Steam-loco chauvinism, and figures of speech

[Calthrop]

Something happened-on on an Internet site (not specifically railway-oriented), which occasioned for me a bit of surprise and delight. The topic being discussed was, why many people have a phobia about (it’s a US-based site) “bugs”. A post ran: “Someone or other remarked about a century ago that the problem with insects is that ‘they’re like French locomotives – all the works are on the outside’. ”

Regardless of people’s problems with our six-or-eight-or however-many-legged friends; I just liked this saying (and its generally “backwards” nature – likening insects to locos, rather than vice versa); and have a feeling that it probably came from a Briton: we, in the steam era, having long had the impression that with locos, we tidily covered-up – while the Continentals hung the guts all over the place on the exterior.

Though of course, it all depends on what you’re used to. Impression got, that Hungarian steam locos have tended to be very noticeably burdened with lots of vital parts outside, in a way which makes them to a British eye, ugly. However, I seem to recall reading about the CME of the Hungarian railways visiting Britain between the world wars, and being shown an impressive array of the LNER’s latest express Pacifics; and commenting to the effect of, “funny-looking locos; they put me in mind of plucked chickens”.

 

[krus_aragon]

I presume the Hungarian railways never built any streamliners, then?

 

[Calthrop]

I presume the Hungarian railways never built any streamliners, then?

Mostly, “truly so” – but at least with one small exception. I hope that the link at the bottom, might work – I absolutely am crap at this stuff: so if it doesn’t, I can only suggest “type it in yourself”, or “do your own Googling” ("Hungarian Railways streamlined tank locos"). A small class of streamlined 4-4-4Ts, for special purposes – including Hungary’s part in the Orient Express set-up. I gather that a few of the venturesome Western gricers who risked visiting Hungary in the 1960s, witnessed these locos performing on the Orient Express duty.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MÁV_Class_242

 

[Harbornite]

Something happened-on on an Internet site (not specifically railway-oriented), which occasioned for me a bit of surprise and delight. The topic being discussed was, why many people have a phobia about (it’s a US-based site) “bugs”. A post ran: “Someone or other remarked about a century ago that the problem with insects is that ‘they’re like French locomotives – all the works are on the outside’. ”

Regardless of people’s problems with our six-or-eight-or however-many-legged friends; I just liked this saying (and its generally “backwards” nature – likening insects to locos, rather than vice versa); and have a feeling that it probably came from a Briton: we, in the steam era, having long had the impression that with locos, we tidily covered-up – while the Continentals hung the guts all over the place on the exterior.

Though of course, it all depends on what you’re used to. Impression got, that Hungarian steam locos have tended to be very noticeably burdened with lots of vital parts outside, in a way which makes them to a British eye, ugly. However, I seem to recall reading about the CME of the Hungarian railways visiting Britain between the world wars, and being shown an impressive array of the LNER’s latest express Pacifics; and commenting to the effect of, “funny-looking locos; they put me in mind of plucked chickens”.

I have mixed views on continental steam. For example, I like some German designs but they never managed to beat the British for aesthetics.

Here's a Kriegslok (war locomotive), thousands of these were built for goods traffic by the Deutsche Reichsbahn. I think they look quite cool and they are massive by our standards.


I am also quite fond of the Deutsche Reichsbahn pacifics, such as the 01 class.

However, I find the German attempts at streamlining rather ugly. It's like a dumpier version of the LMS Princess Coronation.

Moving on, I also quite like the French pacific 231 and the PKP Polish state railways PM36.

I still believe that the British have the most stylish steam locos of all time, with the Americans in second place.

 

[Calthrop]

I have mixed views on continental steam. For example, I like some German designs but they never managed to beat the British for aesthetics.

Here's a Kriegslok (war locomotive), thousands of these were built for goods traffic by the Deutsche Reichsbahn. I think they look quite cool and they are massive by our standards.

I greatly like the "Kriegies" -- built by the thousand by WW2 Germany, as simply and cheaply as possible, basically as "throwaway locos" for desperate continent-wide wartime conditions -- light and low-axleload, they could go anywhere and do anything, and were in all aspects designed ruggedly and simply -- so simply that even "sub-humans" as per the
Nazi designation, could easily learn to drive them. Despite the "throwaway" idea, huge numbers of them survived WW2 and worked long thereafter on most of Europe's standard-gauge systems (and, regauged, in the USSR). I've experienced Kriegslok action in several East European countries, though not in their native Germany. Per my understanding, the type still hangs on in daily commercial service in coal mines in Bosnia.

I still believe that the British have the most stylish steam locos of all time, with the Americans in second place.

I'm not a big fan of the whole streamlining thing -- tend to think of it as a rather pointless between-the-world-wars fad -- not actually significantly giving faster travel -- which somehow caught on through much of the world: I tend to be a protagonist of "hang the machine's guts outside of it, that makes sense, and sod aesthetics".

 

[Harbornite]

I greatly like the "Kriegies" -- built by the thousand by WW2 Germany, as simply and cheaply as possible, basically as "throwaway locos" for desperate continent-wide wartime conditions -- light and low-axleload, they could go anywhere and do anything, and were in all aspects designed ruggedly and simply.

Despite the "throwaway" idea, huge numbers of them survived WW2 and worked long thereafter on most of Europe's standard-gauge systems (and, regauged, in the USSR). I've experienced Kriegslok action in several East European countries, though not in their native Germany. Per my understanding, the type still hangs on in daily commercial service in coal mines in Bosnia.

I'm not a big fan of the whole streamlining thing -- tend to think of it as a rather pointless between-the-world-wars fad -- not actually significantly giving faster travel -- which somehow caught on through much of the world: I tend to be a protagonist of "hang the machine's guts outside of it, that makes sense, and sod aesthetics".

I disagree on streamlining, it has its place and it does look good, even if it didn't achieve much.

Kriegsloks can indeed still be found in Bosnia (as class 33s), they can also be experienced in Poland where they are known as either TY2 or TY52, depending on where they were built. I'm sure that between 7000 and 9000 were built in total, quite impressive.

 

[Calthrop]

I disagree on streamlining, it has its place and it does look good, even if it didn't achieve much.

Rival opinions -- we can peacefully coexist.

Kriegsloks can indeed still be found in Bosnia (as class 33s), they can also be experienced in Poland where they are known as either TY2 or TY52, depending on where they were built. I'm sure that between 7000 and 9000 were built in total, quite impressive.

If I can be a pedantic pain -- Polish Kriegsloks are Ty2 if they were originally built in Germany, Ty42 (not 52) if built in Poland under German duress during World War 2. (Poland's steam-loco class designation system is IMO wildly complicated and hyper-logical -- I prefer the Yugoslav set-up [e.g. Kriegslok = 33], which was, just two digits per class, "end-of" !) I prefer locos still earning their daily bread in a commercial operation -- as in Bosnia -- as against it being nowadays a basically "entertainment" thing, as in Poland; but I'm unreasonably hard to please.

 

[Harbornite]

Rival opinions -- we can peacefully coexist.

If I can be a pedantic pain -- Polish Kriegsloks are Ty2 if they were originally built in Germany, Ty42 if built in Poland under German duress during World War 2. (Poland's steam-loco class designation system is IMO wildly complicated and hyper-logical -- I prefer the Yugoslav set-up [e.g. Kriegslok = 33], which was, just two digits per class, "end-of" !) I prefer locos still earning their daily bread in a commercial operation -- as in Bosnia -- as against it being nowadays a basically "entertainment" thing, as in Poland; but I'm unreasonably hard to please.

Yes that was it, TY42.

I don't think the Polish system is hard to grasp at all, PM is express, OL is mixed traffic and TY is freight, then the number represents the last two digits of the year of introduction.

As for your final point, I've seen in other threads what your stance is on the matter, once again we will agree to disagree because I like to see locos being used, whatever the reason. Having said that, Poland was one of the last real bastions of steam in Europe (non-preserved that is).

 

[Calthrop]

I don't think the Polish system is hard to grasp at all, PM is express, OL is mixed traffic and TY is freight, then the number represents the last two digits of the year of introduction.

Agreed, it isn’t rocket science; but Poland’s steam classification system does strike me as more complicated than any other such which I’ve heard of in Europe – packing in copious information: I can’t help feeling, more info than anyone actually needs for this particular purpose ! And what really cracks me up, is that for narrow gauge steam locos, PKP has a classification set-up on similar principles as for s/g, but functioning differently in some details. They couldn’t just use the same system throughout, and stick some letter on to signify “narrow gauge” – they had to do it the hard way.

I suppose BR’s steam class designations are fairly weird too: while Poland’s system was perhaps orderly and logical to a fault, ours was pretty disorderly and random – largely, inherited from the “Big Four” ‘s different approaches to the issue. The maddest classification set-up that has ever come to my notice, is that of the Queensland Railways: they used a capital letter to indicate the number of axles, followed by a figure, which was – of all things – the cylinder diameter in inches. Result was, QR's having classes called things like B16½ ...

 

[30907]

I've picked up comments on a German forum that some people find UK steam designs unattractive - so it works both ways (and I don't want to argue either way!)

 

[randyrippley]

they may be ugly with all that stuff on the outside, but it must make servicing and repairs a lot lot easier

 

[Calthrop]

I've picked up comments on a German forum that some people find UK steam designs unattractive - so it works both ways (and I don't want to argue either way!)

For sure – famously, “de gustibus non est disputandum”. And I feel that “what one is familiar with”, can play a big part. I recall a reminiscence by C. Hamilton Ellis of his youth in the 1920s, telling of an American lad, a fellow-student of his; seeing (whether for real, or in a photo – I forget which) a British 0-4-4T for the first time – the Yank’s instinctive response was, “it looks ‘all phooey’ “ – construed as meaning “looking back-to-front and just wrong”. Understandable, one feels – a kind of loco configuration which the guy had never hitherto experienced. If I have things rightly, tank locos as a whole were not common in North America, though they did exist there in places. There was in the US, the Forney 0-4-4T back-tank design; but this type obtained in fairly restricted areas, and presumably Ellis’s American chum had never encountered any such.

What steam loco designs one finds attractive or not, is a very subjective thing, and can greatly vary, and transcend national boundaries. Peter Allen in his delightful book On the Old Lines, comes across as unusually hard to please on this matter, “internationally” (he visited a great range of parts of the world, and took an interest in their railways) – it seems that like CHE’s American buddy, he had an aversion to the “back-to-front” look. Quoting him from the book: “For my part I take leave to dislike what I call back-to-front designs like 2-6-4 tank engines, or even mild and harmless 0-6-2’s and 0-4-4’s, and prefer at least symmetrical designs like 2-8-2’s or what I regard as the front-end-leading style in the form of 4-6-2’s, 4-4-2’s and even 4-6-0’s.”

Fair enough – he expresses his position civilly, and admits to it being a personal quirk: more acceptable IMO, than some of his contemporaries on the rail-authorship scene, who tended toward “this is what I think, it’s obvious that I’m right, if you disagree you’re a moron / heretic / nefarious person”.

 

[Harbornite]

they may be ugly with all that stuff on the outside, but it must make servicing and repairs a lot lot easier

Indeed, and this philosophy was pursued to an extent with the BR standards.

 

[Bevan Price]

The Class 52.80 series shown in the photo was extensively rebuilt / modernised in the 1960s by DR (East Germany). 200 locos were so treated.

The Class 52 was a simpler / cheaper version of the pre-war German Class 50 locos. The 52s can be viewed as the German equivalent of the WD classes on BR, which were essentially a cheap & nasty derivative of the Stanier 8F locos.

.

 

[TheEdge]

The Class 52.80 series shown in the photo was extensively rebuilt / modernised in the 1960s by DR (East Germany). 200 locos were so treated.

The Class 52 was a simpler / cheaper version of the pre-war German Class 50 locos. The 52s can be viewed as the German equivalent of the WD classes on BR, which were essentially a cheap & nasty derivative of the Stanier 8F locos.

.

Cheap and nasty isn't fair. They were the most basic possible engine, an 8F stripped to the bare bone so any metalwork place could churn them out ASAP. So things like the loss of a whole batch on a torpedoed ship was no great loss, cheap and quick to replace.

 

[Harbornite]

Cheap and nasty isn't fair. They were the most basic possible engine, an 8F stripped to the bare bone so any metalwork place could churn them out ASAP. So things like the loss of a whole batch on a torpedoed ship was no great loss, cheap and quick to replace.

That reminds me, I wonder if anyone has copped the 8Fs that are currently at the bottom of the Med, near Egypt?

 

[theageofthetra]

The Czechs had some fine looking locos, in particular the express tanks.

 

[AndrewE]

The Czechs had some fine looking locos, in particular the express tanks.

I thought the Germans introduced the idea of Express Tanks?

 

[Calthrop]

The Czechs had some fine looking locos, in particular the express tanks.

I thought the Germans introduced the idea of Express Tanks?

Well – ideas (if they’re not outright evil) deserve spreading, maybe?

My feelings re Czechoslovak express tanks, tend to be a bit mixed. The most renowned of same, if I understand rightly, were the class 477.0 4-8-4Ts. I’m “computer-challenged” in many ways: best way I seem able to manage of doing an illustrative link, is to a short YouTube sequence of Czechoslovak steam 1966 – 76 (if doesn’t work as direct link, hopefully typing-in-direct may do the job).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CYHSaWddVC8

IMO wonderful viewing, and if only I’d been able to be there... gives a couple of very brief 477.0 sequences. My first exposure to the 477.0 class was in stamp-collecting as a kid, in the mid / late 1950s: Czechoslovakia put out about then, a series of locomotive-themed, “ancient and modern”, stamps – including one showing a 477.0. My reaction to that on-stamp picture was, “Good grief, that is a seriously ugly machine”. And I wasn’t even at that tender age, a no-holds-barred “British clean lines” devotee – I was fine with the BR standard types. Just somehow, the whole ensemble of the 477.0 gave me the creeps, saying to me “sci-fi-ish monster from outer space / device from the far future, likely invented by aliens”. I suppose, the unfamiliar combination of headlamp projecting from middle of smokebox door / ample German-type smoke deflectors / prominent “access stairs” at either side of front end / cowcatcher / “skyliner” casing right along the loco’s top. And it seemed so alarmingly tall. Over the decades, my feelings about the type, changed; but I would still rate these locos “impressive, rather than beautiful”.

 

[talltim]

Love the way they pretend to be panning along the loco, but are obviously really filming the girl!

 

[Calthrop]

Shades of the 1966 Czechoslovak film Closely Observed Trains – a marvellous feast of ČSD steam, among other things !

 

[Taunton]

The maddest classification set-up that has ever come to my notice, is that of the Queensland Railways: they used a capital letter to indicate the number of axles, followed by a figure, which was – of all things – the cylinder diameter in inches. Result was, QR's having classes called things like B16½ ...

This was actually a method used by a number of British pre-grouping railways as well; descriptions such as the "load for the 17 inch Goods". As loco power of basic 0-6-0s progressively increased over time, generally by havimg larger cylinders, it was actually a useful way of defining capacity of different types.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LNWR_17in_Coal_Engine

 

[Calthrop]

This was actually a method used by a number of British pre-grouping railways as well; descriptions such as the "load for the 17 inch Goods". As loco power of basic 0-6-0s progressively increased over time, generally by havimg larger cylinders, it was actually a useful way of defining capacity of different types.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LNWR_17in_Coal_Engine

I'm not very knowledgeable about such matters "way back when" -- thanks for info. I have the impression that it was a seldom-used classification method in more recent times: in Queensland's case, the "halves" and I think also "quarters", have always struck me as comical. (I gather that there's a well-known "meme" current in the rest of Australia, to the effect that Queensland and its inhabitants are a bit odd !)

 

[Taunton]

Shades of the 1966 Czechoslovak film Closely Observed Trains – a marvellous feast of ČSD steam, among other things !

Ah, another fan of this film.

Especially the rubber stamps scene

 

[Calthrop]

Indeed -- funny, how there are bits of the film which particularly stick in the mind...

 

[Taunton]

I greatly like the "Kriegies" -- built by the thousand by WW2 Germany, as simply and cheaply as possible, basically as "throwaway locos" for desperate continent-wide wartime conditions -- light and low-axleload, they could go anywhere and do anything, and were in all aspects designed ruggedly and simply ... huge numbers of them survived WW2 and worked long thereafter on most of Europe's standard-gauge systems (and, regauged, in the USSR).

Just as a comparison, here's one which ended up in the Soviet Union as the TE class, on 5'0" gauge. There's quite a bit of detail different to the standard as built. It's surprising the Soviets never put an angled ladder over the front of the cylinders as they normally did to their own designs, such as the LV 2-10-2 coupled behind.

 

[Calthrop]

Just as a comparison, here's one which ended up in the Soviet Union as the TE class, on 5'0" gauge. There's quite a bit of detail different to the standard as built. It's surprising the Soviets never put an angled ladder over the front of the cylinders as they normally did to their own designs, such as the LV 2-10-2 coupled behind.

Most interesting – I do get the picture that lots of detail differences re Kriegsloks came about, in their war service and / or later, in the various lands in which they ended up. The tender of the one in your picture: I gather, a fairly uncommon type for the class – the more capacious, round-bottomed kind colloquially called the “bathtub” tender, seems to have been overall commoner with Kriegsloks. I’ve seen Kriegsloks in Poland – first-hand and / or in photos – with both varieties of tender as above. As for the Soviets never putting in access ladders at front – well, I have no doubt that all Eastern European tongues have a saying to the effect of “Aar, that Ivan, ‘e be a funny bugger, sure ‘nuff...”

 

[Taunton]

“Aar, that Ivan, ‘e be a funny bugger, sure ‘nuff...”

I doubt most Russians would have such a mild expression for a product of WW2 Germany. Even today.

The picture, by the way, is from the St Petersburg railway museum, where they appear to have one of pretty much everything, steam, diesel and electric, that ran on the Soviet Railways, even types not in Heywood's classic book. Open each day but normally deserted. The exhibits are outside (obvious from the photo) but maintained in good condition nevertheless. Here it is on Google Maps

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@59.9046851,30.3072726,185m/data=!3m1!1e3

 

[Calthrop]

Just as a comparison, here's one which ended up in the Soviet Union as the TE class, on 5'0" gauge. There's quite a bit of detail different to the standard as built. It's surprising the Soviets never put an angled ladder over the front of the cylinders as they normally did to their own designs, such as the LV 2-10-2 coupled behind.

“Drifting” somewhat: but, given rise to by your mentioning the designation TE for Kriegsloks – I find different countries’ class-designation systems, intriguing. That of the Soviet railways for steam locos, strikes me as being somewhat random and all-over-the-place -- one would have thought that the USSR if anyone: would have in this, made a big thing of being logical and systematic !

It would seem that they largely used capital letters, sometimes combined with numbers – but with no overall rational system, and no consistent corresponding between letter and wheel arrangement. A couple of classes were “initialled” after local heroes – for example ИС (IS): Iosef Stalin. ТЭ (TE) for Kriegsloks derives, I gather, from Э (letter “e” as in English “men”, or “pet”) – designation for a very numerous Russian all-purpose 0-10-0 class – prefixed by Т, standing for “Trofiya” = “war booty”. Oddly, the Soviet railways had a range of Е (Cyrillic letter pronounced “ye”, as in “nyet”) native classes, which were actually 2-10-0s – why they didn’t thus call Kriegsloks ТЕ in Cyrillic? – perhaps that would have boringly made too much sense... Re the rear loco in your picture: where they got the idea of ЛВ (LV) from for that class, appears unclear (seemingly it’s not after a person).

I doubt most Russians would have such a mild expression for a product of WW2 Germany. Even today.

Yes, that was a bitter business -- to put it no more strongly.

The picture, by the way, is from the St Petersburg railway museum, where they appear to have one of pretty much everything, steam, diesel and electric, that ran on the Soviet Railways, even types not in Heywood's classic book. Open each day but normally deserted. The exhibits are outside (obvious from the photo) but maintained in good condition nevertheless. Here it is on Google Maps

Thanks for Google Maps link -- fascinating !

 

[Taunton]

“Re the rear loco in your picture: where they got the idea of ЛВ (LV) from for that class, appears unclear (seemingly it’s not after a person).

I believe it was, the name was Lebedyanski, who was the designer of the preceding L class some years before. The design was later improved at the Voloshilovgrad Works, becoming LV class. Think of Black 5s being the S class for Stanier, and then the 73xxx later design from Derby becoming the SD class (no, on reflection, I don't think anyone could get away with saying the 73xxx was any improvement on the Black 5).

Soviet loco classifications often reflected Soviet political correctness of the era, the most notable being many electric locos being (and still being) various VL classes, for Vladimir Lenin. It had been Lenin who had said that "Communism is Soviet Power plus Electrification", although the first electric locos of this type appeared well after his death.

Lebedyanski must have stayed on the right side of the powers-that-be.