I find it interesting that this thread is still walking around. When I first started it, the intent was why some engines looked like plumber’s nightmares and others looked as slick as the wind yet all were able to get things done.
It should have been self evident that streamlining did not count. So too, color was not a criteria.
EEEEEEK! A NAKED ‘J’!!! Actually, it still looks good even without the steamlining. Excellence is excellence, no matter how it’s styled. And by the way, who cares if this topic’s taken on a life of it’s own and keeps rollin’ on, it’s FUN!
Yeah, even naked it’s still SLICK!
Hi Big Jim
Your remark is interesting in that it attempts to differentiates between covering up and covering up - one having an air streaming effect and one that doesn’t .
Technically and in considerations of maintenance it didn’t make a difference if a mechanic had to demount covers that were part of a streamlining or covers that were part of cladding without streamlining to get at some mechanical item - it both took time and effort to deal with .
Why were some engines “slick” and still did the job ?
Very simple , imho , there were basically three methods :
(a) Russian method : don’t use but the utmost basic auxiliaries and then only a minimum of it , mount these in cab for frost protection if at all possible or tuck away for safety against damage by collision . ( see my earlier remarks on exactly this feature describing simplicity of an L class Decapod , within a longer one of my technical comment )
(b) British methods : use an individual choice of a few refinements and leave off most others according to personal preference of the CME who may or may not like this or that item .
(1) - Private railways : never use feed pumps and preheaters , no sand domes , mostly don’t never-ever use no nothing of what was considered indispensable in America ,Germany ,or France and leave it to cheap labor to fix the consequences such as rapid wear , bad
Well, I just simply do not care for streamlined steam power, in general, and I just can’t like the appearance of most “European” steam. For me it is most likely because I simply prefer the look of many American steam engines built during the 1930’s–the “Post USRA” look if you will–influenced by the USRA engines, but not quite the same…
The only streamlined steam engine I like is Santa Fe’s Blue Goose–and then mainly due to the paint scheme they chose, combined with the streamlining. It was a striking engine–yet some just hate it.
To me, some of the finest looking steam engines ever constructed were Southern Pacific’s 4-8-2’s (prior to the application of shrouding) and 4-10-2’s, along with the Rio Grande M-75 and M-78 4-8-2’s, and my favorite 4-8-4 of all is the Rio Grande M-64 Class–simply beautiful–but in general I don’t care for 4-8-4’s. Most of these engines strike a balance between having some exposed external piping versus having too much.
In the way too much exposed piping class I’ll have to put the C&O H-7, DRGW L-131/132, and WP 251/257 Class 2-8-8-2’s. Those were all true “pipefitter’s nightmares”.
I also like the USRA 2-6-6-2’s and 2-8-8-2’s, and the C&O Class H-4 through H-6, along with the Norfolk and Western “Improved” USRA 2-8-8-2, the Y-3.My 2c.
John
Aesthetics are in the eye of the individual and their personal relationship to the machine.
The design engineer has his, the locomotive engineer has his, the boilermaker has his, the running gear mechanic has his, the train crew has theirs and rail fans have theirs. Each is predicated on how they have to interact with the machine and all are different.
Sorry you do not distinguish between personal preferences such as “I like my Big Mac with …” and “you like your beer from …” and categories of aesthetic values .
Aesthetics cover a field of visual qualities and these can be discussed on a number of axioms much in the way as philosophy can be discussed , or as in music the quality of an interpretation of a music piece can very well be objectively evaluated according to various criteria (such as trueness to the composer , virtuosity , brilliance etc) . In such ways aspects of aesthetics are likewise very well possible to discuss , finding and amending flaws in a theory applied , or considering logics and conclusions by using rational if meticulous and knowledgeable sensible thinking .
For sure not by such basic statements as “I don’t like it - no reason needed nor thought about , full stop .” That’s ‘booze cave’ level of talk , often enough tending to end up in fist fighting and finally the stronger one is right , if only because his opponents can’t talk anymore .
I’m into the former , not the latter .
Juniatha
Ok, when I get angry I make typing errors - edited
On copying pictures with quotation :</
Juniatha–
Huh, what? Were you replying in part to my post?
I’ve been off this forum for a couple years, and was responding to what I perceived to be the intent of this topic as posted: the original post seemed to be asking for our opinions, and I stated my personal preferences but made no comments regarding the preferences of others.
I can say that your comments above regarding the “American method” … do read as being a bit of an oversimplification. It seems to me that most American railroads actually did have a preferred layout of piping and appliances, though there were certainly exceptions. Most roads’ engines did indeed have a “family” appearance.
John
I would think a better comparison for the aesthetics of locomotives would be the aesthetics of the composition as opposed to the performance of a music piece. The “quality of an interpretation” most closely resembles the skills of the workers interpreting the drawings.
One reason that I favor the American vs English approach to steam locomotive design is that the workings of the American locomtive are gloriously visible. Little attempt is made to hide the functions of the various parts of the locomotive, especially the pistons, connecting rods and valve gear. What makes for a great looking American style locomotive is proportion, care in laying out the piping, placement of accessories, etc. An example, the C&O Allegheny has a lot of exposed piping, but it looks like it was carefully placed as opposed to dumped on the sides (this also may get back to “quality of an interpretation” by the steamfitters and pipefitters).
English steamers typically hide too much of what makes a steam locomotive so appealing. In some ways it reminds me of women my age who go too heavily on plastic surgery to look younger, while their skin is smoother, they lose a lot of expressiveness in their face. Similarly, pictures of nature are usually more calming than city streetscapes, there’s a lotof fine detail in a nature shot that is not present in a streetscape.
“Beauty lies in the eyes of the beholder” - or, in other words, you like what you are accustomed with. I grew up when steam was still very much apparent on German rails - mainly steamers with that standard Deutsche Reichsbahn look of the 1930´s, few locos dating back to the times before WW I. French, and foremost, those “clean-shaven” British locos looked odd to me on pictures I saw in my youth. I, however, grew to like them when I was able to travel and see them in operation or in a museum.
Still, there are some I´d call odd looking, if not ugly, the epitome of which being this “beauty”:
Other than the smoke stack, all other parts that make a steam loco look like a steamer are missing. Personally, I think that designer Oliver Bulleid has gone a little too far with this “Austerity”-design, yet it still sports costly to maintain inside cylinders and valve gear.
Interesting fact is, that the German drive to economize during WW II resulted in what was certainly the most successful steam locomotive design ever, with over 7,000 locos built and a large number surviving up until today.
Designed and built to last only “until the war is over”, quite a number of them stayed in regular service well over 5 decades! The difference between those two? In simple words- what you don´t see on the latter picture is not there.
Hi Erik , John and Ulrich
I will answer to you tomorrow if I have time to do so - have to leave now .
I will come back on it .
Thanx
J____uniatha
With warm respect to all readers and responders, we appear (to me) to be labouring under both a defect and deficiency in common language and in operationalizing of the most important terms, chief among them being the prinicpal term aesthetics.
As a quick glance through the Wiki page on aesthetics will reveal, there are many evolutions and applications in the greater field with the commensurate cultures and taxonomies. Some of us may be more versed and facile in one or more of them than others. Therefore, our discussion won’t bear much fruit until we are all looking at the same row of grape vines…if you follow.
Crandell
Crandell - how true! Even if we´d exchange the word aesthetics for “appeal”, the issue will remain a matter of personal judgment, if not like/dislike.
In our days of today, where steam traction is relegated into museums or tourist line service, I am happy to see any steam loco, regardless of its looks or “aesthetics” - being a steam loco makes it appealing for me.
Gee, Crandell, you’re harder to read than Juniatha![;)]
Big Jim, bingo! I had wanted to illustrate the importance of using terms and a level of the both the language and the subject that we can all appreciate. I will now lay off the glitter. [(-D]
To be serious, I really feel we should all agree on the meaning of the important terms used by people so far. I get the distinct impression that Juniatha is talking a level or two above us, perhaps intentionally so as to drag us kicking and screaming to a point where we can give your subject its proper course. Her continued presence in this discussion suggests to me that she appreciates the topic and the opportunities it presents, but that she quickly found us to be willing to stay at the bottom of the barrel…so-to-speak. She would like to elevate both our thinking and our reach.
It’s an opportunity. [shrug] Maybe we could, or some of us anyway, with your permission, try to agree on a super-aesthetic of some kind that would help us to peg steam locomotives over more than the adjudged rakish slope on the leading edge of smoke lifters. Or the trailing edge.
Said another way, I wonder how many of us have thought to ourselves over the course of this lengthening thread that we are missing something. Juniatha is obviously not using her primary language, so her syntax seems contrived or odd at times, and I know that can get in the way of understanding. Working hard to understand what she is driving at, I get the impression she is teasing us, trying to urge us to come up to a level of the discussion where she could reveal more about her vast appreciation of steam locomotives. I am willing to do that because I sense no malice or condescension in her.
If that makes any sense… [:)]
Crandell
Hi Crandell
This and your previous comment should get a more comprehensive answer than I can offer presently for lack of time . Yet I want to put some misleading assumptions straight about my intentions .
First , let me make quite clear it would be the last thing on my mind to try and teach some in here , nor to tease or the like .
I joined the subject because of the title of this thread „Locomotive Aesthetics“ straight forward taking it for granted people are aware of the meaning of the term . Mind , the thread was started by Big Jim with his initial entry posted: 05-13-2011 1:40
Juniatha, you seem to have agreed with the central point in my last post. We all labour under assumptions here, and the thread has wandered long and wide while we have yet to come to any form of consensus. I was under the impression you took a meaning to the term that was different from what others have taken and used, and a couple of times you seemed to reply that you had hoped for a different type of response from people. Perhaps my last post was stating the obvious…to you…but I was also under the distinct impression that it was not obvious to others who have been willing to participate, if only to to contribute personal subjectivity. Perhaps I used too much license in the term teasing (I meant not that you were being mischievous, but that you
Hi Crandell
Thank you for quick response – yes I agree with you , also with you contributing this important point . Well , in the end we exchange ideas and hopefully encourage some second thought , second point of view to one another . We can also agree to disagree on certain points having laid down our reasoning , it may still offer another point of view to us .
Taking the occasion for mentioning some of what I see as once having been axioms when steam locomotive design was being practiced , an axiom therein being a standard rule of design generally accepted to hold truth or golden rule such as the famous 1 : 1.618 relation of middle age architects of Gothic cathedrals . The better known of axioms in steam loco design intriguingly were even internationally respected , although otherwise means and demands of builders and roads were widely differing .
The best known I think was this one :
1 - Chimney / Cylinder Line-Up
With cylinders behind a guiding axle , align chimney and cylinders vertical center lines in one vertical lateral plane (chimney positioned vertically above cylinders in side elevation drawing) .
&nbs
Aeronautical engineers used to have a saying, and maybe they still do, and it went “if it looks good, it’ll fly good”. For the most part it was true, there weren’t many ugly aircraft that were successful, at least not in the long run.
Now, what’s that got to do with “Locomotive Esthetics” you might ask. Well, looking at the history of steam locomotion we can see that the same rule generally applies. There’s been some experimentals in the past, too many to go into, that were some designers pet projecr that went way out of the norm, and turned out to be flops. Too much deviation seemed to lead to failure.
When I look at a steam locomotive and judge it by looks, I look at balance and harmony of design, does it “look right”. If it’s a streamlined job, does the streamlining look like it belongs there, is it a part of the whole, or does it look like the 'road slapped it on so they could be “cool” like the other guys. Case in point, the Dreyfuss Hudsons on the 20th Century Limited and Empire State Limited versus the “upside-down bathtub” on the “Commodore Vanderbilt”, or the streamlining on some of the Pennsy’s K-4’s. One looks sleek and functionally correct, the other’s a “what the…”. See where I’m going with this?
Then there’s the photo Sir Madoq posted of the “Kreigslok”. Not a pretty loco to say the least, however you can see it’s “all business”, built to do a job, designed for ease of contruction and maintainance, and impressive in it’s own right. It looks right for what it’s meant to do.
Icould go on and on like this but I think you all see where I’m coming from.
Oh, and by the way, don’t any of you underestimate Juniatha! I’ve been corresponding with that big-hearted and great spirited young lady for quite some time now, and DON’T assume she doesn’t know what she’s talking about. Case in point: About a week or so ago she asked me what I knew