my opinion on e units and f units

I'm with you paigetrain!  Hotwater is stating the hard cold facts of the modern world we live in, but on your layout, you can run anything you like.

That's the best part of model or toy train railroads...you get to create a world limited only by your own imagination.

If it was up to me, I would bring back steam too running on cleaner fuels, but it was extremely labor intensive and railroads have to compete with each other and all the other forms of transportation so its not going to happen again except for excursion runs or on my layout!

   IMO, railroads are done with trying to capture the heats and minds of Americans or we would have seen something  different over the last 50 years  

   If it wasn't for the "Stealth Bomber styling" already resembling what was being produced, we likely wouldn't have got the slightly updated "styling" we did get.

  Good news is, the F series was intended for freight originally, and that's all  I've ever seen behind a real one 

Adriatic posted:

   IMO, railroads are done with trying to capture the heats and minds of Americans or we would have seen something  different over the last 50 years  

   If it wasn't for the "Stealth Bomber styling" already resembling what was being produced, we likely wouldn't have got the slightly updated "styling" we did get.

  Good news is, the F series was intended for freight originally, and that's all  I've ever seen behind a real one 

So I assume you are not familiar with the Santa Fe, nor the Great Northern, nor the Northern Pacific, nor the Western Pacific,,,,,,,all of which used EMD "F" units to handle their finest passenger trains?

The streamlining era was way back in the '30s.  Yes, it was a glorious time for industrial designers.  Sadly it's gone.  

Oddly, the Pennsylvania Railroad had their P5 electric locomotives redesigned due to a grade crossing accident.  This created a streamlined futuristic body that was the inspiration for the GG1, which in my opinion was one of the best designs to come out of that era.  Toward the end of the GG1s life, new locomotives were needed.  That's when the box on wheels came along.  I'm speaking of the GE60.  The AEM-7, while an excellent locomotive for Amtrak, is still just a box on wheels.  So in my opinion, we've come full circle with our locomotive designs.  

The great thing about our hobby is that we can keep any era we like, alive.

I grew up with a little steam, but, mostly, cab and booster diesels on mainline passenger and freight trains.  I like them.  Therefore, I have several on my layout, which represents the transition era from steam to diesel.

PAIGETRAIN,  I am also a fan of those locomotives and have more than I like to say.   I recently picked up a set of KCS F-3 locomotives at York.  The New Haven is a real looker.

I grew up with those locomotives.

that gm body, I would like to see a steamer made,  no steam chest,  the theory is steam is turning  the generator  ,, just drivers, and in a couple of different  wheel  arrangements ,

F-3's are my favorite.  My dad built a basement layout that seemed monstrous when I was little.  Here's a plug for Amato's Hobby Store in New Britain, CT.  They sold us nearly everything we had on that layout.  It had two Hudsons, the UP Alco,  and two Santa Fe F-3's.  I've loved those SF F-3's ever since.  I have five now, on two separate layouts.  I also have a New Haven ABA F-3.  Hard to beat those color schemes.  

Just bought my first LCP, the Santa Fe FT.  I'm hoping Lionel will produce more LCP F-3's in the coming years.

Jerry

Hot Water posted:

Adriatic posted:

   IMO, railroads are done with trying to capture the heats and minds of Americans or we would have seen something  different over the last 50 years  

   If it wasn't for the "Stealth Bomber styling" already resembling what was being produced, we likely wouldn't have got the slightly updated "styling" we did get.

  Good news is, the F series was intended for freight originally, and that's all  I've ever seen behind a real one 

So I assume you are not familiar with the Santa Fe, nor the Great Northern, nor the Northern Pacific, nor the Western Pacific,,,,,,,all of which used EMD "F" units to handle their finest passenger trains?

What? Do you keep a list of my favorites?

Aware of sure; that's Americana there. Aware they became more than just that, sure again.

   I may have seen one, and don't recall? But with my age perfect for missing out on the tail end of  the passenger trains glory , and location that the remaining passenger trains bypassed, I just can't recall ever seeing a passenger train headed by an F series. Only just once in a while, would one roll through with freight. On the Soo, and Erie, different areas, same thing. 

  Never have been a big diesel fan outside of the Es, and Fs, other than respect for the machine itself. Seeing RSs, GPs, and switchers was the norm, seeing an F was a memorable event. I wish I'd remember it differently, but that's all I got .

Hot Water posted:  .

... the Santa Fe, nor the Great Northern, nor the Northern Pacific, nor the Western Pacific,,,,,,,all of which used EMD "F" units to handle their finest passenger trains? 

It might be fair to say the E units were more common in the east and on relatively flat terrain, and the F units did better with passenger trains out west where significant long grades were sometimes encountered. An E7/E8/E9 had 2000/2250/2400 HP on 4 powered axles and was typically geared for higher speeds, and not good for drag speeds. An F7/F9 had 1500/1750 HP on 4 powered axles.

But that makes me wonder why Western Pacific with only 1% ruling grades on the transcon line used F's on passenger trains. Since they were a smaller railroad I'm supposing they chose to standardize their diesel fleet so the passenger F's could also serve on freight trains. And the track and schedule probably did not allow for particularly high speeds anyway. There were lots of curves on the long 1% grade up the Feather River canyon.

It might be interesting to note that Australian Commonwealth Railways GM class built 1951-1967 looked superficially like an E-unit, but mechanically were more like an SD7-SD9  (not counting the earliest A1A-A1A versions). They were essentially an F7 or F9 with 12 wheels for lower axle loading on lighter rails.

Not my photo but we rode a similar train in 1969. I calculated from the schedule that it did about 35-40 mph during the night hours.

ace, your good at graphics,  can you show a F body with steam chests? ,,see what it would look like,

thanks,,

This is not my artwork but they were actual proposals towards the idea of modernized steam locomotives. They combined diesel-type carbodies with steam locomotion.

http://www.martynbane.co.uk/mo...team/ldp/ace/ace.htm

  In this case "ACE" stands for "American Coal Enterprises". It's not my artwork!

General Electric built a condensing steam turbine-electric locomotive for Union Pacific in 1938. Scrapped 1943.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/w...lined_locomotive.JPG

I love the red one.  That would be one great project.

interesting, thanks, ace,,,

Adriatic posted:

   IMO, railroads are done with trying to capture the heats and minds of Americans or we would have seen something  different over the last 50 years  

 

I don't know about that. I still go into heat when I see trains.

One thing railroads are trying to do is capture the hearts and minds of shareholders, and efficient locomotive designs are part of that.

paigetrain posted:

 

why can't we make diesels like this any more

i mean could we see a return to diesels like this in the future

 

Not likely that there will be much of a return to these designs. Car body diesels look great, and certainly do look more streamlined. However, one of the primary reasons for their demise was the natural inefficiency in their basic design, as most are aware.

For one thing, they can't be run in either direction, and rearward visibility is nil. Once the GP-7 and RS-1 designs hit the market, their overwhelming advantages in these areas, and the efficiencies that resulted, became abundantly clear.

Also, maintenance is more difficult with the car body diesels because it has to be done inside the confines of the body, and parts have to be inserted and removed through doors and other constricted spaces. With modern engines, much of the maintenance can be done and parts accessed and replaced simply by opening panels on the sides of the body that face outside - much easier, more efficient, and less costly.

There are some exceptions, such as passenger engines like the Amtrak Genesis (a nod to reduced wind resistance (perhaps it helps make up for the aerodynamic drag caused by the front of the first hi-level car following the baggage car   , but for the most part the car body diesel designs are likely to remain scarce into the future, except for high-speed rail where wind resistance at high speed is a critical design factor. 

paigetrain posted:

 

... why can't we make diesels like this any more

i mean could we see a return to diesels like this in the future

i notice freight trains these days are less aerodynamic 

an f3 or e7 would be more aerodynamic and would probably not have as much wind resistance as a more modern freight engine 

my layout will mostly cater to freight trains of my imagination

American freight locomotives are designed to be functional, as already noted. The hood-type carbody provides easier servicing and better rearward visibility. Loco aerodynamics aren't really a significant factor unless trains are doing over 80mph or so. Even if the lead loco is streamlined, the rest of the train has added wind resistance from all the gaps between the cars.

EMD's three GP60 demonstrators (1985?) had some rounded contours on the cab and nose leading edges as a nod towards aerodynamics, but the experiment was not repeated and the whole cab design was superseded by wide-nose cabs. 

Dan Padova posted:

Oddly, the Pennsylvania Railroad had their P5 electric locomotives redesigned due to a grade crossing accident.  This created a streamlined futuristic body that was the inspiration for the GG1, which in my opinion was one of the best designs to come out of that era.  

I agree with your love of the GG1s and their stylish look but I have to correct your description. The GG1 look was designed by Lowery for the GG1. When the Pennsy wanted a safer cab for the P5a, after the grade crossing incident, they took the design from the GG1 which was in work but not completed and created the P5a Modified.  The P5a was the first running engine to have that look. The GG1 design was the originator of the look. Kind of a chicken-egg thing. 

The E & F units have a style that will always be appreciated. My favorite are the E8s.

breezinup posted:

Adriatic posted:

   IMO, railroads are done with trying to capture the heats and minds of Americans or we would have seen something  different over the last 50 years  

 

I don't know about that. I still go into heat when I see trains.

One thing railroads are trying to do is capture the hearts and minds of shareholders, and efficient locomotive designs are part of that.

The efficiency and money wasn't a goal then too? The F's made no money? The efficiency or safety dangerously compromised.

    I go into heat thinking about the loss of public appeal made more obvious, each time a newer member posts about "where's the alternate style".

--"Flame on!"--

(they seem to like the new well enough, but also see "the gap" and also wonder why not? )

  The new locomotives are awesome as far as machines go no doubt. Maybe respect wasn't the right word, but a better one escapes me.

 The dollar-  Mr. Buffet likes long term stable investment, and seems seems to like the RR's quite a bit.  A little sheet metal, or fiberglass work on something, on more than the rare occasion? I doubt it's going to break the bank to lighten the dull industrial mood of a styling that Tom, Dick and Nancy can't even see a difference in. It's overdue. I don't care if its sort of limited; some (not all, lol)   dog and kitty/ Darth Vader / Spiderman or Johnny Torch comic book B.S. painted by high schoolers, just do something stimulating for the public for a while.  I can't tell what I'm looking at half the time. And I live by the tracks, and still like trains enough to rail fan some. But I lost interest in ID-ing anything but a waving engineer, the walkways path, or a logo on passing locomotive. The rest at the head end, I stopped noticing long ago. (personally, the loss of cabooses really hurts way more. That's what I waited for most. But that cost cutter, I really understand more too. The locomotive can't really be dropped without tech making it obsolete 1st, I think we are safe enough there for a bit)

   The RR's also need the public good will to retain a grip on other costs too. Much like a restoration, styling is goodwill branding. When times are bad, work on image. When times are good, work even harder on image. Every commercial art and advertising class begins with that thought. (Tell McDonald's, or Apple, or others they are wrong. AD MAN got an opinion that counters that?) The person that doesn't think about trains at all, except for accidents in the news, may be calling JB Hunt, in haste, simply because they saw another bright orange and chrome trim Kenworth on the way to work.  Why else would the efficiency  of RR's be so regularly ignored, other that its not on folks minds enough? (including many that do logistics for a living)     

   Evo*, Acela, and some others should have been mentioned as a style counter point. Nicer, IMO,  just maybe a little too much "fishbowl/toaster/bomberstyle" (comment in another post) Personal opinion, but maybe it wasn't too far off? I thought I was being a bit picky there, but had a point to push so did. I don't see great style, but it's good, and better than I'm used to. But the best since 1976 had nearly caused a pigment shortage of red, white, and blue, isn't saying much much for style effort. 

   I'm not saying build carbodies again. Better style could be a simple "cover up panel", roof contour etc..  Or even just better paint, cleanliness, or lighting* Now that's "out the box" EVOlutionary  thinkin' a new GENeration will have glowing memories of. If they ever get to see one, even on occasion .   Nationally, we might not ever see a train that could really use some streamlining again. (which should be a very limiting factor in that styles design anyhow, needing a certain shape vs the slower loco than can have fiberglass bunny ears mounted, and see no big loss or gain, legs can be painted on to match?...( I just described a copy of the vintage tin 3rail Easter Bunny engine, hopping across the plains A Santa sled? ET on a bike? A Model T? A ship? Trolley? A STEAM engine! ...a bone Ok, ones not enough, so a box of milk bones since we are talking covers and add ons with no real "meat" and need enough to to be seen in places vs 1 on a screen).

  If all the model trains today got melted for the scrap, and the only replacement was new stuff; I wouldn't switch hobbies to RC planes.  I would be buying trains by road name, and paint job, and/or by power source  (electrics over diesel, small diesel vs large(? my thing) I will still need a diesel for times and places the juice goes out too.

--"Flame off"--

Just an opinion, but a passionate one.

When I was very young but already in love with railroads and especially steam locomotives, my father told me that steam was going away to be replaced by diesels. I was devastated, 70 some years later I still am.

Bogie

One of the most basic requirements for a modern freight locomotive is the ability to perform switching as required at terminals or en-route. End platforms and steps provide reasonably safe crew access. The old E and F units don't have that. If you have been on and off working locomotives a few hundred times you would appreciate the difference.

paigetrain posted:

i've always been fascinated by e units and f units

even though they're old they still kind of have a futuristic look to them

which means i'm dropping the maglev idea so i can get some of these diesels for my roster

i love the lionel f3 especially new haven 2242

why can't we make diesels like this any more

i mean could we see a return to diesels like this in the future

i notice freight trains these days are less aerodynamic 

an f3 or e7 would be more aerodynamic and would probably not have as much wind resistance as a more modern freight engine 

my layout will mostly cater to freight trains of my imagination

I am not a fan of the E-Unit looks but since you like them, here are some images I found on Flickr of some Australian locomotives built locally with license from EMD in the 1950s, Victorian Railways B & A class, that has 2 such noses on 1 locomotive – double the good looks. I found photos on Flickr of these locomotives over the years with paint schemes similar to the Warbonnet & Union Pacific yellow.

These are just my opinion,

Thanks,

Naveen Rajan

Pat Kn posted:

Dan Padova posted:

Oddly, the Pennsylvania Railroad had their P5 electric locomotives redesigned due to a grade crossing accident.  This created a streamlined futuristic body that was the inspiration for the GG1, which in my opinion was one of the best designs to come out of that era.  

I agree with your love of the GG1s and their stylish look but I have to correct your description. The GG1 look was designed by Lowery for the GG1. When the Pennsy wanted a safer cab for the P5a, after the grade crossing incident, they took the design from the GG1 which was in work but not completed and created the P5a Modified.  The P5a was the first running engine to have that look. The GG1 design was the originator of the look. Kind of a chicken-egg thing. 

Ah ha !  Thanks Pat.  My recollection of Zimmerman's book, "The Remarkable GG1" is fading.  I'll have to read it again.  

naveenrajan posted:

paigetrain posted:

i've always been fascinated by e units and f units

even though they're old they still kind of have a futuristic look to them

which means i'm dropping the maglev idea so i can get some of these diesels for my roster

i love the lionel f3 especially new haven 2242

why can't we make diesels like this any more

i mean could we see a return to diesels like this in the future

i notice freight trains these days are less aerodynamic 

an f3 or e7 would be more aerodynamic and would probably not have as much wind resistance as a more modern freight engine 

my layout will mostly cater to freight trains of my imagination

I am not a fan of the E-Unit looks but since you like them, here are some images I found on Flickr of some Australian locomotives built locally with license from EMD in the 1950s, Victorian Railways B & A class, that has 2 such noses on 1 locomotive – double the good looks. I found photos on Flickr of these locomotives over the years with paint schemes similar to the Warbonnet & Union Pacific yellow.

These are just my opinion,

Thanks,

Naveen Rajan

Can't get too much more efficient than that design.  

Adriatic posted:

breezinup posted:

One thing railroads are trying to do is capture the hearts and minds of shareholders, and efficient locomotive designs are part of that.

The efficiency and money wasn't a goal then too? The F's made no money?

Not much logic in that argument. The economics of F unit operation six decades ago has nothing to do with today's world. Sure Fs made money -- when every other railroad was also using them, and in the economies of the time they were operating. But they're no longer economical, and the competition has moved far beyond them to more efficient designs. Modern businesses have different priorities, it's become a global economy, and shareholder value is a greater factor than ever. Today's railroads have to be ultra-efficient to be adequately profitable, against both other railroads and other forms of transportation such as modern trucks. And modern, efficient designs require operation in both directions, good rear visibility, and power, tractive force, and fuel economy that far surpasses the old E and F units.

The nature of corporate structure and operation also is far different from the way it was 60 years ago. There are many more indicators of value and more sophistication in the investment world, and companies are very sensitive to earnings and forecasts and return on investment in ways far different than half a century and more ago. In addition, the railroad economy itself is completely different today from the way it was when F units were running; many of yesterday's measurements are no longer applicable in today's world. 

1947 - 1,517,000 railroad employees       $8.7 billion in revenues      Revenue per employee: $5,738

2014 - 235,000 railroad employees     $77.7 billion in revenues     Revenue per employee: $330,357

I always felt the E units just looked too long.  The F was just about right.

I am surprised EMD in the US did not offer a double ended E/F for those roads with quick turn commute operations.  But I guess by that time, the cab control coach was coming into service.

Almost every electric toy train has an E Unit:  The reverse unit!

Dominic Mazoch posted:

I always felt the E units just looked too long.  The F was just about right.

I am surprised EMD in the US did not offer a double ended E/F for those roads with quick turn commute operations.  But I guess by that time, the cab control coach was coming into service.

Seems like the roads that needed a quick turnaround either used RDC's, had heavy electric locomotives (GG!, EP5) or were electrified MU operations.  

The first cab control cars for commuter service in the US went into service on the C&NW in 1959, long after the C&NW dieselized.

If the railroads felt a need for double ended diesels, (like the Jersey Central Baldwin's) I'm sure  EMD and Alco would have obliged.

Rusty

breezinup posted:

Adriatic posted:

breezinup posted:

One thing railroads are trying to do is capture the hearts and minds of shareholders, and efficient locomotive designs are part of that.

The efficiency and money wasn't a goal then too? The F's made no money?

Not much logic in that argument. The economics of F unit operation six decades ago has nothing to do with today's world. Sure Fs made money -- when every other railroad was also using them, and in the economies of the time they were operating. But they're no longer economical, and the competition has moved far beyond them to more efficient designs. Modern businesses have different priorities, it's become a global economy, and shareholder value is a greater factor than ever. Today's railroads have to be ultra-efficient to be adequately profitable, against both other railroads and other forms of transportation such as modern trucks. And modern, efficient designs require operation in both directions, good rear visibility, and power, tractive force, and fuel economy that far surpasses the old E and F units.

The nature of corporate structure and operation also is far different from the way it was 60 years ago. There are many more indicators of value and more sophistication in the investment world, and companies are very sensitive to earnings and forecasts and return on investment in ways far different than half a century and more ago. In addition, the railroad economy itself is completely different today from the way it was when F units were running; many of yesterday's measurements are no longer applicable in today's world. 

1947 - 1,517,000 railroad employees       $8.7 billion in revenues      Revenue per employee: $5,738

2014 - 235,000 railroad employees     $77.7 billion in revenues     Revenue per employee: $330,357

 

 

 

At the risk of starting the dreaded "Thread drift", those numbers just prove one thing.  Corporations are making more money today than they have ever made, with their top officers reaping unfair and obscene rewards at the expense of the wage earners, without whom, the system would fail.  

Logic is based on our individual perspectives here.

    I get it. I had to count beans too, admittedly as higher mid-management. But I saw what a remodel or facelift can do for near any businesses, and used it well, making others far more money than I'll ever see. My worst project only netted a 15% increase in business, my best 58%.  I majored top of my class in advertising and had a very promising carrier I gave up cold rather than have to show numbers over and over for this same type of general topic, only to have them shot down in a board room too scared of making an investment.

I think it might  do the industry some good to lighten the mood (betterword? )

I do know, I could be wrong too.  The cost would not be astronomical if I am.

      Cost and trains; two words to put aside for a moment.

"Do you think you the well designed skin of a machine could ,or could not, entice a better public image of it? 

Yep, its a trap you can't win unless your driving a 74' VW Thing. Same as the one you set on me, different perspective.

 When profitable, it's a choice to not to use a styling on the panels, not a necessity.

   "I believe in occasional styles you believe in $tyle$, and we both have opinions that can't be easily swayed. But I'll listen all day waiting (wanting) to be convinced that advertising is a waste of money, because style is advertising, and ads often make money, lots of it.

Oh $%& here comes the Edsel (there's some ammo for you) Did I mention the word "wrong" yet?

ADRIADIC,

When it comes to manufacturing real diesel freight locomotives, neither "style" nor "aerodynamic efficiency", is a factor. The freight train speeds do not exceed 80MPH in the U.S. and Canada. Those compound curves of the olde "E" and "F" Unit "carbody style" units would be WAY TOO costly to manufacture today, and there really is no need/requirement in todays modern railroading anyway.

    Unless I read the numbers wrong, I see why they don't care, they seem to be in the profit range of the rail barons already.

Adriatic posted:

    Unless I read the numbers wrong, I see why they don't care, they seem to be in the profit range of the rail barons already.

The "rail barons",,,,,,,sure.   Since you seem to be into "numbers", you might find it interesting that the "F" and "GP" type units, all the way up through the GP40 series of the late 1960s, were cheaper per pound then ground beef! A GP40 of 1970, at 250,000 pounds was about $242,000 fob McCook, Illinois. 

The current power recently from EMD do not look like the bodies of the GP35-60.  But with the looks of the safety Cabs, boxes for the AC converters, and flares for the cooling water, they look cool for me

Hot Water posted:

ADRIADIC,

When it comes to manufacturing real diesel freight locomotives, neither "style" nor "aerodynamic efficiency", is a factor. The freight train speeds do not exceed 80MPH in the U.S. and Canada. Those compound curves of the olde "E" and "F" Unit "carbody style" units would be WAY TOO costly to manufacture today, and there really is no need/requirement in todays modern railroading anyway.

I don't get it.  Automobile manufacturers have all sorts of compound curves in their designs.  So where's the stumbling block in doing it for larger vehicles.  

I agree, with whomever said that styling will get the attention of the public.  Isn't that what the auto companies do ?

Maybe I am hoping for a more idealistic world.  In reality, a world like that might do some good.

Hot Water posted:

ADRIADIC,

When it comes to manufacturing real diesel freight locomotives, neither "style" nor "aerodynamic efficiency", is a factor. The freight train speeds do not exceed 80MPH in the U.S. and Canada. Those compound curves of the olde "E" and "F" Unit "carbody style" units would be WAY TOO costly to manufacture today, and there really is no need/requirement in todays modern railroading anyway.

Agreed

As a carbody agreed . I like the look, but absolutely do not ever expect that much effort to be poured into a loco of that type for a long time. And I'm sure being at the throttle of a "Japanese Puppy train" is not exactly what you want to be running daily (a premium pay?)  A modified short hood or cab roof could make a huge difference in appearance at much lower cost even "slapped" over top of a present design roof. Alone, I can hand craft a decent automobile hood in a day, and I consider myself an amateur. A loco hood might take some more time but that's still 150ish locos a year once attached. 

  I "sort of" did the math (but haven't really checked myself again yet, so "shoot" before I do) It is a choice that sounds like "settling" to me, at the moment. 

 "When profitable, it's a choice to not to use a styling on the panels, not a necessity"

So maybe my choice is to no longer say "Please don't tax and regulate my favorite companies so much Uncle Sammy".

   I'm too "into trains" to do that, but what about the general public in ten years? Today's youth is tomorrows vote, and taxes, along with other cooperative issues are easier to keep at bay with an outstanding public image. Which they don't really have IMO. It's OK, at best and dropping with every accident making headlines.

(Thanks for not dropping out after the edit HW, I'm not found of exclusion. And though not eye to eye here, folks I respect.... I'd be a true idiot to say I don't want to hear your view...Ahem... folks I respect are most likely to make me think some. If I get you guys to at least think more about the other position, I'm thrilled. You need not agree). U 2 BREEZIN' ) later maybe...."I'm out" for a bit anyhow

Dan Padova posted:

Hot Water posted:

ADRIADIC,

When it comes to manufacturing real diesel freight locomotives, neither "style" nor "aerodynamic efficiency", is a factor. The freight train speeds do not exceed 80MPH in the U.S. and Canada. Those compound curves of the olde "E" and "F" Unit "carbody style" units would be WAY TOO costly to manufacture today, and there really is no need/requirement in todays modern railroading anyway.

I don't get it.  Automobile manufacturers have all sorts of compound curves in their designs.  So where's the stumbling block in doing it for larger vehicles.  

For starters, the smaller & thinner sheets of metal (notice I did state STEEL) for automobiles, are stamped in huge high volume stamping presses. The thicker steel sheets in the nose of modern freight diesel units is MUCH thicker, plus MUST be backed up by HUGE internal collision posts, capable of deflecting somewhere in the neighborhood of one million pounds, designed so as to protect cab-crews. The idea is to deflect forces up and over the front cab. Thus, it would be EXTREMELY expensive to make an "E" or "F" Unit front nose comply with todays mandated "crash protection" requirements.

I agree, with whomever said that styling will get the attention of the public.

The "public" does NOT purchase, nor maintain, freight diesel units!

 Isn't that what the auto companies do ?

Well duh,,,,,,,it IS a "consumer product"!

Maybe I am hoping for a more idealistic world.  In reality, a world like that might do some good.

Really?

Double your pleasure with a double-ended broad-gauge B class. Built 1952-53 and most are still in service. Basically an SD7 with a different carbody. Not real handy for road-switching.