Not being a UP, SP or ATSF modeler, I was unaware of this, thanks.
Can't say it was not done in the east, but I have never noticed it. I model B&O, C&O and WESTERN MARYLAND.
Sheldon
Ed)
Number Cards
I was thinking Station Master/Agent would hold the cards. This being a double check feature for the railroad as more than one person involved (SM/A and crew) would insure its done at change point.
Plus that keeps the cards safe and in a single gaurded place incase the regular passenger loco got maintenanced out and a non regular loco got swapped in. OOOOPs!
"Wheres the cards? Theres nothing but Model railroaders and Trains in the seatbox!"
We need more than a couple experts round here!
Highball!
Douglas
PM Railfan Ed) Number Cards I was thinking Station Master/Agent would hold the cards. This being a double check feature for the railroad as more than one person involved (SM/A and crew) would insure its done at change point. Plus that keeps the cards safe and in a single gaurded place incase the regular passenger loco got maintenanced out and a non regular loco got swapped in. OOOOPs! "Wheres the cards? Theres nothing but Model railroaders and Trains in the seatbox!" We need more than a couple experts round here! Highball! Douglas
That would seem to require an enless number cards at different locations?
And I highly doubt that every brand and model of loco would use the exact same size/design of card.
How would they get back to the station agent?
In my mind the only logisticly practical thing would be to keep them on the locomotive.
But again, it is an operational feature I am not familiar with since the roads I model and are familiar with did not do this.
So now that I have done a little research on this........
Since I never gave it any attention before.....
Apparently SP patented their train number housing, and at least on the steam locos they all used the same cards.
Still seems it would make more sense to just keep a set of cards with the loco.
I can only find mention of one other railroad doing this beyond the UP and SP - the Alaska RR?
Thanks for the interesting discussion, I'm on to other things since this has no bearing on my modeling.
Well thats the question - where did they keep the cards?
There is only two points to keep them, starting point and turning point. Unlike todays goobers, back then folks kept better track of things. Locos go everywhere, stations never move. Thus keeping better track of things like these cards.
I would imagine only a few complete sets of numbers would be needed. A set here, a set there.
I would think they would be interchangable. Im pretty sure theyd have that much forthought if they were already making other locomotive parts interchangable.
Tis a question we would really need an ole hogger to answer.
Im pretty sure eastern railroads did this too, not just the west.
It may be my bad memory playing tricks on me but i seem to recall seeing a photo of a C&O Kanawha flying the number '41' on her boards when it should be a 2700 series number. For the life of me I will never find the picture. Its either in a C&OHS Newsletter of one of Alvin Stauffer/Eugene Huddleston books.
I seem to recall the eastern railroads did this practice too. I wish my buddy Joe was still alive, he could answer this in a flash!
PM Railfan Well thats the question - where did they keep the cards? There is only two points to keep them, starting point and turning point. Unlike todays goobers, back then folks kept better track of things. Locos go everywhere, stations never move. Thus keeping better track of things like these cards. I would imagine only a few complete sets of numbers would be needed. A set here, a set there. I would think they would be interchangable. Im pretty sure theyd have that much forthought if they were already making other locomotive parts interchangable. Tis a question we would really need an ole hogger to answer. Im pretty sure eastern railroads did this too, not just the west. It may be my bad memory playing tricks on me but i seem to recall seeing a photo of a C&O Kanawha flying the number '41' on her boards when it should be a 2700 series number. For the life of me I will never find the picture. Its either in a C&OHS Newsletter of one of Alvin Stauffer/Eugene Huddleston books. I seem to recall the eastern railroads did this practice too. I wish my buddy Joe was still alive, he could answer this in a flash! Douglas
Well, I googled it, I searched photos of lots of roads east of the Mississippi, I looked thru books I have on east coast roads - not one indication of any east coast roads doing anything like that, steam or diesel.
I model B&O, C&O and WESTERN MARYLAND, I have lots of PRR modeler friends, and know lots of people who know way more about some of these specific roads than I do - never heard anybody talk about here in the east.
I will wait to be proven wrong, but I have rather large library on the roads I model, I think I would have noticed something in 55 years......
Been going to the B&O Museum since I was a child, still get there every year or so. Been going to the Railroad Muesum of Pennsylvanna since it opened, been to Strasburg probably 40 times in the last 65 years.
Seems to me I would have noticed something, or it would have been talked about somewhere?
AND, I will admit, dispite my general interest in trains, I have never spent any real time out west, and my knowledge of roads like the UP, SP, ATSF, etc, is pretty limited.
The little time I have spent out west did not motivate me to return.....
But I could be wrong.....
I cannot remember or think of any Eastern railroad that dispatched trains in a way that required anyone to read 'train numbers' off boards, illuminated or otherwise, rather than the obvious and simple method of using the assigned locomotive for a particular stage as the 'number' that would be watched. In part this may be related to relatively short distances to be covered, or better control of passenger vs. freight traffic so something coming at an utterly unexpected time in the middle of nowhere could be easily tagged by looking at prominent boards rather than having to be 'deconvolved' by whatever locomotive type happened to be leading at the time.
Interestingly, to my very limited knowledge ATSF, which I believe ran trains far faster than SP, didn't use train number display at all on their streamliner power; if they did, let's see Ed's discussion of what form it took.
Returning to the actual topic: I'd like to know how these were normally deployed when used. Presumably some tool like a wrecking or lining bar was inserted to pull it out and up, and then hold it up while the lifting cable arrangement was cross-pinned or bolted across the eye or hooks were engaged.
Overmod Interestingly, to my very limited knowledge ATSF, which I believe ran trains far faster than SP, didn't use train number display at all on their streamliner power; if they did, let's see Ed's discussion of what form it took.
The Santa Fe always had the engine number displayed. On their diesel locomotives, there was no provision to change the numbers.
It just hit me,
If railroads 'didnt' use them for train indicator numbers...... they cant be called train number indicators because they werent used as such. Why call them something they werent?
(Im still looking because I have the strongest feeling Ive seen an east coast line do this.)
Clear Ahead!
PM RailfanIf railroads 'didn't' use them for train indicator numbers...... they can't be called train number indicators because they weren't used as such. Why call them something they weren't?
In the comparatively few instances where the train was indicated somewhere on the equipment, it was an alphanumeric name... I hear Ed starting to grumble about a certain socially-prominent Midwestern train, but I believe that always had either "The" or some name like 'Flambeau' prepended to the number.
Train indicator boards were always variable and -- I thought -- only had the engine number in them when prepended with an X as the only logical way to denominate an extra train operating under power. As Lucy said to Charlie, "that doesn't count".
(Many Eastern passenger cars did sport racks with replaceable characters in them... to denominate what Pullman car went with what accommodation ticket. I can't offhand remember any use of this to indicate the operating train number, but 'there's likely a prototype for everything'...
How did Eastern railroads identify multiple sections of a train? Was it just by the flags and the fact that they followed each other?
I only know one Eastern railroad that routinely ran in multiple sections (the New York Central) and they used only the flags to denominate a section was following. They had the somewhat weird practice of running the sections so close to each other, as if parts of one very long train, that people sitting on the observation car platform could clearly make out the plume from the feedwater heater vent of the following locomotive (the account I heard thought it was the dynamo exhaust and likened it to 'Lochinvar's plume', which was charming but missed the technical boat).
According to what I have read, the sections worked a peculiar way. The 'advertised' time went from the first section to leave to the last section to arrive, so the actual time of arrival of the first section was somewhat quicker than 'the advertised'. Ed will have much better material to quote exactly (from The Flight of the Century and other books) how this was done. He will also know practice on the PRR (which was the other railroad that ran some trains in sections) and on other roads that at peak times, like holidays (or due to wartime conditions) ran multiple sections to accommodate the ticketed demand.
Note that the flag system eliminated any need to define '1st 26, 2nd 26" and the exact number of sections. If you saw a flag, there was another section coming. And in not too much time...
AEP528 How did Eastern railroads identify multiple sections of a train? Was it just by the flags and the fact that they followed each other?
From my limited understanding of operations in the west, CTC was not common on the long routes.
In the east, most of the major mainlines of major carriers were CTC controlled. And where not CTC controlled, they had frequent tower operators and station agents all linked to each other with telegraph or telephone.
These station and tower personnel kept track as each train passed their location, wrote it down, and communicated it up and down the line.
Typically block signals between control points were (and still are) only a mile or two apart to allow trains to follow each other as close as possible.
Stations and control points (interlockings with "absolute" signals) are relatively frequent compared to crossing some of the vast territory in the west. Dispatchers, Agents or tower personnel could hold trains at these control points in the event of a delay or problem with a different train.
Here is a historical example, a 1947 PRR timetable for the Perryville, MD station shows a train every 13 minutes thru most of the 24 hour period. OK that is both directions of what was mostly (except for the nearby Susquehanna River bridge) a 4 track mainline, but that is a lot of trains.
The east also had more double track and more frequent sidings on single track, again, managed by agents, dispatchers and tower operators.
They knew when trains were coming and if a train was late or had a problem they were likely to be informed relatively quickly.
For example, on both the B&O and the PRR which pass by where I live here in Havre de Grace MD, three stations were within a 12 mile stretch of track, Aberdeen, Havre de Grace, and Perryville. Pretty hard to loose a train and not have a real good idea where to look.
Another aspect of this. While the PRR and NYC ran some long passenger trains and sometimes multiple sections, the B&O passenger trains tended to be shorter, and sometimes did run in sections, but often could just be expanded with more cars and more power.
The bulk of B&O name trains were seldom more than 8-10 cars, especially trains crossing the mountains. The B&O had the short but steep route to Chicago and St Louis as opposed to the long flat route.....
It would make sense that out west, greater distances between towns, would make schedules less reliable, and communication failures more common.
We know that each railroad adapted to their conditions - this topic is no different.