Ugliest UK diesel

I dunno - I find it rather appealing, in an odd sort of way. Ugly would encompass such visual offences as the Metrovick Co-Bos, the Brush type 2, the 1020x trio (what *were* they thinking..?) and the class 58. The design panel did some good work in the intervening years, though - the worst that could be said about the worst that appeared under their ageis was that it was dull (as witness the class 56, boredom made visible)

I dunno. Can I have the Kitson-Still here too? After all, it was a hybrid diesel-steam loco.

Tim

class 22/29

"ANDREW ROBERT BREEN" wrote

Beauty is very much in the eye of the beholder; only today I was looking at a photograph of a pair of Co-Bos on The Condor in the early 60s and was thinking just *how* attractive they looked.

Mind you I also like the Brush 2s (class 31s), class20s and the 58s, so maybe I'm just perverse?

John.

salvé "John Turner" skrev i meddelandet news:c2af51$st7$ snipped-for-privacy@newsreaderg1.core.theplanet.net...

Dear John, You're a Yorkshireman ofcourse you're perverse! I think the 02 and 08/9 are amongst the ugliest diesels ever on any railway the 02 definately requires a face lift, and just to be REALLY heretical I dont think the Westerns were very aesthetically pleasing either! Beowulf

give me a hug?!??! give me a hug?!?!

the "give me a hug award" must surely go to the 24 - looks like a great big bad tempered teddy :o)

Oh, comeon, how can you resist the sad, "I just need to be loved please", "please give me a hug" face of a 29? The 08/09 on the other hand...... yeuch! Strange then that I find the 20 quite appealing. Badger.

Definitely. Though I do agree with you re. the 20. As for the co-bo, were there 2 different designers doing an end each? Teehee. Badger.

I suspect it's the usual one with aethetic judgements - opinions may differ. After a deal of head-scratching I came up with class 221 as "most elegant", which I expect might put me in a minority too. That said, I've always liked the look of the 20s, so we can agree on that at least :)

Are we allowing units? If so, the 140.

All of them!

But especially the 58, 66, 20, 06, 24, 40,

Craig

I slightly prefer the 222 to the 220/221 - the front-end is only slightly different but looks way better to me - I think it's the bit beneath the coupler that sets it apart from the Voyager cab.

--

Separate category for units, in which case the 140 walks away with it really :o)

--

Not seen a 222 yet, but I'm not keen on the visual impact of the inside-frame bogies on 220. It looks - odd - to my eyes. Maybe, though, that's how Mr. McConnel's engines looked to folks when they came out.. ;)

Take a look at the current issue of Modern Railways, Page 84, bottom-left corner 0:o) Not that I have an ulterior motive for suggesting that, or anything....

--

Already did :) That said, to me 22x look a *lot* better in the metal than in pictures, so I'll postpone judgement until I see a 222..