Pennsy's unorthodox numbering system

[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]

BaltACD

 

 

M636C

On the B&O, weren't the two locomotives for the ACF lightweight trains in 1934 numbers 1 and 2? I think that was intended to indicate their importance rather than fill the gap.

Peter

 

 

Subsequently when the B&O got their first freight diesels, the numbering on those engines began with #1

The steam #1 & #2 were the experimental Lord and Lady Baltimore - they were not replicated.

 

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. But that was after they realised they were not the way of the future.

 

The passenger diesels, also associated with the ACF trains were, numbered from 50 and because they WERE the way of the future, kept those numbers.

 

Peter

[BaltACD]

M636C

On the B&O, weren't the two locomotives for the ACF lightweight trains in 1934 numbers 1 and 2? I think that was intended to indicate their importance rather than fill the gap.

Peter

Subsequently when the B&O got their first freight diesels, the numbering on those engines began with #1

The steam #1 & #2 were the experimental Lord and Lady Baltimore - they were not replicated.

[M636C]

Miningman

Well thanks for that M636C...if 2 foreign railroads, one in England and one in Australia used that system until only the early 1920's then I would still say it was an unorthodox method. Did not all Class 1's use locomotive classes as well... and Pennsy was by no means a small operation with a small number of locomotives. If by capital stock it means the number of locomotives on hand at any time in some state  then they had at least 8636 on the system. 

The Pennsy certainly was one big railroad. 

I regard the numbering used by the Japanese National railways prior to the 1920s as unorthodox: They used number groups as classes, and one large class was the "8620" class, a medium size (for Japan) 2-6-0. When the numbers got to 8699, they didn't go to 8700 but to 18620, and at 18699 went to 28620, leaving 18600 to 18619 (and so on) blank. That's unorthodox...

The next development of the type became class "C50", starting at C50 001 and just went up from there. But the 8620s kept their numbers.

In England, it wasn't just the LNWR that tried to fill blank numbers, most of the large systems did so prior to 1923. The English Great Northern railway did so, and when they re-used a number, as they did with the famous Stirling 4-2-2 "No 1", they were able to pay for the locomotive from revenue funds as a replacement, wheras one of the later locomotives of the same type, 1008 used a new number at the top of the list and had to be paid for by capital. By 1923 the high numbers had reached 1470 (for the Pacific "Great Northern") but the numbers 1462 to 1469 were never used. The successor LNER used these numbers (with 3000 added as with all GNR numbers) as 4462 to 4469. The well known A4 "Mallard" was 4468 in this batch, built in 1938.

The PRR not only used letter classes but attached cast plates indicating the class so it could be used by the crews.

The Harriman roads used letter and number classes, and those familiar with my book on Chinese locomotives will know that that system extended to China via the Japanese owned South Manchurian Railways and formed the basis of steam locomotive classification pretty much to the end of steam. A related system is still in use in China for diesel and electric locomotives.

In Britain up until the early 1920s, the connection between the highest number and the number of locomotives on the books was taken seriously (possibly by the accountants). But if you fill all the gaps, that will happen automatically.

In the case of the PRR, the last "No 1" I know of was, I think an H-9 2-8-0.

On the B&O, weren't the two locomotives for the ACF lightweight trains in 1934 numbers 1 and 2? I think that was intended to indicate their importance rather than fill the gap.

Peter

[rcdrye]

The FF2s (ex-GN Y-1 class) had a precedent in "Big Liz", the FF1, and made perfect sense as a pair of F-class moguls.  The two Baldwin-Westinghouse experimental electrics would have been BB and AAA (or BBBB and AAAAAA) class.

[RME]

Basically, the system meant that the number of the highest numbered locomotive represented the number of locomotives in the capital stock. When a locomotive was taken out of service, its number was taken by the next new locomotive placed in service.

Staufer had a very different take on this in the first 'Pennsy Power'.  That's not to say he's right and Mr. Clark isn't ... but this is the first I'd heard of the 'highest-numbered locomotive representing the number of locomotives in the capital stock'. 

Working from imperfect memory, Staufer said the numbering systems PRR used were aimed at keeping four-digit locomotive numbers across the extended and disparate PRR system including Lines West, while accommodating later 'miniblocks' of common numbering as new classes came into service (roughly at the time of and then after WWI).  He illustrated 'engine 9999' on another page in that book, which had a fairly long service life that spanned quite a number of large equipment purchases, scrappings of older retired and obsolescent power (specifically including what happened to most of the Atlantics earlier than the E6s with the advent of longer steel-car consists) and, later, the effects of the electrification.

Mr. Clark is very correct about the use of class letters rather than numerical ranges (as, notably, on ATSF) -- it is interesting to note that on B&O, which used class letters on a smaller roster, the number ranges were common 'denotations' used by crews to indicate the type of power.

It might also be added that PRR switched some of their classes around, and in some cases (the 'odd D' comes to mind) tinkered with what letter and number corresponded to signified what particular class or design.  The postwar diesel scheme was amusing for precisely the fact that it did not include any reference whatsoever to the wheel or motor arrangement (as, for example, Baldwin's locomotive-typing taxonomy did) -- and neither did the scheme for the postwar truck-borne electrics including the experimentals, some of which clearly predated the acquisition of the FF2s!

Someone who has access to the mid-Thirties versions of oil-fired truck-motor locomotives, for example the Steins-patent switcher designs, might be able to comment on whether proposed codes for them followed Whyte practice.

[Miningman]

Well thanks for that M636C...if 2 foreign railroads, one in England and one in Australia used that system until only the early 1920's then I would still say it was an unorthodox method. Did not all Class 1's use locomotive classes as well... and Pennsy was by no means a small operation with a small number of locomotives. If by capital stock it means the number of locomotives on hand at any time in some state  then they had at least 8636 on the system. 

The Pennsy certainly was one big railroad. 

[M636C]

Firstly, the numbering system used by the Pennsylvania Railroad was not unorthodox, nor was it in any way unique.

Basically, the system meant that the number of the highest numbered locomotive represented the number of locomotives in the capital stock. When a locomotive was taken out of service, its number was taken by the next new locomotive placed in service. Some locomotives received consecutive numbers at the top of the list as the total number of locomotives were purchased. During and after WWII locomotives were given numbers in groups departing from the system, particularly Duplex types in classes S-1, T-1, Q-1, Q-2 and the turbine S-2, and the J-1 Texas type.

The same system was used by the English London and North Western Railway right up until it was merged into the London Midland and Scottish Railway in January 1923.

In Australia, the New South Wales Government Railways used this system unttil July 1924, when it adopted a system based on that of the German State Railways where the first two numbers of the locomotive indicated the classification.

The system used by the Pennsylvania was common with many small operations with a small number of locomotives.

One reason that the PRR were able to use the system they did was that they had a system of locomotive classification that did not involve the locomotive number, wheras many railroads relied upon the locomotive number to identify its type.

The PRR had locomotive classes such as D for a 4-4-0, K for 4-6-2 and L for the Mikado in the photo and so on. The same classes were used for electric locomotives, the GG-1 being two G class 4-6-0s back to back. The system was not used post WWII for diesel locomotives, a more complex system involving the builder, the power and the use being involved.

M636C

[Miningman]

Todays Classic Trains "Photo of the Day" features a low numbered Pennsy Mike, one of a fleet of 574, and as the caption explains, that ranged from No.2 to No.8636.  Can any of you out there explain how this system came to be? And why it was never rectified or rationalized? Did this create any problems? Seems kind of haphazard and nutty to me. 

The picture itself is both beautiful and powerful but haunting in that No.26 must have a very limited time of existence as this was Sept. 1955 so the "end was nigh". Also in the pic the Mike has an extra tender for water...have not seen too much of that on the Pennsy in pictures...was that a fairly common practice on the Pennsy?