Dumb question about locomotive class numbers...

[liquidcross]

Forgive me for being a newbie...but what do the "0-6-0", "4-8-8-4", "Bo-Bo", etc. following a train name actually mean?

[lupo]

tell him dougal!!

[Anonymous]

That is the wheel arrangement. Here's what they mean:
0-6-0= no front trucks, six driving wheels, no trailing trucks.
4-8-8-4 (note, all engines with four numbered wheel arrangement have two sets of drivers) four wheels on lead truck, two sets of eight wheeled drivers, four wheels on trailing truck)
BoBo is a term usually used in Europe, in the US it is B-B, it means four axles (diesel and electric locomotives only) Hope this helps.

[liquidcross]

QUOTE: Originally posted by dougal

That is the wheel arrangement. Here's what they mean:
0-6-0= no front trucks, six driving wheels, no trailing trucks.
4-8-8-4 (note, all engines with four numbered wheel arrangement have two sets of drivers) four wheels on lead truck, two sets of eight wheeled drivers, four wheels on trailing truck)
BoBo is a term usually used in Europe, in the US it is B-B, it means four axles (diesel and electric locomotives only) Hope this helps.

Cool, that makes sense. Thanks man! One last question...what about "Co-Co"?

[Anonymous]

I think the Co-Co, is the European for 3 axeled diesels. In the USs, we call them C-Cs. The system Dougal described for you about steam engines is called the Whyte system. This system was designed by a Mr. Whyte (obviously).

Further, most railroads used their own system of classification numbers for their steam locos. Some made sense, others really didn't. For instance, Northern Pacific called it's 4-8-4's class A, while Union Pacific called theirs F-E-Fs. F-E-F stood for Four-Eight-Four. UP made sense, NP's didn't.

[ndbprr]

One other thing. Sometimes 4-8-8-4 will be presented as 4-8+8-4. There was a huge uproar about it when David P. Morgan changed the reporting method several years ago. As I remember 4-8-8-4 meant the steam was used twice first in one engine and then the other before being exhausted and 4-8+8-4 meant steam directly from the boiler went to one set of cylinders only before being exhausted. Any way the wheel designation stays the same in either case.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by deschane

Further, most railroads used their own system of classification numbers for their steam locos. Some made sense, others really didn't. For instance, Northern Pacific called it's 4-8-4's class A, while Union Pacific called theirs F-E-Fs. F-E-F stood for Four-Eight-Four. UP made sense, NP's didn't.

I never knew until now what the reason was for a three-letter designation. So this makes sense, does it?

"F" always corresponds to "Four"
"E" always corresponds to "Eight"
I assume "S" for "Six", "T" for "Two", and ??? for "Ten"...

How is the nomenclature "F-E-F" more abbreviated or better to use than "4-8-4"?
The only difference is that it is alphabetic, which maybe helps to differentiate engine class from engine number. But NP's class "A" summed it all up in one letter, and leaves open the potential for subclasses.

I have wondered about a similar situation, where my local talk radio station, which is at 550 AM, refers to itself as "Fifty-five, WKRC". Now, really, come one. Is the phrase "fifty-five" really more memorable or shorter or better than "five-fifty"?

[Anonymous]

Avondaleguy,
What the? Did I offend? Are you? Kiss my---
Mark DeSchane

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by deschane

Avondaleguy,
What the? Did I offend? Are you? Kiss my---
Mark DeSchane

(why must critical thought be presumed to stem from personal offense?)

If anything, my comments are regarding the lack of sense UP's management displayed. I highly doubt you had anything whatsoever to do with the decision to refer to northerns as "FEF"s. I just am commenting on what appears to me to be nonsense, and am definitely open to possibly learning a thing or two... such as, there may be a very valid and persuasive reason why they chose this nomenclature, and what the rest of the system was (you might have noticed I did not know how to resolve "two" versus "ten"). As a hardcore railroader, this is information that I would like to learn.

I cannot really learn much of anything by going around kissing ---'s, so I think I'll not.

No, you never came anywhere close to offending me, disregarding the ---. I am honestly shocked that I seem to have offended you, I don't understand how this can be so considering the nature of my post, but I apologize.

[dehusman]

Individual railroad class numbers or codes varied from road to road. The Mop classed its locomotives by an abreviation of the wheel arrangement and the driver diameter (P73= Pacific 73" drivers, TN61= Ten wheeler 61" drivers). Other roads lettered the different classes, but the letters used varied all over the map. Class N was a 2-10-2 on the PRR but a 2-8-8-2 on the Reading. The PRR ascribed the 2-8+8-2 theory because an articulated steam engine or electric motor was classed by the indiviual frames. So a 2-8-8-2 became a class HH on the PRR (a class H 2-8-0 + another class H 2-8-0). A ten wheeler on the PRR was a class G. If you have an electic engine with a 4-6-6-4 wheel arrangement you have two G ten wheelers back to back so you end up with the famous GG-1. A Hudson was a class P (or would have been) so the electric 4-6-4's were P class.

The only question I have about the FEF designation on the UP is how many other engines followed that pattern? I know a consolidation wasn't a TEZ (two-eight-zero).

Dave H.

[Anonymous]

Avondaleguy,
These are the problems with this medium! There are no inflections or facial indications from the posters helping the reader understand what is trying to be said. I have missread what you stated as being snide about my explaination of engine classes. You have indicated above that this was not your intentions! Therefore I owe you an appology and I am sorry for my comment to you!

[Anonymous]

deschane-

Thanks for the positives! For the record, I can't understand why any model railroader would want to become adversarial with another modeler; we're too few and far between amongst the general populace, seems like we'd want each other as good buddies. In fact, I tend to assume that a fellow modeler already is a good buddy, and it's good buddies who go around rubbing the wrong way with critical comments like mine, mouthing off, grumbling and complaining about the sorry state of affairs in the world, all the while really just enjoying the company.

I hope you and I can go that route, because I see from your tagline that you model one of my secret loves, the Northern Pacific. I'm not gonna move off my rock and give up modeling Norfolk & Western in West Virginia, but if I was FORCED to, I'd take up NP in a heartbeat. I'd love to hear more about your modeling efforts, if you want to write me: [e-mail].

[BR60103]

to go back up a few posts: The deignation of diesel/electric locos by letters.
Powered axles were shown by letters, unpowereed axles by numbers. The "o" in Bo and Co indicated one motor driving both (or all 3) axles. A 3 axle truck could be C, Co or A1A (middle axle undpowered, motor on each outside axle.)
A dash usually indicated an extra swivelling unit so a GG1 would be 2-C-C-2. A loco with an unpowered axle on the outer end of a 4 axle truck would be 1Co-Co1.
Every railroad had a system for classifying locos, but very few would have the same system. Often they would reclassify, when older locos were scrapped. Some would start with A for the smallest ones, others used A for the largest ones or the most prestigious ones. The Southern Railway in England had 3 systems that they inherited from 3 major components, and kept them for 25 years. The LNER used the letter J for 0-6-0 and 0-6-0T (tank) locos adding numbers that ended up in the 80's to distinguish classes.

[Favrefan04]

I was actually goign to put a similar question, but I was going to ask about Diesels instead. I am interested in modern Diesels. What is the most current, and what is the most often used on Prototypical Railroads? Is there a web page that I can visit to find all of the classifications?