What was the most ugly?

Ah yes, another good candidate! That Ingalls loco had similar styling to the BL2, but made the BL2 look GOOD!

Dan Mitchell ============

Ouch! That's actually kind of hard on the eyes.

Or some diabolical machine out of a dystopian sci-fi flick.

You mean, like you could pull the shell off, stand it up on the cab end, and put a big statue of the BVM with a neon halo in it? Yep.

I don't... ugly is ugly, whether you apply the term to a railroad locomotive or to a runt in a litter of puppies! : )

dlm

I don't know. Sometimes a locomotive is so ugly it is charming - the tiny Midland Railway 0-4-0 saddle tanks come to mind. Can't say the same about the Bulleid Q1 though.

SNIPS

Wasn't it the BL-2 that looked like a cross between an F-Unit and a 55 Chevy??!? I always thought those were pretty ugly as well.

------------------------------------------------

Ouch! Shock!

In the "good looking" thread I posted my favorites regarding steamers and electrics, as separate "classes" if you will.

I neglected to post re "best" diseasels.

If I had my arm twisted so that I'd have to admit any diseasel was "good", I'd pick the GM EMD BL-2s as a best looking, with the Baldwin Sharks a close second.

I know that both were mechanical nightmares and performance disasters for roads which owned them. I guess I like the look of each just because they don't look like EMD Es or Fs or any Alcos.

I confess I can't tell an E from and F from an Alco FA or FP with a scorecard.

To me, those all look like caricatures of the drawing of the chubby cheeked steam engine in the Little Golden Books kid's book from the late '40s / early '50s "The Little Engine That Could".

And now I find one of my favorite diseasels on some uncouth and artistically illiterate persons (well, two persons' "ugly" list. ;-{

Again goes to show that there ain't no accounting for taste. Mine or Bill's or Dan's!

;-}

-- Jim McLaughlin

Please don't just hit the reply key. Remove the obvious from the address to reply.

On Thu, 6 Jan 2005 07:22:50 UTC, "William Pearce" wrote: 2000

Beauty (and ugly) truly are in the eyes of the beholder. Some items have such natural grace and proportion that most (but not all) would find them at least attractive if not beautiful. Others might be attracted by color and design while others (such as me) find a certain beauty in bare unadorned functionality. Personally I find smokebox mounted air pumps attractive. While not a fan of Coffin FWHs I find them functional and not at all repulsive. There are also some ugly items that have a weird charm all their own that makes them rather fascinating.

The ugliest diesel ever built in the USA was the sole Ingalls 4S that ultimately went to the GM&O. The ugliest diesels ever built in the world were the Krauss-Maffei units built for SP and D&RGW. They were too ugly to use in Europe, so they sent them to America. They turned out to be too fragile to use in America, so then they were doubly ugly.

EMD

The Krauss Maffei's even became more ugly once SP decided to make camera cars out of them. AND I Mean u-u-u-gly.... I understand that one of them still exists and is in the California Rail Museum inventory, but its so ugly no-one can get near it without serious harm being done. Kinda like radioactive ugly....

SP made a camera car out of only ONE of them. And as such, I wouldn't consider it a locomotive any more...just a special purpose rail car.

They weren't THAT ugly. As built, they just were not the EMD's, GE's, Alco's, or Baldwins that we were used to. I found them quite distinctive.

My nomination is that one-of-a-kind thing made by Ingalls Shipbuilding, I think it would up on the GM&O. Somehow the model number "4S" comes to mind.

You are quite right about that. Distinctive is the word. I rather liked them, but most people consider me a little strange.

That being said, what SP did to the one that became the camera car (and I think one brass manufacturer made a model of it) was really ugly.

And the second series of these machines were really distinctive and not as handsome as the first series.

SP's engineers at the time didn't help with the maintenance problems as they seem to take perverse delight in pulling couplers out, slipping the wheels, etc. The staff didn't want to learn about the hydraulic transmissions or learn how to use them. Fuel consumption was a problem also, or so I heard.

They were certainly better looking than the EMDs, GEs, Alcos and Baldwins of the same era - those completely lack any trace of style or imagination.

That's about how I see it. Both 'Beauty" and "Ugly" are in the eye of the beholder, and transcend category. And, yes, things that are "ugly" can still be VERY interesting, of high quality, functional, practical, or whatever ... just as things that LOOK 'beautiful' can be of poor quality, or downright evil.

And also yes, forms of moderate 'ugliness' can be charming or even cute when all factors are figured in. It applies to locomotives, autos, women, and many other things.

Dan Mitchell ============

Thank you very much.