Jump to content
 

The EWS livery, Success of failure


18B
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • RMweb Premium
2 hours ago, Ron Ron Ron said:

I sometimes have to remind myself that Wisconsin Central only owned and ran EWS for a short period of 5 years, from the mid 90's to 2001.

That's 19 years ago and quite a few locos are still carrying the remnants of that initial livery.

 

Subsequently, Canadian National owned EWS for 6 years, before the DB take over in 2007.

Maybe that's a sign that the livery was a success after all, it's still being talked about. Plenty of others have come and gone since privatisation and are barely remembered.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, jcm@gwr said:

 

You are indeed correct on BMW's logo (impression of propeller blades) as they were noted 

for their aero engines.

 

 

Surely it is actually a variation on the Bavarian flag / shield? Bayerische Motoren Werke, after all.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_of_Bavaria#/media/File:Flag_of_Bavaria_(lozengy).svg 

 

 

 

 

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

10 hours ago, YesTor said:

An interesting viewpoint.  Still, my recollection of the story is that Roundel were asked to come up with a cohesive image for the BR Railfreight sector.

 

So why then if asked for a cohesive image did they instead come up with 4 images?

 

The triple-grey works well, set it apart from the then other brands of BR.

 

One logo for Railfreight would similarly have worked well - because as a logo it wouldn't necessarily be expected to have a meaning as such, but rather simply represent Railfreight.

 

10 hours ago, YesTor said:

The depot plaques were all designed at the same time specifically to be applied to the triple-grey liveried locos.  To my eye these tie-in amazingly well with the bodyside symbols and in particular the aforementioned Coal sector logo.  To be fair, if that isn't "part of the livery", then I'm not sure what is?  It's all part-and-parcel of a consistent brand image:

 

Umpteen different graphic images are not part of a consistent brand image - and in the case of Railfreight arguably they weren't intended to be given that they were aimed at the employees and not the public or customers.

 

As I said, the depot plaques were a great idea - but there was nothing inherently that tied them to the triple-grey livery - they could just as easily have been applied to any other new or existing livery.

 

10 hours ago, YesTor said:

To bring this back on topic, and looking at the EWS branding, I do actually feel that the main logo is a great design, but in it's raw form does it really convey anything at all about railways, and to a layman what does "EWS" on it's own mean?  Egg White & Sausages, perhaps?

 

But it doesn't have to - branding in a large part is about getting the company name to the public, who can then look further if they want.

 

Case in point from the current railway GWR - the public doesn't need to know it stands for Great Western Railway because they type 'gwr' into Google and it takes them to the GWR website.  If EWS was still around the same thing would apply.

 

Now take the Railfreight triple-grey - other than 4 obscure graphic images there is absolutely nothing on those locos to tell people what they are.  As a brand for Railfreight it was a complete and utter failure in telling people who they were - which was sort of okay in that era because everything on the rails was eventually BR anyway.  But today?

 

 

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, SteveyDee68 said:

This is an interesting thread, opening out discussion into logos (logomarks and logotypes).  As a teacher, one of the standby "reward" activities has always been 'whose logo?' either with whole images or parts thereof.  The whole idea of branding becomes far more apparent when dealing with younger adults/children - brand recognition is frighteningly vast, even at young ages!

 

Even more enlightening are lessons designed to have children come up with their own logo designs: trying to create something that is recognisable, memorable and also represents what it is about is harder than you think!  Many years ago, I had a small music typesetting business "Tempus Fugit" ... I chose the latin name "time flies" because music is about sound organised over time, I was doing computerised music typesetting which had time over hand production, and lastly time flies because such work is usually to a tight deadline. The logo, designed for me by a retired graphics design lecturer, was of a sundial with a stylised "tf" as the central upright and the shadow thrown being a treble clef.  At the time, I was pretty pleased with myself and thought it was all the dogs danglers...

 

Of course, it wasn't! The logo was pretty but overcomplicated, and the name simply didn't convey what I was doing!  All round failure!  For my original company name - Advanced Music Processing Services ... AMPS - I designed my own logo: simple italicised block capitals AMPS superimposed over five parallel lines (representing a music stave) which morphed into an arrow head pointing to the right.  In simple block colour (red - energy, fire, action).  Problem was, another company in the music industry (appropriately selling guitar amps!) already had the AMPS brand!  

 

I admire those logos that have meaning behind them - the arrows of indecision, the olympic rings; getting kids to think about the meaning behind logos is also an eye opener!  Personally I think the Audi four interlinked circles (to represent four wheel drive) is sublime.

 

Steve S

 

PS

To keep this railway orientated, I think the railfreight livery on the Class 60 logo is also sublime; likewise the BR livery applied to the HST class, both original and Executive/Swallow: the trailing line of yellow from the nose always makes me think of speed, the after-image burnt upon the eye of a bright colour or light passing by at speed.  I think Virgin et al missed the point when their HSTs lost that aspect of the livery design.

The Audi circles are nothing to do with 4 wheel drive: they represent the four separate marques that were amalgamated into Auto Union, (from the ruins of which post-War Audi was created) in the 1930s. 

 

As to whether liveries and logos cut any ice in the freight sector, Eddie Stobart, before more recent troubles, set great store by their livery, the cleanliness of their trucks, etc. In a highly competitive sector it certainly kept them in the public eye. Of course, in road freight the consumer is more likely to make a connection between the goods they are buying and the rust-bucket that has delivered them to the supermarket loading bay and retailers don't want their beautifully branded trailer, which is effectively a mobile billboard, being pulled by a tractor unit that hasn't had a wash in months, so image may count for more. Even in more industrial contexts most people want their company to be associated with other companies that have a positive image, and not with those that don't.

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Agree with the above. The shiny clean Silver Bullet China clay trains always looked impressive to my eyes. Unfortunately cost cuts saw the tank cleaning regime cutback and a dirty old tank train looked uncared for.  Similarly, oil companies usually keep their road tankers in clean condition whereas rail tankers, when they ran, were more neglected.

Edited by Ohmisterporter
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

On 10/07/2020 at 14:02, mdvle said:

So why then if asked for a cohesive image did they instead come up with 4 images?
Umpteen different graphic images are not part of a consistent brand image

Now take the Railfreight triple-grey - other than 4 obscure graphic images there is absolutely nothing on those locos to tell people what they are.  As a brand for Railfreight it was a complete and utter failure in telling people who they were - which was sort of okay in that era because everything on the rails was eventually BR anyway.  But today?

 

That's my recollection of it, although to be fair maybe I simply have in my mind what my brief might have been had I been BR.  Sometimes my memory is a tad blurred.  :lol:  It might actually be more accurate that BR had even less of a specific brief, again I'd have to look back on it...

 

Either way, when I look at the Roundel scheme I do not really see 4 separate brand 'images' all competing with each other - instead I see 4 symbols (or what in fact was 6, I believe), that represent sub-sectors united under a common theme, ie. the common elements of the livery: the triple-grey paint scheme, BR logo and appropriate depot plaque - all providing the cohesive structure for the varying sub-categories to sit within.  Place six triple-grey liveried locos side-by-side all sporting different sub-sector logos and it's pretty obvious that they are all united under one umbrella, I would have thought... 

Let's look at a hypothetical comparison:  a DIY store such as B&Q might wish to utilise symbols to display on each of its shopping aisles that represent the different categories that they retail, eg: tools, paint, garden, kitchen, bathroom.  It's unlikely that any designer is going to create one single logo that can represent all categories effectively, but whatever they create for each category will undoubtedly be designed to sit well under the main store logo, utilising common graphic styles/typefaces and generally compliment the overall corporate image. 

 

I can appreciate your latter point regarding there perhaps being no obvious indication as to what each loco is/was.  Perhaps, as you imply, they considered the BR double-arrows sufficient, who really knows?  I guess a simple addition somewhere within the scheme with the words "RAILFREIGHT" would have ticked that box, but then that was something that was already in practise, so I don't know, perhaps that's a look that BR/Roundel were trying to re-invent or move away from in some way?  Another option would have been to actually spell out "CONSTRUCTION", "COAL", "PETROLEUM", "METALS" etc, but again without actually being on the design panel it's pretty much impossible to say...

 

Al

Edited by YesTor
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Kylestrome said:

 

My original statement ("if a logo needs explanation it has totally failed IMO") was rather 'black & white' and you are quite right that there are many well known corporate identities whose origins are not so obvious, and may have been lost in the mists of time.

 

One thing I would point out, however, is that your list includes examples of logomarks, logotypes and mixtures thereof. To understand the differences, if you're interested, here is a very good webpage that explains them better than I could:

https://en.99designs.de/blog/logo-branding/logotype-vs-logomark-vs-logo/

 

David

 

Well, 'black and white' for sure, but I'm certainly with you in that there are many instances where it is absolutely vital that the symbol must instantly convey its purpose, especially in cases where the message is universal and might be applicable to anyone, in any language, in any location.  I mean, the symbol below would be an absolute disaster if we couldn't work out the message instantaneously without further explanation:

 

QvaqkM8C_400x400.jpg

 

Worth noting though, and I guess as you kind of touch upon with your clarification between logo/logotype etc (I'm yet to check the link, but thanks I very much will do :) ) is that the above 'Keep Britain Tidy' symbol is indeed a symbol only, as opposed to an actual company logo, so I'd guess at the point of inception it was indeed very clear that the 'symbol' must convey the message instantly - otherwise yes, instant fail. 

 

Another example would be road signage, which again needs to convey a very clear instruction very quickly and decipherable to anyone in any language.  I'd imagine that a company logo might have more room for flexibility, depending on the nature of the business, and indeed the preferences of those making the design decisions on its behalf, but it is perhaps safe to assume that a company logo wouldn't quite have the need to convey it's message quite in the same way, or with similar urgency, as say an EMERGENCY STOP, or FIRE EXIT sign.

 

Very interesting.

 

Al

Edited by YesTor
Link to post
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Ron Ron Ron said:

I sometimes have to remind myself that Wisconsin Central only owned and ran EWS for a short period of 5 years, from the mid 90's to 2001.

That's 19 years ago and quite a few locos are still carrying the remnants of that initial livery.

 

Subsequently, Canadian National owned EWS for 6 years, before the DB take over in 2007.

 

 

.

Canadian National took over Wisconsin Central, hence the 'change' in ownership of EWS.

W.C. did not 'sell' EWS to C.N. in the usual sense.

Link to post
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, F-UnitMad said:

Canadian National took over Wisconsin Central, hence the 'change' in ownership of EWS.

W.C. did not 'sell' EWS to C.N. in the usual sense.

 

I didn't say or suggest that WC sold EWS to CN, but I should have been clearer.

You are correct in that CN took over WC and subsequently merged its operations into the CN network.

EWS continued under CN, with Keith Heller sent over from Canada in 2003/04 'ish as CEO.

 

In fact WC were only part owners of EWS.

I couldn't remember what share they had in the company, but I've since read that WC only owned 42.5% of EWS. 

Wikipedia (for what it's worth) says that EWS was owned by a consortium headed by Wisconsin Central, with financing provided by Berkshire Partners, Goldman Sachs and Fay Richwhite.

 

.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
On 10/07/2020 at 09:21, jcm@gwr said:

You are indeed correct on BMW's logo (impression of propeller blades) as they were noted 

for their aero engines.


The real story about their logo (written by BMW themselves) is here:

 

https://www.bmw.com/en/automotive-life/bmw-logo-meaning-history1.html

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

It was a shiny 60019 in brand new EWS colours that got me interested in railways and then models again in 1996.

 

I thought the original & version looked a little old fashioned when it faded to dried blood red, and , I agree the EWS doesn’t really explain what it was they did ( a roundel criticism ), but that didn’t stop new customers finding them and using them in the early years 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Ron Ron Ron said:

I didn't say or suggest that WC sold EWS to CN, but I should have been clearer.

Sorry in turn, I didn't mean to imply that's what you meant either, just tried to add clarity.

 

I was rather annoyed at CN's takeover of WC, myself. Reminded me of CP's takeover of the Soo Line, and the end of another nice livery.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
6 hours ago, F-UnitMad said:

I was rather annoyed at CN's takeover of WC, myself. Reminded me of CP's takeover of the Soo Line, and the end of another nice livery.


I’d just like to point out that Canadian Pacific has owned 56% of the common stock of the Soo Line (MStP&SSM) since 1949 and it was reorganised along with it’s other subsidiaries, the Duluth, South Shore and Atlantic Railway (DSA) and the original Wisconsin Central (WC) in 1961 and renamed Soo Line properly.  In 1985, the Soo Line acquired the truncated Milwaukee Road which surprised everyone and it was commented on as it was like the tail wagging the dog.
 

In 1987, the Soo Line sold of approximately 2000 miles of rural lines to the newly reformed Wisconsin Central and in 1990, Canadian Pacific acquired 100% of the stock and merged Soo’s operation into theirs.

 

Edited by jools1959
Left something out
Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, jools1959 said:

I’d just like to point out that Canadian Pacific has owned the Soo Line (MStP&SSM) since 1949

I was using a 'shorthand' description of when CP Rail decided to fully absorb the Soo Line in 1990, without getting into a lot of technicalities. :rolleyes:

If we want to get really pedantic about it, CP has always had a majority shareholding in the Soo Line, ever since June 11, 1888, when the Canadian Pacific Railway acquired control of the Minneapolis, Sault Ste. Marie and Atlantic Railway, consolidating it with the Minneapolis and Pacific Railway, Minneapolis and St. Croix Railway, and Aberdeen, Bismarck and North Western Railway to form the Minneapolis, St. Paul and Sault Ste. Marie Railway. ;)

 

Small wonder "Soo Line" caught on as the unofficial name, made official as you point out, in 1961.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
22 minutes ago, F-UnitMad said:

I was using a 'shorthand' description of when CP Rail decided to fully absorb the Soo Line in 1990, without getting into a lot of technicalities. :rolleyes:

If we want to get really pedantic about it, CP has always had a majority shareholding in the Soo Line, ever since June 11, 1888, when the Canadian Pacific Railway acquired control of the Minneapolis, Sault Ste. Marie and Atlantic Railway, consolidating it with the Minneapolis and Pacific Railway, Minneapolis and St. Croix Railway, and Aberdeen, Bismarck and North Western Railway to form the Minneapolis, St. Paul and Sault Ste. Marie Railway. ;)

 

Small wonder "Soo Line" caught on as the unofficial name, made official as you point out, in 1961.


I wasn’t criticising you, I was just letting people know who are less informed and wondering how Wisconsin Central came about.  I’ve spoken to loads of rail fans on the ends of platforms etc who had no idea who Ed Burkhardt was or the origins of Wisconsin Central.

  • Friendly/supportive 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, jools1959 said:


I wasn’t criticising you, I was just letting people know who are less informed and wondering how Wisconsin Central came about.  I’ve spoken to loads of rail fans on the ends of platforms etc who had no idea who Ed Burkhardt was or the origins of Wisconsin Central.

Appreciate that, which is why I said "we" could get pedantic. I should've said "I"... :blush: ;)

 

  • Funny 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Slightly off topic as we have led that way already... The Canadian National wet noodle is one of the greatest railway symbols/logos ever. It says everything and hasn't changed in around 55 years. Soo Line had a splendid livery around the same time, bold, novel, clear, it was a classic in design terms. They gave it up in the 90s for a dull, insipid plain red with modern lettering and then just faded into the CP pot.

 

Another example of a long standing logo must be the London Transport roundel nearly 100 years of use and instantly recognisable despite the various political attempts to undermine it.

 

I don't really see how the EWS livery can be described as a failure, it's simple, it's recognisable, it didn't get fussed with too much, and it's still there. The Railfreight grey was a nothing, and was soundly irrelevant as the sector system died a death. Loadhaul was much better. G & W is typically American, just garish and fussy but they want their corporate image to replace the bold Freightliner brand... They have paid for it!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't realise Freightliner got a new livery. Quite like that, it's bold....

 

My favourite aspect of the Railfreight liveries are the sector identifier logos and the depot plaques which blend harmoniously into the overall appearance.

 

EWS livery wasn't a failure, it's distinctive and the logo was a good piece of design. The main issue is that DB don't prioritise repaints of locos so about 80% of the time I encounter a DB class 66 it's still in (faded) EWS stripes with the lettering removed and a small DB sticker added to the cab side. Makes for a more interesting variant to model, though.

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

You have to remember that the livery was based on WC house scheme though altered with the lightning bolt for the Class 66’s and 67’s.  It was the EWS “Three beasties” that was designed by “Trainspotters” as stated in the media 

Link to post
Share on other sites

On 08/07/2020 at 12:46, Jim Martin said:

 

Here you go. As I recall, the "stylised lumps of coal" referred to in this article were explicitly intended as "black diamonds".

 

https://thebeautyoftransport.com/2015/09/09/three-shades-of-grey-railfreight-1987-corporate-identity-roundel-design-group-uk/

 

Jim

 

 

And the other symbols were

Blue wavy lines on yellow - petroleum

Blue angles on yellow - metals

As Jim said, black diamonds is self explanatory

 

These worked if you knew Trainload freight was sectored, however I personally thought the duck egg splashes of the RES logo was a waste of time and the red diamond RfD loco didn't seem to make a lot of sense. 

 

EWS was a bold move by Ed Burkhard's team and the "chosen" livery was very very similar to Wisconsin Central's.  I think it was OK apart from not having a dark grey roof to hide all the grubbiness.

 

I agree it sounds like sour grapes by the Roundel group   

Edited by Covkid
typo
Link to post
Share on other sites

The RES blue flash thing was supposed to signify movement or something, and where it crossed made a + , I.e positive image , as parcels was the forgotten sector so they said.

 

I liked RES, thought it was from outer space , shame I didn’t see any locos when they were newly painted 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I always thought the Railfreight triple grey and RES colours were smart, if a little abstract. They helped add to the colourful nature of the sectors era, and in particular the Railfreight scheme on 60s and 92s made the new machines look very modern, and like a real step change from what went before.

 

EWS was similar on their new locos, but on the inherited machinery it was a bit more hit & miss. It looks pretty nice on a 37, less so on a 47. But then take a look at the number of different classes they inherited and design a scheme that'll look on all of them, whilst also designing a similar scheme to look good on 66s and 67s.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

On 10/07/2020 at 21:02, mdvle said:

As I said, the depot plaques were a great idea - but there was nothing inherently that tied them to the triple-grey livery - they could just as easily have been applied to any other new or existing livery.

 

Didn't some of the Departmental (Grey or 'Dutch') liveried locos also have the depot plaques?

 

I liked the different sub-sector logos, except for the Metals (vertical chevrons). Couldn't work out how that related to metals...

Link to post
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, dvdlcs said:

 

Didn't some of the Departmental (Grey or 'Dutch') liveried locos also have the depot plaques?

 

I liked the different sub-sector logos, except for the Metals (vertical chevrons). Couldn't work out how that related to metals...

Yep,a lot of those had plaques. It seems BR started removing them even before they got to EWS, I’m not sure why though as I’d hav e thought They were good for depot morale 

Link to post
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, rob D2 said:

Yep,a lot of those had plaques. It seems BR started removing them even before they got to EWS, I’m not sure why though as I’d hav e thought They were good for depot morale 

That’s precisely what they were for. The idea was that depot staff would take some pride in the loco because it had their plaque on the side, and would be more likely to keep it clean. It built on some of the unofficial logos that went previously. 

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...