SRman Posted March 19, 2020 Share Posted March 19, 2020 1 hour ago, DavidB-AU said: The SNCB AM96 is basically an IR4, but uglier. I was going to post mine but you beat me to it. What the Heck, here's a DSB IC3 unit anyway. P_20180924_180234_vHDR_On by Jeffrey Lynn, on Flickr I think you are right, though, David: the Belgian units look worse! I still think the current class 70 diesels on BR were designed by a committee ... from the 1950s, who also designed American cars at that time. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidB-AU Posted March 19, 2020 Share Posted March 19, 2020 30 minutes ago, SRman said: I still think the current class 70 diesels on BR were designed by a committee ... from the 1950s, who also designed American cars at that time. Class 70 - if an ADtranz/GE Blue Tiger mated with a Cylon. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidB-AU Posted March 19, 2020 Share Posted March 19, 2020 Santa Fe #1. Looks like somebody punched it in the face. 3 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SRman Posted March 19, 2020 Share Posted March 19, 2020 (edited) 1 hour ago, DavidB-AU said: Santa Fe #1. Looks like somebody punched it in the face. Marvin the paranoid android! https://giphy.com/gifs/depressed-the-hitchhikers-guide-to-galaxy-marvin-paranoid-android-8K2hnkJ6wAQ3m Edited March 19, 2020 by SRman 2 4 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Joseph_Pestell Posted March 19, 2020 RMweb Gold Share Posted March 19, 2020 (edited) 7 hours ago, DavidB-AU said: The SNCB AM96 is basically an IR4, but uglier. I can agree that these Danish and Belgian (also Spain and Israel) units are plain, and that for perfectly good functional reasons. Plain is not the same as ugly. Are there any multiple units with end corridor connections that are good-looking? I think that it almost impossible although the Class 375 is a good attempt as is the 158/159. Edit to add: I wonder if these IC3/IC4 units would look better if the black rubber "buffer" was a different colour. Anyone here good with Photoshop and care to give it a try? Edited March 19, 2020 by Joseph_Pestell Add Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidB-AU Posted March 19, 2020 Share Posted March 19, 2020 (edited) 17 minutes ago, Joseph_Pestell said: Are there any multiple units with end corridor connections that are good-looking? I think that it almost impossible although the Class 375 is a good attempt as is the 158/159. The 172/3 doesn't look too bad and some of the more modern Japanese KiHa DMUs look quite good. I've always had a soft spot for the Budd RDC which is brutishly functional but not exactly ugly. Edited March 19, 2020 by DavidB-AU 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
'CHARD Posted March 19, 2020 Share Posted March 19, 2020 (edited) On 15/03/2020 at 17:31, jonny777 said: For EMUs I would have to say these things. 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? Sorry to be a pedant, but who 'had' the cab design of the 442s? BREL (or Adtranz as it had morphed into) had that design. These were constructed by Alstom. Edited March 19, 2020 by 'CHARD Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rob D2 Posted March 19, 2020 Share Posted March 19, 2020 (edited) Monstrous ( gonna have to self isolate now so I’m not beaten up...) Edited March 19, 2020 by rob D2 2 6 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craigw Posted March 19, 2020 Share Posted March 19, 2020 47 minutes ago, Joseph_Pestell said: I can agree that these Danish and Belgian (also Spain and Israel) units are plain, and that for perfectly good functional reasons. Plain is not the same as ugly. Are there any multiple units with end corridor connections that are good-looking? I think that it almost impossible although the Class 375 is a good attempt as is the 158/159. That thing looks like someone found an inner tube in a pool and stuck it on the end. Craig W 2 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Joseph_Pestell Posted March 19, 2020 RMweb Gold Share Posted March 19, 2020 2 minutes ago, Craigw said: That thing looks like someone found an inner tube in a pool and stuck it on the end. Craig W Not found in a pool, but otherwise that is more or less right. But it makes sense in a Danish context, where the geography, with Copenhagen at the extreme east of an outlying island, is difficult. They needed to portion-work inter-regional trains which could be coupled/uncoupled quickly. They wanted a wide gangway between units which would have meant too narrow a driver's cab. So they made the cab front movable and these big rubber cushions to be a corridor connector. It certainly is not pretty but it is the pragmatic answer to what they were trying to achieve. I doubt that either of us could have done better. I'm not so sure why the Spanish/Israeli/Belgian railways felt that they had quite the same need. 1 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rob D2 Posted March 19, 2020 Share Posted March 19, 2020 Can any aerodynamicists explain to me why no attempt is made to streamline half these units ? Surely you’d gain reduced fuel burn by not having a completely flat front end ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonny777 Posted March 19, 2020 Share Posted March 19, 2020 46 minutes ago, 'CHARD said: Sorry to be a pedant, but who 'had' the cab design of the 442s? BREL (or Adtranz as it had morphed into) had that design. These were constructed by Alstom. I'm sure that someone could have found the time to just look at a photo of one, before starting their own design work. That 458 looks as if it was designed by someone wearing a blindfold. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zomboid Posted March 19, 2020 Share Posted March 19, 2020 1 hour ago, rob D2 said: Can any aerodynamicists explain to me why no attempt is made to streamline half these units ? Surely you’d gain reduced fuel burn by not having a completely flat front end ? I'm not an aerodynamicist, but I had heard that up to about 80mph it doesn't make much difference as the rolling resistance is dominant. 1 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SRman Posted March 19, 2020 Share Posted March 19, 2020 (edited) 18 minutes ago, Zomboid said: I'm not an aerodynamicist, but I had heard that up to about 80mph it doesn't make much difference as the rolling resistance is dominant. True (or something like that - I had a figure of 60 mph in the back of my mind), but the Danish IC3/IR4 units regularly travel at 180 kph, so those recessed front ends must surely interfere with the aerodynamics. Edited March 19, 2020 by SRman Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hroth Posted March 19, 2020 Share Posted March 19, 2020 8 minutes ago, SRman said: True (or something like that - I had a figure of 60 mph in the back of my mind), but the Danish IC3/IR4 units regularly travel at 180 kph, so those recessed front ends must surely interfere with the aerodynamics. There's also the effect of wind on the side of the train, a surface area far greater than the front, which can't be "streamlined". 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zomboid Posted March 19, 2020 Share Posted March 19, 2020 1 hour ago, SRman said: True (or something like that - I had a figure of 60 mph in the back of my mind), but the Danish IC3/IR4 units regularly travel at 180 kph, so those recessed front ends must surely interfere with the aerodynamics. They'd probably have a higher top speed and use less energy without that peculiar front end, but that's the compromise of having the other functions that they've got. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
KeithMacdonald Posted March 19, 2020 Share Posted March 19, 2020 1 hour ago, Hroth said: There's also the effect of wind on the side of the train, a surface area far greater than the front, which can't be "streamlined". Yorkshire Airlines had a similar problem... 9 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidB-AU Posted March 19, 2020 Share Posted March 19, 2020 20 minutes ago, KeithMacdonald said: Yorkshire Airlines had a similar problem... 4 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crisis Rail Posted March 19, 2020 Share Posted March 19, 2020 4 hours ago, rob D2 said: Monstrous ( gonna have to self isolate now so I’m not beaten up...) Yes - maybe but this prototype (GEC Strand Road Preston) was aimed for the American market. Thankfully like Bachmann and Heljan they got it right aftera few production runs. lol 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium MJI Posted March 19, 2020 RMweb Premium Share Posted March 19, 2020 Diesel class "70" ugly (as opposed to the real class 70) Those new Southern EMUs with slanted cabs and a weird gangway Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crisis Rail Posted March 19, 2020 Share Posted March 19, 2020 (edited) 50 minutes ago, MJI said: Diesel class "70" ugly (as opposed to the real class 70) Those new Southern EMUs with slanted cabs and a weird gangway The Freightliner 70? I can live with. Fugly - and when they were on the Crewe to Carlisle engineers "Fugly Basfords" It has to be the Chinese one in the NRM York with about 10000 wheels. Hideous. Edited March 19, 2020 by Crisis Rail Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold The Johnster Posted March 19, 2020 Author RMweb Gold Share Posted March 19, 2020 8 hours ago, rob D2 said: Monstrous ( gonna have to self isolate now so I’m not beaten up...) A hideous locomotive made worse by a hideous livery, but you've got to admit it's got presence!!! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crisis Rail Posted March 19, 2020 Share Posted March 19, 2020 1 hour ago, The Johnster said: A hideous locomotive made worse by a hideous livery, but you've got to admit it's got presence!!! Not entirely unloved..... Quite a few units were shipped years back when the NRM did a special - and at least Baccy got the tumblehome gap spot on. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
whart57 Posted March 19, 2020 Share Posted March 19, 2020 I would nominate James Stirling's F class 4-4-0 on the South Eastern Railway. The wheels look far too big for either the superstructure or the wheelbase, the cab looks like it should be on a different engine (Stirling cabs look fine on smaller engines like the O class), in fact the whole thing looks like Stirling told the draughtsman to use standard components and make them fit. They were decent engines for their time though, and aesthetically speaking were much improved when Wainwright got hold of them and made them look like the D class' matronly elder sister. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold The Johnster Posted March 19, 2020 Author RMweb Gold Share Posted March 19, 2020 Another lump of pure fugly is the Pennsy T4, not redeemed by success in service... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now