Charlie
When I started creating the BRHS Publication Index about 20 years ago, I spent some time researching details such as the steam loco class designations, state letter codes, etc. and tried to follow current practice. However, I found examples of all permutations
such as O-2-A, O2a and O-2A in both official and expert publications. Looking at various official loco diagrams at the moment, they use both “K6” (the older diagrams) and “O-2A” versions. Last night I found the 1950-2 Locomotive Cyclopedia of American practice
and it showed various parts which it captioned as made for “O-5-A” and “M-4-A”. (https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=wu.89089676290;view=1up;seq=7 if anyone wants to view
the book). Presumably the diagrams and captions were provided by the Burlington.
On that basis, I suspect that there was no official style but that it varied from age to age and from one location to another. However, if someone wants to explore this topic and write an article, ………………………………………………………
Rupert Gamlen
Auckland NZ
From: CBQ@groups.io <CBQ@groups.io>
On Behalf Of Charlie Vlk
Sent: Thursday, 22 November 2018 7:22 a.m.
To: CBQ@groups.io
Subject: Re: [CBQ] From M-4 To M-4-A
The CB&Q seemed to use the class designations as all uppercase and with no dash as in O5A. Sometimes the main class designation was a larger size letter than the class number or subclass letter. Should the BRHS promote this as part
of our "style guide" and try to educate Q fans to the proper format??
I believe this has been a topic of discussion in other societies such as the PRRHT&HS.
Charlie Vlk