Best looking locomotive

[Guest]

Sorry mate - I just couldn't resist it! She does look very nice in that livery doesn't she? It is remarkable that a livery that in essence (although not detail) that was as old as it was even when it it was applied to the 9F still 'worked' on a modern machine after all that time. It was even pretty successful on FGW's Pendennis Castle namesake No. 57604 where a lot of effort and attention to detail was expended getting it right. I guess it is just one of those classic looks!

 

I wonder how much liveries play a part in our perception of 'the most beautiful loco'? Would the A4s have had such appeal if that lovely swoosh in the paint at the front end was never done or indeed if it were not perpetuated by BR? Think of how a streamlined Duchess (another great art deco 1930's icon) looked not nearly as impressive in plain wartime black. Still nice but not a patch on the way 'Hamilton' looks at the moment in the NRM collection. How striking were the Western Hydraulics were in their sand and maroon liveries and balance this against how the rail blue made them look. I am not saying that either is right or wrong but it must be a factor. Are there engines out there that miss the list as a result of the paint job or are we all a bit more into the engineering?

 

You're forgiven and you make a very good point. The streamlined Duchesses were younger son's favourite loco in his childhood until he discovered the UP Challenger, and elder son has seen the reconstruction in the NRM collection and declared her "magnificent". And this one example, I think, proves your point admirably. To my mind (and I'm sure others will disagree with me), the maroon-and-gold version was always more striking than the blue-and-silver. Colour schemes, I'm sure, do have a lot to do with preference. To stray over into diesel territory, another icon must surely be the Santa Fe E- and F-units. Take the same engines, dress them up in, say, the overall Armour Yellow of the UP and they almost seem to lose something.

 

The engineering must have a part to play, though. To my mind, any Thompson pacific in any colour scheme is not worth the effort of looking at, so appalling were they. Yet Stanier's non-streamlined, non-smoke-deflector Duchesses were just plain impressive, period. Tom Coleman could rightly feel proud of the detail design effort he put into the class that made it a winner from the start but I wonder if we'd feel the same way if he'd turned out a dud.

 

While I'm here, I'm going to grind a personal axe. Full yellow ends. WHY? I've done a fair degree of travelling in continental Europe and nowhere do I see this obsession with making trains look as though they've just suffered a collision with a barrel of custard. If FYEs are so damn effective, why isn't their use more widespread? Let's face it, they hardly add to the overall effect.

[bluebottle]

quotes: "Evening Star?" "... it was nice touch and maybe even a final act of defiance by the GWR."

 

You can have any colour you like for a "spaceship", as long as it's black...

I suspect that 92220 was turned out in an inappropriate livery as a riposte to the Horwich drawing office's putting a GWR coffee pot over the safety valves in the working drawings for the Stanier mogul (Sir William was not amused).

[S.A.C Martin]

The engineering must have a part to play, though. To my mind, any Thompson pacific in any colour scheme is not worth the effort of looking at, so appalling were they.

 

Let's test that with a gratuitous test of three-quarter views of ECML Pacific models in various shades of apple green:

 

1. Gresley A3

 

 

2. Thompson A2/2

 

 

3. Thompson A2/3

 

 

4. Peppercorn A2

 

 

5. Peppercorn A1

 

 

Which floats your boat most, and which doesn't and why?

 

I think - and I'll admit, I'm probably in a minority of one when it comes down to it - that all of the ECML Pacifics have that "racehorse" look. The Thompson locomotives may in some ways be more austere, more functional looking, but I find their clean lines, longer smokebox and total length, with the positioning of valve gear and cylinders to make them look more elegant than the seemingly squashed look of the A3 or the A2.

 

This in contrast to my view of Stanier's Pacifics, without the streamlining (which have a similar layout to the Thompson machines). I find them very plain. Many enthusiasts rave about the Duchess class, sans the streamlining but I simply don't find them beautiful. Certainly powerful looking, and without a doubt, functional. But beautiful? I think if you're going to put Thompson's Pacifics into the category of "ugly" then Stanier's have to go into the same category as they exhibit very similar traits in their overall layout.

 

Yet show me 6229 as she is currently, and I will rave about how the "upturned bathtub" is majestic and beautiful; yet Stanier himself was said to dislike the casing intensely.

 

But where the apple green Pacifics are concerned, there's no doubt in my mind that the Peppercorn A1 is the best looking of the non-streamlined ECML Pacifics. It balances form and function with elegance, and it benefits from always having a double chimney and the more traditional regulator arrangement, unlike the A2s, which makes it familiar and similar to the A3 but keeping most of the length of the Thompson Pacifics which preceded it.

 

The A4 Pacifics have been described in various literature as the most beautiful locomotives built in this country; some enthusiasts find them ugly in terms of the "humpback" in the casing - and the more I study the A4s compared to the W1 or the streamlined P2s, the more I think they have a point about the streamlined casing; but then they are missing the subtle curves of the wedge and aero-foil shaped valances which give it its distinctive look.

 

 

But is it more handsome without the valances?

 

 

The problem, and the beauty, of modelling the East Coast mainline - eight different Pacific locomotives, which are not wholly or in some cases, at all different in their constituent parts, but when lined up next to each other could be chalk and cheese.

[Guest]

Which floats your boat most, and which doesn't and why?

 

Yeah, I think you've slightly misread my point. Any locomotive, no matter how visually appealing, begins to lose a little of its lustre if it can't do the job for which it was designed. And in this respect, the Thompson engines were unsurpassed. They were appalling. They were mechanical abortions that were nothing more than the result of their designer's personal antipathy towards anything Gresley. That is why I consider them to be automatically excluded from any comparison with others in the visual sense. Sorry but, as the old adage goes, handsome is as handsome does - and the Thompson engines couldn't and didn't.

 

Take a look at this:

 

http://nzetc.victori...03Rail019a.html

 

Ugly as sin, right? That tiny cab perched high up in the back of the firebox? Those trailing wheels that seem so much an afterthought? That hotchpotch of bits and pieces stuck on all over the place without apparent thought for line and form? Yes, ugly. But as performers, they were magnificent. They were unsurpassed until the arrival of the Chapelon 231E class. That, to me, makes them very attractive indeed.

[Ozexpatriate]

Let's test that with a gratuitous test of three-quarter views of ECML Pacific models in various shades of apple green:

 

1. Gresley A3

2. Thompson A2/2

3. Thompson A2/3

4. Peppercorn A2

5. Peppercorn A1

The A4 Pacifics

Simon,

 

No Gresley A1? (just kidding).

 

From your list I like the A4 and the A3. I like the splashers and the flowing curves in the frames.

 

But is it more handsome without the valances?

No - it looks like it has a tooth missing.

[S.A.C Martin]

Yeah, I think you've slightly misread my point. Any locomotive, no matter how visually appealing, begins to lose a little of its lustre if it can't do the job for which it was designed. And in this respect, the Thompson engines were unsurpassed. They were appalling. They were mechanical abortions that were nothing more than the result of their designer's personal antipathy towards anything Gresley. That is why I consider them to be automatically excluded from any comparison with others in the visual sense. Sorry but, as the old adage goes, handsome is as handsome does - and the Thompson engines couldn't and didn't.

 

Evidence David? The more I read on the Thompsons, the more I am convinced its a conspiracy against the designer rather than a legitimate "these engines were awful" claim.

 

If Peter Townend describes Great Northern as "an excellent locomotive" - then it was. Flawed like any of the ECML Pacifics (frame cracking and loose cylinders not just a Thompson problem!) but otherwise better than that it replaced and better than the majority of Pacifics on the ECML when it was built.

 

But we're diverging from the topic of beauty, and I was concentrating more on the looks of the Pacifics.

[bluebottle]

This thread is named "Best looking locomotive". If we're going to say that ugly engines are attractive, we need a different title. If we were discussing "best looking woman", there are women I wouldn't call beautiful, whom I'd prefer to an air-brushed bimbo; however my favourites in locomotives are those with a functional beauty, such as the Stanier/Coleman unadorned "Duchess", which looks the better by comparison with the "stretched King" appearance of the original "Princesses". The smoke deflectors didn't detract too much, but the streamlining was only saved by the rich crimson and the gold stripes. Incidentally, I think that the rakish smoke deflectors on the Peppercorn pacifics are possibly the only ones that actually enhance the appearance of the loco, though I still think that the overblown nameplates on "Tornado" spoil the effect.

Edited October 24, 2012 by bluebottle

[Guest]

Evidence David?

 

Thompson's dislike of Gresley is well-documented and need not be repeated here. As for the engines being "excellent", they were without a doubt just so in the steam circuit. It was as vehicles they failed. From a quick delving into my library, I find that wherever they went, the Thompson pacifics were used on express passenger workings only when nothing else was available. The NE section of the LNER, for example, got four A2/1s which were used on mainly slow passenger and fast goods workings. Two went to Kings Cross in 1944 and two to Edinburgh Haymarket where they were "never used on the principal express workings." Even when the shamefully rebuilt Great Northern went to New England, she was used mostly on fast goods and parcels workings. Grantham got her in 1951 and she eventually ended up as the spare engine. If the Thompson pacifics were such "excellent engines", why were they so thoroughly detested by the very men tasked with driving them?

 

But we're diverging from the topic of beauty, and I was concentrating more on the looks of the Pacifics.

 

And like I say, you can't entirely divorce appearance from performance.

[S.A.C Martin]

This thread is named "Best looking locomotive". If we're going to say that ugly engines are attractive, we need a different title. If we were discussing "best looking woman", there are women I wouldn't call beautiful, whom I'd prefer to an air-brushed bimbo; however my favourites in locomotives are those with a functional beauty, such as the Stanier/Coleman unadorned "Duchess", which looks the better by comparison with the "stretched King" appearance of the original "Princesses".

 

I'm not sure I follow; an ugly engine to you (Thompson Pacific lets say) is a handsome engine to me. But unlike many in this thread, I have happily accepted that they could not be termed "beautiful". The point of my post above was to try and point out how ludicrous it is to call them ugly when they are not so different from that which went before, or that which came after. However I think we see eye to eye in that we agree that function and purpose can be beautiful; which is what I was trying to get at, in a roundabout way.

 

Thompson's dislike of Gresley is well-documented and need not be repeated here. As for the engines being "excellent", they were without a doubt just so in the steam circuit. It was as vehicles they failed. From a quick delving into my library, I find that wherever they went, the Thompson pacifics were used on express passenger workings only when nothing else was available.

 

You make that sound like a bad thing! The A2/1 was designed specifically as a mixed traffic Pacific in a vein similar to the V2 from which it shared parts; and from many accounts, it did that job rather well. The A2/2s troubles are well documented; but as rebuilds of a previously troublesome class, it's hardly surprising they were - by comparison with their compatriots on the Eastern region - rather less reliable. But their annual mileage was still better than many classes found elsewhere doing similar work.

 

By whose yardstick are we saying they were appalling - because in my book, appalling is reserved for the unsteamable dregs of locomotive engineering. These locomotives were able to move and pull trains surely?! It is a myth that they were "appalling" - not outstanding locomotives is not the same as "appalling". The thing which has really opened up my eyes to how railway preservation makes such marked judgements of locomotive engineers is how Thompson's name is banded about; but it's not just Thompson whose reputation suffers at the hands of railway enthusiasts. Oh, he was no doubt not a very pleasant man, not well liked, did himself no favours; but the facts about his locomotives are just plain ignored, in order to paint the bleakest picture possible of him.

 

If the Thompson pacifics were such "excellent engines", why were they so thoroughly detested by the very men tasked with driving them?

 

For precisely the same reason that you are decrying them with very little in the way of actual evidence; prejudice, and nothing more.

 

I implore you to read East Coast Pacifics at Work by Peter Townend. What he doesn't know isn't worth knowing, and given it is written from the viewpoint of a shedmaster, rather than a railway enthusiast or a timekeeper, his views on all of the East Coast Pacifics are wholly more objective and meaningful.

 

And like I say, you can't entirely divorce appearance from performance.

 

I don't entirely disagree; but some locomotives are exceedingly beautiful and not the best performers. The Sir Sam Fay (LNER B2 or B19 dependent on year) Class, for example. Beautiful class which was somewhat lacking in performance when compared to its compatriots.

Edited October 24, 2012 by S.A.C Martin

[scots region]

To be fair to Simon, I do sometimes think that Thompson wouldn't be held in nearly such a bad light if he had chosen any other A10 rather than the one he chose. And to be fair to Thompson he never did complete his building program so who knows what improvement might have eventually have been made.

 

I like the P1s and they were awful, teeth pullingly, so Handsome is 'not' as handsome does, which in their case was to be very expensive jewelry. In fact the only thing they were missing was an exceedingly large display case.

[Guest]

You make that sound like a bad thing! The A2/1 was designed specifically as a mixed traffic Pacific in a vein similar to the V2 from which it shared parts;

 

Then why didn't Thompson simply do a redesign on the V2 with a third set of inside valve gear, since doing away with the conjugated gear was actually the reason he touted to management for the building of his Pacifics? Even Harrison states that Gresley would likely have abandoned the conjugated gear post-war, had he lived. Why go to the trouble of building a loco the size of 4-6-2 to do the work of a large 2-6-2?

 

The A2/2s troubles are well documented; but as rebuilds of a previously troublesome class, it's hardly surprising they were - by comparison with their compatriots on the Eastern region - rather less reliable.

 

Uh-uh. No way. The hot box and other problems the P2s suffered on the Edinburgh-Aberdeen route was traced to bad repair work, probably because of wartime condtions. A report to this effect was submitted to the LNER Locomotive Committee but apparently arrived too late to stop their consent to the rebuilding.

 

For precisely the same reason that you are decrying them with very little in the way of actual evidence; prejudice, and nothing more.

 

Sorry, no. The faults with Thompson's work are well-documented.

 

I implore you to read East Coast Pacifics at Work by Peter Townend. What he doesn't know isn't worth knowing, and given it is written from the viewpoint of a shedmaster, rather than a railway enthusiast or a timekeeper, his views on all of the East Coast Pacifics are wholly more objective and meaningful.

 

This I will do. If it changes my mind about Thompson and his work, I'll come back and tell you. Just don't hold your breath. In return, you might try Col. H.C.B. Rogers' book "Thompson and Peppercorn - locomotive engineers" - assuming you haven't already done so. Rogers makes use of correspondence with J.F. Harrison, part of the Harrison/Spencer/Windle triumvirate that went on to such success under Peppercorn and therefore no mere enthusiast. E.S. Cox (again, no mere bystander) also has a few comments to make about Thompson in "Locomotive Panorama Vol. 1". I'm sure there is more.

 

To be fair to Simon, I do sometimes think that Thompson wouldn't be held in nearly such a bad light if he had chosen any other A10 rather than the one he chose. And to be fair to Thompson he never did complete his building program so who knows what improvement might have eventually have been made.

 

Yes, if Thompson had sent less time trying to denigrate Gresley, he might have achieved something tangible. I don't like to think ill of anyone but what he did to Great Northern was unforgiveable. If any engine had earned its place in a national collection, it would have been that one.

[ozzyo]

:offtopic:

What would the last 9Fs livery had been if it came out of Crewe as it should have done?

 

As Riddle's was an ex L.N.W.R. man would it have been L.N.W.R. blackberry black? L.M.S. lake, or one of the fancy L.N.W.R. livery's (I'm thinking of the two specially painted Greater Britten's), or would he have had the last three painted in the old L.N.W.R. colours (red, green and blackberry black).

 

Maybe time for the photo shopper lads to have a go?

 

OzzyO.

[Dr Gerbil-Fritters]

SAC are you 'retained' by the Thomson family estate to protect his reputation? You'd make a darn fine libel lawyer! There merest sniff anti-Thomsonness and you're after them like a ferret down a rat hole.

 

Impressed!

 

(all said in jest btw, if its Pacific shaped and LNER I like it....

 

apart from those Thomson things)

 

lol

[scots region]

The fundamental problem is that we just don't have a Thompson pacific that we can personally observe.

[Dr Gerbil-Fritters]

The fundamental problem is that we just don't have a Thompson pacific that we can personally observe.

 

Thank Heavens

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm kidding!

[S.A.C Martin]

SAC are you 'retained' by the Thomson family estate to protect his reputation? You'd make a darn fine libel lawyer! There merest sniff anti-Thomsonness and you're after them like a ferret down a rat hole.

 

Impressed!

 

I've never been one for injustices...! I have however had an exchange of PMs with David and we've taken the debate there as a result.

[Dr Gerbil-Fritters]

No worries, I enjoy the debates. I'm even beginning to think there's something quite appealing to them now

[Guest]

No worries, I enjoy the debates. I'm even beginning to think there's something quite appealing to them now

 

Simon suggested, and I agree with him, that we should take the debate out of the thread for fear of being seen to be hijacking it. I also like watching these debates, sometimes even taking part in them. Simon and I may disagree but he is a knowledgeable and courteous opponent, and I'm sure we will both learn something from our exchanges.

[Clive Mortimore]

 

This I will do. If it changes my mind about Thompson and his work, I'll come back and tell you. Just don't hold your breath. In return, you might try Col. H.C.B. Rogers' book "Thompson and Peppercorn - locomotive engineers" - assuming you haven't already done so. Rogers makes use of correspondence with J.F. Harrison, part of the Harrison/Spencer/Windle triumvirate that went on to such success under Peppercorn and therefore no mere enthusiast. E.S. Cox (again, no mere bystander) also has a few comments to make about Thompson in "Locomotive Panorama Vol. 1". I'm sure there is more.

 

 

Hi David

 

That would not be the same Col Roger's who wrote "It is difficult to believe that diesel or electric locomotives and multiple unit trains will ever inspire the affection with which the great steam engines have regarded by railwaymen and amateur enthusiasts alike." From Transition from Steam, Ian Allan 1980. Written before this event

 

I am more inclined to view the works of Peter Townend regarding the day in and day out work performance of the locos in his care as being more accurate.

[Guest]

That would not be the same Col Roger's who wrote "It is difficult to believe that diesel or electric locomotives and multiple unit trains will ever inspire the affection with which the great steam engines have regarded by railwaymen and amateur enthusiasts alike." From Transition from Steam, Ian Allan 1980.

 

I am more inclined to view the works of Peter Townend regarding the day in and day out work performance of the locos in his care as being more accurate.

 

Two things, Clive. First, Rogers made a prediction and got it wrong. We all do that. Second, the stuff I've been posting was not his opinion (or, indeed, a prediction) but the reporting of correspondence between himself and people within the industry from a position of hindsight. It's not Rogers you're asked to believe but people like Freddie Harrison, whose credentials, I'm sure you agree, would be impeccable.

 

Feel free to PM me if you wish to pursue this.

[bluebottle]

No doubt it's been said before, but perhaps the subject of Gresley vs. Thompson ought to be categorised along with religion and politics on these forums?

[MJI]

Argueing about Gresley & Thompson. When the real answer is English Electric.

[Guest maxthemapman]

Late arrival, but these are no-brainers!

 

Pennsy gg1

 

http://www.raymondloewy.org/gallery/loc_loewy_gg1.html

 

London transport O/P/Q/R stock

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:CP_%26_R_at_Upminster.jpg

[scots region]

You know it occurs to me that little has been said for narrow gauge locomotives so far. I mean what about poor old "Dolgoch"? Whilst all these pacific types were having glory heaped upon them, this plucky little machine was keeping her line in order years after her sell by date and is still going today. Yet she is as ever sidelined by the "Celebrities".

[43179]

Class 442 , the best looking EMU by far..... c'mon , even the buffers are stylish!

 

 

Jon