What engines do you not like the looks of ?...

[railroadyoshi]

Giant radiator vents on the side, ( the ones that overhang WAY to much), those absolutely ruin a locomotive!
-Siddharth

[Anonymous]

I think that the Atlantic 4-4-2 steam locos are visually imbalanced. I think that the "porches" on some newer deisels are too large to look sensible on both models and the prototype.

[trainboyH16-44]

I refer you to the thread "Are trains getting uglier?" at http://www.trains.com/community/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=33848
Matthew

[timthechef]

Diesels! they are boring, no life. A steam engine lives and breaths!

[Anonymous]

I love a wide variety of trains and, while I have preferences as to what looks better (ex: I think GG1's look much nicer than GP30's), there are very few locomotives that I actually dislike or think are ugly.

However, there are some exceptions.

The all-time ugliest locomotive for me has to be the Leader locomotive built in Britain in the 1950's. Believe it or not, this is a steam engine! Couldn't these people have at least made an effort to have it look somewhat attractive?


I've also never cared very much for the Turbo trains. They were created by aircraft designers and you can tell.

There are also a number of ultra-modern bullet trains I don't like the looks of.

[aloco]

Most streamlined steam locomotives, especially Pennsylvania's 'dog nose' streamliners.

Various makes and models of diesels:
GM: GMD1, BL2, late model SWs (1500 and 1000), GMDH1
MLW: RSC24, LRC
ALCO: C415
GE: early Dash 9 units with the flat cab roof
All boxcab diesels

And just about everything that is in production today, especially those horrible looking shovel nose passenger diesels that GM and GE are making.

Any locomotive that looks boxy and square is just plain ugly.

[Anonymous]

I personally hate the EMD BL-2!!!!!
It has to be one of the ugliest engines ever built!
BL-2= "Bring up your lunch-TWICE!!!!!!!
gtirr

[ARTHILL]

Steam with streamlining. Like a pretty girl in a Mau Mau.

[loathar]

I think they were called sharknose deisels. I don't know what F # they where. I think they're the only real train that looks like a toy.Too long and flat a nose.
I'm not a fan of any European stuff. Anything can be made to look good with a CPRrail
or Canadian Pacific paint scheme!

[Anonymous]

Anything with a wide cab. Bring back the standard noses!!!!

[Fergmiester]

Most Fully Streamlined Steam Engines such as the UP and NYC versions of Pacifics and Hudsons[xx(]

I wasn't much of a Flash Gordon fan.

Fergie

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by loathar
I think they were called sharknose deisels. I don't know what F # they where. I think they're the only real train that looks like a toy.Too long and flat a nose.

The 'sharknoses' were manufactured by Baldwin, model# RF16. Here's a website:
http://www.bridge-line.org/blhs/BaldwinSharks.html

[Piedsou]

For a locomotive with a large following rather than an obscure unit, I find the Southern Pacific GS-4 4-8-4 one of the ugliest. I think the twin headlights and their styling on the smokebox door looks awful. I never did like all weather cabs on steam and the engine burns diesel oil when we know steam engines should burn coal or wood. The tender is just a box on wheels. Sit a GS-4 next to a Southern Ps-4 and you'll see a regal lady sitting next to a clown in makeup. I know this is heresy to many, but I just think the GS-4 is a poor example of a steam locomotive. RF&P and N&W had 4-8-4's that were much more classic looking.

[AggroJones]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Piedsou

For a locomotive with a large following rather than an obscure unit, I find the Southern Pacific GS-4 4-8-4 one of the ugliest. I think the twin headlights and their styling on the smokebox door looks awful. I never did like all weather cabs on steam and the engine burns diesel oil when we know steam engines should burn coal or wood. The tender is just a box on wheels. Sit a GS-4 next to a Southern Ps-4 and you'll see a regal lady sitting next to a clown in makeup. I know this is heresy to many, but I just think the GS-4 is a poor example of a steam locomotive. RF&P and N&W had 4-8-4's that were much more classic looking.

AHHHHH! You're killing me!

[trainboyH16-44]

QUOTE: Originally posted by AggroJones

The CP 2-10-4. And the Royal Husdon. It reminds me of a flancy flashlight.
Lot of people dislike the appearance of the BL-2. Not me. That thing is awesome!

A FLASHLIGHT?!!! That is an insult to the entire Canadian Pacific Railway! Thet were beautiful streamlined beauties!
I do agree with you on the BL-2 though.
Matthew

[AltonFan]

STEAM: I can't automatically think of any one steam engine I don't like the looks of. But there are some features I don't care for:

Elesco feedwater heaters
Coffin feed water heaters
Excessive piping
Off-centered headlights and bells
Boiler jacketing covering the smokebox
Gaudy 19th Century decoration
Air pumps on smokeboxes
Smoke deflectors
Excessively large cabs
Whaleback tenders
Doghouses
Casements along the top of the boiler
Extra and oddly placed domes
Poor maintanence

(Extra Credit Challenge: find a steam locomotive having as many of these characteristcs as possible.)

Several railroads had some generally poor aesthetics for their steam power. Among the worst:

Great Northern
Chicago, Burlington & Quincy
Santa Fe
Pennsylvania

The Delaware & Hudson had some butt-ugly experimental high boiler pressure engines. Norfolk and Western also had an experimental "automatic engine" that wasn't a looker either.

I do not share the general disdain for the unusual sandboxes on Illinois Central power.

But with steam, sometimes, ugliness can be a virtue.

DIESELS:

GP-30
Early (pre-sharknose) Baldwin cab units

Certain industrial units had some unfortunate aesthetics. And of course, the appearance of rebuilt units sometimes suffered in the process.

But even a good looking diesel can have its appearance marred by a bad paint scheme, or lack of maintenance.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Sask_Tinplater

I love a wide variety of trains and, while I have preferences as to what looks better (ex: I think GG1's look much nicer than GP30's), there are very few locomotives that I actually dislike or think are ugly.

However, there are some exceptions.

The all-time ugliest locomotive for me has to be the Leader locomotive built in Britain in the 1950's. Believe it or not, this is a steam engine! Couldn't these people have at least made an effort to have it look somewhat attractive?


I've also never cared very much for the Turbo trains. They were created by aircraft designers and you can tell.

There are also a number of ultra-modern bullet trains I don't like the looks of.

This Engine was ahead of its time! Just looks like an EMD Class 66![;)]

Although deemed as a failure - this thing could pull! If only BR had put more money into the project it could have gone somewhere - then I am sure they would have spent a little more time and money to make it look a little more attractive than the picture supplied!

My vote for the worst looking locomotives would have to be for Ismbard Kingdom Brunel's broad gauge locos! All fat and ungainly! Or any Great Western Railway locomotives - they did the right thing by standardising parts, so different classess of locomotives has interchangable parts, but they were so old fashioned and dull they could not compete with the sleep lines of the Gresley A4 (Mallard) or Stanier Coronation class locomotives.

I think one of the strangest looking locomotives was LD Porta's 'Argentina' - again a locomotives that was ahead of its time, but looks like something out of a comic book. Hopefully though it will one day run again - a tribute to the great man himself!

Regards,

Stephen.

[grandeman]

GG1. U-G-L-Y, but to each his own.