most unattractive looking BR diesels

[swt_passenger]

It might just be me, but I can't believe that we've got well into the 3rd page of this thread without any mention of the 66s.

(Ah! Perhaps that's why the title of the thread refers to "BR Diesels"!)

…and yet there are posts about electric locos, European locos, north american, etc etc. So as you say it’s surprising 66s haven’t entered the building...

 

[75A]

For me the ugliest is the Class 70 which always reminds me of a Tonks toy, I certainly wouldn't have fancied changing ends in the rain and dark.
Best looking for me, heresy for a Southern man, are the Class 52 Westerns.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

For me the ugliest is the Class 70 which always reminds me of a Tonks toy, I certainly wouldn't have fancied changing ends in the rain and dark.
Best looking for me, heresy for a Southern man, are the Class 52 Westerns.

Agreed.

Old school for me it was the warships D800 onwards

 

[norbitonflyer]

The much maligned Eggtimer

Not only because of its shape, but because it allegedly only lasted four minutes before it needed attention.

 

[Sun Chariot]

Not only because of its shape, but because it allegedly only lasted four minutes before it needed attention.

And BREL were left with egg on their face, after its shortcomings became clear

 

[gg1]

It might just be me, but I can't believe that we've got well into the 3rd page of this thread without any mention of the 66s.

(Ah! Perhaps that's why the title of the thread refers to "BR Diesels"!)

They're not ugly, they're just extremely bland. To continue my earlier car analogy, the 66 is the Vauxhall Insignia of locos.

 

[Mr. SW]

Loads of other British locomotives and trains hit with the ugly stick: District Railway F stock, LER/LT Standard Stock, early EMUs that look as if they've just had a couple of windows cut in the end bulkhead for the driver to peep out of, Yerkes tube stock that look like your grandmother's armoire of knick-knacks with a headlamp screwed on. CLR tube stock that looks like it's just received news of a great disappointment. But I digress: The class 47s look like they've got a great shouting mouth with that headcode box cutting into otherwise nicely proportioned cab.

 

[Strathclyder]

Conversely, the Pennsylvania Railroad seemed to own the "ugly stick", judging by its fleet.
Here are just a few: DD1, P5a, GG1, FF2, E44a.

I've been hauled by a GG-1, and yes - ugly in real life!

GG1? Ugly? Wash your mouths out, good sirs!

Say what you will about their looks, but their service record and longevity (due partly to planned replacements not being entirely successful; looking at you E60) is without question: January 1935 to October 1983 (48 years; both the A4s & Deltics' full service careers had come and gone in that time), and in that time had lived through WW2, the gradual post-war decline of the PRR in line with the majority of the established US railroads, it's fraught and ill-advised merger with the New York Central into the calamitous Penn Central and it's subsequent record-setting bankruptcy, then seeing out their final post-PC years with Conrail, Amtrak & New Jersey Transit (the latter not withdrawing their final examples until October '83).

We're not likely to ever see one of the survivors returned to working order either. Apart from anything else, their transformers were removed thanks to PCBs in the insulating oil. And even if one were ever returned to working order and all that would entail, there's not that many places you could run it (certain sections of the Northeast Corridor). So consider yourself lucky in that regard, @Tester; not many of us here can say that we were hauled by a GG-1 in service!

They're not ugly, they're just extremely bland. To continue my earlier car analogy, the 66 is the Vauxhall Insignia of locos.

Keeping with the car analogy, that would make the 59s either the Vauxhall Vectra (the Insignia's predecessor) or the Lotus Carlton (in reference to the 59's comparative scarcity and performance relative to it's contemporaries) of the diesel world.

 

[Tester]

So consider yourself lucky in that regard, @Tester; not many of us here can say that we were hauled by a GG-1 in service!

I absolutely do!

Not quite in service. It was indeed October 1983, and an end of service special. But pure serendipity - I happened to be in New York (my first trip) and saw it advertised.

 

[Strathclyder]

This is the BL2 I referred to upthread. An unhappy-looking compromise between a cowl & hood unit which was unreliable to boot. Only 59 were ever built (that's including a BL1 prototype) which compared to the thousands of F7s EMD pumped out, is penny numbers.

Safe to say EMD learned from this blunder for the following GP7! At least 7 survive in preservation iirc.

…and yet there are posts about electric locos, European locos, north american, etc etc. So as you say it’s surprising 66s haven’t entered the building...

Am surprised, unless I've totally missed it, that no Irish diesel (Northern or Republic) has been brought up at all either given electric, North American & continental European locos have all been mentioned/discussed. To me, the 201s resemble a 59/66 & 67 hybrid (the cab windows and bogies of the former, the overall cab shape of the latter and the corrogated bodysides of both; hardly surprising given the shared EMD heritage of all four). All told, I think it's a slightly better appearence than that of the 67s tbh (which really do resemble a upturned skip), but I'm not that crazy about it overall.

I absolutely do!

Not quite in service. It was indeed October 1983, and an end of service special. But pure serendipity - I happened to be in New York (my first trip) and saw it advertised.

Ah fair enough. Would've been with New Jersey Transit wouldn't it, as both Conrail & Amtrak had retired their GG1s by then.

 

[SuspectUsual]

Not really a question of being attractive or unattractive, but I've always thought the footsteps set into the cab front of 31s and 50s make them look like they've got a sad expression on them

 

[Sun Chariot]

Gas Turbines 18000 and GT3 were, to me, darned ugly. 18100 less so, purely due to its brutish purposeful stance.

 

[Strathclyder]

Gas Turbines 18000 and GT3 were, to ne, darned ugly. 18100 less so, purely due to its brutish purposeful stance.

It may simply be due to them being built by Metrovick within a few years of each other, but 18100 looks like a longer CIE 001/A or 201/C class diesel (it's mostly the cab and bodyside portholes that remind me). Certainly looks like a purposeful design compared to the ahem, distinctive, Co-Bos.

 

[Sun Chariot]

It may simply be due to them being built by Metrovick within a few years of each other, but 18100 resembles longer CIE 001/A & 201/C class diesels (it's mostly the cab and bodyside portholes that remind me). Certainly looks like a purposeful design compared to the ahem, distinctive, Co-Bos.

I'd say 18100 closer resembles the CIE 101 class, particularly from the front.

 

[Tester]

Ah fair enough. Would've been with New Jersey Transit wouldn't it, as both Conrail & Amtrak had retired their GG1s by then.

That is correct.

 

[Strathclyder]

I'd say 18100 closer resembles the CIE 101 class, particularly from the front.

Ah but of course, can't unsee it now that you've pointed it out to me.

That is correct.

Which GG1 hauled you? I know at least one was restored to it's former PRR Tuscan Red livery in the late 70s (#4877 if I recall right).

 

[Tester]

Which GG1 hauled you? I know at least one was restored to it's former PRR Tuscan Red livery in the late 70s (#4877 if I recall right).

That I can't remember.

I collect track rather than haulage - so no meticulous records. It was just a fun thing that I happened to be in the right place for!

A quick bit of research suggests that 4877, 4879 and 4882 were active on the day.

 

[Vilhelm22]

I've always detested Class 67s which I find hideous. I like Warships, but I think that's partially because it's the only British model train I've got in an inherited H0 collection.

 

[Bonbonbalinski]

For me it’s the warships, horrible things.

Strongly agree on this

 

[Yorkshire09876]

I've always detested Class 67s which I find hideous.

They wouldn't win a beauty contest, but I don't think they are that bad!

70s are definitely a lot uglier. From the BR era, 58s are pretty ugly too.

 

[Ashley Hill]

The split box D600s were not easy on the eye.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Don't get the 58 hate myself. Sure, they could have used a bit more flair when designing the light clusters rather than the low-effort design they ended up with, but I think they look purposeful and aggressive- ideal for a heavy freight loco.

 

[Sun Chariot]

Straying OT: it wasn't the BR era and it was only partly diesel...
The Kitson-Still diesel / steam hybrid locomotive was, to my eyes, ungainly and ugly from just about every angle.

LNER Encyclopedia: The Experimental Kitson-Still Steam/Diesel Hybrid Locomotive

Describes the Experimental Kitson-Still Steam/Diesel Hybrid Locomotive

www.lner.info

 

[Taunton]

The split box D600s were not easy on the eye.

This is true of all the types that had split boxes. Given that by the time they were implemented the whole idea of access between units through end doors had been given up I wonder they just weren't just rebuilt with plain ends when the indicators were introduced.

 

[Iskra]

I find the Class 41 HST prototype pretty ugly, in stark contrast to the sleak Class 43.

 

[Sun Chariot]

This is true of all the types that had split boxes. Given that by the time they were implemented the whole idea of access between units through end doors had been given up I wonder they just weren't just rebuilt with plain ends when the indicators were introduced.

You read my mind.
Other than the D325 to D344 batch of class 40s, which just seemed to avoid the ugly stick, I found other "splitties" ugly.
I never understood why the Peaks perpetuated in split box construction even when not built with connecting doors.

 

[Tetragon213]

I find the Class 41 HST prototype pretty ugly, in stark contrast to the sleak Class 43.

Heresy!

If I was to pick out a particular diesel that I really didn't like on aesthetics, I'd probably say the Class 13s. Those things were just plain weird to my eye!

 

[norbitonflyer]

You read my mind.
Other than the D325 to D344 batch of class 40s, which just seemed to avoid the ugly stick, I found other "splitties" ugly.
I never understood why the Peaks perpetuated in split box construction even when not built with connecting doors.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I rather like the split box 37s - probably because they were some of the first diesels I remember.

Early "Sulzers" don't look as if anyone really designed them at all, just plonked radiator grills on the bodysides at random, whereever they felt like it. The later ones, with the larger middle windscreen, were a great improvement.

 

[Ashley Hill]

Split box 37s and 40s seemed to work but D600s ,D6300s and peaks not.

 

[norbitonflyer]

Split box 37s and 40s seemed to work but D600s ,D6300s and peaks not.

The split box 37s were designed that way, and I think the 40s used the same nose end. The D600s and the first few D6300s had them added some time after building, so they were a bit ungainly, but the later D6300s had them fitted from new and were better integrated into the cab front.