wjstix Well a Great Northern P-1 Mountain & tender was pretty goofy looking: Yet the follow-up P-2 was a very handsome machine:
Well a Great Northern P-1 Mountain & tender was pretty goofy looking:
Yet the follow-up P-2 was a very handsome machine:
I would have to say, that mechanically, the UP steam-electric would have to be one of the worst, as it had a metric butt-ton of new ideas that were not quite ironed out in it.
But, by all means, the winner of the title of ugliest locomotive is any locomotive with the heartless letters CSX slimed across it.
So many scales, so many trains, so little time.....
The irony of the BL2 is that it was trying to be good looking. Apparently the problem arose because its good looks could only go so far due to the natural conflict between the streamlining of a cab unit and the functionality of a switch engine, which the BL2 was intended to possess. However, I don’t think it failed commercially because of its appearance. As I understand it, the deficiency stemmed from something common to many multipurpose machines; the inherent compromise between the performances of purposes. In this case, the BL2 was still less than ideal for switching.
Perhaps in the euphoria over the streamlining fashion of the passenger train, which seemed to the centerpiece of dieselization, the BL2 made sense to EMD. But railroading was still ruled by practicality, not fashion, so the BL2 had to lose its style and become the fully practical geep. In a way it is odd that most would say that the geep is better looking than the BL2, but there is a natural beauty that comes from form following function, and the geep has a lot of that kind of beauty. Whereas the BL2 has a kind of pretentious look that comes from trying to be something that it is not. The BL2 has that distinctive squared off shoulder ledge that curves up from the frame, into the cab, and then continues behind the cab, sloping down all the way to the back. Presumably that is not a functional feature, but I have heard railroaders cleverly refer to it as the chain guard.
The chain-guard was somewhat functional, in that it covered trusses that were part of the unit's support structure. Rather than having a frame and platform like those on a Geep, it had a floor and framework like an F unit. Look at the chain-guard closely in a photo of a BL2, and you can see where the truss was, by a rivet line.
Carl
Railroader Emeritus (practiced railroading for 46 years--and in 2010 I finally got it right!)
CAACSCOCOM--I don't want to behave improperly, so I just won't behave at all. (SM)
The Virginian and Erie triplex locomotives had to have been among the worst ever concieved. The steam requirements of the 3 engine sets so far outstiped the day's technology to provide steam it is amazing the engines could get off the Ready Track, let alone pull the trains they were envisioned to pull.
The specs of the engines
Wheel Arrangement: 2-8-8-8-4 Length: Drivers: 56" dia. Weight on Drivers: 487,390 lbs Locomotive Weight: 502,000 lbs Locomotive & Tender Weight: 844,000 Grate Area: 108 sq ft Cylinders (dia. x stroke):(one set hp, two sets lp) (6) 34" x 32" Boiler Pressure: 215 psi Tractive Effort: 166,600 lbs (compound)199,560 lbs (simple) Tender Capacity Water: 13,000 gal. Coal: 12 tons
I find it amazing just how small the tenders were for such a resource consuming engine.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Comment look how long EMD offered the loco. The other comment I remember about BL2 Manufacture was every time they produced one it took all the factory resources on the floor.
rgds ign
From what I read U36B's were considered very slippery. They all rode on trade in Blomberg trucks. I heard B36-7's had better wheel slip systems I think.
Rgds IGN
B23-7 something or another?
If these units were so bad why are they still being used by short lines? Alco are supposed to have better fuel consumption numbers than EMD's or GE's.
Throwing my 2 cents worth.
RGDS IGN
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.