Just been wondering why many of the early diesel locos in the UK had a nose, 
(e.g. 37s, 44s, 45s, 46s, 55s) whereas any modern diesel or electric loco I 
can think of doesn't. Having looked at a few photos of Deltics, the nose 
must have cut down the driver's forward visibilty quite considerably so can 
anyone offer an explaination as to why a nose was needed in the first place?

Thanks

Paul

Paul wrote:

> Just been wondering why many of the early diesel locos in the UK had a nose,
> (e.g. 37s, 44s, 45s, 46s, 55s) whereas any modern diesel or electric loco I
> can think of doesn't. Having looked at a few photos of Deltics, the nose
> must have cut down the driver's forward visibilty quite considerably so can
> anyone offer an explaination as to why a nose was needed in the first place?
>
> Thanks
>
> Paul



Not really answering the question, but it was English Electric that
designed locomotives with noses.  When they finally did away with noses
(class 50) the result was unreliable.  Its prototype (DP2) looked like
a Deltic and was reliable.  I think the flat fronts were required by BR
by then.

But I don't suppose the change in reliability was so much due to lack
of noses as to the other differences from the DP2 that BR may have
insisted on.

Paul wrote:

> Just been wondering why many of the early diesel locos in the UK had a nose, 
> (e.g. 37s, 44s, 45s, 46s, 55s) whereas any modern diesel or electric loco I 
> can think of doesn't. Having looked at a few photos of Deltics, the nose 
> must have cut down the driver's forward visibilty quite considerably so can 
> anyone offer an explaination as to why a nose was needed in the first place?


I have seen various stories about this - most believable are accident 
protection for the driver, avoidance of possibly hypnotic effect of 
sleepers passing below ...... the whole thing started with US locos in 
the 1930s, and possibly (sad to day) the designers were influenced by 
road vehicle design of the time.

One thing I'm sure of - the Class 37 is the best-looking British
loco of all time. And yet - it was no more than a quick job using
previously-designed Class 40 components.

The BR Design Panel were also influenced by car design in their work
on the Hymek and 47, etc. but who wants a Vauxhall Victor?

Now to 'don the flameproof suit' (people don't seem to use that
expression much these days maybe even a flameproof suit is
not Chippy-resistant :-)

Charlie

On Thu, 8 Sep 2005 22:37:06 +0100, "Paul"
 wrote:


>Just been wondering why many of the early diesel locos in the UK had a nose, 
>(e.g. 37s, 44s, 45s, 46s, 55s) whereas any modern diesel or electric loco I 
>can think of doesn't. Having looked at a few photos of Deltics, the nose 
>must have cut down the driver's forward visibilty quite considerably so can 
>anyone offer an explaination as to why a nose was needed in the first place?
>
>Thanks
>
>Paul 
>


I have read that it was to prevent sleepers flashing past at the
bottom of driver vision and so stop mesmerisation... seems a bit
tenuous to me though

"Paul"  wrote in message
news:NoCdnZ2dnZ3li1S_nZ2dnWYzvd6dnZ2dRVnyqZ2dnZ0@eclipse.net.uk...

> Just been wondering why many of the early diesel locos in the UK had a
nose,
> (e.g. 37s, 44s, 45s, 46s, 55s) whereas any modern diesel or electric loco
I
> can think of doesn't. Having looked at a few photos of Deltics, the nose
> must have cut down the driver's forward visibilty quite considerably so
can
> anyone offer an explaination as to why a nose was needed in the first
place?
>
> Thanks
>
> Paul
>
>


The prototype for the Class 50, DP2 had a nose, the production locomotives
didn't.  From reading Brian Webb's excellent study "English Electric
Main-line Diesel Locomotives of British Rail", the only evidence that points
to a reason for change is
<quote>
.....the order was placed in 1966.  By now BR had decreed that a flat front
body design was imperative, so DP2 with its Deltic outline was a non-starter
in this respect.
</quote>

--
David Wainwright
Web:  http://www.brsince78.co.uk
Email: david@-deletethisbit-brsince78.co.uk

Charlie Hulme  wrote in
news:Nn2Ue.5067$zw1.1195@newsfe2-gui.ntli.net: 

 

> One thing I'm sure of - the Class 37 is the best-looking British
> loco of all time. And yet - it was no more than a quick job using
> previously-designed Class 40 components.


A friend of mine, if asked about any aspect of a Modernisation Plan 
locomotive's appearance, will tell you, "It's to make it look sexy ..."

I must admit, locos with noses look the part more than a slab-fronted 
design. And that's from a 31 fan. I know, sad ...
 
Rick.

"Paul"  wrote


> Just been wondering why many of the early diesel locos in the UK had a 
> nose, (e.g. 37s, 44s, 45s, 46s, 55s) whereas any modern diesel or electric 
> loco I can think of doesn't.


Reckon it was all a styling exercise.  Certainly the class 20s (of 1958 
vintage) didn't have one, nor did classes 21, 22, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 
30, 31 and 35 all of roughly the same era.

john.

"John Turner" <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:dfqhi9$odt$1@newsreaderg1.core.theplanet.net...

> Reckon it was all a styling exercise.  Certainly the class 20s (of 1958
> vintage) didn't have one, nor did classes 21, 22, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29,
> 30, 31 and 35 all of roughly the same era.


Could well be.  After all, in that era steam drivers were used to having a
lot of loco ahead of them, and the same general design applied to lorries
and buses also.  I remember thinking the first "forward control" buses and
lorries seemed quite odd.  Also, weren't US diesels of that era much the
same?

One possible technical explanation that comes to mind is that it might be to
do with weight distribution, especially in the Peaks which were very heavy
anyway.

I should also point out that the 20s did have a nose - a very long one,
because the original intention was to run them like steam locos, with the
bonnet end leading.

Roger

"Les Brown"  wrote in message news:sm62i157h9l8akkfshjd0vn60bqbbf1nf5@4ax.com...

> On Fri, 9 Sep 2005 00:30:20 +0100, "John Turner" <nospam@nospam.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Paul"  wrote
>>
>>> Just been wondering why many of the early diesel locos in the UK had a
>>> nose, (e.g. 37s, 44s, 45s, 46s, 55s) whereas any modern diesel or electric
>>> loco I can think of doesn't.
>>
>>Reckon it was all a styling exercise.  Certainly the class 20s (of 1958
>>vintage) didn't have one, nor did classes 21, 22, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29,
>>30, 31 and 35 all of roughly the same era.
>>
>>john.
>>
> I think it's got more to do with the famous industrial designer Raymond
> Loewy, who seemed to have shown a preference for prominent noses on his
> designs such as Pennsylvania RR's steam duplex drive 6-4-4-6 6100 and their
> famous 1936 electric locomotive GG1.class. Until Loewy came along,
> locomotive noses were far less prominent, if at all. Since all of Britain's
> main line diesel locomotive were introduced well after America's, the
> American influence on the home designs is obvious.
>
> Les Brown



i always thought class 76's were the ugliest locos

DP2 was started somewhere 2/3rds along the run of the production
Deltics and took (ISTR) body shell No. 17 rather than the extra one,
No. 23. My late friend Alan Wright, who sadly died earlier this
year, was leading draughtsman on the 'Type 4-1/2', as the Class 50s
were known then, and the removal of the nose wasn't at all popular.

The EE designers and Vulcan workforce were very proud of their
almost 'trade mark' front end, which had emerged way back in steam
production days. Vulcan was then independent of EE and built EE
diesel electric locos under sub contract for the electrical giant,
VF being responsible for producing the mechanical and body parts and
the final erection and testing.

I can remember as a schoolboy some export diesel electrics running
on the multi-gauge test track quite visible from the public road,
and also chained down on to huge low loaders passing through our
town's streets. They all had that characteristic nose end and cab
shape, with two or three forward facing cab windows. They did indeed
remind me of the standard General Motors/EMD E & F series locos that
I had seen pictures of in my 'Boy's Wonder Book of World Trains'
type of railway books.

As for the Class 20s having a flat front, I'm told that these were
at first intended to be the equivalent of the ubiquitous Class 3F
0-6-0T, which could either shunt yards all day long, take a pick-up
goods along a 25 mile branch line or work local commuter passenger
trains to & fro, as required. It is interesting to note that the EE
diesel locos for East Africa were essentially a narrow gauge Class
40 with a hood-type engine cover and a single cab at one end ---
with a nose!

Was this for encountering rampaging rhino's along the tracks?  :-)


Regards,

DigitisED  (Eddie Bellass), Newton-le-Willows.

Mythical Merseyside, in the Occupied Territories
of Old Lancashire, United Kingdom.

Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free and checked
by a leading anti-virus system - updated continuously.

"Roger H. Bennett"  wrote


> I should also point out that the 20s did have a nose - a very long one,
> because the original intention was to run them like steam locos, with the
> bonnet end leading.


Aye but that didn't happen.  From the outset class 20s were used as single 
locos and operated in whatever direction needed.  I remember them doing trip 
workings through Sheffielf Midland station in the very early 60s, and they 
never appeared to be turned.

John.

"the REAL Trevor McDonut"  wrote


> i always thought class 76's were the ugliest locos


But plenty of us thought and think otherwise!  :-)

Fine beasts!

John.

Charlie Hulme wrote:


> I have seen various stories about this - most believable are accident
> protection for the driver, avoidance of possibly hypnotic effect of
> sleepers passing below ...... the whole thing started with US locos in
> the 1930s,



I've heard that too.

But it does not explain why noses were used in the UK (and on UK
exports) *after* the US diesel industry had shifted away from nose end
designs to road switchers before serious series diesel production
started in the UK e.g. the US EMD GP9 started production line runs in
01/54. The road switcher layout of those types were set back a bit so
there is a section of underframe right in fron of drivers low vision.

Nevertheless US had stopped using noses for mainstream designs before
BTC even ordered 40s, 44s, and stuff with noses. 10000/1 were old
enough to have come from the nose era - although the proper railway
managed 10201/2 without noses - and 18000 18100 were not nosed either,
but not the Modernisation Plan types.



--
Nick

Charlie Hulme wrote:


> One thing I'm sure of - the Class 37 is the best-looking British
> loco of all time. And yet - it was no more than a quick job using
> previously-designed Class 40 components.


There are currently some 37's at Bristol Barton Hill which are painted
all-over in some kind of neutral undercoat. I was particularly struck
by their appearance as pure sculpted forms without the distraction of
liveries and logos. I must agree that a great deal of care appears to
have gone into their shaping.

>
> The BR Design Panel were also influenced by car design in their work
> on the Hymek and 47, etc. but who wants a Vauxhall Victor?
>


However Western Champion in Golden Ochre (which was also at Barton Hill
last weekend) has to get my vote as the most visually satisfying
non-steam loco ever.

Andy Kirkham

Andy Kirkham  wrote:

> Charlie Hulme wrote:
> 
>> One thing I'm sure of - the Class 37 is the best-looking British
>> loco of all time. And yet - it was no more than a quick job using
>> previously-designed Class 40 components.
> 
> There are currently some 37's at Bristol Barton Hill which are painted
> all-over in some kind of neutral undercoat. I was particularly struck
> by their appearance as pure sculpted forms without the distraction of
> liveries and logos. I must agree that a great deal of care appears to
> have gone into their shaping.


There is something about the way the curves work on the 40 and 37 that
makes them look "right" in a way that (say) Peaks never did, although
the split-headcode and connecting doors are a bit of an aesthetic mess!

I thought the production Deltics (and DP2) reached a level of elegance
that only the Westerns ever came near as diesels - the combination of
solidity and that small, low-roofed glasshouse remind me of the 
of the car popularly believed to be the "Blue Train" Bentley (which
actually wasn't that car but something more standard... ;)

Never quite sure why people got so worked up over the Hymek's styling, I
always thought it was just fairly utilitarian with some nice detail
touches; nowt special.

pete
-- 
pete@fenelon.com "Obviously crime pays, or there'd be no crime"-G Gordon Liddy

In article , Pete Fenelon 
wrote:


> Andy Kirkham  wrote:
> > Charlie Hulme wrote:
> > 
> >> One thing I'm sure of - the Class 37 is the best-looking British
> >> loco of all time. And yet - it was no more than a quick job using
> >> previously-designed Class 40 components.
> > 
> > There are currently some 37's at Bristol Barton Hill which are painted
> > all-over in some kind of neutral undercoat. I was particularly struck
> > by their appearance as pure sculpted forms without the distraction of
> > liveries and logos. I must agree that a great deal of care appears to
> > have gone into their shaping.
> 
> There is something about the way the curves work on the 40 and 37 that
> makes them look "right" in a way that (say) Peaks never did, although
> the split-headcode and connecting doors are a bit of an aesthetic mess!


But the 37 has so many *holes* in it!  On the other hand the 37's nose
looks better than the 40's, mainly because the buffers are on the frame
rather than the bogie and the bodywork sort of flows better; the upward
and inward sweep of the bottom of the bodysides at the ends of a 40
always looks wrong to me.  

And then the grilles on the Peaks always seemed like a slightly half
hearted attempt at the sort of thing the SNCF did with the detailing on
the sides of their locos - all the big pointy arrows and the like,
<http://www.railfaneurope.net/pix/fr/diesel/67000/6667271a.jpg> for
instance.


> Never quite sure why people got so worked up over the Hymek's styling, I
> always thought it was just fairly utilitarian with some nice detail
> touches; nowt special.


Of the later BR "standard" flat front variants (Hymek, 47, 50) I always
thought the 47 came out best.

Sam

Why doesn't every one accept that most diesels are a cab at each end
and a horrible noise in the middle.

Sam Wilson  wrote:

>> Never quite sure why people got so worked up over the Hymek's styling, I
>> always thought it was just fairly utilitarian with some nice detail
>> touches; nowt special.
> 
> Of the later BR "standard" flat front variants (Hymek, 47, 50) I always
> thought the 47 came out best.
> 


There were some good bits of styling on the Type 4/5 prototypes; Falcon's
cab looks like a rather dull cross between Hymek and 47 and the body is
"all holes" but I loved the nameplate ;) Lion's fairly similar to a 47
as far as the cab's concerned but the body-sides are more elegant,
but Kestrel.... oh yes, that's an elegant loco all round!

pete
-- 
pete@fenelon.com "Obviously crime pays, or there'd be no crime"-G Gordon Liddy

In message , 
m1ss_wh1te  writes

>Why doesn't every one accept that most diesels are a cab at each end
>and a horrible noise in the middle.


For the same reason that every one doesn't accept that steam locos are 
just kettles, some of which tow the biscuit box along behind, I guess... 
;-)
-- 
Kenny

"m1ss_wh1te"  wrote


> Why doesn't every one accept that most diesels are a cab at each end
> and a horrible noise in the middle.


A class 76 doesn't fit that description at all.

John.

Thanks everyone for the comments - interesting stuff. Quite reassuring that 
the style and look of a loco was of some importance back then, something 
that modern traction seems to not take as so important (always thought the 
58s looked odd, with a bolt upright flat front), but it's all down to 
personal taste at theend of the day!

Paul

"Andy Kirkham"  wrote


> However Western Champion in Golden Ochre (which was also at Barton Hill
> last weekend) has to get my vote as the most visually satisfying
> non-steam loco ever.


Your opinion Andy, I never did think the Westerns were attractive, and still 
think they're the ugliest diesel (10800 excepted) ever to run on BR.

John.

D7666 wrote:


> But it does not explain why noses were used in the UK (and on UK
> exports) *after* the US diesel industry had shifted away from nose end
> designs to road switchers before serious series diesel production
> started in the UK e.g. the US EMD GP9 started production line runs in
> 01/54. 


Surely the GP9, especially in 'low short-hood' form - does have a 'nose' 
- just a differently shaped one?

Nearly all modern US diesels also have what looks to me very much
like a nose.

Charlie

Sam Wilson wrote:


> the upward and inward sweep of the bottom of the bodysides
> at the ends of a 40 always looks wrong to me.

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

Sam...

I think it was a necessary part of the design to allow ample
clearance of station platforms on curves. These included the
very first curved platform the majority* of Class 40s encountered
on their delivery run --- the 7.5 ch radius curve at Earlestown,
800 or so yards from the gates of Vulcan Foundry.
(* A handful of 40s (20?) were built at RSH Darlington).

This same curve is also a regular WCML diversion, which is
why it was electrified along with all the rest north of Crewe.
Many of the Class 40s spent their early years working WCML
trains, then in their later days passed through these same
curves on both Manchester - N. Wales passenger trains and
many & varied freight workings.

The Class 40 body (less buffers) is 8 feet longer than that
of the Class 37s so it needs a sharper taper, starting further
back along the lower body sides.

For what it's worth, a very recent reminder of this need has
been the passage to & from the ELR Bury of one of the
locos that the Cl 40s displaced --- Stanier 8P 4-6-2 No 6201
Princess Elizabeth. Both the Lizzies and Duchesses have
tapered front footplates and cutaway buffer beams to ensure
clearance of platforms, other lineside fittings and --- of course
--- other trains passing by on adjacent curved tracks.


Regards,

DigitisED  (Eddie Bellass)

Mythical Merseyside, in the Occupied Territories
of Old Lancashire, United Kingdom.

Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free and checked
by a leading anti-virus system - updated continuously.

In article <dfruve$17gj$1@godfrey.mcc.ac.uk>,
Charlie Hulme   wrote:

>D7666 wrote:
>
>> But it does not explain why noses were used in the UK (and on UK
>> exports) *after* the US diesel industry had shifted away from nose end
>> designs to road switchers before serious series diesel production
>> started in the UK e.g. the US EMD GP9 started production line runs in
>> 01/54. 
>
>Surely the GP9, especially in 'low short-hood' form - does have a 'nose' 
>- just a differently shaped one?


Well, the hood acts as a nose. What the US railroads //had// abandoned
with the second generation of diesels was streamlining, which is a
rather different issue.


>Nearly all modern US diesels also have what looks to me very much
>like a nose.


ISTR that the nose is required in USanina for protection in grade-crossing
accidents. EE certainly favoured the nose design for crew protection as
well - this may reflect their (substantial, by British standards) number
of exports to other countries where crossing accidents were more frequent
than in .uk.

So - a possible formulation would be that US firms introduced nose-
designs in the first generation of diesel-locomotive-hauled streamliners.
The nose was required for crew protection, the form of the nose reflected
streamlining styles. EE adopted the nose for crew protection in export
markets, with the design of the nose drawing heavily on the fashion
established by the US makers. The LM&S adopted the nose for 10000/1
because they were building the things as in close collaboration with
EE, and the later peaks got the nose because although they might be
closely based, bogie wise, on the SR engines it had to be made 
very clear that they were from Derby, dammit, and not from some
effete southern outpost.
Finally, the advent of a corporate image for BR required a corporate
look, and just as green, maroon and odd shades of yellow no longer
fitted, neither did noses. Hence the Honkerectomy suffered by the
EE type 4.5.

-- 
Andy Breen ~ 	Not speaking on behalf of the University of Wales, Aberystwyth
		Feng Shui: an ancient oriental art for extracting
		 money from the gullible (Martin Sinclair)

John Turner <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:

> 
> "m1ss_wh1te"  wrote
> 
>> Why doesn't every one accept that most diesels are a cab at each end
>> and a horrible noise in the middle.
> 
> A class 76 doesn't fit that description at all.
> 


Given that it's not a diesel, no. ;)

pete
-- 
pete@fenelon.com "Obviously crime pays, or there'd be no crime"-G Gordon Liddy

Paul  wrote:

> Thanks everyone for the comments - interesting stuff. Quite reassuring that 
> the style and look of a loco was of some importance back then, something 
> that modern traction seems to not take as so important (always thought the 
> 58s looked odd, with a bolt upright flat front), but it's all down to 
> personal taste at theend of the day!
> 


Haresnape's "British Rail 1948-78: A Journey By Design" has a lot of material
about how the Design Panel influenced styling. And quite a lot of
fascinating pics, not a 'techie' book (it's really about 'styling' not
'design') but a fun one.

-- 
pete@fenelon.com "Obviously crime pays, or there'd be no crime"-G Gordon Liddy

Andrew Robert Breen wrote:


> ISTR that the nose is required in USanina for protection in grade-crossing
> accidents. 


No danger to drivers from such accidents over here then?

I wonder if a nose (or 'short hood') might have saved the life of Driver 
Nunn at Great Heck?

Charlie

John Turner wrote:

> "Andy Kirkham"  wrote
>
> > However Western Champion in Golden Ochre (which was also at Barton Hill
> > last weekend) has to get my vote as the most visually satisfying
> > non-steam loco ever.
>
> Your opinion Andy, I never did think the Westerns were attractive, and still
> think they're the ugliest diesel (10800 excepted) ever to run on BR.
>
> John.


Well I wouldn't claim they were pretty; starkly elegant is perhaps how
I'd describe them. One of the things I found attractive in them was the
design of the bogies with their wheels (almost) fully in view - not
concealed behind massive great external frames.  I felt this imparted a
look of lightness and grace (which the Warships - and the Voyagers -
share). In turn this allowed the aesthetic styling to be continued
below platform level, giving a visual unity to the design - in contrast
to most diesels/electrics where a styled body is imposed on a purely
utilitarian chassis.

By the way "Golden Ochre" was really just an alias for Stroudley's
Improved Engine Green.  The two are identical, so I believe ( I think
it was in one of Brian Haresnape's books that I read that).

Andy

p.s. Surely you can't prefer those nightmarish butt-ugly horrors the
Metrovick Co-Bo's!

In article <dfs0jg$1800$1@godfrey.mcc.ac.uk>,
Charlie Hulme   wrote:

>Andrew Robert Breen wrote:
>
>> ISTR that the nose is required in USanina for protection in grade-crossing
>> accidents. 
>
>No danger to drivers from such accidents over here then?


Rather a lot less, given that few US grade crossings have any form
of protection (and also given the size of the vehicles available
to be hit - USian trucks, even then, were rather larger than
vehicles in Rightpondia.


>I wonder if a nose (or 'short hood') might have saved the life of Driver 
>Nunn at Great Heck?


Could have done, but it depends on angle-of-impact and a lot of 
other factors. A long nose makes it /easier/ to absorb an
impact, but it doesn't necessarily do it better than a cleverly-
engineered shorter nose (which, of course, a HST power car
has).

-- 
Andy Breen ~ 	Not speaking on behalf of the University of Wales, Aberystwyth
		Feng Shui: an ancient oriental art for extracting
		 money from the gullible (Martin Sinclair)

In article <IgfUe.31107$2n6.29434@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk>, Eddie
Bellass  wrote:


> Sam Wilson wrote:
> 
> > the upward and inward sweep of the bottom of the bodysides
> > at the ends of a 40 always looks wrong to me.
> -------------------------------
> 
> I think it was a necessary part of the design to allow ample
> clearance of station platforms on curves. ...
> [ other characteristically fascinating stuff snipped ]


No problem with that Eddie, but to me it still looks odd.  I think,
from a purely visual point of view, it would have been better to keep
the bottom edge of the bodywork the same height and profile throughout,
but I have no idea how the engineering would have worked out.

Note that there's a strong bit of lore that something that's engineered
properly will look right.  I'm sure that's not a universal truth and I
don't know if it's true in this case - the 40s obviously worked, they
just look a little bit wrong, to these eyes at least.

Sam

Andy Kirkham wrote:

> 
> However Western Champion in Golden Ochre (which was also at Barton Hill
> last weekend) has to get my vote as the most visually satisfying
> non-steam loco ever.


Like a giant slug covered in vomit! Though it made a satisfying sound as it 
exited Crewe on Saturday!

Alan

"Andrew Robert Breen"  wrote


> Well, being a straight-electric it shouldn't fit the description of
> "diesel" at all.


That's whay I meant!  ;-)

John.

On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 08:43:49 GMT, "Eddie Bellass"
 wrote:


>DP2 was started somewhere 2/3rds along the run of the production
>Deltics and took (ISTR) body shell No. 17 rather than the extra one,
>No. 23. My late friend Alan Wright, who sadly died earlier this
>year, was leading draughtsman on the 'Type 4-1/2', as the Class 50s
>were known then, and the removal of the nose wasn't at all popular.
>
>The EE designers and Vulcan workforce were very proud of their
>almost 'trade mark' front end, which had emerged way back in steam
>production days. Vulcan was then independent of EE and built EE
>diesel electric locos under sub contract for the electrical giant,
>VF being responsible for producing the mechanical and body parts and
>the final erection and testing.
>
>I can remember as a schoolboy some export diesel electrics running
>on the multi-gauge test track quite visible from the public road,
>and also chained down on to huge low loaders passing through our
>town's streets. They all had that characteristic nose end and cab
>shape, with two or three forward facing cab windows. They did indeed
>remind me of the standard General Motors/EMD E & F series locos that
>I had seen pictures of in my 'Boy's Wonder Book of World Trains'
>type of railway books.
>
>As for the Class 20s having a flat front, I'm told that these were
>at first intended to be the equivalent of the ubiquitous Class 3F
>0-6-0T, which could either shunt yards all day long, take a pick-up
>goods along a 25 mile branch line or work local commuter passenger
>trains to & fro, as required. It is interesting to note that the EE
>diesel locos for East Africa were essentially a narrow gauge Class
>40 with a hood-type engine cover and a single cab at one end ---
>with a nose!
>
>Was this for encountering rampaging rhino's along the tracks?  :-)
>
>
>Regards,
>
>DigitisED  (Eddie Bellass), Newton-le-Willows.
>
>Mythical Merseyside, in the Occupied Territories
>of Old Lancashire, United Kingdom.
>
>Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free and checked
>by a leading anti-virus system - updated continuously.
>
>
>
>
>
>


Thanks for the background Eddie... you are right about all their
export stuff.. I have a book about vulcan works and there is virtually
no reference to the GB stuff in it, but diesel or electric, they've
nearly all got that great hooter.

On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 08:39:11 GMT, "the REAL Trevor McDonut"
 wrote:


>
>"Les Brown"  wrote in message news:sm62i157h9l8akkfshjd0vn60bqbbf1nf5@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 9 Sep 2005 00:30:20 +0100, "John Turner" <nospam@nospam.invalid>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Paul"  wrote
>>>
>>>> Just been wondering why many of the early diesel locos in the UK had a
>>>> nose, (e.g. 37s, 44s, 45s, 46s, 55s) whereas any modern diesel or electric
>>>> loco I can think of doesn't.
>>>
>>>Reckon it was all a styling exercise.  Certainly the class 20s (of 1958
>>>vintage) didn't have one, nor did classes 21, 22, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29,
>>>30, 31 and 35 all of roughly the same era.
>>>
>>>john.
>>>
>> I think it's got more to do with the famous industrial designer Raymond
>> Loewy, who seemed to have shown a preference for prominent noses on his
>> designs such as Pennsylvania RR's steam duplex drive 6-4-4-6 6100 and their
>> famous 1936 electric locomotive GG1.class. Until Loewy came along,
>> locomotive noses were far less prominent, if at all. Since all of Britain's
>> main line diesel locomotive were introduced well after America's, the
>> American influence on the home designs is obvious.
>>
>> Les Brown
>
>
>i always thought class 76's were the ugliest locos 
>


very boxey but I wouldn't say ugly - they were real stalwarts - tough
little basts and they would still be going now had they been converted
to 25Kv

ugliest loco - gotta be Class 28 Metro-Vick Co-Bo... god, dam boy!

wrote in message 
news:vc83i1hmi0519uc6345a12db6linq8oj1g@4ax.com...

> On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 08:43:49 GMT, "Eddie Bellass"
>  wrote:
>
>>DP2 was started somewhere 2/3rds along the run of the production
>>Deltics and took (ISTR) body shell No. 17 rather than the extra one,
>>No. 23. My late friend Alan Wright, who sadly died earlier this
>>year, was leading draughtsman on the 'Type 4-1/2', as the Class 50s
>>were known then, and the removal of the nose wasn't at all popular.
>>
>>The EE designers and Vulcan workforce were very proud of their
>>almost 'trade mark' front end, which had emerged way back in steam
>>production days. Vulcan was then independent of EE and built EE
>>diesel electric locos under sub contract for the electrical giant,
>>VF being responsible for producing the mechanical and body parts and
>>the final erection and testing.
>>
>>I can remember as a schoolboy some export diesel electrics running
>>on the multi-gauge test track quite visible from the public road,
>>and also chained down on to huge low loaders passing through our
>>town's streets. They all had that characteristic nose end and cab
>>shape, with two or three forward facing cab windows. They did indeed
>>remind me of the standard General Motors/EMD E & F series locos that
>>I had seen pictures of in my 'Boy's Wonder Book of World Trains'
>>type of railway books.
>>
>>As for the Class 20s having a flat front, I'm told that these were
>>at first intended to be the equivalent of the ubiquitous Class 3F
>>0-6-0T, which could either shunt yards all day long, take a pick-up
>>goods along a 25 mile branch line or work local commuter passenger
>>trains to & fro, as required. It is interesting to note that the EE
>>diesel locos for East Africa were essentially a narrow gauge Class
>>40 with a hood-type engine cover and a single cab at one end ---
>>with a nose!
>>
>>Was this for encountering rampaging rhino's along the tracks?  :-)
>>
>>
>>Regards,
>>
>>DigitisED  (Eddie Bellass), Newton-le-Willows.
>>
>>Mythical Merseyside, in the Occupied Territories
>>of Old Lancashire, United Kingdom.
>>
>>Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free and checked
>>by a leading anti-virus system - updated continuously.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> Thanks for the background Eddie... you are right about all their
> export stuff.. I have a book about vulcan works and there is virtually
> no reference to the GB stuff in it, but diesel or electric, they've
> nearly all got that great hooter.

Didn't the nose area serve as somewhere to house the more sensitive 
electrical components, as well as the traction motor blowers?
Brian

North American locos even today still have reinforced noses and, apart from
a very few passenger locos, pilot decks and pilots, all there for collision
protection for the crew,  though the pilot deck is also there for convenient
walkover access.


--
Cheers
Roger T.

Home of the Great Eastern Railway
http://www.highspeedplus.com/~rogertra/

North American locos even today still have reinforced noses and, apart from
a very few passenger locos, pilot decks and pilots, all there for collision
protection for the crew,  though the pilot deck is also there for convenient
walkover access.


--
Cheers
Roger T.

Home of the Great Eastern Railway
http://www.highspeedplus.com/~rogertra/

"Paul"  wrote in message
news:cNWdnf2Aioc357zeRVnysw@eclipse.net.uk...

> Thanks everyone for the comments - interesting stuff. Quite reassuring
that
> the style and look of a loco was of some importance back then, something
> that modern traction seems to not take as so important (always thought the
> 58s looked odd, with a bolt upright flat front), but it's all down to
> personal taste at theend of the day!
>
> Paul
>
>

In my mind, 58's (and sheds, for that matter) occupy the same territory as
JCB's, earth movers and other road-going industrial plant. Don't ask me why,
but they just seem somehow unrailwaylike.

Geoff
   ____
|\/ o /
|/\___\<><
   b  b

Charlie Hulme wrote:


> Surely the GP9, especially in 'low short-hood' form - does have a 'nose'
> - just a differently shaped one?


Basic GP9 has a high hood both ends like UK BTH class 15.

Low noses on short hood ends were options - although I'm not sure if it
was so on the GP9 - certainly mainstream original orders were high
hoods.

--
Nick

unclewobbly@talk21.com wrote:

> I have read that it was to prevent sleepers flashing past at the
> bottom of driver vision and so stop mesmerisation... seems a bit
> tenuous to me though


I was told that a lot of road tunnels have a slight curve on them for
the same reason.

The mesmerisation theory might've been used as a safety reason to add a
bit of style to the boxy locos!

The point I am trying to make is about a nose as meant by the OP on
things like 40s and so on.

Whether or not one considers the hood ends of a US road switcher as a
nose or not is a digression. But seeing as we have gone down that road
- and we talk about US 'streamlined' cab units, it still remains UK
industry went into producton with this styling from 1957 onwards while
the US industry had ceased  this c.1953/1954.

Noses were not used on UK electric locos. If the reason about hypnotic
effect on crews had any basic, why was it not used on electric locos
like 71s, or almost every main type of electric loco found in main land
Europe.


--
Nick

"D7666"  wrote in message 
news:1126286137.378881.100110@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

> The point I am trying to make is about a nose as meant by the OP on
> things like 40s and so on.
>
> Whether or not one considers the hood ends of a US road switcher as a
> nose or not is a digression. But seeing as we have gone down that road
> - and we talk about US 'streamlined' cab units, it still remains UK
> industry went into producton with this styling from 1957 onwards while
> the US industry had ceased  this c.1953/1954.
>
> Noses were not used on UK electric locos. If the reason about hypnotic
> effect on crews had any basic, why was it not used on electric locos
> like 71s, or almost every main type of electric loco found in main land
> Europe.


If you put the Drivers seating position far enough back there is no need of 
a "nose".

KW

Charlie Hulme  wrote:


> One thing I'm sure of - the Class 37 is the best-looking British
> loco of all time. And yet - it was no more than a quick job using
> previously-designed Class 40 components.


Have you looked at them carefully? There was more than a kit-bash
involved!

I'm researching these locos, trying to track down EE's drawings to do
decent modelling GA's, but they are elusive! (Any leads to accessible
archives gratefully accepted!) I believe the Type 4 was designed at
Preston, while the Type 3 was done at Vulcan, which may account for
differences of approach.

But from acquaintance with some preserved examples, the Type 4 had a
continuous underframe with paired longitudinals from end to end, while
the Type 3 had a short central paired I-Beam section under the power
unit, with lighter fabrications outboard, reflecting more sophisticated
stress analysis. The roof sections are contructed in a different manner,
the Type 4 being full width and largely self-supporting, while the Type
3 is lighter and only about 3/4 width. They didn't even manage to make
the roof hatches the same width! The cab and nose superstructure framing
does seem to share common outline dimensions, though I'm prepared for
the drawings to prove me wrong.



> The BR Design Panel were also influenced by car design in their work
> on the Hymek and 47, etc. but who wants a Vauxhall Victor?


Some of the design consultants' proposals which were discarded did ape
contemporary car design, and would have dated horribly. The over-styled
proposals for the EE Type 5 with wrap-around windscreens and sculpted
nose seemed to be a nod in the direction of the USA's Aerotrain, coessed
with the Vauxhall Cresta. They would have been a nightmare to repair,
and the Deltics seem to have had quite arought and tumble life, if you
read the individual histories in Deltic Dynasty. I recently bought a
book with an artist's impression of an AC electric in much the form we
knew them alongside something almost like a Hymek - in fact it was a
Hymek with wrap-around windscreens! I guess this was drawn from a
designer's early proposal.

Cheers,
Francis K.


-- 
[Remove Trailing'Z' from mail address to reply.]

Eddie Bellass  wrote:


> Sam Wilson wrote:
> 
> > the upward and inward sweep of the bottom of the bodysides
> > at the ends of a 40 always looks wrong to me.
> -------------------------------
> 
> Sam...
> 
> I think it was a necessary part of the design to allow ample
> clearance of station platforms on curves. 
[...]
> 
> The Class 40 body (less buffers) is 8 feet longer than that
> of the Class 37s so it needs a sharper taper, starting further
> back along the lower body sides.



Though I've remarked in another message how different the Type 3 and
Type 4 are, one of the points of commonality I have established , by
measuring from the cab door to the commencement of the nose corner
radius, is the cab and nose length. The nose front width is also the
same, within the variations you might expect on hard-living locos.

I did an experiment. I drew a plan view of a Type 4 on a curve of 4.5
chains, which is their minimum. With the bogie drawn swung to this
curve, the bogie centreline is almost exactly parallel to the nose side
taper. That is, the nose side overhangs the track gauge on this curve
approximately the same as the bodyside does on a straight track. This
must be the intention of the designer.

The Type 3's closer spaced bogies would swing less on the same curve, so
the taper 'inherited' by using the Type 4 nose outline is a little more
severe than it need be.

I measured part of a Class 23 once, and wish I could do it with the kit
I have now. I hope to fill in the gaps by establishing exactly what is
identical in outline between a 37 and a 40!


Cheers,
Francis K.

-- 
[Remove Trailing'Z' from mail address to reply.]

Eddie Bellass  wrote:


> DP2 was started somewhere 2/3rds along the run of the production
> Deltics and took (ISTR) body shell No. 17 rather than the extra one,
> No. 23. My late friend Alan Wright, who sadly died earlier this
> year, was leading draughtsman on the 'Type 4-1/2', as the Class 50s
> were known then, and the removal of the nose wasn't at all popular.


Is there any way of confirming this now? The framing and panelling was
substantially different, with pillars and windows in different places,
and the carlines of a different form and in different locations. It
would cast interesting light on the works flexibility if we knew how
they switched it as you say.


Cheers,
Francis K.

-- 
[Remove Trailing'Z' from mail address to reply.]

Roger H. Bennett  wrote:


> "John Turner" <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
> news:dfqhi9$odt$1@newsreaderg1.core.theplanet.net...
> > Reckon it was all a styling exercise.  Certainly the class 20s (of 1958
> > vintage) didn't have one, nor did classes 21, 22, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29,
> > 30, 31 and 35 all of roughly the same era.
> 
> Could well be.  
[...]
> 
> One possible technical explanation that comes to mind is that it might be to
> do with weight distribution, especially in the Peaks which were very heavy
> anyway.


That hasn't worked out in EE's favour! The Deltics and Class 40's have a
weakness around the front pillar of the cab and the windscreen, due to
the overhanging mass of the nose, with its internal equipment. Thus
fractures occurred, and led to the plating over of the Deltics'
quarterlights. Even so, the cracks came back. You can see repair welds
internally on the windscreen plate.

The flat front types by contrast didn't need to transmit loads through
their cabs, so they could be made lighter, and removable. So they could
be built separately on jigs, and replaced as a unit if severely damaged,
while the EE layout required this to be done in situ on the loco.

Cheers,
Francis K.

-- 
[Remove Trailing'Z' from mail address to reply.]

D7666 wrote:


> Charlie Hulme wrote:
> 
> 
>>Surely the GP9, especially in 'low short-hood' form - does have a 'nose'
>>- just a differently shaped one?
> 
> 
> Basic GP9 has a high hood both ends like UK BTH class 15.
> 
> Low noses on short hood ends were options - although I'm not sure if it
> was so on the GP9 - certainly mainstream original orders were high
> hoods.


I think you are right in that all the low- short hood GP9s were rebuilds:

http://www.michaeltaylor.ca/CNR/gp9rm.shtml

Then of course there was the CF7, converted by Santa Fe from a 'nose'
to a 'hood'

http://www.edisaurus.com/trains/atsf/atsf2589.htm

Charlie (pointlessly showing off his American RR knowledge)

Francis Knight wrote:


> Charlie Hulme  wrote:
> 
> 
>>One thing I'm sure of - the Class 37 is the best-looking British
>>loco of all time. And yet - it was no more than a quick job using
>>previously-designed Class 40 components.
> 
> 
> Have you looked at them carefully? There was more than a kit-bash
> involved!


....

Thanks for this extremely interesting article - I was
repeating what I'd read that EE kept costs down by re-using
parts of the design, helping them to win the Type 3
contract, but I'm sure your points are correct.

Charlie

On 9 Sep 2005 10:12:24 -0700, "naked_draughtsman"
 wrote:


>I was told that a lot of road tunnels have a slight curve on them for
>the same reason.


It's also the reason why motorways are not straight.

Neil

-- 
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
When replying please use neil at the above domain
'wensleydale' is a spam trap and is not read.

Sam Wilson wrote:

> Of the later BR "standard" flat front variants (Hymek, 47, 50) I
> always thought the 47 came out best.


I agree.  They're much maligned as "bland-looking", but IMO class 47
is the neatest, most "classic" design of BR diesel locomotive.
-- 
Paul Robertson (class303fan@zzzbtopenworld.com)
Glasgow (remove zzz from above to reply)

> I think you are right in that all the low- short hood GP9s were rebuilds:


This is correct, the GP18, introduced in December 1959,  was the first
GM-EMD diesel unit offered with a low short hood.


--
Cheers
Roger T.

Home of the Great Eastern Railway
http://www.highspeedplus.com/~rogertra/

Charlie Hulme wrote:

> D7666 wrote:
>
> > Charlie Hulme wrote:

> I think you are right in that all the low- short hood GP9s were rebuilds:


Sorry I am in error, now I looked it up.

What I was supposed to be refering to was GP7 *to* 1954, not GP9 from
1954. It was only when you said CF7 that I realised, linking the 7.

I looked up the statistics site too quickly :

http://www.hazegray.org/rail/product.htm

--
Nick

On 9/9/05 12:19 pm, in article 090920051219018082%Sam.Wilson@ed.ac.uk, "Sam
Wilson"  wrote:



> Of the later BR "standard" flat front variants (Hymek, 47, 50) I always
> thought the 47 came out best.
> 
> Sam


I would vote for the Hymek, I think these looked vastly better than, for
example, the 37s.  They also look  much more modern, even today, compared to
the 37s which look like something from the steam age, which I suppose they
are; I don't know exactly when they were introduced.

Other 'old' stock which also looked quite modern decades later would have to
include the 38 stock on the Underground, and the 1941 Southern Railway stock
on the Waterloo and city, though I think both looked more modern outside
than inside.

Stephen Furley wrote:


> I would vote for the Hymek, I think these looked vastly better than, for
> example, the 37s.


Likewise.

By far the best looking - and best sounding Uk diesel.


> Other 'old' stock which also looked quite modern decades later would have to
> include the 38 stock


Interesting how 'pre-38' or 'standard' tube stock with their clerestory
roofs look not that different from modern stock with doors hung on the
outside rnnng off a simialr 'clerestory' looking ridge.

And Central line stock looks rather sort-of-like those really early
cars that ended up as ESL100 machines.

--
Nick

"Stephen Furley"  wrote

>
> Other 'old' stock which also looked quite modern decades later would have
to
> include the 38 stock on the Underground,


Why the past tense - go down to Island Line and it's still in use.

Peter

> By far the best looking - and best sounding Uk diesel.


Always partial to Westerns, even if the were diesel and ran on that "other"
region.


--
Cheers
Roger T.

Home of the Great Eastern Railway
http://www.highspeedplus.com/~rogertra/

> By far the best looking - and best sounding Uk diesel.


Always partial to Westerns, even if the were diesel and ran on that "other"
region.


--
Cheers
Roger T.

Home of the Great Eastern Railway
http://www.highspeedplus.com/~rogertra/

Andy Kirkham wrote:

> Charlie Hulme wrote:
>
> > One thing I'm sure of - the Class 37 is the best-looking British
> > loco of all time. And yet - it was no more than a quick job using
> > previously-designed Class 40 components.
>
> However Western Champion in Golden Ochre (which was also at Barton Hill
> last weekend) has to get my vote as the most visually satisfying
> non-steam loco ever.
>


Warships (class 42/43) do it for me every time.

Class 60 in EWS livery is also very nice.

But if you are looking for some truly spectacular front ends then it
has to be Japanese EMUs.

"Roger H. Bennett"  wrote in message 
news:JH4Ue.13021$vC4.3158@newsfe4-win.ntli.net...

> "John Turner" <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
> news:dfqhi9$odt$1@newsreaderg1.core.theplanet.net...
>> Reckon it was all a styling exercise.  Certainly the class 20s (of 1958
>> vintage) didn't have one, nor did classes 21, 22, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29,
>> 30, 31 and 35 all of roughly the same era.
>

<<snip>>

>
> One possible technical explanation that comes to mind is that it might be 
> to
> do with weight distribution, especially in the Peaks which were very heavy
> anyway.
>

<<snip>>

I was wondering whether noses were used to keep the loco weight down. At 
each end one has a half body height compartment - must save some weight, and 
those early diesels were heavy!


 Roger C

>
> 

Stephen Furley wrote:

  I would vote for the Hymek, I think these looked vastly better than, for

> example, the 37s.  They also look  much more modern, even today, compared to
> the 37s which look like something from the steam age, which I suppose they
> are; I don't know exactly when they were introduced.


Now that's strange - because to me the Hymek looks like something
from the 1960s, but the 37 looks like a timeless design.

Charlie

Charlie Hulme wrote:


> Now that's strange - because to me the Hymek looks like something
> from the 1960s, but the 37 looks like a timeless design.


To me a 37 looks like it is from the 1950s, and a Hymek from the latter
part of the 20th century.

--
Nick

Charlie Hulme  wrote:


>Stephen Furley wrote:
>
>  I would vote for the Hymek, I think these looked vastly better than, for
>> example, the 37s.  They also look  much more modern, even today, compared to
>> the 37s which look like something from the steam age, which I suppose they
>> are; I don't know exactly when they were introduced.
>
>Now that's strange - because to me the Hymek looks like something
>from the 1960s, but the 37 looks like a timeless design.



Charlie,

You have it exactly right.  The Hymek has styling features that look
dated - very 1960s.  The 37 is an elegant minimalist design, a classic
case of form following function, therefore it doesn't date.

If the Hymek is a Versace, the 37 is a Chanel.   ;-)

Tony

On Sat, 10 Sep 2005 20:36:08 +0100, Tony   Polson 
wrote:


>You have it exactly right.  The Hymek has styling features that look
>dated - very 1960s.  The 37 is an elegant minimalist design, a classic
>case of form following function, therefore it doesn't date.


I'd agree - the 47 probably even more so - after all, VT's 57s look to
all intents and purposes brand new, despite the bodywork essentially
being a rather old design.

Moving onto DMUs, the 150 is probably a pretty timeless equivalent;
despite being over 20 years old, they don't look particularly 1980s,
or indeed particularly anything other than functional.  The 151s,
OTOH, were IMO very distinctly 1980s in their style, as are the
Leyland National designs.  In the current batch of units, the 175 (not
the 180 due to the nose) and Desiro are probably the "timeless"
equivalents.

I wonder how dated Voyagers, Turbostars and Pendolinos will look in 20
years' time?

Neil

-- 
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
When replying please use neil at the above domain
'wensleydale' is a spam trap and is not read.

"Paul"  wrote in message 
news:cNWdnf2Aioc357zeRVnysw@eclipse.net.uk...

> Thanks everyone for the comments - interesting stuff. Quite reassuring 
> that the style and look of a loco was of some importance back then, 
> something that modern traction seems to not take as so important (always 
> thought the 58s looked odd, with a bolt upright flat front), but it's all 
> down to personal taste at theend of the day!
>
> Paul
>


I have always thought that all the 'nosed' classes were unremittingly ugly - 
as well as
being terribly claggy and noisy.
IMHO the class 60 and the GM classes 59 and 66 were a long overdue return to 
fresh, handsome appearance.
And the GMs appear to be far more useful and reliable than any of those 
'Pinnochio' things.

Jim Hawkins

Tony Polson wrote:


> Charlie Hulme  wrote:
> >Now that's strange - because to me the Hymek looks like something
> >from the 1960s, but the 37 looks like a timeless design.

> You have it exactly right.  The Hymek has styling features that look
> dated - very 1960s.  The 37 is an elegant minimalist design, a classic
> case of form following function, therefore it doesn't date.
>
> If the Hymek is a Versace, the 37 is a Chanel.   ;-)



LOL cross posting here and I was trying to be clever by removing 1
message to ease confusion and failed.


To me a 37 looks like it is from the 1950s and was out of date by the
1960s, while a Hymek is from the latter part of the 20th century and
good for all of it, and even now.


If I'd been in charge at VF when the seconf group of 37s were built
they'd have looked like class 20s but with a cab at each end, rather
like fome of the export types were 12CSVT in road swticher form, but
for Uk use the EE 20 cab.


Light blue touchpaper ......



-- 
Nick

"Jim Hawkins"  wrote in message 
news:rWGUe.51869$dy1.20273@fe03.ams...

> I have always thought that all the 'nosed' classes were unremittingly 
> ugly - as well as
> being terribly claggy and noisy.
> IMHO the class 60 and the GM classes 59 and 66 were a long overdue return 
> to fresh, handsome appearance.
> And the GMs appear to be far more useful and reliable than any of those 
> 'Pinnochio' things.


Does a "nose" have any bearing on a locomotive's usefulness or reliability?

-- 
*** http://www.railwayscene.co.uk/ ***
Rich Mackin (rich-at-richmackin-co-uk)
MSN: richmackin-at-hotmail-dot-com

>> I have always thought that all the 'nosed' classes were unremittingly
>> ugly - as well as
>> being terribly claggy and noisy.
>> IMHO the class 60 and the GM classes 59 and 66 were a long overdue return
>> to fresh, handsome appearance.
>> And the GMs appear to be far more useful and reliable than any of those
>> 'Pinnochio' things.
>
> Does a "nose" have any bearing on a locomotive's usefulness or
> reliability?


Only if you want to be picky.


--
Cheers
Roger T.

Home of the Great Eastern Railway
http://www.highspeedplus.com/~rogertra/

>> I have always thought that all the 'nosed' classes were unremittingly
>> ugly - as well as
>> being terribly claggy and noisy.
>> IMHO the class 60 and the GM classes 59 and 66 were a long overdue return
>> to fresh, handsome appearance.
>> And the GMs appear to be far more useful and reliable than any of those
>> 'Pinnochio' things.
>
> Does a "nose" have any bearing on a locomotive's usefulness or
> reliability?


Only if you want to be picky.


--
Cheers
Roger T.

Home of the Great Eastern Railway
http://www.highspeedplus.com/~rogertra/

On 9 Sep 2005 10:15:37 -0700, "D7666"  wrote:


>The point I am trying to make is about a nose as meant by the OP on
>things like 40s and so on.
>
>Whether or not one considers the hood ends of a US road switcher as a
>nose or not is a digression. But seeing as we have gone down that road
>- and we talk about US 'streamlined' cab units, it still remains UK
>industry went into producton with this styling from 1957 onwards while
>the US industry had ceased  this c.1953/1954.
>
>Noses were not used on UK electric locos. If the reason about hypnotic
>effect on crews had any basic, why was it not used on electric locos
>like 71s, or almost every main type of electric loco found in main land
>Europe.


Maybe noses were not used on UK electrics but they were used on EE electric
locos for export to India and Australia, (Spain?) for example.

Les Brown

"Rich Mackin"  wrote in message 
news:n3KUe.5915$zw1.3920@newsfe2-gui.ntli.net...

> "Jim Hawkins"  wrote in message 
> news:rWGUe.51869$dy1.20273@fe03.ams...
>> I have always thought that all the 'nosed' classes were unremittingly 
>> ugly - as well as
>> being terribly claggy and noisy.
>> IMHO the class 60 and the GM classes 59 and 66 were a long overdue return 
>> to fresh, handsome appearance.
>> And the GMs appear to be far more useful and reliable than any of those 
>> 'Pinnochio' things.
>
> Does a "nose" have any bearing on a locomotive's usefulness or 
> reliability?
>
>


Of course not. It's just doubly satisfying when beauty is accompanied by 
utility.

Jim Hawkins

In article ,
Les Brown   wrote:

>On 9 Sep 2005 10:15:37 -0700, "D7666"  wrote:
>
>>The point I am trying to make is about a nose as meant by the OP on
>>things like 40s and so on.
>>
>>Whether or not one considers the hood ends of a US road switcher as a
>>nose or not is a digression. But seeing as we have gone down that road
>>- and we talk about US 'streamlined' cab units, it still remains UK
>>industry went into producton with this styling from 1957 onwards while
>>the US industry had ceased  this c.1953/1954.
>>
>>Noses were not used on UK electric locos. If the reason about hypnotic
>>effect on crews had any basic, why was it not used on electric locos
>>like 71s, or almost every main type of electric loco found in main land
>>Europe.


Depends what you mean by noses. No.13 could be regarded as having a
super-sized conk at each end..

http://www.siltec.co.uk/railways/electrn/html/imagepages/image56.html

:)


>Maybe noses were not used on UK electrics but they were used on EE electric
>locos for export to India and Australia, (Spain?) for example.


Which would support the idea that EE used noses in part because of 
the added protection in crossing accidents, in part because it made
an EE product instantly recognisable.

-- 
Andy Breen ~ 	Not speaking on behalf of the University of Wales, Aberystwyth
		Feng Shui: an ancient oriental art for extracting
		 money from the gullible (Martin Sinclair)

Eddie Bellass  wrote:


> My late friend Alan Wright, who sadly died earlier this
> year, was leading draughtsman on the 'Type 4-1/2', as the Class 50s
> were known then, and the removal of the nose wasn't at all popular.
> 
> The EE designers and Vulcan workforce were very proud of their
> almost 'trade mark' front end, which had emerged way back in steam
> production days. 



Is anything recorded of the social history angle of working
at VF/EE? I'm thinking in terms of written reminiscences, and
also photographic records. Sometimes these would be at variance
with what management would allow to be known, of course, but
nowadays would be interesting historical windows on what was
done to get the job completed. I've got a copy of an EE drawing 
with a curve dimensioned as 15' 0 1/16" radius. I've often 
wondered what the shop floor thought of that 1/16"!

There have been published photos of locos under construction, 
often taken from what must have been the travelling crane, do 
even these survive?

Cheers,
Francis K.

-- 
[Remove Trailing'Z' from mail address to reply.]

Charlie Hulme  wrote:


> Francis Knight wrote:
> 
> > Charlie Hulme  wrote:
> > 
> > 
> >>One thing I'm sure of - the Class 37 is the best-looking British
> >>loco of all time. And yet - it was no more than a quick job using
> >>previously-designed Class 40 components.
> > 
> > 
> > Have you looked at them carefully? There was more than a kit-bash
> > involved!
> 
> ...
> 
> Thanks for this extremely interesting article - I was
> repeating what I'd read that EE kept costs down by re-using
> parts of the design, helping them to win the Type 3
> contract, but I'm sure your points are correct.
> 
> Charlie



Ah! Where's Uncle Roger when you need chapter and verse?
ISTR his mentioning here at some stage that the Class 37 
was closely based on a successful export design, with minimal
interference from BR. I suspect this went as far as the 
'system' components rather than the structural details.
The DP2/Type 4.5 comparison is the one favoured when 
discussing the effects of BR influence.

Interestingly, in view of my comments on the roofs, I
came across a Class 40 roof and a Class 37 roof parked
next to each other at ground level just yesterday. It 
peed rain all day, otherwise I'd have got some photos!

Cheers,
Francis K.


-- 
[Remove Trailing'Z' from mail address to reply.]

In message <Nn2Ue.5067$zw1.1195@newsfe2-gui.ntli.net>, Charlie Hulme 
 writes

>The BR Design Panel were also influenced by car design in their work
>on the Hymek and 47, etc. but who wants a Vauxhall Victor?

What's the connection?
-- 
Clive

In message , Pete Fenelon  
writes

>Never quite sure why people got so worked up over the Hymek's styling, 
>I always thought it was just fairly utilitarian with some nice detail 
>touches; nowt special.

But rode better than any coach I've ever been in, and fantastic 
acceleration when light engine.
-- 
Clive

In message , Andy 
Kirkham  writes

>However Western Champion in Golden Ochre (which was also at Barton Hill 
>last weekend) has to get my vote as the most visually satisfying 
>non-steam loco ever.

In the nose of early D/E was the traction motor blower for that bogie, 
in the 1000s the nose contained the Dynastarter for that ends engine.
-- 
Clive

In message <090920051219018082%Sam.Wilson@ed.ac.uk>, Sam Wilson 
 writes

>I always thought the 47 came out best.

When they first came out they rolled like a ship when at speed, to 
attempt to put down a cup of tea was asking to have half of it tipped 
all over the desk.
-- 
Clive

In message <1126364704.478ca3c3c54275cdde073ab34dc6c9c8@teranews>, Roger 
T.  writes

>that "other" region.

Oi, that other region was the very superior Copper Banders region. 
Very advanced as well with the Star class being the fore-runner of the 
Coronations, and not just copying the others, look at the Gas Turbine 
loco's and a brace of Hydraulics when all the other sheep when down the 
heavy D/E/ route which at the time also had engine changes at 4000 hrs 
instead of the 8000 hrs required by the German machines.
-- 
Clive

Stephen Furley  wrote:


> Other 'old' stock which also looked quite modern decades later would have to
> include the 38 stock on the Underground, 



Because London Transport were on the ball in all aspects of visual
design. The RT bus was contemporary with the stock you mention.
Whenever I chance upon a preserved green RT around rural 
Hertfordshire, it just looks 'right'. A modern townscape might
not suit it so well, though.

Cheers,
Francis K.

-- 
[Remove Trailing'Z' from mail address to reply.]

Clive  wrote:


> When they (class 47) first came out they rolled like a ship when at speed, to
> attempt to put down a cup of tea was asking to have half of it tipped
> all over the desk.


How did they sort it?

Cheers,
Francis K.

-- 
[Remove Trailing'Z' from mail address to reply.]

In article ,
Clive   wrote:

>In message <1126364704.478ca3c3c54275cdde073ab34dc6c9c8@teranews>, Roger 
>T.  writes
>>that "other" region.
>Oi, that other region was the very superior Copper Banders region. 
>Very advanced as well with the Star class being the fore-runner of the 


That was the type which was nearly (but not quite) as powerful as
a Claughton, right?

;)

-- 
Andy Breen ~ 	Not speaking on behalf of the University of Wales, Aberystwyth
		Feng Shui: an ancient oriental art for extracting
		 money from the gullible (Martin Sinclair)

Clive wrote:


> In message <Nn2Ue.5067$zw1.1195@newsfe2-gui.ntli.net>, Charlie Hulme 
>  writes
> 
>> The BR Design Panel were also influenced by car design in their work
>> on the Hymek and 47, etc. but who wants a Vauxhall Victor?
> 
> What's the connection?


They just seem (or maybe seemed at the time) related to me. Look at the 
upper pics at

http://www.philseed.com/vx-victor.html

Charlie

Frances Knight asked:


> There have been published photos of locos under construction,
> often taken from what must have been the travelling crane, do
> even these survive?

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

Frances...

The whole of the remaining Vulcan photo archive was donated
to Museums on Merseyside (Liverpool) by Ruston Diesels Ltd
in the 1980s.  For about 10 years or so this museum answered
queries about the collection with the answer that it had not yet
been catalogued & filed, but this task was eventually completed.

Very many duplicates of the collection from the late steam era
and the whole of the diesel and electric era were kept by the
last official works photographer, Mrs Dorothy Eaton, a very good
friend, near neighbour and rather distant relative of mine.

Dorothy died of cancer some years ago and her house was
broken into more than once while she was in hospital. The photo
collection and all her personal photographic equipment, including
a Yashicamat 124G twin lens reflex camera of my own, were
among the goods stolen and never recovered. The theft of the
actual photo collection seemed hardly the work of the average
housebreaker, whereas the equipment theft was understandable.


Regards,

DigitisED  (Eddie Bellass)

Mythical Merseyside, in the Occupied Territories
of Old Lancashire, United Kingdom.

Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free and checked
by a leading anti-virus system - updated continuously.

In message <1h2qse5.5qraqu1woc329N%francis@pinza.demon.co.ukZ>, Francis 
Knight  writes

>> When they (class 47) first came out they rolled like a ship when at speed, to
>> attempt to put down a cup of tea was asking to have half of it tipped
>> all over the desk.
>
>How did they sort it?

Some kind of damper so that high speed running was more comfortable for 
the crew.   I remember when they first came out that many drivers 
complained of feeling see-sick so extreme was the roll.
-- 
Clive

D7666  wrote:

> If I'd been in charge at VF when the seconf group of 37s were built
> they'd have looked like class 20s but with a cab at each end


....like a baby 58 in fact? ;)

Did anyone ever see what the proposed Class 38 might've looked like? (I
would guess, given the way BR were going with 58 and the proposed 88)
that it would've been somewhat along those lines...

pete
-- 
pete@fenelon.com "Obviously crime pays, or there'd be no crime"-G Gordon Liddy

In article <BF488BAC.AB0B%aooh11@dsl.pipex.com>, Stephen Furley
 wrote:


> On 9/9/05 12:19 pm, in article 090920051219018082%Sam.Wilson@ed.ac.uk, "Sam
> Wilson"  wrote:
> 
> 
> > Of the later BR "standard" flat front variants (Hymek, 47, 50) I always
> > thought the 47 came out best.
> 
> I would vote for the Hymek, ...


The Hymek almost does it for me, but not quite - the cab roof is too
low and the lower front too pointy at the corners compared to the 47,
and there's that awkward step in the roof.  The 3/4 view is good though
- the sides are treated well.


> ... I think these looked vastly better than, for
> example, the 37s.  ...


Comparison with 37s is being handled in another part of the thread!

Sam

In message 
          Tony   Polson  wrote:


> Charlie Hulme  wrote:
> 
> >Stephen Furley wrote:
> >
> >  I would vote for the Hymek, I think these looked vastly better than, for
> > > example, the 37s.  They also look  much more modern, even today,
> > > compared to the 37s which look like something from the steam age, which
> > > I suppose they are; I don't know exactly when they were introduced.
> >
> >Now that's strange - because to me the Hymek looks like something
> >from the 1960s, but the 37 looks like a timeless design.
> 
> 
> Charlie,
> 
> You have it exactly right.  The Hymek has styling features that look
> dated - very 1960s.  The 37 is an elegant minimalist design, a classic
> case of form following function, therefore it doesn't date.
> 
> If the Hymek is a Versace, the 37 is a Chanel.   ;-)
> 


And the 66 is presumably a Ratner?


-- 
Graeme Wall
This address is not read, substitute trains for rail.
Transport Miscellany at <http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail/index.html>

Eddie Bellass  wrote:




> The whole of the remaining Vulcan photo archive was donated
> to Museums on Merseyside (Liverpool) by Ruston Diesels Ltd
> in the 1980s.  


Was that the maritime museum? I have contacted them, but
they made it clear that only one email enquiry was
permitted, all subsequent to be by snail mail. Due to
staff shortages, I believe.



> Dorothy died of cancer some years ago and her house was
> broken into more than once while she was in hospital. The photo
> collection and all her personal photographic equipment, including
> a Yashicamat 124G twin lens reflex camera of my own, were
> among the goods stolen and never recovered. The theft of the
> actual photo collection seemed hardly the work of the average
> housebreaker, whereas the equipment theft was understandable.


This makes me wish I hadn't asked. Rather upsetting.

Cheers,
Francis K.


-- 
[Remove Trailing'Z' from mail address to reply.]