| Railway Preservation News https://www.rypn.org/forums/ |
|
| "Ugly and pretty' steamers https://www.rypn.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8891 |
Page 1 of 1 |
| Author: | Warren [ Thu Mar 18, 2004 11:56 am ] |
| Post subject: | "Ugly and pretty' steamers |
Found this engine built for the French PLM, it's about as plug ugly as it gets.Any opinons on "prettiest" and "ugliest" engines? By the way, personally I still think the GWR Castle Class are about the best looking engines built. Link to site with Ugly French engine: http://www.dself.dsl.pipex.com/MUSEUM/L ... enchHP.htm Disclaimer: I have no connection with the above site, just found it interesting. captbuck@comcast.net |
|
| Author: | Kevin Gillespie [ Sun Mar 21, 2004 11:06 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: "Ugly and pretty' steamers |
When it comes to iron horses, "ugly" vs. "pretty" probably comes down to what you are used to. Some of my British acquaintances say that American locomotives are ugly because the appliances are out in the open. Many Americans including those on this board will consider European steam to be at least "funny looking" if not "ugly." While working at the B&O Museum, I remember discussing Canadian locomotives with a visitor. He was partial to CN because he thought that CP steam was to "British looking." I told him that I preferred CP steam, because they were a blend of the best of American and British styling. It's purely a matter of personal taste. kevin.r.gillespie@verizon.net |
|
| Author: | L Beckman [ Sun Mar 21, 2004 6:44 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: "Ugly vs. pretty" steamers? |
> Found this engine built for the French PLM, > it's about as plug ugly as it gets.Any > opinons on "prettiest" and > "ugliest" engines? By the way, > personally I still think the GWR Castle > Class are about the best looking engines > built. > Link to site with Ugly French engine: > > http://www.dself.dsl.pipex.com/MUSEUM/L ... enchHP.htm > Disclaimer: I have no connection with the > above site, just found it interesting. Warren: Although their ARE some steam locomotives that are "good looking" compared to others, I believe that there is no such thing as an "ugly steamer." The ones that might be so classified I prefer to think of as simply "having character!" Les Beckman (HVRM) midlandblb@cs.com |
|
| Author: | Don C. [ Mon Mar 22, 2004 10:21 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Thanks, Les |
> Warren: Although their ARE some steam > locomotives that are "good > looking" compared to others, I believe > that there is no such thing as an "ugly > steamer." The ones that might be so > classified I prefer to think of as simply > "having character!" > Les Beckman (HVRM) Les, Well stated. You know very well that a couple of our favorite "old girls" get their undeserved slams by those who don't appreciate "character". I've been lurking in the weeds, hoping not to get into another one of those debates.....but sometimes you have to come to the defense of a lady! Don C. http://www.261.com milw261@sbcglobal.net |
|
| Author: | crij [ Tue Mar 23, 2004 10:48 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: "Ugly and pretty' steamers |
One thing people need to keep in mind when comparing the look of American and British Locomotives is that style was dictated by how the railroad was operated. In the US, and Canada, railroads were buisnesses, so the extra time needed to service a locomotive had to be shortened as much as possible, to keep revenues as high as possible. The exception was always the hand full of signature locomotives in passenger service, ie: N&W J series, B&O Hiawatha (sp?), PRR Broadway Limited, NYC Lowery Hudsons for the 20th Centry Limited, etc. Where as in the UK and most of Western Europe, Railroads were almost, if not complete government entities, thus having to take a few minutes more to repair a component, because you had to remove a shroud, was of little concern when compared to the look being almost a part of national pride. Just my 2 cents, Rich > While working at the B&O Museum, I > remember discussing Canadian locomotives > with a visitor. He was partial to CN because > he thought that CP steam was to > "British looking." I told him that > I preferred CP steam, because they were a > blend of the best of American and British > styling. > It's purely a matter of personal taste. Connecticut Eastern Railroad Museum rcizik5519@earthlink.net |
|
| Author: | Erik Ledbetter [ Tue Mar 23, 2004 10:56 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: "Ugly and pretty' steamers |
> Where as in the UK and most of Western > Europe, Railroads were almost, if not > complete government entities, thus having to > take a few minutes more to repair a > component, because you had to remove a > shroud, was of little concern when compared > to the look being almost a part of national > pride. I might buy on Europe, but in the UK at least, my understanding would be that nationalization came on long after the basic aesthetics and style were set by private operating companies... eledbetter@rypn.org |
|
| Author: | Tim O [ Tue Mar 23, 2004 1:40 pm ] |
| Post subject: | I think it's the "face" |
I've often wondered why some people insist on calling a locomotive "ugly", or even "beautiful." I think what attracts us to anything is the "face" it presents. When you look at a locomotive, it seems to be ridiculous... a bunch of wheels with a huge barrel sitting on it, covered with bumps and ladders and pipes. How is this "beautiful?" I believe the round boiler faceplate gives it a human characteristic, which is carried over to diesels with two windshields and a broad nose. when there are three windshields, or more, it looks more machine-like, and therefore "ugly." Having said that, I get offended when Steamtown's Reading T1 2124 or any other engine is called ugly by someone, especially a railroader. Then, you've insulted my "family." mustang746@mac.com |
|
| Page 1 of 1 | All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|