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/)
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?
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 "Fright-liner" is ugly enough to make a freight train take a dirt road.
That Freightliner looks like a chipmunk.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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
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)]
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.
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.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.