On the Southern Pacific trains running towards SF were odd numbered, those travelling away from SF were even # - but what was sequence even or odd # first? The following trains were running with these numbers at various times - why did the sequence change?
some with odd # first: #9/10 Shasta Daylight SF to ; #11/12 Cascade [SF to ] ; #71/72 Daylight [LA to SF] renamed from Daylight Limited 1927 [1922-1937]
some with even # first: #72/73 LA Passenger [LA to SF]; #75/76 Lark [LA to SF] [1941-1957]; #96/97 Noon Daylight [LA to SF] [1940-1949] ; #98/99 Morning Daylight [LA to SF]
Did two trains both show #72 but at different dates?
I’ve often wondered the same thing, and I’ve never talked to anyone who knows the answer. There doesn’t seem to be any pattern to which train has the lower number of the sequence. Here’s my guess: If, way back when, one starts with trains 1 and 2, the normal sequence would always have the odd number first, that’s obvious. I think what occured with the even number coming first at times was probably due to discontinued trains creating “holes” in the numbering sequences. I’d love for someone who actually knows to offer comment. AA
In Brian Solomon’s book ‘Southern Pacific Passenger Trains’ p 17 he refers to trains out of Third and Townsend in 1947: ‘Complementing the list of more famous trains including the Daylights, Lark and Coaster, was No, 72, the L.A. Passenger, actually a long head-end train, due out southbound 5 minutes after the Morning Daylight.’ I am not sure of other references, but this was the one I worked from. Over here in England, information on the SP is not easy to come by.
Peter, You have most of the pieces to the puzzle you need. In general (and there IS an exception–see below), SP trains were numbered with the westbound (toward SF, odd number) being the lower number and the eastbound (away from SF) being the second number. You have seen this with 1&2, 9 & 10, 71 & 72, etc. The exception is the Daylights on the Coast. Looking at their master schedule of trains, the powers that be in San Francisco wanted a distinctive number for their flashy new streamlined Daylight, ca 1937. 1&2 were already taken with the Sunset. So, too, were 101 & 102 for the City of San Francisco, the Overland Route’s premier train. They opted to place the Daylight in the high 90’s. Someone at 1 Market Street (SP Headquarters) decided “99” had a nice ring to it. This would be the westbound (northbound toward SF) train. That made 98 the “logical” choice for the eastbound train. A couple of years later, the Noon Daylght was added to the schedule. The same logic applied, so 96 & 97 were born. Train numbers were a BIG deal on the SP, especially the Coast Line, which was ruled by timetable authority well into the 1960’s and retained train order offices (Dispatcher changes to the schedule) well beyond that. The otherwise consistent pattern of odd & even train numbers for train pairs helped everyone. Even the special case of the Coast Daylights reinforced the standard pattern by calling attention to themselves. Woe be it to the crew that got in the way of 98 or 99! A final note on 71 & 72. This was the Coast Mail. As such, it had a lot of switching in and out of express cars and mail handling at stations along the route. As a result, it often got way behind on schedule. There was little incentive to get it on schedule, with frequent train orders issued to other trains taking note of its late running times. It was known locally as “Sad Sam” for its usual tardiness.
Beaver, I’m curious as to your source if information. For example, why not also include San Joaquin(51/52), Sacramento(53/54) and Shasta(9/10)to the list of Daylights with even number first? Similarly, why would the Noon Daylight(96/97) and Starlight (94/95) qualify for the even number first, and not the Lark(75/76)? By the way the Daylight ran as #71/72 4/22-5/36, when it was renumbered 98/99, and was not run as a streamliner until 3/37. Info from The Central Pacific and The Southern Pacific Railroads, by Beebe. AA
And another thing, freights also ran as scheduled trains with train numbers in the indicator board, not the engine number. I’m guessing, but think freights lost their train numbers before passengers lost their train numbers in the indicator board. All I can remember for sure is 919/920, with the odd number first, they were coast line freights that came through Atascadero. AA
Thanks for helping with this puzzle - indeed, far more complex than a mere limey [where train nmumbers are non existant in the public domain] could possibly realise!
Many thanks for the help. You never stop learning.
To add to the confusion, consider the original numbers of the Denver Zephyr, #1 westbound and #10 eastbound or the numbers of the South Wind while on PRR, 90 and 93. Several of the 400’s on C&NW were similar: the Flambeau 400, #153 and #216; and the Peninsula 400, #209 and #214.
AA, I stand corrected on the slightly earlier introduction of 98/99 for the Daylight. It is true that the “Pearl Gray” heavyweight version of the train ran with numbers 98/99 for approximately 13 months before the March 21, 1937 introduction of the streamlined Daylight. Ryan and Shine, in their “Southern Pacific Passenger Trains, Volume 1, Night Trains of the Coast Route” tabulate the named trains on the Coast Route throughout its history. The reason for the train number shift is not totally clear from either Ryan and Shine’s two volumes (Volume 2 documents the day trains of the Coast, including the Daylights) nor does Richard Wright in his voluminous, 656-page book dedicated solely to trains 98/99 shed any light on the shift to 98/99 or the selection of a lower number for the eastbound train 98. It is clear, though, that plans for the streamlined train were well advanced by the Feb. 12, 1936 introduction of those train symbols. Ryan and Shine, in their chapter on the Coast Mail, DO indicate the number change of the Daylight was “in anticiaption of receiving new lightweight equipment…” Ryan and Shine’s list of named Coast Line trains shows the reversal of the SP “normal” numbering pattern for train pairs began with the Daylight designation as 98/99. Subsequent pairs include the Noon Daylight, 96/97, ca, March 1940, the Starlight, 94/95, ca, October 1949, and even the Coast Mail, 90/91, ca, 1955. Note that all of these are Coast Line trains, apparently influenced by that original designation of the Daylight as 98/99. As to the Lark, also a premier train, Ryan and Shine show it dating back to May 8, 1910, retaining its 75/76 designation throughout its history. The basic thrust of my original post was to affirm the basic scheme used by SP for train numbers, wherein the westbound, odd number has the lower number, “preceding” the eastbound, even number. There are a very few other examples on the system such as the Sierra (#210/211) which appears to deal with a fundamental imbalance in that train’
Beaver, Many thanks for the citing of your sources, BUT, considering all the nuumbering confusion, etc, I continue to cling to the notion that it all stems from #1-2 at the top of the timetable, and how was it decided that “even is east, odd is west”? I notice “your train” the Beaver #11-12, or 23-24, or 13-14 conforms to your “west first, and is the lower number” theory.
AA, I concur with the general speculation of odd number leading beginning with #1 and #2 at the top of the list. We’re dealing with basic human nature on this, I suspect. As to Odd-West and Even-East numbering conventions, a quick (not exhaustive and not to great academic depth) review of train numbering suggests this convention was industry-wide, at least in the United States. Deeper research in libraries will help, but a good source is J.B.Calvert’s web-posting: http://www.du.edu/~jcalvert/tel/trainord.htm pointed to via the Operations Special Interest Group website. Calvert writes: “Regular trains were numbered arbitrarily. Later, even numbers for north and east bound trains, odd numbers for west and south bound, were assigned.” Though individual railroad companies could (and did) write their own rulebooks, consolidation and standardization began in the Nineteenth Century. Calvert cites the introduction of Standard Time in 1883 leading to Train rules published in 1887. This particular group of railroads eventually formed the “Standard Code” of rules. A competing group of railroads formed the “Uniform Code.” of rules. By the time of these late Nineteenth Century efforts, the Odd-West and Even-East convention seems to have been well established. One suspects the significant number of “boomer” railroaders, moving from company to company, helped provide further motivation for such a standardization. Note this train number-direction standardization is part of a larger industry development. The Central Pacific and Southern Pacific were part of the larger transportation net and influenced by such trends.