Best looking loco (ex6201 Lizzie overhaul thread)

I suspect Collett doesn't get criticised for rebuilding Churchward's prototype locos because the GWR had a such a poor record of preserving locos that the alternative would have been the cutter's torch.

 

Most elegant 4-6-0!

 

I don't understand why there wasn't more enthusiasm for using the boiler from M&GN 50 to make a rebuild of M&GN 50, a class C Johnson 4-4-0. Especially given they were virtually identical to a Midland Railway 1808 class, so could have masqueraded in the Midland livery also.

 

Certainly an attractive loco. Though as 4-6-0s are concerned, I've always been rather taken by the Maunsell N15x rebuilds of the Billinton L class tank engine. (And they were genuine rebuilds incorporating just about everything reusable from the originals, not simply an accountancy job...) A rare example of both original and rebuilds of a loco being equally handsome.



and



(Source: http://1920slocomotives.blogspot.co.uk/2014/04/in-memory-1914.html and http://mikemorant.smugmug.com/keyword/n15x)

Tom

 

best 4-6-0

 

It might well have been the best performer. Pity that we are unable to test it. As for best looking, I am not too sure. It would win the prize for having the best looking nameplate though.

 

Al in all, we've got a pretty good selection of attractive locos in this country. I've already spouted on at length about my Edwardian/late Victoran favourites, but coming to more recent times, I rather like the look of the BR4 80xxx 2-6-4 tanks locos and the 82xxx 2-6-2Ts as well. Any other takers or am I alone here?

 

I do like the std 4mt tanks, no idea why, but just looks 'good!'

 

I wonder how much it is possible to mentally disentangle "looks good" from "performs well"? In other words, would one still consider the 80xxx tanks to be good looking if they had actually performed like dogs?

Interesting sub thread: are there any locos people think are really good looking but which were rotten in practice? And vice versa - any locos that looked like dogs, but went like, ahem, the dogs conkers?

Tom

 

For the last, how about the SR Q1?

 

I have absolutely no idea as to its performance, I can't imagine that would influence me much. I knows diddly bob about loco performance for anything...

 

best looking loco?

GWR 0-4-2 tank.

Nothing superfluous and nothing missing from a fine looking engine. And one that was more than up to the task.

Nothing more to be said on the subject.

 

Would the WD 2-8-0/2-10-0 count? I wouldn't say that they're ugly. In fact Id say they have a nice look to them, but get them above 25mph! As for good looking but not so good how about the K4's? Again not bad looking but they had a reputation for being 'a wee bit rattly'.

 

.. and another contender:



Note the valve gear for the inside cylinder, on the rear driving wheel.

 

And my final contender:

 

Tom makes a very valid point. Also it depends on the areas of the steam locomotive that attract the interest of the individual onlooker. A bit of an example. Take the A4 design. Some like the design in original form with single chimney exhaust, they really cannot take to the double chimney version. Others don't mind either form. I understand the development of the design but really only really appreciate the double chimney form but this appreciation owes nothing to looks but rather to the fact that it is by far the superior system.
This is all eye of the beholder stuff in the main. Few on this forum I suspect would find a 141R to be better looking than a British 5MT (choose your exact type in accordance with your own individual regional or company preferences). Well, yes, I'll vote for the R. Why? Because it contains a range of features and mechanical advances not to be found on our indigenous product.
I can look at L D Porta's proposed triple expansion 2-10-0 and be hugely enthusiastic but can be equally enthusiastic about Haydock C because of what it represents in terms of the development of the piston valve.
As to locomotives just having pleasing aesthetic lines, well some just do. But my taste in line might not be yours. And the reverse is also true.

 

LBSCR B2s spring to mind. Your comments about LSWR 330 in aprevious post were (presumably) in jext, but Drummond did managed to improve the appearance of his 4-6-0s but not the performance!

 

Hmmm, from the earlier era the B12/3 is a good looker, I'd also throw in Robinsons Jersey Lily Atlantics too.

OK, OK, I confess a bias towards the products of Gorton, being one myself....

From later engines you can't beat a rebuilt Scot / Patriot (same engines really).

Oh and any Big, Ugly Freight Loco.....

 

Very difficult. My favourites? Stirling Single, Smellie Big Bogie, GER Super Claud (especially the two Royal Clauds in peak LNER condition). LNER V2, A3 in late BR condition, B1 and B12/3 - and as a wild card GW 15xx. And the humble J17 and J39.

But there are so many! I even quite like the Thompson Pacifics - much more than those who had to maintain them, anyway.

It'd be harder to list locos I find really ugly. The previously mentioned Drummond 330's. Original Royal Scots (I quite like Patriots, though). The L&YR 0-8-0's and 2-6-2 tanks. Not really a fan of the P2 in any of their various forms. Most of the early LNWR compounds look wrong, but I have an affection for the 3-cyl 0-8-0's. Crab's, Standards, etc that some people hate I don't mind at all.