I am not sure how much the “architecture” of CB&Q locomotives should be credited (or blamed) on the Q itself.
Certainly the earlier power was pretty much “stock”…..4-4-0s and 2-8-0s were originally very much the same as other road’s power of the period.
The 2-8-2s and 2-10-2s, while having Q design cabs and tenders, were either stock Baldwin designs or Q designs that were copied for other railroads…..see a Belt Railway of Chicago 2-10-2 as a lighter version of a M-1 and other roads had 2-8-2s and 2-10-2s with very similar running gear and boilers.
The lignite front end would make any road’s power less attractive. The B-1s were not all that ugly….certainly other railroads had generally uglier power…..ATSF for one…..GN, NP, NYC, even SP….had some really ungainly looking stuff. PRR in later years had a more compact family appearance but some of their power wasn’t pretty either Q1/Q2, S2, earlier Atlantics….
The USRA power was, even though designed by a committee, pretty good looking across the board and probably influenced modern steam architecture for many roads.
I don’t think the Q was interested in “Super” power; the Poppet Valve experiment was about the only “improvement” that made it to testing stage. AFAIK they were satisfied with the S4s; in fact I’ve seen reference to “Aeolian” class which hints that at least prior to the war more streamlined Hudsons were contemplated.
Joe Douda told me that he had seen some drawings that proposed the next batch of Northerns would be about the same as the O5s except with the tender from the M4s. Except for those darn FTs!!!!!
Charlie Vlk