Far easier to say "All locos except non-GEVO US ones are ugly." Truly enlightened.
Last edited:
ugly trains
- Thread starter paul502
- Start date
Far easier to say "All locos except non-GEVO US ones are ugly." Truly enlightened.
nathanmallard
Well-known member
This prototype looks a bit better than the first one.
Actually I think the N&W Class J's look better than the NYC Hudsons.
Last edited:
This prototype looks a bit better than the first one.
Actually I think the N&W Class J's look better than the NYC Hudsons.
I agree there, that one does look a little better. You want a nice-looking engine, just take a look at the Milwaukee F-7 4-6-4. One of the best-looking streamlined engines ever built. But why the short tenders on European engines? I mean lengthwise, not in height. I'm used to bigger tenders like those giant 8-axle tenders from the ATSF.
nathanmallard
Well-known member
Because of water troughs!
A loco would have a mechanically-operated scoop in the tender, which could pick up water from the many, many troughs, giving the loco unlimited water capacity, so long as all of them were full. The PRR & NYC had them. Plus, in Europe, the distances are much shorter, reducing the need for huge tenders.
Why you mean it's wierd? This is normal steam locomotive with Franco-Crosti boiler system. This type have for download on trainzitalia in 4 version.
On this
has to much really wierd locomotives 
This prototype looks a bit better than the first one.
Actually I think the N&W Class J's look better than the NYC Hudsons.
I'd call that German class 01 skirted (I think that's what that loco is) quirky myself, not ugly so much as it's just...peculiar looking.
And whever says Green Arrow or the Princess Coronations are ugly needs to be shot...add that Soviet P36-class Northern and their L1 class 2-10-0 to that list. Sorry, just my two cents.
BTW, the Class J's are nice, but...well, let's put it this way. I'm a freight hauling kinda guy. I prefer big, husky steam locos whose sole purpose is to move the maximum amount of tonnage the farthest distance possible. stylish passenger locos just aren't my thing; any paticular loco I love that happens to be a passenger hauler (at least of the U.S. variety) typically only depends on how I feel on any given day...
Steamdemon
Pizza Delivery Train
Why you mean it's wierd? This is normal steam locomotive with Franco-Crosti boiler system. This type have for download on trainzitalia in 4 version.
On this
I mean the way the funnel is positioned. was that to stop smoke from blocking the view?
EDIT: Well, looks like the franco crosti boiler wasn't really useful for british locomotives...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franco-Crosti_boiler
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BR_Standard_Class_9F_92020-9
Last edited:
I know that the Chesapeake & Ohio placed air compressors on the front of the boiler on their 2-6-6-2s and other locomotives. However, the picture shows that the pumps should have been made a little smaller because they seem to overcrowed the front of the boiler. I'd call it more unusual than ugly.
One more thing: The best looking GEVOs are Norfolk Southern's Heritage Locomotives, especially Southern heritage unit #8099, an ES44AC.
Picture of steam locomotive:
http://www.steamlocomotive.com/mikado/co1178-unknown.jpg
One more thing: The best looking GEVOs are Norfolk Southern's Heritage Locomotives, especially Southern heritage unit #8099, an ES44AC.
Picture of steam locomotive:
http://www.steamlocomotive.com/mikado/co1178-unknown.jpg
jadebullet
might be back?
Agree with you on that one.
WHAAAAAT! So wait, this is ugly;
And this:
And this:
And GOOD LORD, even Green Arrow?
Are these ugly? Really, look at them, little external pipework, no massive cowcatchers or headlamps. If these locos worked in the US unchanged, would you hate them so much? Don't get me started on Mallard and Flying Scotsman, they are perhaps the two most beautiful locomotives in the world...
(P.S I don't hate American trains or anything. I just consider European and British ones aesthetically better.)
#1) Yeah, it really is. It would look better without the streamlining.
#2) That is ugly. Just very Russian
#3) Yeah, that is one ugly steam loco. It looks good from the tender up to about where the smokebox is, and then you reach the nose. That streamlining is unimaginative, and pretty boring.
#4) In my opinion, I wouldn't call it ugly as much as bland. I am not a big fan of the face of British locomotives, and the lack of visible piping takes away from the "personality" of steam locomotives. It just seems less alive to me. Also, the lack of a pilot, bell or headlight just seems unsafe to me. Yeah, yeah, I know, the UK's lines were fenced in so they didn't have as much of a need for a pilot or bell, but it is better to have them and not need them, then to need them and not have them. Also, having to place and remove a headlight just seems like a waste of time to me. From a railroading standpoint, I guess it worked just fine over there.
By the way, why does the streamliner have a handrail if there is no place to stand?
deadpoolmx55
LETS GO PENS!
i love how upset the Europeans get when you express your opinion about how you think their locos are ugly their loco's are, like as if you are wrong to have an opinion and they correct you like you had just made fun of their mother, god guys lighten. It's not as if it is your own that locomotive. You don't own it.
But on the other hand, when they try and say the US's locomotives are ugly we just shrug it off because we don't care. Our locomotives are not made to look like a 1950's tubes of lipstick with wheels on it, they were made to work and looks didn't matter lol
But on the other hand, when they try and say the US's locomotives are ugly we just shrug it off because we don't care. Our locomotives are not made to look like a 1950's tubes of lipstick with wheels on it, they were made to work and looks didn't matter lol
I honestly LOVE the way those things look.
Agree with you on that one.
WHAAAAAT! So wait, this is ugly;
And this:
And this:
And GOOD LORD, even Green Arrow?
Are these ugly? Really, look at them, little external pipework, no massive cowcatchers or headlamps. If these locos worked in the US unchanged, would you hate them so much? Don't get me started on Mallard and Flying Scotsman, they are perhaps the two most beautiful locomotives in the world...
(P.S I don't hate American trains or anything. I just consider European and British ones aesthetically better.)
#1: Yes. The tender is too tall and the nose is just god-awful.
#2: The engine isn't ugly, though a different color sure would be nice.
#3: It's fine until you see the nose.
#4 I actually don't think is ugly.
Steamdemon
Pizza Delivery Train
Oh dear...looks like the ugly virus hit the trams as well...
Many "modern" American steam locomotives used front-mounted air pumps simply because by then the boilers had grown to a size that left little or no clearance for side mounting the pumps. Air pumps were made usually by firms such as Westinghouse to a spec that provided a given CFM, etc. You couldn't just "make them smaller" without seriously effecting the train's braking power. The more powerful the locomotive, the more the need for greater "pumping power".
magickmaker
New member
Because of water troughs!
A loco would have a mechanically-operated scoop in the tender, which could pick up water from the many, many troughs, giving the loco unlimited water capacity, so long as all of them were full. The PRR & NYC had them. Plus, in Europe, the distances are much shorter, reducing the need for huge tenders.
The PRR and NYC used these, but they were problematic at best. Before picking up the water, the fireman had to open the hatch on the tender. If he didn't do that, then the pressure of the water flooding up into the tender could actually cause the rivets that held it together to burst. What's more, if he lowered the scoop too early, or raised it too late, it'd tear off the train and cause the tender to dump all its water out.
From what I remember, the PRR and NYC only used them on one long run where high speeds were at a premium. Other than that it was the old stop and watertower system.
Oh god... my eyes!!! Oh god *hyperventilates*Oh dear...looks like the ugly virus hit the trams as well...
magickmaker
New member
I'm still looking for the link. It was scans of the original article. I'll update this post when I turn it up again.
http://tlc.howstuffworks.com/family/how-thomas-the-tank-engine-works2.htm Not the original, but it notes: The train characters are models built to a 1:32 scale, known in the model railway world as "1" Scale. Because very small model trains are filmed moving in real time, it is a complex production that requires a great deal of intense focus.
http://tlc.howstuffworks.com/family/how-thomas-the-tank-engine-works2.htm Not the original, but it notes: The train characters are models built to a 1:32 scale, known in the model railway world as "1" Scale. Because very small model trains are filmed moving in real time, it is a complex production that requires a great deal of intense focus.
Last edited:
WarspiteWorks9017
Calling at Newington...
Agree with you on that one.
WHAAAAAT! So wait, this is ugly;
And this:
And this:
And GOOD LORD, even Green Arrow?
1. Not really- but its not to my taste (it looks like a boiler stuck onto a diesel though)
2. Same again
3. No they(LMS) did a much better job than the 1st one on the streamlining.
4. How on earth is that classified as ugly??!!?!
Thomas is just ugly in general; now before any of you jump down my smokestack, allow me to explain myself. The TV Character version of Thomas, at least, is ugly, as far as I'm concerned. Rev. Awdry did a fantastic job of sticking to the original proportions of the locos he based his characters on (thomas being an LB&SC class E2, Percy being a Peckett 0-4-0, Henry's a 'Black 5' 5MT 4-6-0, etc.) the fact the TV morons ruined such classic, graceful lines of british steam power by misshapennly cramming their shells onto Marklin mechanisms is appauling.
oh, and @pfx, ditto on your gripe...