Ugliest Steam Engine?

[tatans]

It's the weekend, relax. Does anyone really have a steam loco that they think is not that attractive, or is it like saying to a room full of mothers, who has the goofiest-looking baby( calm down,calm down I'll get you a cup of coffee and a banana for your monkey) There must be a couple of locomotives out there that just don't quite add up to be too attractive(or is this impossible) this should result in some great responses---remember, it's the weekend!

[Anonymous]

Ya, Camel Backs, ugliest *** thing I've ever layed eyes on, looks like something from a childs nightmare.

[selector]

I think that Climaxes are unappealing. They just don't look 'right' to me, but I know that they were a Godsend to those who used them.

A face that only a mother could love.

[Train 284]

Any european type steam engine, no character to them.

[Anonymous]

I agree with train 2-8-4, I don't really think any US steamers are ugly, but European locos have no class, IMO.

[Fergmiester]

Breyer Garrets have my vote, Then again I was never a big fan of streamlined Steamers of the forties.

Fergie

[Anonymous]

Hey! I like Camel backs! Just because it's the weekend, who says you can insult my babies???

Actually, I don't have any Camel backs yet. But I do have a Class A Climax in the making. And I have to agree with selector. So far, it's as homely as a back yard fence and sort of has the appearance of one. Still, I love it and I'm sure it will grow into a productive helper on the logging line.

Wayne

[selector]

Fergie, I had forgotten about the ugly noses on each end of the Garratts. Good catch!

[howmus]

All Steam Locos are things of beauty!!!!! Then came Diesels....... Those are ugly! Well maybe not really too ugly, but just not my thing. I would say that the "streamlined" steam is not my particular favorite, but again "beauty is in the eye of the beholder". I disagree with those who say that European Steam has no class. The Flying Scotsman is quite a beauty!

[tatans]

O.K. I'm trying to remember, someone a while back had posted a photo of a 1930's art deco streamlined steam engine and referred to it as an inverted bathtub and I think it was pink or baby blue, they went a little overboard on the streamlining thing, this looked really bad, anyone got a photo? I'll keep searching.

[Anonymous]

Might've been the NYC's Commodore Vanderbilt, the first (and ugliest) streamlined steamer. Wasn't pink or blue though......

[cspmo]

http://www.retroweb.com/trains/m2_1100_m.jpg

[AggroJones]

Discluding strange forign power, I say The CP Royal Hudson. [X-)]

[tatans]

4884" It wasn't the vanderbilt, but I did find it : It was NYC 4-6-4 James Whitcomb Riley # 4915 what a beast. BUT ! ! ----CSPMO: might win the prize !, I actually jumped back when THAT photo popped up YIKES ! ! Good Grief ! ! what is that thing ! ! that's the scariest photo I've ever seen. What is it? ? ?

[selector]

Aggro!!!!!!! Ouch!!!!!!!

[BR60103]

Probably a tie between the Commodore Vanderbilt with the molding flash down the boiler front and SP's GS-4.

[cefinkjr]

Has to be a PRR T1 that a friend of mine painted in the colors of the college he was about to attend -- orange and blue !!! Nice colors for the Illini but enough to make you ill on a T1. And before you PRR fans jump on me, I'm not saying that all T1s were ugly; just this particular model.

Second place to my Eastern-bred eyes would be anything with the cab at the wrong end of the boiler. SPs AC-9s were absolutely beautiful but the rest of the ACs were plug-ugly.

Chuck

[orsonroy]

Almost anything running on the D&H or CB&Q.

Of course, an ugly steamer is WAY prettier than a beautiful diesel!

[Anonymous]

I'm not sure about "ugly" in the truest sense of the word, but the least appealing to me were the streamlined NYC Hudsons and the ATSF Blue Goose. A little "too" art deco. The standard Hudsons were great looking locos.

I love the look of the SP Daylight and War Baby semi-streamlined 4-8-4's though.

[SpaceMouse]

My ugliest steamer was kind of like a blind date--except you couldn't even say this one had a good personality, you know like Lil Guy had. More of just a zero. I saw it in a "lot" on eBay nessled in amoungst the Tyco log dumpers and Bachman SF SDs. It was a 4-6-2 and I love Pacifics. So I bid more than I should have--besides there was one of those blinking light bridges I wanted for my 4' span.

Any way I get it home, and it was extremely well weathered--the tender's wheels were white with calcium deposits like they been sitting in city water for month. The brass side of the wheels was crusted pink.

The engine was heavy like deep sea fishing weight and it would probably make a good one if you tied your line to the coupler on the tender--if it had a coupler.

But the best feature was the hand rails that run along the boiler to the front of the engine and off the front and bend down int two 45 degree turns, like walrus tusks. The front end of the loco is missing from the mddle of the front truck forward and the handrails extend down into space like there used to be something there to attatch to.

But it least it has traction. You can't make those drivers slip...or move...in fact I don't believe there's a moving part anywhere on that engine.

So like when you hear about that blind date with the good personality, if the ad reads:

Vintage Steam Locomotive: Good condition form my dear sweet departed daddy's collection.

RUN!

[jwr_1986]

Those fireless ones can look pretty nasty. They tend to look like cucumbers with spikes (Rivets). Personally though I'd rather see diesels.

Jesse

[twhite]

There aren't any ugly steam locomotives. Anything with wheels and rods is beautiful. Industrial poetry in motion. There are NOT ugly steam locomotives. Keep repeating it, fellows--like a Mantra. TherearenouglysteamlocomotivesTherearenouglysteamlocomotives--just keep it up, take a few deep breaths every couple of minutes and you'll all be just fine.
Tom[^][^][^]

[Virginian]

We all have out personal favorites. That N&W M-2 Automatic experimental pictured above definitely won't win any beauty contests, but at least it didn't start out that way. The NYC Commodore V and the earlier one were both pretty ugly from the get go in my opinion. Styling is a fine art though, because the Milwaukee F-7's weren't that much different, and I think they were the best looking 4-6-4's ever.
I don't like the looks of Belpaire fireboxes, at all. The pilot on Milwaukee 4-8-4's like 261 is awful whereas the cast steel pilot on the N&W 'J', 'A', Jawn Henry, and C&O late 4-8-4's looks great to me. Elesco feedwater heaters look kinda neat. Elephant ears look awful. I agree with the Camelback assessment above, ugly. Some Vanderbuilt tenders look like a high school shop project gone horribly wrong.
European locos just look fragile compared to American stuff. I realize the Brits didn't have to contend with mountains, but what did they use to cross the Alps for heavens sake? Electrics only? Those Pacifics look like they could barely get themselves up a hill with that spindly running gear. Some of the German stuff looks a bit more rugged, but looking at forty years of Mercedes that figures.

[timthechef]

My vote goes for the Cab forward engines on the UP. they just don't look right. I'm sure I'm going to catch some ashes in the face for this. but it's just what I think. Also the Winnin's Camels where an odd looking lot. As for European engines I think they look rather nice. Can't understand the outdated couplers though.

[IRONROOSTER]

I like camelbacks and beyer garretts. I think the ugliest are the camels, at least they are certainly a strange beast.
Enjoy
Paul

[twhite]

QUOTE: Originally posted by timthechef

My vote goes for the Cab forward engines on the UP. they just don't look right. I'm sure I'm going to catch some ashes in the face for this. but it's just what I think. Also the Winnin's Camels where an odd looking lot. As for European engines I think they look rather nice. Can't understand the outdated couplers though.

Tim--only a few ashes from this end of the country--Cab-Forwards were SOUTHERN PACIFIC, not Union Pacific. And they were a necessity because of all of the smoke and gunk that accumulated in the cabs of 'traditional' locomotives in the Sierra Nevada tunnels and snowsheds. Luckily, for the SP, which used oil as fuel, they could 'flip' the locomotive and pump the oil from the tender. It would not have worked with coal. I grew up with them as a kid, and believe me, I was almost ten before I realized that other articulateds ran with the cab in the BACK, LOL! [:D]As to European engines, I agree with you--some of them (especially French and German) were pretty darned cool-looking.
Tom

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Train 284

Any european type steam engine, no character to them.

I have to disagree with you on this one, being stationed in germany for the last 5 years i have had the opportunity to see some live german steam. A BR -50 2-10-0 in the schwienfurt yard, it had a lot of character to it.

[cefinkjr]

twhite:
Granted that SPs cab forwards (I prefer "backward engines") made tunnels and snow sheds tolerable, they were still ugly.

And so far as anything with wheels and rods being beautiful is concerned, isn't there a common thread in this topic saying that ugliness usually crept in when we tried to hide wheels and rods? Or, as my college room mate would say, "Why gild the lily?".

Chuck

[Jetrock]

While I like the might of the full-sized cab-forwards, the early cab-forward prototypes were UGLY.

Some of the Northcoast logging lokeys were pretty ugly too--gypsy engines were often homebrew jobs, little more than a cast-iron kettle with wheels and a rudimentary frame bolted on, without any sort of safety or comfort or aesthetic factors at all.

[Anonymous]

The fireless & the byer garratt. they bolth look like mutuant steam.