What is it about the 'rods down' position of a steam locomotive that is more appealing than a position of up or straight across? From what I have heard/read on this site and others, the consensus is that most people prefer the down position. Is it because the engine looks protected or as some psychiatrists used to say that the movement of a steam locomotives workings i.e. the rods and wheels are something of a sexual notion. (use your imagination) I for one do not feel that, but can understand where the 'quack' would see that. I just think also, that the rods down position is a more favorable position than the others.

Why do and I countless others prefer that too?

"Rods up for a speeder!" is a quote I recall reading from an article covering the 765's original restoration in 1979.

I'd imagine it's purely aesthetic, as the symmetry of the running gear and wheels is straight across in the down (or up!) position makes more sense to the mind. The geometry of an up or down is prettier than catching the driver's mid-swing. It's a full extension of the machinery rather than some middle ground in between.



KL

A lot of Psychiatrics think everything is related to sex.

I've got a simpler, a G rated, explanation for this one.

When the rods are down you can get a clear view of the connecting rods. It's the position when you have the least obstructed view, with more of the rods exposed.

Also, as others have pointed out already, at the top or bottom looks more symmetrical, and seems balanced.

I suspect the practice may have started with builders photos, and the rods down pose looks balanced while also allowing the best possible view of the rods and valve gear etc. with as little as possible hidden by other parts.

The expression from the Railfan article in 1979, as I remember, was a shouted retort from Dick Yager responding to photographers asking for 765 to be posed with rods down during a photo freight: "Rods down for a dragger, rods up for a racer! She stays put!" Considering how long that phrase has stuck with me, it's a "great quotes" contender!

I can't recall hearing the "rods down" request from anyone who wasn't at least 60 years old, even decades ago. I think it's a very safe assumption that everyone adhering to this "rule" basically shot every photograph with a big tripod and slow shutter speed and small aperture as a trading photo/slide, and the photo trader's absolute "stock in trade" was a 3/4-view with rods down, mimicking a builder's photo--and no, they didn't want photos of diesels. Seriously, these folks would have discarded an O. Winston Link photo as not properly posed. In my opinion, they are/were a separate "cult" within the railfan hobby for decades, and although they took many an image that would be part of the definitive historical records, their "fetishism" was comparable to the guys that refused to shoot diesels, or the folks who collect anything and everything of a specific railroad while disregarding the existence of other lines.

Richard Yager or "The Reverend Iron Duke" to some! ;)

KL

Correction noted. (*^_^*)

I remember a fellow who was a accomplished
artist, disparaging Link's work as
"phoney, all posed".

David P Morgan's support of Dr Hastings
"bigger picture: approach was a revolution
in railfan photography.

Today the subculture is the guys with
the 400mm and great lenses shooting
head on.

Yeah, well, I beg to differ -----






;- )

TJ "pointing out the obvious brushstroke" Gaffney

If you are differing with me....Im with you.
Not everyone does the l-o-n-g tele thing and
tip o' the hat for being one who doesn't!

I came across the "rods down" phenomenon several years ago, and the part explained to me, but not yet mentioned here, is the look of the huge boiler needing to be counterbalanced visually with the bulk of the rods at their lowest point. It gives the locomotive a certain gravity that "rods up" misses.

This is similar to the photographer of wristwatches and clocks posing the hands at 2:10 to balance out the view, to show all the working hands and to have a positive look, such as a smile instead of a frown. If you don't believe me, set your clock to 2:10 or 10:10... and then at 7:20, or 5:40. Digital watches need not apply. lol.

BTW, regarding TJ Gaffney's photo of the scouts and the engineman, it is rare to see Boy Scouts in the full uniform these days. Many Scoutmasters wear them, but the cost and changing sizes of boys during their scouting years makes it almost impossible for a family to afford the full outfit before needing another. Nerdiness of the look is a minor factor.

Counter weights are elevated in the potential energy position, the rods are ready to thrust outward and to the rear of the locomotive while simultaneously thrusting the mass forward. There is a contrast between linear and circular motion. One of the most amazing things about steam locomotives is how form follows function, and it engages the mind of the beholder.

Yeah, what he said....a "ready for action" look, but couldn't find a way to express myself without sounding like.....uhh...myself? BTW, the nerdy Boy Scout Look? When they switched in the mid-seventies from ballcaps to berets, that was it for me.

Well put Richard...

The explanations above are indeed well put. In addition to aesthetic and psychological concerns, there's historic precedent. The formal pictures taken by the builders almost always are rods-down. Presumably those old photographers noticed these characteristics in their images, too.

The "rods up for a racer" preference has some precedent, too. Last month at the Detroit Institute of Arts I got to see an actual print of the famous "Rolling Power" photo for Fortune Magazine of a NYC streamlined Hudson. Of course, it's rods-up, and wouldn't look right otherwise.