If this thread turns any uglier, Bergie's going to have to step in.
Nelson
Ex-Southern 385 Being Hoisted
I'll give another vote to the BL2 for most ugly, but I'm not too fond of the GP30, either. The high nose version is okay, but the low hood one looks like a bad '50s automobile.
Wayne
The Lehigh Valley RS-3 hammerhead short hood has rounded corners like the long hood and therefore looks good.
The C&NW RSD-5 hammerhead short hood has sharp corners and does not match the corners on the long hood, therefore it looks ugly.
MK5000
GARRY
HEARTLAND DIVISION, CB&Q RR
EVERYWHERE LOST; WE HUSTLE OUR CABOOSE FOR YOU
This:
jfallon wrote:Thomas the Tank Engine as envisioned by the anime crowd?
Thomas the Tank Engine as envisioned by the anime crowd?
[quote user="PA&ERR"] Sorry but all of the aforementioned contestants, though outstanding in their own way, are bush leaguers compared to this beast!
Sorry but all of the aforementioned contestants, though outstanding in their own way, are bush leaguers compared to this beast!
I always thought the Krauss Maffei was a classy locomotive
My vote would have to be for the FM C-Liners, as they always reminded me of a quickly cobbled up design to compete with the F units.
CF7s run almost hand in hand with the above.
Actually, I've always kinda liked BL2s.
The Bulleid Leader class engine of Britain's Southern Railways
Greetings, p.
-|----|- Peter D. Verheyen-|----|- verheyen@philobiblon.com -|----|- http://www.philobiblon.com/eisenbahn -|----|- http://papphausen.blogspot.com/-|----|- http://www.youtube.com/user/papphausen2
I'll have to add MKT's RS-3m's. There's something fundamentally wrong with splicing a GP7 long hood onto an RS-3.
Robert Beaty
The Laughing Hippie
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The CF-7...a waste of a perfectly good F-unit!
Then it comes to be that the soothing light at the
end of your tunnel, Was just a freight train coming
your way. -Metallica, No Leaf Clover
So what we're saying, by omission, is that a Garrett is concidered to be a "handsome" beast?
(Click on any of these if you aren't afraid of hurting your eyesight and they will expand into their full glory!)
Or how about the French 232.P.1?
Shown without bodywork.
With streamlining in place.......looks like an upside down bathtub!
Or maybe the Swiss Eb3/5?
And so as not to be outdone, we Americans have had a few loco's of questionable asthetics.....
like.......
The John Stevens.........
the Jawn Henry?
And lets not forget the Horatio Allen (Delaware & Hudson Railroad).........
Yeah, there were, and are, some pretty ugly looking loco's out there, but don't we all really love them deep down inside?
marknewton wrote:Chuck you mean the DB-3? I don't reckon they're ugly at all. Bachmann make them in HO, too!Cheers,Mark.
That's the one, Mark. Looks like the GG-1s ugly baby sister! If the color scheme is accurate, I'm glad I'd only seen black and white pictures...
Some of the other 'entries' make it obvious that ugly is in the eye of the beholder. Maybe there should be several categories:
Of course, to the railroads' financial officers, that last category is downright beautiful!
Chuck (modeling Central Japan in September, 1964 - with locomotives that may be homely, but aren't butt-ugly)
marknewtonI have to laugh at some of the posts to this thread. The title is "The worlds ugliest locomotive", yet so far only two posters have offered up anything from outside North America. When it comes to designing and building ugly locomotives Americans and Canadians are nowt but amateurs.
Well, now that you mention it...
In the "Ugly and Unsuccessful" category, I give you the triple-boilered Belgian 2-4-2 #195.
Not only was it ugly, it had a bad temper to match, exploding in 1902.
http://aqpl43.dsl.pipex.com/MUSEUM/LOCOLOCO/tripleboiler/tripleboiler.htm
I have to laugh at some of the posts to this thread. The title is "The worlds ugliest locomotive", yet so far only two posters have offered up anything from outside North America. When it comes to designing and building ugly locomotives Americans and Canadians are nowt but amateurs.Cheers,Mark.
He's right, you know. We had nothing as ugly as this:
http://www.railfaneurope.net/pix/at/steam/310-16/310-23_mvp_200903.jpg
Any locomotive with a Franco-Crosti boiler rates very highly on the ugly scale. http://trains.com/trn/objects/images/italy.jpg
http://www.dself.dsl.pipex.com/MUSEUM/LOCOLOCO/francocrosti/francocrosti.htm#br
Andre
Andre,
Whoever designed that first (???) obviously never heard of the KISS principle. 8 cylinders, 3 crewmembers (none of whom were co-located) and a length approaching that of Big Boy, all for a paltry 3000HP, a figure well within the capability of several 2-cylinder USRA designs... I'll bet the driver really enjoyed sharing his space with that humongous flue joint and a steam air brake compressor...
Back on, "Ugly is in the eyes of the beholder," on a visit to the railroad museum at Roanoke some years ago I heard a (female) visitor comment, "Why does everyone want to get that ugly old thing back into service?"
She was referring to N&W 611...
Chuck (modeling Central Japan in September, 1964)
tomikawaTT wrote:back on, "Ugly is in the eyes of the beholder," on a visit to the railroad museum at Roanoke some years ago I heard a (female) visitor comment, "Why does everyone want to get that ugly old thing back into service?" She was referring to N&W 611...Chuck (modeling Central Japan in September, 1964)
back on, "Ugly is in the eyes of the beholder," on a visit to the railroad museum at Roanoke some years ago I heard a (female) visitor comment, "Why does everyone want to get that ugly old thing back into service?"
Obviously someone who didn't see her in working order & hear that whistle.
A HORRIBLE pic I took of her with a HORRIBLE Kodak Pocket Cam on a fan trip a few miles east of Brewster back in the spring of 1989.
SteamFreak wrote:In the "Ugly and Unsuccessful" category, I give you the triple-boilered Belgian 2-4-2 #195.
http://www.railarchive.net/nyccollection/nyc7189.jpg
Not as ugly as it is cute :)
This is pretty ugly...
And this...
I'm actually quite fond of NYOW steam although the Bullmeese(2-10-2's) are pretty ugly. Their is smaller steam is quite cute.
Alex
The 611 comment reminds me of one time when I was down at the Sacramento Railroad Museum staring lovingly up at the big SP AC-12 Cab-Forward, and behind me I heard a comment: "That's got to be the ugliest thing I've ever seen."
I turned around. There she was in all of her glory, wearing Capri form-bulging slacks, a fuzzy purple sweater and rhinestone horn-rimmed glasses with a dyed-blonde beehive hairdo. I kid you not!
I had to leave before I fell apart!
Tom
Tom View my layout photos! http://s299.photobucket.com/albums/mm310/TWhite-014/Rio%20Grande%20Yuba%20River%20Sub One can NEVER have too many Articulateds!
Packer wrote:All f those except for the RSD15 are ugly. IMO the RSD15 is pretty cool.The Ugliest loco IMO is the newer GEs and EMDs with the wide nose. The HHP-8 is pretty close too.
All f those except for the RSD15 are ugly. IMO the RSD15 is pretty cool.
The Ugliest loco IMO is the newer GEs and EMDs with the wide nose. The HHP-8 is pretty close too.
Your kidding right? The new DEs and EMDs look good! The HHP-8 is one of my favorites! (Although I am prejudiced for electric locos)
Virginian wrote:.....but to call Jawn Henry ugly !?!?!
Aww, c'mon......it's a box on wheels!
marknewton wrote: tomikawaTT wrote: If I may be permitted to go offshore in a different direction:The South Manchuria Railway had a class of "streamlined" tank locos which looked like BL-2s with cylinders and drivers. (No photo, unfortunately. Or, maybe, fortunately!)Chuck you mean the DB-3? I don't reckon they're ugly at all. Bachmann make them in HO, too!Cheers,Mark.
tomikawaTT wrote: If I may be permitted to go offshore in a different direction:The South Manchuria Railway had a class of "streamlined" tank locos which looked like BL-2s with cylinders and drivers. (No photo, unfortunately. Or, maybe, fortunately!)
If I may be permitted to go offshore in a different direction:
The South Manchuria Railway had a class of "streamlined" tank locos which looked like BL-2s with cylinders and drivers. (No photo, unfortunately. Or, maybe, fortunately!)
Kind of gives you a renewed appreciation for black and white film!
-George
"And the sons of Pullman porters and the sons of engineers ride their father's magic carpet made of steel..."
verheyen wrote: The Bulleid Leader class engine of Britain's Southern Railwayshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SR_Leader_Class http://www.dself.dsl.pipex.com/MUSEUM/LOCOLOCO/leader/leader.htm http://www.semgonline.com/steam/leader_01.html Greetings, p.
AD60 Garrett..................... GOOD LOOKING UGLY !!!
Cheers,
Warren
The DB-3, is it real ? With that paint scheme, it looks like something from the Teletubbies !!
marknewton wrote: SteamFreak wrote:In the "Ugly and Unsuccessful" category, I give you the triple-boilered Belgian 2-4-2 #195.Interesting website, but I 'd take a lot of his comments and/or analysis with a grain of salt. There are a number of engines featured at "LOCOLOCO" that had long and successful service lives.
I know, don't believe everything you read, right? I was talking to the guys at the LHS after hours a few day ago, and one of them was leafing through a book on the CNJ and started complaining about all of the factual errors. According to him, anyway.
I tend to think of a design as unsuccessful if it didn't spawn more than a few experimental examples. Most, if not all of those designs compounded the mechanical complexity of the loco instead of simplifying it, offsetting any potential efficiency increase with excessive maintenance costs.
Whoever designed that first (???) obviously never heard of the KISS principle. 8 cylinders, 3 crewmembers (none of whom were co-located) and a length approaching that of Big Boy, all for a paltry 3000HP, a figure well within the capability of several 2-cylinder USRA designs..." border="0" width="30" height="20" /> I'll bet the driver really enjoyed sharing his space with that humongous flue joint and a steam air brake compressor
Chuck,
It didn't need to be even USRA sized to put out good HP. When my namesake got hold of the 141R's produced for the SNCF and made a few improvements (mostly with exhausting, IIRC), they were capable of producing 3000+ HP. The 141R's were based on the GB&W 2-8-2's of 1937 & 1939. http://www.steamlocomotive.com/mikado/gbw401.jpg . The GB&W 2-8-2's were rated at 47,000 lb TE vs. 53,900 lb for the USRA lights.
According to this site, a Stanier "Duchess" class was able to put out 3300 HP on test climbing Beattock grade with a test train. http://www.lner.info/eng/stanier.shtml If you've ever seen a British Pacific up close, they are not large locos. That's pretty impressive.
msowsun wrote: Hammerhead RS-3 and RSD-5........
Hammerhead RS-3 and RSD-5........
alco's forever!!!!! Majoring in HO scale Minorig in O scale:)