C&O Gla clone


David
 

C&O 56806 does not have handholds that comply with the 1911 Safety Appliances Act amendment. This seems odd for a car rebuilt in 1912.
There was a grace period of some years for earlier cars to come into compliance. I would hazard a guess that 56806 went to Ralston for some sort of accident repair (it was 2 years old at the time), and the repair order didn't involve that particular upgrade.

The car has a "TIDEWATER ONLY" stencil. Could this place it in captive service only on the C&O and thus exempt from ARA rules.
Keeping the car out of interchange was done primarily to preserve an online supply of cars for customers. Coal car shortages and mine owners complaints about car allocations were a perennial concern at the time, and this was one way to keep them from being "lost" offline for weeks or months at a time.

How close are they to the Central Vermont and Rutland hoppers that were built in the same period and are both very similar in design and dimensionally  ?
Rutland's hoppers were straight 1905 Common Design cars. CV's were copies of the Grand Trunk/CN hoppers, which were something of a blend of 1905CD and Gla traits.

David Thompson

Join main@RealSTMFC.groups.io to automatically receive all group messages.