My one and only scary experience with heat stroke was in an F-45 with a V20 645.
Randy
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....
Jim
Modeling BNSF and Milwaukee Road in SW Wisconsin
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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... ???
;-}
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!
MidlandMike I understand that GM automotive stylist had a hand in the GP30, but I never cared for the model.
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?
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.
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...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
carnej1 "Aesthetics should be given at least MINOR consideration when designing a locomotive." Really? Why?
"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.
S&S
Modeling the Pennsy and loving it!
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
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.
"I Often Dream of Trains"-From the Album of the Same Name by Robyn Hitchcock
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.
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.
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.
tdmidget I like a GP7, long hood forward.
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...
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.
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.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
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 $
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.