Locomotives often seem to occupy center stage in the eyes of railfans. Surely locomotives
characterize railroads more than any other feature, and fascination with the "iron horse" is one of the
minor obsessions of Western Civilization. This article is an attempt to sort out some of the "nuts and
bolts" of this obsession as it relates to the Nevada-California-Oregon Railway. The "facts" presented
here are drawn from several sources and only present a tentative picture of the events outlined.
However, until additional documents surface, this description of the N-C-O'' locomotive roster and
numbering scheme will have to suffice.
The first locomotive on what was to become the N-C-O Ry. was a second-hand Porter-Bell 0-6-0
that arrived in August, 1881. It had a checkered career, serving five or six railroads before it was
scrapped. It's tenure on the N-C-O was short and unrecorded by photographers (or so it seems so
far). It was known as the "Santa Cruz" and apparently did not figure in later numbering schemes,
being sold about January, 1885.
The N-C-O purchased all its new locomotives from the Baldwin Locomotive Works, having
acquired 14 new locomotives over the years. The two second-hand Schenectady locomotives
purchased from the F&CC retained their numbers on the N-C-O, Nos. 22 and 23. Two Porters from
the Sierra Valleys line were possibly renumbered by the N-C-O, as Nos. 20 and 21. It is the Baldwin
locomotives that are the main concern of this article.
The first two Baldwins, 4-4-0's Nos. 1 and 2, arrived in January, 1885. No. 3, a 4-4-0 essentially
the same as the first two, arrived in September, 1887. The next year (August, 1888), No. 4 arrived,
a husky 2-8-0. The locomotive roster did not change until September, 1899, when Nos. 5 and 6 were
delivered. These small 4-6-0's were followed by larger 4-6-0's Nos. 7 and 8 in April, 1903. At this
point the railroad had a roster of eight locomotives, neatly numbered from 1 to 8.
In 1904 the interesting changes began. No. 4 was sold to the Tonopah Railroad, reportedly in
February, 1904, leaving a gap in the numbering system. This gap lasted about three and one half
years, until July, 1907, when a new No. 4 was received. Logically, this new locomotive was
numbered to fill in the empty space in the numbering scheme. However, this system did not make
sense by 1909, because two additional locomotives were ordered, being essentially identical to the
locomotive then numbered 4.
In order to keep locomotives of similar classes numbered consecutively, some changes had to
be made. First off, the new locos were Nos. 9 and 10. In October, 1909, No. 9 arrived, and No. 10
was received in May, 1910 (they had been ordered several months apart, but were covered by the
same construction specifications). In order to get the earlier locomotive (No. 4) in sequence with
these two, some renumbering took place. No. 4 became No. 8, the number which it carries to this
day. That left a gap in the numbering system.
Rather than just moving all the older locomotives down one number, necessitating a change to
four locomotives, only two other changes were made. No. 6 became No. 4, and No. 8 became No.
6. That way, only two additional number plates had to be changes and only two domes, tenders, cabs
etc. had to be renumbered. Nos. 5 and 7 retained their original numbers, and each class of
locomotives was grouped together and numbered consecutively.
In later years, the rest of the Baldwins arrived. Nos. 11 and 12 were received in January and
March, 1912, respectively, and No. 14 arrived in May of 1914.
The following chart shows the numbering sequence over the years:
This list comes from what appears to be an official N-C-O Ry. document. Since No. 9 was
supposedly delivered in October, 1909, its absence from the list is a mystery. It should be listed
along with No. 8 as a Class D locomotive.
Having written all this, it is appropriate to comment on other published reports regarding these
locomotives. It has been previously written that the original locomotives numbered 6 and 8 had their
numbers changes to Nos. 4 and 6 respectively, in 1904. This would seem to make sense, as first No.
4 was sold in that year. However, if that had been the case, then second No. 4 would not have been
so numbered when ordered. There are two documents that shed light on the matter. The first is a
memo from the railroad (on file at the Bancroft Library) that deals with number changes and
locomotive classifications. The hand-written date on the document is unclear, being either Dec. 1904
or Dec. 1909. It is from this document that the above-cited alphabetic classification was copied. The
memo also gives the order in which the renumbering was to take place, and it clearly indicates that
No. 6 will become No. 4, No. 8 will become No. 6 and No. 4 will become No. 8. Since the memo
dictates that No. 4 is to become No. 8, that tells us that indeed the switch could not have been made
before that engine was on the roster. It had been delivered in July, 1907. Since No. 4/8 was not on
hand in 1904, the renumbering could not have taken place in that year.
The other document that helps in this matter is the specification sheet from the Baldwin
Locomotive Works. This document (housed at the DeGolyer Library but available on microfilm),
clearly indicates that the locomotive was to be numbered "4". There is nothing on the sheet to
indicate that this specification was changed before the locomotive was delivered, although other
specifications were changed.
There may be more to the story, but I believe that this is the essential part of it. The evidence is
clear that the changes were actually made. Now if there were just some photographic evidence to
prove it all.
