Conflicting data on LAL C424 numbers.

Hey everyone,
we seem to have a lot of conflicting data on the four ex-D&H C424's running on the LAL.
Three originally EL, one originally RDG..all four belonged to the D&H and Guilford before coming to the LAL.

Here is the data as I have it on the NY Alcos webpage, full heritage of each unit is listed here:
http://gold.mylargescale.com/scottychaos/ny-alcos/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

LAL 421 - D&H 452
BH 422 - D&H 451
LAL 423 - D&H 453
LAL 424 - D&H 450

Joshua's D&H Survivors webpage has a different set of numbers:
http://www.joshuakblay.com/dhsurvivors.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

LAL 421 - D&H 451
BH 422 - D&H 452
LAL 423 - D&H 454
LAL 424 - D&H 455

And then rrpicturearchives has yet a third set of conflicting data:
http://www.rrpicturearchives.net/locoPi ... x?id=50592" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

LAL 421 - D&H 452
BH 422 - D&H 456
LAL 423 - D&H 454
LAL 424 - D&H 451

Wow! how did those four units get so mixed up??
We need to straighten this out..
anyone have reliable data?
thanks,
Scot

Scot,

I think much of the confusion comes from the renumbering that took place when Guilford had them.
They were renumbered into the 70 series, and then back to the 450 series, but not necessarily back to their original numbers.

I have some older numbering info somewhere that I believe to be correct, but I don't have the time to dig it up.

One error I spotted on your roster was for LA&L 424. There was never an original D&H 450. The C-424m's were numbered 451 to 456, and 461 to 463.

Mike

Guys, Here is what I have regarding the LAL C424 numbering. Originally, as Mike has noted, the D&H units were number 451-456, but when Guilford let the D&H go independent again, they were numbered 450-455 and not in the same order. Following is what I believe is the correct history of these four locomotives.

LAL 421 - MEC 452 - D&H 452 - (ST 73)* - D&H 452 - CR 2495 - RDG 5206 BLDR NO. 84735

B&H 422 - MEC 451 - D&H 74 - ST 74 - D&H 455 - CR 2488 - EL 2414 BLDR NO. 84556

LAL 423 - MEC 454 - D&H 454 - (ST 72)* - D&H 454 - CR 2481 - EL 2407 BLDR NO. 84549

LAL 424 - MEC 450 - D&H 70 - ST 70 - D&H 451 - CR 2475 - EL 2401 BLDR NO. 84543

* these locomotives were never renumbered into the Springfield Terminal series thus keeping the original D&H numbers.

Note that you can find the builder numbers on the snowplow pilots per Bill Burt with whom I had a lot of correspondence regarding the numbering of these units. Diesel Era also had reviewed the Conrail Centuries and this information corresponds to what they published.

Sandy Burton

Sandy Burton wrote:Guys, Here is what I have regarding the LAL C424 numbering. Originally, as Mike has noted, the D&H units were number 451-456, but when Guilford let the D&H go independent again, they were numbered 450-455 and not in the same order. Following is what I believe is the correct history of these four locomotives.

LAL 421 - MEC 452 - D&H 452 - (ST 73)* - D&H 452 - CR 2495 - RDG 5206 BLDR NO. 84735

B&H 422 - MEC 451 - D&H 74 - ST 74 - D&H 455 - CR 2488 - EL 2414 BLDR NO. 84556

LAL 423 - MEC 454 - D&H 454 - (ST 72)* - D&H 454 - CR 2481 - EL 2407 BLDR NO. 84549

LAL 424 - MEC 450 - D&H 70 - ST 70 - D&H 451 - CR 2475 - EL 2401 BLDR NO. 84543

* these locomotives were never renumbered into the Springfield Terminal series thus keeping the original D&H numbers.

Note that you can find the builder numbers on the snowplow pilots per Bill Burt with whom I had a lot of correspondence regarding the numbering of these units. Diesel Era also had reviewed the Conrail Centuries and this information corresponds to what they published.

Sandy Burton

Thanks Sandy!
if that is correct (and it probably is) then my data on the NY Alcos site is all correct, except for one small error, for LAL 424 I have:
ST & D&H 70/450
and as Mike said, that should be D&H 451.
I will make the change!
thanks,
Scot

Sandy Burton wrote:
Note that you can find the builder numbers on the snowplow pilots per Bill Burt with whom I had a lot of correspondence regarding the numbering of these units. Diesel Era also had reviewed the Conrail Centuries and this information corresponds to what they published.

Sandy Burton

Sandy,
your renumbering sequence agrees with the Bridge Line Historical Society data:

http://www.bridge-line.org/blhs/c424.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

They are essentially the Historical Society for the D&H..
So im fairly confidant we now have the correct number sequence for the four units..

however, your builder numbers do not agree with the BLHS builder numbers..
Your builders numbers look right, because the EL build number sequence matches the EL road number sequence,
and the RDG builders number is the odd man out, from the EL numbers, which makes perfect sense..
So even the BLHS has some incorrect data it seems?

Scot

Ok, I updated the NY alcos page:

http://gold.mylargescale.com/scottychaos/ny-alcos/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I neatened-up the heritage section for the four units,
and added a note about the conflicting data on the internet, and the reasons for the confusion.

I believe it is now all correct,
but further discussion and debate is of course welcome..

Scot

Thanks for keeping that up to date Scot.
Your site is where I go to to find out that sort of info.
It's a lot easier to look up online than sorting thru piles of paperwork in storage containers.

Mike

Sandy Burton wrote:Guys, Here is what I have regarding the LAL C424 numbering. Originally, as Mike has noted, the D&H units were number 451-456, but when Guilford let the D&H go independent again, they were numbered 450-455 and not in the same order. Following is what I believe is the correct history of these four locomotives.

LAL 421 - MEC 452 - D&H 452 - (ST 73)* - D&H 452 - CR 2495 - RDG 5206 BLDR NO. 84735

B&H 422 - MEC 451 - D&H 74 - ST 74 - D&H 455 - CR 2488 - EL 2414 BLDR NO. 84556

LAL 423 - MEC 454 - D&H 454 - (ST 72)* - D&H 454 - CR 2481 - EL 2407 BLDR NO. 84549

LAL 424 - MEC 450 - D&H 70 - ST 70 - D&H 451 - CR 2475 - EL 2401 BLDR NO. 84543

* these locomotives were never renumbered into the Springfield Terminal series thus keeping the original D&H numbers.

Note that you can find the builder numbers on the snowplow pilots per Bill Burt with whom I had a lot of correspondence regarding the numbering of these units. Diesel Era also had reviewed the Conrail Centuries and this information corresponds to what they published.

Sandy Burton

I concur with all of Sandy's data except for two minor points. If the all the D&H C424m's had been renumbered to Springfield Terminal way back in 1987, D&H 452 would have become ST 71 (not 73) and D&H 454 would have become ST 73 (not 72). Not that it matters much since those renumberings never happened anyway.

guilfordrailfan wrote:

Sandy Burton wrote:Guys, Here is what I have regarding the LAL C424 numbering. Originally, as Mike has noted, the D&H units were number 451-456, but when Guilford let the D&H go independent again, they were numbered 450-455 and not in the same order. Following is what I believe is the correct history of these four locomotives.

LAL 421 - MEC 452 - D&H 452 - (ST 73)* - D&H 452 - CR 2495 - RDG 5206 BLDR NO. 84735

B&H 422 - MEC 451 - D&H 74 - ST 74 - D&H 455 - CR 2488 - EL 2414 BLDR NO. 84556

LAL 423 - MEC 454 - D&H 454 - (ST 72)* - D&H 454 - CR 2481 - EL 2407 BLDR NO. 84549

LAL 424 - MEC 450 - D&H 70 - ST 70 - D&H 451 - CR 2475 - EL 2401 BLDR NO. 84543

* these locomotives were never renumbered into the Springfield Terminal series thus keeping the original D&H numbers.

Note that you can find the builder numbers on the snowplow pilots per Bill Burt with whom I had a lot of correspondence regarding the numbering of these units. Diesel Era also had reviewed the Conrail Centuries and this information corresponds to what they published.

Sandy Burton

I concur with all of Sandy's data except for two minor points. If the all the D&H C424m's had been renumbered to Springfield Terminal way back in 1987, D&H 452 would have become ST 71 (not 73) and D&H 454 would have become ST 73 (not 72). Not that it matters much since those renumberings never happened anyway.

No, it wouldn't have necessarily worked that way..
because there were other locomotives in the lineup, but we are only concerned with the four that happen to be on the LAL/B&H today.
There were Nine total D&H C424's..Six of the nine made it to Guilford..
Some of them were perhaps also renumbered with ST numbers "on paper" as well..
But we are only looking at four of them in this thread, not all them that went to Guilford..
plus, Guilford was never known for keeping numbers in consecutive order!

Scot

scottychaos wrote: No, it wouldn't have necessarily worked that way..
because there were other locomotives in the lineup, but we are only concerned with the four that happen to be on the LAL/B&H today.
There were Nine total D&H C424's..Six of the nine made it to Guilford..
Some of them were perhaps also renumbered with ST numbers "on paper" as well..
But we are only looking at four of them in this thread, not all them that went to Guilford..
plus, Guilford was never known for keeping numbers in consecutive order!

Scot

It hasn't always worked that way but in this case it did. Actually, back in the 1980's Guilford was quite particular about renumbering in order. If they didn't do it in order back then, there was a specific reason for it. In about August 1987 D&H 451-456 were assigned (in order) ST 70-75. 3 were renumbered. 3 were not due to being out of service. I'm pretty certain that's the historical record, not speculation. It wasn't until the six went back to the Guilford as MEC units in the early 1990's that the numbering order got screwed up. Again, this may be a minor point, but for those interested in keeping their LA&L rosters as accurate as possible, it might not be a minor point.

guilfordrailfan wrote:
It hasn't always worked that way but in this case it did. Actually, back in the 1980's Guilford was quite particular about renumbering in order. If they didn't do it in order back then, there was a specific reason for it. In about August 1987 D&H 451-456 were assigned (in order) ST 70-75. 3 were renumbered. 3 were not due to being out of service. I'm pretty certain that's the historical record, not speculation. It wasn't until the six went back to the Guilford as MEC units in the early 1990's that the numbering order got screwed up. Again, this may be a minor point, but for those interested in keeping their LA&L rosters as accurate as possible, it might not be a minor point.

Interesting! thanks Bill..that does make sense..
Do we have any documentation either way?
Sandy, do you remember your source for:

LAL 421 - MEC 452 - D&H 452 - (ST 73)* - D&H 452 - CR 2495 - RDG 5206 BLDR NO. 84735
LAL 423 - MEC 454 - D&H 454 - (ST 72)* - D&H 454 - CR 2481 - EL 2407 BLDR NO. 84549
* these locomotives were never renumbered into the Springfield Terminal series thus keeping the original D&H numbers.

Springfield Terminal did assign ex-B&M GP9's to numbers 71 and 72, but it appears that might have been 2 or 3 years later:
http://www.rrpicturearchives.net/locoList.aspx?id=ST" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

thanks,
Scot

scottychaos wrote: Interesting! thanks Bill..that does make sense..
Do we have any documentation either way?
Sandy, do you remember your source for:

LAL 421 - MEC 452 - D&H 452 - (ST 73)* - D&H 452 - CR 2495 - RDG 5206 BLDR NO. 84735
LAL 423 - MEC 454 - D&H 454 - (ST 72)* - D&H 454 - CR 2481 - EL 2407 BLDR NO. 84549
* these locomotives were never renumbered into the Springfield Terminal series thus keeping the original D&H numbers.

Springfield Terminal did assign ex-B&M GP9's to numbers 71 and 72, but it appears that might have been 2 or 3 years later:
http://www.rrpicturearchives.net/locoList.aspx?id=ST" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

thanks,
Scot

I don't have any official railroad documentation of the renumbering. As far as I can tell my only source for D&H 451-456 being assigned to ST 70-75 is a newsletter from the Leatherstocking Chapter NRHS published at that time which refers to assigned numbers for the C424's. I strongly suspect that info was obtained by the Leatherstocking Chapter from the nearby Oneonta paint shop. This combined with the fact that hundreds of other Guilford renumberings from the 1980's were done in order. The GP7/9/18 renumberings got all jumbled up because they were done in numerous different groups at different times. However, with one or two exceptions, the renumberings were in order within each group. Regarding the mixed up numbers when the C424's went back to Guilford as MEC 450-455, there was a method to that madness. They kept the numbers of the three (452,453,454) that didn't need new numbers, and renumbered the remaining three (70,74,75) in order to 450, 451, 455. I could talk about the Guilford roster all day long, but that would be getting seriously off topic.

If Sandy or anyone else has evidence that my data for the LAL C424's is incorrect, I will gladly stand corrected.

Thanks Bill,
considering the ST numbers came from the Leatherstocking chapter *during the same timeframe* as the actual renumburings,
that is very good evidence, as far as I am concerned, that your data is likely correct..
As you said, since the units never actually wore those numbers, it isnt terribly important!
but we all do like to be as accurate as possible..
Im going to make the slight edit based on this new information..
thanks,
Scot

Page updated again!
and more info added to "Note 8"..

http://1stclass.mylargescale.com/scotty ... index.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

as always, further discussion and debate is always welcome..
thanks,
Scot

scottychaos wrote:Page updated again!
and more info added to "Note 8"..

http://1stclass.mylargescale.com/scotty ... index.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

as always, further discussion and debate is always welcome..
thanks,
Scot

Looks good Scot!