Backshop ACY Am I the only one who is very, very tired of this? Tom Some people just can't admit that they might not know everything...
ACY Am I the only one who is very, very tired of this? Tom
Am I the only one who is very, very tired of this?
Tom
Some people just can't admit that they might not know everything...
I'm more than happy to admit that I know very little.
However, what made the PRR numbering "Unorthodox"?
It wasn't that the locomotives were numbered in groups by region. The New York Central did that, as documented in Edson and Vail's two volume roster.
What made the PRR system unorthodox was the backfilling of vacant numbers.
It was this aspect that Staufer tried to explain (and has been repeated in other publications) by suggesting that the re-use of numbers was due to the need to fit the large number of locomotives into the range 1-9999.
However, that explanation has been discounted in this thread.
The problem with the "four digits" explanation was that the backfilling of numbers occurred when there were many available gaps in the numbering, particularly between Eastern and Western rosters.
My view is that it was related to the accounting for locomotives, and capital and revenue funding. This system was very common in the UK. This isn't viewed as correct by others on this thread.
But so far in this thread, nobody has provided an explanation for why the PRR, alone amongst the big Class 1 roads, carried out this form of numbering when other roads, like the NYC with similar geographically diverse fleets, did not.
I find locomotive numbering interesting for itself, not just as a reference to the locomotives themselves.
The abandoned 1943 renumbering of the English LNER had a much more logical numbering of the Pacific type, and the final numbering in 1946 lacked any logic as far as the age of the Pacific locomotives was concerned
The preliminary renumbering scheme of the Deutsche Reichsbahn was interesting in that it reflected very much the existing situation and it gave in some ways a more realistic distribution of numbers among the existing types.
However, the final scheme as adopted made much more provision for future expansion, even if major types such as the Prussian P8 and G12 received numbers that looked like an afterthought in the system, with quite minor types taking precedence.
Were the similarities between the renumbering of the Japanese National and the Deutsche Reichsbahn coincidence, or were these two organisations talking to eachother?
Peter
CSSHEGEWISCH PRR's diesel roster appears equally complex. Although there was more group numbering, a given model could be numbered in three different blocks.
PRR's diesel roster appears equally complex. Although there was more group numbering, a given model could be numbered in three different blocks.
Pennsy wasn't the only railroad that had trouble getting their diesel numbers organised. Soo Line had F7s and FA1s ("Road Freight") mixed into several blocks depending on delivery order and ownership (MStPSSM 200 or WC 2200). SP's GP9s had some blocks of RS11s mixed in (and some in T&NO's 3-digit numbers) before the system-wide 1964 renumbering.
RME- Terrific slideshow, especially on a leisurely Sunday afternoon.
Photo 41 identifies the extra tender as used for the "Red Bank service" if anyone knows what that was. That would explain things.
Is the Bald Eagle branch still in existence?
Really had no idea that Pennsy had that much steam in service that late in the game (mid 1957)
"Thats not a tender...THIS is a tender" ...(say in Australian accent a-la Crocodile Dundee)
One pic lots of Alco's on adjacent tracks ...even PA's...they didn't survive much longer than the steam they usurped.
Can you imagine living in Renovo 1937-1957...say just before, during the war and through to the end of steam?
I must get back to working on that time machine.
We all lost a lot and quickly but my American cousins lost so much. Just about a decade after these photos even the Pennsy was gone. Hard to believe.
MiningmanThe link you provide goes right back to the original picture and not a page of Renovo pictures.
Went back and fixed it.
No, I'm not tired of learning new details about unorthodox numbering, including details when people might be mistaken. How else would I learn about things I don't know ... or think I know, but really don't?
There's no police action forcing anyone to read threads, or keep commenting on them when they've lost interest. Just don't make me have to agree with quitting.
Backshop ACY has the correct answer. I also had (sold it) Edson's book and remember his explanation as being the same. It was all about which subsidiary the locomotive was assigned to and nothing about the total number of locomotives.
ACY has the correct answer. I also had (sold it) Edson's book and remember his explanation as being the same. It was all about which subsidiary the locomotive was assigned to and nothing about the total number of locomotives.
It isn't a matter of one explanation being correct and the other incorrect.
Clearly the locomotives were numbered in groups by assignment, much as the New York Central did with its Hudsons operated by subsidiaries.
In addition to the groups of numbers, the backfilling of vacant numbers and the use of a duplicate stock register are a clear indication of the accounting system being tied to the road number.
So the numbers were both allocated by operating division, and managed so that the totals by division reflected the number of locomotives.
To revert to the other aspect of the thread, the second tender on the L1, I have for some time been intrigued by two photos taken by one John Buckland in 1951. These have fortunately been preserved and scanned by the National Library of Australia and can be found on line (at least one can).
The easy one to find is:
http://nla.gov.au/nla.obj-155151160/view
Apart from the fact that the photographer fell foul to the multiplicity of pole lines, the vehicle behind the locomotive tender is a travelling water tank (you may take my word for it).
With more effort I found:
http://nla.gov.au/nla.obj-155155269/view
The photographers climbed down the embankment before the train reached them for the second shot.
The location is interesting, as seen in the track diagram...
http://www.signaldiagramsandphotos.com/mywebpages/nsw/Southern/FRAMPTON(EXCL)toBETHUNGRA.htm
If you navigate across the diagram, you come to a Tehachapi style loop with the addition of a separate downhill line (which was the original 2.5% line in single track days). As might be read from the diagram, this loop was completed some time after Tehachapi (1945, to assist WWII traffic).
Anyway, the first photo is taken from the track bed at the top of the loop looking past the southbound track at the lowest level of the northbound loop. The second photo was taken just below the upper loop looking up.
This is the busiest main line in Australia, between the two largest cities, Sydney and Melbourne. It was at the time very adequately provided with water facilities, many stations having two water columns spaced for double headed freight trains.
So why the water tank?
Assuming it is not just being moved by the train, I considered the fact that this was an oil burning locomotive. As was the case in the UK, there was considerable industrial unrest in Australia in the coal mining industry in the late 1940s and early 1950s. I myself recall power blackouts as a young child.
Seventy of these 2-8-0s were converted to oil with the intention of using them to maintain services in a major strike, but the major strike never happened. The locomotives were used, but oil refuelling facilities were very sparse.
It occurred to me that the oil burners would be able to make long through runs as long as they didn't have to stop for water (where coal burners would rake out the ashpan and tend the fire, as well as taking water).
By the end of 1951, twenty RSC-3s arrived from Montreal (MLW didn't require payment in US Dollars) and the need for such things as fast runs with oil burners disappeared. The RSC-3s ran in pairs and hauled bigger loads than the heaviest steam locomotives over lighter track (hence the need for the idler axles).
Anyway, this is just another example of additional water on a main line freight train.
ACY One example: When PRR K4s 8378 was delivered by Juniata Shops in September of 1918, the PRR already had an H10s numbered 9724 and assigned to the TC&OR. It was one of scores of engines with higher numbers. I fail to see how the number of the most recently acquired engine could tell you anything about the total number of engines on the roster, considering the fact that numbering was dependent on regional assignments, and never on roster totals. The practices of railroads on the other side of the pond are certainly interesting, and they obviously worked for them. But I don't think they provide much clarity vis a vis actual PRR practice. Tom
One example: When PRR K4s 8378 was delivered by Juniata Shops in September of 1918, the PRR already had an H10s numbered 9724 and assigned to the TC&OR. It was one of scores of engines with higher numbers. I fail to see how the number of the most recently acquired engine could tell you anything about the total number of engines on the roster, considering the fact that numbering was dependent on regional assignments, and never on roster totals.
The practices of railroads on the other side of the pond are certainly interesting, and they obviously worked for them. But I don't think they provide much clarity vis a vis actual PRR practice.
I may have expressed the system in too simplified a manner, but it appears that the locomotive accounting procedures on the PRR followed those of the LNWR and other British systems.
I don't have any serious reference to the PRR steam roster and the division between subsidiaries.
I do have Edson's recent two volume roster of the New York Central, and it is clear that while the NYC had a multiplicity of subsidiaries and numbering systems, they did not at any stage attempt to fill gaps in the rosters.
For example, they built the H-10a and H-10b Mikados numbered 1-200 and upward, presumably when these numbers were vacant, but they made no attempt to backfill numbers in the roster list as did the PRR.
I'm sure we could fill volumes just pointing out differences between the NYC and PRR at every level but they appear to have had different accounting practices in the Motive Power branches.
On the other hand, the PRR and the LNWR appear to have shared practices in their accounting for locomotives, quite apart from the fact that both operations built a substantial number of their own locomotives. Even New South wales started to build their own locomotives once the ex LNWR management took over.
It is possible that the PRR used the same approach, that I understand was the basis of the LNWR system in that a locomotive was, of course, a capital asset for which money had been borrowed and for which interest was paid. When the locomotive was no longer productive, it was replaced by a new locomotive, paid for from revenue funding, which then took the place of the old locomotive and interest was paid on the original loan against the new locomotive. If the old locomotive had some life left, it was transferred to a separate list not carrying the interest burden until it was disposed of.
It appears that this process is still in use by one of my former employers, BHP Billiton, in accounting for the ore cars on their operation in North West Australia. As the cars suffered from corrosion or accident damage, a new car with the old number would appear, often using the trucks, brake gear and couplers of the old car.
But in 2007, many years after I'd left, they started a duplicate stock register using the then vacant numbers 9050 to 9099 for cars that had been replaced but were still suitable for traffic. I saw two of these in my visit last year, eight years after they'd been replaced.
With business expansion, they now have ore cars numbered above 10250 and because of the backfilling, the highest number represents the number of cars. Even 9050 to 9099 will presumably be replaced.
On the PRR with their subsidiaries and ranges of numbers, until all the gaps were filled there would be no correlation between the highest number and the fleet total, but it appears that the accounting followed the process I've been describing. On the NYC, the system obviously worked differently, since no effort was made to backfill numbers
One more anecdote: the numbers were obviously controlled by clerks working for a senior accountant, and clearly errors were made and corrected and this sometimes gave an insight into how the system was supposed to work.
But there were also choices: In 1905, twenty 4-6-0s were ordered by New South Wales from Baldwin (to a Beyer Peacock design). These arrived and it was decided that two would take old blank numbers. The clerk chose the numbers 105 and 130, which were indeed blank but were also the numbers of the first two passenger engines purchased from Baldwin, two American type built in 1877 and 1879 respectively. The remainder were numbered 679 to 696.
ACY Five digit numbers were applied to PRR experimental electric locomotives 10001-10003 in 1905 & 1907, and 5 digit numbers were sometimes created by adding an extra digit to the numbers of engines nearing retirement. If PRR numbers reflected the total number of engines on the roster at the time a particular engine was acquired, how do you explain the numbering of PRR's 1918 batch of 111 K4s, which carried numbers ranging from 8 to 8378, and included 452, 962, the famous 1361, 2673, 3684, 5334-5349, and 7053? Tom
Five digit numbers were applied to PRR experimental electric locomotives 10001-10003 in 1905 & 1907, and 5 digit numbers were sometimes created by adding an extra digit to the numbers of engines nearing retirement.
If PRR numbers reflected the total number of engines on the roster at the time a particular engine was acquired, how do you explain the numbering of PRR's 1918 batch of 111 K4s, which carried numbers ranging from 8 to 8378, and included 452, 962, the famous 1361, 2673, 3684, 5334-5349, and 7053?
That group of numbers you quote is exactly the range of numbers you might expect from a system trying to maintain the highest number matching the number of locomotives in service, with the following caveats: Both the parent road and lines West were operating the same way and 5333 was the highest parent road number and the highest Lines West number was in the 83xx series. The lower numbers and 7053 were replacements.
I quote to you the numbers of the last batch of T class 2-8-0s delivered to the New South Wales Government Railways from North British in 1916. These were numbered 68, 72, 73, 522 and 1254 to 1303.
These numbers were issued by a system that was actively trying to maintain a full list with the highest number representing the number of locomotives in service.
Your list of PRR K4s of 1918 has all the same characteristics as the list I quote.
I am particulary interested in your comment regarding old locomotives being given a fifth digit as they came due for replacement. This is known in my part of the world (and in England) as the "Duplicate Stock".
The concept of the "Duplicate Stock" was introduced on the New South Wales Railways in 1891 and that occurred at the start of a serious effort for the highest locomotive number representing the number of locomotives in stock. The duplicate stock allowed locomotives to be written off the books, but allowed them to be used for secondary tasks until worn out. Duplicate locomotives could only have limited money expended on them and were to be discarded when majpor work became due.
I see the use of a Duplicate Stock as a clear indication that a similar accounting system operated on the two systems in question.
I have written an article in "Australian Railway History", March 2010 pages 106 to 117, describing the introduction of the Duplicate Stock in New South Wales and the consequent renumbering in mid 1891.
The introduction of the system followed the importation of top management from the London and North Western Railway. While I don't know of links between the PRR and the LNWR, there were many similarities in the way the railways were run.
M636C
RME-The link you provide goes right back to the original picture and not a page of Renovo pictures. I did google : Renovo, PRR, pictures and found hundreds of very outstanding scenes of the PRR in the transition era. Found 2 pictures of Mikado's with the extra tender. Your conjecture on this is very likely correct. I do not think 2 tenders was any kind of common practice for the Pennsy.
ACYThe photo that started this whole discussion showed an L1s Mikado on a secondary line in 1955, after PRR had purchased quite a few diesels. By that time, some intermediate water stations had been taken out of service, so the extra water capacity was needed to make the entire trip.
To keep the discussion properly grounded, here is the picture in question:
I presume this is the Bald Eagle branch.
Now, something that might be interesting in this context is this page of Renovo pictures from 1957. Note that a couple of these images show the double-tender Mikado arrangement ... now that we know what to look for. But they also show a number of other engines that do not have the double tank arrangement, which leads me to wonder whether this one train involved some special 'extended distance' running, in a service that needed the smaller power running through on track that had had its steam water facilities 'deprecated'...
PRR did renumber some steam locomotives in the early 1950's to accommodate new blocks of numbers for diesels, but they did it on a one-by-one basis as needed. This was especially true of high-numbered Lines West engines of H10s and other classes. They did not have a wholesale renumbering comparable to B&O's Jan. 1, 1957 swap creating 3 digit numbers for all steam and 4 digit numbers for all diesels.
The photo that started this whole discussion showed an L1s Mikado on a secondary line in 1955, after PRR had purchased quite a few diesels. By that time, some intermediate water stations had been taken out of service, so the extra water capacity was needed to make the entire trip. It would not have been needed a few years earlier. Similarly, B&O retired intermediate water stations on the CL&W branch in Ohio, and provided extra water cars for steam locos on long runs in the last years of steam. Large tenders (or extra water capacity) provided an advantage whether the intermediate water facilities existed or not. They allowed the train to keep moving, eliminating the difficulty of restarting a stopped train, and saving time.
Spelling of Al Staufer's name duly noted. I keep making that mistake!
ACYMany roads used extra water cars to extend the distance between water stations.
I don't think that was the main reason PRR did its large tenders. One problem with their large-power designs (particularly the stillborn V-1 turbine) was that the actual over-the-road range, even with the largest cistern sizes in 'coast-to-coast' tenders, could be under 130 miles, and this necessitated either expensive track pans or expensive full stops at water columns -- perhaps very long stops if the water columns or the supplies to them were volume-limited! -- in order to get trains over the road at all. That was a documented (it's in the Hagley collection) MAJOR reason why the F7s were preferred out of all 'historical financial common sense' for equipment purchases.
Many of PRR's water facilities appear to me to have been designed for minimal cost and maintenance; for example the supply to them being arranged to run by gravity and be fed by natural sources requiring little or no filtration or treatment. How far you can get with this in Pennsylvania winter climate is ... not very encouraging, and if the alternative (with dieselization) is no water facilities at all, and the opportunity cost of labor increased as radically as it did following the War, it is not surprising that some alternative that allowed closing of 'frequent enough to be safe' water facilities would be favored.
It does occur to me that the most logical way of 'increasing range between water stops' was to use canteens or A-tanks or cisterns, as so many other roads did. I don't find much evidence of this on PRR, though, even as the coast-to-coast tenders grew longer and heavier than some of the engines they were attached to. (I am still trying to find pictures of the converted tank cars with large-diameter hose connections that were built, probably for this reason.)
ACYAlso, the PRR obviously didn't maintain the system in order to guarantee that all engines would be 4 digit.
To be honest, I understood Staufer's (note sp.) comment to refer to the maximum number of digits in a locomotive number, and that it referred to active in-service locomotives. All you need to look at is the K4sa numbering to figure out that four digits wasn't a hard convention. I am highly delighted to see Tom's further systematization of PRR numbering, as even the PRR-FAX list didn't provide as much detail!
I believe Staufer elsewhere explains, perhaps in the same volume, how the 1- was prepended to locomotives either slated to be removed from service or effectively retired. Use of five-digit numbers for experimental locomotives is almost 'the exception that proves the rule', especially when all production classes of electric locomotive were assigned no more than four digits and no leading 0 in the number as Tom Swift and New Haven used for electrics (and the latter for early diesels).
Personally I have always thought that distinguishing electric power definitively from steam power, especially in situations where they might be mixed, has great merit, and if it were mine to say, I'd extend the convention to electric MU cars. There may be internal paperwork reasons to use a numeric prefix instead of "E-xxxx" to denote electric power. Personally I've always liked the NZR convention of starting the road number with the wheel-arrangement class letter, but in North American practice that would result in five-character numbers with some frequency.
Something I did not see in Tom's post, but would like to know, is whether PRR engaged in organized renumbering of steam locomotives from four to fewer digits toward the end of steam, as B&O explicitly did. (UP went the other way with 8444, and to be honest I still like her look better with a civilized four digits on her cab!)
M636C:
You were not the one who suggested PRR tried to maintain 4 digit numbers. I'm sorry if it sounded like I implied that. That was RME, quoting Stauffer. I have no idea where Stauffer's idea might have come from, but it isn't the only error to be found in his books. Five digit numbers were applied to PRR experimental electric locomotives 10001-10003 in 1905 & 1907, and 5 digit numbers were sometimes created by adding an extra digit to the numbers of engines nearing retirement.
I think you are asking whether there was a numbering gap between 1803 and 7001, which were the last Lines East, and the first Lines West, numbers I mentioned. No, there was no significant gap. I did not fill in the gap in my response because I wanted to save space. In actuality, numbers 1804-6999 were additions for the parent road, plus engines of Philadelphia & Erie, Belvedere-Delaware, Northern Central, Allegheny Valley, Pennsylvania & NW, Susquehanna Bloomsburg & Berwick, Cornwall & Lebanon, Cumberland Valley, Philadelphia Wilmington & Baltimore, West Jersey & Seashore, Pennsylvania-Reading Seashore Lines, Western New York & Pennsylvania, Allegheny Valley, New York Philadelphia & Norfolk, and Pennsylvania & Northwestern.
As for Lines West, my response ended with the PCC&StL's 8001-8700. But the numbering didn't end there. Higher numbers were assigned to engines of the Indianapolis & Vincennes, Vandalia, Cincinnati & Muskingum Valley, Chicago & Indiana Eastern, Little Miami, Terre Haute & Peoria, Cincinnati Lebanon & Northern, Grand Rapids & Indiana, Wheeling Terminal, Ohio River & Western (narrow gauge), Waynesburg & Washington (narrow gauge), Toledo Columbus & Ohio River, Cleveland Akron & Cincinnati, renumberings and additions for Pittsburgh Youngstown & Ashtasbula, renumberings and additions for Erie & Pittsburgh, renumberings and additions for Cleveland & Marietta, as well as additional engines of the parent PRR. These were not necessarily numbered sequentially in the order I have shown because I simplified the list to keep it from being even more convoluted. It's confusing enough as it is.
ACY M636C, please supply documentation, if you can. I'll bet you can't. This discussion illustrates what can happen when you get away from a Forum for a few days. It's been a long time since I've heard or read such a certifiable load of unsubstantiated, fictional &(%#@^$. Numbers were NOT assigned according to the actual total number of locos on the roster. Also, the PRR obviously didn't maintain the system in order to guarantee that all engines would be 4 digit. If that were true, how do we explain PRR H6sb 2-8-0 number 1? Tom
M636C, please supply documentation, if you can. I'll bet you can't. This discussion illustrates what can happen when you get away from a Forum for a few days. It's been a long time since I've heard or read such a certifiable load of unsubstantiated, fictional &(%#@^$. Numbers were NOT assigned according to the actual total number of locos on the roster. Also, the PRR obviously didn't maintain the system in order to guarantee that all engines would be 4 digit. If that were true, how do we explain PRR H6sb 2-8-0 number 1?
PRR didn't renumber all those engines with early scattered numbers. I have never heard a reason stated officially, but the usual argument is that there were so many engines that it would have been a truly daunting task.
Many roads used extra water cars to extend the distance between water stations. This became a more and more common practice as the end of steam operation drew nearer. B&O used enlarged tenders, special purpose-built water cars, as well as repurposed tank cars. PRR was an early believer in the advantages of very large tenders for extended range. In the last years of steam, PRR and many other roads used extra water tenders to compensate for the retirement of water facilities. The cited photo was taken in 1955, only 2 years before PRR dropped all fires.
M636C, please supply documentation, if you can. I'll bet you can't. This discussion illustrates what can happen when you get away from a Forum for a few days. It's been a long time since I've heard or read such a certifiable load of unsubstantiated, fictional &(%#@^$. Numbers were NOT assigned according to the actual total number of locos on the roster. Also, the PRR obviously didn't maintain the system in order to guarantee that all engines would be 4 digit. If that were true, how do we explain PRR H6sb 2-8-0 number 1?The Pennsylvania Railroad was the Country's biggest, and it controlled scores of different small railroads that combined to make up the whole system. Each of those component lines was assigned a number series for their engines. There were too many different series to enumerate here, but the book Keystone Steam & Electric, by William Edson, published by Wayner Publications, Ansonia Station, New York, 1974 gives the whole breakdown.
Here is a simplified sample of the numbering sequence:
701-750 New Jersey Railroad & Transportation Co.
751-770 Camden & Amboy
771-1406 Additions for parent PRR
1407-1441 Former Belvedere-Delaware
1442-1676 Additions for parent PRR
1677-1803 Philadelphia & Erie
Numbers 7001 and up were assigned to Lines West of Pittsburgh, but they also were separated into various series for the different component railroads. This is why there were no H10s engines with numbers below 7001 (the H10s being a Lines West design).
7001-7500 were PFW&C numbers
7501-7544 were PRR renumberings
7545-7599 were Erie & Pittsburgh
7601-7800 were Cleveland & Pittsburgh
7801-7825 were Cleveland & Marietta
7829-7899 were PY&A
7901-7961 were TW&OV
7862-7987 were TC&OR
8001-8700 were PCC&StL
.....and so it continued.
If a locomotive was retired, its number became available for another locomotive assigned to the same PRR controlled line or operating Division. It didn't matter whether the engine type was similar or not.
This changed radically (but somewhat gradually), beginning shortly before WWI. After the passing of the USRA, PRR abandoned the practice of numbering by assigned lines. Most (not all) L1s Mikado and early K4s Pacific engines were given numbers in the general parent road series', rather than the series' with geographical identities. This was around the time that most PRR subsidiaries lost whatever independence they had, and became pure PRR.
The first 123 I1s Decapods were built in 1916-1919 with scattered numbers, but the last 475 Decapods were built in 1922-1923 with sequential numbers 4225-4699.
The first 40 G5s 4-6-0's were built in the Autumn of 1923 with scattered numbers, but the last 50 were built in late 1924 and early 1925 with sequential numbers 5700-5749.
C1 0-8-0's and M1/M1a 4-8-2's, built later in the 1920's, ended up in solid blocks of numbers.
By the end of the 1920's, all new purchases were in blocks, with obvious exceptions for experimentals. Locomotives were being freely transferred from Division to Division without renumbering. Lines West numbers appeared in the East and vice versa.
Yes, there was a system, but it was a very unusual one with a lot of complexity. It was tailored to the massive size of the PRR enterprise.
It seems Sun Yat-Sen wished to get a new railroad built.
https://books.google.com/books?id=Iac_AAAAMAAJ
RME Thank you. M636C I met Cantlie in London in the 1980s and discussed his role in the design of two Chinese locomotives, a 4-8-4 and an 0-8-0. That's not just "a" 4-8-4, it's one of the finest locomotives ever designed in Britain. We sometimes make fun of what happens when British designers try to make North-American scale power, but Cantlie's design was the KF7, noted by the Chinese retaining the Roman "KF" letters (for ConFederation, see our earlier discussion on whether the Canadian 4-8-4 was actually called by this name 'in the Empire') during Cultural Revolution times when most everything historical, especially with imperialist connotations, was being 'disappeared'. What was particularly notable was that there appeared to be little actual "American" subcontractor input in the design -- no cast frame or trailer, no Colonial appliances or devices, etc. -- so all the good performance the locomotive exhibited did in fact reflect the care and knowledge of its designer. I would have been very interested, and honored, to be able to talk with Mr. Cantlie about that locomotive, and I'd like to hear some of what the two of you talked about concerning it.
Thank you.
M636C I met Cantlie in London in the 1980s and discussed his role in the design of two Chinese locomotives, a 4-8-4 and an 0-8-0.
That's not just "a" 4-8-4, it's one of the finest locomotives ever designed in Britain. We sometimes make fun of what happens when British designers try to make North-American scale power, but Cantlie's design was the KF7, noted by the Chinese retaining the Roman "KF" letters (for ConFederation, see our earlier discussion on whether the Canadian 4-8-4 was actually called by this name 'in the Empire') during Cultural Revolution times when most everything historical, especially with imperialist connotations, was being 'disappeared'. What was particularly notable was that there appeared to be little actual "American" subcontractor input in the design -- no cast frame or trailer, no Colonial appliances or devices, etc. -- so all the good performance the locomotive exhibited did in fact reflect the care and knowledge of its designer.
I would have been very interested, and honored, to be able to talk with Mr. Cantlie about that locomotive, and I'd like to hear some of what the two of you talked about concerning it.
You have asked me to recall discussions that took place twenty eight years ago (or so). I can recall some details so I'll do my best...
I was visiting the UK and had visted the National Railway Museum where KF1 7 was on display. I had been told by a colleague that Kenneth Cantlie lived in London and that he could be contacted if I were visiting the UK. When I returned to London, I phoned him, dropped the appropriate name, and asked if I might give him a copy of my book on Chinese Locomotives.
I was invited for afternoon tea. The house was a town house in a fashionable area of London, only a couple of rooms wide but maybe four stories tall. I was greeted by a Chinese maid and taken to the sitting room on the second floor (what the British call the first floor). Cantlie had the original drawings of the 4-8-4 laid out on a table, along with some other documentation, and he already had a copy of my book (the hard cover version, which I don't think was on sale in the UK).
The drawings were somewhat different from the locomotive as built. The most visible difference was locomotive running boards were lower, and Cantlie said that he preferred to attach these to the frames since it simplified work on the boiler and made boiler removal easier.
I think I asked about the original valve gear, which had a 2 to 1 multiplication lever to provide a 9 inch valve travel. This had been removed and a conventional arrangement with around 6 inch travel substituted. I think I asked whether Baker gear which was often used with longer travel was considered but I think the answer was no.
Cantlie said that he was also responsible for the ET 6 0-8-0, which had some detail similarities with the KF 1. I noted that it was unusual for a switcher to have an E type superheater, and Cantlie indicated that these locomotives were intended for construction work on extensions of the Canton Hankow main line and might be expected to run for quite long distances in this role. Cantlie wasn't aware that a batch of these had been delivered post WWII from North British. I think these may have been ordered pre war.
The double Kylchap from "Mallard" had been removed during an overhaul and had been put on display in the York museum and I'd photographed it. I asked Cantlie his opinion of the arrangement and he was favourablt disposed to it when compared with other arrangements such as the Giesl ejector.
At some stage we were discussing other locomotive features, and I ventured the opinion that E.S. Cox who had written widely on locomotive design was opposed to grease lubrication as opposed to oil lubrication. Cantlie agreed.
The afternoon tea arrived silently on on a dumbwaiter from the kitchen below.
I think there were cupcakes and sandwiches.
I was invited back, but would not be in the UK for the next occasion. There were periodic meetings with other railway engineers. J.M. Jarvis, who I had met on my first trip to China in 1980, was one of the regular attendees. Jarvis visited the USA in 1952, and took an amazing collection of excellent photos of US steam locomotives in action which have appeared in British books. I think Jarvis had provided Cantlie with my book.
At one stage, Cantlie asked if I'd received any official assistance from the Chinese Railways for my book. I said no, and Cantlie said that he hadn't expected that I would have got any help.
At this distance in time, that's about the best I can do.
Thanks wanswheel for the obituary from the China Society. I had never imagined that Sun Yat-Sen was an American. He is regarded as a hero by both the Communists and the Nationalists. I was shown a memorial hall to Dr Sun in Guangzhou in 1980, and I understand there is an exact replica in Taipei.
Cantlie's connection to Sun Yat-Sen allowed him considerable access at all levels in China throughout his life.
I never heard of Colonel Cantlie but his godfather had something in common with Barrack Obama.
http://www.nrm.org.uk/OurCollection/LocomotivesAndRollingStock/CollectionItem?objid=1987-7001
https://archive.org/stream/sunyatsenawakeni0000cant#page/n5/mode/2up
M636CI met Cantlie in London in the 1980s and discussed his role in the design of two Chinese locomotives, a 4-8-4 and an 0-8-0.
RME M636C My recollection was that #2 "Lord Baltimore" was renumbered in the 53xx series with other 4-6-4s and #1 might have gone to that series as well. There is more to this story than that. B&O used numbers in the 53xx series for both primary and renumbered 'experimentals' and one-offs, but they appear to have done this via the same time-honored method in BASIC computer programming, using numbers spaced 10 apart. It appears the W-1 'constant torque' locomotive was going to be 5300 (from the diagram) and there are notes that the boiler from this locomotive was repurposed and installed on "5310" but I thought that number belonged to the 'regular' President series; steamlocomotive.com has 5310 indicated as a P9b with no name, but I had thought the P9b was 5320, President Cleveland, built with the Q4 Emerson boiler and Caprotti valve gear by B&O. Lady Baltimore (the 4-4-4) was 5330, Lord Baltimore (the 4-6-4) 5340; the V-3 5350 and V-4 5360. Renumbering of locomotives 1 and 2 took place in 1942, and I think the reason the George Emerson 5600 4-4-4-4 wasn't renumbered at that time was that it was already stored, and scrapped only about a year later. It might be interesting to coordinate this action with the deprioritization of new steam development (after about 1940) and the departure (and if I recall correctly death) of Col. Emerson in the very early '40s.
M636C My recollection was that #2 "Lord Baltimore" was renumbered in the 53xx series with other 4-6-4s and #1 might have gone to that series as well.
There is more to this story than that. B&O used numbers in the 53xx series for both primary and renumbered 'experimentals' and one-offs, but they appear to have done this via the same time-honored method in BASIC computer programming, using numbers spaced 10 apart. It appears the W-1 'constant torque' locomotive was going to be 5300 (from the diagram) and there are notes that the boiler from this locomotive was repurposed and installed on "5310" but I thought that number belonged to the 'regular' President series; steamlocomotive.com has 5310 indicated as a P9b with no name, but I had thought the P9b was 5320, President Cleveland, built with the Q4 Emerson boiler and Caprotti valve gear by B&O. Lady Baltimore (the 4-4-4) was 5330, Lord Baltimore (the 4-6-4) 5340; the V-3 5350 and V-4 5360. Renumbering of locomotives 1 and 2 took place in 1942, and I think the reason the George Emerson 5600 4-4-4-4 wasn't renumbered at that time was that it was already stored, and scrapped only about a year later.
It might be interesting to coordinate this action with the deprioritization of new steam development (after about 1940) and the departure (and if I recall correctly death) of Col. Emerson in the very early '40s.
According to Edson's B&O Steam Roster, the W-1 was to be 5800 (200 above the N-1 4-4-4-4) not 5300, already occupied by "President Washington".
There were indeed two P-9s:
5320 built as the 21st President Class at Mt Clare in 1928 with the rebuilt Mikado boiler,
5310, built by Baldwin in 1927 as "President Taylor" but rebuilt in 1939 with a (presumably) cut down version of the boiler built for 5800.
These were P9a and P9b respectively, 329500lbs and 335000lbs (so the W-1 boiler was heavier...)
The story of Emerson's travels in Russia reminded me of another Colonel in another war, Kenneth Cantlie in Manchuria during the Japanese takeover. His story is included in a brief history of railways in China he wrote. He managed to evade the Japanes by the simple expedient of riding on the locomotive at one critical stage.
I met Cantlie in London in the 1980s and discussed his role in the design of two Chinese locomotives, a 4-8-4 and an 0-8-0.
Now that is a great story! Amazing that Emerson made it out of Siberia alive. War and Railroading, 2 great endeavours that will test a mans limits to overcome the impossible.
RME I think the reason the George Emerson 5600 4-4-4-4 wasn't renumbered at that time was that it was already stored, and scrapped only about a year later. It might be interesting to coordinate this action with the deprioritization of new steam development (after about 1940) and the departure (and if I recall correctly death) of Col. Emerson in the very early '40s.
I think the reason the George Emerson 5600 4-4-4-4 wasn't renumbered at that time was that it was already stored, and scrapped only about a year later.
George H. Emerson died on Jan. 12, 1950 and the G.H.E. 5600 was scrapped in October 1950.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baltimore_and_Ohio_Class_N-1
https://books.google.com/books?id=8V1mDAAAQBAJ&pg=PA82&dq=%22sandhouse+gossip%22%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiAhsfsrdnPAhXJcz4KHXGkA9kQ6AEIHjAA#v=onepage&q=%22sandhouse%20gossip%22%22&f=false
Colonel George H. Emerson of the Russian Railway Service Corps
https://archive.org/stream/russianrailways00housgoog#page/n90/mode/2up
Colonel Emerson and John F. Stevens at Vladivostok
Login, or register today to interact in our online community, comment on articles, receive our newsletter, manage your account online and more!
Get the Classic Trains twice-monthly newsletter