Locos with noses - why?

[BRX]

All those loco designs with "noses" - 37s, Deltics, etc...

Why were they made that way - is there a particular reason? Surely setting the cab back from the front like that just obscures the view for the driver...is there some benefit that I haven't thought of?

 

[theageofthetra]

I have wondered about that too. The US still builds locos like that (as do their truck manufacturers). In the case of trucks the max overall vehicle length is huge is the US wheras in Europe the length is much shorter- so the cab and tractor need to be a small a part of the overall length to maximise freight capacity. Wonder if the same applies with European trains?

 

[TimG]

I have wondered about that too. The US still builds locos like that (as do their truck manufacturers). In the case of trucks the max overall vehicle length is huge is the US wheras in Europe the length is much shorter- so the cab and tractor need to be a small a part of the overall length to maximise freight capacity. Wonder if the same applies with European trains?

Could be to absorb impact of deer etc?

 

[PaxVobiscum]

Who knows?

 

[krus_aragon]

All those loco designs with "noses" - 37s, Deltics, etc...

Why were they made that way - is there a particular reason? Surely setting the cab back from the front like that just obscures the view for the driver...is there some benefit that I haven't thought of?

The view was significantly better than that over the boiler of the steam engines that were being built a decade before.

 

[Emyr]

Aerodynamics.

 

[The Crab]

I recall two reasons being put forward:

The nose would give some protection to the crew in a collision, and,

The nose would reduce "sleeper flicker" as the crew could not see the track close to the locomotive. I can't quite remember who put this forward or why he thought it a problem (a hypnotic effect?) but I think it was a steam design man possibly E S Cox.

 

[lincolnshire]

I recall two reasons being put forward:

The nose would give some protection to the crew in a collision, and,

The nose would reduce "sleeper flicker" as the crew could not see the track close to the locomotive. I can't quite remember who put this forward or why he thought it a problem (a hypnotic effect?) but I think it was a steam design man possibly E S Cox.

It must help in the case of collision as it like your car bonnet been in front of you. It has to be remembered that they did have equipment inside too, like a an EE type 3 (class 37) it had the traction motor blowers inside as well as the compressors, exhausters etc in there and in the case of some of the class which was built with the equivalent of corridor connection between two loco,s of the same class for the fireman to pass from one loco to the other while on the move.

 

[D60]

Did one or two classes built for long-distance expresses, ie EE Type 4 and Deltic classes, have a handy toilet in there as well? Or did I dream that up..!?

 

[Ash Bridge]

Did one or two classes built for long-distance expresses, ie EE Type 4 and Deltic classes, have a handy toilet in there as well? Or did I dream that up..!?

Not sure about Deltics, but I think there was a urinal located somewhere in the engine room of a class 40.

 

[table38]

Not sure about Deltics, but I think there was a urinal located somewhere in the engine room of a class 40.

There was actually a toilet located appropriately in the "Number 2" end

 

[Ash Bridge]

There was actually a toilet located appropriately in the "Number 2" end

Ha ha! So you could perhaps also say no.2 cab had an ensuite

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Were not certain such smokebox-door fitments trialled on express steam locomotives of "The Big Four" at one time very many years ago.

 

[Jamesb1974]

I recall two reasons being put forward:

The nose would give some protection to the crew in a collision, and,

The nose would reduce "sleeper flicker" as the crew could not see the track close to the locomotive. I can't quite remember who put this forward or why he thought it a problem (a hypnotic effect?) but I think it was a steam design man possibly E S Cox.

I'm not old enough to remember the original quote but I am old enough to remember the article in 'Rail Enthusiast' (as it was at the time) about the class 60 being designed. I recall that there were two cab front designs, one of them being raked forwards in a similar style to the French electric locos (BB class??) in order to reduce 'sleeper flicker'. It sounds like the reasoning for having a nose on early diesels could be partially due to this and partially due to the styling of the time. Borrowed American influences and all that??

 

[Juniper Driver]

There was actually a toilet located appropriately in the "Number 2" end

I remember it in the engine room of 37s and 47s.

 

[Boothby97]

Not sure about Deltics, but I think there was a urinal located somewhere in the engine room of a class 40.

I'm sure there was a loo in one end of a Deltic. I recall being sat in the cab of 55002 at NRM Railfest (back in 2012) and there was a bloke in the cab involved with the loco, who I'm sure made reference to there being a loo in the nose???

 

[cjmillsnun]

Aerodynamics.

Ummm a class 55 or 37 (the style the OP is referring to) has all the aerodynamics of a brick.

 

[spongsdad]

Were not certain such smokebox-door fitments trialled on express steam locomotives of "The Big Four" at one time very many years ago.

I think you may be thinking of the inspection shelters which were from time to time affixed to the front end of steam locomotives when they were undertaking accurate performance testing "out on the road". So far as I know, they were usually of timber construction and were fitted with two "spectacle" windows at the upper corners. The purpose of them was to allow a couple of guys to measure as accurately as possible, front end performance of the locomotive, by means of instrumentation temporarily fixed to for example, the smokebox.
From the photos they always looked rather flimsy; I certainly wouldn't have fancied riding there as "front-end Charlie" though I guess that it would have been more exciting than any contemporary amusement park ride.

 

[Ash Bridge]

I'm sure there was a loo in one end of a Deltic. I recall being sat in the cab of 55002 at NRM Railfest (back in 2012) and there was a bloke in the cab involved with the loco, who I'm sure made reference to there being a loo in the nose???

Yes, it appears you're spot on, was reading on rmweb that the 55s had a toilet & washing facilities in the No.2 end nose, similar to what table38 mentioned about class 40s.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I think you may be thinking of the inspection shelters which were from time to time affixed to the front end of steam locomotives when they were undertaking accurate performance testing "out on the road". So far as I know, they were usually of timber construction and were fitted with two "spectacle" windows at the upper corners. The purpose of them was to allow a couple of guys to measure as accurately as possible, front end performance of the locomotive, by means of instrumentation temporarily fixed to for example, the smokebox.

No, these items to which I referred to were metallic aerodynamic artifacts that "streamlined" the area of the smokebox door. I am sure that I recalled one of the better Great Western Railway locomotives having its outline aesthetically ruined by this trial.

However, I am aware of the inspection shelters to which you make reference and I think that O.S.Nock wrote quite an interesting article about them.

 

[spongsdad]

No, these items to which I referred to were metallic aerodynamic artifacts that "streamlined" the area of the smokebox door. I am sure that I recalled one of the better Great Western Railway locomotives having its outline aesthetically ruined by this trial.

However, I am aware of the inspection shelters to which you make reference and I think that O.S.Nock wrote quite an interesting article about them.

Ah, I see. I too recollect seeing photos of, I think, a Churchward engine, either a 'King' or a 'Castle'. The smokebox had a rounded front and there was even some "streamlining"/fairing of elongated triangular shape behind the, chimney and the safety valve cover. Period was the mid 1920s, I think. It looked pretty gross, too.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

No, these items to which I referred to were metallic aerodynamic artifacts that "streamlined" the area of the smokebox door. I am sure that I recalled one of the better Great Western Railway locomotives having its outline aesthetically ruined by this trial.

However, I am aware of the inspection shelters to which you make reference and I think that O.S.Nock wrote quite an interesting article about them.

In fact, I've just come across this link:http://www.greatwestern.org.uk/loco_draw.htm The loco WAS a King and if you look down the list that this link opens, you'll find a drawing.

 

[sprinterguy]

Ah, I see. I too recollect seeing photos of, I think, a Churchward engine, either a 'King' or a 'Castle'. The smokebox had a rounded front and there was even some "streamlining"/fairing of elongated triangular shape behind the, chimney and the safety valve cover. Period was the mid 1920s, I think. It looked pretty gross, too.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


In fact, I've just come across this link:http://www.greatwestern.org.uk/loco_draw.htm The loco WAS a King and if you look down the list that this link opens, you'll find a drawing.

5005 "Manorbier Castle" and 6014 "King Edward VII" were pseudo-steamlined by the Great Western Railway during the mid-thirties in a half-hearted attempt to keep up with the much publicised streamlined efforts of the LNER and LMS.

The streamlining features were gradually removed after only a short period of time, and the two locos so treated have little to no relevance to this thread as the effect was purely aesthetic and served no practical purpose.

 

[spongsdad]

5005 "Manorbier Castle" and 6014 "King Edward VII" were pseudo-steamlined by the Great Western Railway during the mid-thirties in a half-hearted attempt to keep up with the much publicised streamlined efforts of the LNER and LMS.

The streamlining features were gradually removed after only a short period of time, and the two locos so treated have little to no relevance to this thread as the effect was purely aesthetic and served no practical purpose.

Well thanks for that! I will consider myself suitably rebuked for going off topic.
But then the title of the thread is Locos with noses-why?. Maybe I'm not off topic after all.

 

[sprinterguy]

Well thanks for that! I will consider myself suitably rebuked for going off topic.
But then the title of the thread is Locos with noses-why?. Maybe I'm not off topic after all.

I wouldn't consider it a rebuke as I have also provided additional material in answer to the query from Paul Sidorczuk; but from the opening post it seems reasonably clear that the original query was regarding the practical purpose of the noses fitted to modernisation plan diesels, rather than the "bullet" noses fitted to a couple of GWR express engines.

 

[Taunton]

Noses on diesels have been pretty universal on US railroads precisely to give collision protection to the crew, which trains over there are far more susceptible to than in Britain. Any major loco works on the US trunk carriers will generally have one or more units in with a smashed front nose from level crossing collisions, landslides, or whatever.

The Road Switcher type, long typical, had the cab at about the 80% mark, short hood in front and long hood behind. Some of the old major companies, Norfolk & Western, and Southern, used to run their diesels until quite recent times what appeared to be "backwards, with the longer hood leading ("long hood forward"), and the controls in the cab turned round to suit, precisely for collision protection.

In Britain the greatest exponent of noses was English Electric (Deltics, Class 37/40, etc), who had a considerable export experience to Africa etc where unguarded level crossings, washouts, etc, were even more prevalent, let alone occasional experiences of the locomotive being charged by a rhinocerous (dented bodywork) or a bull elephant (derailment not unknown). Seeing one of those coming at speed towards you in the headlight at night, you would be very glad that the EE draughtsman back at Strand Road, Preston, had seen fit to put the cab back behind a nose of steel framing.

I'm not aware that a rhinocerous has had a go at a Deltic yet!

 

[The Crab]

To correct my previous comment, it was H G Ivatt CME of the LMS who insisted that the LMS 1600hp diesel electric of the LMS built 1947/48 had noses. Roland Bond, who was involved in the BR pilot dieselisation designs, agreed adding a third reason -"They looked better".

I understand that when the designs changed to flat fronted the windows were made relatively small for the same reason. Do modern units have shallow windows?

 

[3141]

It sounds like the reasoning for having a nose on early diesels could be partially due to this and partially due to the styling of the time. Borrowed American influences and all that??

I think that's likely: the LMS diesels 10000 and 10001 (and I think 10100 as well) had these "noses" in the American style.

But the Southern diesels didn't have them.

The idea of "sleeper flicker" is interesting, but the AC electric locos classes 81-87 put the crew right at the front, without a protective nose, and they were among the fastest locos of their time and would have suffered from flicker if it was really a problem.