Since everyone here is in such a very subjective mood, let us take look at locomotive aesthetics.
I was looking through a comprehensive book on worldwide locos that someone reccommended on one of the forums. I began to notice something about the European steam locos that I had noticed here in the USA a long time ago.
Why do the locos of one line seem to have cleaner lines than those of another?
For example, but not limited to: Look at British locos and their smooth lines. Now, jump across the Channel and you see a lot of "plumbers nightmares". Compare the clean lines of the N&W's freight locos to the snake nest of pipes on nearby C&O.
Any thoughts?
.
I tend to think most superintendents of motive power tried to keep the locos as utilitarian as possible. Until the luxury streamlined varnish came around is when the utilitarian looks got shrouding and hidden from view. Freight locos kept the brutish looks until the end of steam. Steam locos are a constant state of maintenance and shrouding and covers did not last long if it hindered the mechanics access to areas that need frequent attention.
Pete
I pray every day I break even, Cause I can really use the money!
I started with nothing and still have most of it left!
BigJim ...Why do the locos of one line seem to have cleaner lines than those of another? ...
...Why do the locos of one line seem to have cleaner lines than those of another?
Admittedly not well versed in the range on either end of The Pond, I would have to link it to the tonnages and grades thereon, and the fact that the N. American roads had to find ways to improve tractive effort without adding crews if at all possible. So, they built monsters with sand domes, feedwater heaters, feedwater pumps, easily accessible valve gear, and all the associated conduits, tubing, and plumbing, and they added it as cleanly as they could without incurring the costs of burying it all in clean skirting and fairings/cladding.
Oddly, the British built motorcycles the same way we built our steam locomotives in a weird reversal. Split crankcases with the split running vertically instead of horizontally, components that were not buried behind access doors or covers, but often seemingly plunked here as an afterthought. Quirky, intractible Lucas electrics.
So, no clue really, but a best guess for me.
Crandell
BigJim Why do the locos of one line seem to have cleaner lines than those of another?
Because (1.) generally, the more "stuff" you hang on a steam engine, the less clean the lines; (2.) designers put more or less effort in designing and/or placing the bits on the loco; (3.) some designers/railroads want a "smooth skin" and will hide appliances--others want them out in the open and preferably at ground level for ease of maintenance. I'm not sure if there's a (4.) or (5.), but that is surely a good start to a list of reasons.
Now to what I think is an implied premise that I (sometimes) disagree with: that cleaner lined engines are "prettier". Oft times, I would use the words "plain" and "visually uninteresting". USRA engines are sorta just "there". Especially the Mikes and Pacifics. I find the B&A A-1 2-8-4 far more appealing. But, going the other way, the GN had some stunning (to me) 4-6-0's--the Belpaire fireboxes add something. Or there's the Pennsy T1's. I like them just fine all streamlined and such, but I'm more visually impressed with them when all the skirting is removed.
As the saying goes: "I like what I like."
Ed
There were superintendents of motive power that had some esthetic ideals, not all of the same, and then there were some who did not realliy give it a thought . Certainliy at the D&H, N&W, Reading, CP, Southern, RF&P, and ACL, for example, there were people who thought about looks, and this influenced the way all their locomotive looked. The CNJ and the Reading had very similar 4-6-2's, but the Reading's looked a lot cleaner than the CNJ's, despite being practially the same design.
Since we're talkin' looks, let me nominate the ones which in my humble opinion were the best looking of all. In no particular order-
The New York Centrals Dreyfuss Hudsons, both the "Twentieth Century Limited" and the "Empire State Express"
The Norfolk and Westerns Class "J"s (Honorable mention to the streamlined "K"s
The Delaware and Hudsons Hudsons, much better looking than the NYCs unstreamlined versions.
The Pennsys 6-4-4-6 S-1, the "Worlds Fair Engine". Looks like something from a '30s "Flash Gordon" serial!
The Strasburg Railroads No. 90, that long lanky Decapod.
Last but not least, the Reading and Northerns No. 425, in its current paint scheme. Just gorgeous! Looks like the "Blue Comet" re-incarnated!
D&H had 4-6-4s?? Unusual 4-6-2s and 4-8-4s maybe, but not 4-6-4s. Sure about that?
If anyone is interested, I think the most handsome locomotive is the Darth Vader of fast-steam, and that would be the shiny black J. I am also very partial to the Pennsy Duplex 4-4-4-4 and the NYC's Niagara.
It's a toss-up for me for freight in non-articulated between the Pennsy J1 and the long-nosed 4-12-2 with the flying pumps.
Articulated has to be between the Y and the H-8. I have one of each in HO scale. Would love a Yellowstone, but I can't afford one in brass these days.
The 'honkingest' of all the late great experiments is the Jawn Henry. A close second would be the experimental triple-pressure CPR 2-10-4 #8000.
I was a sparkle in me father's eye when the last of these met the torch.
Whoops! My bad, the D&H had 4-8-4's, not 4-6-4's. It's been a long day! Great looking engines just the same.
To Selector, I think you're mistaken calling a "J" the Darth Vader of steam. Darth Vader was evil. Steam engines aren't evil, DIESELS are evil! Steam engines are like big friendly dogs!
feltonhill; when the N&W scrapped all the Y 6bs , did they do that in Roanoke or ship them to a salvage yard. Also that book by Prince about the Pocohontas coal carriersis very expensive.Would that be correct to say the book will gain in price?? The N&WHS did not mention any articles of this happening.
Respectfully, Jim ( Cannonball )
Y6bs evergreen in my mind
I guess I could have done better, Firelock76. I was thinking of the shiny black helmet, and of course the power, and not so much the evil.
Lots of steam locomotives were good looking in my eyes. All three of the big Ripley AT&SF locos, the 4-6-4, 4-8-4, and 2-10-4. The C&O and PRR 2-10-4's, both despite their visual differences. The New York Central late Pacifics, all three Hudsons, Mowhawks, and Niagras. But I agree the D&H 4-8-4 was even better, and their 4-6-6-4 was even better than the UP's. So was the D&RGW's. The E-6 Atlantic is a better looking locomotive than the K4, but the K4 still has a real charm of its own, likewise the G6 and I-1 2-10-0. The Lackawanna and Nickle Plate also had great looking Hudsons. Nickle Platae Birkshires and Lackawanna Pocconos are great also. Most regular Pacifics appear good to me, such at the B&M's last group, New Haven I-4, the B&O Presidents, and of course the Southern's. The same is true of many 2-8-2's, including the last NYC's from Lima that preceded the Birkshires.
When it comes to streamlined and semi-streamlined locomotives, I do not like steam locomotives masquarading as diesels with inverted bathtub shrouding like the CB&Q's Aoleus, the NYC Mercury and Rexall Mowhawk, the mechaincally excellent Hiawatha Atlantics and Hudsons. I don't like the fins on the streamlined NYC Hudsons. The best and very subtle and elegant steamlining was done for the N&W J and the New Haven I-5. Close competitors are the Daylights and the Royal Hudsons.
The N&W A's were the very best freight locomotive in my opinion, but I would not state that they were the best looking. Good, but not the best looking. But I don't know why anyone would say the Y-6 was better looking than the A. Can someone explain?
The Question, WHY?
Eastern United States railroads date back to the start of the industry. Tunnels everywhere, along the Hudson River , under mountian ranges, etc., all built to clear the most commen 4-4-0 locomotive. As locomotives got bigger and the Westinghouse Air Brake made trains longer, new engines had to fit tunnels, long, low, and graceful. The NYC Hudson?
Locomotive, cars, and tracks had to meet clearence standards. You could "Daylight" a tunnel or lower the floor. You can even "notch" the tunnel roof.
Most recent, the electrification of the old New Haven to Boston line for Acela Corridor Service. A very large precentage of the cost was raising 100 and 150 year old road bridges to clear the wires.
Don U. TCA 73-5735
A lot of streamlined steam looked the way it did based on the aesthetics of the 1930's, when they were styled. This was the height of the Art Deco era, and industrial design and styling reflected its influence.
Exactly. But the New Haven I-5, the N&W J's, the Daylights, and the Royal Hudsons look good, to me anyway, today.
So do the Electrroliners, the Pioneer Zephyr/Flying Yankee, E5's and E6's, Alco PA's, and the GG1.
They all look beautiful to me today and better than any contemporary passenger diesel.
I might even add a Baldwin Shark.
There are technical reasons and there are aesthetic reasons for differing looks . The first category is supposed to be objective , rationally based – which isn’t always true because engineers are only human . The second is supposed to be highly subjective , based on personal choice – which isn’t always so since there are some universal axioms and principal guide lines that wisely should be observed in technical design and engineering to obtain good proportions .
Accomplished engineers , just as artists – engineering in my view really is an applied form of art where many crafts come together – can virtuously play with these rules , yet will do so thoughtfully , in transferred sense like a piano virtuoso can interpret a piece of music . This forever remains a delicate balancing act and countless are examples of engineering products strangely off the mark or gone straight into the ditch .
As Jim mentioned classic steam loco design in Britain and on ‘the Continent’ – well , first of all the Brits kept auxiliaries to a minimum : no air pump , they used vacuum ejector ; no feed pump , they relied on live and exhaust steam injectors and with that there was no need for preheater . Further , sand boxes were positioned sideways below rather than on top of boiler . What piping remained was often tugged away under the boiler cladding or on the underside of running boards .
Demanding snug lines was the smaller loading gauge – you may compare silhouettes smoothening as engines grew in American as well as British practice .
A specialty of some important consequences was traditional British passion for hiding mechanical moving parts such as valve gear , sometimes even cylinders . If aesthetic value of the steam locomotive lies in looks according with function – as opposed with electric units for example – then hiding some vital functions took away from rather than added to the composition . Walscherts valve gear better than any other completed dancing motion of rod system of a running steam locomotive .
Another British particularity was forever to keep with rigid frame six wheel tenders right to the end of steam construction – not without a few exceptions , for sure : Gresley Pacifics had eight wheel tenders , still rigid framed , Southern Railway’s Lord Nelson Ten-Wheelers boasted bogie tenders while Maunsell’s successor Bulleid returned to simple six wheel jobs with his Pacifics . With full size fast engines such as the Stanier four cylinder SE Princess and Duchess Pacifics six wheeler tenders looked somewhat ‘short’ or lacking – at least to Americans who were acquainted with Pacifics having twelve wheel bogie tenders , such as NYC K-5b . In view of smooth running a rigid frame tender was sort of a contradiction with a Pacific type engine . Classic European configuration surely implied an eight wheel bogie tender .
On railways in ‘Old Europe’ – to quote Rummy’s immortal wording – there were tolerably large differences in steam locomotive’s silhouettes , shapes , arrangements of auxiliaries and – if you like – styles of design .
In France , PLM steam locos had a distinctive corporate style , though not always to their advantage (early Mountain ‘Cigarre’ types) and having come to completion only with SNCF standard types where PLM engine style was combined with NORD style large bogies high sided tender .
Austrian steam locos standing tall often seemed to complement their mountainous surroundings and since the day I had as a child travelled with my father behind 310.23 , the Gölsdorf 2-6-4 four cylinder compound fully rebuilt for the 150 year celebration , I will forever hear the ‘Blue Danube’ waltz when seeing pictures or videos of this engine .
Development of Italian steam with straight , austere lines of classic proportions was perhaps abandoned too early to have reached a final expression – remarkable to me there was an evident discrepancy between ascetic FS steam locos of rather discrete performance and vivacious , extroverted , performance-hungry Alfa Romeo cars – not to mention Maserati or Ferrari .
In Germany , steam followed quite a special path after DRG was formed . I don’t feel anyone then involved in developing locomotive standardization would have believed this was to define German steam right to the end . Architectural lines , although considered somewhat geometric by some , were carefully evolved and quite harmonious . Technical design , with exceptions , showed sound proportions and common sense in details . Resulting loco types were about midways between British cleaned up appearance and American ‘plumbers nightmare’ – they could lean to either side in individual loco classes and then again at various evolutionary stages of that class , with a definite tendency to Americanization . All the full size Decapods , Mikado and Pacific classes started in fairly clean lines with characteristic Wagner type large smoke deflectors and but a few pipes and handling bars carefully arranged strictly parallel to cylindrical boiler .
Post WW-II rebuildings with mixing type preheaters , Witte type smoke deflector wings , combustion chamber boilers , had piping queerly tending to multiply in an amazing way , especially on eastern DR . Well , ok , once having studied function of East-German DR’s arrangement of mixing type preheater plus compound two stage feed pump with four pistons on two piston rods and numerous cold / hot / overflow / recovering , bypassing water lines plus steam lines it was no mystery how boilers could have become half hidden under arrays of slightly slanted piping plus auxiliaries handling rods plus sanding lines spreading out directly pointed to their respective destinations . Cabs , too , seemed to have attracted appurtenances : DR locos cabs were given a sky window that could be lifted and had a lattice over it to protect against possible ill-aimed coaling – and so on . Although strict standardization was high ranking , of Witte wings there were at least three versions , two of them with sub-versions .
Witte wings obviously must have been considered a great way for steam to acquire a modern , fresh look without much spending since every 50 class light Decapod had to have them and even some more leisurely moving 86 class 2-8-2 tank locos on eastern DR got a pair fitted while on western DB powerful 85 class 2-10-2 tank engines grew them for looking fashionably ‘mainlinish’ when grinding up the ramps .
The craze even threatened to invade British Railways with some ex LNER Pacifics sporting them . They might have looked good on Pennsy’s T-1 Duplex , too …
Ok , ok , I’ll stop it .
Now wait a minute – what about American steam ?
Subjected to very little modification, my top twenty ranking for production engine classes, excluding prototype and experimental engines :
Passenger :
#1 NYC S-1b class Niagara – simply the best
#2 PRR T-1 Duplex – in spite of various dubious deficiencies
#3 UP FEF-II – husky good looks & performance
#4 N&W J class – a true muscle loco , yet elegant
#5 PRR K-4s Pacific – timelessly good looking & performing
Dual Purpose :
#1 NYC L-4 class Mohawk – let’s get down to business
#2 Rutland L-1 class – nice ALCO 4-8-2 , straight running board
#3 PRR M-1 class – husky engine , watch your (tender) weight
#4 UP MT-2 class – harmonious , classic good looks
#5 C&O J class 2. version – typical , bullish Super Power
Freight :
#1 UP 9000 class – three cylinders on six driving axles
#2 PRR Q-2 Duplex – the valiant Duplex
#3 ATSF 5011 class – about as large as even a Texan can be
#4 SP SP-2 4-10-2 – interesting three cylinder engine
#5 C&O T-1 Texas type – Super Power looks & performance
Mallet : (*)
#1 C&O / VGN H-8 / AG class – great w/a , great design & power
#2 N&W A class – good proportions , very good performance
#3 UP / D&H Challenger – balanced general purpose performer
#4 B&O EM-1 class – best looking of 2 x 8 coupled types
#5 N&W Y-6 class – why not ? keep on com-pounding !
* Mallet as for type of articulation , indiscriminatingly of expansion mode
Regards
Juniatha
- the magnificant Niagara as imagined in my slightly modified version -
Sometimes a decision made for practical reasons had major impact on a locomotive's appearance. One example: the L&N 4-8-4 had its air brake equipment and plumbing mounted to the frame rather than the boiler. The reason was to avoid the stress caused by boiler expansion when heated, The result was an absence of obvious plumbing - an aesthetic plus.
Sometimes a decision made for aesthetic reasons had practical implications. The D&H Challengers had headlights imbedded to the lens in the smokebox door - which meant that the light went even farther to the outside of curves than the usual location on the pilot of the front engine.
For locomotives that just look nice, I favor latter-day Japanese design. Rounded smokebox fronts, elephant ears, unified sand and steam domes and an overall nicely balanced look. I don't think much of the `streamlined' locos that looked like inverted bathtubs.
Chuck
Juniatha Walscherts valve gear better than any other completed dancing motion of rod system of a running steam locomotive .
Walschaerts valve gear? I am more partial to Abner Baker's gear marketed by the Pilliod Company and found on the Norfolk and Western J-class along with the New York Central Niagara for which you have posted that picture of a scale model.
The principle behind all valve gear, steam or internal combustion engine, is that there is some manner of actuating device in the form of a cam, eccentric disk, or eccentric (return) crank mounted on a shaft that rotates in relation to the engine output shaft, and there is a rod from that actuating device to the valve.
What distinguishes most of the steam valve gears, which allow reversing and variable cutoff, with the combustion engine valve trains, which have fixed cutoff (called fixed valve timing in that application), is that the steam gear has some gizmo that splits the rod connecting the actuator to the valve. The entire valve train could be called the "valve gear", but sometimes that gizmo is what we call the actual "valve gear.
Actually, the newer combustion engines have "variable valve timing" to gain engine efficiency from varying the cutoff somewhat, something the steam people had been doing for over 150 years now. I believe those VVT gears use a single valve rod (or direct cam actuation of a valve rocker), but they have some system for changing the effective cam profile, which is a type of valve gear that came to be late in the Age of Steam (i.e. various types of poppet-valve gear, but I have also seen the "slip eccentric" system on a steam farm tractor operator at a show).
Anyway, the heart of the Walschaerts gear is that curved link along with a "die block" that can be raised or lowered with the reverser links. That die block is articulated to the valve rod, and sliding up and down the takeoff point of the motion within that curved link is what reverses the engine or varies the amount of cutoff. The funny thing about most scale models of steam locomotives that are not live steam is that the Walschaerts gear is permanently in neutral, but the operation of the valve gear is a mystery to most of us and is merely these cool bits that move around as the engine goes. There was some maniac in England, however, who took out a patent on a system of operating the reverser links on a non-live-steam model locomotive to get a more realistic depiction of the valve gear. Funny thing is that there has not been much demand for this device, even among model railroad enthusiasts who will spend as much on a steam engine model as one would on a reasonably good used car.
Ah, the Baker valve gear! The Baker gear is pretty much a "plug compatible" replacement for the actual 'valve gear" part of the Walschaerts, and what it replaces it with is a kinematic marvel, the understanding of which is an active area of engineering scholarship in the 21st century.
The Baker gear is totally comprised of what the kinematic theorists call "revolute joints" and a great portion of kinematic theory applied to the design of robots, automobile suspensions, assembly line automation devices, and so on is the synthesis of useful motions with all-revolute linkages rather than with cams or other sliders. The core of the Baker gear is what kinematicians call a "four-bar linkage" -- the four-bar is perhaps the simplest kinematic device that can produce complicated motions. James Watt's straight-line motion, invented by Watt because sliding crossheads where difficult to machine in the early 19th century, and the invention that Watt claimed to take the most personal satisfaction from, was a four-bar linkage, and the theoretical study of straight-line mechanisms and of four-bar linkage was the foundation of modern kinematics, a very active area of research these days with interest in robots.
But the Baker gear is no ordinary four-bar linkage, it is a four-bar linkage that is reconfigurable by the operation of the reverser, producing the variable cutoff and/or reversing of the valve rod. As I mentioned, there has been tremendous scholarly work on the fixed four-bar linkage, but not much has been said about a variable four-bar. The Walschaerts gear is interesting enough, but the Baker gear is a true engineering marvel. And if anyone ever does the theoretical analysis of the Baker gear, it would benefit the live-steam community greatly because the all-revolute Baker gear is much, much easier to machine.
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
Hi, Paul,
ok --- yes --- I see ..
this is my fault and you can rake me over the coals for that. I always assume people reading to pick up the meaning , simply because that’s my way . If I were to try and check certain texts for possible objections when they remark on technical topics .. oh-oh , my goodness ! But what would be gained by it ? nothing . Steam locomotives are past time – in either which way – though I like to communicate about them , when it turns to quarrelling I leave it alone .
Of course you are right , I should correctly have mentioned Baker as a major variation or improvement to the principle having myself contrived an advancement to it that makes lead variable and increases valve travel at short cut-off . However , writing a text always is a compromise between abridged treating of any topic and complete coverage . So , I hope we can agree such a text can just offer an input – hopefully an inspiration – yet in the end it must be left to readers what to make of it .
I also skipped writing ‘Walschaert’s / Heusinger’ (W / H) which maybe I should have done since further down I remarked on German steam and these deploy Heusinger , although the difference may be hard to see ; they used two variations : lifting arm with link to radius rod / lifting arm directly actuating radius rod with slotted extension . There were noticeable differences in design characteristics between North American as opposed to European types of W / H . Let’s spare variations for compound engines where return crank setting was reversed as were top joint connections in combination lever with outside admission in low pressure cylinders . Lenz or Dabeg valve gear was also actuated by W / H rods system .
All skipped for my deplorable tendency to shorten things and mention just what I am focussing on , trusting readers will know what I mean and follow the highway so to say . Maybe I really I should have written ‘Walschert’s / Heusinger , Baker , Heusinger-Lenz and Walschert’s-Dabeg – though I feel by then the point I wanted to make might have slipped from view .
About valve gear : Since the term ‘valve gear’ generally covered the rods and links system from return crank to anchor link (I disagree with definition confined to ‘gizmo’ , combination lever is a vital part of valve gear) – also known as ‘outer valve gear’ as opposed to ‘inner valve gear’ for functional unit inside the cylinder block – my idea with this sentence was to differentiate between elegant motion of W / H & B and entangled motion of Stephenson’s , or clumsy motion of such types as Southern , Young , Belpaire , Joy to name but some of many and disregarding valve gear specially designed for poppet valves such as Renaud (not Renault) Cossart , Franklin , Caprotti … All these types of valve gear were fundamentally distinguished from W / H & B in that they didn’t have that quartered off-set phase (+/- degree of inclination of connection of eccentric rod , sure) of eccentric rod to main rod that created the specific , rhythmic motion of these rods and the combination lever that so characterised W-/ H & B type of valve gear rod system . You may agree there was arguably little difference in motion of eccentric and radius rods and combination lever between W / H and B as concerns impression of a locomotive passing by at speed – quite in contrast to other mentioned types of valve gear , some of which looked awkward enough on drawing , not to imagine their ungainly motion .
Now , as for difference between W / H and B : Your description of the Baker ‘gizmo’ reads awesome – true , it had an intriguing interlinked motion of gear connecting link , radius bar and bell crank with variable position of centre point of swing of radius bar that leads connecting link to rock bell crank as governed by position of reverse yoke . When all I had seen was a side elevation drawing of the Baker depicting it in mid gear , I have to say it had left me puzzled – mid gear position is really inexpressive with that gear – mainly because the drawing was inconclusive as to what was the upper extension of connecting link and what was radius bar . I still have it and post it below – as you can see it is not fully correct but slightly simplyfied .
Once I got a drawing of the J-3a Baker in forward gear and a front view drawing the ‘mystery’ was resolved and I could compose a ‘motion picture’ in my head to understand what it does . It wasn’t before long I noted from eccentric rod input there was preciously little leverage left at bell crank , so it definitely asked for larger radius of return crank and preferably had a bell crank with arms forming an unsymmetrical triangle to gain some piston valve travel .
Principal difference between Baker link system and W / H expansion link was Baker disposed with any sliding action and could be fully equipped with needle bearings which made it better lasting in service while W / H developed slack between expansion link and die block .
I think , it must be left to personal preference which of the two looks better – again both American and (specifically , in that instance) German basic designs have had their pros and cons with large radius return crank and long tailed expansion link , slanted mid gear position of radius rod in the first case , contrasting with medium-short radius return crank , slanted position eccentric rod , horizontal mid gear position of radius rod in the second case . Interestingly , valve travel for same cut off was pretty much the same in both as was maximum cut-off while of course steam quantities passed through piston valves were vastly differing – which is but one key to why specific steam consumptions were also largely differing …
Expanding a bit on Juniatha's observation regarding the British tendency to hide moving parts, one peculiarity that I've noticed on some UK power is inside-connected main rods with only the side rods visible on the outside.
Thanks for the thoughts and explanations from Juniatha on down and getting this thread back on track.
On the matter of what engine looks best (not what this thread was about), of course, everyone has their own opinion. Many listed the N&W J as a good looker. In relation to that particular locomotive, strip the steamlining off of her and you still have a very clean and handsome locomotive (WWII era unstreamlined version classed as J1 until shrouding was latter applied in late 1945 then reclassed as J). The look of the all welded tender just adds to her good looks!
Chucks comment "Sometimes a decision made for aesthetic reasons had practical implications." makes very good sense and can be clearly seen on the unstreamlined J1
The late David P. Morgan once theorized that steam locomotives tended to reflect the national characteristics of the nations that built them. British engines, he opined, reflected hidden strength under a "smooth unruffled exterior". French engines were the last word in sophistication but "prone to succumb to their own complexities". German engines embodied "brute strength and massiveness" in a no nonsence package. That's all I can remember relative to direct quotes. I personally think that Russian engines were simple and rugged examples of serial mass production, sort of like their T-34 tanks. Italian engines went counter to type. The nation that produced super suave Masarattis and Lancias built the most austere steamers in Europe. And what about us Yanks? We lived up to our reputation by building really massive power and rolling stock in an effort to increase the productivity of our expensive labor force. This was necessary because we alone had privately owned and operated railroads than needed to turn a profit. Our esthetic emphasized size, ease of maintenance, availability and a simple layout but one that included a lot of efficiency improving appliances. An interesting test case for our ideas came in the late '40s when we supplied hundreds of simple 2-8-2's to France to replace war blasted native locomotives. They became the 141P class on the SNCF. The French scoffed at such primitive ( by their standards ) machines but they ran and ran and ran and closed out steam operations long after the De Glenn four cylinder compounds had gone to the torch.
Hi, Jim Valle
To quote your last sentence
>> They became the 141P class on the SNCF. The French scoffed at such primitive ( by their standards ) machines but they ran and ran and ran and closed out steam operations long after the De Glenn four cylinder compounds had gone to the torch. <<
Eh-m , pardon me , it’s vice versa :
P for Paris , i e French engine – R for Rocking , i e American engine ,
to say so as a mnemonic .
On the Mikados series 141.P and 141.R may I recommend my postings in the ‚American steam efficiency ..’ thread , page two
http://cs.trains.com/TRCCS/forums/t/189535.aspx?PageIndex=2
scroll down to my posting
More remarks on draughting , see paragraph 8 to 10
and
Progress in engineering means to advance ... see Addenda below picture
(the first sentence refers to a posting later in that efficiency thread , not to your posting , Jim)
The 141.P or ‘little P’ as they were called in contrast to the ‘large P’ 241.P Mountain type was really a 1920s PLM type and therefore was clearly inferior in mechanical design and structural sturdiness to the 141.R of 1945 . To become a standard series design , just the cylinders and steam circuit was ‘chapelonized’ with but very few improvements agreed to the chassis and framework . Still , the ‘P’ largely out-performed the ‘R’ in the upper speed range and at a rate increasing with speed , they were also allowed 120 km/h against 100 km/h of the ‘R’ . That is why the ‘Rs’ were mainly used in freight traffic while ‘Ps’ were often heading heavy express trains . Only exception to the rule were the oil-fired ‘Rs’ of Marseille taking express trains over the last leg of the Rhône line at the Cote d’Azur to Nizza . There were really three series of 'Rs' - the first still lacking a number of features of contemporary American practice , only the third series had about all of the major features . The 'Rs' , known to French railway men as 'les Américaines' , were well respected for their infatigable work and unwavering mechanical reliability – also for their spacious and ergonomic cabs . As on most railways , on the SNCF last steam was 'starved' out of service by lack of care and maintenance as much as by lack of lines and trains to handle and it was left to the toughest type of steam on the system to write the last page - the 141.R .
The only true Chapelon types would have been the DEL (Division des Études de Locomotives - Locomotive Development Dept) 1950 group of types . Of that group , the northern region of the SNCF (former NORD railway) had actually ordered 100 engines of 2-10-4 three cylinder compound 152.Q series for service ranging from heavy coal trains to heavy express trains (as the NORD had but eight 4-6-4 engines for power above Pacifics) . Construction had started when the whole project got cancelled for electrification .
Those 1950 Chapelon types would have conjoined American design with refined thermodynamics in three cylinder compound engines . There would have been no penalty for higher efficiency in these engines .
(had to re-post it , seems it didn't digest my letterfile)
Juniatha, I admire your very good taste and your knowledge. However, given all the examples of good design you mention, I still fail to note any appreciation for the New Haven I-5, which I still rank with the N&W J as the very best of streamlined steam . Perhaps you just aren't familiar with that locomotive? Or won't consider it because of its counterblancing problems which took it out of service before its predicessor I-4 Pacifics? I'd like to know if you ever saw the locomotive or good photographs.
Dave and Big Jim
As for New Haven I-5 Hudson and Norfolk & Western J class – I can fully appreciate your choice and after all it’s left to you to define your preferences . I’m sure there will be quite a number of further locomotive types people would consider top ranking – what I have posted is just my personal subjective evaluation .
It’s like with music – some like Norah Jones , some like Connie Dover – of the old Warriors of Rock some liked the Doors , some liked Deep Purple . Here's one allegoric for steam - or for finding out which one it was ...
I can understand your liking the Niagra. In order to fit Eastern clearances the design had to be smoothed, with low flat long and wide domes instead of high cicular domes, rounded side corners of the cab roof, etc. I think it is a good visiual design, as well as very fine locomotive despite my preference for the J. But I also like the Ripley designed Sante Fe locomotives, which don't quite make it for you. Is it the European influence that makes you prefer the Niagra?
I rode behind Niagras lots of times, on the Empire State, Wolv erine, Laurentian, and other trains. But I never rode behind a Ripley 4-8-4 (or 4-6-4), because by the time I got to ride to the West Coast and Texas points, the AT&SF had dieselized. The nearest type was a number of rides behind the CB&Q O-4 5632 in excursion and charter service. Q steam, like the PRR, had a visual signature all its own. Charming but not beautiful. Like the K-4.
I think you also would prefer the K-4 to the E-6. I don't but think they are both charming but not beautiful. The E-6 even more charming than the K-4. And the PRR D-16 is really my favorite 4-4-0. It is beautiful and elegant.
Ok, I’ve done It ! I ‘threatened’ it and now here it is .
As for Jim's original question – locomotive appearance was largely defined by contemporary styling – although in most cases it was claimed to be strictly functional – and to national preferences . Where broader views were applied , I feel it has helped both technical virtues and visual appearance and the results often were advancements of the steam locomotive . With the advantage of retrospect view , I have applied some modification to Loewy’s sheet metal art , joining American art and engineering with some European visual aspects .
A - But first let’s have a look at the T-1 , second version , the one I call ‘Altoona version’ to distinguish from the original Loewy style with front cylinders hidden in his Art Deco skirt or fake motor hood complete with Buick style bull eyes (hinting a V6 engine hidden underneath !?) that saw some modifications in construction before production had ended all too soon . The photo shows a T-1 in their later and belated rather wanting condition with poppet valve gear covers missing , overall dirty condition and shrouding section taken away from tender top next to water tank lids . Sorry , I have no further information on the location (Englewood?) and don’t know the photographer or else I would happily have credited him .
B - Well then , this here shows my changes to appearance – non technical modification only – with straight and slightly reduced in depth running board valances , cab with cab side and window flush (in the original design it stands angled out) , no tender shrouding behind coal compartment , lower edge of water tank raised and rounded , dispensing with the water legs along sides and returning to two six wheel bogies with reduced mass of tender . Up front I trimmed the ‘handbag’ with auxiliaries and the side valances with steps connecting running board to front buffer beam . The rectangular number box standing canted within the Loewy wedge I replaced with a box having round ends and mounted flush with the wedge and last not least I reapplied the covers to the cylinders (this latter not just for aesthetic reasons but with the delicate mechanism it was vital to protect against abrasives emitted by the engine’s exhaust) .
C - A word on smoke deflectors :
Functional purpose of smoke deflectors was to keep exhaust mixture of steam and gases clear of locomotive to avoid obstruction to view as well as to minimize cinder hazards to crew outlook and besides that reduce self-induced staining of steam locomotives . Importance of smoke deflectors increased with traveling speed , with shorter cut-off running and with more complete exploit of exhaust steam energy for draughting which left less energy in exhaust mixture for lifting off . This was realized by keeping air stream tighter to boiler sides to prohibit exhaust mixture to be dragged down by low pressure zones around the boiler , namely about the front half of its length . For that purpose , the deflector plates were curved like sails to capture the air stream and keep it to boiler sides . Namely the lower edge was rolled-in for that purpose while air stream was allowed to overflow upper edge to a certain extend .
The lower edge of Witte wings was generally made slightly sloping down towards the front – with but very few exceptions to the rule in more coarse applications . You may ask why ? Well , frankly I think it just looks better as it accentuates the ‘forward look’ . But of course there was a strictly functional reason given in DB papers on introduction of Witte wings , which was : the rolled-in lower edge is made to stand in line with drivers view from cab so the deflector’s longitudinal shadow is minimized . That way – as I can confirm from cab rides on 52 class Decapod engines equipped with these deflectors – obstruction to forward view is only small and was generally felt acceptable by loco crews .
Ok , here she comes – the T-1 with Witte smoke deflectors :
The visual changes I made to the T-1 locomotive are aimed at smoothening appearance , accentuating unity of engine and tender and adding dynamic vigor , namely to upper front as to balance with the given rather massive lower part that used to contrast with the rakish wedge theme of the smoke box . Wind deflecting function of the Witte wings should have been very effective with that sideways wind splitting front end shrouding .
Position and length of deflectors – or wings as I prefer to call them – are arranged to make them appear in line with boiler top from a near-by viewer’s position , this way extending the top silhouette line . To do that , they are actually positioned nearly around the boiler center line , height of their sheets being about same as radius of boiler incl cladding . In accordance with the front treatment I have modified the cab to have slightly folded sides with planes slanted around window , vertical below . Again , I can say from my own experience this noticeably eases look out forwards along cab side snuggly resting ellbow on window board as was the habitual international posture of steam crews – night or day , sunshine or rain – in spite of just as international railroads warnings not to do that (in France , resigning railways provided biker goggles to crews while in Germany window frames were equipped with little wind breaking glass shields that only made drivers lean out further to look around them) .
Well , there she goes , into the twilight of steam … I know – a Pennsy Duplex with Witte wings may come like a bit of a shock to some people – never mind , just have another look at some later time .
Locomotive aesthetics is pretty subjective, so take my thoughts as you will. The smoke deflectors make the T1 look like it was exported to PRR from the Deutsche Reichsbahn. The running board and tender stripe look borrowed from N&W, a distinct PRR image might be preferred. Restoring the cylinder covers is a positive, though.
I have to say, to be frank, that aesthetically, in my opinion. this is not an improvement. I won't dispute that it may have helped visibility, but only for the cab crew.
I much prefer the lines of the later Duplex, and not the Decco version with the bulls-eye a la Buick ports along the front side fairing. To me, the later look evokes power and purpose, even though it was an odd and unique design.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.