November 23, 2018
Hol - With that being said, I'll stick with hypens..... Thanks to Charlie for starting this debate. And, thanks to other Group members such as Archie and Rupert for adding their two cents, or should I write "two-cents," worth. As an aside, with the Condition Of Locomotives report from 1936 that Archie contributed, very interesting that it was costing the Q about 11 cents a mile to operate the Class M-2-A 2-10-2 types in 1936 dollars. No wonder the diesel F units and Geeps vanquished steam power as quickly as they did. Best Regards - Louis
Louis Zadnichek II
Fairhope, AL
In a message dated 11/23/2018 12:14:24 PM Central Standard Time, holpennywagner@msn.com writes:
I agree with Rupert that there was no official style, but H.H. Urbach, during his tenure as head of the Burlington's mechanical department, attempted -- unsuccessfully -- to establish one, as I saw and copied a letter (which I have in recent years been unable to find) that called for the use of hyphens between all number and letters of locomotive classes. And as a result of that letter, that was the style I adopted while editor of the Burlington Bulletin. The railroad continued to letter the classes on locomotive cabs without hyphens, and in fact the company shops builder's plates affixed to the cylinder jackets of locomotives did not utilize hyphens, from the turn of the century through construction of the last of the O-5-As.
Hol
From: CBQ@groups.io <CBQ@groups.io> on behalf of Rupert Gamlen <gamlenz@hotmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2018 4:40 PM
To: CBQ@groups.io
Subject: [CBQ] Class designation
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
_._,_._,_
Groups.io Links:
You receive all messages sent to this group.
View/Reply Online (#56270) |
Reply To Group
|
Mute This Topic
| New Topic
Your Subscription |
Contact Group Owner |
Unsubscribe
[archives@nauer.org]
_._,_._,_
|