Patch over in steam era?

[Cederstrand]

Would like to find out if there were railroads back in the steam days that would "patch" over locomotive numbering and tender lettering? Thanks for any info. Any photo source would be most helpful, too.

Cheers!  Rob

[West Coast S]

UP did when it aquired war baby 2-8-8-2's of N&W & C&O linnage, war time demands preculded a complete cosmetic refinish. Eventually all were brought into compliance as overhauls occured.

Dave 

[jrbernier]

  IIRC, B&O renumbered 4 digit steam engines to 3 digit - To make way for new diesels.

Jim

[7j43k]

Cederstrand

Would like to find out if there were railroads back in the steam days that would "patch" over locomotive numbering and tender lettering? Thanks for any info. Any photo source would be modt helpful, too.

Cheers!  Rob

 

 

I'm gonna say "Yes."

 

Most of the steam locos that the SP&S had were "previously owned" by either Northern Pacific or Great Northern.  While it's possible some were completely repainted before the transfer (if it was deemed necessary), I am sure there were many that were patched exactly as you describe.  Why spend the money to repaint a locomotive when it doesn't need it?  Not to mention keeping it out of service while it's being done.

That said, I don't know of any photos illustrating that--as in a clearly obvious "patch".  But recall, we're talking of black on black patching.  And also recall that steam locos weren't the most spotless of machines.

So, I'm pretty sure there was plenty of "patching" done on steam locos (as necessary), but it wouldn't have been too obvious.  

 

Ed

[rrinker]

 Never saw a pictrure of any, but that doesn't mean they never existed. It could be that they only ever existed for a very short time because steam locomotives had more frequent shopping schedules than diesels, so if they simply lined out a number and name and painted on the new number until the next shopping, it wouldn't have been all that long. Plus in the heyday of steam, most railroads had more than a little pride in their fleet and washed them, and then there were the engine wipers keeping them clean - so likely and purchased or transferred locos were quickly repainted to keep things looking neat, a lined out number other than a loco in  scrap line would not look as neat and clean.

                          --Randy

[7j43k]

If a number on a steam locomotive was "lined out", it was retired.  Until it was reinstated.  

That is not the same as patched.

I suspect the term "patched" was not used in steam locomotive days.  At that time, a patch would not show.  So how could you call it a patch.  With diesels having all kinds of different colors, THEN there would be a patch, because the old number and or name would be covered by a different color.  A "patch".

I challenge anyone to demonstrate the use of the term in the implied manner on a steam locomotive previous to 1955.

 

 

Ed

[ACY Tom]

I'm pretty certain that the term wasn't used at that time, but the practice was fairly common.  When a locomotive was sold, the old road name and number was often painted over with new black paint, and the new road name and number were applied over the new paint.  If the old paint was weathered, the fresh paint showed as a "patch".  I know I've seen photos that show this.  Relying on my memory (a dangerous thing to do), I think the Middletown & Unionville's second hand 2-8-0 showed this after the engine was purchased from the Bellefonte Central.

Regarding the B&O's mass renumbering at the beginning of 1957, I don't recall ever seeing a photo that showed a fresh patch on B&O  locos of the time.  Cab diesels had painted numbers applied in an area where there hadn't been a number previously.  Switchers, road switchers, and steam locos had the numbers applied to the cab sides, but the B&O guys seemed to avoid the problem of leaving an unsightly patch.

Tom 

[dehusman]

Deisel engines are in many ways pretty rubber stamp.  A SD40 is an SD40.  the mechanism and parts are standard from road to road.  Not so with steam engines.  Each engine/class of engine is pretty much a custom build.  If an SD40 needed a new traction motor, a railroad could go to the storehouse and get a traction motor and it would most likely fit any road's SD40.  If a rod on a steam engine needed to be replaced, it would have to be fabricated from scratch and another road would not have the plans for one.  Engines were not directly interchangeable.  Steam engines were also owned by the railroad operating them.  Diesels are very commonly leased.  a lot of the engines that may be wearing a rialroad's paint may not actually belong to the railroad, they may be on a long term lease to the railroad and to the casual observer look exactly like an owned unit.  For deisels there is a lot more moving around of used engines from road to road.  For steam the power was a lot more "permanent".

There were a lot fewer mergers of large railroads.  The consolidations were happening mostly pre-depression, so they were rosters of dozens or hundreds of engines rather than thousands of engines.

Photography in the pre-depression era was expensive, relatively rare and in black and white for the most part.  People weren't going to "waste" film on an "ugly" engine and if they did, the color change between the old colors (gold on black) and the new colors (yeloow on black) would not be as readily apparent, so photos of "patched" engines would be hard to find and hard to detect. 

Yes there were transfers of engines between railroads, yes there were smaller engines sold second hand to smaller railroads, but the volume of movement was not as much as it is now.

Steam engines spend a LOT more time in the shops so there would be ample opportunity to repaint a cab or tender with the new owner's lettering, so patches would be rarer, as the they would most likely re-paint the parts of the engine rather than patch.  There were "re-lettered" steam engines, but they were not patched in the concept that is used today.

[chutton01]

In the same vein, what about freight car patching, which you'd figure would be more common than locomotive (as seems to be the case nowadays).
One question is, was selling or transfering batches of freight cars between seperate railroad companies (as opposed to a subsidiary, like the P&LE and NYC) really common prior to, say the 1950s, such that quick patch/painting of new reporting marks on the fleet of transfered rolling stock was needed en masse?
Also, freight car lease fleets - would they a tank-car leasing firm patch (paint) out the logo of a chemical firm or petroluem company if those tank cars were no longer used by said firm, or would they just leave the logo alone till the next service of that freight car?
And for that matter, what about lease fleets of locomotives back in the pre WWII day?

[dehusman]

chutton01

 Also, freight car lease fleets - would they a tank-car leasing firm patch (paint) out the logo of a chemical firm or petroluem company if those tank cars were no longer used by said firm, or would they just leave the logo alone till the next service of that freight car?

The problem of private markings on leased cars is what caused the ICC to ban billboard reefers in the 1930's.

And for that matter, what about lease fleets of locomotives back in the pre WWII day?

 

What lease fleets?  You missed the point of my previous message.  There were no "lease fleets" of locomotives pre-WW2.  The concept didn't exist.  Lease fleets is a 1970's, more like 1980's era concept that didn't materialize until the vast restructuring and reconfiguring of the industry about the time the second generation of hood engines came into service in the late 1960's and early 1970's.  Alco and Baldwin went out of businesss incenting the railroads to dump those models ASAP plus the GP7's were being replaced with the next generation of engines.  The whole shortline boom that we see today didn't happen until after Staggers and Conrail, when the railroads were able to shed all those branchlines that became shortlines.  Then there was the whole IPD thing where boxcars were purchased as short term investments, not as a railroad operating strategy.  Completely different business model.

 

None of that existed before the late 1960's early 1970's.

 

Private owner cars and leased cars were a much smaller piece of the railroad fleet and were mananged very differently.

[dknelson]

Be aware that you will see some photos of steam locomotives with what looks like a "patch out" number on the cab -- but often what it is, is that the fireman or hostler took some oily waste intended for journal boxes and cleaned up around the number, because the number was needed for operators and others who needed to know the engine number for timetable and trainorder operation.

I do know that some railroads, including the Milwaukee Road, renumbered their steam engines during the end of the transition period in the 1950s to open up number series for the new diesels.  I doubt if they would repaint an entire engine just to do that so yes I am confident that there were patchouts on steam locomotives to some extent.

Dave Nelson

[tomikawaTT]

For a while, UP 844 was 8844, since the three-digit number was wanted for a diesel.  After the diesel was retired the initial 8 went away.

Look at a photo of '8844.'  The first 8 was obviously just painted on ahead of the existing number...

Chuck (Modeling Central Japan in September, 1964 - where loco numbers were bronze plaques)

[dehusman]

The steamer was UP 844, a 4 was added to the end to make the steamer 8444 to make room for GP30 UP 844.  several years after the GP30 was retired, in a general renumbering, the 8444 was renumbered back to 844.

[chutton01]

dehusman

The problem of private markings on leased cars is what caused the ICC to ban billboard reefers in the 1930's.

True, and I had considered that, but then again there are lots of images of leased tankcars with shippers logos from the 1940s/1950s (think: Hooker Chemical with GATX & SHPX reporting marks; also, I believe this was common with Meat Reefers too in that era).  Probably an extreme case, but consider if a range of such cars came off long-term lease from Hooker, probably they would be repainted (if they were in the rather noticible Hooker orange livery of the era), but perhaps only the name was painted out in case GATX had a quick lease turnaround ready.

There were no "lease fleets" of locomotives pre-WW2.  The concept didn't exist.  Lease fleets is a 1970's, more like 1980's era concept that didn't materialize until the vast restructuring and reconfiguring of the industry about the time the second generation of hood engines came into service in the late 1960's and early 1970's.

I first heard of lease locomotive fleets such as HELM and LTEX (Larry's Truck and Electrics) in the 1980s.  I also knew of Equipment Trusts on rolling stock held by PC (and NYC and PRR et.al  - sometimes these trust ownerships are stenciled on the equipment itself). I was just wondering - even before the days of run-thru power, why there couldn't have been privately owned locomotive fleets - there were all sorts of sophicated leasing and bonding arrangements even around the turn of the 20th century, why not lease fleets?

[dehusman]

Maybe the third time will be the charm.

In order to lease engines there has to be a supply of good second hand power that can be rebuilt to lease.  That didn't exist in the steam era.  In the diesel era the parts are essentially the same.  You buy 100 used engines from the UP, the BNSF and CR, recombine the parts and get 50-75 "good" engines.  That doesn't work with steam engines.  A 2-8-0 from the UP does not match a 2-8-0 from the ATSF which does not match a 2-8-0 from the PRR.  They don't share any compatible running gear or major components.  The have different boilers, valve gear, driver diameters, wheel bases, tender trucks, etc. etc. etc.

Plus there wasn't really any market.  A major market for the lease business were the short lines that were created in the 1970's and 1980's.  Poof a new railroad takes over a portion of an old railroad and the new railroad needs engines to lease.  That didn't exist in the steam era.  The short lines operating in the steam era had been in business for decades, they already had engines and didn't need to lease more.

Leasing is a short term proposition.  You lease something because the tax structure is favorable or you don't think your will need for the asset will be a long period.  Railroad lease engines now because the financial implications can be more favorable.

There weren't locomotive lessors in the steam era because there weren't locomotives, there weren't customers and there weren't the financials to give an incentive.  Other than all that its a great idea.

[tomikawaTT]

dehusman

The steamer was UP 844, a 4 was added to the end to make the steamer 8444 to make room for GP30 UP 844.  several years after the GP30 was retired, in a general renumbering, the 8444 was renumbered back to 844.

Thanks for the correction, Dave.  That explains why my '8844' search was a flop!

I just put a nice photo of 8444 up as my desktop.

Chuck (Modeling Central Japan in September, 1964)

[ACY Tom]

With regard to meat reefers and tank cars, I believe the rule required that any painted-on advertising had to be related to the commodity that was actually inside the car.  Thus a Gulf Oil tank car had to be used to carry Gulf Oil products.  An Old Dutch Cleanser reefer couldn't legally carry California produce, for example.  So meat reefers and tank cars in dedicated service continued to be legal. There may have been other relevant factors as well. 

[Cederstrand]

Thank you all for a most interesting discussion. I appreciate it.

Cheers!  Rob

[wjstix]

ACY

With regard to meat reefers and tank cars, I believe the rule required that any painted-on advertising had to be related to the commodity that was actually inside the car.  Thus a Gulf Oil tank car had to be used to carry Gulf Oil products.  An Old Dutch Cleanser reefer couldn't legally carry California produce, for example.  So meat reefers and tank cars in dedicated service continued to be legal. There may have been other relevant factors as well. 

 

 

Railroad cars never carried "advertising" on their sides. Companies were paying for the cars, not buying advertising space. So ABC Canning Co. would buy 50 reefers and paint and letter them for their company, or would lease 50 cars from one of several companies - or would buy 25 and lease 25 - and decorate all of them for their company. 

 

What can cause confusion is that before the federal government / courts ruled against the practice, railroads often leased their own reefers to the companies...so you'd see a car with "XY&Z" railroad lettering on one part of the car, and "ABC Canning Company" on the other. (Usually RR name and no. to the left of the door, company name and slogans on the right.) 

 

Problem was if you owned another canning co., you didn't want to ship your goods in a car lettered for your rival, ABC Canning. So you would refuse to use the empty ABC car if a railroad delivered it to you. This meant the railroad often had to send an empty car back to ABC Canning to be reloaded - and the railroad didn't make money on it like they would if they could ship it loaded both ways.

 

The "ban" on billboard reefers - BTW 'billboard' refers to the huge lettering, in the style of a billboard - was a bit complicated, but basically said that lettering for non-railroad owned cars (indicated by an X as the last letter of the reporting marks) could only have lettering of a certain height (I think 14" or 16"?), and that a railroad could require a shipper to use any available car, even if lettered for a rival company.