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

[Steamport Southport]

4 hours ago, Gibbo675 said:

Hi Neil,

 

What was wrong with DP2 is the question you should be asking, that locomotive had proper EECo. styling.

 

Gibbo.

 

Visibility problems apparently.

 

Something which may have contributed to the crash at Thirsk. It wouldn't have stopped it happening, but the driver may have seen the problem earlier and been able to slow down.

 

 

Jason

[pete_mcfarlane]

I'm not sure if it would have made much difference at Thirsk. Gerry Fiennes account of the crash says that DP2's crew saw the dust cloud of the initial derailment at some distance and had time to brake (and apply the sanding gear) and the train had slowed enough for the secondman to jump out ready to secure the crash site with detonators. Visbility problems with that nose time are when coupling up.

[Halvarras]

6 hours ago, Gibbo675 said:

Hi Neil,

 

What was wrong with DP2 is the question you should be asking, that locomotive had proper EECo. styling.

 

Gibbo.

 

Hi Gibbo,

 

Although EE were building their Type 3s well into 1965 that was due to the size of the order, and a mid-build redesign to a flat front was never going to happen. I think the 'nose look' was not what BR wanted on new designs after 1961, i.e. after the appearance of the Brush Type 4.

 

Have you ever wondered how different the BR diesel fleet could have looked if the seldom-used cab front gangway doors had not been a requirement? Classes 25, 37 & 40 (and the Peaks I suppose) were modified mid-build, and Class 23 en masse later on; Classes 26/27 would presumably have looked like Class 33. I would guess that Class 31 would have retained a 3-pane windscreen in 1957, the NBL Type 2s may unfortunately have had to use the D600's 'nose'-based cab structure for economies of scale reasons so would still have looked odd but in any case my imagination draws a complete blank for an alternative look, and even more so with the Metro-Vic Type 2s! 

 

Neil

 

[pete_mcfarlane]

Perhaps the Metro-Vics would have looked like the CIE A and C classes they built a few years before?

[Gibbo675]

36 minutes ago, Neil Phillips said:

 

Hi Gibbo,

 

Although EE were building their Type 3s well into 1965 that was due to the size of the order, and a mid-build redesign to a flat front was never going to happen. I think the 'nose look' was not what BR wanted on new designs after 1961, i.e. after the appearance of the Brush Type 4.

 

Have you ever wondered how different the BR diesel fleet could have looked if the seldom-used cab front gangway doors had not been a requirement? Classes 25, 37 & 40 (and the Peaks I suppose) were modified mid-build, and Class 23 en masse later on; Classes 26/27 would presumably have looked like Class 33. I would guess that Class 31 would have retained a 3-pane windscreen in 1957, the NBL Type 2s may unfortunately have had to use the D600's 'nose'-based cab structure for economies of scale reasons so would still have looked odd but in any case my imagination draws a complete blank for an alternative look, and even more so with the Metro-Vic Type 2s! 

 

Neil

 

Hi Neil,

 

Interesting points you make there, we could perhaps also place both the AC and DC electrics into the mix, all of which had flat fronts. It would be interesting to see some of the diesel classes with the cab style of a class 81 for instance. The re-engineering of body shape didn't do BRCW any favours in the case of the narrowed class 33 and I suspect that even more radical alteration of the 37 would have been a lot more troublesome.

 

Having ridden on various locomotives on the main lines I can say that disparity in the the visibility from the cab of a class 37 compared to a class 47 is inconsequential as compared to that of from the cab of steam locomotives.

 

Gibbo.

[The Johnster]

Some indication might be gleaned from the early Irish diesels, about which the best you can say is that they had a certain retro 50s appeal as regards appearance.  There is no doubt that a flat fronted cab without end doors (I include Hymeks in this category for the purposes of the discussion) gives much better visibility than a high nose or the raising of windows towards the centre to clear central end doors.  

 

It was a requirement of the 1955 plan that end doors enabling crews to walk between double headed locos in multiple control be provided, and this had a very long lasting influence on the look of and visibility from UK diesel locos, and not a positive one at that.  What they were being compared with when they were new was steam of course, and they mostly compared favourably.  Drivers were used to sighting signals a long way ahead despite boilers and tanks being in their way, and buffering up to handsignals without being able to see what was actually going on on the ground.  In order to easily observe the clearance of signals that they had been held at, they stopped a lot further away from them than we usually do on our layouts, so the new diesels did not represent a great difference in that respect.

 

But better practice was already well established with multiple units; electric units had been using basically flat front designs for half a century and so had the various auto/push pull trains.  The new dmu stock from Derby and MetroCammell fell into line with this, as had the Manchester/Sheffield/Wath locos.  But the Ivatt twins had set the template for the form of diesel locos; we wanted diesels like the Americans had, capable of multiple unit operation.  Noses were useful places to put brake equipment, air filters, control gear and that sort of stuff, and the drivers liked them because they thought they were being offered a degree of crash protection, though how true that was I am unqualified to comment.  

 

Even when the gangways were discontinued, a feature that persisted was windows that were very high compared to the seat level; later class 25s are a good example of this.  The steam situation of side windows that you could lean out of and front windows that you had to peer around the bottom of continued for a long time, and plagued the view ahead from class 21/9, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26/7, 28, 33, 37, 40, 41, 42/3 44/5/6, and 55, and DP2.  Of those, class 33, 42/3 and 55 (and DP2) never had gangways, and the thing was a matter of styling.  Of locos with gangways, only class 31 had decent forward vision, with the aid of a high level cab floor that had failed to save the Warships from the curse.  The 31 cab was exemplary in all respects.

 

The second generation, locos designed in the early 60s, largely went for the 2 window with low bottom coming down to the driving desk pattern; Westerns, Hymeks, 47s, and a 3 windowed version for the 25kv electrics.  33s and 37s failed to keep up with the fashion, being designed to use control panels and cab parts from 26/7s and 40s respectively.  The forward view from the cabs of 35s, 47s, 52s, and the 25kv electrics was excellent, and the best was probably the 52, with a high cab floor, but let down by the very awkward system of half landings and corridors that one had to negotiate from the outside door, which did not lead directly into the cab.  Drivers could now sit comfortably without having to peer over the bottoms of high windows.  

 

I am most struck by the comment about forward visibility from DP2; it was no worse than the Deltics or most of the 1955 plan diesels.  If forward visibility was bad on DP2, it must have been just as bad on the Deltics, and while my view is that it could and should have been improved on the Deltics and other locos, it was not actually dangerous and I doubt if it made any difference at all in the Thirsk accident.  

 

I am reminded a little of the 1955 Milton derailment when the driver complained that his view of what was a potentially confusing signalling array set up for rh drive was partially obscured by the smoke deflector handrails of 70026 Polar Star, which resulted in the WR and LMR removing the handrails of their Britannias as they locos went through shops, so not with any urgencey.  In the meantime, ER and SR Brits, Clans, and some 200 9Fs including those not yet built were turned out with identical handrails; to the best of my knowledge no complaints or issues ever arose from this potentially highly dangerous situation...  I have an opinion about the driver at Milton, but choose to keep it to myself.  I am not aware of any accident involving a 1955 plan diesel loco in which forward visibility comprised by the style of front windows was a factor.  DP2 was not a 1955 plan diesel.  

 

When it was adopted as a production model with electronic control systems as the class 50 it was given a two window cab in the current 'class 47' style, and the only place to put the still required in 1966 headcode box was above the windows.  I found the 50 to be a rather bland design, and took many years to overcome my 'steam replacement by cascading' prejudices, but that the headcode box relieved the blandness to an extent.  They further transgressed IMHO by replacing the Westerns, but I have forgiven them now.  What I will never forgive is NSE painting them and other items in a style that made perfectly respectable railway equipment look like cheap plastic Sunday Market trainers.

[Halvarras]

Very interesting read TJ, many thanks for all that effort! The Class 55's small windscreens always looked like a safety issue, considering the performance on offer, but I suppose the view from the inside looking out was more expansive than it appeared from the outside looking in.

 

Regarding your final comment, my reaction entirely when I clocked 50017/23 on the front cover of Rail (Enthusiast?) on the shelf in WHSmith in the summer of 1986. I think I managed to avoid uttering expletives out loud....

I liked Large Logo Blue and Railfreight Grey with or without the red stripe, but twenty years of interest in diesel loco liveries came to a shuddering halt at that moment. I've tried but I just can't get on with NSE and all that followed.......maybe with one or two exceptions, but don't ask me to name them OTTOMH! I just keep remembering what they used to look like......probably a symptom of advancing years. Sigh.

[pH]

Maybe not the ‘worst looking’, but perhaps ‘most bland’ or ‘weirdest’ :

 

https://www.railpictures.net/photo/744987/

[Gibbo675]

1 hour ago, pH said:

Maybe not the ‘worst looking’, but perhaps ‘most bland’ or ‘weirdest’ :

 

https://www.railpictures.net/photo/744987/

Hi pH,

 

That looks like a 1970's Toby the tram by "Pininfarina".

 

Gibbo.

[Steamport Southport]

It's like something left over from a 1970s Doctor Who story.

 

 

 

 

Jason

Edited August 14, 2020 by Steamport Southport

[Allegheny1600]

22 hours ago, The Johnster said:

They further transgressed IMHO by replacing the Westerns, but I have forgiven them now.  What I will never forgive is NSE painting them and other items in a style that made perfectly respectable railway equipment look like cheap plastic Sunday Market trainers.

While I agree wholeheartedly about the Westerns, I find your comment about the NSE highly amusing!

From my perspective, coming from a background of starting spotting in the drabbest, blandest, all encompassing livery ever envisaged, although BR blue was enlivened by the large logo variant, NSE introduced a magnificent brightening of the railway scene - I thought it was wonderfully refreshing!

Especially the swept up, darker blue version.

Funny how we see things differently, ain't it?

[The Johnster]

1 hour ago, Steamport Southport said:

It's like something left over from a 1970s Doctor Who story.

 

 

 

 

Jason

Or something mutated from one of Red Dwarf’s scutters.  I would love to see a working model of it shunting with operating cable drum supply’

 

1 hour ago, Allegheny1600 said:

While I agree wholeheartedly about the Westerns, I find your comment about the NSE highly amusing!

From my perspective, coming from a background of starting spotting in the drabbest, blandest, all encompassing livery ever envisaged, although BR blue was enlivened by the large logo variant, NSE introduced a magnificent brightening of the railway scene - I thought it was wonderfully refreshing!

Especially the swept up, darker blue version.

Funny how we see things differently, ain't it?

I agree with you about plain blue livery, especially with full yellow ends.  Some locos and multiple units looked ok in it in the small warning panel transition liveries, esp. Hymek with the white cab window surrounds, Westerns, and dmus that retained the white cab roofs.  I was brought up with the pre-corporate liveries, and while the variety of diesel loco liveries was incomprehensible if you wanted to apply any sort of rationality to it, it was interesting and provided variety.  But all liveries following corporate blue, starting with the 1977 Jubilee nonsense, look like hideous gaudy marketing execs’ wet dreams to my jaded and traditionalist eyes; NSE is about the worst though, as if London commuters didn’t have enough to put up with...

 

The variety of pre 1966 diesel liveries was at least in part an attempt to devise ways of improving the look a if the locos; the 2 tone green with white cab surrounds very effectively helping to conceal the excessive height and overall bulbous blobbery of Deltics and making them visually almost acceptable, even attractive from some angles in some lights, and it did the same for the stubbily proportioned Hymeks.  The BRCW and Brush type 2 looked similarly ‘lean and mean’ in their white stripes and cab surrounds, and the 2 tone green scheme used on Brush type 4s and later Derby type 2s worked the same way.  White stripes relieved the rather austere look of 40s, Warships, Peaks, and even the pug ugly type 1s had a lighter green on the cab faces; only the shunting locos, 37s and the green Westerns were plain janes.

 

If you were used to this, and not knowing what surprises might be in store in future, corporate was a very unpleasant shock, and dipping locos with noses end on in yellow paint to make warning panels (which undoubtedly saved lives, but IMHO not to the extent that hi-vis clothing did) was stylistically crude and unsympathetic to the shape and look of many locos. 
 

But especially Deltics.  Hideous in corporate blue, instantly better when somebody had the sense to restore the white window surrounds. 
 

The current scene seems to consist of branding rather than liveries, sometimes literally pasted on, and sometimes simply  advertisements for other products.  I despair, which is of course precisely what curmudgeons like me are supposed to...

Edited August 14, 2020 by The Johnster

[rockershovel]

Just saw these in passing, I’m no fan of camelbacks generally but these 0-4-0 and 0-6-0 types seem to particularly deserve a mention in passing

 

 

 

 

[rockershovel]

I quite liked Hymeks, especially in the “small panel” livery. Deltics always had a certain presence, I thought, enabling them to carry off the various design aberrations masquerading as liveries, although the two-tone green, small panel livery was rather smart. 

 

I didn't care for any of the “Rail blue” variants, least of all the “large logo” , all-yellow-end one. 

 

I was much impressed with the HST right from the first, and the blue-and-yellow scheme just worked, and the Inter-City livery was quite classy. 

 

The modern trend to assorted DMU and EMU looking like the sort of obscure soda brands found in local cash and carry chains, passes me completely, leaving no impression at all. 

 

 

Edited August 31, 2020 by rockershovel

[newbryford]

On 14/08/2020 at 06:42, pH said:

Maybe not the ‘worst looking’, but perhaps ‘most bland’ or ‘weirdest’ :

 

https://www.railpictures.net/photo/744987/

 

There is something about European shunting devices.........

 

https://www.windhoff.de/index.php/fahrzeuge/shunting-vehicles/?lang=en

 

This one certainly doesn't win any pretty awards.

 

"High Peak" - the shunter used at Buxton Lime Industries quarries at Tunstead.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/dodger5450/15988299178/in/photolist-qmQdjE-xadinz-pGiTXu-VFijtH-yJWtoS-K6nAaa-uwVvb7-sESmVz-dgY96i-zpCsT6-tC1Auv-2jdihDJ-vTiuMt-DUo5uj-z9jZ6p-d3aEUQ-tk7MZ3-tkwcVo-dyzRBY-UWNqiN-runGn7-s8436z-srdvAo-DpJKfD-DN1K8R-yGKHuj-tkqeCc-tBwsTW-EdgqRt-yGQXF6-toyc2P-todtBo-d3aECQ-xUSHmy-tzn77u-tknP7n-sEwRoC-tkfrP6-t6UZvm-tkvjRh-axigdN-d3aFCN-tkgCrA-d3aFdN-tBQhPp-p6gJQa-d3aFZu-zhHupK-sF6s2m-tqbhLh

Edited August 31, 2020 by newbryford

[rockershovel]

I rather like the functionality of European shunters.

[Ravenser]

On 31/08/2020 at 22:56, newbryford said:

 

There is something about European shunting devices.........

 

https://www.windhoff.de/index.php/fahrzeuge/shunting-vehicles/?lang=en

 

This one certainly doesn't win any pretty awards.

 

"High Peak" - the shunter used at Buxton Lime Industries quarries at Tunstead.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/dodger5450/15988299178/in/photolist-qmQdjE-xadinz-pGiTXu-VFijtH-yJWtoS-K6nAaa-uwVvb7-sESmVz-dgY96i-zpCsT6-tC1Auv-2jdihDJ-vTiuMt-DUo5uj-z9jZ6p-d3aEUQ-tk7MZ3-tkwcVo-dyzRBY-UWNqiN-runGn7-s8436z-srdvAo-DpJKfD-DN1K8R-yGKHuj-tkqeCc-tBwsTW-EdgqRt-yGQXF6-toyc2P-todtBo-d3aECQ-xUSHmy-tzn77u-tknP7n-sEwRoC-tkfrP6-t6UZvm-tkvjRh-axigdN-d3aFCN-tkgCrA-d3aFdN-tBQhPp-p6gJQa-d3aFZu-zhHupK-sF6s2m-tqbhLh

 

I want to see a "steampunk" European shunting device. Enough of bland Euro-boxes...

 

Classical columns on all four corners, and a nightmare version of a metallic "Thomas the Tank Engine" face in silver metal against a Chaos Black livery at each end. 

[88D]

On 31/08/2020 at 21:54, rockershovel said:

Just saw these in passing, I’m no fan of camelbacks generally but these 0-4-0 and 0-6-0 types seem to particularly deserve a mention in passing

 

 

 

 

The long-lost precursor of the Southern Pacific cab-forwards? Big oaks out of little acorns grow! Seriously, you had to feel sorry for the fireman, and the driver must have been roasting at times. There’s a certain charm to them, though.

[pete_mcfarlane]

What's the value of moving the cab forward on those locos? Is it to give the driver better forward visibility when coupling up?

[russ p]

With all the talk of poor visibility from locos with noses , the only time it makes any difference is when a shunter wants to call you on from the side opposite to the driver.

It makes no difference to me when coupling up as I like to lean out of the side window when going onto another vehicle. 

There is certainly no issue at all when out on the open road and looking ahead. 

Where nose ends do come into their own is in collisions,  very few loco crew have died as a result of been crushed in nose fitted locos unlike the flat fronted ones such as 47s and 56s there was not long ago a poor chap died on a 56 in Europe after hitting a road vehicle 

I'm not keen on modern locos with no opening side windows and a central driving position terrible ror shunting and not very sociable if there are two of you with the other seat been a fold down jump seat on the bulkhead 

[rockershovel]

32 minutes ago, pete_mcfarlane said:

What's the value of moving the cab forward on those locos? Is it to give the driver better forward visibility when coupling up?

 

It’s to give him any visibility at all, past the enormous firebox. Quite what purpose the slope-back tender serves, is hard to say..

[pete_mcfarlane]

19 minutes ago, rockershovel said:

 

It’s to give him any visibility at all, past the enormous firebox. Quite what purpose the slope-back tender serves, is hard to say..

Presumably the firebox is for burning (lots of) poor quality coal?

[rockershovel]

3 hours ago, pete_mcfarlane said:

Presumably the firebox is for burning (lots of) poor quality coal?

 

Anthracite waste, from mine tips. Pennsylvania had no end of the stuff. 

 

The camelback design dates from the days before the development of a successful trailing truck, so the huge firebox was placed above the driving wheels. This meant the driver had no forward view, given the then-usual footplate height - matched to the tender deck, for hand firing. 

 

The development of trailing trucks, and the general adoption of mechanical stokers meant that the firebox could be lower, the cab higher, and the whole concept passed into obsolescence. They also had the problem of being plain dangerous to operate, so much so that the Federal regulatory authority eventually banned them. 

 

The cab position looks cramped and uncomfortable, but I suppose it’s really no worse than the common 19th century “deckless cab” in which the firebox extended to the rear of the frame and the fireman stood on the front of the tender..

 

[pH]

6 hours ago, 88D said:

The long-lost precursor of the Southern Pacific cab-forwards? Big oaks out of little acorns grow!

We’ve actually had  the real precursor of the cab-forwards earlier in this topic - ‘The Freak’ on the narrow gauge North Pacific Coast Railroad in 1901:

 

https://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/152467-worst-looking-locomotive-topic-antidote-to-best-looking-locomotive-topic/&do=findComment&comment=3875830

 

[88D]

48 minutes ago, pH said:

We’ve actually had  the real precursor of the cab-forwards earlier in this topic - ‘The Freak’ on the narrow gauge North Pacific Coast Railroad in 1901:

 

https://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/152467-worst-looking-locomotive-topic-antidote-to-best-looking-locomotive-topic/&do=findComment&comment=3875830

 

Ha ha, it looks like the precursor to a Hoover as well!