Marc Horovitz is Wrong. (IMO)

[dudeface]

I have been reading this: http://sidestreet.info/train.html
This paragraph particularly angered me.

"An acquaintance of mine once remarked that a particularly hideous full-size locomotive—one that was cobbled up from spare parts in the railway’s own shops—would make an interesting model. This was not true. The engine was an offense to the eye in its full-sized incarnation and a model of it would be no less offensive, even though smaller. A model of the engine in question would incline persons of good taste to throw rocks at it, and it would certainly never be a welcome guest on another’s railway."

I then attempted to post the following comment. Unfortunately, it gave me a 404.

"I don't know, that's kind of a harsh thing to say. In my opinion the story the loco tells is more important than its appearance, and an engine cobbled together from spare parts tells a story. Any loco would be welcome on my railway, and I'm definitely not throwing any rocks at it, no matter how hideous it is. If you park a rat rod next to a Ferrari the rat rod is going to attract more attention."

So Marc, if you're reading this, maybe you're a little too harsh, there are no rules in garden railroading, only guidelines, and "don't build ugly locos" isn't necessarily one of them. After all, the friend wanted to model a real engine, which was part of the railway's history. I think any locomotive is interesting, especially unique and/or historic ones ( which I know you agree with) and "homemade" ones are no exception, regardless of hideousness. All that said, I am a great fan of Marc's locos, but he seems to write as if he knows everything.

I hope this post doesn't come across as offensive.

[Phil.P]

Marc's opinion..
Your opinion..

Neither of you are necessarily 'right' or 'wrong'.
Scale. Gauge. Material you build from. Upper-quadrant, or lower-quadrant, signalling. Shade of green (for your loco's). - Even blue, with a face on the front!

None of this is 'wrong'.

It is your railway, and it has to please you..
Marc, has at least got a reaction, which I think is what the article was designed to do.

Phil.P

[dudeface]

All I'll say is that I hope his friend built it anyway. Model what you want to model.

[dudeface]

The "...it would never be a welcome guest on another's railway" part is what I meant by "wrong", for the simple fact that people have differing opinions. I doubt that many people would turn down a loco because it was ugly, or "hideous"... I think a lot of this forum's members would think such an engine is at least somewhat interesting, and definitely not be so disgusted as to vandalize it by throwing rocks at it!

The "this was not true" part should be written as "I did not agree" and should be followed by something like "such an engine would certainly not be welcome on my railway. I would (largely) have no problem with that. The thing I don't like is that he writes these things as if they're solid facts.


"I demand that I am Vroomfondel!"
"That's all right, you don't have to demand that."
"All right, I am Vroomfondel and that is a solid fact!"

[drewzero1]

We demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty! ...From time to time you may see people refer to Rule #1. The gist of Rule #1 is, it's your railway, and you can do what you want with it. Rule #2: If someone tells you you're doing it wrong, refer to Rule #1.

In the event of a difference of opinion, just don't bring your engine to his railway. (I'm sure the part about the rocks was just hyperbole to convey how strong his opinion is on the matter.)

You've written essays in school, right? I always hated writing essays because my teachers forbade the use of phrases like "I think that" and "I believe". Eventually someone explained that those phrases are implied in an essay, and I should just state my thoughts and beliefs as if I knew everything, then back that up with support from my sources. It appears that is what the author is doing here: it is his opinion that it is hideous and wrong. Yeah, well, that's just like, your opinion, man! I disagree with what he says, but I will defend to my death his right to say it.

[dudeface]

Unfortunately he so badly wanted a model of it not to exist that he left us all wondering what the hell it even was. I demand proof of hideousness!

[drewzero1]

I can only imagine some ungainly logging train:

Screenshot_20231125-204850.jpg (192.22 KiB) Viewed 6719 times

Or, more locally, the hideous Talgo units we almost got for the Milwaukee-Chicago high speed rail scheme:

Talgo800.jpeg (235.86 KiB) Viewed 6719 times

[Peter Butler]

I can only imagine some ungainly logging train:
Screenshot_20231125-204850.jpg

Ungainly it may appear to you, but it's now on my 'to-do' list!

[-steves-]

I can only imagine some ungainly logging train:
Screenshot_20231125-204850.jpg

Ungainly it may appear to you, but it's now on my 'to-do' list!

I can see it has pistons and gears, but where is the drive? Is it 4WD or 2WD? I only ask as it is something that might quickly CAD together I think.

[dudeface]

That looks like an interesting thing to model
Do you know what it is? I see "Mama Theresa" written on the cab

[dudeface]

I can only imagine some ungainly logging train:
Screenshot_20231125-204850.jpg

Ungainly it may appear to you, but it's now on my 'to-do' list!

I can see it has pistons and gears, but where is the drive? Is it 4WD or 2WD? I only ask as it is something that might quickly CAD together I think.

I think I might see a sprocket on the rear axle

[drewzero1]

Ungainly it may appear to you, but it's now on my 'to-do' list!

Dudeface was right, even the ""ugliest"" loco appeals to somebody!

It came up in a search result on Pinterest, which attributed it as Novelty of the Rainhill trials... which it obviously is not! The source given is this forum thread, so the answer may or may not be somewhere in here: https://forums.auran.com/threads/ugly-trains.17796/

It's a pole road tractor, as evidenced by the wide double-flanged wheels. Pole roads were logging tracks made of logs laid lengthwise. "Train of Thought" on Youtube did an interesting video on them: The loco in question appears at 2:16 but as most of the pictures were the first results in my google image search, I have little hope that the video creator might know more.

[dudeface]

I'm not going to go through all 101 pages but I like this one

http://culverpictures.com/Gallery/Coal/ ... 790642.jpg

[GAP]

I have always been amused by the term "prototypical" used in US magazines (model railroader & garden rails, Marc Horovitz editor)to describe full sized railways which people base their railways on.
Prototype is defined as "a first or preliminary version of a device or vehicle from which other forms are developed" or "an early sample, model, or release of a product built to test a concept or process". Is a railway a device/vehicle/model or a product?
So the "ugly" loco may be a prototype to gauge reaction to the design, which in Mr Horovitz opinion was not positive but other opinions may have ranged anywhere from amused to liking it.
My layout is a freelance design that lives mostly in my head (you do not want to go in there ) so I am maintaining it is a prototype.

[drewzero1]

I've often thought "holotype" might be appropriate, as the original specimen on which the description and model are based.

One approach I've seen and appreciated in some garden railers is that their railroad is a full-scale, 32mm-gauge railroad, and thus everything they do on it is prototypical (because it is the prototype). I'm personally more of the mind that there's a prototype for just about everything somewhere. When you're running a shoestring operation it often becomes necessary to build something ugly out of whatever's lying around, just to get the job done.

[dudeface]

I've often thought "holotype" might be appropriate, as the original specimen on which the description and model are based.

I agree.

When you're running a shoestring operation it often becomes necessary to build something ugly out of whatever's lying around, just to get the job done.

And I find things like that interesting...

[dudeface]

I can only imagine some ungainly logging train:
Screenshot_20231125-204850.jpg

The more I look at it the more horrendous it looks. But no less interesting and I would still like to see a model of it!

[drewzero1]

Well, if anybody would model a thing like that, it would be Peter. I think he's busy building a Garratt or something, but give it a couple of days!

[ge_rik]

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Some people might regard Locomotion No. 1 as ugly but I find its motion fascinating

6893698100_da319378a2_b.jpg (229.93 KiB) Viewed 6551 times

One advantage of modelling so-called ugly locos might be that they are a lot easier to build, as in this case ....

c6c2000889eb35a411f3bf6949c16592--equestrian-goats.jpg (54.95 KiB) Viewed 6551 times

Rik

[drewzero1]

I can only imagine some ungainly logging train:
Screenshot_20231125-204850.jpg

Ungainly it may appear to you, but it's now on my 'to-do' list!

I can see it has pistons and gears, but where is the drive? Is it 4WD or 2WD? I only ask as it is something that might quickly CAD together I think.

I managed to track down a bit more info on page 9 of that thread, where I found another version of that image with a copyright "Unusual Locomotives 1960”. Figuring it might be a book, I did a quick search and did indeed find a book by that name, author Ernest F Carter. There are a few copies for sale online-- very tempting, but I'm still working my way through The Chronicles of Boulton's Siding, which I picked up a few weeks ago (and which incidentally has its own share of ugly locos!).