I find it interesting that this thread is still walking around. When I first started it, the intent was why some engines looked like plumber's nightmares and others looked as slick as the wind yet all were able to get things done.
It should have been self evident that streamlining did not count. So too, color was not a criteria.
.
BigJim I find it interesting that this thread is still walking around. When I first started it, the intent was why some engines looked like plumber's nightmares and others looked as slick as the wind yet all were able to get things done. It should have been self evident that streamlining did not count. So too, color was not a criteria.
EEEEEEK! A NAKED 'J'!!!! Actually, it still looks good even without the steamlining. Excellence is excellence, no matter how it's styled. And by the way, who cares if this topic's taken on a life of it's own and keeps rollin' on, it's FUN!
EEEEEEK! A NAKED 'J'!!!!
Yeah, even naked it's still SLICK!
Hi Big Jim
Your remark is interesting in that it attempts to differentiates between covering up and covering up - one having an air streaming effect and one that doesn't .
Technically and in considerations of maintenance it didn't make a difference if a mechanic had to demount covers that were part of a streamlining or covers that were part of cladding without streamlining to get at some mechanical item - it both took time and effort to deal with .
Why were some engines "slick" and still did the job ?
Very simple , imho , there were basically three methods :
(a) Russian method : don't use but the utmost basic auxiliaries and then only a minimum of it , mount these in cab for frost protection if at all possible or tuck away for safety against damage by collision . ( see my earlier remarks on exactly this feature describing simplicity of an L class Decapod , within a longer one of my technical comment )
(b) British methods : use an individual choice of a few refinements and leave off most others according to personal preference of the CME who may or may not like this or that item .
(1) - Private railways : never use feed pumps and preheaters , no sand domes , mostly don't never-ever use no nothing of what was considered indispensable in America ,Germany ,or France and leave it to cheap labor to fix the consequences such as rapid wear , bad accessibility , bad steaming in consequence of incomplete grate cleaning being very hard work with lack of dropping / shaking grate and ashpan being cramped and insufficient . Churchward four cylinder types: leave off compounding and 'simplify' to simple expansion and tug all valve gear rod system for all four cylinders within frames where it is difficult to access between boiler leavages yet makes of clean looks – 'slick' . This sort of design was only possible in a strictly hierarchical society where decisions by CMEs were largely unquestioned and labor was regarded to swallow things as they were .
(2) - British Standard : choose a decently austere standard selection of modern auxiliaries , far from using all of the major ones , leave alone all that was desirable ; concentrate auxiliaries and piping lines underneath running board valances or line up within frames - slick , too , if to a more 'Continental' look . That was one of a very few attempts in international steam development to give installation and positioning of these subsidiary things proper thoughts of its own instead of loosely spreading them over the locomotive in ways of an afterthought obviously without coherent concept or logics as was the more common practice with these items considered of 'secondary' importance ( failure of which still could render an engine unserviceable – which may make you wonder about soundness of this way of 'design' )
(c) American method : happily add appurtenances to locos as they spring up with steam development advancing until you discover that locomotives have become buried below a crust of fairly casually distributed auxiliaries and their necessary or not strictly necessary lines and pipings , then jump on an attempt at 'Anglification' by cleaning up an existing engine , partly taking off things considered of lesser value and stuffing the rest under a wider boiler cladding , running board valances , false outer firebox shroudings in front of the cab and the like , at the same time leave some items exposed by random choice , such as air reservoirs – present rebuilt engine to public , enjoy some rustle in the news then get disillusioned about it because of lack of harmony in the locomotive's line , just get bored of the whole thing and leave it alone ; continue to clutter locomotives freely with varying equipment as comes handy for engineers (not maintenance necessarily) , apply different types , series and sizes for each of the auxiliaries items until storing parts for locomotives becomes a science of its own - dieselize to get rid of entangling spares provisioning and plumber's nightmares . Footnote : enjoy diesel streamlining as 'The Future Look' only to switch to hood units for future acquisitions .
The German method as used in standard engines , by the way , was somewhere in between British and American , longing for British results while preferring American methods applied with some more or less strict austerity , arriving at a typically German Standard Look of its own without someone admitting intent pointing to joint responsibility by design committee , yet invariably clinging fast to established for ages until nothing but electrification could break it .
The French way rather was to care for neither one of these methods , on a philosophy postulating that technical demands will by themselves form shape and character of locomotives although surprisingly same demands formed differently shaped locos on different railways ; however that only proved the point as without mentioning it was self-understood , sure enough , personal character and influence of designers must never be ignored . Discuss steam loco design optimum choices and possibilities in line with traditional 'finding ways for a solution is the solution' thinking until questions are rendered irrelevant by electrification .
.. which brings us back to the US where different RRs had different CMEs and different management and they consequently brought up different shapes and degrees of auxiliary equipment spread variably on what were basically locomotive for similar demands .
That's all there was in it – no mystery , no wizardry , no devadip visions – just plain and sound or not so sound engineering in times before CAD / CAM - in German also referred to as "Computer am Dienstag - Chaos am Mittwoch" - transl : Computer on Tuesday - Chaos on Wednesday
"Strange times have found us ..." (Jim Morrison)
Regards
Juniatha
edit diverse typerrands rect
Well, I just simply do not care for streamlined steam power, in general, and I just can't like the appearance of most "European" steam. For me it is most likely because I simply prefer the look of many American steam engines built during the 1930's--the "Post USRA" look if you will--influenced by the USRA engines, but not quite the same...
The only streamlined steam engine I like is Santa Fe's Blue Goose--and then mainly due to the paint scheme they chose, combined with the streamlining. It was a striking engine--yet some just hate it.
To me, some of the finest looking steam engines ever constructed were Southern Pacific's 4-8-2's (prior to the application of shrouding) and 4-10-2's, along with the Rio Grande M-75 and M-78 4-8-2's, and my favorite 4-8-4 of all is the Rio Grande M-64 Class--simply beautiful--but in general I don't care for 4-8-4's. Most of these engines strike a balance between having some exposed external piping versus having too much.
In the way too much exposed piping class I'll have to put the C&O H-7, DRGW L-131/132, and WP 251/257 Class 2-8-8-2's. Those were all true "pipefitter's nightmares".
I also like the USRA 2-6-6-2's and 2-8-8-2's, and the C&O Class H-4 through H-6, along with the Norfolk and Western "Improved" USRA 2-8-8-2, the Y-3.My 2c.
John
Aesthetics are in the eye of the individual and their personal relationship to the machine.
The design engineer has his, the locomotive engineer has his, the boilermaker has his, the running gear mechanic has his, the train crew has theirs and rail fans have theirs. Each is predicated on how they have to interact with the machine and all are different.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Sorry you do not distinguish between personal preferences such as "I like my Big Mac with ..." and "you like your beer from .." and categories of aesthetic values .
Aesthetics cover a field of visual qualities and these can be discussed on a number of axioms much in the way as philosophy can be discussed , or as in music the quality of an interpretation of a music piece can very well be objectively evaluated according to various criteria (such as trueness to the composer , virtuosity , brilliance etc) . In such ways aspects of aesthetics are likewise very well possible to discuss , finding and amending flaws in a theory applied , or considering logics and conclusions by using rational if meticulous and knowledgeable sensible thinking .
For sure not by such basic statements as "I don't like it - no reason needed nor thought about , full stop ." That's 'booze cave' level of talk , often enough tending to end up in fist fighting and finally the stronger one is right , if only because his opponents can't talk anymore .
I'm into the former , not the latter .
Ok, when I get angry I make typing errors - edited
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
On copying pictures with quotation :
I do not like to see pictures I posted copied in quotations -
1. - its superflouos for citing the text
2. - I reserve my right to delete any of my pictures in certain cases or conditions -
with copies in quotations this would lead to an absurd situation
3. - under certain conditions this could promote further use of these pictures elsewhere
which might then be done without notifying me and without my permission .
In case of quotation please click on the picture then click 'Del' - its so easy .
I consider it only decent to at least ask my permission before using ,
even within a thread .
Thank you .
Juniatha--
Huh, what? Were you replying in part to my post?
I've been off this forum for a couple years, and was responding to what I perceived to be the intent of this topic as posted: the original post seemed to be asking for our opinions, and I stated my personal preferences but made no comments regarding the preferences of others.
I can say that your comments above regarding the "American method" ... do read as being a bit of an oversimplification. It seems to me that most American railroads actually did have a preferred layout of piping and appliances, though there were certainly exceptions. Most roads' engines did indeed have a "family" appearance.
Juniatha Aesthetics cover a field of visual qualities and these can be discussed on a number of axioms much in the way as philosophy can be discussed , or as in music the quality of an interpretation of a music piece can very well be objectively evaluated according to various criteria (such as trueness to the composer , virtuosity , brilliance etc) . In such ways aspects of aesthetics are likewise very well possible to discuss , finding and amending flaws in a theory applied , or considering logics and conclusions by using rational if meticulous and knowledgeable sensible thinking .
I would think a better comparison for the aesthetics of locomotives would be the aesthetics of the composition as opposed to the performance of a music piece. The "quality of an interpretation" most closely resembles the skills of the workers interpreting the drawings.
One reason that I favor the American vs English approach to steam locomotive design is that the workings of the American locomtive are gloriously visible. Little attempt is made to hide the functions of the various parts of the locomotive, especially the pistons, connecting rods and valve gear. What makes for a great looking American style locomotive is proportion, care in laying out the piping, placement of accessories, etc. An example, the C&O Allegheny has a lot of exposed piping, but it looks like it was carefully placed as opposed to dumped on the sides (this also may get back to "quality of an interpretation" by the steamfitters and pipefitters).
English steamers typically hide too much of what makes a steam locomotive so appealing. In some ways it reminds me of women my age who go too heavily on plastic surgery to look younger, while their skin is smoother, they lose a lot of expressiveness in their face. Similarly, pictures of nature are usually more calming than city streetscapes, there's a lotof fine detail in a nature shot that is not present in a streetscape.
- Erik
P.S. One of the ugliest "American style, let it all hang out" locomotives was the D&H 1400, their first high pressure experimental.
"Beauty lies in the eyes of the beholder" - or, in other words, you like what you are accustomed with. I grew up when steam was still very much apparent on German rails - mainly steamers with that standard Deutsche Reichsbahn look of the 1930´s, few locos dating back to the times before WW I. French, and foremost, those "clean-shaven" British locos looked odd to me on pictures I saw in my youth. I, however, grew to like them when I was able to travel and see them in operation or in a museum.
Still, there are some I´d call odd looking, if not ugly, the epitome of which being this "beauty":
Other than the smoke stack, all other parts that make a steam loco look like a steamer are missing. Personally, I think that designer Oliver Bulleid has gone a little too far with this "Austerity"-design, yet it still sports costly to maintain inside cylinders and valve gear.
Interesting fact is, that the German drive to economize during WW II resulted in what was certainly the most successful steam locomotive design ever, with over 7,000 locos built and a large number surviving up until today.
Designed and built to last only "until the war is over", quite a number of them stayed in regular service well over 5 decades! The difference between those two? In simple words- what you don´t see on the latter picture is not there.
Hi Erik , John and Ulrich
I will answer to you tomorrow if I have time to do so - have to leave now .
I will come back on it .
Thanx
With warm respect to all readers and responders, we appear (to me) to be labouring under both a defect and deficiency in common language and in operationalizing of the most important terms, chief among them being the prinicpal term aesthetics.
As a quick glance through the Wiki page on aesthetics will reveal, there are many evolutions and applications in the greater field with the commensurate cultures and taxonomies. Some of us may be more versed and facile in one or more of them than others. Therefore, our discussion won't bear much fruit until we are all looking at the same row of grape vines...if you follow.
Crandell
Crandell - how true! Even if we´d exchange the word aesthetics for "appeal", the issue will remain a matter of personal judgment, if not like/dislike.
In our days of today, where steam traction is relegated into museums or tourist line service, I am happy to see any steam loco, regardless of its looks or "aesthetics" - being a steam loco makes it appealing for me.
Gee, Crandell, you're harder to read than Juniatha!
Big Jim, bingo! I had wanted to illustrate the importance of using terms and a level of the both the language and the subject that we can all appreciate. I will now lay off the glitter.
To be serious, I really feel we should all agree on the meaning of the important terms used by people so far. I get the distinct impression that Juniatha is talking a level or two above us, perhaps intentionally so as to drag us kicking and screaming to a point where we can give your subject its proper course. Her continued presence in this discussion suggests to me that she appreciates the topic and the opportunities it presents, but that she quickly found us to be willing to stay at the bottom of the barrel...so-to-speak. She would like to elevate both our thinking and our reach.
It's an opportunity. [shrug] Maybe we could, or some of us anyway, with your permission, try to agree on a super-aesthetic of some kind that would help us to peg steam locomotives over more than the adjudged rakish slope on the leading edge of smoke lifters. Or the trailing edge.
Said another way, I wonder how many of us have thought to ourselves over the course of this lengthening thread that we are missing something. Juniatha is obviously not using her primary language, so her syntax seems contrived or odd at times, and I know that can get in the way of understanding. Working hard to understand what she is driving at, I get the impression she is teasing us, trying to urge us to come up to a level of the discussion where she could reveal more about her vast appreciation of steam locomotives. I am willing to do that because I sense no malice or condescension in her.
If that makes any sense....
Hi Crandell
This and your previous comment should get a more comprehensive answer than I can offer presently for lack of time . Yet I want to put some misleading assumptions straight about my intentions .
First , let me make quite clear it would be the last thing on my mind to try and teach some in here , nor to tease or the like .
I joined the subject because of the title of this thread „Locomotive Aesthetics“ straight forward taking it for granted people are aware of the meaning of the term . Mind , the thread was started by Big Jim with his initial entry posted: 05-13-2011 1:40 AM , to quote >> Since everyone here is in such a very subjective mood, let us take look at locomotive aesthetics … <<
In the following it meandered more about personal likings , these again not so much based on considerations on looks from a more laid-back point of view but rather by habitude acquired through early influence by those engines that happened to roam the vicinity – in other words an approach to the topic by 'I still prefer what I saw first – full stop' .
I want to underline again everyone is free to content with what they feel suits them – perfectly fine . Similar guidelines are found in many ways of life and they can provide continuity and security in our decision making .
This is like saying “I believe apple pies were best the way they were made in my ...” That's ok for a personal preference . Yet , even if being perfectly able to tell other apple pies apart from those home made ones by just a mince variation , this does not suffice to apply as a confectioner or pastry cook in a café because it doesn't mean to be able to actually make them , less to make other pastry , less to know which pastry to serve for which occasion and why , plus in combination with what . On the other hand , if you would ask professional confectioner which pastry is best they might be unable to answer since there is no single one best of all for any occasion ; they could tell you the ingredients needed , the recipe and possible variations to it and instead might ask back “I can make anyone – which one do you want ?” Decisive in judging the quality of pastry then is taste , quality of ingredients used , nutritious facts , calories , lightness to digestion , health aspects etc . Again , a consumer could rightly say “Great – tastes like those home made ones I recall” or “naw , it's not the same !”
The former are objective points for evaluation of quality typical of the trade – the latter is a personal preference .
Back to steam locomotives :
1 - The steam locomotive in its classic configuration was a most expressive machine , explicitly so as compared to hood covered or shrouded units of diesels or electrics where even the turning of wheels is mostly hidden behind outside bearings and bogie framework with suspension , virtually petrifying expression of the whole vehicle even when moving . Yet I wonder sometimes , in spite of all these vivid variation and variety in actual steam locomotives' external shapes , surprisingly little attention seems to be given to all of that by a number of steam loco fans : what makes a steam locomotive look good and what tends to spoil the appearance , what ingredients make for harmonious proportions , often – not always – equally advantageous in looks as in performance , and what provides an awful effect … and so on and so forth .
2 - As concerns aesthetics , since we consider technical applications of shaping and forming of things to suit a purpose , there are more objective criterion than in free art , since – as the word says – art is free , art by definition is a free means of expression – yet there are objective criterion , too , for evaluating a piece of art although , there too , many art collectors go by scale of “it lines up with / does not line up with what I'm used to” . I recall one writer' cynical description of a lofty society at a Carnegie Hall premiere , during the break making cultivated conversation about the performance , each “having brought with them a distinctive sentence to throw in at the right moment to distinguish themselves as connoisseurs with but a minimum of knowledge” . This applies to contemporary music as well , although in general there is a lot of experimenting and variation – yet if a singer like Sade turns out an album of differing character , there are fans who shake heads and turn away : they don't ask if it's any good or maybe better than previous releases , it's just not the same .
To repeat : it's perfectly left to personal choice to like or dislike – yet this is not an objective criterion for evaluating quality of performance in aspects of aesthetics as topical here , be it in the field of music , painting , architecture or mechanical engineering .
Then again , not everyone is prepared to see artistry in engineering – one example was a professor I had at the university ; he claimed there was no scope for artistry in engineering since all decisions are determined by plain facts and objective considerations and that would lead to just one optimum solution . I replied “Ok , so why does an S-class Mercedes differ in looks from a 7-series BMW , both have high performance engines of different design and , yet they are pretty much as fast and as comfortable as each the other “ The answer was something winding around “commercial aspects” and “marketing” . I sharpened up by argumenting “Then , why does a Boeing look different than an Airbus of competitive size ?” Answer , with a surprised start “Do they ? but not much probably .. ( mumbling )” .
As I see it : different people find different answers to similar tasks – that is so in engineering as it is in art or in fact in many other ways of life demanding creativity .
That's what I see behind why the North-Western Folk turned out their home made A class in fairly cleaned looks taking care to tuck away pipes as best they knew , even topped it with the smooth lined J class 'muscle loco' of landmark quality in American RR engineering history while the Chessie peaked matters external piping line-up with Lima's Herculean Eight – because that was each their approach to good engineering .
Now , as for aesthetics , both of the double-six SE Mallet types had their good points , imho a few major ones being : fireboxes were neatly positioned behind drivers and fully supported by delta trucks , at the same time optical boiler proportions were looking sound and square with agreeable – not perfect – positioning and shaping of dome and sand boxes , preferably with double chimney in the H-8 ; identical drive sets in first and second unit ; engine and tender optical proportions and ponderousness matching ; cab of agreeable lines and proportions , each in traditional style for big steam on these RRs ..
.. and both these locomotive types moved their tonnage fair and square because they were principally sound designs to the level of technology then applied .
Juniatha Hi Crandell ...I joined the subject because of the title of this thread „Locomotive Aesthetics“ straight forward taking it for granted people are aware of the meaning of the term ... Juniatha
...I joined the subject because of the title of this thread „Locomotive Aesthetics“ straight forward taking it for granted people are aware of the meaning of the term ...
Juniatha, you seem to have agreed with the central point in my last post. We all labour under assumptions here, and the thread has wandered long and wide while we have yet to come to any form of consensus. I was under the impression you took a meaning to the term that was different from what others have taken and used, and a couple of times you seemed to reply that you had hoped for a different type of response from people. Perhaps my last post was stating the obvious...to you...but I was also under the distinct impression that it was not obvious to others who have been willing to participate, if only to to contribute personal subjectivity. Perhaps I used too much license in the term teasing (I meant not that you were being mischievous, but that you were attempting to encourage us to reach further than the immediate and common understanding of aesthetics).
In any event, until most of us can agree to common terms, the topic will continue its meandering and length, but never nearer a satisfactory conclusion. My opinion, of course.
Thank you for quick response – yes I agree with you , also with you contributing this important point . Well , in the end we exchange ideas and hopefully encourage some second thought , second point of view to one another . We can also agree to disagree on certain points having laid down our reasoning , it may still offer another point of view to us .
Taking the occasion for mentioning some of what I see as once having been axioms when steam locomotive design was being practiced , an axiom therein being a standard rule of design generally accepted to hold truth or golden rule such as the famous 1 : 1.618 relation of middle age architects of Gothic cathedrals . The better known of axioms in steam loco design intriguingly were even internationally respected , although otherwise means and demands of builders and roads were widely differing .
The best known I think was this one :
1 - Chimney / Cylinder Line-Up
With cylinders behind a guiding axle , align chimney and cylinders vertical center lines in one vertical lateral plane (chimney positioned vertically above cylinders in side elevation drawing) .
Also widely followed was :
2 – Cylinder / Bogie Line-Up
With front four wheel bogie , place cylinders between axles on a vertical lateral plane that goes through bogie center line so as to produce equal spacing from cylinder to first and second axle .
Add.: an ingenious willful deviation was the deGlehn arrangement where smalloutside h p cylinders were repositioned back to sit above the second bogie axle ; in most cases central position of chimney relative to bogie was kept .
Generally accepted if by a fairly loose margin were :
3 - wheel diameter to boiler top line relations
(a) for express types wheel diameter should be 1 : 2 of boiler top line height above rails
(b) for dual purpose types wheel diameter should be 1 : 2.5 of boiler top line height above rails
(c) for freight types wheel diameter should be 1 : 3 of boiler top line height above rails
As engines grew in size , these relations could no longer be kept in many of the US Super Power types , for instance it was more like 1 : 2.3 in the Niagara since wheel diameter remained at 79 ins as it had been while boiler was increased and pitched to the max ; the freight rule was however pretty well realized in most of the 1940s designs , including SE Mallets .
Respected in most cases and not violated without detrimental effect to boiler and chassis balance :
4 – Position of firebox
(a) With wheel arrangement having relatively small drive wheel diameter and ending by last coupled axle such as used for high degree coupling as in Consol , Decapod or Centiped , firebox grate should be above last coupled axle , throat plate situated between last and second last axles (deviation : for large grates it may extend forwards over second last coupled axle in a Decapod or Centiped although this tends to compromise harmony between boiler and chassis)
(b) With wheel arrangements having one trailing axle , firebox should be positioned above that axle and extend forward to have a slanted throat plate more or less hugging last coupled axle .
(c) With two or three axle delta truck firebox throat plate does not need to be hugging last coupled axle closely since there is enough support to have firebox rest entirely above trailing wheels , preferably making it extend further backwards to enlarge volume and grate .
(d) With wheel arrangements having front four wheel bogie , yet not trailer , such as TenWheeler or Mastodon , generally having medium-high or high drive wheel diameter , firebox is preferably placed between wheels with a narrow grate .
Add.: with oilfiring , a high-up wide box would theoretically be possible – on the other hand limits of narrow grate have no influence on combustion limit with fluid fuels while restrictions to volume of a wide box squeezed above high wheels do have an adverse effect on combustion – again disharmonious looks go together with disharmonious functions .
There are many more , yet let's leave it at that – maybe another contributor could come up with an observation , too .
Now , just as a virtuous piano player can interpret a piece or play improvisations on it , skillful steam loco designers could willfully deviate from these basic rules to shape a design in ways desired . The effect may have been dynamic – powerful – speedy – light or heavy .. just the question was : did it result in an integral engine where components worked together well or did it tend to disintegrate with components mismatching and not working together well .
Aeronautical engineers used to have a saying, and maybe they still do, and it went "if it looks good, it'll fly good". For the most part it was true, there weren't many ugly aircraft that were successful, at least not in the long run.
Now, what's that got to do with "Locomotive Esthetics" you might ask. Well, looking at the history of steam locomotion we can see that the same rule generally applies. There's been some experimentals in the past, too many to go into, that were some designers pet projecr that went way out of the norm, and turned out to be flops. Too much deviation seemed to lead to failure.
When I look at a steam locomotive and judge it by looks, I look at balance and harmony of design, does it "look right". If it's a streamlined job, does the streamlining look like it belongs there, is it a part of the whole, or does it look like the 'road slapped it on so they could be "cool" like the other guys. Case in point, the Dreyfuss Hudsons on the 20th Century Limited and Empire State Limited versus the "upside-down bathtub" on the "Commodore Vanderbilt", or the streamlining on some of the Pennsy's K-4's. One looks sleek and functionally correct, the other's a "what the.....". See where I'm going with this?
Then there's the photo Sir Madoq posted of the "Kreigslok". Not a pretty loco to say the least, however you can see it's "all business", built to do a job, designed for ease of contruction and maintainance, and impressive in it's own right. It looks right for what it's meant to do.
Icould go on and on like this but I think you all see where I'm coming from.
Oh, and by the way, don't any of you underestimate Juniatha! I've been corresponding with that big-hearted and great spirited young lady for quite some time now, and DON'T assume she doesn't know what she's talking about. Case in point: About a week or so ago she asked me what I knew about the "Classic Trains" article about the Pennsy S-2. I told her how to find the "Classic Trains" website and how they had S-2 patent drawings available for download. Well she took a look at the drawings and guess what? She found some things they did wrong, or didn't do as well as they should have. Remember, any of us "experts"can talk about the glory of steam, but there doesn't seem too many of us who can explain the deceptively simple guts the machine. She's one who can, and is a definate plus to this Forum!
Juniatha, thanks very much for your explanatory post just above. I think this is what we need in order to begin to discuss the subject from the same bench.
Firelock76 ...Remember, any of us "experts"can talk about the glory of steam, but there doesn't seem too many of us who can explain the deceptively simple guts the machine. She's one who can, and is a definate plus to this Forum!
...Remember, any of us "experts"can talk about the glory of steam, but there doesn't seem too many of us who can explain the deceptively simple guts the machine. She's one who can, and is a definate plus to this Forum!
I couldn't have said it better myself, and I agree entirely. We are very lucky to have such a patient and informed enthusiast as she willing to discuss these things when I, for one, am so woefully uninformed and in need of her help.
Juniatha; thank you for being here . You are truly a gifted lady with all the knowledge you have shared with us. You are most welcome here .
Respectfully, Cannonball
Y6bs evergreen in my mind
Hi Firelock , Selector & Switch/frg
Well , thank you boys - it's nice to exchange ideas and I guess we may call ourselves lucky to be able to spend some time with things like thoughts on classic RR locomotives .
More next time
~~ A parting glance---- Does "form and function " still hold true ? Or has that changed to "purpose and function" Sometimes engineering physics has a very broad line to work with.
Just curious
Hi Cannonball
Oh , sure it does - only , with technology advancing and becoming more complex , so must view on aesthetics . As I mentioned airplanes before – as an example of technology where everyone would agree that in fact external shapes are determined by parameters of air flow – I believe the new Boeing 787 is an example of how within all considerations skillful engineering can still realize pleasing , harmonious and yet expressive contours and lines that make a fantastically performing jet liner look just that .
Personally I don't care what a steam locomotive looks like. If it is going somewhere I will ride it. I do believe the C&O Streamlined Hudson #490 (4-6-4) at the Baltimore railroad museum is one of the finest steam locomotives I have ever seen in person.
Normal 0 21 MicrosoftInternetExplorer4
Hi Firelock
Uhm , those notes of mine mainly addressing the gearbox drawings and general positioning of the turbines – if you count forward and reverse – sure were in retrospect view in the light of later technology , with exception of arrangement of the gearbox / axle drive that looks pretty – uhm – conventional even for 1944 .
Hi Selector
My first language was American English , however we moved – or rather : my father took us with him to move – to Berlin before I even went to school . In Berlin , I had an initial time of disturbed 'silencing out' somewhat feeling like a ‘displaced child’ if I would have known the term in spite of American speaking closer environment . Then , as mom took me with her on tours to the city I began to reconnoiter more of the city quarter I came to like it – the rural streets , always slightly sandy , shaded by tall old trees , the playgrounds , the parks – and began to pick up German , my mom's original language , progressively while my English slowly fell behind , more so when later on I was roaming the city of West-Berlin with friends .
Sorry if my language may sometimes appear somewhat circuitous or twisted – never hesitate to send me a personal message if in doubt about meaning of content .
Hi John
uhm - no my comment wasn't aimed at your's since you clearly confined what you meant .
My description of all the methods was kind of a wry exaggeration of typical tendencies -
not a real description - neither American nor European .
regards
= J =
Thomas 9011 Personally I don't care what a steam locomotive looks like. If it is going somewhere I will ride it. I do believe the C&O Streamlined Hudson #490 (4-6-4) at the Baltimore railroad museum is one of the finest steam locomotives I have ever seen in person.
Oh, yeah Thomas, I too have seen the C&O #490 myself at the B&O museum, it's a stunner, however have you ever seen the N&W Class J, the "Mighty 611"? The wife and I will probably never love another engine like we loved that one. There's 611, then there's everything else, no disrepect intended to those of other opinions. By the way, my two favorites at the B&O museum are the "William Mason" and that funky old CNJ Camelback. The CNJ boxcab diesel #1000 is pretty interesting in it's own right, you can still smell the diesel fuel if you lean into it close enough. I wonder if it's still capable of running?
Oh, and Juniatha, I can't help but think if you were around in 1945 you might have saved the Pennsy S-2!
Yes I used to live in Virginia and rode behind the 611 on a excursion. I have rode on many trains all over the United states but the 611 could really get a train up and going in a big hurry. It also had some of the best stack exhaust I have ever heard. Of course back in the early 90's it was pure 611 muscle with no diesels.
The 611 also was unique in the fact that it was nearly totally silent when it was resting. I swear you could stand right next to it and it was like standing next to a steam locomotive in a city park. No injector noise, no generator noise, no air pump noise, no firebox noise, very strange.
She was a beautiful engine and entire towns used to come out to watch her go by. It's a crying shame she is sitting at a museum
I also agree those Camel backs are something else. I read they were very dangerous as if a side rod broke it would swipe the cab and engineer clean off in one swoop. It was also hard for the engineer to communicate with the fireman as some one had to walk back and forth on the catwalks. I heard the fireman froze to death in the winter as you only had a roof and nothing else to protect you from the cold.
Check this photo out of a articulated camel back! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camelback_locomotive
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.