Re: Wood underframe bans on cabooses
MDelvec952
Just to add additional unspecific info, I'm not sure there ever was a rule "banning" wood underframe cabooses that used such language.? But around 1908 or so -- others may have specifics -- after a serious wreck with a four-wheel caboose the ICC proposed a ruling with wording similar to: All cabooses must be of a weight similar to, and must be able to withstand the buff forces from, the rolling stock currently in service, etc., etc., etc.?I'm not?near my library (home computer is dead), but I think the gradual phasing out had to be complete in the early 1920s.?Four-wheel and wood-underframe cabooses were the victims, though most railroads had their own policies on using them in MOW and engineering department service, some surviving quite a while.? Some states got into the act, as New York had its own law of similar language, which is the event that I read about?somewhere that started the Pennsy's phasing out of bobbers.
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
Mike Del Vecchio
-----Original Message-----
From: Dennis Storzek <destorzek@mchsi.com> To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tue, 27 May 2008 8:28 am Subject: [STMFC] Re: Wood underframe bans on cabooses --- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, "Mike M" <train_junkie@...> wrote: Mike, Can't help with the authority that issued a rule, if any, but I think you need to look decades earlier. I know from my research that the Soo Line equipped every caboose on the property with a steel underframe between the years of 1923 and 1927 or 8; over 200 cars. In 1923 the road had but 20 cabooses that had been recently built new with steel underframes; by 1928 there were no cabooses without steel reinforcements left. If it wasn't a government agency rule, you might look to the labor contracts. Wood underframe cabooses had a habit of disintegrating when involved in a collision; something I'm sure was very close to the ORC's heart. Dennis
|
|