Has anyone heard of a locomotive number referred to as a "tail number"?

nope

I see the reference in a research paper I am reading. The topic railroad is CSX.

I have never heard of a locomotive number referred to as a tail number. When I first read this post it sounded like something that you might hear out of a young news reporter who did not check their facts. If it is in a research paper it would make me wonder about the credibility of the rest of the paper.

Mark A. Frazier

Yes, if the tail number is M-497 :)

I see a lot of similar language change as I encounter more rail management hired in from outside the industry. Many operations planners are mathematical PhD's who have no previous knowledge of railroads. They invent language, it gets published, and then it becomes embedded in some software package.

I have seen the cab referred to as the cockpit. Also as the wheelhouse.

Never by railroaders though, obviously.

Tail number, cockpit, wheelhouse--bah!!

Such nonsense is making me feel as grumpy as Dr. Gillespie (as portrayed by Lionel Barrymore in the old Dr. Kildaire film series from the 1930s).

I am curious whether the use of this term might be related to the End Of Train Device identification. And if it is a five digit number then they may be referring to the unique arming code for the particular EOTD that has to be entered into the lead locomotive HOTD to activate the communication link. PTC also will be using a unique marker to precisely locate the back end of the train.

PC

Different railroads, even in the same region, sometimes have different local terminology for the same things (like someone from Baltimore can totally mystify someone from DC, Hon). Amtrak people use the Pennsy term "Motor" for electric locomotives. CSX people generally use the term "Motor" for any locomotive. I have variously heard the words "blow-up", "expire", "die", "outlaw", and possibly one or two more used to refer to a crew reaching the Hours of Service limit.

After the collision between an Amtrak train and a trailer hanging off of a CSX intermodal train near the Long Bridge over the Potomac about 15 years ago, I heard a new Amtrak spokesman, who had never worked for a railroad before (and I do know that for a fact - can you say "nepotism"?), talk on TV about the Amtrak train being "decoupled" (the trailer had managed to snag a cut lever on a coach as the two trains passed). My guess is that the "tail number" reference probably comes from a similar situation.

Maybe the person was from the aviation industry. I've heard airplanes N numbers referred to as "tail number."

My understanding is that some railroads are trying to get away from one specific term above, to avoid conversations like this one that happened between a railroad yardmaster and his newlywed wife some years back:
"Hello, I was wondering if you had any news on my husband, [name], who was supposed to be working a shift for you?"
"Oh, yeah, lemme see................ Oh, yeah, he's dead over at Lock Haven Yard....."
"........... WHAT?!?!?!? OH MY GOD, NOOOO!!!!!"
"No, wait, wait, lady, no, he's not DEAD dead, he just expired--I mean--aw, geezus--no, no, look, lady...."

Steven, does this sound like it fits the circumstances of the document you referred to:

"PTL-49: The locomotive onboard PTL component shall automatically assign and report its end of train PTL component."

The above noted description is a provision of the Positive Train Location system presently under study. It prescribes that when the leading PTC and PTL equipped unit "reports" in (electronically), it also transmits a second identity number that is either the End Of Train Device, or in the case of distributed power, the trailing locomotive that ends the train. In addition to the position reporting of both "components", the onboard electronics are required to do a calculation of the physical dimensions of the equipment on the train to establish the locations of its ends, each within an accuracy of 1.2 meters.

PC

The text reads:

"However, while assigning locomotives to trains in a
real-time environment, we need to assign locomotive
tail numbers (which are unique for each locomotive) to
trains."

Note they had to clarify that the numbers are unique on each locomotive.

This wouldn't be in the context of run-through trains, where more than one of the operating entities has a locomotive with the same cab number?

You would then need an 'extended' number which takes into account the 'owner' of the locomotive, as well as its number. I would note that the "tail number' of an aircraft includes just such a discrimination.

So he may be saying that tracking, PTC, and similar systems might need an extended numbering convention, like "NS4085" or "BN1856" to be certain there isn't any ambiguity over locomotive type, capability, location, etc.

If that's so, then the comment makes better sense than what everyone was assuming: that someone from (or trained in) the aircraft industry was using jargon without thinking...

I would need to see more of the paper to determine better what's going on.


RME