>Even Victoria didn't quite get it right. You have three almost completely
>different locos all classed X, and five different locos all classed T. VR
>would have been better off following previous practice by calling them X1,
>X2, X3, T1, T2, T3, etc just like the D1, D2, D3, D4, A1, A2, etc.
The vast majority of U.S. railroads used a system of this structure
for their steam locomotives, as did the LNER. But the conventions
were somewhat different: The U.S. RR's differentiated between
variations on a theme with the D1, D2, D3 structure, as did the VR in
the steam era. On the LNER, the letter mostly signified a wheel
arrangement- e.g "A"'s (A1, A2, A3, A4) were 4-6-2's, "V"'s were
2-6-2's. David's idea above, as I read it, would be different again,
as can be seen from his use of X1, X2, X3, which seem to cover an
0-6-0 (?), a 2-8-2 and a C-C.
As a "pigeon-holer" from way back, these classification systems have
always intrigued me, but all the more so now that I'm building a
database of world steam locomotives. Compiling it has revealed a
great diversity of practice, but I would agree with those who think
the NSWGR style is best (but with 5-digit numbers).... it certainly
makes sorting a database easy and consistent.
Geoff Lambert