Model Train Journal

To get things started:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bo-GfSh54wk

What? No PRR T1??

Dan Weinhold
Lancaster, PA.

Most of those "streamlined" steam engines look more giant *** toys. G4, Dreyfus Hudson still look like locomotives. I'd add the T-1 sans the the wheel skirts. GG-1 for electrics, EMD E8 and ALCO PA series for diesels.

A Bavarian S3/6 Pacific. Note the pointed cab front.

For the look of plain old brute strength, the NYC Niagara and the P&LE A2. Passenger Diesel: EMD E7. Modern stuff Genesis P42. Old and Unusual: McKeen Car. Small Steam: Southern Pacific 0-6-0 Green Boiler, PRR H10 2-8-0. BIG Ol Stuff DM&IR Yellowstones and PRR #3700 Mr. BIG 2-8-8-0. Freight Diesel: F3, F7 & C-Liner.

Here is a link to a photo of Mr. BIG....check out the smoke stack!

http://digital.denverlibrary.org/cdm/re ... 2/id/64065

The LNER's shovel-nosed Mallard always struck me as a particularly lovely, and efficient, design:



A Class-A4 Pacific, I believe it is, or was, the steam speed world record-holder.

Oh. yeah! The A4 is one of my favorites, too!

E7 wrote:For the look of plain old brute strength, the NYC Niagara and the P&LE A2. Passenger Diesel: EMD E7. Modern stuff Genesis P42. Old and Unusual: McKeen Car. Small Steam: Southern Pacific 0-6-0 Green Boiler, PRR H10 2-8-0. BIG Ol Stuff DM&IR Yellowstones and PRR #3700 Mr. BIG 2-8-8-0. Freight Diesel: F3, F7 & C-Liner....

Such an interesting point to make, E7. I've wondered what the place is for the brutes among the beauties.

In my mind, the older steam locomotives - before Art Deco designs and artists such as Raymond Loewy, streamlining, and "crack," named-trains zipping across the country - which were composed entirely of functional, practical parts that made the steam, provided the power, or propelled everything down the tracks, etc. I don't know that a consideration of an engine's "beauty" was part of the intention or design of them. Perhaps, there are plenty of us who consider them beautiful because they are such unabashed brutes and exude such an impression of raw power.

The streamlining had purpose, I understand, for decreased wind resistance (I don't actually know if that was a true factor in a locomotive's efficiency of movement) and for helping sell tickets, giving prospective passengers the impression (illusion?) of speedier, more modern travel.

I theorize the concept of "beauty" in an engine came about through streamlining and/or a fan's love of an engine, thus anointing any given locomotive with the award of being considered a beauty.

So, here are a few photos of some brutes and some beauties. I consider the brutes as beauties, beautiful in what they so unapologetically did, but I surely recognize the beauty of the engines that bore the elegant shrouding, too. In fact, my Dreyfuss Hudson (Lionel) and my N&W "J" (MTJ) are my favorites to run on the layout, both scale.

Real nice and interesting thread to have initiated, Roy, making potentially for some interesting viewpoint and informed sharing.
Murph

Murph said:
"The streamlining had purpose, I understand, for decreased wind resistance (I don't actually know if that was a true factor in a locomotive's efficiency of movement)"

Raymond Loewy did, at least for the B'Way Ltd, including wind-tunnel tweaking for the design.

In th beautiful brutes category, may I offer the L&N M-1 "Big Emma?"

rex desilets wrote:Murph said:
"The streamlining had purpose, I understand, for decreased wind resistance (I don't actually know if that was a true factor in a locomotive's efficiency of movement)"

Raymond Loewy did, at least for the B'Way Ltd, including wind-tunnel tweaking for the design.

In th beautiful brutes category, may I offer the L&N M-1 "Big Emma?"

Hi Rex, Good to learn that from you. Now you have me wondering about the rest of those shrouded locomotives. Perhaps, we will discover more as this conversation continues. Thanks for the speedy feedback!
Do you have any photos of the "Big Emma" engine you mentioned? I can't picture them from memory.
Murph

MurphOnMillerAve wrote: I don't know that a consideration of an engine's "beauty" was part of the intention or design of them. Perhaps, there are plenty of us who consider them beautiful because they are such unabashed brutes and exude such an impression of raw power.

I would have to say functionality and the ability to do the job the RR wanted to get done would be the 1st order. If looking good was in the mix, you just can't explain why the PRR would put a Belpaire Firebox on all of their own designed locomotives. The Belpaire was butt ugly, as far as I'm concerned.

MurphOnMillerAve wrote:The streamlining had purpose, I understand, for decreased wind resistance (I don't actually know if that was a true factor in a locomotive's efficiency of movement) and for helping sell tickets, giving prospective passengers the impression (illusion?) of speedier, more modern travel.

I'll go along with that since rail travel was huge during and before the war, and competition was fierce, particularly in the East.

MurphOnMillerAve wrote:I theorize the concept of "beauty" in an engine came about through streamlining and/or a fan's love of an engine, thus anointing any given locomotive with the award of being considered a beauty.

Personally, I think the NYC Hudsons and the Mohawks were great looking locomotives, along with the UP's 484s before the oil tender.

sleepmac wrote:What? No PRR T1??

Dan Weinhold
Lancaster, PA.

How about here, on my layout, moving through town alongside other such beauties?

MurphOnMillerAve wrote:In my mind, the older steam locomotives - before Art Deco designs and artists such as Raymond Loewy, streamlining, and "crack," named-trains zipping across the country - which were composed entirely of functional, practical parts that made the steam, provided the power, or propelled everything down the tracks, etc. I don't know that a consideration of an engine's "beauty" was part of the intention or design of them. Perhaps, there are plenty of us who consider them beautiful because they are such unabashed brutes and exude such an impression of raw power.

I theorize the concept of "beauty" in an engine came about through streamlining and/or a fan's love of an engine, thus anointing any given locomotive with the award of being considered a beauty.

Yes, beauty was a consideration, before streamlining. Please read up on William Mason, who built locomotives beginning in the 1850s.

Roy wrote:

MurphOnMillerAve wrote:In my mind, the older steam locomotives - before Art Deco designs and artists such as Raymond Loewy, streamlining, and "crack," named-trains zipping across the country - which were composed entirely of functional, practical parts that made the steam, provided the power, or propelled everything down the tracks, etc. I don't know that a consideration of an engine's "beauty" was part of the intention or design of them. Perhaps, there are plenty of us who consider them beautiful because they are such unabashed brutes and exude such an impression of raw power.

I theorize the concept of "beauty" in an engine came about through streamlining and/or a fan's love of an engine, thus anointing any given locomotive with the award of being considered a beauty.

Yes, beauty was a consideration, before streamlining. Please read up on William Mason, who built locomotives beginning in the 1850s.

Oh, Thank you. I will take a look and , hopefully, learn more about this.
Googling: "William Mason locomotives," I was happily reminded of that whole circa of locomotives (see photo below, provided by you previously, I believe), and to quote Arthur Wallace, from his book, "Mason Steam Locomotives," such locomotives were, "considered the finest in form and function, the 'Rolls Royces' of the day." That instructs me that, of course, other designers of locomotives in those days did, in fact, give considerable importance to their beauty. That's an important fact to add to the chronology of the whole history of locomotive design

I am still wondering, and suggesting, that such a consideration as beauty may have been absent from later brutes, such as this other, later locomotive, see at the bottom, here, where function took precedence over form. ??????