Hideous locos

[LE Greys]

The GWRs' streamlined castle, 5005 "Manorbier Castle":
http://freddo.110mb.com/trains/castle.html

The GWR didn't really "get" streamlining in the same way as the LNER and the LMS did. Hmmm...

It was more a publicity stunt, and probably designed to be converted back as fast as possible (as indeed it was). I've done a bit of work to see what the streamlined King might have looked like had they done it properly, again using GWR Loco Sketchpad. Not much better, frankly.

 

[Goldfish62]

"Leader" was the most truly ugly loco I can think of. What was Bulleid thinking of?

 

[Cruithne3753]

You can look to the other side of the Atlantic to see some real monstrosities in rail history. How about the Milwaukee Road EP-2?

 

[LE Greys]

"Leader" was the most truly ugly loco I can think of. What was Bulleid thinking of?

I don't think it was too bad. Reminds me rather of a Class 66. The Q1s were pretty hideous, though. I believe William Stanier once asked Bulleid, "Where do you wind it up?".

 

[Phil6219]

Naaahhh... I'm fine. Huh, huh?

Oh dear god you've just ruined the Deltics for me :cry: I shall cancel my upcoming trip forthwith and go chasing 70's instead. I can see a bit of a resemblance though

Ironic given that "Beaver Sports" has a big hand in 22 & 16

And no my taste in fine locomotives is still unscathed despite that attempt to damage the good name of the Deltic.

I tell you what though that Voilth Maxima sure does make 66s look like a prom queen. I must admit that there is a certain attractiveness about them though, with regards to the stealth look. As long as they stay firmly in Europe and not on our fine Isles then we should be safe...

 

[Oswyntail]

Let us be honest, the 1950's designs with the "nose" (55, 40, 37, 44, 45, 29(?)) were not only horribly impractical, they were incredibly ugly, with the 55s the worst of the lot. And put them in rail blue livery and they were the biggest offence to good taste the railways have ever seen. Which is why the Design Council was brought in, and produced classics like the 47 and 35(? Hymek)

 

[LE Greys]

Wasn't there a plan to build more Deltics with 50-style cabs?

 

[Hydro]

Wasn't there a plan to build more Deltics with 50-style cabs?

I believe they were to the Super Deltics, 4,400hp 50-lookalikes.

I've never liked the look of the Deltic. Looked like a pig with a syndrome.

 

[Phil6219]

To Quote Wikipedia

A 72 ton Bo-Bo locomotive, using a single 18 cylinder Deltic engine, was proposed as an alternative to what became the British Rail Class 37 Type 3 locomotive introduced from 1960.

A 4,400 bhp (3,300 kW) Co-Co "Super Deltic" was proposed but not built, which would have weighed 119 long tons (121 t) with a maximum axle load of 19 long tons (19 t). This would have been designated Class 51 and would have had two 18-cylinder turbocharged engines, based on the 9-cylinder turbocharged engine used in the British Rail Class 23 "Baby Deltic". The Class 55's engines were not turbocharged, although they did have centrifugal scavenging blowers.

Wikipedia Deltic Page

Although I do remember reading somewhere an article which mentioned a proposal using a body similar to the class 50 but with the Deltic engines, come to think of it I think that may be the class 51 mentioned above.

 

[sprinterguy]

I'm a big fan of the English Electric locos with noses; 37s, 40s and 55s; but I do have to admit that it is quite an impractical and ungainly feature to have, especially on the Deltics whose noses are much higher than the others.

That said, I think the 47s look even worse; so bland; but at least the design panel came up with a winner when it came to the Hymeks.

The Super Deltic was indeed proposed to be a pair of Deltic engines, as used in the class 23, encased in a class 50 style body.

 

[Hydro]

Class 42 Warships. Bloody awful looking things.

 

[sprinterguy]

This thread is starting to have connotations of a classic traction slagging match I have to agree that I don't like Warships. At all, let alone just in terms of looks. "Westerns" look a bit peculiar too, but I think they have a lot of character. As far as hydraulics go, they're not 'alf bad.

 

[gg1]

I'm a big fan of the English Electric locos with noses; 37s, 40s and 55s; but I do have to admit that it is quite an impractical and ungainly feature to have, especially on the Deltics whose noses are much higher than the others.

I believe the original purpose of the noses was as crash protection for the driver so not entirely impractical (although the fact BR switched to flat fronted locos in the early 60s may suggest otherwise).

Anyway, back on to the subject of annoying people by slagging of their favourite traction

I’ve always found the 3rd rail slammers to be dog ugly, most of them look as if the designer was told to add a cab to a mk1 carriage on a budget of £1.38.

 

[Hydro]

Westerns are like the girl at school everyone fancied but didn't know why. They look a bit rougher than Warships, maybe that's the reason. A bit more rugged and a bit less like a melted toy dog.

I've always liked the slammers. Totally unpretentious. CEP's a bit more than anything else, they look more rustic.

 

[LE Greys]

This thread is starting to have connotations of a classic traction slagging match I have to agree that I don't like Warships. At all, let alone just in terms of looks. "Westerns" look a bit peculiar too, but I think they have a lot of character. As far as hydraulics go, they're not 'alf bad.

Westerns have exactly the same body profile as MkIs, presumably for aerodynamic reasons. That's something they copied from the Standards, which Riddles copied from Bulleid, which is why his Pacifics have curved sides to their cabs and tenders.

If you want a hideous diesel, get it designed by an American. Any loco for that matter. When King George V visited America, one railroad boss told his senior designers to take a course of art lectures. Evidently, this happened far too long ago for them to remember it when designing the 59s. 60s are pretty ugly as well, but they do look as though they can move mountains. 59s, and their 66 cousins, look puny.

 

[jaigee]

following on from the pig ugly class 70, here's one I spotted recently:

Probably cheaper/faster to build without any curved body parts. I know some ships were designed for the same reasons, with no curved plating. They looked b*****y ugly as well!

 

[LE Greys]

Probably cheaper/faster to build without any curved body parts. I know some ships were designed for the same reasons, with no curved plating. They looked b*****y ugly as well!

I know exactly what you mean. Most modern ship designers don't seem to understand the meaning of sheer, or moulded hulls. Cruise ships tend to look like ferries (I call them 'sternless wonders') and freighters generally look like their bows were carved out with an ice cream scoop. Containers may be responsible for the lack of sheer and the slab-sides, but a bit of curvature on cruise ships would go down well. A counter stern would be much better.

 

[mbonwick]

All very well saying that, but a lot of how modern ships look is down to practicality vs hydrodynamics.

The reason for "scooped" bows is simply to reduce drag as much as possible, while maximise useful space within the ship.

 

[ATW Alex 101]

http://*******.com/uglytrain

slightly off topic but ugliest passenger trains in my opinion:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/sinkplunger/3841543387/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/emdjt42/3842085219/