Re: SF&SJ loco questions

There were two "Pacific"s in the CP-SP system: The CPRR's Mason, and the SF&SJ's Norris. The CP's "Pacific" never went to the SF&SJ or SP as Kneiss and Best apparently thought.

Arnold (in particular) there will need be a major revision of the Compendium/Companion in regard to the chronologies of the early SP locos. Larry Mullaly has straightened out a lot of the SF&SJ/SP/CP transitions. It turns out there just was not any of this going back and forth with locomotives as has been constructed in the past to make sense of the information that was available. Larry has gone through fairly frequent commissioners reports and company financial records at Stanford and has developed a much clearer (and cleaner) picture of what was going on. He has cast a light in a long-dark enginehouse.

SP 2-7 came from the SF&SJ upon merger into the SP in October 1870.
SP 8-11 came from the Santa Clara & Pajaro Valley upon merger into the SP in October 1870.
SP 1 came from CP 3 in February 1871. WERE THESE ENGINES EVEN NUMBERED BEFORE 1871?
SP 12 came from CP 97 in April 1871.
SP 13 came from CP 36 in April 1871.
SP 14 came from CP 117 in June 1872.
SP 15-19 came from CP 99, 55, 93, 135, and 142 (respectively) in June 1873.

None of these engines went back to the CP. All were still SP when numbered into the system-wide roster of 1891.

The mysteries of the SP 18 have been pretty much set to rest with Larry's discovery that the SP changed the builder of that locomotive from Rhode Island to Schenectady and then to McKay & Aldus over the course of 1876 and 1877. This slight of hand was accomplished with the flourish of a pen–probably without anyone familiar with the locomotive even being aware. When this clerical modification worked itself into the 1891 roster, the whole system ended up with one more McKay locomotive than was ever shipped to California, and Best, Diebert, Strapac, Wyatt, and myself all lost sleep trying to figure out what in the world was going on. Now, in fact, the locomotive was modified between 1884 and 1891, perhaps ending up as a 4-4-2T like the CP 40-43 group--but without a photo or better documentation, we just don't know.

None of this modifies my previous question about the renaming of those three SF&SJ engines. It is just offered as background to help exlain what you are seeing in Best and D&S.

Wendell