Gorgeous
Steven J. Serenska
Original Post
Replies sorted oldest to newest
Upside down bath tub.
Hot Water posted:Upside down bath tub.
with Handrails
Doug
Is this the Mercury? Does the photo depict a real scene or a model? It is a fantastic photo!
I'm not a fan of that locomotive streamlining, however that is the best photo I have seen of that streamlining.
Thank you
Clem
The Hindenburg on rails?
Gorgeous? Hardly. Even the drivers look silly.
Looks like a real photo of the Mercury. Great photo. Unlike most I am a fan of the first and any attempt at streamlining from that era. When you think of what the designers were trying to accomplish with the sensibilities and technology of the age it amazes me to look at what they came up with.
Kinda' cool, I've never seen a model of it.
The passenger cars were pretty fancy as well. This was the time period that train travel was the elegant way to go. Now there is no elegant way to travel unless you're a millionaire!
Attachments
gunrunnerjohn posted:Kinda' cool, I've never seen a model of it.
The passenger cars were pretty fancy as well. This was the time period that train travel was the elegant way to go. Now there is no elegant way to travel unless you're a millionaire!
Sunset/3rd Rail made the locomotive and the whole train, quite some years ago. It was called the "Mercury" on the New York Central.
I've never seen it, that still applies. 
It is an awesome and striking design that does not appeal to my taste. It reminds me of the spice worms in the movie Dune. That said, the photo captures the frightening design very well. Thanks for posting.
"I am a fan of the first and any attempt at streamlining from that error. "
"Error" is what I would call it, too.
I like it. The Mercury was also pulled by an ex Empire State Express streamlined loco for a time.
Jeff C
leikec posted:I like it. The Mercury was also pulled by an ex Empire State Express streamlined loco for a time.
Jeff C
While still not a GS-4, I do like the ESE locomotives, to me they are even better looking than the Dreyfus Hudsons.
Doug
I do enjoy seeing photos of these early streamliners. They certainly deserve a place in the history of railroading. BUT, like many first attempts, I think that engine IS butt ugly!!! But it did make a point at the time. My preference leans towards the Hiawathas of the same era. The Class "A" Atlantics were my absolute favorite, but the F-7 Hudson's rank right up there, too.
Speaking of personal tastes, can anyone explain to me; Why Eastern trains, particularly the NYC always used dark, dull colors? and the other eastern roads did that, too. Pennsy = Dark Maroon, B&O = Dark Blue, Erie = Dark Green, etc. when you go West out of Chicago, virtually all the railroads used bright, attractive colors like red and silver with a yellow stripe, Yellow and Gray (or Brown) with a red stripe, the aforementioned Milwaukee Road, Green and Yellow on the C&NW, Orange and dark green on the GN, etc.
Paul Fischer
My guess is dark colors were for less maintenance.
It may have looked nice, but it was a maintenance nightmare. With everything hidden under the bathtub, it was almost impossible to perform maintenance on this engine. If you had to get to anything under that shell, the sheet metal had to come off first. What a pain.
OGR run 189 October 2002. Obverse cover.
Attachments
Images (1)
OGR Webmaster posted:It may have looked nice, but it was a maintenance nightmare. With everything hidden under the bathtub, it was almost impossible to perform maintenance on this engine. If you had to get to anything under that shell, the sheet metal had to come off first. What a pain.
Rich, I heard that comment about many of the streamliners, I can certainly see why it would be a pain to cover up all the plumbing.
One of the difficulties of looking at a radical design from a different time period is the change in tastes. This locomotive shell was a radical departure, and has its own beauty. Unfortunately the design has not aged well, and even then was found to make maintenance very difficult. One of the great beauties of the Daylight engines and the N&W Js is the relatively simple modifications to a "standard" design that creates the illusion of streamlining and speed, yet allows easy maintenance. Both designs have "aged" well because of this simplicity. Some folks have called the Daylight paint scheme a "circus locomotive" scheme; I think they are mistaken; the colors reflect the colors of the coast railroad route it traversed, and is (I think at least) one of the most attractive passenger train schemes. (The Northern Pacific's two-tone green is a close second, I think!). As it still looks "modern" in today's world it has aged remarkably well.
That's the ugliest Hudson I've ever seen, and the Dreyfuss is a close second. The only streamline Hudson I ever liked is the Empire Express.
I agree with HOT WATER: "Upside down bath tub". I have tried many times to like this engine, but I just cannot get past the design aesthetics. 
Definitely lacks the inspired grace of say a Dreyfus Hudson, an N&W J or an SP GS-4. Had the Lionel SG version for awhile and finally sold it because I could not deal with its uninspired lines! Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder, but this beholder cannot abide by its looks! SORRY, but this is one ugly duckling!
I think it's pretty darn cool. Big and imposing. I like the hidden walkway. Love to see that unit in action. The luxury passenger cars are the cherry on top. Must have been something to see. I like it!
No uglier than the new, modern "streamliners" they are running today. You have to look a it in the context of the time period.
Hot Water posted:gunrunnerjohn posted:Kinda' cool, I've never seen a model of it.
The passenger cars were pretty fancy as well. This was the time period that train travel was the elegant way to go. Now there is no elegant way to travel unless you're a millionaire!
Sunset/3rd Rail made the locomotive and the whole train, quite some years ago. It was called the "Mercury" on the New York Central.
There is one for sale at the train show in New Braunfels, TX this weekend. No, not by me. I just happen to see it on a table after reading this thread.
jim pastorius posted:No uglier than the new, modern "streamliners" they are running today. You have to look a it in the context of the time period.
I agree. I myself think the trains of today are not attractive one bit. They do nothing for me. If all models were of modern trains I wouldn't be in the hobby. JMO
These streamliners fit in perfectly with the Art Deco designs of those times. Like them or not,that's what was hot back then.
Norm
As a young lad in the '50's, thought streamlined steam locomotives were "bathtubs". As I have advanced in years, have come to appreciate them much more fully. Yes, as noted above, they were reflective of the taste of the time, and completely unique. Streamlined steam locomotives were very small in number and counterbalanced by hordes of conventional locomotives. Now, it would have been hideous if all locomotives looked like that........but a handful, well, just good fun !
To put that steam lined loco in proper perspective, look at a Chrysler Airflow automobile. Ugly but the new cars are mostly as ugly as the new diesels.
jim pastorius posted:To put that steam lined
"steam lined"?????
loco in proper perspective, look at a Chrysler Airflow automobile. Ugly but the new cars are mostly as ugly as the new diesels.
superwarp1 posted:That's the ugliest Hudson I've ever seen, and the Dreyfuss is a close second. The only streamline Hudson I ever liked is the Empire Express.
Considering that engine is a 4-6-2, then I guess your opinion is valid. Pacifics do make ugly Hudsons.
When you say "Empire Express," are you referring to the Empire State Express?
smd4 posted:superwarp1 posted:That's the ugliest Hudson I've ever seen, and the Dreyfuss is a close second. The only streamline Hudson I ever liked is the Empire Express.
Considering that engine is a 4-6-2, then I guess your opinion is valid. Pacifics do make ugly Hudsons.
When you say "Empire Express," are you referring to the Empire State Express?
I Gotta admit, that slipped by me, not being a big NYC fan, I was not familiar enough with the Mercury to know that it was a 4-6-2, with all the (Ugly) skirting and the camera angle the trailing truck wasn't easy to see, and being NYC, "Hudson" just came to mind, OOPPPS.
Doug
Hot water: Spell check said it was two words so fight with them. I first spelled it "streamlined".
Things could get uglier...
Rusty
Attachments
Images (1)
It seems to me the first streamliners looked "fat". This train, and the UP Streamliners have that look to me? Am I seeing things, or there is there something to it.
Gee, Thanks Rusty, there's something that I can't UNSEE
Yep, it can get worse, who'd a thunk?
Doug
jim pastorius posted:Hot water: Spell check said it was two words so fight with them. I first spelled it "streamlined".
I think you had it right Jim. Sometimes you just can't trust spell check. I've added a lot of words to its dictionary, especially model railroad terms, like "benchwork" and "fascia". I like to check with Google first, before adding.
Serenska posted:Gorgeous
Steven J. Serenska
Beauty is definitely in the eye of the beholder. That's what is great about our hobby - there's something for everyone. As a NYC fan, I have an appreciation for this engine and its historical significance to the railroad. Thanks for posting Steven, this is a terrific photo! I was 'fortunate' (depending on your viewpoint) in being able to purchase one of the 3rd Rail versions when they originally came out. It is a terrific model - if you're into this engine that is.
Attachments
Images (1)
One reason it looks 'fat' is the covered walkway which widens the whole body. I would add the words austere and impersonal to my impression. Cold and not friendly. Which is different for sure. I like it for that reason alone.
