Of the later steam engines that saw significant mainline use, I must agree that the P&LE 2-8-4 is positively ugly!
Additionally, anything with the exposed coffin feedwater heater. Texas & Pacific had nice looking 4-8-2’s that had the coffin feedwater heater inside the smokebox…but any exposed coffin feedwater heaters on berkshires are just plain ugly.
John
No, you didn’t say it was a failure but others have said that in other posts and it just wasn’t true. Yep…the N&W J and K-2 streamlined engines were well executed and the colors were just right to me. I sure wish they would have done that E-2 Pacific with the shroud too. Eventually one of my models will get a custom made shroud and thefull treatment.
Some particular features seem to be what make an othewise identical engine ugly to some. Take a typical USRA Mike/Pacific/Mountain/SantaFe and put an Elesco bundle heater on the front and someone just gets all bent about it or say the same engines with a Coffin on the front or mount 2 cross-compound pumps on the smokebox front. I don’t know if that makes the “engine” ugly or not. I don’t like the looks of the New York Co. cross-compound airpumps that were favoried by some roads like GN but otherwise I think most GN power was gorgeous but then again I like Belpaire fireboxes, front pumps and Vandy tenders which GN favored. I also like the somewhat spartan look of Western Maryland power. I think the D&H spartan look is a little too clean lined for me though but I had a customer that loved it.
Scullin drivers are gross looking to me as are the engines Mr. Dreyfus (sp?) had a hand in streamlining for the NYC.
BUT…I still think that P&LE Berk is pure ugly! lol
Roger Huber
I don’t mind the P&LE Berk at all, although its looks would be improved by putting the headlight where it belongs, in the middle of the smokebox front.
I’m not overly fond of the upside-down-bathtub streamlining used on some locomotives, but feedwater heaters of any type and airpumps in most locations add to most locomotives’ appeal for me.
I recall a feature by Ed King in Trains magazine some time ago (February '85, apparently) showing ugly steam locomotives - it was entitled “The Rolling Mud Fence” and there were some real doozies shown - UGG-LEE!!! [+o(]
Wayne
There are no contests for ugly women, only Beauty contests. So the same should apply to steam locomotives.
RR
Ugliest steam locomotive? Isn’t that like asking who the ugliest Dallas Cowboy cheerleader is?
Yes, that’s the one. Anyone know what that is?
When I first looked at that picture, I thought the engine had been in a wreck! Yes, that is absolutely hideous from a design perspective.
That is Union Pacific’s “49’er”, there were two modified with that streamlining,
a 4-6-2 #2906 IIRC, and a 4-8-2 #7002.
Doug
I guess some people will hate me for this but I nominate all SP Cab Forwards and MILWs S-3 Northerns!
I know the Cab Forwards were probably the most user-friendly and practical steamers ever, but horrible from an aesthetical standpoint! And the MILW S-3…well, that flat face, that huge ovsersized pilot, that large distance between the pilot coupler and smokebox door, that large space between the pilot and the front wheels of the pilot truck, that small smoke stack…I mean the overall proportions as well as the tender a just a complete design-failure! Just take a look at the S-2 and S-1 classes! They look MUCH better!
With the second story pilot deck, The C&O H-8 Allegheny, was about as Ugly as a Steam Locomotive could get. A face that not even a Mother could Love.
Doug
Speaking of fugly front ends…the huge bald, flat face of the Challengers and Pig Boys on the UP have to rate pretty high on the ugly scale if not on top.
Roger Huber
Nope, not even close to as hideous as the facial view of the H-8, Granted they don’t compete with the FEF, and GS classes for Prettiest Face, but still a far cry from that face not even a Mother could Love on the H-8, that is just PUG Ugly
Doug
H-8 of what railroad?
Tom
C&O H-8 Allegheny.
Sorry, had been mentioned earlier, just responding to the post before mine.
Doug
Since we seem to be nominating facial beauty contestants, the later NYC Mohawks had that absolutely flat smokebox front with the ‘half moon rising’ door - [+o(]
The Niagara raised that by having a stack about four inches tall, almost completely hidden by the Worthington SA feedwater heater. Side view, sleek, lean and mean. Front view - [:$]
Chuck (Modeling Central Japan in September, 1964)
Here’s one from across the pond, the London & Northeaster W1. It looks like an A4 that spent too much time at Golden Corall.
Fraid not, pal. That’s one of those inflatable fake locomotives the Brits used to fool the Huns!!! Aside from the obvious balloon-curvature, note the free-floating extra trailing wheel–obviously added by a balloon artist who had no feel for the real thing. Although, I must admit, the guy did right good on the drive gear.
Also note that the hold-down guy wires are practically invisible. Pretty good, what?
Ed
Funny but I dont even find the experimental locos, in steam, ugly…
Jawn Henry was a rough looking turbine but it still had a beauty of its own…
C&O steam turbines look colourful but again they looked good…
The UP steam turbines looked more like diesels so they look ok…
I use to think that streamlined steamers where ugly, but in escence, they had a purpose for the covers and was still a steam engine underneath…
That being said, I did love the Gresley A3 (Flying Scotsman fame) was a beautiful loco, but the Gresley A4(Mallard) is very beautiful streamlined and very fast…
But I have enjoyed reading others opinions in this regard…
PS, the triplex does look odd tho, but still a nice steamer, pity they didnt succeed…
I hope nobody believes you, Ed. It was real.
