Railway Preservation News
https://www.rypn.org/forums/

Discrepancies in build dates: record vs. plate
https://www.rypn.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=43224		 Page 1 of 1
Author:  bedt14 [ Thu Apr 04, 2019 5:06 pm ]
Post subject:  Discrepancies in build dates: record vs. plate
Ok, need a little guidance & input here..

I was looking up a locomotive build date; to be specific; Scott Symans "Viscose #6" [Baldwin 0-4-0T; c/n 57994]

According to Lambert/Rumary and Stanley lists; it was built September 1924 for Viscose as #6..
Preceding and following locomotives are also 0-4-0's and also have September 1924 build dates.

However, the builders plate on the locomotive as well as contemporary accounting's list November 1925.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/pmg517/19821604483/in/photolist-YYMs6K-YYMqPg-YA2oNS-YYMoeX-BSFkz1-YUAcBL-PWBBkH-PTQPVf-QZDiC6-RbczDz-wcrEiG-wRUBE7-wRTHnd-x9vnjK-wctPsQ-wRT5RL-x7aWV5-wcBPrk-x8HzDd-wRRPjs-wcskDA-wcs6qL-wcrRNf-wRR5To-wczZmp-wczrK8-wRWWhp-wcyUrr-wRPk27-x76YhG-wRVwDK-x9pRic-wcwZ6k-x9WT38-x9WqTV-wRRG8T-x9Wcng-x8BDS5-wRTnh2-wRKHKy-wRL4sN-x73Y4S-x9nkpt-wRKBmu-wcuGWF-wckyvG-x8A71b-x9UkxD-wRJ4G1-wRHYh3

This isn't the first discrepancy I've encountered in locomotive history research nor will it be the last.

Even if it was built for stock; the construction date would differ from the sales date, and the sales date would not be reflected on the build plate, correct?

In this case, I'd really like to know the actual build date for the locomotive.

With sincerest thanks,

Phil
Author:  krumreich, Ted [ Thu Apr 04, 2019 5:29 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Discrepancies in build dates: record vs. plate
A good place to look for a possible answer to your question would be a search of the Baldwin construction records and specification sheets held in the DeGolyer collection at Southern Methodist University. They are available for download/search online.
Author:  ironeagle2006 [ Thu Apr 04, 2019 5:46 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Discrepancies in build dates: record vs. plate
October 1st starts most companies so called Fiscal years out. Anything purchased or delivered before Oct 1 of a year can be deducted on the prior years Taxes. So if they bought it say September 30th even if it wasn't delivered until June the next year they can still take it off the taxes they have to pay as a depreciation of an asset.
Author:  bedt14 [ Thu Apr 04, 2019 6:00 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Discrepancies in build dates: record vs. plate
Hi Ted,

Thanks for the reply; found them and sure enough; Baldwin lists September 1924 as a build date.. So that confirms the records I have.. Still wondering why the build plate has November 1925!

Thanks again;

P
Author:  Alan Maples [ Thu Apr 04, 2019 8:44 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Discrepancies in build dates: record vs. plate
Our Alco 2-6-0 was built in 1920 but not sold until 1923; it carries a 1923 date on the builders plate.

- Alan Maples
Everett Railroad
Author:  John T [ Thu Apr 04, 2019 9:03 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Discrepancies in build dates: record vs. plate
Baldwin didn't give a damn about the builder's number they only cared about the class number. The plates with the bn were the last thing to go on the locomotive. When the 2-4-4-2 was sold to Little River RR it had plates that said June 1909 after it was returned and resold to the Columbia River Belt Line in 1910 it had new plates with no date.
Author:  bedt14 [ Thu Apr 04, 2019 9:19 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Discrepancies in build dates: record vs. plate
John, Alan,

Thanks for the replies!

P
Author:  J.David [ Thu Apr 04, 2019 10:46 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Discrepancies in build dates: record vs. plate
Greetings:
It was common for some builders to build locomotives for stock and assign the date for the builder's number (on the plate) when the locomotive was sold, read: when they got money for it. That is simply accounting: you can't book something as sold until it is sold.
Valley Railroad's No.97 was one of a group of three identical 2-8-0s built in 12/1923, however, the builders plate says 3/1926, which is when it was sold.
I would suggest purchasing the builder's lists published by R.H.Lemuth (advertised in the classifieds in TRAINS magazine). They are quite accurate as far as when locomotives were built and for who (stock, agent for, parent corp, etc) is concerned.
Be well,
J.David
Author:  K.R. Bell [ Fri Apr 05, 2019 8:03 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Discrepancies in build dates: record vs. plate
It should also be noted that copies of most North American builder's/construction lists can be obtained for a fee from the Railway & Locomotive Historical Society. Retired B&O Executive Bill Howes is the keeper of the builder's lists. Visit the R&LHS's website for ordering info.

K.R. Bell
Author:  Steve DeGaetano [ Fri Apr 05, 2019 8:13 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Discrepancies in build dates: record vs. plate
If the dates can be out of order, then so can the serial numbers. Which sort of defeats the purpose of serial numbers, no?
Author:  John T [ Fri Apr 05, 2019 10:49 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Discrepancies in build dates: record vs. plate
The whole point of the number was to identify the machine, often for parts orders. Willamette assigned a number at the time of order. If the order was canceled they went on to the next number. Every once in a while they would go back and reassign these unused numbers. #353 was shipped April 22, 1907 and #354 was shipped in December 1912. One loco builder based there numbers on the cylinder size so #9101 and 9102 could be years apart depending on when someone bought a 9x10 locomotive.
Author:  Brian Norden [ Fri Apr 05, 2019 12:53 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Discrepancies in build dates: record vs. plate
I understand ALCO assigned numbers when the order was placed. Orders for stock did not get plates until sold and carried that month and year.

For Baldwin the class number was the real serial number -- not the construction number plate. They did record and cross reference both of these. I have seen a letter from 1902 from BLW to the Virginia & Truckee which was repairing a locomotive for another owner -- for the third owner. V&T had noted the construction number and current ID, name, etc. BLW was asking that the class number to be checked (which could be found stamped on frames and rods at specific locations) so that they would cast up the correct cylinders that were being ordered.
Author:  Dave [ Fri Apr 05, 2019 1:03 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Discrepancies in build dates: record vs. plate
John T wrote:
One loco builder based there numbers on the cylinder size so #9101 and 9102 could be years apart depending on when someone bought a 9x10 locomotive.


Glover Machine Works in Marietta, GA.
Author:  bedt14 [ Sat Apr 06, 2019 2:11 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Discrepancies in build dates: record vs. plate
Hi J. David and Hi Kurt Bell!

I have the builders lists from Lambert and Lehmuth.. That's what started this thread.. Those lists have a build date for the locomotive, but the build plate had another.

Which, based on others posts here, I now understand the date on the build plate to be more of a sales date, not build date..

;) P
Page 1 of 1 All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/