Steam & Excursion > Union Pacific: Why "800's?"

Why were UP's 4-8-4's numbered in the 800 series, while all (AFAIK) their other big steam had four-digit numbers? By the time the 800's were built, the 8000 and 8800 class 4-10-2's had been renumbered to the 5000's, according to Utah Rails.

CPR_4000 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Why were UP's 4-8-4's numbered in the 800 series,
> while all (AFAIK) their other big steam had
> four-digit numbers? By the time the 800's were
> built, the 8000 and 8800 class 4-10-2's had been
> renumbered to the 5000's, according to Utah Rails.

Maybe because they wanted it that way?

OK, since nobody seems to want to do their own research anymore, and reiterating my statement, above, i.e. "Maybe they wanted them that way?", here is your answer (copied from the 'Mighty 800' book by William W. Kratville, page 7):


"As planes progressed, the numbering was decided. Jabelmann personally preferred low numbers and the 800 series was about the only open sequence remaining on the roster of low figures, so the 800 series was born. If the number of units was to finally pass one hundred, the 700 series was to be used and the present 700s were to be renumbered."

Like so many things, it came down to the personal preferences of one powerful man, and/or those who worked for him and wanted to please him.

But the DL has said repeatedly that Jabelmann, his research and design staff, and their counterparts at ALCo were all idiots anyway. So maybe the real answer is they were stupid. Or maybe they wanted stump foamers 80 years later. Or maybe they got the idea one morning in the shower. Since all of the people who would know are long-gone, we may never know if it simply someone's idea or was part of a propsed fleet renumbering plan, or what.

Why did they use "FEF" as the designation, instead of 4-8-4?

But seriously, folks.....the real reasons why some things are done the way they are can range from scientific to personal whim.

Or even no real reason at all.

Ever hear of "Just for the heck of it?"



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 11/20/17 07:40 by Realist.

OK, somebody 'splain the PRR's steam numbering system to me.

Frisco1522 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> OK, somebody 'splain the PRR's steam numbering
> system to me.


The PRR had a steam numbering "system"??????

Frisco1522 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> OK, somebody 'splain the PRR's steam numbering
> system to me.


If I recall, I once read they were numbered by division instead of locomotive class... that being said, what what was the system within each division? I don't know.

And I'm sure I could do my own research, but I'd have to wait till I get home from work and search through some of my railroad books which might or might not yield an answer. I think I'll leave this question to someone who probably already knows more than I do.

Another reason would be for the very size of the locomotive fleet. Pennsy, at one time, had over 3300 2-8-0s on its roster.