Date   

Re: Why Transfer cabooses?

Aley, Jeff A
 

Aha!  (I was the original poster).

 

It seems that railroads would want to use their oldest cabooses for transfer service, if possible.

But if bobber (4-wheel) cabooses were outlawed in interchange (and Transfer service IS interchange, is it not?), then they couldn’t use their old 4-wheelers.

 

So it became logical to convert box cars, etc. for transfer use.

 

Did I understand that correctly?

 

Thanks,

 

-Jeff

 

 

From: main@RealSTMFC.groups.io [mailto:main@RealSTMFC.groups.io] On Behalf Of anthony wagner
Sent: Monday, May 21, 2018 7:46 AM
To: main@RealSTMFC.groups.io
Subject: Re: [RealSTMFC] Why Transfer cabooses?

 

My speculation about 4 wheel cabooses is that most, if not all, had wooden underframes and that was the reason for declaring them unsafe not the fact they they were on 4 instead of 8 wheels. It was in the 1920s, 1927 comes to mind, that wooden underframes were banned from interchange but that wouldn't have affected cars that were never went off line such as cabooses, 4 or 8 wheel, and work equipment. I remember from my youth, late 40s, early 50s in Philadelphia, of catching very occasional glimpses of 4 a wheel class ND somewhere on the Pennsy while going somewhere with my parents. That said, the Pennsy NDs seemed to have had steel underframes. There are still a number of them in various states of preservation in museums. Also, in the 1980s TTX had several thousand 4 wheel piggyback cars built after the prototypes were successfully tested at the AAR facility in Pueblo.  Tony Wagner

 

 

On Monday, May 21, 2018 8:50 AM, Eric Hansmann <eric@...> wrote:

 

I believe Ohio passed legislation in 1914 banning the use of 4-wheel cabooses.

 

From what I’ve seen over the years, any bans on these older cabooses were a state matter and did not stem from ICC/AAR/ARA/MCB actions.

 

 

Eric Hansmann

Murfreesboro, TN

 

 

 


From: main@RealSTMFC.groups.io [mailto:main@RealSTMFC.groups.io] On Behalf Of mofwcaboose via Groups.Io
Sent: Monday, May 21, 2018 7:50 AM
To: main@RealSTMFC.groups.io
Subject: Re: [RealSTMFC] Why Transfer cabooses?

 

1912 in New York , 1929 in Pennsylvania .

 

The passage of the law did not immediately end their use, as they persisted in subsidiary service and on some short lines well into the 1950s. Possibly their last regular use on any railroad was on the Maryland & Pennsylvania in the early 1970s.

 

John C. La Rue, Jr.

Bonita Springs, FL

 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Claus Schlund &#92;(HGM&#92;) <claus@...>
To: main <main@RealSTMFC.groups.io>
Sent: Mon, May 21, 2018 8:22 am
Subject: Re: [RealSTMFC] Why Transfer cabooses?

Hi Dennis and List Members,

 

Thank you Dennis for your well thought out and complete treatment on the topic.

 

Dennis wrote: “But four wheel cabooses were fund to be unsafe, and were outlawed sometime in the twenties”

 

This is the first I have heard of four wheel cabooses being outlawed – can anyone confirm this?

 

Claus Schlund

 

 

 

On 5/20/2018 7:26 PM, Dennis Storzek wrote:

I think you guys are over thinking this. The main driver behind transfer cabooses was cost. Both the operating rules and union agreements said that transfer moves needed cabooses; if there were not enough old cabooses surplus from road duty available, something had to be built. The requirement was a small shelter, with a stove, some benches and a desk for the conductor. That dictated a small body, and early in the century a four wheel bobler caboose would have filled the bill. But four wheel cabooses were fund to be unsafe, and were outlawed sometime in the twenties, IIRC, and that meant a small cabin on a long frame. Converted boxcars were rather common up until WWII, usually rebuilt from cars that weren't much bigger than a standard caboose. But by the sixties, when these "cheesebox-on-raft" transfer cabooses became common, the available boxcars were way too big to be heated efficiently. Some of the early examples of the style were rebuilt from boxcars, leaving the center section of the body and building new ends, which yielded large porches which didn't need to be heated. Later it was found to be cheaper and easier to just build a new body and mount it on whatever surplus frame was available. Not exactly rocket science.

The lack of cupola was to reduce cost as much as anything. Nobody was much worried that these slow speed moves were going to develop hotboxes, and in many environments anyone riding in the cupola was going to become a target for rocks or worse, so nobody was riding in the cupola anyway. Why maintain the windows? Sometime in the sixties, early seventies the Soo Line did just that; a bulletin went out to the RIP tracks that henceforth broken cupola windows in cabooses in transfer service were to be boarded over. Some few of these cars subsequently received new plywood sheathing, and the cupolas were entirely sheathed over, just a square blank box on the roof. Some roads, like the Chicago North Shore and Milwaukee simply removed the cupolas and filled in the roof sheathing. I'm familiar with one of their cars, CNS&M 1002 at the Illinois Railway Museum, and all the lockers and the ice box that were under the cupola floor remain; the space between the former floor and new roof was good for stowing grips, etc.

Dennis Storzek

 

 


Re: Why Transfer cabooses?

MDelvec952
 



About 1990 or so, with Chuck Yungkirth's help, I found the written New York State law about cabooses. As with most laws, the language didn't ban the four wheelers as much as it required that that any company owned cars used at the end of a train with personnel on board had to be of similar weight and wheel configuration as a the cars in the train with a minimum weight of 25 tons, or similar language. I didn't use quotations as the above is from memory. 

Small world, the Jersey side of the SIRT is my territory today and we're switching a lot of tonnage over it at least two solid hours per day. The 500-foot AK (Arthur Kill) Draw drops twice a day for stacks and trash trains out of Howland Hook and Arlington Yard, handled by Conrail.

                  ....Mike 


-----Original Message-----
From: Edward <edb8391@...>
To: main <main@RealSTMFC.groups.io>
Sent: Mon, May 21, 2018 9:38 am
Subject: Re: [RealSTMFC] Why Transfer cabooses?

The state of Ohio passed a law in 1913 requiring railroad cabooses used with in the state to have eight wheels and be at least 24' in length, not including end platforms. 
B&O was a prime user of four-wheel cabooses, with their K-1 class built from 1878 to 1913.  They were 20' cars of all wood construction with nearly 600 built over that time span.  

The Ohio Caboose Law resulted in the B&O designing their I-1 eight wheel caboose in the 'teens, which was further refined their more famous I-5 class cars in the 1920's.
The PRR which also ran in Ohio, had a class of four wheel cabooses at that time with longer bodies, some of which were converted to eight wheels for compliance.

After 1913, the B&O K-1 cabooses continued working at other locations, on WV branch lines and terminal road subsidiaries B&O Chicago Terminal and the B&O New York Terminal's Staten Island Rapid Transit.  It was on the SIRT that K-1 cabooses were still used on inter-state runs between Cranford NJ and Staten Island. They were replaced in 1953 with I-1 class cars. 
B&O CT's four-wheel K-1 cabooses were also retired about that time.

SIRT received seven K-1 class cars (so far as photos can determine) by March 1, following a two year court contest by the LV, PRR and State of NJ against the B&O concerning the 500' long swing bridge built over the Arthur Kill between NJ  and Staten Island in1888 as a menace to navigation. In time, the K-1 cupolas were removed due to need for repair or rot.  They were not needed for local freight, terminal or  transfer operations.  Most of the  NY Terminal K-1's were rebuilt with replacement steel under frames during  the 1930's. They were burned for scrap at the SIRT Arlington Yard in 1953.

The replacements B&O provided were three I-1 class cars and one I-13 class bay window caboose. The I-13 soon lost its bay windows due to clearance concerns from high-level platforms used in SIRT's passenger service. The I-1 cars also lost their cupolas as the need for repair arose.  These cabooses remained in service until end of B&O/C&O Chessie System service to the metro NY area by Conrail.

Ed Bommer


Re: Why Transfer cabooses?

anthony wagner
 

My speculation about 4 wheel cabooses is that most, if not all, had wooden underframes and that was the reason for declaring them unsafe not the fact they they were on 4 instead of 8 wheels. It was in the 1920s, 1927 comes to mind, that wooden underframes were banned from interchange but that wouldn't have affected cars that were never went off line such as cabooses, 4 or 8 wheel, and work equipment. I remember from my youth, late 40s, early 50s in Philadelphia, of catching very occasional glimpses of 4 a wheel class ND somewhere on the Pennsy while going somewhere with my parents. That said, the Pennsy NDs seemed to have had steel underframes. There are still a number of them in various states of preservation in museums. Also, in the 1980s TTX had several thousand 4 wheel piggyback cars built after the prototypes were successfully tested at the AAR facility in Pueblo.  Tony Wagner




On Monday, May 21, 2018 8:50 AM, Eric Hansmann <eric@...> wrote:


I believe Ohio passed legislation in 1914 banning the use of 4-wheel cabooses.
 
From what I’ve seen over the years, any bans on these older cabooses were a state matter and did not stem from ICC/AAR/ARA/MCB actions.
 
 
Eric Hansmann
Murfreesboro, TN
 
 
 

From: main@RealSTMFC.groups.io [mailto:main@RealSTMFC.groups.io] On Behalf Of mofwcaboose via Groups.Io
Sent: Monday, May 21, 2018 7:50 AM
To: main@RealSTMFC.groups.io
Subject: Re: [RealSTMFC] Why Transfer cabooses?
 
1912 in New York , 1929 in Pennsylvania .
 
The passage of the law did not immediately end their use, as they persisted in subsidiary service and on some short lines well into the 1950s. Possibly their last regular use on any railroad was on the Maryland & Pennsylvania in the early 1970s.
 
John C. La Rue, Jr.
Bonita Springs, FL
 
 
-----Original Message-----
From: Claus Schlund &#92;(HGM&#92;) <claus@...>
To: main <main@RealSTMFC.groups.io>
Sent: Mon, May 21, 2018 8:22 am
Subject: Re: [RealSTMFC] Why Transfer cabooses?

Hi Dennis and List Members,
 
Thank you Dennis for your well thought out and complete treatment on the topic.
 
Dennis wrote: “But four wheel cabooses were fund to be unsafe, and were outlawed sometime in the twenties”
 
This is the first I have heard of four wheel cabooses being outlawed – can anyone confirm this?
 
Claus Schlund
 
 
 
On 5/20/2018 7:26 PM, Dennis Storzek wrote:
I think you guys are over thinking this. The main driver behind transfer cabooses was cost. Both the operating rules and union agreements said that transfer moves needed cabooses; if there were not enough old cabooses surplus from road duty available, something had to be built. The requirement was a small shelter, with a stove, some benches and a desk for the conductor. That dictated a small body, and early in the century a four wheel bobler caboose would have filled the bill. But four wheel cabooses were fund to be unsafe, and were outlawed sometime in the twenties, IIRC, and that meant a small cabin on a long frame. Converted boxcars were rather common up until WWII, usually rebuilt from cars that weren't much bigger than a standard caboose. But by the sixties, when these "cheesebox-on-raft" transfer cabooses became common, the available boxcars were way too big to be heated efficiently. Some of the early examples of the style were rebuilt from boxcars, leaving the center section of the body and building new ends, which yielded large porches which didn't need to be heated. Later it was found to be cheaper and easier to just build a new body and mount it on whatever surplus frame was available. Not exactly rocket science.

The lack of cupola was to reduce cost as much as anything. Nobody was much worried that these slow speed moves were going to develop hotboxes, and in many environments anyone riding in the cupola was going to become a target for rocks or worse, so nobody was riding in the cupola anyway. Why maintain the windows? Sometime in the sixties, early seventies the Soo Line did just that; a bulletin went out to the RIP tracks that henceforth broken cupola windows in cabooses in transfer service were to be boarded over. Some few of these cars subsequently received new plywood sheathing, and the cupolas were entirely sheathed over, just a square blank box on the roof. Some roads, like the Chicago North Shore and Milwaukee simply removed the cupolas and filled in the roof sheathing. I'm familiar with one of their cars, CNS&M 1002 at the Illinois Railway Museum, and all the lockers and the ice box that were under the cupola floor remain; the space between the former floor and new roof was good for stowing grips, etc.

Dennis Storzek
 



Re: Why Transfer cabooses?

Edward
 

The state of Ohio passed a law in 1913 requiring railroad cabooses used with in the state to have eight wheels and be at least 24' in length, not including end platforms. 
B&O was a prime user of four-wheel cabooses, with their K-1 class built from 1878 to 1913.  They were 20' cars of all wood construction with nearly 600 built over that time span.  

The Ohio Caboose Law resulted in the B&O designing their I-1 eight wheel caboose in the 'teens, which was further refined their more famous I-5 class cars in the 1920's.
The PRR which also ran in Ohio, had a class of four wheel cabooses at that time with longer bodies, some of which were converted to eight wheels for compliance.

After 1913, the B&O K-1 cabooses continued working at other locations, on WV branch lines and terminal road subsidiaries B&O Chicago Terminal and the B&O New York Terminal's Staten Island Rapid Transit.  It was on the SIRT that K-1 cabooses were still used on inter-state runs between Cranford NJ and Staten Island. They were replaced in 1953 with I-1 class cars. 
B&O CT's four-wheel K-1 cabooses were also retired about that time.

SIRT received seven K-1 class cars (so far as photos can determine) by March 1, following a two year court contest by the LV, PRR and State of NJ against the B&O concerning the 500' long swing bridge built over the Arthur Kill between NJ  and Staten Island in1888 as a menace to navigation. In time, the K-1 cupolas were removed due to need for repair or rot.  They were not needed for local freight, terminal or  transfer operations.  Most of the  NY Terminal K-1's were rebuilt with replacement steel under frames during  the 1930's. They were burned for scrap at the SIRT Arlington Yard in 1953.

The replacements B&O provided were three I-1 class cars and one I-13 class bay window caboose. The I-13 soon lost its bay windows due to clearance concerns from high-level platforms used in SIRT's passenger service. The I-1 cars also lost their cupolas as the need for repair arose.  These cabooses remained in service until end of B&O/C&O Chessie System service to the metro NY area by Conrail.

Ed Bommer


Re: Why Transfer cabooses?

al.kresse <water.kresse@...>
 

I believe they set a minimum length for a caboose effectively making 4-wheel cabeese problematic.


Al Kresse

On May 21, 2018 at 9:50 AM Eric Hansmann <eric@...> wrote:

I believe Ohio passed legislation in 1914 banning the use of 4-wheel cabooses.

 

From what I’ve seen over the years, any bans on these older cabooses were a state matter and did not stem from ICC/AAR/ARA/MCB actions.

 

 

Eric Hansmann

Murfreesboro, TN

 

 

 


From: main@RealSTMFC.groups.io [mailto:main@RealSTMFC.groups.io] On Behalf Of mofwcaboose via Groups.Io
Sent: Monday, May 21, 2018 7:50 AM
To: main@RealSTMFC.groups.io
Subject: Re: [RealSTMFC] Why Transfer cabooses?

 

1912 in New York, 1929 in Pennsylvania.

 

The passage of the law did not immediately end their use, as they persisted in subsidiary service and on some short lines well into the 1950s. Possibly their last regular use on any railroad was on the Maryland & Pennsylvania in the early 1970s.

 

John C. La Rue, Jr.

Bonita Springs, FL

 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Claus Schlund &#92;(HGM&#92;) <claus@...>
To: main <main@RealSTMFC.groups.io>
Sent: Mon, May 21, 2018 8:22 am
Subject: Re: [RealSTMFC] Why Transfer cabooses?

Hi Dennis and List Members,

 

Thank you Dennis for your well thought out and complete treatment on the topic.

 

Dennis wrote: “But four wheel cabooses were fund to be unsafe, and were outlawed sometime in the twenties”

 

This is the first I have heard of four wheel cabooses being outlawed – can anyone confirm this?

 

Claus Schlund

 

 

 

On 5/20/2018 7:26 PM, Dennis Storzek wrote:

I think you guys are over thinking this. The main driver behind transfer cabooses was cost. Both the operating rules and union agreements said that transfer moves needed cabooses; if there were not enough old cabooses surplus from road duty available, something had to be built. The requirement was a small shelter, with a stove, some benches and a desk for the conductor. That dictated a small body, and early in the century a four wheel bobler caboose would have filled the bill. But four wheel cabooses were fund to be unsafe, and were outlawed sometime in the twenties, IIRC, and that meant a small cabin on a long frame. Converted boxcars were rather common up until WWII, usually rebuilt from cars that weren't much bigger than a standard caboose. But by the sixties, when these "cheesebox-on-raft" transfer cabooses became common, the available boxcars were way too big to be heated efficiently. Some of the early examples of the style were rebuilt from boxcars, leaving the center section of the body and building new ends, which yielded large porches which didn't need to be heated. Later it was found to be cheaper and easier to just build a new body and mount it on whatever surplus frame was available. Not exactly rocket science.

The lack of cupola was to reduce cost as much as anything. Nobody was much worried that these slow speed moves were going to develop hotboxes, and in many environments anyone riding in the cupola was going to become a target for rocks or worse, so nobody was riding in the cupola anyway. Why maintain the windows? Sometime in the sixties, early seventies the Soo Line did just that; a bulletin went out to the RIP tracks that henceforth broken cupola windows in cabooses in transfer service were to be boarded over. Some few of these cars subsequently received new plywood sheathing, and the cupolas were entirely sheathed over, just a square blank box on the roof. Some roads, like the Chicago North Shore and Milwaukee simply removed the cupolas and filled in the roof sheathing. I'm familiar with one of their cars, CNS&M 1002 at the Illinois Railway Museum, and all the lockers and the ice box that were under the cupola floor remain; the space between the former floor and new roof was good for stowing grips, etc.

Dennis Storzek

 

 


 


Re: Why Transfer cabooses?

Eric Hansmann
 

I believe Ohio passed legislation in 1914 banning the use of 4-wheel cabooses.

 

From what I’ve seen over the years, any bans on these older cabooses were a state matter and did not stem from ICC/AAR/ARA/MCB actions.

 

 

Eric Hansmann

Murfreesboro, TN

 

 

 


From: main@RealSTMFC.groups.io [mailto:main@RealSTMFC.groups.io] On Behalf Of mofwcaboose via Groups.Io
Sent: Monday, May 21, 2018 7:50 AM
To: main@RealSTMFC.groups.io
Subject: Re: [RealSTMFC] Why Transfer cabooses?

 

1912 in New York, 1929 in Pennsylvania.

 

The passage of the law did not immediately end their use, as they persisted in subsidiary service and on some short lines well into the 1950s. Possibly their last regular use on any railroad was on the Maryland & Pennsylvania in the early 1970s.

 

John C. La Rue, Jr.

Bonita Springs, FL

 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Claus Schlund &#92;(HGM&#92;) <claus@...>
To: main <main@RealSTMFC.groups.io>
Sent: Mon, May 21, 2018 8:22 am
Subject: Re: [RealSTMFC] Why Transfer cabooses?

Hi Dennis and List Members,

 

Thank you Dennis for your well thought out and complete treatment on the topic.

 

Dennis wrote: “But four wheel cabooses were fund to be unsafe, and were outlawed sometime in the twenties”

 

This is the first I have heard of four wheel cabooses being outlawed – can anyone confirm this?

 

Claus Schlund

 

 

 

On 5/20/2018 7:26 PM, Dennis Storzek wrote:

I think you guys are over thinking this. The main driver behind transfer cabooses was cost. Both the operating rules and union agreements said that transfer moves needed cabooses; if there were not enough old cabooses surplus from road duty available, something had to be built. The requirement was a small shelter, with a stove, some benches and a desk for the conductor. That dictated a small body, and early in the century a four wheel bobler caboose would have filled the bill. But four wheel cabooses were fund to be unsafe, and were outlawed sometime in the twenties, IIRC, and that meant a small cabin on a long frame. Converted boxcars were rather common up until WWII, usually rebuilt from cars that weren't much bigger than a standard caboose. But by the sixties, when these "cheesebox-on-raft" transfer cabooses became common, the available boxcars were way too big to be heated efficiently. Some of the early examples of the style were rebuilt from boxcars, leaving the center section of the body and building new ends, which yielded large porches which didn't need to be heated. Later it was found to be cheaper and easier to just build a new body and mount it on whatever surplus frame was available. Not exactly rocket science.

The lack of cupola was to reduce cost as much as anything. Nobody was much worried that these slow speed moves were going to develop hotboxes, and in many environments anyone riding in the cupola was going to become a target for rocks or worse, so nobody was riding in the cupola anyway. Why maintain the windows? Sometime in the sixties, early seventies the Soo Line did just that; a bulletin went out to the RIP tracks that henceforth broken cupola windows in cabooses in transfer service were to be boarded over. Some few of these cars subsequently received new plywood sheathing, and the cupolas were entirely sheathed over, just a square blank box on the roof. Some roads, like the Chicago North Shore and Milwaukee simply removed the cupolas and filled in the roof sheathing. I'm familiar with one of their cars, CNS&M 1002 at the Illinois Railway Museum, and all the lockers and the ice box that were under the cupola floor remain; the space between the former floor and new roof was good for stowing grips, etc.

Dennis Storzek

 


Re: Why Transfer cabooses?

Garth Groff <sarahsan@...>
 

Claus,

Very likely this was on a state-by-state basis (at least at first) or by union pressure, and likely had more to do with fragile wooden underframes or requirements for expensive improved toilets rather than the number of wheels. The Summer 2018 issue of CLASSIC TRAINS includes a photo of a Ligonier Valley (in Pennsylvania) train with a four wheel caboose dated June 18, 1951. I also seem to remember an RMC article about another Pennsylvania line, the Cloudersport and Port Allegheny, that used four-wheel cabooses until it went bust in the 1960s. The Strasburg also used an ex-PRR four-wheeler into the 1960s and maybe later on their occasional freight movements (it is still there). So obviously Pennsylvania tolerated four-wheel cars long after they disappeared other places.

I am quite serious about the toilet issue. I'm a bit fuzzy on the details, but California apparently mandated improved toilets on cabooses in the early 1950s (likely a holding tank). This led the Western Pacific to retire en-mass their eight-wheeled Haskell & Barker and WP-built clone wood-sided cabooses by 1955 because it simply wasn't worth the expense of the upgrade. The few ex-WP wood-sided cars that soldiered on a few more years for other lines like the Central California Traction Co. did receive improved toilets.

Yours Aye,


Garth Groff  🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿


On 5/21/18 8:17 AM, Claus Schlund &#92;(HGM&#92;) wrote:
Hi Dennis and List Members,
 
Thank you Dennis for your well thought out and complete treatment on the topic.
 
Dennis wrote: “But four wheel cabooses were fund to be unsafe, and were outlawed sometime in the twenties”
 
This is the first I have heard of four wheel cabooses being outlawed – can anyone confirm this?
 
Claus Schlund
 
 
 
On 5/20/2018 7:26 PM, Dennis Storzek wrote:
I think you guys are over thinking this. The main driver behind transfer cabooses was cost. Both the operating rules and union agreements said that transfer moves needed cabooses; if there were not enough old cabooses surplus from road duty available, something had to be built. The requirement was a small shelter, with a stove, some benches and a desk for the conductor. That dictated a small body, and early in the century a four wheel bobler caboose would have filled the bill. But four wheel cabooses were fund to be unsafe, and were outlawed sometime in the twenties, IIRC, and that meant a small cabin on a long frame. Converted boxcars were rather common up until WWII, usually rebuilt from cars that weren't much bigger than a standard caboose. But by the sixties, when these "cheesebox-on-raft" transfer cabooses became common, the available boxcars were way too big to be heated efficiently. Some of the early examples of the style were rebuilt from boxcars, leaving the center section of the body and building new ends, which yielded large porches which didn't need to be heated. Later it was found to be cheaper and easier to just build a new body and mount it on whatever surplus frame was available. Not exactly rocket science.

The lack of cupola was to reduce cost as much as anything. Nobody was much worried that these slow speed moves were going to develop hotboxes, and in many environments anyone riding in the cupola was going to become a target for rocks or worse, so nobody was riding in the cupola anyway. Why maintain the windows? Sometime in the sixties, early seventies the Soo Line did just that; a bulletin went out to the RIP tracks that henceforth broken cupola windows in cabooses in transfer service were to be boarded over. Some few of these cars subsequently received new plywood sheathing, and the cupolas were entirely sheathed over, just a square blank box on the roof. Some roads, like the Chicago North Shore and Milwaukee simply removed the cupolas and filled in the roof sheathing. I'm familiar with one of their cars, CNS&M 1002 at the Illinois Railway Museum, and all the lockers and the ice box that were under the cupola floor remain; the space between the former floor and new roof was good for stowing grips, etc.

Dennis Storzek



Re: Why Transfer cabooses?

Dennis Storzek <destorzek@...>
 

I don't have a reference, but I thought it eventually became an ICC edict, part of the same regulation that required steel underframes on all cabooses. The reason was the same, crew safety, as the little four wheel cars were found to fare very badly in collisions.

Dennis Storzek


Re: Why Transfer cabooses?

mofwcaboose <MOFWCABOOSE@...>
 

1912 in New York, 1929 in Pennsylvania.
 
The passage of the law did not immediately end their use, as they persisted in subsidiary service and on some short lines well into the 1950s. Possibly their last regular use on any railroad was on the Maryland & Pennsylvania in the early 1970s.
 
John C. La Rue, Jr.
Bonita Springs, FL
 
 

-----Original Message-----
From: Claus Schlund &#92;(HGM&#92;) <claus@...>
To: main <main@RealSTMFC.groups.io>
Sent: Mon, May 21, 2018 8:22 am
Subject: Re: [RealSTMFC] Why Transfer cabooses?

Hi Dennis and List Members,
 
Thank you Dennis for your well thought out and complete treatment on the topic.
 
Dennis wrote: “But four wheel cabooses were fund to be unsafe, and were outlawed sometime in the twenties”
 
This is the first I have heard of four wheel cabooses being outlawed – can anyone confirm this?
 
Claus Schlund
 
 
 
On 5/20/2018 7:26 PM, Dennis Storzek wrote:
I think you guys are over thinking this. The main driver behind transfer cabooses was cost. Both the operating rules and union agreements said that transfer moves needed cabooses; if there were not enough old cabooses surplus from road duty available, something had to be built. The requirement was a small shelter, with a stove, some benches and a desk for the conductor. That dictated a small body, and early in the century a four wheel bobler caboose would have filled the bill. But four wheel cabooses were fund to be unsafe, and were outlawed sometime in the twenties, IIRC, and that meant a small cabin on a long frame. Converted boxcars were rather common up until WWII, usually rebuilt from cars that weren't much bigger than a standard caboose. But by the sixties, when these "cheesebox-on-raft" transfer cabooses became common, the available boxcars were way too big to be heated efficiently. Some of the early examples of the style were rebuilt from boxcars, leaving the center section of the body and building new ends, which yielded large porches which didn't need to be heated. Later it was found to be cheaper and easier to just build a new body and mount it on whatever surplus frame was available. Not exactly rocket science.

The lack of cupola was to reduce cost as much as anything. Nobody was much worried that these slow speed moves were going to develop hotboxes, and in many environments anyone riding in the cupola was going to become a target for rocks or worse, so nobody was riding in the cupola anyway. Why maintain the windows? Sometime in the sixties, early seventies the Soo Line did just that; a bulletin went out to the RIP tracks that henceforth broken cupola windows in cabooses in transfer service were to be boarded over. Some few of these cars subsequently received new plywood sheathing, and the cupolas were entirely sheathed over, just a square blank box on the roof. Some roads, like the Chicago North Shore and Milwaukee simply removed the cupolas and filled in the roof sheathing. I'm familiar with one of their cars, CNS&M 1002 at the Illinois Railway Museum, and all the lockers and the ice box that were under the cupola floor remain; the space between the former floor and new roof was good for stowing grips, etc.

Dennis Storzek


Re: Why Transfer cabooses?

Claus Schlund &#92;(HGM&#92;)
 

Hi Dennis and List Members,
 
Thank you Dennis for your well thought out and complete treatment on the topic.
 
Dennis wrote: “But four wheel cabooses were fund to be unsafe, and were outlawed sometime in the twenties”
 
This is the first I have heard of four wheel cabooses being outlawed – can anyone confirm this?
 
Claus Schlund
 
 
 

On 5/20/2018 7:26 PM, Dennis Storzek wrote:
I think you guys are over thinking this. The main driver behind transfer cabooses was cost. Both the operating rules and union agreements said that transfer moves needed cabooses; if there were not enough old cabooses surplus from road duty available, something had to be built. The requirement was a small shelter, with a stove, some benches and a desk for the conductor. That dictated a small body, and early in the century a four wheel bobler caboose would have filled the bill. But four wheel cabooses were fund to be unsafe, and were outlawed sometime in the twenties, IIRC, and that meant a small cabin on a long frame. Converted boxcars were rather common up until WWII, usually rebuilt from cars that weren't much bigger than a standard caboose. But by the sixties, when these "cheesebox-on-raft" transfer cabooses became common, the available boxcars were way too big to be heated efficiently. Some of the early examples of the style were rebuilt from boxcars, leaving the center section of the body and building new ends, which yielded large porches which didn't need to be heated. Later it was found to be cheaper and easier to just build a new body and mount it on whatever surplus frame was available. Not exactly rocket science.

The lack of cupola was to reduce cost as much as anything. Nobody was much worried that these slow speed moves were going to develop hotboxes, and in many environments anyone riding in the cupola was going to become a target for rocks or worse, so nobody was riding in the cupola anyway. Why maintain the windows? Sometime in the sixties, early seventies the Soo Line did just that; a bulletin went out to the RIP tracks that henceforth broken cupola windows in cabooses in transfer service were to be boarded over. Some few of these cars subsequently received new plywood sheathing, and the cupolas were entirely sheathed over, just a square blank box on the roof. Some roads, like the Chicago North Shore and Milwaukee simply removed the cupolas and filled in the roof sheathing. I'm familiar with one of their cars, CNS&M 1002 at the Illinois Railway Museum, and all the lockers and the ice box that were under the cupola floor remain; the space between the former floor and new roof was good for stowing grips, etc.

Dennis Storzek


Re: Why Transfer cabooses?

Jeffrey White
 

The TRRA built "cheese box on a raft" cabooses out of old flat cars in the late 30s, early 40s.  They cut the side sills to put steps in weakening the structure of the car.  They ran until the late 50s.

The shelter cabs as they were called were built in response to court case IIRC.  I'll have to dig out the TRRA caboose book and check my memory.

Jeff White

Alma, IL


On 5/20/2018 7:26 PM, Dennis Storzek wrote:
I think you guys are over thinking this. The main driver behind transfer cabooses was cost. Both the operating rules and union agreements said that transfer moves needed cabooses; if there were not enough old cabooses surplus from road duty available, something had to be built. The requirement was a small shelter, with a stove, some benches and a desk for the conductor. That dictated a small body, and early in the century a four wheel bobler caboose would have filled the bill. But four wheel cabooses were fund to be unsafe, and were outlawed sometime in the twenties, IIRC, and that meant a small cabin on a long frame. Converted boxcars were rather common up until WWII, usually rebuilt from cars that weren't much bigger than a standard caboose. But by the sixties, when these "cheesebox-on-raft" transfer cabooses became common, the available boxcars were way too big to be heated efficiently. Some of the early examples of the style were rebuilt from boxcars, leaving the center section of the body and building new ends, which yielded large porches which didn't need to be heated. Later it was found to be cheaper and easier to just build a new body and mount it on whatever surplus frame was available. Not exactly rocket science.

The lack of cupola was to reduce cost as much as anything. Nobody was much worried that these slow speed moves were going to develop hotboxes, and in many environments anyone riding in the cupola was going to become a target for rocks or worse, so nobody was riding in the cupola anyway. Why maintain the windows? Sometime in the sixties, early seventies the Soo Line did just that; a bulletin went out to the RIP tracks that henceforth broken cupola windows in cabooses in transfer service were to be boarded over. Some few of these cars subsequently received new plywood sheathing, and the cupolas were entirely sheathed over, just a square blank box on the roof. Some roads, like the Chicago North Shore and Milwaukee simply removed the cupolas and filled in the roof sheathing. I'm familiar with one of their cars, CNS&M 1002 at the Illinois Railway Museum, and all the lockers and the ice box that were under the cupola floor remain; the space between the former floor and new roof was good for stowing grips, etc.

Dennis Storzek


Re: Why Transfer cabooses?

Dennis Storzek <destorzek@...>
 

I think you guys are over thinking this. The main driver behind transfer cabooses was cost. Both the operating rules and union agreements said that transfer moves needed cabooses; if there were not enough old cabooses surplus from road duty available, something had to be built. The requirement was a small shelter, with a stove, some benches and a desk for the conductor. That dictated a small body, and early in the century a four wheel bobler caboose would have filled the bill. But four wheel cabooses were fund to be unsafe, and were outlawed sometime in the twenties, IIRC, and that meant a small cabin on a long frame. Converted boxcars were rather common up until WWII, usually rebuilt from cars that weren't much bigger than a standard caboose. But by the sixties, when these "cheesebox-on-raft" transfer cabooses became common, the available boxcars were way too big to be heated efficiently. Some of the early examples of the style were rebuilt from boxcars, leaving the center section of the body and building new ends, which yielded large porches which didn't need to be heated. Later it was found to be cheaper and easier to just build a new body and mount it on whatever surplus frame was available. Not exactly rocket science.

The lack of cupola was to reduce cost as much as anything. Nobody was much worried that these slow speed moves were going to develop hotboxes, and in many environments anyone riding in the cupola was going to become a target for rocks or worse, so nobody was riding in the cupola anyway. Why maintain the windows? Sometime in the sixties, early seventies the Soo Line did just that; a bulletin went out to the RIP tracks that henceforth broken cupola windows in cabooses in transfer service were to be boarded over. Some few of these cars subsequently received new plywood sheathing, and the cupolas were entirely sheathed over, just a square blank box on the roof. Some roads, like the Chicago North Shore and Milwaukee simply removed the cupolas and filled in the roof sheathing. I'm familiar with one of their cars, CNS&M 1002 at the Illinois Railway Museum, and all the lockers and the ice box that were under the cupola floor remain; the space between the former floor and new roof was good for stowing grips, etc.

Dennis Storzek


Re: Why Transfer cabooses?

james murrie
 

The MILW used frames from retired steam loco tenders and built a body on that.  Gave large platforms and sturdy underframe.
Jim Murrie


Re: Iowa Terminal/PRR gun flat

Tim O'Connor
 


Uh, no, it didn't. More urban legend.


Tony,

Ah, but it did happen on the Lasalle & Bureau County, post period I'm afraid.

Yours Aye,

Garth Groff



Re: I assume the cars (and the poultry?) would have arrived via a carfloat?

Benjamin Hom
 


Claus Schlund asked:
"Among other interesting items on this great photo you will find two poultry
cars...
 
http://www.railfan.net/lists/erielackphoto.cgi?erielack-09-28-12/C1415.jpg 
 
The location is Harlem Transfer. I assume the cars (and the poultry?) would
have arrived via a carfloat?"

Correct.  Harlem Transfer did not have direct interchange via land.


Ben Hom 

 


Re: I assume the cars (and the poultry?) would have arrived via a carfloat?

 

What’s built up on the roof of the car to their right?


Thanks!
--

Brian Ehni


From: <main@RealSTMFC.groups.io> on behalf of "Claus Schlund &#92;(HGM&#92;)" <claus@...>
Reply-To: <main@RealSTMFC.groups.io>
Date: Sunday, May 20, 2018 at 2:10 PM
To: STMFC <RealSTMFC@groups.io>
Subject: [RealSTMFC] I assume the cars (and the poultry?) would have arrived via a carfloat?

Hi List Members,
 
Among other interesting items on this great photo you will find two poultry cars...
 
http://www.railfan.net/lists/erielackphoto.cgi?erielack-09-28-12/C1415.jpg
 
The location is Harlem Transfer. I assume the cars (and the poultry?) would have arrived via a carfloat?
 
Claus Schlund


I assume the cars (and the poultry?) would have arrived via a carfloat?

Claus Schlund &#92;(HGM&#92;)
 

Hi List Members,
 
Among other interesting items on this great photo you will find two poultry cars...
 
 
The location is Harlem Transfer. I assume the cars (and the poultry?) would have arrived via a carfloat?
 
Claus Schlund
 
 


Re: Name that gondola end?

Schuyler Larrabee
 

Great shot for weathering a string of gon, Tim!

 

Schuyler

 

From: main@RealSTMFC.groups.io <main@RealSTMFC.groups.io> On Behalf Of Tim O'Connor
Sent: Saturday, May 19, 2018 2:34 PM
To: main@RealSTMFC.groups.io
Subject: Re: [RealSTMFC] Name that gondola end?

 


lol - yeah, odd, even, whatever. :-)

So it appears the cars were completely rebuilt after 1955! They received steel sides,
and probably new ends as well. This July 1959 photo (posted by Ted Culotta on Ebay)
shows the rebuilt cars. It would be very interesting to know whether any of them kept
their spiral ends.

Tim




Thanks for sharing the photo, Tim.  I have a pair of Shapeways ends that were looking for a place to be used.  I assume that you meant ODD numbers!
 
Steve Hile


From: main@RealSTMFC.groups.io [ mailto:main@RealSTMFC.groups.io] On Behalf Of Tim O'Connor
Sent: Friday, May 18, 2018 11:36 PM
To: main@RealSTMFC.groups.io
Subject: Re: [RealSTMFC] Name that gondola end?


Call it a "spiral" end. It's been discussed before, a little bit. As John Barry
says, Soo Line had some - series 63801 to 64799, 498 even-numbered cars in 1940.
By 1950 there were still 493 cars. By 1955, 224 cars had been rebuilt with steel
floors, but there were still 257 cars as built. In 1959 only 8 original cars were
on the roster, but there were still 469 cars with steel floors! And I know it's
going past 1960, but in 1965 there were still 277 of these strange gondolas!

Kinda makes me wonder, why aren't these considered to be "signature" Soo Line cars?

Tim O'Connor



===========================


Most likely a Monon gon, but it could be a SOO line as they had some too.  The cars can be modeled with the Intermountain USRA gon and a Shapeways end.  We had a good discussion on a number of these in the Barriger collection several months back.
John Barry


===========================


Came across a photo of a freight yard, and one one of the tracks is the end of a gondola I hadn't seen before. I'm sharing it here so that others may see it, and so that some may be able to identify it, with one continuous indentation filling the end, like lines on a vinyl record.
....Mike


Re: Iowa Terminal/PRR gun flat

Tony Thompson
 

So they all say (g).
Tony 


On May 19, 2018, at 5:49 PM, Garth Groff <sarahsan@...> wrote:

Tony,

Ah, but it did happen on the Lasalle & Bureau County, post period I'm afraid.

Yours Aye,


Garth Groff  🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿

On 5/19/18 7:58 PM, Tony Thompson wrote:
Story sure has the scent of an urban legend. Several railroads have stories suspiciously similar.

Tony Thompson 


On May 19, 2018, at 1:29 PM, Charles Peck <lnnrr152@...> wrote:

Garth, I certainly agree that the time frame seems shaky for the car to have
arrived with archbar trucks.  However, if I had a guilty conscience over a
stolen car, I would have removed trucks with PRR cast on them and
substituted something less obvious.
Chuck Peck 

On Sat, May 19, 2018 at 2:20 PM, Garth Groff <sarahsan@...> wrote:
Jim,

We discussed this story before, but a couple of thing bother me about it. The car is on archbar trucks. They were banned in interchange in 1941-42. And what would such a specialty car be doing in interchange to an Iowa shortline, unless perhaps these cars also ran in general service? While the story may be true, it does seem a bit dodgy.


Can any of our PRR mavens put a date on when these cars would have received cast frame trucks?

In any case, the car was there when my father visited the ITR. Does anyone know if it is still around?

Yours Aye,


Garth Groff  🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿


On 5/19/18 2:42 PM, Jim Mischke wrote:


There is more to this story.  With me present as a child about 1967, the Iowa Terminal chief mechanical officer told my father that the railroad had stolen the flat car.   Needing a flat car, when a PRR flat car came in interchange, they hid it out back in the weeds and forged the paperwork to indicate it had been returned empty to CGW.   Then they waited 10-15 years until the statute of limitations ran out, at which time they fetched it from the weeds and made it into a snowplow.  How is that for planning ahead?

During this interval, a PRR representative did drop by looking for the flat car, but seemed satisfied with the paperwork and left.





Re: Iowa Terminal/PRR gun flat

Garth Groff <sarahsan@...>
 

Tony,

Ah, but it did happen on the Lasalle & Bureau County, post period I'm afraid.

Yours Aye,


Garth Groff  🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿

On 5/19/18 7:58 PM, Tony Thompson wrote:
Story sure has the scent of an urban legend. Several railroads have stories suspiciously similar.

Tony Thompson 


On May 19, 2018, at 1:29 PM, Charles Peck <lnnrr152@...> wrote:

Garth, I certainly agree that the time frame seems shaky for the car to have
arrived with archbar trucks.  However, if I had a guilty conscience over a
stolen car, I would have removed trucks with PRR cast on them and
substituted something less obvious.
Chuck Peck 

On Sat, May 19, 2018 at 2:20 PM, Garth Groff <sarahsan@...> wrote:
Jim,

We discussed this story before, but a couple of thing bother me about it. The car is on archbar trucks. They were banned in interchange in 1941-42. And what would such a specialty car be doing in interchange to an Iowa shortline, unless perhaps these cars also ran in general service? While the story may be true, it does seem a bit dodgy.


Can any of our PRR mavens put a date on when these cars would have received cast frame trucks?

In any case, the car was there when my father visited the ITR. Does anyone know if it is still around?

Yours Aye,


Garth Groff  🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿


On 5/19/18 2:42 PM, Jim Mischke wrote:


There is more to this story.  With me present as a child about 1967, the Iowa Terminal chief mechanical officer told my father that the railroad had stolen the flat car.   Needing a flat car, when a PRR flat car came in interchange, they hid it out back in the weeds and forged the paperwork to indicate it had been returned empty to CGW.   Then they waited 10-15 years until the statute of limitations ran out, at which time they fetched it from the weeds and made it into a snowplow.  How is that for planning ahead?

During this interval, a PRR representative did drop by looking for the flat car, but seemed satisfied with the paperwork and left.




38201 - 38220 of 194744