Builder Plate Conundrum
NW Mailing List
nw-mailing-list at nwhs.org
Mon Feb 28 09:16:44 EST 2022
Thanks for sharing your Dad's notes and research. You have a real
treasurer. The Nichols, Lewis and Bixby research gave us some really
great history. Your dad was there and it was first hand information.
Not sure who B. E. ? Lewis was or if he worked for the RR. I knew Arthur
M. Bixby and was invited to his house with a group of local fans for
movies and discussion on his roster. Not sure who was there perhaps
King, Hamilton, Sink, Aker and Plunkett. Anyway, at that time I
wondered why anyone would be interested in that old locomotive history
in the late 50's. Time has has changed my view on this.
Any chance the Nichols papers have any information on the M No. 483.
This is the one that Baldwin shops installed the wrong builders plate.
It got 28464 and should have been 28466. I sure would like to have
climbed in the cab to see if it got the wrong top of crown marker. I
don't think the builder plate was ever changed. The Baldwin records note
the error and where the M plate went.
On 2/27/2022 11:04 PM, NW Mailing List wrote:
> No need for a dynamo between headlight and stack because the drawing
> shows an oil headlight. But by the time the 256 was done the headlight
> was electric (and smaller) so it was moved forward to leave room for a
> dynamo. Checking Dad's notes, he shows the builders plate on 256 as
> follows: "DEC. 1890 No 47." It is the only G he saw with the number
> out of correct series, but he didn't make and comment about it. He did
> manage to see a few F's, including the 169, but he did not record any
> information about its plate. He shows 165 as "NOV. 1887 No 4" and 174
> as "MAY 1888 No. 52."
> Jim Nichols
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the NW-Mailing-List