Why Are Newer Locomotives So Ugly

Excellent points, Mr. Hazen! You covered all the points I would've made, and I couldn't have said it better.

Incidentally, I'd be very curious to hear Mr. Hazen's thoughts on the first new GE-powered passenger locomotive built for North American use since the Genesis series...

Photo by Bill Cronenberg: http://hostthenpost.com/uploads/055eaf8 ... 6a30fe.jpg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It looks very much like a Gensis with a revised front-end. ... The "artist's impressions" published when the contract for the original Genesis was announced showed a more bulbous front end than what was actually built: somebody apparently thought that (both for initial cost and for dent repairs) it would be better to have a design without complex curves. (Hmm... that should make things easier for modelers as well. Supposedly the as-built Genesis carbody is entirely made up of planes and bits of cylindrical or conical surfaces. Has anyone here tried to make a model of a Genesis out of cardstock or sheet styrene?) Interesting that the new design has complex curvature on the nose!

***GUESSWORK: I suspect the structural design of the carbody is similar to that on the Genesis as well, not just the appearance.***

I think the sloping "forehead" is weak-looking: a raised central headlight would, I think, improve the looks. (Or, if thats where the horn is, a more prominent cover for it. Compare the British Rail Class 44 and Class 56 diesels: very similar carbody, but the 47 has a slightly raised vent-- not surewhether it is for ventilation or a cover for an air horn) over the cab windscreens, and the 56 is "bald" there. I think the "lowbrow" look to the Class 56 "face" is a weak point, aesthetically, and have similar feelings about this one.) But that's taste on my part: I can't give a principled account of WHY I think it looks good or bad.

Over-all... At least a B+. (Then again, I'm one of the people who think the Genesis isn't a bad-looking locomotive.)

... Further thoughts. Ventilation openings on rear of side are -- as GE radiator-area openings tend to be, particularly as designs develop over time -- sort of a mish-mash. Genesis design tried for elegance here, with a simple rectangle covered by a grill. And a real Genesis-fan will miss the elegant blending of the fuel tank sides with the side walls.

... I'd like to see an overhead view of this. The Genesis -- there's a viaduct at 125th street in NYC from which I have seen Amtrack's P32AC units a few times -- is a good-looking locomotive from an overhead view: very clean lines. I suspect this one is similar.

Of course, "beauty" isn't the only aesthetic concept. There is also... well, let's call it "gnarliness." Sometimes the gnarly is almost ugly, but it can still be something to look for. The "romantic" tendency in art looked away from "classicism's" search for beautiful images, seeking instead gnarly ones: wilderness scenes with deep gorges and jagged rocks. (Think of the "Hudson River School" of painters in the 19th C U.S.) The gnarly is (maybe a special kind of?) the "picturesque." Think of a New England farm house. Perhaps, when it was first built, it had a kind of classical beauty: neat, symmetric, well-proportioned.... Now think of it a century and a half later: repeatedly extended by sheds and lean-tos, no two with the same roof-line or matched siding. It is not beautiful, anymore, I'd say. It is gnarly. (But still brings joy to the heart of the visitor to Vermont who sees it: beauty ISN'T the only kind of aesthetic good!)

Some (but not, I think, all) ugly locomotives are gnarly. Consider the Alco C-636. (The humps and bumps of its roofline certainly remind me of that Vermont farm house with its extensions!)

Once again, Mr. Hazen, we are in complete agreement.

I reminded of the day (which I can still remember VIVIDLY) when I saw a GE U-Boat for the very first time. The first words out of my mouth were "What the hell is THAT?" and I recall thinking to myself "Ugh, that thing is NOT pretty..."

A few short moments later, the engineer throttled up. The sound, which was like nothing I had ever heard before, completely drowned out the sounds from the EMDs in the consist. And then, it happened: 10 feet of flames erupted from the exhaust stack. I was mesmerized. Not sure whether I should take a picture or run for my life!

I've been in love with U-Boats ever since.

And now that I've had years to study them and appreciate their uniqueness, I no longer consider them ugly. Some of them I consider a little gnarly, but I appreciate everything about them. Sometimes a locomotive with quirky features is just more interesting than a beauty queen (EMD E9) or a bodybuilder (EMD SD45).

MEC407 wrote:Incidentally, I'd be very curious to hear Mr. Hazen's thoughts on the first new GE-powered passenger locomotive built for North American use since the Genesis series...

Photo by Bill Cronenberg: http://hostthenpost.com/uploads/055eaf8 ... 6a30fe.jpg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I know I wasn't asked, but I find those new locomotives decent-looking.

My favorite of all time is an E8A.

Some of Amtrak's '70s and '80s locomotives were pretty heinous, but I find Genesis units much improved compared to, say, F40-PHs.

Speaking of gnarly C636s...

Morrison-Knudsen #5401 photo by Warren Calloway

SouthernRailway wrote:Some of Amtrak's '70s and '80s locomotives were pretty heinous, but I find Genesis units much improved compared to, say, F40-PHs.

I have to agree. I don't find the F40PH to be ugly per se, but it just doesn't seem very inspired. It looks like the box that a GP40-2 came in. The Genesis design has more art in it. And art, by its very nature, is more likely to bring out strong reactions in people.

Personally I've always found the C636 to be one of the coolest looking diesels ever. Although never a 'beauty queen', I always thought it had 'get out of my way I've got work to do' looks.
As for newer diesels I've always thought the GE Dash 8s and 9s as well as the ES line look cool.
Passenger locomotives?..... I live on Long Island surrounded by DM diesels.... don't like em....

This is the ugliest new unit in North America, in my view. (I know, it's a cab car, not a locomotive, and the rest of the train is very nice looking, but...):

http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=432302" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Mpxpress are cool looking locos, but the MP32PH-Q is just a slap in the face. Besides, what you see nowadays isn't any uglier than the Sharknose Baldwin. Oh don't forget the Aerotrain.

MPX wrote:Mpxpress are cool looking locos, but the MP32PH-Q is just a slap in the face. Besides, what you see nowadays isn't any uglier than the Sharknose Baldwin. Oh don't forget the Aerotrain.

Huh - I wouldn't say it's extremely ugly (http://www.rrpicturearchives.net/showPi ... id=3638785" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; is a good pic.) But, it does seem useless to put on a pretty nose when it means the locomotive has no more front platform, and therefore can't be used as a yard goat when needed.

Oh, these things are not intended to be used as yard goats! Is it important that locomotives designs be so generic that one design is expected to be used for everything? No wonder locomotives have gotten so ugly if that is the prevailing thought.

This new locomotive looks fine to me. And so did the Baldwin Sharks.

The Aerotrain? Not so much.

That Aerotrain nose is so high and long, you can't hardly see the track in front of the unit. I know. I've tried it.

The Aerotrain was so overstyled it is baroque. It is the railroad equivalent of a 1958 GM car.

If you want a road unit with big porches, go back to the classic roadswitcher body. I like locomotives with a little style to them, especially passenger power.

Les

Honestly, mutant locomtive from the 80s i.e. the M-K rebuilds for eastern commuter lines are the worst. There is nothing appealing about a GP-40 fused with an F45. And what NJT had is sickening.

Not quite the worst.

What about the "Crandall Cab" E8B conversions used by the CNW?

Now, that's epic ugly!

Les