Blutorse4792
Now T:ANE I can get into
I actually really like the SD60M, but I was definitely wondering "What the Hell?" the first time I ever saw one.
Now THIS ONE is ugly...
ugly trains
- Thread starter paul502
- Start date
I actually really like the SD60M, but I was definitely wondering "What the Hell?" the first time I ever saw one.
Now THIS ONE is ugly...
brokensleeper
Member
That thing is ugly
TheWaluigiKing
Trainz Ninja
I only like the body and builders B[
The New Haven I-5 is worse.
The New Haven I-5 is worse.
Last edited:
TheWaluigiKing
Trainz Ninja
http://www.fugly.com/media/IMAGES/Random/japanese_trains.jpg
What am i looking at here?
What am i looking at here?
deadpoolmx55
LETS GO PENS!
british loco's look all dainty and cute, like a dress designer made them for little girls LOL, i guess you don't need a strong loco to travel a country that is the size of new England in the USA.
and some of your rolling stock are ugly and tiny the size of carry on luggage that people bring on amtrak, my lawn mower could pull that and its a push mower
and some of your rolling stock are ugly and tiny the size of carry on luggage that people bring on amtrak, my lawn mower could pull that and its a push mower
Last edited:
captainkman
You are reading this.
If it makes you feel any better, I really do not like American trains. They have no buffers, ugly grilles between the wheels called cowcatchers (But I don't catch cows, sir) and a really bright ditch lights that give me seizures.
Kieran.
TheWaluigiKing
Trainz Ninja
Last edited:
This sort of puerile argument appears repeatedly on this thread.
The situation is that 'Mercans find European locos strange looking, just as Europeans find US locos strange looking. Simply put, we are used to what we have grown up with. This doesn't mean that either type is better than the other. Locos have evolved to suit the tasks and terrain in which they operate. This thread is for ugly locos. A standard US or European loco isn't ugly whichever way you look at it, they're just different depending on what you're used to.
Similarly, a UK kettle with US safety gear on it isn't ugly either, it's essentially the same engine. What I'd personally expect to see on this thread is the oddities of design which make locos bizarre or quirky in appearance and which you wouldn't see operating.
Leave the 'mine is bigger than yours' nonsnense for PMs if you feel you must argue about it.
The situation is that 'Mercans find European locos strange looking, just as Europeans find US locos strange looking. Simply put, we are used to what we have grown up with. This doesn't mean that either type is better than the other. Locos have evolved to suit the tasks and terrain in which they operate. This thread is for ugly locos. A standard US or European loco isn't ugly whichever way you look at it, they're just different depending on what you're used to.
Similarly, a UK kettle with US safety gear on it isn't ugly either, it's essentially the same engine. What I'd personally expect to see on this thread is the oddities of design which make locos bizarre or quirky in appearance and which you wouldn't see operating.
Leave the 'mine is bigger than yours' nonsnense for PMs if you feel you must argue about it.
That sounds around 500 miles away from an honest opinion. Your only saying it because you're mad. :hehe: Those "seizure lights" do not flash at 1 flash per 1 1/100 of a second, therefor I doubt you would be getting any seizures. There is also a reason that the US and most other places don't use buffers you know.
As for my opinion on UK and US. I honestly do like some UK stuff. Mostly older electrics and maybe some older EMU or DMU's. If I had to pick my favorite of them all it would be a battle between the Class 86 and the Class 76.
DustinJRaiken
Fictional Specialist
More sad than ugly in my opinion. Soo Line only ever owned five SD60Ms, and now they're just being repainted into CP livery. Granted they're just as rare, but the Soo speed lettering just made them stand out to me. I've only seen one in my entire life, and that was without a camera. However, the event stood out to me, and that's why a Soo Line SD60M is idling to the left of my name.
Now THIS ONE is ugly...
Did you look at the name?
fugly.com/media/IMAGES/Random/japanese_trains.jpg
japanese_trains.jpg
japanese
That explains it.
Wait, cowcatchers and ditchlights on the same engine? I only know of a few engines that have that combination, and only two or so are American!
captainkman
You are reading this.
I'm not mad - I just have an opinion and I voiced it in a humorous way. Of course nobody will get seizures form the ditch lights! Strobe lights maybe, though...
Any American locos I like? I'm going to admit I find something attractive in The General, can't pinpoint it. I'll just go back to wrecking 4449 is MSTS until I do.
Kieran.
captainkman
You are reading this.
I never said the same engine. And, I can't dislike cowcatchers that much as all QR steam and diesel llocos have cute little ones at the front.
The post you quoted was an attempt at humour, a form of joke which Americans can't take. It's a shame.Blutorse4792
Now T:ANE I can get into
A DL-109 to drown out the asininity.
I've always liked the "deformed E/F units" (This guy, the Sharks/Centipedes, C-Liners, etc.)
Last edited:
Cool looking...why did I call it a steamer? :hehe: "Honorary-steamer" maybe....nathanmallard
Well-known member
That DL-109 is actually quite good looking.
Blutorse4792
Now T:ANE I can get into
I think "funky" would be a better term than "ugly". There seems to be a negative connotation with "ugly" but I actually like a lot of the engines I consider ugly.
magickmaker
New member
The term cowcatcher is something of a misnomer. It originated back from the early days of railroading across the great plains. Back in the day, when buffalo still roamed the plains, it wasn't unheard of for trains to be derailed should they strike one of the massive creatures. (Keep in mind, we're talking the early 4-4-0 American types. Light at best.) To deal with this situation, railroads had various solutions, but the best was an angled wooden structure built on the front of the locomotive. This wooden structure was designed to push buffalo to the side of the train, preventing it from going under the wheels and thus derailing the train itself. It worked, reasonably well, and ended up becoming standard on locomotives up until the early 1900's. By then weight had gotten to the point that most locomotives didn't need to worry about derailing. Companies kept the design around though, so you still see small "Cowcatchers" on the fronts of the locomotives even to this day.
It's also worth noting that most all American trains originally had buffers when railroading started. Even into the early Civil War era, there were still some railroads using the buffer system. However, it fell out of favor for a couple of reasons. Believe it or not, it had nothing to do with coupling though. The main problem that the Americas had, as opposed to the UK and Europe, was track. The track in the US was shoddy at best, known for being a rough undulating ride. So, buffer lock situations were common, and with that came derailments. (Note: Buffer lock is when one buffer is stuck behind another.) What's more, the bad track mixed with the rigid wheel base of four wheel cars, meant derailments were common. A quick solution was to place two independent four wheel bogies on the trains. That, plus a single coupling in the center of the car meant that derailments were less likely to happen.
I felt they were more kind of clunky looking than funky. What really surprised me years ago was after years of seeing the old streamliners of the fifties that looked that nice outside, I later found the the control cab inside looked, well clunky and not very modern! Of course in the end if will be whatever tradition were brought up with in what country but I do think that GB and European engines look more modern and less boxy.
