Streamlined steam locomotives and sex
I’ve been watching some vintage videos of Mallard in regular service, including a very interesting documentary about that record breaking run.
Of course every rail enthusiast and modeller has his or her opinion about the best looking streamlined steam locomotive. The topic of streamlining can often evoke heated debate, especially about locomotives that were converted later in life.
My opinion has never waivered, Gresley’s A4 is simply stunning.
If you were compiling a list of sexy machines it would be very high on the list, well my list anyhow.
There have been many streamlined locomotives on numerous rail systems around the World; a Google search produces an extensive gallery of streamlined engines. Of course all of them including the A4s started out as conventional looking steam engines before the several tons of ‘tin’ was applied. There seemed to be a belief that streamlining would increase performance and reduce fuel costs. British research in 1945 found negligible advantages at speeds below 90 mph (140 km/h).
Many of the designs simply don’t flow the way Mallard’s does. Of course Nigel Gresley was a rare locomotive designer who understood aerodynamics, mechanics and aesthetics (with acknowledgement to Bugatti). While many locomotives were ‘streamlined’ by workshop people with hammers, Gresley used a wind tunnel. Of course a lot of streamlining had nothing to do with speed, it was about image, looking new and modern in an age when it was aircraft that were really looking contemporary. In reality the majority of streamlined locomotives seldom went fast enough to really benefit from an aerodynamic shape. Mallard is an exception, it would never have achieved 126mph without its aerodynamic design.
My first encounter with a streamlined steam locomotive was the Victorian railways S class. While impressive machines, they are a classic example of trying to conceal with sheet metal an engine that was not originally intended to be streamlined.
I have fond memories of the S class, at a young age I was lifted into the cab at Spencer Street station while the S.O.P was waiting to head north to Wodonga. “My name is Paget,” said the driver as he shook hands with an ecstatic little boy. I still feel a strong connection to Edward Henty.
If you haven’t seen this video of the construction of the S.O.P its worth looking at.
http://aso.gov.au/titles/documentaries/spirit-progress/
The Pennsylvania railroad did have Raymond Loewy design a few streamliners; the T1 and S1 were designed as streamliners from their inception. However I feel they lacked a certain subtlety of design or perhaps it was over design. While his attempt to disguise K4 3768 looked like an upturned bathtub with the plug hole used to let the smoke out.
BLI are releasing a model of 3768 and I’ve already placed an order, obviously I’m not keen on the design but a Bronze locomotive pulling some suitable coaches should look reasonable.
It’s common knowledge that the British can be somewhat critical of American locomotive design, ‘everything is stuck on the outside’.
This got me thinking, if we place that criticism into the murky arena of gender stereotyping, does it mean the US locomotives are predominantly masculine because their ‘bits’ are hanging on the outside, hence descriptions such as ‘Big Boy’. While the British engines are comprehensively female because all their ‘bits’ are neatly tucked away inside? There is an interesting British article ‘Are steam locomotives females’ including driver Duddington talking about his relationship with steam locomotives generally and Mallard in particular.
https://locoyard.com/2014/04/29/are-steam-locomotives-females/
I must admit that I find Mallard a far more sensuous design than a Big Boy, similar to comparing an E type Jaguar to a Mack truck.
Of course ultimately it really is about form following function.
I’ve been watching some vintage videos of Mallard in regular service, including a very interesting documentary about that record breaking run.
Of course every rail enthusiast and modeller has his or her opinion about the best looking streamlined steam locomotive. The topic of streamlining can often evoke heated debate, especially about locomotives that were converted later in life.
My opinion has never waivered, Gresley’s A4 is simply stunning.
If you were compiling a list of sexy machines it would be very high on the list, well my list anyhow.
There have been many streamlined locomotives on numerous rail systems around the World; a Google search produces an extensive gallery of streamlined engines. Of course all of them including the A4s started out as conventional looking steam engines before the several tons of ‘tin’ was applied. There seemed to be a belief that streamlining would increase performance and reduce fuel costs. British research in 1945 found negligible advantages at speeds below 90 mph (140 km/h).
Many of the designs simply don’t flow the way Mallard’s does. Of course Nigel Gresley was a rare locomotive designer who understood aerodynamics, mechanics and aesthetics (with acknowledgement to Bugatti). While many locomotives were ‘streamlined’ by workshop people with hammers, Gresley used a wind tunnel. Of course a lot of streamlining had nothing to do with speed, it was about image, looking new and modern in an age when it was aircraft that were really looking contemporary. In reality the majority of streamlined locomotives seldom went fast enough to really benefit from an aerodynamic shape. Mallard is an exception, it would never have achieved 126mph without its aerodynamic design.
My first encounter with a streamlined steam locomotive was the Victorian railways S class. While impressive machines, they are a classic example of trying to conceal with sheet metal an engine that was not originally intended to be streamlined.
I have fond memories of the S class, at a young age I was lifted into the cab at Spencer Street station while the S.O.P was waiting to head north to Wodonga. “My name is Paget,” said the driver as he shook hands with an ecstatic little boy. I still feel a strong connection to Edward Henty.
If you haven’t seen this video of the construction of the S.O.P its worth looking at.
http://aso.gov.au/titles/documentaries/spirit-progress/
The Pennsylvania railroad did have Raymond Loewy design a few streamliners; the T1 and S1 were designed as streamliners from their inception. However I feel they lacked a certain subtlety of design or perhaps it was over design. While his attempt to disguise K4 3768 looked like an upturned bathtub with the plug hole used to let the smoke out.
BLI are releasing a model of 3768 and I’ve already placed an order, obviously I’m not keen on the design but a Bronze locomotive pulling some suitable coaches should look reasonable.
It’s common knowledge that the British can be somewhat critical of American locomotive design, ‘everything is stuck on the outside’.
This got me thinking, if we place that criticism into the murky arena of gender stereotyping, does it mean the US locomotives are predominantly masculine because their ‘bits’ are hanging on the outside, hence descriptions such as ‘Big Boy’. While the British engines are comprehensively female because all their ‘bits’ are neatly tucked away inside? There is an interesting British article ‘Are steam locomotives females’ including driver Duddington talking about his relationship with steam locomotives generally and Mallard in particular.
https://locoyard.com/2014/04/29/are-steam-locomotives-females/
I must admit that I find Mallard a far more sensuous design than a Big Boy, similar to comparing an E type Jaguar to a Mack truck.
Of course ultimately it really is about form following function.