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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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.....
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!
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 .
Regards
Juniatha
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
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.
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...
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...
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.
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...
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.
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...
http://www.kurogane-rail.jp/sl/e9600.html
Chuck
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 .
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 =
Debating the aethetics of modern North American freight locomotive styling strikes me as the railfan equivalent of bickering about the exact number of Angels that can dance on the head of a pin........
Beauty, or lack thereof is truly in the eye of the beholder 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..
a rogues gallery......thanks or in telegrapher-speak: TNX
I recall that the rectangular console-cab window adopted GE specs ; the idea being that stocking a, rather than 2, replacement windows would....
Grant you that F's were more expensive to build and keep than GP's, but only in the deepest part of hell will you find an engr who'll say switching cars, making P/U's or S/O's with hand signals to an F unit was easy. Their demise, the F's, FA's was not regretted.
The desk control console I hated.....Highest respect I gave to my mentor for Locotrol (caveman DPU tech.) On the SD40-2, after starting the train, he never having ridden with me, watched as I put my feet on top of the box containing a cab-heater (the posture was like reclining in a hammock.)
"That's the way I run...."
Can't do it with a desk!
Headlight placement has safety and practical (profitability) implications.
When under the beam of the headlights, visibility is greater than looking over the beams (as car drivers we must) but trust this: in dense fog, the high light and looking under it gave more time to do......
A night firing NO 75, the Lark, hit fog near San Lucas, it just shut down visibility from the PA!....yeah could see the hood-top to where the headlight's illumination started, then there was the inside o pillow.
Engineers, those Coast Division passenger engineers, and the rest of 'em dealt with looking thru snow and thru' cloudy water, figuratively.
We did and do....
.
Oops...
I believe that those two yellow bumps on the front contain crash posts to meet the standards. To me, it would look better with a cowl and a split windshield, like the 66 behind it.
It is better than this, though http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Vossloh_G2000-1BB.jpg. What were they thinking? Instead, install a platform at the front of the locomotive for switching, it also serves as a collision barrier at grade crossings.
NorthWest JuniathaThat 70xxx must be a joke ! I think this refers to the ACe...
JuniathaThat 70xxx must be a joke !
I think this refers to the ACe...
Oh no it doesn't! It refers to this:
[warning: don your mirrorshades or welding goggles now!)
If there is something good to be said about the esthetics of this cab design... well, I can't find it.
Perhaps the worst part of it is that somebody DID try to style it. (The British, lamentably, tend to be about as competent, by and large, with diesel locomotive styling as they are with restaurant cooking. Remember the old joke about European heaven and European hell? ... )
I think this refers to the ACe... and yes, the cab, first introduced on the SD90MACH-II isn't pretty. It came about because replacing a rectangular window is cheaper than an odd shaped one, and crews wanted a full height door. Also, the cab is now safer, as the Chatsworth, CA crash sadly proved. If you look, this is what the SD70ACe involved looked like, http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=283037&nseq=17, http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=340038&nseq=270, and the F59PH, equipped with the earlier "Triclops" cab: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Chatsworth_train_crash_wikinews.jpg
To me, they look best with headlights in the nose.
Here are some shots in which they actually look pretty good:
http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=291384&nseq=15&favsearch=1
http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=440420&nseq=2&favsearch=1
http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=411748&nseq=138
http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=175167&nseq=39
http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=400402&nseq=71
And it is interesting to see what they look like with class lights, and lower profile front sandbox filler caps:
http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=156506&nseq=95
This is what the SP heritage unit should look like!
http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=411650&nseq=149
So, it is a matter of which angle you see them from.
Juniatha, thank you for that post, it took me a while to stop laughing.
Paul
>> Why would anyone want to reverse engineer it to the North American loading gauge? <<
Dunno - maybe because it'll look less low slung and more awe inspiring ...
Oops , sorry inspiration we wanted to keep off because it doesn't pay .
Well then .. we'll have to live with it as is ..
Firelock :
>> Even if the rest of the train looks like a slum on wheels the locomotives should present a neat, professional appearance. How do you expect people to treat you like a first class industry if you don't present yourself as one?<<
Yesss ..
Shock !
That 70xxx must be a joke ! If SD40-2 is right in his ways to remark upon beauty not paying off the drawbar , at least not noticeably , then obviously someone must have carried things one step further and tried at willfully uahrrgifying that diesel with a hideous grimace to try if *that* would allure customers - if customers are now believed to be totally deaf and blind to art and beauty . I think it's a consequence of *great* movies like the denatured killer series or Emmenthaler's giant turtle foreign flying sausage saucer shadowing - again of couse - NewYork ( with the film makers always but always NewYork ) .
As long as such psychos are allowed to heal themselves at the expense of the public instead of going to a psychiatrist , Mr Tarantello , we will have to live facing the very real possibility of walking a station one day , unassumingly taking a look at trains with unprotected eyes and "ssa-zingawham-buzz !" we get blinded by such an abominably nauseous despicable dreadfulness ! And who's to pay for our having to see our psychiatrist ? The builder ? The Railway who let it loose on their tracks !
I say : beauty *does* pay - if only to keep the railway safe from legal cases being convicted guilty having to pay a two years mental health recovery treatment to customers having been badly struck in a wicked assault by such an atrociousness , promptly having fallen sick and not able to place freight orders , neither .
How did I survive encountering that photo ? Well , luckily I happened to wear my extra dark mirrored sunglasses ..
*gee* - ( mea culpa ..)
Overmod ... which brings us back to the flip side of this discussion. In cabs, noses, platforms and doors, carbody and walkway access ... and crash survivability, even if relative ... the crew comfort and convenience is more important than railfan appeal. The first design question, therefore, is how you design the locomotive so it is most convenient, not 'least inconvenient'. This would include things like the amount and placement of armor vs. controlled-crush in the nose and cab structure. Height or packaging for the 'crew refuge' that FRA was looking into. For heaven's sake, making access to the head convenient without *banging* your head. (As an aside: I, personally, hate those outward-sloping 'clear vision windows' like the ones on the original Boeing 247 or many French electrics. I'd like to hear the pros and cons on those -- would they be preferable in the opinion of actual railroaders?) Once the optimization to task is done, there is no reason why the result should be gratuitously ugly. That was one of the points of early industrial design: take something with a crude, utilitarian exterior and make it look ... well, more like an engineered product than a box of works. Now, the esthetics that convey 'engineered product' have changed over the years, sometimes very amusingly, and there are plenty of cases (including that example of the GP30, imho, and certainly that BL2) where actively 'styling' the locomotive leaves you far worse off -- and 'spends money' that could have been put, say, into better air conditioning or a couple of Scott airpacks for break-in-twos in tunnels ... etc. etc. etc. In my opinion, every recent passenger locomotive has suffered from this -- those crosseyed-Fu-Manchu lights on the ACS-64 being particularly, and utterly unnecessarily, detrimental to the appearance -- and I attribute this directly to using the kind of 'designer' who takes advantage of modern CAD/CAM and materials to build any weird thing he wants ... this is one of my chief complaints about architects like Gehry. Just because you can build it doesn't mean you should build it. So where are the people with taste when it comes time to approve the design? I propose this as the AutoCAD question du jour: Take something like the FRA safety cab, and *cost-effectively* modify it for better esthetics. Use as many stock pieces as you can to keep the fabrication cost down, and the maintenance/parts costs minimized. Retain all the safety features necessary in framing and construction, and maximize crew convenience/minimize or eliminate inconvenience. Then see what you can do to give the better esthetics... I'll wager it can be quite good indeed.
... which brings us back to the flip side of this discussion. In cabs, noses, platforms and doors, carbody and walkway access ... and crash survivability, even if relative ... the crew comfort and convenience is more important than railfan appeal.
The first design question, therefore, is how you design the locomotive so it is most convenient, not 'least inconvenient'. This would include things like the amount and placement of armor vs. controlled-crush in the nose and cab structure. Height or packaging for the 'crew refuge' that FRA was looking into. For heaven's sake, making access to the head convenient without *banging* your head. (As an aside: I, personally, hate those outward-sloping 'clear vision windows' like the ones on the original Boeing 247 or many French electrics. I'd like to hear the pros and cons on those -- would they be preferable in the opinion of actual railroaders?)
Once the optimization to task is done, there is no reason why the result should be gratuitously ugly. That was one of the points of early industrial design: take something with a crude, utilitarian exterior and make it look ... well, more like an engineered product than a box of works. Now, the esthetics that convey 'engineered product' have changed over the years, sometimes very amusingly, and there are plenty of cases (including that example of the GP30, imho, and certainly that BL2) where actively 'styling' the locomotive leaves you far worse off -- and 'spends money' that could have been put, say, into better air conditioning or a couple of Scott airpacks for break-in-twos in tunnels ... etc. etc. etc. In my opinion, every recent passenger locomotive has suffered from this -- those crosseyed-Fu-Manchu lights on the ACS-64 being particularly, and utterly unnecessarily, detrimental to the appearance -- and I attribute this directly to using the kind of 'designer' who takes advantage of modern CAD/CAM and materials to build any weird thing he wants ... this is one of my chief complaints about architects like Gehry. Just because you can build it doesn't mean you should build it. So where are the people with taste when it comes time to approve the design?
I propose this as the AutoCAD question du jour: Take something like the FRA safety cab, and *cost-effectively* modify it for better esthetics. Use as many stock pieces as you can to keep the fabrication cost down, and the maintenance/parts costs minimized. Retain all the safety features necessary in framing and construction, and maximize crew convenience/minimize or eliminate inconvenience. Then see what you can do to give the better esthetics... I'll wager it can be quite good indeed.
The railroads are not going to pay for aesthetics for aesthetics sake, if they don't also have a financial benefit, either in increased fuel economy, crew comfort that can be proven to increase performance or added ease of maintenance.
I love a beautiful design as much as anyone else, but you have to balance aesthetics with the bottom line numbers if you want success in business.
IMO
Hi Overmod! The outward-sloping windshields on the Boeing 247's and other aircraft of the time were for optical reasons, specifically to cut glare. As advances in aviation glass occurred in the 30's those outward-sloping windshield disappeared pretty quickly on subsequent aircraft.
As an aside, a Boeing 247 appears as an "experimental bomber" in an aviation film (in Technicolor!) from 1938 called "Men With Wings." A good movie, if you get the chance to see it don't pass it up!
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.