"Baby Trainmasters" are what I like to call an accurate misnomer. Theese CNJ (and DL&W engines) (H-15-44 and H-16-44 models) have been called Baby Trainmasters for as long as I can remember, and yes, even though they are NOT technically B-T's (only C&NW and MILW units are "real" B-T's), the name has stuck. I would assume that the NYC, NH and PRR units are similarly "tagged" by their fans as B-T's, too.
This is one of those rare cases where a mis-identification became accepted as writ, and it is also one of those rare exceptions where it is OK (except where MILW and C&NW fans are concerned, probably!), because everyone knows what you are talking about when you reference it, even though it is not "right" to do so. I agree that when addressing an article or other such literary piece, the correct terminology should always be used, or at the least, the explaination that these are only nicknamed B-T's, yet are really not B-T's.....I know confusing, but it's important to note (I know, I just wrote a book, and experienced the similar PA-1/PA-2 dichotomy firsthand).
CF
This is one of those rare cases where a mis-identification became accepted as writ, and it is also one of those rare exceptions where it is OK (except where MILW and C&NW fans are concerned, probably!), because everyone knows what you are talking about when you reference it, even though it is not "right" to do so. I agree that when addressing an article or other such literary piece, the correct terminology should always be used, or at the least, the explaination that these are only nicknamed B-T's, yet are really not B-T's.....I know confusing, but it's important to note (I know, I just wrote a book, and experienced the similar PA-1/PA-2 dichotomy firsthand).
CF
M.P. 28.5 On The NY Division
