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
B23-7 something or another?
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.
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
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!
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 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.
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.....
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:
My vote goes to the Baldwain Centipedes, had to be the mechanical forces worst nightmare. And definitely would not win any beauty contests.
Al - in - Stockton
anything that says GE on the builder plate
The ugliest loco has to be the EMD BL1 and BL2's.
The worst engine ever built was the Erie triplex 2-8-8-8-2. It could not keep up steam. Was totally useless both as a road engine and in helper service. Also the Krauss Mauffei and Alco C643 diesle hydraulics. Both too complicated and required way too much maintenance. In the shops more than on the road making money.
I don't know if Alco made the mistake of using aluminum wire in the wrong places, but I recall that that was the source of a ton of trouble on GE's U50C. That was another great-looking locomotive design (at least in my opinion) which didn't work too well either. It had a remarkable record of catching fire, and didn't stay in service very many years.
chad thomas As far as looks goes, my vote is for those GEs that had the crew cabs (not todays cabs but the ?originals) that CSX ended up with.
As far as looks goes, my vote is for those GEs that had the crew cabs (not todays cabs but the ?originals) that CSX ended up with.
Ahh yes, the BQ23-7.
garyla My candidate: Alco's Century-855 Only three got sold, all to UP. Despite all the work Alco put into the new Century designs, these things really bombed, right from the first time the customer pulled a train with them. Built and delivered in 1964, all went out of service in 1970, scrapped in 1971. What a shame--they look great in HO brass.
My candidate: Alco's Century-855
Only three got sold, all to UP. Despite all the work Alco put into the new Century designs, these things really bombed, right from the first time the customer pulled a train with them.
Built and delivered in 1964, all went out of service in 1970, scrapped in 1971.
What a shame--they look great in HO brass.
"I Often Dream of Trains"-From the Album of the Same Name by Robyn Hitchcock
Boyd CF7 has to be one of the ugliest.
CF7 has to be one of the ugliest.
Wagontop or Topeka Cab worked hard and certainly was better than a DeWitt Jeep, CRIP's Christine, Buffaloes or a Crandall Cab.
(The Mexicans had the really wierd San Luis Potosi rebuilds)
I agree with the BL2 being one of the most unsuccessful diesels built. The SD50 was also one of the most unsuccessful engines built. When EMD built the SD50 and failed, GE pounced with the Dash 8 and has dominated the locomotive market ever since. The SD50 was a huge turning point in locomotive building.
As for ugliest, the CN C40-8Ms are pretty bad. It is hard to believe cowl bodied F45s looked so good yet it looks so ugly on the C40-8M. I think the 4-window design is what does it...
I'm going to nominate the MLW M630 and M636 for number two spot...both of these high power behemoths did not meet carrier expectations from the get go. But those engines were good looking at least, and from a railfan standpoint fun to watch...lots of smoke to go along with the cadenz of the engine... These locos convinced one loyal MLW customer, BC Rail, to switch over to EMD...and they probably had alot to do with why almost all new locomotive purchases in Canada up until the early 90s were EMD.
Number one spot...MLW's last gasp at building locomotives for the North American market...the HR...High Reliability series which apparently were anything but. These locomotives were ugly too thanks to CN's insistance on the "Draper Taper"...can't even buy a scale model of one of those...
Oooo, excellent pick for the ugliest motor on rails! Couldn't agree more with that tiny frame haulin' about that gargantuan cranium
I'll try to base this on a mechanical basis (appearance is too subjective and not really relevant).
Steam: VGN Triplex, too much machinery, not enough boiler; or D&H 1403, very efficient use of steam but a mechanical nightmare.
Diesel: Alco C855 or GE U50C.
Beauty and "ugliness" are both in the eye of the beholder, but for me the products of FM and Alco are the ugliest (especially FM)...and as far as the worst performing, I have to say the U.P. turbines come to mind, but I am far from an authority on the subject of unit availability (which is how they are likely evaluated by railroads, along with cost of operation per ton/mile).
In modern times, the worst diesel has to be the 256H-engined SD90MAC. All of UP's are being scrapped.
EMD's early-1980s 645F GP/SD 50s weren't highly praised, though many GP/SD 50s are still on the rails 25+ years later.
Some historical examples:
EMD's early 1960s SD24s and GP/SD35s could be considered bad because of their complicated electrical systems to support the output of the turbocharged 567D, though many of these locos managed to outlive early GE U-boats thanks to rebuilding.
UP's GE-built 8,500hp "Big Blow" turbines. Very, very noisey and poor fuel miliage compared to diesels.
SP's Krauss-Maffei Diesel Hydraulics
Alco C855 double diesel
GE U50C double diesel. These tended to catch fire due to faulty wiring and suffered from cracked truck-frames.and then their's the various experiments with steam-turbines in the 1940s
tree68For worst I'd have to look at some of the one-offs that didn't make it, including steam. I think the Pennsy steam turbine would rate pretty high.
For worst I'd have to look at some of the one-offs that didn't make it, including steam. I think the Pennsy steam turbine would rate pretty high.
From what I understand, the Pennsy S-2 did meet some of its design objectives in that it was more efficient than a reciprocating steam locomotives at speeds greater than 70 MPH. The problem was that the Pennsy's trains probably spent a majority of the time at speeds less than 70, and even more so fater 1948 when the Pennsy decided against equipping the Ft Wayne division with cab signals or ATC.
I kinda liked the looks of the S-2.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.