Expanding a bit on Juniatha’s observation regarding the British tendency to hide moving parts, one peculiarity that I’ve noticed on some UK power is inside-connected main rods with only the side rods visible on the outside.
Thanks for the thoughts and explanations from Juniatha on down and getting this thread back on track.
On the matter of what engine looks best (not what this thread was about), of course, everyone has their own opinion. Many listed the N&W J as a good looker. In relation to that particular locomotive, strip the steamlining off of her and you still have a very clean and handsome locomotive (WWII era unstreamlined version classed as J1 until shrouding was latter applied in late 1945 then reclassed as J). The look of the all welded tender just adds to her good looks!
Chucks comment “Sometimes a decision made for aesthetic reasons had practical implications.” makes very good sense and can be clearly seen on the unstreamlined J1
The late David P. Morgan once theorized that steam locomotives tended to reflect the national characteristics of the nations that built them. British engines, he opined, reflected hidden strength under a “smooth unruffled exterior”. French engines were the last word in sophistication but “prone to succumb to their own complexities”. German engines embodied “brute strength and massiveness” in a no nonsence package. That’s all I can remember relative to direct quotes. I personally think that Russian engines were simple and rugged examples of serial mass production, sort of like their T-34 tanks. Italian engines went counter to type. The nation that produced super suave Masarattis and Lancias built the most austere steamers in Europe. And what about us Yanks? We lived up to our reputation by building really massive power and rolling stock in an effort to increase the productivity of our expensive labor force. This was necessary because we alone had privately owned and operated railroads than needed to turn a profit. Our esthetic emphasized size, ease of maintenance, availability and a simple layout but one that included a lot of efficiency improving appliances. An interesting test case for our ideas came in the late '40s when we supplied hundreds of simple 2-8-2’s to France to replace war blasted native locomotives. They became the 141P class on the SNCF. The French scoffed at such primitive ( by their standards ) machines but they ran and ran and ran and closed out steam operations long after the De Glenn four cylinder compounds had gone to the torch.
Hi, Jim Valle
To quote your last sentence
They became the 141P class on the SNCF. The French scoffed at such primitive ( by their standards ) machines but they ran and ran and ran and closed out steam operations long after the De Glenn four cylinder compounds had gone to the torch. <<
Eh-m , pardon me , it’s vice versa :
P for
Juniatha, I admire your very good taste and your knowledge. However, given all the examples of good design you mention, I still fail to note any appreciation for the New Haven I-5, which I still rank with the N&W J as the very best of streamlined steam . Perhaps you just aren’t familiar with that locomotive? Or won’t consider it because of its counterblancing problems which took it out of service before its predicessor I-4 Pacifics? I’d like to know if you ever saw the locomotive or good photographs.
Dave and Big Jim
As for New Haven I-5 Hudson and Norfolk & Western J class – I can fully appreciate your choice and after all it’s left to you to define your preferences . I’m sure there will be quite a number of further locomotive types people would consider top ranking – what I have posted is just my personal subjective evaluation .
It’s like with music – some like Norah Jones , some like Connie Dover – of the old Warriors of Rock some liked the Doors , some liked Deep Purple . Here’s one allegoric for steam - or for finding out which one it was …
I can understand your liking the Niagra. In order to fit Eastern clearances the design had to be smoothed, with low flat long and wide domes instead of high cicular domes, rounded side corners of the cab roof, etc. I think it is a good visiual design, as well as very fine locomotive despite my preference for the J. But I also like the Ripley designed Sante Fe locomotives, which don’t quite make it for you. Is it the European influence that makes you prefer the Niagra?
I rode behind Niagras lots of times, on the Empire State, Wolv erine, Laurentian, and other trains. But I never rode behind a Ripley 4-8-4 (or 4-6-4), because by the time I got to ride to the West Coast and Texas points, the AT&SF had dieselized. The nearest type was a number of rides behind the CB&Q O-4 5632 in excursion and charter service. Q steam, like the PRR, had a visual signature all its own. Charming but not beautiful. Like the K-4.
I think you also would prefer the K-4 to the E-6. I don’t but think they are both charming but not beautiful. The E-6 even more charming than the K-4. And the PRR D-16 is really my favorite 4-4-0. It is beautiful and elegant.
Ok, I’ve done It ! I ‘threatened’ it and now here it is .
As for Jim’s original question – locomotive appearance was largely defined by contemporary styling – although in most cases it was claimed to be strictly functional – and to national preferences . Where broader views were applied , I feel it has helped both technical virtues and visual appearance and the results often were advancements of the steam locomotive . With the advantage of retrospect view , I have applied some modification to Loewy’s sheet metal art , joining American art and engineering with some European visual aspects .
A - But first let’s have a look at the T-1 , second version , the one I call ‘Altoona version’ to distinguish from the original Loewy style with front cylinders hidden in his Art Deco skirt or fake motor hood complete with Buick style bull eyes (hinting a V6 engine hidden underneath !?) that saw some modifications in construction before production had ended all too soon . The photo shows a T-1 in their later and belated rather wanting condition
Locomotive aesthetics is pretty subjective, so take my thoughts as you will. The smoke deflectors make the T1 look like it was exported to PRR from the Deutsche Reichsbahn. The running board and tender stripe look borrowed from N&W, a distinct PRR image might be preferred. Restoring the cylinder covers is a positive, though.
I have to say, to be frank, that aesthetically, in my opinion. this is not an improvement. I won’t dispute that it may have helped visibility, but only for the cab crew. [%-)]
I much prefer the lines of the later Duplex, and not the Decco version with the bulls-eye a la Buick ports along the front side fairing. To me, the later look evokes power and purpose, even though it was an odd and unique design.
Crandell
I just looked at Juniatha’s evolution of the T-1 scenario. Wow. Oh, wow! Forget the Deutsche Reichsbahn, it looks more like “Pennsy meets ‘Star Wars’”! I could imagine Darth Vader leaning out the cab window and the whistle blowing the opening bars of the “Darth Vader March”! But you know, each improvement is logical and functionally correct. It all makes perfect sense, and I imagine the Pennsy enginemen who ran the T-1 would have apprciated those smoke delectors, as I’ve read the T-1’s were a smokey engine to run and the crews did have a problem with dirty cabs and visibility, not to mention breathing. I can see how a steam traditionalist might have a problem with this, but todays Sci-Fi fans would love it! Hey, the more steam fans out there the better! I’ll have more to say on esthetics later, but now I got to cut the grass, whack the weeds, and catch my breath.
Continuing this great discussion on esthetics, I think we have to go back, way-way back to a class most of us have forgotten, the 4-4-0 type of the Civil War era, or more correctly from the 1850’s through the 1870’s. As far as pure class and elegance I don’t think anything since has come close. These machines looked more like pieces of jewelry than workhorses, but workhorses is what they were. A perfect reflection of their time, when the philosophy was “Anything that works well, looks well, for beauty and utility are one in the mind of God!”
The paintwork, the brasswork, the decoration up to and including gold leaf I suspect may also have been intended to make a public who may have been frightened by this new technology just a little more comfortable with it. People are always uneasy with things they don’t understand, look at nuclear energy in our own time. Making all that power attractive (Hey! Come on up! Look at me! Don’t be afraid!) would certainly have helped acceptance. And of course in no time at all the “steamcars” became the best show in town, and a free one at that! Yes, it’s hard to beat the old 4-4-0’s, too bad more haven’t survived.
Hi Firelock
Thank you for a more differentiated view on my work and for your appreciation .
I wrote with a sense of foreboding that the result of my changes in two versions , without / with smoke deflectors , may come as a shock to some people . This is understandable if you come to think of the situation being very different for me as the one who has evolved her ideas on steam loco looks along thoughts about both technical engineering and engine aesthetical design – after all this was what enabled me to do these modification pictures in one afternoon – and an viewer who without knowing anything about that evolutionary process is confronted with the result without having a minimum of introduction and time to adapt .
The
Hi, Juniatha! Yes, I think that T-1 looks waaaaay cool! You’ll probably get more feedback from the various posters on this topic. At this time (20:30 hours EST on a Sunday ) and at the tail end of a weekend when most folks are out doing other things I wouldn’t expect to see too much. As the week starts there’ll probably be more comments on the T-1 Dash 2. And of course, others are still probably in a state of shock! Still cool, though!
I like your T-1. Improvement? Just different. Still like the N&W J and the NYNH&H I-5 better.
YOu like the J better than the I-5 because the I-5 isn’t long enough for your tastes. Figured that out.
To Dave K: Isn’t it interesting that some roads, and the engines that ran on them seem to get more notice than others? Certainly, the New Haven’s I-5 was a great looking engine, but the Delaware and Hudson had some good lookers as well, and don’t seem to get a lot of mention. I’ve got a theory, and I’d like to know what you think. that the further a road gets from a major metropolitan area, say New York, Philadelphia, Washington, Chicago, Los Angeles and such the less publicity it gets and less railfan attention. I know the New Haven ran into NYC, but with electrics, which didn’t excite too many people. The D&H was way up New York State way, with it’s engines running in, well, maybe obscurity is too strong a word, but with less attention than say if they ran from Philly across New Jersey to Jersey City or Hoboken. Norfolk and Western certainly got a lot of attention, but I think that had a lot to do with them being the last major steam citadel. Again, I’d like to know what you think.
Hi Dave
Well , the J isn’t that long - I mean the ‘North Folk’s and Western’ J – more of a body-builder locomotive. Actually , the PRR T-1 isn’t all that long , if you come to think that half the length is just high capacity tender of approx same mass , loaded , as engine and of same number of axles –
and that brings us to your remark >> an improvement? <<
I could have included technical improvements , but I confined depicted changes to appearance , since entering into the field of technical changes – although confining considerations strictly to te
The valient and most successful North American effort to keep modern steam running was definitely the N&W’s effort, which involved modern locomotives, admittadly not including all European advances in efficiency, but then there is always the trade-off between fuel efficiency and maintenance. But they did take a total approach to the problem, includig sevicing and maintenance. They got their feet wet with diesels with the coal-strike Southern E-unit runthorughs on passenger trains, then bought some GP-7’s of -9’s or replace 4-8-0’s on branches, and then finally went the whole way with the massive GP-9 total conversion order. At that point steam lost, and not really until then.
In 1952 EMD sent N&W a four-unit F-7 A-B-B-A demosntrator, with souped-up diesels (actually I believe advance F-9-GP-9 prime movers) for 6100HP total. The only orders that followed were the branch line replacements. Interstingly, about the same time, the N&W bought surplus 0-8-0 modern switchers from the C&O which was dieselizing its switcher operations, something the N&W did not do until total dieslization.
The F-7 demosntrator was painted UP colors and went to the UP after demonstration on the N&W.
Hi Juniatha: Arrrrgh… You caught me out! Now that I’ve read some of your comments I’ll know better than to spout off without rechecking my sources (Yves Broncard, The Last Steam Locomotives of France, 1977 ). Meanwhile, scanning your lists of favorites, I’m interested that you didn’t include any of the USRA locomotives. H. Stafford Bryant, Jr. once wrote a slim volume extolling the virtues and aesthetics of these most American products ( The Georgian Locomotive, Weathervane Books, New york, 1962 ). He stressed their harmonious proportions, refined use of standardized components and mechanical excellence. Perhaps the Southern Railway was the most creative parton of this type and their apple green Pacifics and Mountains were the stuff of legend. One survives today in the Locomotive Hall of the Smithsonian and it is truly a thing of beauty. My own esthetic favorites are admittedly offbeat but I grew up in Oakland, CA in the '40’s and 50’s and I still enjoy the sight of silver smokebox fronts, headlights mounted just below center, Vanderbuilt tenders and skyline casings. The GS series Daylights in full warpaint are hard to beat for sheer beauty on the rails but even a humble Harriman Consolidation holds a place of honor in my mind’s eye. Meanwhile, Your little prod will remind me to keep my alphabet letters straight!
[quote user=“Juniatha”]
!http://img840.imageshack.us/img840/6880/s26200atenglewoodrsfron.jpg
S-2 with Witte smoke deflectors as put on by Pennsy .
By size and shape these could really have been spares
obtained from a 52 class light Decapod , or almost ;
however they can hardly have worked that way ,
mounted ‘directly’ to the smokebox sides .
6200 on diet after my quick chirurgical job of
running board straightening and tender bottom lifting