I wonder if anyone agrees that unfortunately, the current US built freight locomotives (EMD and GE) have got to be some of the ugliest I have seen about 30 years. Do EMD or GE actually employ any industrial designers? I am not talking engineering staff but a modern day equivalent to Raymond Lowey who designed the GG1. Why could EMD not take the wonderful design for the British Class 66 locos they built and adapt it to their current SD's, make it one cab instead of the dual cab the British use and keep the current cowl arrangement behind the cab? Anything would be better than what they turn out now.
And how would these "cute" designs improve the performance and economics of the current locomotives? Locomotives aren't designed to look pretty, they are designed to maximize profit for a railroad.
That is true, however as I noted, the Pennsy employed Raymond Lowey to design the GG1 because they knew that profit for them and good design were not mutually exclusive. The EMD "E" units were beautiful and profitable for their owners. Even the venerable SD-40-2 was a beautiful locomotive. As I noted in my original post, look for pictures of the EMD class 66 locos for Britain. They are beautiful and are profitable for EWS, Freightliner, Great Britain Rail Freight, etc.
When Pennsy (and NYC and the South Manchuria Railway) employed Raymond Loewy to make their locos look art-deco pretty the railroads were concerned about public image - and its impact on passenger revenue. They were willing to spend a few extra bucks on appearance.
Present-day railroads are more concerned with efficient operation and are trying (with some success) to stay below public perception. Loewy is out and Frank Lloyd Wright ("Form follows function!") is in.
I agree that today's gensets on powered wheels look like portable generators on powered wheels. So what. They're engaged in an efficiency contest, not a beauty contest.
Do you think that bulldozers, forklifts and battle tanks should be 'pretty?' Or would you prefer them to be as efficient as possible? With heavy machinery, beauty is an add-on.
Chuck [MSgt, USAF(Ret)]
Customers don't care what the engine looks like when it shows up. The customer just wants his/her cars spotted or pulled as appropriate.
I actually like the look of the gensets. Freight engines should be all about business.
It's been fun. But it isn't much fun anymore. Signing off for now.
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.t fun any
Beauty lies in the eyes of the beholder, but I have to confess that, for my eyes, the current stable of Diesel locos in the US look outright ugly. Their strictly utilitarian look lacks any elegance the F- and E units had in the days back when railroads where a prime mode of transport.
The EMD class 66 is no beauty either, but still a lot better looking than the successor, EMD class 70.
Compared to this, the nearly 50 year old design of a DB class 218 Diesel is outright beautiful.
The Freightliner Class 70's are built by GE. Opinions on appearances are subjective, but a hood unit on the UK loading gauge is not going to look good, it's just too small.
tomikawaTTWhen Pennsy (and NYC and the South Manchuria Railway) employed Raymond Loewy to make their locos look art-deco pretty
Just a note about art deco. It is not a style. It is creating beautiful objects by using industrial processes rather than traditional artisans.
John WR [Just a note about art deco. It is not a style. It is creating beautiful objects by using industrial processes rather than traditional artisans.
[Just a note about art deco. It is not a style. It is creating beautiful objects by using industrial processes rather than traditional artisans.
Art Deco is a design style associated with the 1930's, a section of Miami Beach (South Beach) has a fair number of buildings in that style. The term that you are thinking of is industrial design.
mdw I wonder if anyone agrees that unfortunately, the current US built freight locomotives (EMD and GE) have got to be some of the ugliest I have seen about 30 years. Do EMD or GE actually employ any industrial designers? I am not talking engineering staff but a modern day equivalent to Raymond Lowey who designed the GG1. Why could EMD not take the wonderful design for the British Class 66 locos they built and adapt it to their current SD's, make it one cab instead of the dual cab the British use and keep the current cowl arrangement behind the cab? Anything would be better than what they turn out now.
The Class 66 uses a cab design that would almost certainly not comply with Federal Railroad Administration crash-worthiness standards. I suspect that even if it did the lack of a short hood would make it very unpopular with crews due to increased vulnerabilty in a grade crossing accident. Keep in mind that in the UK (and I believe, in much of mainland Europe as well) railroad lines are mostly grade seperated with very,few grade crossings so crash protection standards are different.
"I Often Dream of Trains"-From the Album of the Same Name by Robyn Hitchcock
As far as the outer shape is concerned for passenger locomotives the firm of Cesar Vergara http://vergarastudio.com/ has done EMD, GE, MPI, Brookville and the latest NJ-Transit locomotives including the EMD class 66. That's probaly why the are all starting to look alike.
I agree with zugmann. The gevos appear balanced to my eye, while the SD70ACes radiate power with those massive radiators and angular cabs. Sure, they'll never win a design award, but perhaps they're beautiful the way the N&W A, UP Big Boy, and ATSF Northerns are.
Sir Madog Beauty lies in the eyes of the beholder, but I have to confess that, for my eyes, the current stable of Diesel locos in the US look outright ugly. Their strictly utilitarian look lacks any elegance the F- and E units had in the days back when railroads where a prime mode of transport. The EMD class 66 is no beauty either, but still a lot better looking than the successor, EMD class 70. Compared to this, the nearly 50 year old design of a DB class 218 Diesel is outright beautiful.
Neither of the pictured locomotives radiate 'beauty' to my eye - and in the context of the US operating enviornment they scream danger for the operating crew.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
That Freightliner looks like a chipmunk.
The "Fright-liner" is ugly enough to make a freight train take a dirt road.
mdwWhy could EMD not take the wonderful design for the British Class 66 locos they built and adapt it to their current SD's
The Class 66 is actually an off-the-shelf EMD design (JT42CWR) and can roughly be described as an SD60 with a V-12 engine shoehorned into the UK loading gauge. Why would anyone want to reverse engineer it to the North American loading gauge?
It would be unfair to say the builders don't care. The railroads care, too. But there is a limit to how many $$ that care translates to.
Form does follow function, but that doesn't mean "do nothing" once the mechanical design is set. A somewhat recent example: Late GE Dash 7s and early Dash 8s were a mess. The hoods had all sorts of lumps and bumps. The walkways were hard to use and got train crews filthy dirty. The cabs rusted out. The plumbing layout under the hood, which drove a lot of the lumps and bumps, wasn't so simple either.
So, GE went through, spent some money and cleaned everything up. The results made a better locomotive and a better looking one, all at once.
Before
After:
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
Charlie Vlk"Form follows Function" was the mantra of Louis Sullivan, FLW's onetime boss. The current generation of locomotives follow that mantra, but without any grace. Some design work could be squeezed in to be sure without adding frills or cost Charlie Vlk
I tend to doubt that decision makers at the various Class 1 railroads lose a lot of sleep worrying about whether the railfan community will find their motive power aesthetically pleasing.
It's probably not high on the list of concerns of their major shareholders as well (you could write to Warren Buffet, he is after all, a railfan himself)..
This is a different era than the days of E's, F's and PA's , which were marketed back when the private sector RR's were still concerned with passenger business..
Re-engineering a locomotive design for styling purposes most certainly would require additional $
One thing that frequently gets overlooked when designing machines for appearance - the abiltity to work on and repair the machine. It may look great and be a absolute nightmare to work on - and all machines in the transportation industry require that they be worked on.
In a sense you could say we've been there before. If you look at 19th Century steam from say, 1850 to 1880, you'll see some of the most gorgeous machines ever produced. But the downside was the constant touching up of the paint, and remember 19th Century paint wasn't anywhere near as good as we have now, and the constant polishing of the brasswork.
So it's little wonder that around 1880 or so ol' Commodore Vanderbilt said "to Hell with the bright-work, paint 'em black!" And everyone else followed suit. Black paint certainly was pretty somber, but it made the machines a lot easier to take care of.
Sooner or later form usually does follow function.
I like a GP7, long hood forward.
tdmidget I like a GP7, long hood forward.
The GP7 is a prime example of an exceptionally well designed diesel electric locomotive and one where styling was intentionally not a consideration.
EMD's Dick Dillworth stated he wanted to design a locomotive "so ugly" that railroads would not want it anywhre near their headquarters and would banish it to where it would be the most productive i.e the freight yards, coal fields, local freights ect...
Accessibility for maintenance was a major consideration in the design of the GP7. The side walkways allow reasonable access for minor repairs and since the frame carries all of the weight, the hood is just a cover and can be removed for maintenance access.
A lot of US locomotives today look like boxes on wheels. I agree that the styling of British rail is more attractive than US. Aesthetics should be given at least MINOR consideration when designing a locomotive.
Let's hear it for Lowey. Or Dreyfuss.
S&S
Modeling the Pennsy and loving it!
I would rather need 20 Locomotives at 2 Million each that look like a series of Boxes on wheels that can be repaired fast and kept in service than 30 at 2.5 Million each that take 3 days to change something as simple as a Power Assembly. Just look at one thing how many F's are still in service compared to the first of the GP's hands down it is the GP that won. Heck the Santa Fe made what 247 F's into Roadswitchers in their own Shops.
The CF7 program was a way for Santa Fe to obtain a lot of smaller road switchers without having to buy a fleet of GP38's. Santa Fe's diesel roster through the early 1960's had a higher proportion of carbody units (various F's) in freight service than most roads. It did not have a lot of minority-builder locomotives to serve as trade-ins for small road power so any new GP38's wouldn't have had any trade-in credit built into the price. Santa Fe had a well-equipped shop and engineering staff to perform the conversions so the whole program made economic sense and Santa Fe got 15-20 years of additional service out of the CF7's.
Schuylkill and Susquehanna A lot of US locomotives today look like boxes on wheels. I agree that the styling of British rail is more attractive than US. Aesthetics should be given at least MINOR consideration when designing a locomotive. Let's hear it for Lowey. Or Dreyfuss. S&S
"Aesthetics should be given at least MINOR consideration when designing a locomotive."
Really? Why?
carnej1 "Aesthetics should be given at least MINOR consideration when designing a locomotive." Really? Why?
The appearance of a locomotive reflects on the railroad that owns it. Locomotives are big, rolling, billboards that advertise the railroad. The appearance of railway equipment forms public opinion of that railroad, and thereby affects that railroad's business.
The average person does not know anything about maintenance schedules, tonnage ratings, timetables, or any of the other things relating to the operations of a railroad. All he/she sees is the locomotive and the cars, and the way that the railroad portrays its "brand."
This mostly applies to passenger locomotives, but it also applies to freight locomotives to a lesser extent. It does really apply to freight cars since they are so numerous, and uninteresting to most people (other than the number of them in a train.) Most people don't even bother reading the sides of freight cars, but they always notice the engines.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.