buzz456 wrote:... I like the idea of a F or a E unit with the well known complaints about vision restrictions being fixed. ...
Funny story about that one, Buzz: back in the mid'-70s, when Amtrak went shopping for new power, they approached EMD looking for what amounted to an "E10," being essentially an E9 with 645 prime mover(s) and Dash 2 electrics. It turned out that EMD had broken up the tooling a couple of years before, and the cost to replace it for a relatively small order would have been prohibitive. The SDP40F (so designated because Federal regulations prohibited the purchase of a new design) turned out to be "a swing and a miss," and we ended up with F40s, which struck me has having all the aesthetics of a shoebox. Even less-known than the E10 was the AMD-125, a low-slung high speed locomotive that was essentially a GP40 in a carbody that was a cross between the Metroliner/Amfleet cross-section and the JNR Series 0 bullet train cab car. AFAIK this never got past the line-drawing stage of design studies, but the one elevation I saw of it looked impressive.
I doubt we'll see anything along those lines, except possibly as a power car/cab car for push-pull operation. Current locomotive aesthetics, to the extent they get away from the functionality of hood units, are driven mainly by the desire to minimise the additional drag load of the first car of the following consist. That gives the designer little option but some form of boxcab design, with little regard (or budget) for style. The question of aerodynamic drag has become so dominant that there are now proposals for cowls of different sorts for the leading end of double stack trains. Whether the savings is worth the expense of having to build, handle and maintain the cowls is something I can't comment on, since I have seen the studies and don't know what all their assumptions are.