Ugliness, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. There are no ugly steam engines, just unusual ones.
Pulchrum est quod visum placet
----Thomas Aquinas
|
Ugliness, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. There are no ugly steam engines, just unusual ones.
Pulchrum est quod visum placet
----Thomas Aquinas
The uglier the better, except anything with the PC worms on them, those are more then ugly, they are hideous!
It is true that beauty is in the eye of the beholder but it is also true that some people have pretty poor eyesight.
FA's, PA's and BLM's - all beat with an ugly stick.
So ugly only a mother could love them, and only on payday.
George
I know this will insult some people, but camelbacks are on my locomotives that got hit with the ugly stick.
Beauty is only skin deep, but ugly goes right to the bone !
Santa Fe Mutt & Jeff, Any G.E. after 1961, Alco C855, Any wide cab...starting with the DDA40X
Hot Water posted:Any diesel built after 1964!
And non-cab units built before 1965. Pretty well covers it.
"I wasn't going to work for a dang stinking diesel railroad" A.P. Gilsdorf, Sr. when explaining why his retirement date was 12/31/59.
Dan Padova posted:I know this will insult some people, but camelbacks are on my locomotives that got hit with the ugly stick.
Beauty is only skin deep, but ugly goes right to the bone !
Forgot about them! Yeah, you're right.
George
Most of the locomotives shown or mentioned here, I would not call ugly. They may be different or unusual or just unfamiliar. Most locomotives were designed to be functional first and aesthetics were often incidental. If we didn't have the variety it would be boring.
Some countries like Russia and China produced masses of locomotives of just a few standard classes and that would be something to complain about: lack of variety. Let's be glad we have variety instead of airing arbitrary personal preferences.
When form follows function, the practicality of design is to me beauty in itself - instead of being doctored up purely for show and symbolism like the WTC station discussed recently.
If all things were "beautiful" we wouldn't have a basis for comparison to differentiate and appreciate it.
I like the GP40-60 type body! Those engines have the form follow function look. Now, the GP60W looks like something from a horror picture!
Dominic Mazoch posted:I like the GP40-60 type body! Those engines have the form follow function look. Now, the GP60W looks like something from a horror picture!
What is the "GP60W"? I've not heard of that model.
As a friend of mine once said:
"Beauty is only skin deep, but ugly is all the way down to the bone"
I was going to say the GG1 must be prettier in person than in the photos, but I saw 4919 (even took a photo of it) at the Virginia Museum of Transportation in Roanoke years ago before the big flood...still "bone" ugly.
Hot Water posted:Dominic Mazoch posted:I like the GP40-60 type body! Those engines have the form follow function look. Now, the GP60W looks like something from a horror picture!
What is the "GP60W"? I've not heard of that model.
Asian, French, and British engines, and all non-F/E type units.
I do like most steam engines however.
Ace posted:Most of the locomotives shown or mentioned here, I would not call ugly. They may be different or unusual or just unfamiliar. Most locomotives were designed to be functional first and aesthetics were often incidental. If we didn't have the variety it would be boring.
Some countries like Russia and China produced masses of locomotives of just a few standard classes and that would be something to complain about: lack of variety. Let's be glad we have variety instead of airing arbitrary personal preferences.
When form follows function, the practicality of design is to me beauty in itself - instead of being doctored up purely for show and symbolism like the WTC station discussed recently.
If all things were "beautiful" we wouldn't have a basis for comparison to differentiate and appreciate it.
Ace - well stated!!! I could not agree more!
Anything not Union Pacific...
Don't throw anything at me... But I really don't like the looks of the Big Boy for some reason. The Allegheny, Y6b, M1, Hudsons, etc. all look gorgeous to me. The Big Boy not so much....
Ben
banelson posted:Don't throw anything at me... But I really don't like the looks of the Big Boy for some reason. The Allegheny, Y6b, M1, Hudsons, etc. all look gorgeous to me. The Big Boy not so much....
Ben
If I was good with computers I would paste a picture of someone throwing something! Can someone do this for me/us? Make it good! Maybe a 3 Stooges clip, or........?
any diesel after october 1960 with these two words.....
Ace posted:Most of the locomotives shown or mentioned here, I would not call ugly. They may be different or unusual or just unfamiliar. Most locomotives were designed to be functional first and aesthetics were often incidental. If we didn't have the variety it would be boring.
Some countries like Russia and China produced masses of locomotives of just a few standard classes and that would be something to complain about: lack of variety. Let's be glad we have variety instead of airing arbitrary personal preferences.
When form follows function, the practicality of design is to me beauty in itself - instead of being doctored up purely for show and symbolism like the WTC station discussed recently.
If all things were "beautiful" we wouldn't have a basis for comparison to differentiate and appreciate it.
On a different note, if all things were beautiful, we wouldn't have to worry about going on a blind dates.....LOL
Any electric built new for Amtrak, beginning with the E-60. The diesels aren't much better.
Amtrak's best looking power were the GG1s and Electro Motive E units inherited at its inception.
I wouldn't cross the street to look at an Acela or those hideous Siemens electrics they have now.
Honorable mention: Any high speed train in the world. They're all butt-ugly.
Pennsy Steamers except the 2-10-4 and the 2-8-0
SDIV Tim posted:Pennsy Steamers except the 2-10-4 and the 2-8-0
WHAT???
The camelback steam locomotive, amtrak locomotives cab forward steam locomotive.The bl2 looks like it started out as f unit.Then seems somebody could not make up there minds.The SAL Q3 mike hurt my feelings the very first time I saw a picture of one.But as it turns out they were pretty strong locomotive thou.
An ugly woman was used in comparison to an ugly locomotive. I would think, the ugly locomotive pushes just as hard as the ugly woman'.. does when operated by an experienced engineer'...
Quarter gauger- I used the ugly woman comparison but I think more in terms of race horses-not plow horses !!
Ah yes, the BL2 units. Kind of looks like an F3 in meltdown.....LOL
Jim, that would be comparing farmers to engineers'. Every farmer will tell you' Ain't nothing like a good plow hoarse'..(LOL)
WP&Y: I lived in The Yukon for several years. Saw WP&Y locos pretty much every day. Never found anything attractive about them. Not the shape, nor the yellow and green paint.
Glad to see I am not the only one who finds almost any "streamlined" steam loco ugly. They range from OK, like CP's very mild streamlining as on the T1-b 2-10-4, to the utterly repulsive Loewy-Dreyfuss atrocities.
The GG1 is certainly iconic. I never found it the slightest bit attractive though.
The Train Master was an imposing-looking, but unsightly box.
The Alco PA: How can anyone hate these??? They are gorgeous! The E8s were prettier though.
Prettiest diesel: E8. Ugliest . . . too many to even list!
There are precious few steamers that would not be better looking if they had an Elesco FWH up on the smoke box. My favourite steamers all have Elescos!
NYC steamers with the Selkirk front end. They seem to look as if they have constant pain and/or constipation!
SDIV Tim posted:Pennsy Steamers except the 2-10-4 and the 2-8-0
I BEG YOUR PARDON!!!!! Heresy I say... The Pennsy wasn't called the "Standard Railroad of the World" for nothin'. There is no such thing as an ugly Pennsy steamer - they did have some questionable taste in passenger cars, but that is for a different thread. If you have the Railroading Merit Badge on that sash, I think you should give it back (just kidding). Let's face it, the S1 and T1 looked fast while standing still.
Apples55 posted:SDIV Tim posted:Pennsy Steamers except the 2-10-4 and the 2-8-0
I BEG YOUR PARDON!!!!! Heresy I say... The Pennsy wasn't called the "Standard Railroad of the World" for nothin'. There is no such thing as an ugly Pennsy steamer - they did have some questionable taste in passenger cars, but that is for a different thread. If you have the Railroading Merit Badge on that sash, I think you should give it back (just kidding). Let's face it, the S1 and T1 looked fast while standing still.
Please remember that you are dealing with a Southern California high school person, that has most likely NEVER even seen a main line steam locomotive at work, let alone a Pennsylvania steam locomotive at work.
Access to this requires an OGR Forum Supporting Membership