Pennsy's unorthodox numbering system

Classic Trains General Discussion
1

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?

2

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

3

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.

4

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 locom

5

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.

6

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 crew

7

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.

8

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

9

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.

10

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="sandhouse+gossip""&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiAhsfsrdnPAhXJcz4KHXGkA9kQ6AEIHjAA#v=onepage&q="sandhouse%20gossip""&f=false

Colonel George H. Emerson of the Russian Railway Service Corps

[IMG]https://ia600502.us.archive.org/BookReader/BookReaderImages.php?

11

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.

12

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

13

Thank you.

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.

14

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

15

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, dr

16

It seems Sun Yat-Sen wished to get a new railroad built.

[IMG]https://books.google.com/books/content?id=Iac_AAAAMAAJ&pg=PA21&img=1&zoom=3&hl=en&sig=ACfU3U2-B0fxg9yKIelCz8kDlXuDFYsnXw&ci=120%

17

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 re

18

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.

Tom

19

I don’t have Edson’s PRR list but I do have and have quoted from his B&O list so I accept that he would be correct.

Are you saying that there was a gap between the Lines West numbers and the parent system numbers that was never filled?

The usual reason for backfilling numbers as the PRR certainly did until WWI is to maintain the highest number as an approximation to the total number of locomotives.

From what you have said above this may have worked for the parent system and Lines West treated as separate entities.

I never suggested that the PRR tried to maintain four digit numbers, which was clearly not the case. I quoted that a 2-8-0 was No 1, but I misidentified it as an H9 rather than an H6. I should know the H6 because a number of H6sb ended up in China (and I misidentified them by Chinese class in my book owing to limited data back in 1984).

However, by using up blanks due to withdrawal, they avoided needing to use five dig

20

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.

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?

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