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

[The Johnster]

6 hours ago, finelines said:

I am shocked, nay horrified. I find people glorifying the uglification of the most beautiful English Electric diesel loco. I suppose the railways saw sense and only bought 22. Had they looked like the original everybody would have been clamouring for some, even the Western. 
 

Roger

You won’t find me glorifying it or the production 22.  They are hideous with those bulbous noses and cabs that look as though they are melting like a Dali clock.  Pug ugly. 
 

But they were bloody impressive...

[Artless Bodger]

On 24/03/2020 at 03:32, pH said:

 

It's an 'inspection locomotive'. These were used by many US railroads, where UK railways generally had separate loco-hauled inspection saloons.

 

https://www.steamlocomotive.com/locobase.php?country=USA&wheel=4-4-0&railroad=ba#16410

 

Do a Google image search for "inspection locomotive" and you'll find some even more weird machines.

Ye gods! Looking at those makes Drummond's Bug look sane!

 

Locos like the MGWR inside cylinder 2-6-0 and Robinson's 2-6-4T look like oversized 0-6-0s / 0-6-4Ts that had to have an extra carrying axle fitted because the superheater put them over the weight limit on the front axle. That said the GCR tanks had a certain heft to them.

 

There was  a Turkish loco - 4-6-0 iirc which had an extra carrying axle between two pairs of drivers - not sure how you'd describe it under Whyte,    o o O O o O.

 

Saxon Railways XV HT V, later DRG baureihe 790 (superheated compound 0-6-6-0 tank), might be an also ran.

 

Personally I think the streamlined version of the Princess Coronation looks quite unpleasant. Gresley's hush hush too.

 

Early electric locos are a well stocked hunting ground for hideous designs; Milwaukee Road Bi-polars, early KPEV types, P.O. Ganz 2D2 protoypes, PRR L5 etc. and the SNCF 5500 2D2 was nicknamed the Waterman as the front end styling resembled the Waterman ink bottle shape. However I do like the Swiss crocodiles.

[Artless Bodger]

On 31/03/2020 at 00:55, newbryford said:

Getting back OT.

Here's a "marmite" loco. [*]

 

A GE BQ23-7, based on the reasonably successful B23-7

There were 10 built to provide "crew quarters" when cabooses were being phased out. The idea never caught on.

 

http://www.rrpicturearchives.net/showPicture.aspx?id=1487172

 

[*] US railfans generally hate them, but I quite like it and have a 3D printed cab to fit to a B23-7

A bit like the GMO turret cab B-B, GM's BL2 could be a contender.

[Artless Bodger]

On 09/04/2020 at 14:39, Pacific231G said:

If you're looking for ungainly looking railcars, this would surely be hard to beat

The SNCF's X-5600 FNC (Federation National des Cheminots) autorails were designed by a committee (how could we have guessed ?) of management and unions.  The idea was to produce a vehicle that would be simple and light enough to compete against buses with the aim of maintaining or even restoring passenger services on lightly travelled branch lines after the war. 63 were built between 1946 & 1953 and they were withdrawn after a short life between 1960 and 1966.  They  don't seem to have been any more successful than British Railways' railbuses of the late 1950s though at leat SNCF had the sense not to order five different designs from competing manufacturers.  For some reason SNCF seemed to prefer a single raised cab with direct mechanical contol of the gearbox  for all three of its smaller early railcars though the "Mobylette" and "Picasso" were generally a bit more normal looking  .

When I  first saw a photo of one of these I thought it very ungainly, not to say  ugly, but a model,  built from a Keyser white metal kit by the late Andy Hart, now runs on my layout and I rather like it. 

 

 

 

There were some similar in Ireland, LMS NCC nos 2 and 3 had turret cabs and radiators on the roof. Meanwhile the GNR(I) had railcar D - which presaged the Flirt - with an 0-6-0 power unit articulated in the middle. Irish pioneering of diesel traction is often overlooked, Diesel Dawn by Colm Flanagan is highly recommended. 

[Artless Bodger]

16 hours ago, pH said:

 

Is this it?

 

https://images.app.goo.gl/sxCTuXD4B1ytPWQ68

 

 

Gad! Looks like the offspring of the 'panoramique' and a flirt!

[Pacific231G]

17 hours ago, pH said:

 

Is this it?

 

https://images.app.goo.gl/sxCTuXD4B1ytPWQ68

 

 

Verrry Interesting. 

A little delving brought up that these were double articulated 950mm gauge units with a 12 cylinder diesel engine (diesel mechanical presumably) in the centre section. Two, from an order of a dozen that was never fulfilled, were built in 1941 for the Ferrovie Calabro-Lucane. This operated a series of local narrow gauge railways (a few still running)  in the mountainous area between Bari and the toe of Italy, apparently with a fairly generous loading gauge. The two examples weren't apparently used until after the war and were not particularly successful.

Nevertheless, being Italian, the raised cab does seem far more elegant than those used by SNCF albeit rather flimsy looking.  Were there any other examples of Italian railcars with a single raised driving position?

 

 

[ThePipersSon]

In the current MLI (no 242), there are details of the 'Michelin Coventry Cars', including a photograph on the cover, and one of them being filmed at Bushey troughs.

Tom

[ianathompson]

11 hours ago, Pacific231G said:

Verrry Interesting. 

A little delving brought up that these were double articulated 950mm gauge units with a 12 cylinder diesel engine (diesel mechanical presumably) in the centre section. Two, from an order of a dozen that was never fulfilled, were built in 1941 for the Ferrovie Calabro-Lucane. This operated a series of local narrow gauge railways (a few still running)  in the mountainous area between Bari and the toe of Italy, apparently with a fairly generous loading gauge. The two examples weren't apparently used until after the war and were not particularly successful.

 

They had a five speed mechanical gear box from what I can make out of the four or five pages of technical Italian in the book and entered service in 1948.

They came out of service in 1952 having clocked up around 110,000kms.

They were only authorised to run between Bari and Matera from what I can tell. 

This was only a small section of the Bari system.

 

The Calabro-Lucane was not one system but had eight independent sections, some of which, such as the Bari one, were quite extensive.

I suspect that the loading gauge was not that generous on too many of them, looking at the tunnels.

 

Ian T

Edited April 13, 2020 by ianathompson
typo

[Pacific231G]

50 minutes ago, ianathompson said:

 

They had a five speed mechanical gear box from what I can make out of the four or five pages of technical Italian in the book and entered service in 1948.

They came out of service in 1952 having clocked up around 110,000kms.

They were only authorised to run between Bari and Matera from what I can tell. 

This was only a small section of the Bari system.

 

The Calabro-Lucane was not one system but had eight independent sections, some of which, such as the Bari one, were quite extensive.

I suspect that the loading gauge was not that generous on too many of them, looking at the tunnels.

 

Ian T

 

Hi Ian

That's why  I said it was  a series of NG railways not a network so it's possible, though slightly unusual,  that they didn't all have the same loading gauge. (The annoying thing is that I could have explored them when I passed through Bari in the early 1970s but took the train to Rome instead)

I know that looks can be deceiving but, compared to the people looking at it, the top of the cab does look rather high. I'm just looking at the dimensions of a French metre gauge electric railcar and the maximum height of the roof is just under 3.4 metres.

Does your book give the overall dimensions of the beast? 

 

Going OT but what also caught my  attention about these railways is that some of them apparently use a simple red disk as their sole mechanical signalling. These were a French approach to signalling (actually a development of a very early British approach that we moved away from) where the disk is a deferred stop signal that protects other trains or shunting operations in a station but I hadn't heard of it being used in Italy where normal signalling is AFAIK  mostly based on semaphores (in their British meaning- in France sémaphores  are specifically block signals)

Edited April 14, 2020 by Pacific231G

[ianathompson]

The book gives the height of the cabin as 3.7 metres with 2.735 metres over the passenger saloons.

Overall length was 28.830 metres. The central cabin was 5.830 metres and each carriage section seems to have been 11.310 metres. Width was 2.430m.

No seating capacity given but I calculate it at 10 first class and 78 second. There was 1 toilet and it was possible to pass between the two saloons by using a passageway through the driving/motor section.

 

I also get the impresssion, from the Italian, but don't stake your life on it (!) that it was possible for them to work in multiple, being driven from the leading cab using what I assume was a pneumatic system of control.

 

Your description of the signalling system is correct according to the book.

As you say it seems to bear a resemblence to the disque rouge of French railways.

 I suspect that it operated in a similar manner in that it could be passed in the "on" position at a low speeed.

 

At the risk of severe thread drift Italian signals were based upon British signals but their development diverged and took them along a different path.

The AFK's eclectic system of signals depicts one.

It is available here if you are interested. You will have to click onto Italian signals on the page menu.

 

Hoipe that this is of interest to some-one!

 

Ian T

Edited April 14, 2020 by ianathompson
additional info

[Andy Kirkham]

Although it's hardly in the same league as some of the monstrosities mentioned here, there always sticks in my mind the comment made by H.C.Casserley in the Observer's Book of Railway Locomotives on the subject of the 77XXX standard mogul: https://preservedbritishsteamlocomotives.com/3mt-77000-77019-2-6-0-br-standard-class-3/

 

Additional Identification Features: The high running plate is particularly accentuated in this class by the small driving wheels, resulting in a very ugly engine.

 

I can see his point; on the basis that the idea of the high running plate was to give access to moving parts, in this case it seems it was way higher that it needed to be for practical purposes so that it gives access to a lot of empty space- there is a gap above the cylinder tops of what looks like about nine inches. In contrast the 82XXX which is said to be the tank version of the 77XXX has a running plate aligned with the top of the cylinder and is in my view an admirably neat and well-proportioned machine.

 

(Just to emphasise where Casserley's preferences lay, his comment on the opposite page regarding the 78XXX reads: "This is the smallest of the B.R. standard types and, amongst the tender classes, alone possesses a running-plate of moderate height, resulting in the best proportioned engine of all the new designs.")

[The Johnster]

I have always liked the compact but balanced proportions of the 82xxx standard 3MT tank loco.  The tender version 77xxx is an odd looking thing (note that the 82xxx was produced first and therefore the 77xxx is the tender version of the 82xxx and not the other way around; the 82xxx is not a tank version of the 77xxx.  The locos use identical boilers, cylinders, and motion, but because the 77xxx used the 76xxx cab, the running plate had to be set higher and there is the odd gap between the cylinder tops and the running plate.  This means that the boiler is pitched higher than on the 82xxx as well.  

 

Had Swindon designed a new cab for it with the running plate and boiler pitch the same as the 82xxx, my view is that it would have been a quite well proportioned loco.

[rodent279]

7 hours ago, The Johnster said:

I have always liked the compact but balanced proportions of the 82xxx standard 3MT tank loco.  The tender version 77xxx is an odd looking thing (note that the 82xxx was produced first and therefore the 77xxx is the tender version of the 82xxx and not the other way around; the 82xxx is not a tank version of the 77xxx.  The locos use identical boilers, cylinders, and motion, but because the 77xxx used the 76xxx cab, the running plate had to be set higher and there is the odd gap between the cylinder tops and the running plate.  This means that the boiler is pitched higher than on the 82xxx as well.  

 

Had Swindon designed a new cab for it with the running plate and boiler pitch the same as the 82xxx, my view is that it would have been a quite well proportioned loco.

Didn't both use virtually the same boiler as the GWR 51xx 2-6-2's? Which means the 77xxx can be considered almost a BR Standard version of the WSR's 9351, a 51xx converted to a tender loco. This was actually envisaged by the GWR, but never done. It results in a lighter version of a 43xx, with a higher RA.

[The Johnster]

More or less.  The domeless no.2 boiler is common to 5101, 61xx, 81xx, all with the same cylinders and motion, 56xx, rebuilt Rhymney R and P, Cardiff Rly. 0-6-2T, and the Churchward 2-4-2 and Atlantic tanks, ‘Bird’ 4-4-0s and possibly some MSWJ rebuilds, and the domed version to the 82xxx and 77xxx standards but shortened by 4”.  I believe Hawksworth, or someone in his tenure, drew up a loco very similar to 9351 to hasten the withdrawal of Dean Goods locos on RA restricted routes like the Mid Wales.  In the event nationalisation intervened and Ivatt 2MT moguls were used instead. 

 

I do not regard the standard 3MTs as progressions of the 5101s, though, as they were both rated ‘yellow’ RA by the WR (the no.2 boiler prairies were blue and the 56xx red), and had smaller cylinders, reflected in the BR power classification of 3MT; the prairies were 4MT and the 56xx 5MT pocket rockets. 
 

 

Edited April 24, 2020 by The Johnster

[maico]

The DRG 05 003 of 1937 was both ugly and had technical issues with the cab forward design.

The normal class 05 were fine and broke the World speed record in 1936 in streamline form

 

 

Edited May 7, 2020 by maico

[Gibbo675]

On 20/03/2020 at 16:51, Crisis Rail said:

 

 

Such inspiration.

 

Hi There,

 

Kudos for a third stage navigator form Dune.

 

That would be an ugly driver of an ugly train !

 

Gibbo.

[The Johnster]

1 hour ago, maico said:

The DRG 05 003 of 1937 was both ugly and had technical issues with the cab forward design.

The normal class 05 were fine and broke the World speed record in 1936 in streamline form

 

 

Hideous in both cab forward and streamlined forms, but a handsome enough beast otherwise.

[nomisd]

I am not sure if this is the worst looking loco ever but I would contend that it is possibly the most uninspired design ever. The one off Hunslet Barclay loco at Hope Cement Works

 

 

The original inspiration - a cereal box or a brick?

[Steamport Southport]

On 24/04/2020 at 14:07, The Johnster said:

More or less.  The domeless no.2 boiler is common to 5101, 61xx, 81xx, all with the same cylinders and motion, 56xx, rebuilt Rhymney R and P, Cardiff Rly. 0-6-2T, and the Churchward 2-4-2 and Atlantic tanks, ‘Bird’ 4-4-0s and possibly some MSWJ rebuilds, and the domed version to the 82xxx and 77xxx standards but shortened by 4”.  I believe Hawksworth, or someone in his tenure, drew up a loco very similar to 9351 to hasten the withdrawal of Dean Goods locos on RA restricted routes like the Mid Wales.  In the event nationalisation intervened and Ivatt 2MT moguls were used instead. 

 

I do not regard the standard 3MTs as progressions of the 5101s, though, as they were both rated ‘yellow’ RA by the WR (the no.2 boiler prairies were blue and the 56xx red), and had smaller cylinders, reflected in the BR power classification of 3MT; the prairies were 4MT and the 56xx 5MT pocket rockets. 
 

 

 

The Collett Goods were built to replace the Dean version. If WWII hadn't occurred they would have been gone by about 1940. There was meant to be at least 200 of them and production was stalled a few times.

 

Were they ever restricted? I've seen photos of them all over the Cambrian including over the very restricted Barmouth Bridge.

 

Many of the Dean Goods were dragged from Swindon Dump where some of them had been in storage awaiting dismantling for over a year. Overhauled and put back into service. Some then went to the WD.

 

I don't think the GWR were planning anymore 2-6-0s. They were already converting the ones they had to Manors and Granges. The Hawksworth 4-4-0 is another myth. They were probably just doing drawings to prove a point or for comparison reasons. I certainly don't believe there was a plan for building a modern 4-4-0 based on the Churchward County, probably someone got mixed up with the fact that the GWR was building a class named after Counties and assumed they would be 4-4-0s.

 

The reason BR built the 4MT 4-6-0? They replaced what would have been the next batch of Manors.

 

However I'm slightly baffled why we are mentioning such locomotives in a "worst looking locomotive" thread. 

 

 

 

Jason

[The Johnster]

3 hours ago, nomisd said:

I am not sure if this is the worst looking loco ever but I would contend that it is possibly the most uninspired design ever. The one off Hunslet Barclay loco at Hope Cement Works

 

 

The original inspiration - a cereal box or a brick?

I'd say plain Jane, homely rather than ugly.  It doesn't offend mine eye, just bores it...

[The Johnster]

Collett Goods were yellow route availability, Dean uncoloured.  The Cambrian, including Barmouth Bridge, was classed as yellow, as was the Brecon and Merthyr north of Dowlais, and the Mid Wales Brecon-Moat Lane was not.  Ivatt Mickey Mice moguls were BR RA 2, permitted on the Mid Wales.  

 

2251s certainly worked all over the rest of the Cambrian, but not the Mid Wales section.  I have seen photos of them on Newport-Brecon trains and AFAIK they were permitted between Hereford and Brecon as well; not sure about Neath and Brecon.

[newbryford]

4 hours ago, The Johnster said:

I'd say plain Jane, homely rather than ugly.  It doesn't offend mine eye, just bores it...

 

If you want plain... this must be the ultimate box on wheels.

 

 

 

[Adam FW]

Stephenson long boiler 4-4-0 box tank, the 0-6-0 version looks odd but having a tiny bogie instead of the front drivers makes the loco look even more unbalanced, still tempted to model one though as another oddity to add to the collection

 

 

 

Also the class 19 artemis test vehicle, ex DVT at the front

 

 

Minion at the back

 

 

[Gibbo675]

3 minutes ago, Adam FW said:

Stephenson long boiler 4-4-0 box tank, the 0-6-0 version looks odd but having a tiny bogie instead of the front drivers makes the loco look even more unbalanced, still tempted to model one though as another oddity to add to the collection

 

 

 

Hi Adam,

 

Dave of @Ruston fame has built one of these contraptions for his Calder Valley Mineral Railway.

 

 

Gibbo.

[rodent279]

10 minutes ago, Adam FW said:

Stephenson long boiler 4-4-0 box tank, the 0-6-0 version looks odd but having a tiny bogie instead of the front drivers makes the loco look even more unbalanced, still tempted to model one though as another oddity to add to the collection

 

 

 

Also the class 19 artemis test vehicle, ex DVT at the front

 

 

Minion at the back

 

 

The train that thinks it's a Minion!