The BL2 may be unconventional, but she's not really ugly. Remember, hiding inside is a famous 567 V16 that runs like crazy, and a pair of Blombergs to roll her from hither to yon. Reliable you ask? She'll still be rolling looong after all those GE clunkers have been parked on the dead line in El Paso, and everywhere else ! U-rah !
Butt Ugly!! But that doesn't mean I wouldn't run this if I had it 
Attachments
Images (1)
That one looks like a gummint project !!
"gummint"
OK I'll bite....Whats a gummit?
Originally Posted by Adriatic:
"gummint"
OK I'll bite....Whats a gummit?
G-ment or government for "long version".
Originally Posted by jim pastorius:
That one looks like a gummint project !!
Form follows function. It's a cog incline locomotive and in operation the boiler would be level (vertical) due to the grade.
Rusty
Originally Posted by Adriatic:
Butt Ugly!! But that doesn't mean I wouldn't run this if I had it
Man, that is ugly. Looks like someone tried to mate an Apollo Command Module with a steam locomotive. 
George
Originally Posted by AGHRMatt:
Ugly locomotives.
- EMD BL2. So ugly that when it was born they slapped the parents.
- ATSF Class 1 Diesel as modified. A simple box cab was fine. What were they thinking when they did that new cab?!?!?
- Baldwin AS616. Looks like something a kid would do with three building blocks and a couple of sets of wheels for Pete's Sake.
- DL-109. If you're going to try to knock-off EMD's E-units, you can do better than that.
Absolute agree on the BL2.
How about the PA's? Those noses are pretty bad. Pinnochio's got nothing on them.
George
Originally Posted by Adriatic:
Butt Ugly!! But that doesn't mean I wouldn't run this if I had it
LOL is that a Lady sitting in the tender? Maybe in the day this was a fashion statement... sort of like Crocs today 
...
I am sorta with Hot - don't much care for locomotives built after the 1950s.
Who is this guy who keeps blaspheming the PA? I think we should excommunicate him! Along with those guys who hate cab forwards!
Joke! Too bad I have to add that. Opinion.
Originally Posted by G3750:
Looks like someone tried to mate an Apollo Command Module with a steam locomotive.
George
Your right. I wonder if Lee Willis has seen this....or if he is responsible for it
Originally Posted by bob2:
I think we should excommunicate him!
Nooo!
I don't wanna communicate with the ex.
Yeech!! So much negativity! No locomotives are ugly, they're all beautiful in their own way. 
But at one time, I never liked the N&W "J", it seemed too plain to me. I always resisted buying the model 'just to add to the collection'. That is, until I visited Roanoke, and got to see and touch and climb into and all over it. It was love at first sight! Now I own a Legacy "J" and a Class "A". Who knew?!
BTW, I don't own one, but now I'm going to look for a BL-2!
Originally Posted by catnap:
Any high hood diesel.
Eye of the beholder situation, I grew up with Florida East Coast high hood units and thought the first low hood unit looked strange. High hood gets in your blood.
Originally Posted by Rob Leese:
So far, nobody has remembered the weird E-8 b units that CN&W converted to cab units. They were referred to as Crandall cabs. I don't know if they ever received a letter and number designation, but it should have included the letters B, A, R, and F.
Co-worker used to work for C&NW.
He said it stands for Cheap and Nothing Wasted.
The ugly duckling...
Originally Posted by falconservice:
The camelback steam locomotives are ugly in appearance and in functionality for the crew.
Andrew
I've never seen a good looking Camelback Loco but they were used in large numbers by the CNJ, Reading and other Eastern RR's . They are prototypical and after a few years of when they were introduced, the FRA banned further manufacture of them. The engineer cab was to the side of the hot boiler so he roasted in summer. He sat over the drive rods so it was noisy and dangerous if a bolt or rod broke loose. The fireman was in the rear with a hood overhead and very little side protection from the elements. Those guys must have really suffered big time running those locomotives. I have no idea what the manufacturer wanted to achieve with these contraptions. The only advantage was slightly better visibility for the engineer. I cannot bring myself to run a Camelback.
I'm one of those guys whose motto is "I've never met a train I didn't like" so, while I would consider certain locomotives better looking than others, I wouldn't call any of them ugly.
I can see there are folks who don't like hood units but they weren't designed to win a beauty contest. They were designed to do a job and they've been doing it well for many, many years.
Bob
Denis LaGrua wrote: I have no idea what the manufacturer wanted to achieve with these contraptions. (camelbacks)
FYI, These locos were intended to burn Anthracite coal which required a larger firebox than soft coal burners. This left little room for the cab in the conventional location, so it was moved forward. Although a "doghouse" on one side of the boiler would have served the purpose, in the interest of esthetics, it was extended to both sides.
Originally Posted by Dennis LaGrua:
Originally Posted by falconservice:
The camelback steam locomotives are ugly in appearance and in functionality for the crew.
Andrew
I've never seen a good looking Camelback Loco but they were used in large numbers by the CNJ, Reading and other Eastern RR's . They are prototypical and after a few years of when they were introduced, the FRA banned further manufacture of them. The engineer cab was to the side of the hot boiler so he roasted in summer. He sat over the drive rods so it was noisy and dangerous if a bolt or rod broke loose. The fireman was in the rear with a hood overhead and very little side protection from the elements. Those guys must have really suffered big time running those locomotives. I have no idea what the manufacturer wanted to achieve with these contraptions. The only advantage was slightly better visibility for the engineer. I cannot bring myself to run a Camelback.
This tells me it was a functionally ugly as well as visually ugly. 
Funny, as soon as I read the thread title, I thought, "somebody will mention the BL-2." Guess it's earned it.
I always thought they were sort of cool looking. One of my favorite conventional locos to pull out and run every now and then is my Williams WM BL-2.
It grows on you!
Just a historical note (please, no one take offense): The FRA did not ban camelbacks - it was the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC), which was created in 1887 to regulate the railroads. The FRA was created 04-01-67. Some folks superimpose FRA regulations on the steam era when interpreting history, which leads to erroneous conclusions about what occured in the steam era.
Oh, and I like camelbacks......check Jersey Central 774!
http://www.railpictures.net/vi...id=376249&nseq=0
The trouble with all of this discussion about "what is ugly" is that it is purely a matter of taste.......whose taste is superior to anyone else's?
I just don't get all the un-love for EMD's classic BL2, when everyone is totally nuts for the Ingalls Shipbuilding version. Sorry folks, but this late '40s classic put it all together
in true "Every Model Delivers" style . While not exactly flawless, this chooch icon grows on you more and more...every day! The P2K HO model and WBB O gauge job are decent sellers to prove the point !
I agree. TheBL2 is classic styling from that period plus it increased visibility for the crew, which was a goal.
I find the CB&Q's older steam power pretty darn ugly.
The O1 Mikados and S1 Pacifics for example
Maybe not an ugly locomotive, but the patched paint job has to rank pretty high as being one of the ugliest. Dan
UP 6201 leads a southbound train at NIle, IL.
Attachments
Images (1)
Actually Dan, it's the GE inside, coming through that makes everyone want to BARF, including the crew! Paint is only skin deep, but GE goes to the bone !
even if this thread has became a bit quiet I thought I'll add my own opinion nevertheless and its right here:
the cab I can not mind but geeze who designed the ends? *rolls eyes a bit*
In my opinion, I really don't have a dislike to any, all though looking on this website, I numinate this. http://www.railpictures.net/vi...d=495232&nseq=34 & this one for me http://www.railpictures.net/vi...d=487110&nseq=42
But to ask Hot Water a question, why don't you care for diesel made after 64? I know certain ones are not that great and the diesel did take away steam. But to talk about today, just my $0.02, but certain engines I don't like either, but don't put them as ugly. But I do think Amtrak has a good selection, for paint scheme. But today I have to say how I COULD NOT LIKE THE NS HERITAGE UNITS or HERITAGE UNITS. It brings the original railroads paint schemes back to life. But I thought I would ask, Hot Water, what is your opinion of UP & NS Heritage Units, take away from the diesel part and just of the paint scheme? Also the only other engine I think is really cool and looks powerful are the UP DDA40X's and the UP Coal & Gas Turbines. I know Hot Water and other people have opinions, which makes railroading a joint adventure, which is why I ask Hot Water why he doesn't like diesels after 64. I'm only asking a question because I'm curious to know. Everyone has an opinion. Just like I think the best unit is NS SD70ACe #1069 VGN Heritage. Also to add, where I live, if I want to go see steam, I go to my layout, but for real railroading that's not that easy, unless the 765 comes back to Ohio, CVSR or NS Main. And then this year of the 611 and next year C&O #1309 on the east coast. So if I see trains, I'll see todays power, which I like because I'm young and that's what I grew up on, whicht he first railroads really for me were CR & CSX. But to continue, I don't have a problem about what Hot Water is saying, he has an opinion and I, and everyone else does, which is great. But that's what I like and that's why I like reading these types of posts to see different peoples opinions. Just like what one of the lines the Polar Express said, "One Thing About Trains, It Doesn't Matter Where There Going, What Matters Is Deciding To Get On".
Originally Posted by rural dragon:
even if this thread has became a bit quiet I thought I'll add my own opinion nevertheless and its right here:
the cab I can not mind but geeze who designed the ends? *rolls eyes a bit*
Is that a train? It looks like a Chrysler-Ghia, and an AMC Pacer had a collision.
Actually, I like the "Ghia" design, the fishbowl, ski-lift, cable car, cab has got to go
.
adriatic and anyone else wondering, yep its for real:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GMD_GMDH-1
and if you want one with one hood chopped away then theres also this which seem to share the same body pieces:
The only ones I really dislike for looks are the recent new high speed locos for passsnger service. Absolutely no class or style
Let me first say that this "what is ugly" thread has a little more interest to me than what is good looking. As for Butt Ugly, well I got to tell you it is a conglomeration of everything but the kitchen sink, but it sure has some charm! Some of the posted examples really make me cringe in horror.
ActuallyOriginally Posted by Adriatic:
Butt Ugly!! But that doesn't mean I wouldn't run this if I had it
I think I separate "goofy looking" from ugly. Here again, when I compare the BL diesel and Winan's, I see some charm in a goofy way, as opposed to ugly. But that's just me. Also, ugly for me now are my locos sitting on the ping pong table for 3 plus months while I am trying to rebound from my experiment at redoing my layout. That's down right sickening! in the meantime, I need to revisit your layout progress for medication.
sceneryOriginally Posted by J Daddy:
some of the early Winan's Camelback locomotives just look ugly...
like an outhouse on wheels!
I agree with you, pennsynut: "Goofy" can bring a smile to your face and a "What were they thinking?". Locos took time to evolve, and some of these ancient oddities may have been attempts at a particular improvement.
But some of the newer examples, like the red 6031 above - wow. 
Without question I give the UGLY award to any all versions of the FM Train Master.
But to each his own.
Originally Posted by OGaugedreamer:
Without question I give the UGLY award to any all versions of the FM Trainmaster.
But to each his own.
Hopefully you mean Train Master, as "Trainmaster" is a railroad member of management.
He might have been talking about his boss! The Train Master is a brutal piece of machinery, and FM wanted it that way for effect. That effect was substantially reduced with the chopped deck versions for Wab. and Sou. Rwy. GM turned the GP30 over to a group pf automotive men for it's unique looks. You're gonna love it or hate it. Hard to stay neutral about the GP30....especially the high nose jobs.
an emd follower/lover might know better but I think the reason the GP30 had that raised roofline was due to the extra brake and/or turbo related hardwares that otherwise would had looked like a sore humpy box behind the normal non-gp30 cab rooflines?
annnddddd....I still refuse to say anything about that bizarre donkey steam thinge whatever-its-called posted by Adriatic :-p
Originally Posted by rural dragon:
an emd follower/lover might know better but I think the reason the GP30 had that raised roofline was due to the extra brake and/or turbo related hardwares that otherwise would had looked like a sore humpy box behind the normal non-gp30 cab rooflines?
You would be incorrect.
