Lets be honest here, was this a joke to number the 44 tonner #9999? haha
So what is the joke about numbering a 44 tonner #9999? Don’t see any joke here myself.
Maybe it’s faster than it looks.
Well besides the fact the Pennsy didnt have 9999 locomotives, most tonners you see are numbered 1 or 2 or something small like that. #9999 is just kinda funny.
As for example the SP 3 foot gauge 70 tonner that was numbered 1?
If you read the locomotive info below the pic, it states that it was renumbered, originally #ed 9353, did Pennsy have 9353 locomotives? As I recall the Pennsy was known for NOT having any rhyme or reason to their numbering system, even locomotives of the same class could have wildly differing #s. No reason given for the renumbering, but renumbering is common on many railroads, not always for obvious reasons. perhaps Pennsy used 99xx #s to denote leased out equipment? Which of course would fly in the face of their lack of logic in other #s. Just a number on the side of a locomotive.
The “Union Transportation Co.” in the photo’s caption is the key. If I recall correctly, UTC - a very short-line PRR subsidiary in NJ - was kind of the last stop for obsolete PRR power before it left the roster, and traditionally was assigned “9999”. If you want to know more about that, look for articles by the deans of eastern U.S. railrodong from the 1950’s - 1960’s - Bill Volkmer (sp ?) comes to mind as one.
- Paul North.
Most large railroads had a general numbering scheme - each class of locomotive generally got it’s own range of numbers.
But longevity sometimes played into things, such as when UP 844 was renumber 8444 because of a new order of Diesels that were numbered in the 800’s.
Shortlines often use arcane ideas for numbering. The Lowville & Beaver River numbered their two “tonny-ton forters” with the year they were built. The railroad owned only seven locomotives over the entire course of its life, but the 44 tonners were numbered 1947 and 1950. Two steam locomotives were number 1912 (ten wheeler) and 1923 (2-8-0), also indicating the year of manufacture.
I’ll certainly go along with what Paul points out about the local practice. I’d be willing to bet that if you checked the UT locomotive roster you’d find quite a few “9999’s”.
The PRR had an agreement with the Union Transprtation Company of New Egypt, NJ to leas to the shortline “a steam locomotive…”. And I believe that the agreement was for some 99 or 999 years. When the PRR could no longer supply “a steam locomotive” as prescribed it offered the 44 tonner. The agreement was why the UTC had a steam locomotive as long as it did. As for the number 9999, thre is nothing strange or out of place about it. It was the highest number on the PRR roster for bookkeeping purposes.
This locomotive was leased to the Union Terminal before it was renumbered 9999. That lease had nothing to do with it.
Prior to the Penn Central merger, both PRR and NYC engaged in some large-scale renumberings of their locomotives to bring the combined roster into something halfway coherent (For example, NYC GP20s and GP30s got renumbered; PRR U25Bs and E units got renumbered). I don’t remember excatly whose switchers got new numbers, but they were at the upper end (8000 and 9000 series) of the roster. Perhaps something was destined to occupy the PC 9300 series; perhaps this was one locomotive that they knew wasn’t going to last much longer. It may have been the only one to survive as a PC unit–again, I can’t remember. But I suspect that that’s all there was to the renumbering.
I thought the idea was to number the loco similar to NYC #999, which was very fast.
Was this post really necessary?
Sorry, I couldn’t resist![:-^]
More shockingly, a “Burlington Route” emblem on the car?
Fine, Fine.