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.

The Fell, and other locomotive types that inspire strong emotions


Recommended Posts

  • RMweb Premium

But real dislikes (even hatreds)? Well Brush Type 2s/Class 31s when they came to the Western did not earn my love because they were displacing proper diesels and similarly the later Sulzer Type2s latterly Class 25 which had the same emotional faults as the Class 31 without anything interesting in their appearance to even slightly redeem them, and there were crummy things to have to use as motive power to run a railway.

 

That's exactly how I felt as a teenage spotter at the time. How gratifying to learn that a proper railwayman thought the same.

 

Oddly enough, when you look at them, the Brush Type 2s evidently had some care taken with their styling - but there is still something not quite right about a low-power engine being so long.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Another vote for the GWR turbine here. When it finally sees a RTR release I will celebrate with my credit card.

 

My controversial dislike? Stanier's Princess class, if they had a larger tender that would look a bit more balanced, but with the normal Stanier tender they just look ridiculous in my eyes! Time to duck for cover!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

Apologies, I forgot my all time favourite, even above the 9F. (Loud fanfare stage right) yup, the Dub Dee! I just loved that clank, enjoyed its tendency to derail going in reverse and admired the simpleness of the outline; chimney was a bit c**p though!! Otherwise bomb proof, and that is quite appropriate for when they were produced.

Please don't worry, I'm being taken back to my cell now.

P @ 36E

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oddly enough, when you look at them, the Brush Type 2s evidently had some care taken with their styling - but there is still something not quite right about a low-power engine being so long.

 

To be fair, the 1365hp variant of the Mirrlees engine was towards the upper end of the type 2 range, as was the 1470hp EE replacement

 

The original Brush design is intriguing; based on locos supplied to Ceylon, it had porthole engine room windows and a skirted front, reminiscent of the Metrovicks but with only two windscreens. The BTC didnt like it and the eventual result owed a lot to work done by Wilkes and Ashmore.

 

My controversial dislike? Stanier's Princess class, if they had a larger tender that would look a bit more balanced, but with the normal Stanier tender they just look ridiculous in my eyes!

 

You really wouldnt like then with a Fowler tender then :no: I like them though, the incredible length of that boiler is something else; whereas the Duchesses were graceful, the Lizzies just exuded brute power.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Streamlined steam locomotives (excepting the magnificent Gresley and Stanier bathtubs) seem to provoke a love/hate reaction in people.

 

Any of the early US electric traction locomotives have looks only a mother could love. I'm thinking of the NYC's Manhattan traction and the Milwaukee Road on the Pacific (Bipolars) and Mountain divisions (Boxcabs, before the Little Joes). I'm a big fan of the bipolars - magnificent beasts.

 

People seem to have a love/hate thing going on with the Pennsy GG1. I think they're magnificent, though half a GG1 * is diabolical.

 

* Courtesy of the USA & Canadian area.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Looking at US locos, these were pretty impressive too:

 

N&W J class

 

http://www.train-photos.com/picture/number2843.asp

 

Southern Pacific 4-8-4s on 'Daylight'

 

http://www.steamlocomotive.com/northern/sp4449-cal.jpg

 

Pennsy GG1 electric

 

http://www.railpictures.net/images/d1/4/9/7/1497.1192647600.jpg

 

 

Also the Chinese QJs

 

http://glostransporthistory.visit-gloucestershire.co.uk/images/Qj5751.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

The Pennsy T1s - I think they built 50 of them! - don't seem to have been quite as successful as their builder might have liked, and Lucius Beebe quotes them as having "burning of Rome" smoke effects in service. As noted above, the irresistible force of dieseldom - which General Motors had unaccountably been permitted to continue building and developing during the war, while the Big 3 steam builders were largely required to carry on building steam, or at best diesel switchers - meant that steam was on its last knockings with these thoroughly modern locos.

 

Full marks to trisonic Pete for including such a dramatic contrast to much of the thread - and invoking wise comment from so many others (as well as mine!).

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...