Which engine style looks the cutest?

I always thought the Baldwin DR-6 "Baby Face" locomotive models were considered to be the "cutest" locomotives by most railfans.

Apparently, Baldwin didn't think the "Babyface" style looked so good. They made a running production change from the "Babyface" styling to the "Sharknose" style carbody.

To someone used to seeing EMD and ALCO cab units, the "Babyface" looked very distorted in proportions. I think the problem lay in the ratio of height to width. The roof of the Babyface cab is lower than the roof of the carbody behind it. This gives the cab a "squished" appearance.

Baldwin should have hired an industrial stylist to design the carbody for those things, someone who understood the esthetics of proportion. EMD, ALCO, and Fairbanks-Morse did. A running production change in styling is an admission something went very wrong indeed. The corrected design, the sharknose, is a classic based on the T1.

Les

Desertdweller---
To be very pedantic, Alco didn't hire an industrial designer to do the PA/FA/round-nose RS carbodies for them: the designer (Ray Patten) was on the payroll of the more professionally managed member of the Alco-GE consortium.

(Who, me? Biased?)

(Grin!)

As for Baldwin… They changed the design of their covered wagons TWICE: the Babyface design was introduced AFTER the first few 2000 hp passenger units (the ones that went to N ed M) were built, which had a more angular look to them(*). … I wonder if Baldwin on its own decided make the change from the Babyface to the Sharknose design, or whether this was customer driven. I think the first Sharknose order may have been for the passenger (2000 hp) units for the Pennsylvania Railroad. They differed from earlier 2000 hp Baldwins mechanically (turbocharged six cylinder engines instead of normally aspirated eights), so there would have been a fair bit of redesign work anyway. Maybe the PRR people said "Oh, and while you're at it: we think the T-1 steamer looks a lot nicer than your current cab."

(*) During WW II, Baldwin built small batch of 1000 hp carbody units for the Soviet railways. (So the Russians got to compare a Baldwin and an Alco design: their conclusions from the comparison are perhaps revealed by the fact that their first mass-produced diesel locomotive after the war was slightly modified Alco RSD-1.) The cab-nose treatment of these units is similar to that of the first, pre-Babyface, passenger units.

Scot--
Well, the SDL-39 design shares one thing with MEC407's and my fantasy GEs: it is partly derived from the manufacturer's EXPORT locomotive designs. The trucks-- lighter in weight, I assume, and possibly shorter in wheelbase than the Flexicoil trucks EMD used on (pre-Dash-2) SDs-- are similar to those used on a large number of EMD export units.

Sir Ray--
Well, if the judgment that something is "cute" is connected to perceiving it as somehow miniaturized, this would make sense: the Babyface cab always makes me think of an undernourished EMD cab! Why Baldwin chose to make the cab roof lower than the roof over the engine compartment I don't know. Maybe it was so the horns could be mounted on the cab roof and still allow the unit to fit under low bridges. (Fairbanks-Morse did something similar on some of its Erie-built units.) Note that one of the purchasers of Babyface Baldwins was the New York Central, which had lower overhead clearances than most Class 1 railroads.

--

I don't know if the proposal got as far as preparing drawings, so I don't know if they would have been cute, but at one time there was talk about GE building a domestic U18C. Union Railroad (Pittsburgh PA: connects with the B&LE and provided switching for steel mills) was supposed to be the launch customer, but they bought EMD MP15 instead. Had the GE units been built, it would have been interesting to compare them with the SDL39!

Allen Hazen wrote: I believe the U15B was leo offered with a "crew quarters" cab, similar to what was later built on the BQ23-7.

Well, that would make it distinctly NOT cute. All of the Dash-7 models were offered with the Q cab, including the B17-8 that was also not constructed. Thank goodness none were built.

We also have to include the DL535E as cute. That Century nose looks so good...

Allen Hazen wrote:During WW II, Baldwin built small batch of 1000 hp carbody units for the Soviet railways. (So the Russians got to compare a Baldwin and an Alco design: their conclusions from the comparison are perhaps revealed by the fact that their first mass-produced diesel locomotive after the war was slightly modified Alco RSD-1.) The cab-nose treatment of these units is similar to that of the first, pre-Babyface, passenger units.

To my eye, the cab is identical to demonstrator DR-6-4-20s 2000, 2001 and NdeM 2002. To be honest, I think I like it a bit more than the later cab.

Regarding the sharknoses, the export version for Argentina (RF615E) is a cuter, less 'arrogant' design.

Allen Hazen wrote:Sir Ray--
Well, if the judgment that something is "cute" is connected to perceiving it as somehow miniaturized, this would make sense: the Babyface cab always makes me think of an undernourished EMD cab! Why Baldwin chose to make the cab roof lower than the roof over the engine compartment I don't know. Maybe it was so the horns could be mounted on the cab roof and still allow the unit to fit under low bridges. (Fairbanks-Morse did something similar on some of its Erie-built units.) Note that one of the purchasers of Babyface Baldwins was the New York Central, which had lower overhead clearances than most Class 1 railroads.

Yeah, I was going for the Disney definition of "cute" (smaller, more "infantile" features), because honestly I never thought of heavy industrial equipment as "cute" - interesting, cool, impressive, intricate, anthropomorphic even (e.g. post WWII era cab units usually had 2 windscreens (eyes), a bulbous (bulldog, shark) nose, and usually panel lines, anti-climbers, whatever to represent a mouth) - but not cute.
For the record the Pennsy requested the redesign to Sharknose styling, and so of course Raymond Lowery was involved.

An unusual result of the sharknose Baldwins was the NYC buying locomotives styled after a Pennsy design!

My favorite rebuild was the Milwaukee Road's RSC-2s rebuilt with Century cabs and short hoods. As a result, the "front" of the locomotive was switched from the long hood end to the short hood end. It resulted in a very handsome locomotive (to my eyes, anyway).

Les

MEC407 wrote:GE responds with the "U14B" — powered by a V6* FDL. That probably would've reduced the length by a foot or two, and a shorter radiator might've reduced the length even further. They would've been able to get away with an even smaller fuel tank, too.


*I know, I know... I'm just daydreaming.

A vee-6 FDL is not too far-fetched. The Cooper Bessemer “F” engine range included a vee-6 as well as the vee-8, vee-12 and vee-16 versions. (And in-line 6 and in-line 8 versions.) So the basic engineering had been done had GE wanted a vee-6 version. The in-line 6 was taken to “B” level, and I think it was that version that was the auxiliary powerplant in the UP 8500 hp GTELs.

Cheers,

Pneudyne--
Re: "taken to the B level" The B level in the evolution of the C-B/GE F series engines is, I think, the mid 1950s version with a nominal output of 150 hp per cylinder. The GE test locomotive set of 1954 (the FA lookalikes that tested on the Erie in Erie colours and were later sold to the Union Pacific) had FVBL-8 in the 1200 hp units and FVBL-12 in the1800 hp units.

So this is the stage of "FDL" evolution that would have gone into early U-series export locomotives, and I think the inline 6 version was used in a U9 model. (But only a few were built before GE switched to Caterpillar engines at that power rating.)

(And, do you think it is PRUDENT to let MEC407 and me know that a V-6 version of the FDL might have been possible after all? Do you REALLY want to encourage out fantasies? (Grin!))

Pandora's Engine Compartment has been opened!

Allen Hazen wrote:(And, do you think it is PRUDENT to let MEC407 and me know that a V-6 version of the FDL might have been possible after all? Do you REALLY want to encourage out fantasies? (Grin!))

Ah, Prudence took the day off.....

I'll plan on posting comment about the “B” version of the C-B engine and the U9 in the GE Export thread.

Cheers,

Re: "I'll plan on posting comment about the “B” version of the C-B engine and the U9 in the GE Export thread."

--I look forward to it!