Western Railroad Discussion > Ugly? What's ugly...

The hair-tearing over the new Talgos reminds me of past design "outrages". When the Geep was introduced back in the 1959s conventional wisdom was that EMD designed them to be so ugly the railroads wouldn't want them out on the main line, but confine them to local work where they could do best what they were designed for.

I also remember when we (UP) received the first batch of GE "wide cabs". I sent George Cockle, a contractor who worked for me at the time, over to Martha Street in Omaha where we had them lined up abreast for a photo session. When he came back he said he had the pictures but said, "Boy, those units sure are ugly!"

JEB

The difference is that the GP hood design and wide-cab cab designs offered a clear tradeoff between utility and aesthetics. The Talgo Butt Head design is not aerodynamic (as I mentioned, before - this will negatively impact fuel usage) and the huge windshield will surely be costly to replace. (Note the current GM wide cab design adopted smaller windows, in part, to reduce glass replacement costs).

Unfortunately, the ultimate test of the crash-worthiness of the design will be probably be tested at some point during its service life. However, its hard to see the advantages offered by an already low-riding cab with a nose that slopes upward toward the windshield.

Ugly, its a matter of opinion. However, it offers poor functionality given the $$$ that taxpayers have paid to purchase this equipment and will pay to operate it.

The new TRAINS has a major piece on the building of this train
and the control cab. They were originally going to use the more
streamlined European design. However, American rules call for
two people in the cab, vs. one on the continent. With two seats
in the European cab, the operators couldn't see one side of the
locomotive from where they sat. Plus, the cab needed to have
American crash worthy technology installed, hence the "ugly",
a word I have no problem with, result.

And, you think Kansas is bad? Read about what happened in
Wisconsin in regards to these trains.

Nick Tharalson,
Marion, IA

Ugly is what happens when the "art" is removed and "function" is inserted. There was nothing so ugly as British airplanes in the fifties, but the english sports cars were the standard of the world. Now, most of the locomotives come from EMD and GE and the sports cars are long gone.

a737flyer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> There was nothing so ugly
> as British airplanes in the fifties

You mean like this one?

Ray

---

Well, there's always an exception...the Vulcan was a beautiful airplane but do you know any of the performance numbers? Slow, not maneuverable and claustauphobic. But it was, unlike so many other British aerospace products, quite beautiful.

Ray_Murphy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> a737flyer Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > There was nothing so ugly
> > as British airplanes in the fifties
>
> You mean like this one?
>
> Ray


In 1960-61 I was with the USAF at RAF Station Alconbury, Huntingdonshire, UK. We flew Douglas RB-66B aircraft, which were slow, unmanuervable and claustrophobic (but sturdy). The neasest RAF base flew Vulcans. In those days they were painted white, and were very attractive. I was told that they out performed our B-66s.
Bill Pyyper
Salem, OR
PS: Remember, beauty is in the eye of the beer holder.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/03/12 09:19 by wjpyper.

<<<<I also remember when we (UP) received the first batch of GE "wide cabs". I sent George Cockle, a contractor who worked for me at the time, over to Martha Street in Omaha where we had them lined up abreast for a photo session. When he came back he said he had the pictures but said, "Boy, those units sure are ugly!">>>>>

Geez, I think they got that judgement just about right! Twenty some years later, they're still unattractive.

Railfans I knew said the same thing about the C636. They were right, too.

Similar judgements surrounded the GE Genesis engines built for Amtrak and Metro North. Time has supported that judgement as well.

And don't get me going on Crandall E-units, or Katy's RS3m conversions, or.......

Great design is timeless. Butt ugliness, unfortunately, is also timeless.

I never did warm up to the first two UP streamliners, the M10000 and the M100001 (City of Portland). I didn't like the bulbous nose and big grill. The streamliners that followed with the "automobile" styling and chrome grills however were gorgeous, never to be equalled, even by the later day Es.
JEB



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 12/03/12 13:09 by Copy19.

got to see the last operating Vulcan at an air show at RAFB Bosombe Downs, it was beautiful! Lazy S turns with trhat big delta wing, how could anyone not find it beautiful

I don't think there has been a new locomotive design or paint scheme in the last 30 years that hasn't debuted to choruses of "ugly!!!" from the railfan community. That ugly Talgo in ugly Cascade colors is flanked by ugly Amtubes in ugly Amtrak paint and being pulled by an ugly GE widenoser in the ugly BNSF H2 scheme. If everything is ugly, then nothing is ugly, right?

What's ugly? This "New Haven" 129 is ugly.

http://www.brookvillecorp.com/locomotive-passenger.asp

a737flyer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Well, there's always an exception...the Vulcan was
> a beautiful airplane but do you know any of the
> performance numbers? Slow, not maneuverable and
> claustauphobic. But it was, unlike so many other
> British aerospace products, quite beautiful.


It was built as a nuclear bomber, not a fighter...

The 737 isn't exactly a aerobatic aircraft either.

Damn, I'm happy, thought someone had posted a picture of me.