Form Vs. Function

GLENN PORTER, IN “TROUBLED MAR riage: Raymond Loewy and the Pennsylvania Railroad” (Spring 1996), very nicely explains the conflict between the design consultant and the engineer. One is truly interested only in aesthetics, the other in the measured performance of the machine. That dichotomy has probably not disappeared from the scene, but it has evolved into more beneficial relationships in some industries. For example, the aerodynamic shapes of modern automobiles not only look pleasing but also cut drag to improve engine efficiency. And the aerodynamic design element is likely planned into the car from the start.

Mr. Loewy’s firm (or its later version) apparently continued to run into problems with the practicality of its designs as late as 1968. Raymond Loewy/William Snaith, Inc., designed that year’s R40 subway car, with sloping front ends that were futuristic in design, and I remember being impressed by them when I first saw them as a child. The New York City Transit Authority thought the design would improve the subway’s image, but the steeply slanted ends prevented safe passage between cars and diminished the seating capacity. Transit Authority engineers managed to get the slope reduced from 15 percent to 10 percent, but the danger of falling between cars remained. The addition of railings, chains, and pantograph gates between the cars was costly, and it certainly destroyed the sleek look of the R40. The cars are still in use and can be seen on the subway’s B line.

Mark L. Maiello
Briarcliff Manor, N.Y.