Egypt Train photos

[Atlanticflier]

Some photos of Trains, Alexandria, Egypt; [ Guests cannot view attachments ]

[Mark5]

Interesting 

[nkalanaga]

What gauge is it?  If it's narrow gauge, I want one for my Nn3.

[Albert in N]

Standard gauge (4 feet 8 1/2 inches) according to "Track Gauges of the World" pages 36 & 37 in December 2017 Trains magazine.

[Albert in N]

  BTW that is a cool looking train; thanks for sharing the photos.

[nkalanaga]

Darn...  But thank you!

[peteski]

Yeah, interesting.  Very utilitarian looking. The loco seems a bit familiar. British or maybe Austrailain Diesel?  The hoppers seem similar to European cars.

But what I like the most is the dog in the photos.

[wes_sutton]

Yeah, interesting.  Very utilitarian looking. The loco seems a bit familiar. British or maybe Austrailain Diesel?  The hoppers seem similar to European cars.

But what I like the most is the dog in the photos.

US Built GEvo - ES40ACi one of 80 built for Egypt in 2009.

We may have some ugly locos in Oz, but nothing that bad 

[peteski]

US Built GEvo - ES40ACi one of 80 built for Egypt in 2009.

We may have some ugly locos in Oz, but nothing that bad 

LOL!  Sorry!  You're right, it is an ugly looking beast. Beyond utilitarian-looking.  Too bad that more and more of today's railroad motive power is build without any consideration for esthetics.

[nkalanaga]

Most North American railroads have never considered "aesthetics", except maybe on passenger trains.  We went for durable, easily serviced, and easily repaired. 

[peteski]

Most North American railroads have never considered "aesthetics", except maybe on passenger trains.  We went for durable, easily serviced, and easily repaired.

There were many streamlined steam locos which were designed to look good.  Or a GG-1. Yes, usually to pull passenger trains. But even if you look at the pedestrian E or F units, those look much more pleasing to the eye than that boxy utilitarian thing they call a locomotive.

[C855B]

I think the point is being missed here. There's clean, businesslike industrial design, and then there's design for design's sake or possibly serving a public aesthetic sense for promotional purposes (Raymond Loewy). And then there's butt-ugly, like that export GE.

1960s GM freight power is an example of clean, balanced but functional industrial design, whose apex in my estimation was the SD45. GE of the era came close, but when their solution to the external appearance of added horsepower was to tack-on bulky protrusions, balance lost out. EMD abandoned their design edge with the SD40-2, the porches completely blowing any sense of proportion between form and function. For both manufacturers it's been downhill from there.

Ugly is usually the result of cost saving. There's no point in paying a designer or fabricating pretty housings for something nice that is going to live it's life doing a really dirty, heavy job out in the middle of nowhere, or on the bad side of town.

The '60s weren't all good. Consider Alco. They reached maximum ugliness with the C855, so ugly you (I) have to love it. Such a statement, where both form and function lost out, big time.

[Hamaker]

But even if you look at the pedestrian E or F units, those look much more pleasing to the eye than that boxy utilitarian thing they call a locomotive.

I can recall the grief I gave my poor father when they started removing the E and F units from trains on the Santa Fe.  I talked to him like he ran the whole railroad rather than being just a freight conductor.  He tried his best to explain why they were doing it....but I wasn't buying any of it !  I still love the E and F units.

[nkalanaga]

Milwaukees Boxcabs weren't "good looking", but they did the job!

Then there was the CB&Q steam loco Aeolius, sometimes called Alice, or Big Alice the Goon.  Looked like a stainless steel bathtub upside down on a locomotive chassis.

I like that export loco.  What I really want for my narrow gauge ore trains is a narrow gauge version of the Clyde Engineering J26C-2SS.  Shorter, but similar design.