Jump to content

Worst looking locomotive topic. Antidote to Best Looking Locomotive topic.


Recommended Posts

Self explanatory title, and a chance to air your pet dislikes.  The Bulleid Q1 is banned for being too obvious, and anyway there is a point at which things become so ugly they generate their own perverse charm.  I'll start you all off;

 

Steam: Dugald Drummond LSWR T14 'Paddlebox' 4-6-0, particularly with those dreadful Stirling Single steam pipe cowlings (they looked lovely on the Stirling Single, as did everything).  It is difficult to believe that these abominations came from the same drawing office as the graceful T9s. 

 

Diesel: D800 Warship (and by extension DB V200)

 

Electric: Bulleid/Raworth BR-built 20003 Co-Co

 

DMU: BRCW 104

 

EMU: Bulleid/Raworth 4-DD

 

We'll lay down some ground rules; must be locos or stock that were in revenue service, which precludes the spectacularly ugly Bulleid CIE Turfburner (I have no problem with the look of 'Leader'), Paget, GER Decapod etc.

 

Doesn't have to be British, of course, but we ought to have some sort of handicap system when it comes to late 19th century Belgian locos...

  • Like 6
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • RMweb Gold
Posted (edited)

Ah, some "Grist for the Mill"... Good!

 

In the GWR world my nomination is Churchward's secret shame, the Krugers. (Although Dean was nominally the designer, Churchward was heavilly involved.)

 

Remarkably ugly: Badly proportioned, lumpen and too many "bits". Let's hope no-one is ever mad enough to make an RTR version!

 

Edited by Harlequin
  • Like 3
  • Agree 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

You should also exclude any loco fitted with a Brotan boiler.

 

My vote is for the GER Decapod after it was rebuilt (and entered service) as a 0-8-0 tender loco, followed closely by the Italian class 670 cab forward compounds. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Harlequin said:

Ah, some "Grist for the Mill"... Good!

 

In the GWR world my nomination is Churchward's secret shame, the Krugers. (Although Dean was nominally the designer, Churchward was heavilly involved.)

 

Remarkably ugly: Badly proportioned, lumpen and too many "bits". Let's hope non-one is ever mad enough to make an RTR version!

 

And the there's 'Earl Cawdor', which looks like Henry Greenley designed it whilst drunk.

  • Like 2
  • Agree 1
  • Funny 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't believe that there is any such thing as an ugly locomotive. That is, a steam locomotive. 

 

As far as diesels are concerned, then class 58 and class 70 are prime contenders for your prize. 

 

Sad to say, the Taff Vale class I rebuilds were ungainly beasties, what with the 'aerial' train control gear. 

 

Now, for a pretty locomotive, I'll promote the Taff Vale cl;ass C (unrebuilt). Such was the glamour, it hauled the King & Queen around the valleys!

 

As far as your views on the Q1, then no way! I'd call them Ronseals: It does what it says on the tin! Would you put a cocktail umbrella on your pint? 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, I don’t find the Gloucester 100s all that bad, certainly compared to the deliberate and wilful slab endedness of the Birmingham 104s.  The tidying up on the rather attractive 110s only served to highlight the 104s’ awfulness. 

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Excellent (he says in Mr Burns’ folding his fingers together voice), we’ve got some serious divergence of opinion already; this’ll run and run!

 

There are a good few British 0-8-0s that I reckon are aesthetically challenged/differently attractive, particularly the top heavy brutalistic cab styled Hull and Barnsley and Lanky examples, but like the Q1s, they get Ronseal points. 
 

While we are on the subject of Valleys Royal Train locos, the Dowlais Works 0-4-0T are all out of proportion as well.  
 

Now I’m going to be controversial, not deliberately but because it’s what I think.  They had undeniable presence, but Deltics were (IMHO) out and out hideous things to look at, made immeasurably worse by the unsympathetic blue livery and FYE.  

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • RMweb Gold
Posted (edited)

For EMUs I would have to say these things. 

 

1280215047_458022claphamjunc902.jpg.c948fd8031fb53287bfccadf4f9ea524.jpg

 

 

I mean, they already had the cab design of the 442s. To cut costs they could have ditched the curved cab windows; but who in heavens name thought this was a decent front end design for a 21st century train?

 

Edited by jonny777
  • Like 3
  • Agree 8
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, The Johnster said:

Self explanatory title, and a chance to air your pet dislikes.  The Bulleid Q1 is banned for being too obvious, and anyway there is a point at which things become so ugly they generate their own perverse charm.  I'll start you all off;

 

 

I'd agree about the Q1, it was an "alternative" aesthetic deliberately contrived to make a point and should be judged on its own terms.

 

What I find most disturbing are what you might call "Frankenstein" locomotives that look as if they've been put together from ill-assorted spare parts. There seem to have been quite a few Irish examples such as

 

img426 Limerick Junction K3 361 1960-10-24 GT Robinson

 

and...

img481 Liffey Junction D4 339 1960-10-23 GT Robinson

 

 

  • Like 3
  • Agree 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, The Johnster said:

 

There are a good few British 0-8-0s that I reckon are aesthetically challenged/differently attractive, particularly the top heavy brutalistic cab styled Hull and Barnsley and Lanky examples, but like the Q1s, they get Ronseal points. 
 

 

 

The L&Y had some fairly ungainly big tank locos as well- You'd never describe the Class 32 0-8-2T or Class 26 2-6-2T as being pretty....

 

On the diesel front, I'm surprised there's been no mention of Lt-Col. Fell's efforts...

Edited by Invicta
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • RMweb Gold

Worst diesel for me? 

 

Class 70 (the modern one - although the ex-SR version was not much better). 

 

It looks like a 58 on steroids, and the 58 was not much of a looker either. I understand the ease of maintenance thing, but can no one design a decent front end these days? 

 

  • Like 1
  • Agree 9
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, The Johnster said:

 

 

Steam: Dugald Drummond LSWR T14 'Paddlebox' 4-6-0, particularly with those dreadful Stirling Single steam pipe cowlings (they looked lovely on the Stirling Single, as did everything).  It is difficult to believe that these abominations came from the same drawing office as the graceful T9s. 

 

 

I'm inclined to feel some sympathy for the Paddleboxes. In their original form at least they have to me an air of pathetic dignity. In their final rebuilt form, though, I would put them in the Frankenstein category.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

My choice of aesthetic disaster would be the Ffestiniog Railway's chop job on Mountaineer to get it to fit its loading gauge. For some spell style and taste were absent from the Ffesterbahn. Further examples would be the cubist Fairlie, the soviet bloc meets business park styling of Tan y Bwlch signal box and as recently as 2010 the WHR station at Pont Croesor. Now to be fair Pont Croesor station has been much improved of late but I guess it'll be a while before all the tat is expunged.

  • Like 2
  • Agree 6
Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, The Johnster said:

Excellent (he says in Mr Burns’ folding his fingers together voice), we’ve got some serious divergence of opinion already; this’ll run and run!

 

There are a good few British 0-8-0s that I reckon are aesthetically challenged/differently attractive, particularly the top heavy brutalistic cab styled Hull and Barnsley and Lanky examples, but like the Q1s, they get Ronseal points. 
 

While we are on the subject of Valleys Royal Train locos, the Dowlais Works 0-4-0T are all out of proportion as well.  
 

Now I’m going to be controversial, not deliberately but because it’s what I think.  They had undeniable presence, but Deltics were (IMHO) out and out hideous things to look at, made immeasurably worse by the unsympathetic blue livery and FYE.  

 

 I'll concede on the Dowlais locos. There is an RSH tank locomotive, called an 'Ugly' but I can't find a picture right now. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Has anyone mentioned the kitson still locomotive,  looked like the slightest curve would make it fall over

When it comes to modern units well where do you start!  Those 700s ere are especially awful as are those new things for merseyrail 

As for diesel locos 67s look like the thing instructors drew on blackboards when teaching rules

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, jonny777 said:

For EMUs I would have to say these things. 

 

1280215047_458022claphamjunc902.jpg.c948fd8031fb53287bfccadf4f9ea524.jpg

 

 

I mean, they already had the cab design of the 442s. To cut costs they could have ditched the curved cab windows; but who in heavens name thought this was a decent front end design for a 21st century train?

 

I’d say the cold dead hand of Oliver Bulleid has a part to play, by way of the SUBs, EPBs, CEP/CIG etc, PEP and derivates, 313s, eyc
 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Andy Kirkham said:

Well it looks quite alien to British sensibilities, but I would say it has a kind of gaunt, spidery elegance.

‘Gaunt, spidery, elegance’ yes, yes.  Tender’s a bit fugly, mind!

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • RMweb Gold
2 hours ago, Andy Kirkham said:

 

I'd agree about the Q1, it was an "alternative" aesthetic deliberately contrived to make a point and should be judged on its own terms.

 

What I find most disturbing are what you might call "Frankenstein" locomotives that look as if they've been put together from ill-assorted spare parts. There seem to have been quite a few Irish examples such as

 

img426 Limerick Junction K3 361 1960-10-24 GT Robinson

 

and...

img481 Liffey Junction D4 339 1960-10-23 GT Robinson

 

 

 

Bit of Revd Awdry about those two, especially the 2-6-0.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.