Jump to content
 

Please use M,M&M only for topics that do not fit within other forum areas. All topics posted here await admin team approval to ensure they don't belong elsewhere.

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


Recommended Posts

  • RMweb Premium
40 minutes ago, pete_mcfarlane said:

Yes, I've still got that issue somewhere. I have a vague memory that the article said the Br engineers preferred the French style cab end. It looks like a natural evolution of the class 58 cab. 

 

I don't know if I'm remembering correctly, but I seem to remember at the time reading something by Roger Ford in Modern Railways in which he'd voted for the more conventional design, saying sometihng to the effect  that the forward rake was a French Railways look and it wasn't for us.

Edited by Andy Kirkham
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

I can testify to the oven-like conditions and pitiless sunlight that could affect Westerns.  If you worked an up train in the morning and the return working down in the afternoon, especially on sunny winter days, your eyes were in for a brutal hammering with little respite.  The locos had large and fairly effective sun blinds, but they were not enough for low sun conditions and drivers in those days were not allowed to wear sunglasses.  All round forward visibility was superb, but came at a price...

  • Friendly/supportive 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

The lack of overall style is the overall style if that makes sense; as you say not ugly, but lumpen.  Form follows function for US freight locos, this being part of their attraction.  It is a far cry from the styled 1930s trains or the iconic ED diesel electric stlye,  This, in Santa Fe Warbonnet livery, is probably as good a piece of industrial styling as there is from the 20th century, beautiful.

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Unattractive? I don’t know about that. In a lot of ways, it’s a direct heir to the last generation of US steam, which really aren’t “styled” in any meaningful sense; they are simply exercises in getting all the working parts, inside the loading gauge. These US electrics have a definite sense of “unadorned function”, for want of a better term. 

 

Most of the locos presented in this thread are really examples of poor, or misguided engineering, plain dud ideas  or dating from a time when people didn’t have the experience to know better. The various turbine freaks, embody this. The Crosti, and other boiler experiments come down to “ok, don’t let’s do that again” because the anticipated benefits simply weren’t evident. The radical styling of the Q1 wasn’t incorporated in the BR “Standards”, because running plates had their uses, and conventional boiler cladding actually had its merits. 

 

The quite brilliant styling of the HST, including its “tumblehome” profile inherited from an earlier, abandoned attempt at “tilting train” engineering, comes down to high quality engineering - its aerodynamically stable, aerodynamically efficient, ergonomically sound and looks stunning. 

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, pete_mcfarlane said:

The problem with those 2 US electrics is that they seem to have taken their firm's standard loco body and cut the cab down to make a place to add the pantograph. They'd look a lot better if they'd mounted the pantograph in the middle of the longer hood and had a normal height cab. 

Hi Pete,

 

Pantographs have to be mounted so that the collection head is over the bogie centres at one end or another or it causes all sorts of problems on point work !

 

You are correct that the look of the whole is somewhat unbalanced

 

Gibbo.

  • Informative/Useful 4
  • Interesting/Thought-provoking 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

This incredibly unlovely device is the Deaucaville Mallet 33-1 built for the military in 1916 and used subsequently on the tramway at Pithiviers until 1956.

TR04756.jpg

Photo from the Transport Library.

Edited by Dickon
  • Like 10
Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, rockershovel said:

Is that the same type as the 0-6-6-0 tender locos used in Morocco? 

You are right.  I've just had a look at David Joy's book Engines That Bend.  Large numbers of these locos were ordered for military use in Morocco.  33-1 remained in France and started work at Pithiers in 1923 after being 'rather crudely converted to a tank engine with the tender being retained to provide extra water when required'.

 

I like the 'rather crudely.'

  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
  • RMweb Gold
10 hours ago, rockershovel said:

I usually regard 4-4-0s as a configuration which are inherently rather stylish, but I suppose there’s always the exception to prove the rule..

 

3CBA93D0-8215-4A04-86C7-FC234DF81BC4.jpeg.4454acf66a79069ed967f9a099704471.jpeg

What's wrong with it? I quite like it. Looks nicely proportioned.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
29 minutes ago, rodent279 said:

What's wrong with it? I quite like it. Looks nicely proportioned.

Weight distribution for one, most of the water tank is not above the driving wheels.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

On 14/01/2021 at 18:05, Welly said:

Weight distribution for one, most of the water tank is not above the driving wheels.

 

To me, it just looks generally mis-proportioned. The boiler looks very long, and the big gap between the front driver and bogie doesn’t make sense; looks more like a 2-6-0 or 4-6-0 in overall proportions. 

 

I believe the saddle tank was a later addition. 

Edited by rockershovel
“Later” for “lever” - spellcheck induced typo
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
36 minutes ago, eldomtom2 said:

French-built Garratt for Algeria - streamlining does not suit them, and something deeply annoys me about the con rods...

1610881526850.jpg.698f8c0b545cb36b8f84e7e2f81df8b0.jpg

Cossart valve gear. There was a reason for the rods being that distinctive shape, but it escapes me now.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Cossart valve gear is rotary so the return cranks are arranged to be opposite to the connecting rod crank and the shape of the rod attached to the crank is weighted to help with balance !

The valve gear operating rods do not oscillate  a link as for Walschearts and similar gears but cause the crank on the cylinder to rotate to drive the valve gear. The upper rod is just perforated for lightness.

The cranks at each side are arranged at 90 Degrees to give continuous motion.

Hope this helps.

  • Like 1
  • Informative/Useful 6
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
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...