews that operate them and the railroads that buy them are satisfied with their features and performance,then I tend to doubt that railfan complaints about styling are really going to matter to anyone in the industry.....
I think it's fun to discuss our likes and dislikes regarding the esthetics of locomotive design, but a wee bit silly to suggest that the Industry needs to take notice of our tastes..
"I Often Dream of Trains"-From the Album of the Same Name by Robyn Hitchcock
Well if the railroads aren't going to trust us railfans to be the arbiters of good taste and esthetics as far as locomotive design is concerned then just who can they trust? It's a dirty job but SOMEONE has to do it!
I mean really! Jeez!
PS: Tim, I'm not a diesel fan, but giving credit where credit is due considering its longevity, excellence of design, and ability to do just about anything that's asked of it I have to admit the SD40-2 is one of the classic American locomotives. Any one of them could have "pride of place" in any rail museum.
For the record I thought you may be interested to know that the Australian Built Goninan / GE CV40-9i that are by US standards "flat nosed" , have been built to the US frontal impact standard. Even in the US there are quite a few Flat Fronted locomotives, Electric locos come to mind! So while a nose might seen good in a frontal impact it is not essential.
ha the class 70,can see them from miles away.............because they are always catching fire.dont think Freightliner will purchase anymore not the greatest loco to grace british railways.
the class 66 is very unpopular with drivers in the uk,yes they can pull a house side down but the cab ergonomics are shocking.cab vibrates,cab noisy,heat in no2 cab unbearable in summer(yes the sun does shine sometimes in the uk).when they first arrived the were with out doubt better than what we had (and so they should have been what we had were well past their prime).but they are now very dated and European built loco,s are far superior.
Many of the posts in this thread are...interesting to say the least.
The fact remains, other than a small group of railfans, 99.9% of the population could care less what a locomotive looks like, including railroad customers.
Really people, do you decide to ship a package to your friend (or customers) based on what a UPS, FedEx or USPS truck looks like?
If you need to get a package to a location, within a time frame, and UPS can do it at the lowest cost to you, do you care that UPS has "ugly brown trucks"? No you don't! You are going to ship the package UPS and not even think about it.
Same applies to RR customers.
Most of this thread is ridiculous. A freight locomotive is a tool bought to do a job-period. There is no emotion involved in the purchase, as we are not speaking of individual purchases such as cars, motorcycles and boats.
The job of the locomotive is meet service commitments at a life cycle cost that is acceptable to the customer. As of late, the end-user (train crew) has had some input into the arrangement of the thing. Today, this is seen as 'good business'-nothing more and nothing less.
In more recent times, the loco business has become far more regulated than it was when first conceived. The loco design must past muster with a whole host of regulatory agencies, a veritable alphabet soup-AAR,EPA,FRA...and so on. These regs keep many people busy on the design side. Accordingly, there is little time or demand for frills and frippery,e.g, 'a stylish cab.'
That said, passenger locos are a different issue. Esthetics do a play a role in design-but that is reflected in the purchase price-the nature of the beast.
BTW, I work in the industry. Those so inclined can jump up and down and stomp their feet-but it is what it is.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.