Anybody besides me think the pumps on the front of the C & O 's smoke box ruins the looks of an engine
The Allegheny looks great from the side but 3/4 and head on I think those pumps are ugly
Same for their Mountains–2-6-6-2 etc
Front mounted pumps aren’t for everyone. For every person that thinks they look stupid or ruin the looks there is at least someone (lke me) that happens to like the rugged look they provide. You will get a lot of arguments here and elsewhere by claiming the H-8’s don’t look nice!
Same with the Belpaire fireboxes. I happen to like their looks…many don’t.
Streamlined engines also get the yea/nay voting and the topic brings up many emotions. Some are nice looking and some aren’t.
Whatever turns you on is what you should stick with. Personally I’ll stick with the N&W, Reading, C&O and B&O looks. My personal dislikes are the NYC Dreyfus Hudsons, P&LE Berkshires and everything UP except the FEF’s.
MY 2¢ worth,
Roger Huber
I love the look of flying air pumps that the C&O, Great Northern, and some others used. I find the boldly mechanical look on steamers far more appealing, and generally dislike streamlined locos for the same reason.
With the exception of the relatively few streamlined passenger locos, aesthetics had little to do with the design of steam locomotives. Smokebox mounted air compressors were put there because, for whatever reason, that was the best place for them. (N&W originally thought there was insufficient clearance alongside the boiler of a Y. Later, that thinking changed - and so did the compressor location.) Note that the 2-6-6-6 had its air reservoirs on top of the boiler - since their usual mounting place was taken up by that convoluted mess of steam plumbing under the running boards.
There was one Santa Fe 2-8-0 the OP would have absolutely loved. It had the normal compressor and air brake arrangement, but needed a LOT more compressor capacity to operate the air dumped ballast cars it was assigned to handle. The solution? Two additional cross compound compressors - on the front of the smokebox, of course.
Chuck (Modeling Central Japan in September, 1964)
Sacrilege! Air pumps belong on the side of the locomotive, as in the rare Southern Pacific class MM-3 2-6-6-2 Mallet (last SP compound steam locomotives).
I can’t say twin pumps on the smoke box cover takes anything away from a brute’s brutish appeal. I understand that you don’t particularly care for the look, Bob, but I think it makes the engines look utilitarian, heavy, powerful… I wouldn’t say the pumps look elegant there, but they are eye-catching, and I kind of like that look.
Hence, … [:P]
Another take on the problem of pump placement is evident on this sadly neglected lady…
-Crandell
BTW I should add I don’t like feed water heaters mounted on top by the stack either
I have to agree about the streamlined looks
I am getting to really dislike them
My self, I like the way they look on the right steamer. H 8 and H 4 they look great. Would not like them on a Big Boy or Challenger. Far as streamline engines, don’t do a thing for me.
Cuda Ken
OK, this one throws me - the derelict tank loco picture: real or model?
–Randy
Gotta be a model. A real one would’ve had it’s headlights stolen a long time ago.
How about a 2-8-2 with a cylindrical feedwater heater mounted behind the stack, lengthwise of the boiler, inside a fairing that closely resembled an inverted canoe?
Or a cylindrical feedwater heater balanced across the top of the smokebox BEHIND the stack?
The first was designed that way, the others (a butt-ugly brute of a 2-8-0 and a passenger 4-6-2 with, originally, rather nice lines) were added as afterthoughts.
Like air compressors, feedwater heaters are mounted where they can be properly supported, kept inside the loading gauge and reached easily for maintenance. In most cases the Master Mechanic and Road Foreman of Engines couldn’t care less how pretty they (didn’t) look.
Chuck (Modeling Central Japan in September, 1964 - with a couple of seriously ugly 2-8-0s)
Ugly is ugly what ever the reason
I also can’t stand Nerf Bars on Pickup Trucks
More sacrilege!!! How can you not love this?
http://psc1.virtualfocus.com/Erie%204-6-2%20K5.html
The Erie K5a in its ultimate form has to be one of the prettiest Pacifics ever.
Andre
I wish I were that good a modeller and image taker, Randy. [8D] This unhappy lady is real, imaged in the summer of 2006 north Vancouver Island at the Canadian Forest Products sawmill near Beaver Cove (how can you not love a name like that!).
-Crandell
I thought my post said FRONT not side
Yes you did. That’s the premise of my response that the pumps “belong” on the side.
I thought you were saying my post was a sacrilege
I was quite sure I knew what Mark meant…I assumed it was a favoured model of his that he was showing, with the idea being he feels the pumps belong where his engine has them. [:D]
-Crandell
Well, it’s certainly a case of different strokes for different folks. Myself, a big, hulking articulated like a Rio Grande L-131 2-8-8-2 or L-105 4-6-6-4, or a Missabe M-3/4 2-8-8-4 would look kind of ‘sissified’ without 'em.
Frankly, it’s part of the reason I snicker everytime I see a photo of a Big Boy. Say what? Leave something behind in the shop, there, fellows? [:-^]
No thanks, give me an articulated with the guts up front.
Tom [:P]