When the fancy color schemes and polished brass period ended, there were still a lot of gorgeous locomotives, and they retained a fair amount of fancy design. But the main thing is that they became extremely well proportioned and were free to express their features because they had not yet filled up the clearance diagram. I would say that around 1900, steam locomotive aesthetics reached their zenith.
Steam esthetics reached their zenith by 1900? Oh, I don't know, there were some real lookers that came along after that. The Eries K-1 Pacifics, the NYC's Hudsons, both streamlined and un-, Pennsy's K4s that looked as no-nonsense as a clenched fist, D&H's Challengers, the otherworldly looking Pennsy T1, I could go on but I think you get the picture.
But nothing can beat the sheer elegence of 19th Century steam before the "blackout." More like pieces of jewelry than machinery. They did have a saying in those days: What looks well, works well, because beauty and utility are one in the mind of God!
Oh, and ditto to what Schullkill and Susquehanna said, locomotives ARE rolling billboards for the 'roads that own them. Even if the rest of the train looks like a slum on wheels the locomotives should present a neat, professional appearance. How do you expect people to treat you like a first class industry if you don't present yourself as one?
Quite frankly, I LOVE the no-nonsense look of the modern diesel electric locomotive in the US. Even if they DO look like boxes on wheels, I would rather have a bunch of locos that could be serviced quickly (fuel and go, fuel and go, quick fix if needed) than a loco that has the sleek looks but is a PAIN to maintain. One reason why the Fs were retired when they were while the GP7s and GP9s continued to see service up until recently.
The Lehigh Valley Railroad, the Route of the Black Diamond Express, John Wilkes and Maple Leaf.
-Jake, modeling the Barclay, Towanda & Susquehanna.
Firelock76Steam esthetics reached their zenith by 1900? Oh, I don't know, there were some real lookers that came along after that. The Eries K-1 Pacifics, the NYC's Hudsons, both streamlined and un-, Pennsy's K4s that looked as no-nonsense as a clenched fist, D&H's Challengers, the otherworldly looking Pennsy T1, I could go on but I think you get the picture.
Well it depends on what you mean by aesthetics. You would have to look at a bunch of engines from 1880-1910 to see what I mean. The more modern engines are not ugly. I have some favorites in that group. However, when I hear most people talking about how good looking they are, I think they are defining “appearance” as greatness, most modern, most powerful, largest, and most heroic. They are all of that, but appearance-wise, they tend to be bulky looking compared to the elegant race horses of circa 1900.
As locomotives grew larger, they filled up the line clearance diagram, and all of the exterior features had to stop at that boundary and the whole machine grew up into a packed mass. Before that stage of evolution, designers were able to create a strong sense of balance and proportion to the external features such as stack, domes, cab, cylinders, and pilot. As engines filled up the clearance diagram, these features lost their distinctive proportions and balance. Some of the best looking engines of the 1900 era were the ten-wheelers and Atlantics.
I studied industrial design so I hope that the forum doesn't mind if I add a few words.
I don't think that we will ever see the return of full cowl freight locomotives such as an F7 but the corners could be rounded and some of the square corners of the locomotives streamlined for increased aerodynamics. Any appearance change of the locomotive can't stray far from form following function.
I personally think that the SD80MAC has some of the nicest lines of the modern freight locomotives because of the radius on the corners of the nose and the laid back windshield.
I wonder how much fuel might be saved if the front of the radiators had a curve to them to blend them from the hood to the V of the radiator box? Protruding latches could be recessed and things just fine tuned for increased aerodynamics, but the aerodynamics cannot make it harder to service the locomotive or reduce it performance or reliability.
I cant image that the trucks will ever have a shroud around them. The fuel tank is already quite aerodynamic as it is.
IMO.
Streamlined front ends add very little to the air flow dynamics. One has to think of a train as a long arrow or rod - Very thin in relation to that frontal exposure. The angled or laid back windows may cause less wind 'chatter' noise for the crew, but add little to the fuel efficiency. The big energy robbing item in a modern train the the 'space' between the rail cars.
Jim
Modeling BNSF and Milwaukee Road in SW Wisconsin
I cant imagine that a railroad would ever invest the time and money to close that gap. It would be almost impossible to close that gap on a mixed freight manifest train. It might be technically possibly to close it on a unit train such as a coal transfer but the low speeds of those trains make the investment into aerodynamic improvement not very profitable.
It could be profitable on a intermodal train because of their higher travel speeds, but it would be technically difficult because various container sizes and the fairings would slow down loading and unloading operations.
The easiest would be a unit train of autoracks or boxcars such as the orange juice train, but they lack the volume to make production of such a device profitable.
The weight that would be added would detract from the freight carried, so the cost of fuel would have to rise quite a bit before the investment became reasonable, especially at the relatively slow speed that most trains travel.
Maybe I'll spitball a design with Autodesk Sketchbook Designer and/or Solidworks some night when I cant sleep.
It may bear remembering that even high-speed services in America did away with things like truck fairings or aerodynamic skirts as being more trouble than the actual benefits they provided...
As indicated, functional streamlining of the usual sort is not very useful in freight service, even fast intermodal service. While things like recessed door latches or antenna shrouds are critical on aircraft, it should be remembered that the air resistance even at 70 mph is a tiny fraction of what is encountered at jet-aircraft speeds... or even American HSR speeds.
There was a proposal years ago to utilize the 'space' between well cars by articulating a platform there which would carry a 20' container. If I can find the actual reference I'll post it here, but I suspect there are people here who remember it.
A great proportion of the drag on container trains comes from the construction of the side of the boxes. In any kind of quartering wind (which is to say, any relative wind not directly following or head-on to the train, which is unlikely to be constant on a real railroad) the drag on the boxes is many times the frontal resistance, even if the frontal resistance were to be assigned a Cd of 1.
One thing I was expecting was the use of Airtab-style vortex generators on some classes of rolling stock. If these can work wonders on semi trailers, surely they would help with 'gap' issues that are effectively shorter than any over-the-road following distances...
I would stick to using simple aerodynamics with an eye toward manufacturing and maintenance economy... and then produce a little beauty and proportion within that framework. One may note without too much effort that the GP7.. supposedly 'so ugly it wouldn't be let out on the main line' ... had some very elegant bodywork, and sound esthetics *that did not need to be there* considering the amount of welding and grinding necessary to make those nose contours. (For ugly, you need the Huffy-girl's-bicycle-ridden-by-a-woodchuck esthetics of the supposedly stylish BL2 ... and truth to tell that isn't a digression for the original subject of this thread.
I had hoped to see some better esthetics come out of the 'survivable cab' research done for FRA/DOT. I continue to live in hope. I would recommend that you get the fundamental research there and run THAT through an AutoCAD beauty treatment... with form following function, but not too slavishly...
OvermodI would stick to using simple aerodynamics with an eye toward manufacturing and maintenance economy... and then produce a little beauty and proportion within that framework.
You may disagree with this, but I think that describes the phase I SD90MACs. Some of my favorite modern locomotives.
Example: http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=405296&nseq=8
I think NYC's J-1 Hudsons also fit this.
I understand that GM automotive stylist had a hand in the GP30, but I never cared for the model.
MidlandMike I understand that GM automotive stylist had a hand in the GP30, but I never cared for the model.
I would argue that the GP30 was over-styled. EMD did a lot better with the 35 line and the various 645-powered locomotives, including the switchers.
As far as automotive stylists, did Harley Earl (Buick) have some input into the FT design?
NorthWest You may disagree with this, but I think that describes the phase I SD90MACs.
You may disagree with this, but I think that describes the phase I SD90MACs.
I do not disagree.
Of course, I like the Dash-9 CWs too, and have since they were new. Before that, I liked the U34CH ... as a passenger engine. On the other hand, back in the early '70s I disliked the SDP40F intensely... go figure!
CSSHEGEWISCHAs far as automotive stylists, did Harley Earl (Buick) have some input into the FT design?
I will answer this as straight, even though I appreciate the humor.
The 'portholes' considerably postdate the FT carbody design. (I suspect there may be a link with some of the UP streamliner designs, but don't ask me to substantiate that!)
The portholes were inspired by the exhausts on WWII fighters -- in fact the first installation (in 1948) had little lights hooked up to the distributor to simulate sequential firing. The 'excuse' that the portholes extracted hot air from the engine bay is ... not very convincing to me.
Now, if Baldwin had put an 8-cylinder VO in a cab carbody, and routed the exhausts to the side... ???
;-}
Industrial design does not just mean automotive style streamlining. There is plenty of industrial design in equipment where form follows function such as bulldozers and modern freight locomotives. If there were not, it would look homemade.
When Dillworth supposedly said he was making the GP-7 intentionally ugly, you have to consider the context of the times. That was in the streamlining era when trains were expected to have the automotive style version of industrial design. The GP-7 did not need that, so it was made functional looking. But there was still plenty of excellent industrial design in that endeavor.
Overmod, I like the looks of all the GE widecabs but the ones with headlights above the windshield. . Somehow headlights above the windshields on widecabs don't work for me... especially the SD70ACe...which looks good from some angles but not from others...
The GE widecab design is very pleasing to my eye. Maybe for Amtrak's next locomotive they should combine the standard GE widecab with a cowl body? I need to do some sketches...
NW
I might do that this over the weekend if I get energetic.
I like the radiused nose and the teardrop windows of the EMD SD80MAC. It might look good as a full cowl locomotive.
episette I cant imagine that a railroad would ever invest the time and money to close that gap. It would be almost impossible to close that gap on a mixed freight manifest train. It might be technically possibly to close it on a unit train such as a coal transfer but the low speeds of those trains make the investment into aerodynamic improvement not very profitable. It could be profitable on a intermodal train because of their higher travel speeds, but it would be technically difficult because various container sizes and the fairings would slow down loading and unloading operations. The easiest would be a unit train of autoracks or boxcars such as the orange juice train, but they lack the volume to make production of such a device profitable. The weight that would be added would detract from the freight carried, so the cost of fuel would have to rise quite a bit before the investment became reasonable, especially at the relatively slow speed that most trains travel. Maybe I'll spitball a design with Autodesk Sketchbook Designer and/or Solidworks some night when I cant sleep.
Johnny
The CB&Q post war Budd cars had full skirting covering the sides of the underbody/trucks. And before that the Milwaukee had streamlined shrouds covering underbody equipment. None of this greatly effected fuel economy when fuel was so inexpensive. The full width diaphragms on passenger trains usually got removed as they hung up with snow/ice in the northern climates. I think all of this streamlining was for show for the most part. It was good 'PR' to mention the train ran faster - But improved trackwork and higher HP engines were the key to the faster schedules.
As a young teenage railfan, I wondered why they did not just drop a V20 645 in an E9 car body and create a good looking locomotive. A few years later, the reality of maintenance of machinery in enclosed spots re-focused my wishful thinking....
My one and only scary experience with heat stroke was in an F-45 with a V20 645.
Randy
... which brings us back to the flip side of this discussion. In cabs, noses, platforms and doors, carbody and walkway access ... and crash survivability, even if relative ... the crew comfort and convenience is more important than railfan appeal.
The first design question, therefore, is how you design the locomotive so it is most convenient, not 'least inconvenient'. This would include things like the amount and placement of armor vs. controlled-crush in the nose and cab structure. Height or packaging for the 'crew refuge' that FRA was looking into. For heaven's sake, making access to the head convenient without *banging* your head. (As an aside: I, personally, hate those outward-sloping 'clear vision windows' like the ones on the original Boeing 247 or many French electrics. I'd like to hear the pros and cons on those -- would they be preferable in the opinion of actual railroaders?)
Once the optimization to task is done, there is no reason why the result should be gratuitously ugly. That was one of the points of early industrial design: take something with a crude, utilitarian exterior and make it look ... well, more like an engineered product than a box of works. Now, the esthetics that convey 'engineered product' have changed over the years, sometimes very amusingly, and there are plenty of cases (including that example of the GP30, imho, and certainly that BL2) where actively 'styling' the locomotive leaves you far worse off -- and 'spends money' that could have been put, say, into better air conditioning or a couple of Scott airpacks for break-in-twos in tunnels ... etc. etc. etc. In my opinion, every recent passenger locomotive has suffered from this -- those crosseyed-Fu-Manchu lights on the ACS-64 being particularly, and utterly unnecessarily, detrimental to the appearance -- and I attribute this directly to using the kind of 'designer' who takes advantage of modern CAD/CAM and materials to build any weird thing he wants ... this is one of my chief complaints about architects like Gehry. Just because you can build it doesn't mean you should build it. So where are the people with taste when it comes time to approve the design?
I propose this as the AutoCAD question du jour: Take something like the FRA safety cab, and *cost-effectively* modify it for better esthetics. Use as many stock pieces as you can to keep the fabrication cost down, and the maintenance/parts costs minimized. Retain all the safety features necessary in framing and construction, and maximize crew convenience/minimize or eliminate inconvenience. Then see what you can do to give the better esthetics... I'll wager it can be quite good indeed.
Hi Overmod! The outward-sloping windshields on the Boeing 247's and other aircraft of the time were for optical reasons, specifically to cut glare. As advances in aviation glass occurred in the 30's those outward-sloping windshield disappeared pretty quickly on subsequent aircraft.
As an aside, a Boeing 247 appears as an "experimental bomber" in an aviation film (in Technicolor!) from 1938 called "Men With Wings." A good movie, if you get the chance to see it don't pass it up!
Overmod ... which brings us back to the flip side of this discussion. In cabs, noses, platforms and doors, carbody and walkway access ... and crash survivability, even if relative ... the crew comfort and convenience is more important than railfan appeal. The first design question, therefore, is how you design the locomotive so it is most convenient, not 'least inconvenient'. This would include things like the amount and placement of armor vs. controlled-crush in the nose and cab structure. Height or packaging for the 'crew refuge' that FRA was looking into. For heaven's sake, making access to the head convenient without *banging* your head. (As an aside: I, personally, hate those outward-sloping 'clear vision windows' like the ones on the original Boeing 247 or many French electrics. I'd like to hear the pros and cons on those -- would they be preferable in the opinion of actual railroaders?) Once the optimization to task is done, there is no reason why the result should be gratuitously ugly. That was one of the points of early industrial design: take something with a crude, utilitarian exterior and make it look ... well, more like an engineered product than a box of works. Now, the esthetics that convey 'engineered product' have changed over the years, sometimes very amusingly, and there are plenty of cases (including that example of the GP30, imho, and certainly that BL2) where actively 'styling' the locomotive leaves you far worse off -- and 'spends money' that could have been put, say, into better air conditioning or a couple of Scott airpacks for break-in-twos in tunnels ... etc. etc. etc. In my opinion, every recent passenger locomotive has suffered from this -- those crosseyed-Fu-Manchu lights on the ACS-64 being particularly, and utterly unnecessarily, detrimental to the appearance -- and I attribute this directly to using the kind of 'designer' who takes advantage of modern CAD/CAM and materials to build any weird thing he wants ... this is one of my chief complaints about architects like Gehry. Just because you can build it doesn't mean you should build it. So where are the people with taste when it comes time to approve the design? I propose this as the AutoCAD question du jour: Take something like the FRA safety cab, and *cost-effectively* modify it for better esthetics. Use as many stock pieces as you can to keep the fabrication cost down, and the maintenance/parts costs minimized. Retain all the safety features necessary in framing and construction, and maximize crew convenience/minimize or eliminate inconvenience. Then see what you can do to give the better esthetics... I'll wager it can be quite good indeed.
The railroads are not going to pay for aesthetics for aesthetics sake, if they don't also have a financial benefit, either in increased fuel economy, crew comfort that can be proven to increase performance or added ease of maintenance.
I love a beautiful design as much as anyone else, but you have to balance aesthetics with the bottom line numbers if you want success in business.
IMO
Shock !
That 70xxx must be a joke ! If SD40-2 is right in his ways to remark upon beauty not paying off the drawbar , at least not noticeably , then obviously someone must have carried things one step further and tried at willfully uahrrgifying that diesel with a hideous grimace to try if *that* would allure customers - if customers are now believed to be totally deaf and blind to art and beauty . I think it's a consequence of *great* movies like the denatured killer series or Emmenthaler's giant turtle foreign flying sausage saucer shadowing - again of couse - NewYork ( with the film makers always but always NewYork ) .
As long as such psychos are allowed to heal themselves at the expense of the public instead of going to a psychiatrist , Mr Tarantello , we will have to live facing the very real possibility of walking a station one day , unassumingly taking a look at trains with unprotected eyes and "ssa-zingawham-buzz !" we get blinded by such an abominably nauseous despicable dreadfulness ! And who's to pay for our having to see our psychiatrist ? The builder ? The Railway who let it loose on their tracks !
I say : beauty *does* pay - if only to keep the railway safe from legal cases being convicted guilty having to pay a two years mental health recovery treatment to customers having been badly struck in a wicked assault by such an atrociousness , promptly having fallen sick and not able to place freight orders , neither .
How did I survive encountering that photo ? Well , luckily I happened to wear my extra dark mirrored sunglasses ..
*gee* - ( mea culpa ..)
= J =
Firelock :
>> Even if the rest of the train looks like a slum on wheels the locomotives should present a neat, professional appearance. How do you expect people to treat you like a first class industry if you don't present yourself as one?<<
Yesss ..
Paul
>> Why would anyone want to reverse engineer it to the North American loading gauge? <<
Dunno - maybe because it'll look less low slung and more awe inspiring ...
Oops , sorry inspiration we wanted to keep off because it doesn't pay .
Well then .. we'll have to live with it as is ..
JuniathaThat 70xxx must be a joke !
I think this refers to the ACe... and yes, the cab, first introduced on the SD90MACH-II isn't pretty. It came about because replacing a rectangular window is cheaper than an odd shaped one, and crews wanted a full height door. Also, the cab is now safer, as the Chatsworth, CA crash sadly proved. If you look, this is what the SD70ACe involved looked like, http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=283037&nseq=17, http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=340038&nseq=270, and the F59PH, equipped with the earlier "Triclops" cab: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Chatsworth_train_crash_wikinews.jpg
To me, they look best with headlights in the nose.
Here are some shots in which they actually look pretty good:
http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=291384&nseq=15&favsearch=1
http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=440420&nseq=2&favsearch=1
http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=411748&nseq=138
http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=175167&nseq=39
http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=400402&nseq=71
And it is interesting to see what they look like with class lights, and lower profile front sandbox filler caps:
http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=156506&nseq=95
This is what the SP heritage unit should look like!
http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=411650&nseq=149
So, it is a matter of which angle you see them from.
Juniatha, thank you for that post, it took me a while to stop laughing.
NorthWest JuniathaThat 70xxx must be a joke ! I think this refers to the ACe...
I think this refers to the ACe...
Oh no it doesn't! It refers to this:
[warning: don your mirrorshades or welding goggles now!)
If there is something good to be said about the esthetics of this cab design... well, I can't find it.
Perhaps the worst part of it is that somebody DID try to style it. (The British, lamentably, tend to be about as competent, by and large, with diesel locomotive styling as they are with restaurant cooking. Remember the old joke about European heaven and European hell? ... )
Oops...
I believe that those two yellow bumps on the front contain crash posts to meet the standards. To me, it would look better with a cowl and a split windshield, like the 66 behind it.
It is better than this, though http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Vossloh_G2000-1BB.jpg. What were they thinking? Instead, install a platform at the front of the locomotive for switching, it also serves as a collision barrier at grade crossings.
a rogues gallery......thanks or in telegrapher-speak: TNX
I recall that the rectangular console-cab window adopted GE specs ; the idea being that stocking a, rather than 2, replacement windows would....
Grant you that F's were more expensive to build and keep than GP's, but only in the deepest part of hell will you find an engr who'll say switching cars, making P/U's or S/O's with hand signals to an F unit was easy. Their demise, the F's, FA's was not regretted.
The desk control console I hated.....Highest respect I gave to my mentor for Locotrol (caveman DPU tech.) On the SD40-2, after starting the train, he never having ridden with me, watched as I put my feet on top of the box containing a cab-heater (the posture was like reclining in a hammock.)
"That's the way I run...."
Can't do it with a desk!
Headlight placement has safety and practical (profitability) implications.
When under the beam of the headlights, visibility is greater than looking over the beams (as car drivers we must) but trust this: in dense fog, the high light and looking under it gave more time to do......
A night firing NO 75, the Lark, hit fog near San Lucas, it just shut down visibility from the PA!....yeah could see the hood-top to where the headlight's illumination started, then there was the inside o pillow.
Engineers, those Coast Division passenger engineers, and the rest of 'em dealt with looking thru snow and thru' cloudy water, figuratively.
We did and do....
.
Debating the aethetics of modern North American freight locomotive styling strikes me as the railfan equivalent of bickering about the exact number of Angels that can dance on the head of a pin........
Beauty, or lack thereof is truly in the eye of the beholder and I have yet to read a convincing argument for what benefit the railroad industry would derive from expending additional capital on "prettier" freight units..
"I Often Dream of Trains"-From the Album of the Same Name by Robyn Hitchcock
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.