Cool, thanks for the many relies. Seems like the number series is the most popular. I am aware in some places the more detailed information matters, but I was mainly interested in what the crews sitting in the yard office would say, which I think we have gotten to. So Kinawa or Mountain would more likely be heard in the corporate offices than out along the yard tracks.
Depending on how (un)cooperative the motive power had been, I have heard engineers use terms which would have stripped paint off a bulkhead.
Chuck
As to locomotive crew being interested in the type of unit:
I remember years ago (1992, I think) I was In Fostoria OH and there was a Kodachrome coloured SF30C in some sort of lease service. The crewman climbed into the cab and made the usual checks, but then climbed down and went to the builder’s plate on the cab side and read it…
I assume this was the first one he’d seen.
M636C
Yeah, I was thinking the same thing. What railroad employees call a locomotive could be “unit” or “engine” or “locomotive” or perhaps one of the industrial-strength words you have alluded to under sufficient provocation . . .
ACY: You said PRR engine numbers “didn’t always follow a pattern”. I’d say they rarely followed any pattern; at least, not until very late. J1s, Q2s, and T1s were all numbered sequentially but I can’t think of another steam class that had predictable numbers. Some motors may have.
That led to another of the many differences between the PRR and the NYC. As a survivor of the merger, I got to talk to many older enginemen from both roads about their experiences with steam. As you said, PRR men generally used class designations although some had favorite nicknames. More people in Altoona knew what a Hippo was than could identify an I1.
NYC was more consistent in keeping numbers sequential within a class and NYC people usually used the number of the first engine of a class to refer to the class although I do recall some men speaking fondly of Hudsons, Niagaras, and Mohawks. Still you were more likely to hear about a 6000 than about a Niagara.
Diesels kind of did away with colorful or remarkable names and people on both roads normally used the number of the first unit. I seldom heard GP-40 (the premier power on the NYC at the time) and, even though PRR was still in the throws of buying one of everything, they didn’t use manufacturer models much. One exception to all of this was that Alcos were universally disliked and acquired some “colorful” nicknames — too “colorful” for this blog.
Chuck:
Actually, PRR numbering “always”(?) followed a pattern, but it was unlike the patern followed by other roads. I’m not sure about the very early years, but as PRR expanded it grouped locomotive numbers so that each controlled line had its own assigned number series. In those years, if a person referred to a “601” series, it was a Camden & Amboy engine; a “1677” series was Philadelphia & Erie; an “8001” was PCC&StL (Panhandle). As each new engine was acquired for each particular line, it was given the next available number in the series assigned to that line. Many engines were assigned to the Greater PRR system. As a result, various engines of various classes were grouped in the same number series, and two engines of the same class might have widely different numbers. Referring to locos by number series was meaningless if the goal was to identify the class of the engine.
This changed during the 1923-1924 time period. G5s 4-6-0’s built in 1923 were delivered with scattered numbers, but those delivered in 1924 were delivered in a solid block of no. 5700-5749. Juniata I1s’ delivered in 1916-19 had scattered numbers, but those delivered by Baldwin in 1923 were numbered 4225-4699. K4s Pacifics delivered 1914-1920 had scattered numbers, but those delivered from 1924 onward were numbered consecutively 5350-5499. Later deliveries of M1/M1a, production T1’s, J’s, and production Q2’s, were for the most part numbered in consecutive blocks.
Even after introduction of this consistency, the earlier-built engines continued to carry their original numbers, so identification by number series would have been impractical unless there had been a wholesale system renumbering of thousands and thousands of locomotives. A few experimentals such as the early Duplexes, the S2 Turbine, etc. had unique numbers. As a result, identification by class was the de facto logical solution.
Tom
(edited)
Yes, it seems like ‘real railroaders’ tend to talk about an engine class based on their railroad’s number system, like “we had two 4100’s doubleheaded due to the grade”.
They might use the railroad’s letter-number classification system, referring to a “J” meaning a Norfolk and Western “J” class 4-8-4, or a “J-3” Hudson on the New York Central.
And who could forget the Hippos? I suspect many more PRR men knew a 2-10-0 as a Hippo than knew it was a Class I1 or I1sa when superheating was a new idea (and yes, the hyphen should be missing in PRR classes - just another way the P Company was different).
When I worked for the Central, I never heard steam locomotives mentioned by their classes; the first engine number of the class was used instead. This carried over to Diesels so a GP-40 (the best we had at the time) was a 3000.
Talked to many PRR old timers after the PC merger and they almost always used class designations or nicknames. Strangely enough, Diesels were as often referred to by the railroad’s class as the builders’; i.e., a crew might, in one conversation, call a unit an EP22 or an E8. My favorite though was the BP60; its very appropriate nicknames were Centipede (for its 2-D-D-2+2-D-D-2 wheel arrangement) and Baby Face (for obvious reasons from about 10’ in front of the pilot).
And an electric was NEVER an engine or locomotive; it was and probably still is properly called a motor.