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

[88D]

21 hours ago, Steamport Southport said:

 

So why are they being mentioned? 

 

I don't think the L&Y had anything remotely in the category "worst" anything.

 

 

 

Jason

Oh, yes they did. That’s why some of the locos are in this worst-looking thread!

[The Johnster]

None of them were beauties, but they certainly didn't perform as well as they looked!  Metrovicks have a sort of dolorous charm to them to my mind, as do the equally sad eyed D61xx and D63xx.  The best lookers IMHO were the BRCW Bo-Bos, also one of the best performers!

[The Johnster]

1 hour ago, jcm@gwr said:

Surely you mean Hawksworth Counties?

No, I mean Churchward's, a well proportioned and nice looking outside cylinder 4-4-0 that, if it had never been built, would have been a missing link in the evolution from Dean Singles to Stars, but which was a horribly rough rider and very unkind to the track.  It followed on from the very successful City/Atbara outside frame inside cylinder 4-4-0s, and might have also been able to put up speeds around the 100mph mark if it had retained their coupled wheelbase.

 

Hawksworth's Counties were not bad looking though some of us didn't like the long single splashers, and weren't bad in service; if anything they were too powerful as 2 cylinder locos for the mixed traffic role they were designed for, and kept breaking couplings, so in that sense were a failure, and they needed a bit of draughting work to get the best out of them.  They were probably the most powerful 2 cylinder 4-6-0 ever built in the UK, though the Uries probably ran them close.  They were probably the best loco the GW/WR had for heavy parcels work.

[pete_mcfarlane]

If we are talking ugly 1950s diesels, the two Irish prototypes take some beating 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIE_113_Class

[laurenceb]

22 hours ago, robmcg said:

I declare the winner to be bullet-nosed Castles and Kings.

I know that I am odd but I quite like them

[laurenceb]

22 hours ago, robmcg said:

I declare the winner to be bullet-nosed Castles and Kings.

I know that I am odd but I quite like them

[The Johnster]

You may be the only person in the entire history of the space-time continuum to make this statement, so, yeah, a bit odd...

[rodent279]

I like the Co-Bo's, and the WR "sad-eye" hydraulics, just a shame they didn't perform well. I've never thought 31's were particularly good looking, and I guess they weren't great in original form, but have turned out to be one of the Modernisation Plan success stories.

I suppose the GWR Manors and Stanier's 5X's ought to be included as well-both neat looking designs that really didn't work well until after some modifications.

[rodent279]

9 hours ago, The Johnster said:

No, I mean Churchward's, a well proportioned and nice looking outside cylinder 4-4-0 that, if it had never been built, would have been a missing link in the evolution from Dean Singles to Stars, but which was a horribly rough rider and very unkind to the track.  It followed on from the very successful City/Atbara outside frame inside cylinder 4-4-0s, and might have also been able to put up speeds around the 100mph mark if it had retained their coupled wheelbase.

 

Hawksworth's Counties were not bad looking though some of us didn't like the long single splashers, and weren't bad in service; if anything they were too powerful as 2 cylinder locos for the mixed traffic role they were designed for, and kept breaking couplings, so in that sense were a failure, and they needed a bit of draughting work to get the best out of them.  They were probably the most powerful 2 cylinder 4-6-0 ever built in the UK, though the Uries probably ran them close.  They were probably the best loco the GW/WR had for heavy parcels work.

One of GJC's few duds. Capable engines, fwiu, but as noted, rough riders, so I guess few enginemen tried to get the best out of them. All scrapped by about 1934, compare that to the longevity of most of GJC's designs. A modern, neat looking 4-4-0 though, wouldn't have looked any more out of place on 50's BR than a Schools.

FWH's Counties are, for me, one of the best looking GW designs, and pretty good performers too, once the draughting had been sorted. I think, though, that they may have been an engine looking for a purpose, rather than filling a genuine requirement. There can't have been much that a County could do than a Hall or Castle couldn't.

Edited June 21, 2020 by rodent279

[Andy Kirkham]

1 hour ago, rodent279 said:

FWH's Counties are, for me, one of the best looking GW designs, and pretty good performers too, once the draughting had been sorted. I think, though, that they may have been an engine looking for a purpose, rather than filling a genuine requirement. There can't have been much that a County could do than a Hall or Castle couldn't.

 

Somewhere (possibly an issue of Trains Illustrated from about 1959) I read a letter from a former Swindon man who stated that they were an attempt to get the performance of a Castle without the complications of four cylinders.

[Flying Pig]

On 20/06/2020 at 00:19, Steamport Southport said:

 

So why are they being mentioned? 

 

I don't think the L&Y had anything remotely in the category "worst" anything.

 

 

 

Jason

 

Several of their earlier designs were downright pretty, but they developed a rather lumpish aesthetic later on and did come up with one or two horrors.  I've tried hard to like the Highflyers without success, though they were apparently effective engines. The Hoy 2-6-2t didn't have that excuse and was a strong candidate for "worst" in more than one category. 

[Andy Kirkham]

2 hours ago, Flying Pig said:

 

Several of their earlier designs were downright pretty, but they developed a rather lumpish aesthetic later on and did come up with one or two horrors.  I've tried hard to like the Highflyers without success, though they were apparently effective engines. The Hoy 2-6-2t didn't have that excuse and was a strong candidate for "worst" in more than one category. 

 

The thing that spoils the look of the HIghflyers in my opinion - and I think it is an aesthetic blunder in many larger locomotives with leading and/or trailing wheels - is to have the running plate at the same low  level along its entire length. To me it gives the impression of it being in a kind of straitjacket. I think running plate should "flow"  to harmonise with the different sizes of wheels.

 

I can never really enjoy the looks of many otherwise admirable NER locos for this reason.

Edited June 21, 2020 by Andy Kirkham

[The Johnster]

5 hours ago, Andy Kirkham said:

 

Somewhere (possibly an issue of Trains Illustrated from about 1959) I read a letter from a former Swindon man who stated that they were an attempt to get the performance of a Castle without the complications of four cylinders.

This was widely believed by footplatemen, and perhaps that's how the loco was 'sold' to them.  Not sure there's any real evidence for it though, and it's the sort of thing that can start with 'so, you're trying to get a Castle performance from a 2 cylinder loco, then?'  'Yes, something like that'.  I can't see the 10xx County as a replacement for the Castles, but can see it as a replacement for the Saints, which had been useful locos for 40 years, and perhaps the Stars, ditto.

 

It was undoubtedly much easier to prep than a Star or a Castle, and drivers I spoke to in the 70s were highly critical of the Castle's awkward and cramped oiling regime.  This is a very bad feature of what was generally a well regarded loco, and many commented that some of the more inaccessible spots were not attended to as regularly and assiduously as they should have been, particularly by the more 'Broad Gauge' drivers!

 

It was capable of a bit more than a Hall, both in terms of haulage and of speed.  The order of difference was similar to that between a Grange and a Hall, and it is arguable IMHO that the Hall was surplus to requirements and Granges should have been built as well.  The Hall is generally regarded as a development of the Saint that made it a more useful loco, but the drivers universally reckoned the Grange to be a better puller and just as fast.  

 

My view is that the rationale behind the Hawksworth Counties was that he had the means to build Stanier 8F boilers on hand at no cost, and could not get permission to build Castles during wartime.  The answer was to build a loco that could be described as a mixed traffic type.  it is probably regrettable that this was, as it turned out, his opus magnus; Churchward and Collett were hard acts to follow,, and Hawksworth became a bit of a footnote through no fault of his own.  He lived in 'interesting' times, always a curse, and had little time before nationalisation to build a reputation, and little room after the previous CME's had already provided everything the GW needed, according to the Swindon Gospel.  There probably wasn't much point to the Counties, or the Modified Halls, or the 94xx, or the 15xx, and none of that is Hawkworth's fault.  Thompson seems to have been in much the same boat.

 

I wonder sometimes about the idea of an improved 2884 with the 8F boiler, but more 2884s were built.  What the railway wanted was more of the same, and this led to difficulties when the WR had to be pretty much frogmarched into accepting BR standard locos; they were happier with what they already had and even wanted to build more Castles, with the problems noted above, instead of accepting Britannias.  Old Oak even managed to palm off Iron Duke on to Stewart's Lane for the Golden Arrow gig.  The GW, and the WR (which was to all intents and purposes the same thing until Gerard Fiennes shook it up a bit), was stuck in a 1920s timewarp and was very difficult to shift out of it!  Fiennes' comment in his book, 'we don't blow whistles at people from Newbury' summed it up.

[rockershovel]

Meanwhile, more French aberrations.. neither being particularly successful, from what I understand 

 

 

[The Johnster]

Mon Deiu!  Sacre bleu! Zut alors!  Mes yeux, mes belle yeux...  Il est un zero-deux-deux-zero avec trois axles dans le centre; c'est une abominatione.  Et le autre, ces't ne pas un improvement.

 

Courage, mon brave,

[Flying Pig]

10 hours ago, rockershovel said:

Meanwhile, more French aberrations.. neither being particularly successful, from what I understand 

 

 

 

Depends on what you're after, but that configuration can be quite effective:

 

 

[rockershovel]

9 hours ago, The Johnster said:

Mon Deiu!  Sacre bleu! Zut alors!  Mes yeux, mes belle yeux...  Il est un zero-deux-deux-zero avec trois axles dans le centre; c'est une abominatione.  Et le autre, ces't ne pas un improvement.

 

Courage, mon brave,

 

Read ver’ carefully, I will post zis on’y wurnce... the first loco was apparently “an attempt to develop the principles of the Crampton design.... “

[rockershovel]

Central carrying wheels under a single carrying frame were an occasional French conceit, I don’t know any other nation which used them. This Du Bousquet also has them. It isn’t exactly a treat for the eyes, but I’d excused it (so far) on the grounds that it was a successful design in its intended role (heavy coal trains over short distances) and incorporates a number of useful developments of the Meyer type, designed to improve sealing of the HP steam joint and reduce front side-throw. 

 

[rockershovel]

On 21/06/2020 at 13:21, Andy Kirkham said:

 

The thing that spoils the look of the HIghflyers in my opinion - and I think it is an aesthetic blunder in many larger locomotives with leading and/or trailing wheels - is to have the running plate at the same low  level along its entire length. To me it gives the impression of it being in a kind of straitjacket. I think running plate should "flow"  to harmonise with the different sizes of wheels.

 

I can never really enjoy the looks of many otherwise admirable NER locos for this reason.

 

Oh, those are plain odd! They just seem generally out of proportion, the smokebox looks far too short as well... 

 

[Steamport Southport]

Poor quality photograph from a strange angle to compare size with the locomotives it was built to replace. I also reckon nothing looks good in photographic grey.

 

This is how they really looked and definitely a candidate for the prettiest locomotive thread.

 

 

 

 

Jason

[Steamport Southport]

On 21/06/2020 at 07:46, rodent279 said:

One of GJC's few duds. Capable engines, fwiu, but as noted, rough riders, so I guess few enginemen tried to get the best out of them. All scrapped by about 1934, compare that to the longevity of most of GJC's designs. A modern, neat looking 4-4-0 though, wouldn't have looked any more out of place on 50's BR than a Schools.

 

 

Only built because the 4-6-0s were originally banned north of Wolverhampton.

 

By the time the lightweight 4-6-0s appeared and they had sorted out "hammerblow" they were redundant as were most of the 4-4-0s.

 

 

 

Never mind going to Specsavers. If someone thinks that's ugly they need to get a guide dog!   

 

 

Jason

[Hroth]

On 20/06/2020 at 22:40, The Johnster said:

No, I mean Churchward's, a well proportioned and nice looking outside cylinder 4-4-0 that, if it had never been built, would have been a missing link in the evolution from Dean Singles to Stars, but which was a horribly rough rider and very unkind to the track.  It followed on from the very successful City/Atbara outside frame inside cylinder 4-4-0s, and might have also been able to put up speeds around the 100mph mark if it had retained their coupled wheelbase.

 

I was just going to mention the genesis of the Churchward Counties in the ban the LNWR put on the usage of GWR 4-6-0s on certain joint lines.

 

All it achieved was a rather fierce 4-4-0 that was literally 3/4 of a Saint!*

 

IMHO not an ugly loco at all!  If 4-4-0s weren't well on their way out by the late 20s, Collet might have tamed them with a rebuild.  Smaller Hall sized drivers and a Collet cab.  Niiiice!!!

 

* Chop the rear drivers off the Saint, use a slightly smaller boiler and WOLLA!!!!

 

[tomparryharry]

It's certainly not a 'dud, as some people comment. It's largest drawback was the lack of distance between the coupled drivers.  Extend the wheelbase back by around 6", and strengthen the bogie sideways control, and it would have cured the 'wiggle' you get on any 4-coupled, outside cylinder locomotive. 

 

A bit of thought and investigation would have most likely cured it. One wonders what became of the fleet of spare parts. Boiler is No4, drivers to the next batch of rear drivers for the castles. Tenders, as we know, go anywhere. 

[88D]

3 hours ago, Steamport Southport said:

Poor quality photograph from a strange angle to compare size with the locomotives it was built to replace. I also reckon nothing looks good in photographic grey.

 

This is how they really looked and definitely a candidate for the prettiest locomotive thread.

 

 

 

 

Jason

Only if you’re wearing red rose-tinted  glasses.  Emoji not allowed , but I would have put one with glasses on.

[pH]

I came across (fell over) this thing while looking for something else. No caption, or any information (where, when, why?) in the post in which it was included:

 

http://ngdiscussion.net/phorum/file.php?1,file=22522,filename=rand203.jpg

 

There's also this conversion of a steam Climax loco to diesel power. You can see where the transverse shaft fitted, to the rear of the first truck.

 

http://ngdiscussion.net/phorum/file.php?1,file=22542,filename=WesternLumber.Climax.Diesel.1959.MEH.small.jpg 

 

and this 'thing', called a 'Walking Dudley'. Basically a stationary engine mounted on a flat car which, by means of a wire rope wrapped round a rotating drum, hauled itself up and down steep inclines on a logging railway:

 

http://digital.westvanlibrary.ca/2838522/image/2135673

Edited July 20, 2020 by pH