Date   

Re: Side-door Cabooses [was Why Transfer cabooses?]

Dennis Storzek
 

On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 09:19 pm, Merlyn Lauber wrote:
I believe the Side Door Ban on the IC cabooses in Iowa was an old Union rule
Considering I can find no Iowa statute that specifically mentions side doors, I'm beginning to think the "ban" was self imposed by the IC, either in response to union pressure or because they had to pay a whopping injury settlement (which would have been imposed by the Iowa state courts and could be the basis urban legend that it's a "law".) I did find a citation to the 1911 statute I linked to the other day in the 1946 court case Fleming vs. Richardson , the complaint being: On complaint of a trainmen's association that the Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific Railway Company was violating section 7972 of the 1939 Code of Iowa, by operating caboose cars on its railroads in Iowa, with but one platform, but no references to side doors. I also found a citation to the 1911 statute in a list of current (2018) Iowa law, but with the disclaimer that the list on the web site may be out of date.

More for general information, and more pertinent to the recent discussion of four wheel cabooses, is this compilation of state laws governing cabooses as of December, 1912. Caboose Laws

Dennis Storzek

 


Re: Side-door Cabooses [was Why Transfer cabooses?]

Merlyn Lauber
 

I believe the Side Door Ban on the IC cabooses in Iowa was an old Union rule which was due to a safety concern that a crew member could fall out of the open door. I think this was changed in the early 50's and we have photos and have seen the "side door" cabooses throughout Iowa after that. I have seen photos of a crew member setting in the open door. This was discussed and presented at a Clinic some years ago at one of the meets. When we have a railfan show and an IC 'side door" caboose comes on the screen, someone in the audience almost always says "there's another side door that's not allowed in Iowa".

Merlyn Lauber

----- Original Message -----
From: Douglas Harding <doug.harding@iowacentralrr.org>
To: main@RealSTMFC.groups.io
Sent: Wed, 23 May 2018 22:57:13 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: [RealSTMFC] Side-door Cabooses [was Why Transfer cabooses?]

The IC did run side door cabooses in Iowa. But I understand, when they did use them in Iowa, the side doors were required to be bolted or welded shut so they could not be opened. The IC cabooses had sidedoors that were half height, the doors did not reach the floor. I heard this was so a crew member could sit on the bench an safely pick up hooped orders without standing on the platform. But so far I have not been able to find anything to verify the Iowa ban, only modeler’s and railfans speculations.



The M&StL had several sidedoor cabooses, I have photos of four different ones. The photo of M&StL sidedoor caboose #1186, was taken by William Armstrong in McCallsburg IA in 1941. A photo of 1306 was taken Marshalltown IA in 1948. (I believe that attached color photo was taken later).



Drover cabooses or cars are a different animal.



Doug Harding

www.iowacentralrr.org



From: main@RealSTMFC.groups.io [mailto:main@RealSTMFC.groups.io] On Behalf Of al.kresse
Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2018 8:30 PM
To: main@RealSTMFC.groups.io
Subject: Re: [RealSTMFC] Side-door Cabooses [was Why Transfer cabooses?]



Did they want to force separate drover cars for the farmers? Were there more bunk spaces?



Al Kresse

On May 23, 2018 at 9:05 PM Jeffy White <jrwhite@midwest.net> wrote:

This doesn't explain why the IC built different cabooses to operate in Iowa. I'm not an attorney but in my career as a police officer I read and interpreted statutes all the time and by my reading of the law, the standard IC caboose met all of the requirements of the law. Yet they built cabooses just like the standard cabooses only without the side doors to run in Iowa.

It seems to me that there almost had to be something else that caused them to build those Iowa cabooses. All of the IC literature I have read says side door cabooses were not legal in Iowa.

I wonder what the reason was?

Jeff White

Alma, IL



On 5/23/2018 2:51 PM, Dennis Storzek wrote:

On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 09:19 am, Nelson Moyer wrote:

I’m pretty sure that Iowa did not ban side door waycars in any form.

But they did require end platforms. This link should take you to the announcement of the 1911 law:
Caboose Cars

I was also interested to learn that Lorenzo S. Coffin, the railroad safety crusader from the late nineteenth century, was an Iowa state railroad commissioner.

Dennis Storzek


Re: Side-door Cabooses [was Why Transfer cabooses?]

Douglas Harding
 

The IC did run side door cabooses in Iowa. But I understand, when they did use them in Iowa, the side doors were required to be bolted or welded shut so they could not be opened. The IC cabooses had sidedoors that were half height, the doors did not reach the floor. I heard this was so a crew member could sit on the bench an safely pick up hooped orders without standing on the platform. But so far I have not been able to find anything to verify the Iowa ban, only modeler’s and railfans speculations.

 

The M&StL had several sidedoor cabooses, I have photos of four different ones. The photo of M&StL sidedoor caboose #1186, was taken by William Armstrong in McCallsburg IA in 1941. A photo of 1306 was taken Marshalltown IA in 1948. (I believe that attached color photo was taken later).

 

Drover cabooses or cars are a different animal.

 

Doug  Harding

www.iowacentralrr.org

 

From: main@RealSTMFC.groups.io [mailto:main@RealSTMFC.groups.io] On Behalf Of al.kresse
Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2018 8:30 PM
To: main@RealSTMFC.groups.io
Subject: Re: [RealSTMFC] Side-door Cabooses [was Why Transfer cabooses?]

 

Did they want to force separate drover cars for the farmers?  Were there more bunk spaces?

 

Al Kresse

On May 23, 2018 at 9:05 PM Jeffy White <jrwhite@...> wrote:

This doesn't explain why the IC built different cabooses to operate in Iowa.  I'm not an attorney but in my career as a police officer I read and interpreted statutes all the time and by my reading of the law, the standard IC caboose met all of the requirements of the law.  Yet they built cabooses just like the standard cabooses only without the side doors to run in Iowa. 

It seems to me that there almost had to be something else that caused them to build those Iowa cabooses.  All of the IC literature I have read says side door cabooses were not legal in Iowa.

I wonder what the reason was?

Jeff White

Alma, IL

 

On 5/23/2018 2:51 PM, Dennis Storzek wrote:

On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 09:19 am, Nelson Moyer wrote:

I’m pretty sure that Iowa did not ban side door waycars in any form.

But they did require end platforms. This link should take you to the announcement of the 1911 law:
Caboose Cars

I was also interested to learn that Lorenzo S. Coffin, the railroad safety crusader from the late nineteenth century, was an Iowa state railroad commissioner.

Dennis Storzek

 

 

 


 


Re: Side-door Cabooses [was Why Transfer cabooses?]

Walter
 


Re: Side-door Cabooses [was Why Transfer cabooses?]

al.kresse <water.kresse@...>
 

Did they want to force separate drover cars for the farmers?  Were there more bunk spaces?


Al Kresse

On May 23, 2018 at 9:05 PM Jeffy White <jrwhite@...> wrote:

This doesn't explain why the IC built different cabooses to operate in Iowa.  I'm not an attorney but in my career as a police officer I read and interpreted statutes all the time and by my reading of the law, the standard IC caboose met all of the requirements of the law.  Yet they built cabooses just like the standard cabooses only without the side doors to run in Iowa. 

It seems to me that there almost had to be something else that caused them to build those Iowa cabooses.  All of the IC literature I have read says side door cabooses were not legal in Iowa.

I wonder what the reason was?

Jeff White

Alma, IL


On 5/23/2018 2:51 PM, Dennis Storzek wrote:
On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 09:19 am, Nelson Moyer wrote:

I’m pretty sure that Iowa did not ban side door waycars in any form.

But they did require end platforms. This link should take you to the announcement of the 1911 law:
Caboose Cars

I was also interested to learn that Lorenzo S. Coffin, the railroad safety crusader from the late nineteenth century, was an Iowa state railroad commissioner.

Dennis Storzek

 

 



 


Re: Side-door Cabooses [was Why Transfer cabooses?]

Jeffrey White
 

This doesn't explain why the IC built different cabooses to operate in Iowa.  I'm not an attorney but in my career as a police officer I read and interpreted statutes all the time and by my reading of the law, the standard IC caboose met all of the requirements of the law.  Yet they built cabooses just like the standard cabooses only without the side doors to run in Iowa. 

It seems to me that there almost had to be something else that caused them to build those Iowa cabooses.  All of the IC literature I have read says side door cabooses were not legal in Iowa.

I wonder what the reason was?

Jeff White

Alma, IL


On 5/23/2018 2:51 PM, Dennis Storzek wrote:
On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 09:19 am, Nelson Moyer wrote:

I’m pretty sure that Iowa did not ban side door waycars in any form.

But they did require end platforms. This link should take you to the announcement of the 1911 law:
Caboose Cars

I was also interested to learn that Lorenzo S. Coffin, the railroad safety crusader from the late nineteenth century, was an Iowa state railroad commissioner.

Dennis Storzek

 

 



Re: Canadian National Eight-Hatch Reefers

John Riddell
 

Hi Bob

 

Unfortunately your question does not have a concise answer. 

 

CN purchased 3,185 of the steel 8-hatch reefers in 14 batches from 1940 to 1958.

There were many visual differences so to get an appreciation you will need to look at the article by Swain and Goslett in the RMC January 1996 issue for a list of the visual  differences.  

 

CP purchased 3,102 steel 8-hatch reefers in 17 batches from 1936 to 1956.

Similarly there were many visual differences. To get an appreciation you will need to look at the article by the same authors in the RMC December 1995 issue for a list of the visual  differences.  

 

John Riddell

 

 

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

 


Re: Branchline /atlas parts

Garth Groff <sarahsan@...>
 

Dave,

I have one #1700 undecorated "standard style" 50' PD car. Contact me off-list if you want this: sarahsan_AT_embarqmail.com.

Yours Aye,


Garth Groff  🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿

On 5/23/18 7:22 PM, Dave Boss wrote:
Thanks folks  for all the info on branchline kits. I was looking for a couple undec standard 50ft plug dr cars not GARX versions. I think BL made two different types?, for a kit bash starting point. Was also interested in some 40ft undec box cars for some other projects. Thanks Dave


Re: Branchline /atlas parts

Dave Boss
 

Thanks folks  for all the info on branchline kits. I was looking for a couple undec standard 50ft plug dr cars not GARX versions. I think BL made two different types?, for a kit bash starting point. Was also interested in some 40ft undec box cars for some other projects. Thanks Dave


Re: Canadian National Eight-Hatch Reefers

Bill Welch
 

The Funaro & Camerlengo kit of the CN type built into a very satisfying model although I am not sure if mine may have been issued as an RPI kit. It had Dreadnaught ends.

Bill Welch


Re: Branchline /atlas parts

Bill Welch
 

I notice the site has cut the information after the "@" so here it is: atlasrr.com

Bill Welch


Re: Branchline /atlas parts

Bill Welch
 

Brian, to the extent this will help you here is the email address for the person at Alas I have found to be helpful: Steve Millenbach—smillenbach@.... I think his role is Customer Relations and he helped me ID stock numbers for Undec. 40-foot boxcar kits.

Bill Welch


On Tue, May 22, 2018 at 09:30 am, Brian Carlson wrote:
Does anyone know if Atlas sells parts for the branchline postwar Box cars. I had a mishap and need to replace some parts.

Brian J. Carlson


Re: Side-door Cabooses [was Why Transfer cabooses?]

Nelson Moyer
 

The 1911 law must have been amended or annulled at some point, because the converted boxcars had neither end platform or cupola, and they operated in Iowa based upon photographic evidence. This thread would be of interest to the CBQ group, where many former Q employees are members. It would be interesting to hear their first hand experiences.

 

Nelson Moyer

 

From: main@RealSTMFC.groups.io [mailto:main@RealSTMFC.groups.io] On Behalf Of Dennis Storzek
Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2018 2:52 PM
To: main@RealSTMFC.groups.io
Subject: Re: [RealSTMFC] Side-door Cabooses [was Why Transfer cabooses?]

 

On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 09:19 am, Nelson Moyer wrote:

I’m pretty sure that Iowa did not ban side door waycars in any form.

But they did require end platforms. This link should take you to the announcement of the 1911 law:
Caboose Cars

I was also interested to learn that Lorenzo S. Coffin, the railroad safety crusader from the late nineteenth century, was an Iowa state railroad commissioner.

Dennis Storzek

 

 


Re: Side-door Cabooses [was Why Transfer cabooses?]

Dennis Storzek
 

On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 09:19 am, Nelson Moyer wrote:

I’m pretty sure that Iowa did not ban side door waycars in any form.

But they did require end platforms. This link should take you to the announcement of the 1911 law:
Caboose Cars

I was also interested to learn that Lorenzo S. Coffin, the railroad safety crusader from the late nineteenth century, was an Iowa state railroad commissioner.

Dennis Storzek

 

 


Re: Canadian National Eight-Hatch Reefers

al_brown03
 

True Line Trains did *both* CN and CP versions, and their 'Web site discusses the physical differences. 

Al Brown, Melbourne, Fla.


Re: Canadian National Eight-Hatch Reefers

Richard Townsend
 

Go to their website: http://www.truelinetrains.ca/freight-cars/ho---8-hatch-reefer

Richard Townsend
Lincoln City, OR


-----Original Message-----
From: Armand Premo <arm.p.prem@...>
To: main <main@realstmfc.groups.io>
Sent: Wed, May 23, 2018 11:14 am
Subject: Re: [RealSTMFC] Canadian National Eight-Hatch Reefers

Which one did True Line trains do ?Armand Premo

On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 12:08 PM, Pierre Oliver <pierre.oliver@...> wrote:
Bob,
Starting in RMC Dec, 1995, for 3 parts, Stafford Swain wrote an in depth series of articles on all the variations of Canadian built 8 hatch reefers.
The distinctions are subtle, but the articles provide  lots of charts to help you figure out what is what
Pierre Oliver
www.elgincarshops.com
www.yarmouthmodelworks.com
On 5/23/18 11:45 AM, Bob Chaparro wrote:
An brief article on the history of these cars, along with a more lengthy description on kit-bashing one, appeared in the November 1983 issue of Railroad Model Craftsman. A drawing of the car appeared in the November 1964 issue of Model Railroader.
From the RMC article I gathered that the eight hatch Canadian Pacific reefers were a bit different than the CN reefers.
Does anyone know how these Canadian Pacific reefers differed?
Thanks.
Bob Chaparro
Hemet, CA



Re: Canadian National Eight-Hatch Reefers

Pierre Oliver
 

I have no idea

Pierre Oliver
www.elgincarshops.com
www.yarmouthmodelworks.com
On 5/23/18 2:11 PM, Armand Premo wrote:

Which one did True Line trains do ?Armand Premo

On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 12:08 PM, Pierre Oliver <pierre.oliver@...> wrote:

Bob,

Starting in RMC Dec, 1995, for 3 parts, Stafford Swain wrote an in depth series of articles on all the variations of Canadian built 8 hatch reefers.
The distinctions are subtle, but the articles provide  lots of charts to help you figure out what is what

Pierre Oliver
www.elgincarshops.com
www.yarmouthmodelworks.com
On 5/23/18 11:45 AM, Bob Chaparro wrote:

An brief article on the history of these cars, along with a more lengthy description on kit-bashing one, appeared in the November 1983 issue of Railroad Model Craftsman. A drawing of the car appeared in the November 1964 issue of Model Railroader.

From the RMC article I gathered that the eight hatch Canadian Pacific reefers were a bit different than the CN reefers.

Does anyone know how these Canadian Pacific reefers differed?

Thanks.

Bob Chaparro

Hemet, CA





Re: Canadian National Eight-Hatch Reefers

Armand Premo
 

Which one did True Line trains do ?Armand Premo

On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 12:08 PM, Pierre Oliver <pierre.oliver@...> wrote:

Bob,

Starting in RMC Dec, 1995, for 3 parts, Stafford Swain wrote an in depth series of articles on all the variations of Canadian built 8 hatch reefers.
The distinctions are subtle, but the articles provide  lots of charts to help you figure out what is what

Pierre Oliver
www.elgincarshops.com
www.yarmouthmodelworks.com
On 5/23/18 11:45 AM, Bob Chaparro wrote:

An brief article on the history of these cars, along with a more lengthy description on kit-bashing one, appeared in the November 1983 issue of Railroad Model Craftsman. A drawing of the car appeared in the November 1964 issue of Model Railroader.

From the RMC article I gathered that the eight hatch Canadian Pacific reefers were a bit different than the CN reefers.

Does anyone know how these Canadian Pacific reefers differed?

Thanks.

Bob Chaparro

Hemet, CA




Re: Side-door Cabooses [was Why Transfer cabooses?]

BillM
 

The FEC used wooden side door cabs into the 60s when they began to abandon cabs altogether. Some of the wooden side door cabooses were sold to other railroads so they may be seen relettered and on other railroads.
 
Bill Michael

Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2018 12:19 PM
Subject: Re: [RealSTMFC] Side-door Cabooses [was Why Transfer cabooses?]

In addition to the conventional side door waycars, the CB&Q also had converted coach waycars in class CW-1 through CW-6, and converted box cars in class NE-5 that were used as waycars. Both had side doors and end doors. The converted coaches had platforms on both ends but the box cars didn’t have end platforms. Most of the converted boxcars had one of the side windows extended outward like a bay window. The converted coaches had a cupola, but the box cars did not. Some of both waycar types were still on the roster in 1953. Photos show converted boxcars in IL and NE and converted coaches in Il, IA, NE, and SD. Photos also show conventional side door waycars in IL, IA, NE, and SD between 1963-1976. I’m pretty sure that Iowa did not ban side door waycars in any form.

 

For a definitive book on Q waycars, consult The Burlington Waycars by Danniel, Reis, and Douda, published by Mile Post 206 Publishing, Inc.

 

Nelson Moyer

 

From: main@RealSTMFC.groups.io [mailto:main@RealSTMFC.groups.io] On Behalf Of Dennis Storzek
Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2018 10:25 AM
To: main@RealSTMFC.groups.io
Subject: Re: [RealSTMFC] Side-door Cabooses [was Why Transfer cabooses?]

 

It may have been the IC's own doing, deciding that a conservative interpretation of the language of the law was cheaper and easier than a fight later on. I googled this issue and some of the discussion seemed to indicate that there was such a law in Iowa but that it had been repealed or amended decades ago.

I also ran into a discussion of what exactly constitutes a "side door caboose." The gist of the argument was that the laws were intended to outlaw the converted boxcars that had no end platforms, just a long step under the former door location. These were dangerous, as they were hard to mount and dismount when moving, and that style did universally go out of existence. Problem might have been some states laws were worded too broadly, allowing the interpretation that ANY door on the side of a caboose was prohibited. I can see these being amended early on.

Dennis Storzek


Re: Side-door Cabooses [was Why Transfer cabooses?]

Nelson Moyer
 

In addition to the conventional side door waycars, the CB&Q also had converted coach waycars in class CW-1 through CW-6, and converted box cars in class NE-5 that were used as waycars. Both had side doors and end doors. The converted coaches had platforms on both ends but the box cars didn’t have end platforms. Most of the converted boxcars had one of the side windows extended outward like a bay window. The converted coaches had a cupola, but the box cars did not. Some of both waycar types were still on the roster in 1953. Photos show converted boxcars in IL and NE and converted coaches in Il, IA, NE, and SD. Photos also show conventional side door waycars in IL, IA, NE, and SD between 1963-1976. I’m pretty sure that Iowa did not ban side door waycars in any form.

 

For a definitive book on Q waycars, consult The Burlington Waycars by Danniel, Reis, and Douda, published by Mile Post 206 Publishing, Inc.

 

Nelson Moyer

 

From: main@RealSTMFC.groups.io [mailto:main@RealSTMFC.groups.io] On Behalf Of Dennis Storzek
Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2018 10:25 AM
To: main@RealSTMFC.groups.io
Subject: Re: [RealSTMFC] Side-door Cabooses [was Why Transfer cabooses?]

 

It may have been the IC's own doing, deciding that a conservative interpretation of the language of the law was cheaper and easier than a fight later on. I googled this issue and some of the discussion seemed to indicate that there was such a law in Iowa but that it had been repealed or amended decades ago.

I also ran into a discussion of what exactly constitutes a "side door caboose." The gist of the argument was that the laws were intended to outlaw the converted boxcars that had no end platforms, just a long step under the former door location. These were dangerous, as they were hard to mount and dismount when moving, and that style did universally go out of existence. Problem might have been some states laws were worded too broadly, allowing the interpretation that ANY door on the side of a caboose was prohibited. I can see these being amended early on.

Dennis Storzek

25761 - 25780 of 182364