Bobber 2 Axle caboose late usage


Robert G P
 

Wonder about accounts of late (late 40's to mid 50's) usage of the shor 4 wheel bobber cabooses? 

I dont expect road service to be in the min (local maybe) but know they still were used as yard pilots/platforms in some instances in the late 40's. 

We have a very detailed one on our club layout which generates smiles/frowns equally! Ive personally recommended tossing it out the door into the gravel but a member has had it since the '60s! -So with my vote it stays...

We use it to switch in the yard just for fun. 

-Thanks
Bob


Nelson Moyer
 

The earliest bobber retirement I know of was B&O in 1913. The CB&Q retired their two classes of bobbers in the late 1930s. I don’t know of any bobbers in use after that.

 

Nelson Moyer

 

From: main@RealSTMFC.groups.io <main@RealSTMFC.groups.io> On Behalf Of Robert G P
Sent: Saturday, July 30, 2022 11:28 AM
To: RealSTMFC@groups.io
Subject: [RealSTMFC] Bobber 2 Axle caboose late usage

 

Wonder about accounts of late (late 40's to mid 50's) usage of the shor 4 wheel bobber cabooses? 

 

I dont expect road service to be in the min (local maybe) but know they still were used as yard pilots/platforms in some instances in the late 40's. 

 

We have a very detailed one on our club layout which generates smiles/frowns equally! Ive personally recommended tossing it out the door into the gravel but a member has had it since the '60s! -So with my vote it stays...

 

We use it to switch in the yard just for fun. 

 

-Thanks

Bob


Bruce Smith
 

Bob,

I am most familiar with this subject as it relates to the PRR, in no small part due to Bob Johnson's outstanding PRR Cabin Car book. 

The downfall of the 4-wheel bobber can be directly correlated with the "caboose laws" of the early nineteen teens. These laws, originating in many Mid-Atlantic states, were written by each state in collaboration with the railroad brotherhoods, and therefore, while they were often very similar, the laws did vary. Typically, they required such features as a minimum length (often 24'), a steel underframe, minimum strength, minimum number and size of bunks, minimum platform size, etc...  Some specified 4-wheel trucks, which was an obvious shot at bobbers. Some of these laws only applied to trips over a certain length, giving a loophole for some bobbers. 

The PRR had hundreds of old, wood underframe cars which were replaced by steel N5 cabins on Lines East, and were rebuilt into woo N6A/N6B cabins on Lines West. The PRR also had hundreds of brand new steel underframe ND bobbers, and in several states, these cabins continued in service into the late 1950s. Typical service for these cars was transfer service, locals, and yard service. 

So yes, it is perfectly reasonable to have a bobber in service, at least in some locations, during the 1940s and 1950s, however, it should have a steel underframe and other modern crew accoutrements.

Regards,
Bruce Smith
Auburn, AL

From: main@RealSTMFC.groups.io <main@RealSTMFC.groups.io> on behalf of Robert G P <bobgp5109@...>
Sent: Saturday, July 30, 2022 11:28 AM
To: RealSTMFC@groups.io <RealSTMFC@groups.io>
Subject: [EXT] [RealSTMFC] Bobber 2 Axle caboose late usage
 
CAUTION: Email Originated Outside of Auburn.
Wonder about accounts of late (late 40's to mid 50's) usage of the shor 4 wheel bobber cabooses? 

I dont expect road service to be in the min (local maybe) but know they still were used as yard pilots/platforms in some instances in the late 40's. 

We have a very detailed one on our club layout which generates smiles/frowns equally! Ive personally recommended tossing it out the door into the gravel but a member has had it since the '60s! -So with my vote it stays...

We use it to switch in the yard just for fun. 

-Thanks
Bob


np328
 

Robert,

    On the old STMFC Yahoo list I wrote about what might have been the origin of the demise of bobber cabooses.

      As I recall finding, there was a bobber caboose in Washington State on a stopped train that was run into by a following train. The caboose was reduced to “kindling” however one of the crew was trapped in the wreckage. There was a lit coal stove in the caboose wreckage that soon spread its fire to the wood of the splintered caboose and the cries of a trapped crew member trapped in spite of the efforts of others to free him. (1912-1914 +/-)

     Newspaper clippings found in my railroad's files told of the shrieking of the victim being burnt alive clearly being heard by onlookers who could not clear timbers fast enough due to the intensity of the spreading blaze as the above was happening, and the horrific account was carried nationally. This same newspaper report and the nationwide public response to it were listed by further letters in the railroad file as the basis of the “24 foot” caboose rule. (Recall also that in this date frame railroad switchmen would still be familiar with link and pin coupling and a railroad man was at that time known by his missing fingers.)  

The letters relate that the 24-foot length was chosen so that two trucks were required. However, steel underframes were not required. Only that buffing forces of a certain threshold were met. Letters between the officers and the mechanical forces lament that the size of wood truss required to meet this this were as costly as steel underframes and would require major rebuilds of the caboose to install them and the railroad might as well install steel underframes at shopping intervals. The steel initially would cost marginally more however lower shopping costs to install them offset that to some degree. 

Now here is where it gets varied.

    Each state the NP ran through established their laws governing the cabooses and these rules did vary from state to state. Minnesota and Washington had the most comprehensive laws, followed by Montana (of which the pusher districts of the Rocky Mountains might have had some influence.) Oregon, North Dakota and Idaho lagged behind the others.

    In the case of the NP, they first put steel sills on cabooses used in mainline pusher districts. Pusher districts can and did exist outside of mountainous regions. This is true on any railroad climbing out of the Great Lakes basin, or the Mississippi River basins. North Dakota had several pusher districts.

This eliminated to some degree old bobbers. Others simply went away because of age.

    By the 1920s, the NP also standardized that all mainline and major branchlines should have steel sills. And all of that did take time so other cabooses did soldier on in use meanwhile. Letters in this file relate to government officials that progress was being made and in that the officials should find comfort in that. Letters from union officials relay about some conductors reporting being assigned boxcars as offices so the truth is somewhere in between.   

      Across the US, the response by other states was also varied, however it did seem to follow red state/blue state politics of those time frames and at that I’ll leave it there.

As last comments, I had seen in this same file noted above (actually more than an inch or so thick) that some older cabooses were sold off to minor logging railroads, so they could have had lives well beyond the timeframe you ask about. Cabooses are non-interchange equipment in this lists time frame, and as such I found NP cabooses that were retired, arch bar trucks and wood frames intact, after this lists end date since they are not subject to interchange rules.  All in yard service and quite close to a car shop it should be noted.     

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  James Dick - Roseville, MN


Hudson Leighton
 


Charlie Vlk
 

All-
Note the reference in the Wisconsin law to end doors and cupolas which was aimed at “widow maker” side door converted box cars.   
The CB&Q had WWl and WW2 versions of these, both Class NE-5, and used them in yard and transfer service.  
The Illinois Railroad Commission granted authorization for temporary use of marginally refitted boxcars as cabooses but I’ve not seen the NE-5s mentioned, but then again it was not a research item when I ran across the reference looking for something else.
The NP reference to CB&Q bobbers is interesting, I imagine the similarities were in the under frame springing which was well-engineered.  There was some cooperation between the mechanical departments of the Hill roads….
Charlie Vlk 


On Jul 30, 2022, at 11:29 AM, Robert G P <bobgp5109@...> wrote:


Wonder about accounts of late (late 40's to mid 50's) usage of the shor 4 wheel bobber cabooses? 

I dont expect road service to be in the min (local maybe) but know they still were used as yard pilots/platforms in some instances in the late 40's. 

We have a very detailed one on our club layout which generates smiles/frowns equally! Ive personally recommended tossing it out the door into the gravel but a member has had it since the '60s! -So with my vote it stays...

We use it to switch in the yard just for fun. 

-Thanks
Bob


Tony Thompson
 

Jim Dick wrote:

      As I recall finding, there was a bobber caboose in Washington State on a stopped train that was run into by a following train. The caboose was reduced to “kindling” however one of the crew was trapped in the wreckage. There was a lit coal stove in the caboose wreckage that soon spread its fire to the wood of the splintered caboose and the cries of a trapped crew member trapped in spite of the efforts of others to free him. (1912-1914 +/-)

     Newspaper clippings found in my railroad's files told of the shrieking of the victim being burnt alive clearly being heard by onlookers who could not clear timbers fast enough due to the intensity of the spreading blaze as the above was happening, and the horrific account was carried nationally. 

I have no reason to question any of this — but I should point out that from the 1890s onward, there were many incidents around North America of horrific accidents with wood passenger cars in wrecks, and the resultant fires and loss of life. Railway Age for many years carried stories advocating steel underframes for strength, and replacement of wood superstructures, along with knuckle couplers to minimize derailments in wrecks. A decade before the dates Jim mentions, all-steel passenger cars were being built and by then the importance of steel underframes was well established.

Tony Thompson




Dennis Storzek
 

On Mon, Aug 1, 2022 at 12:25 PM, Tony Thompson wrote:
A decade before the dates Jim mentions, all-steel passenger cars were being built and by then the importance of steel underframes was well established.
 
But by and large the railroads did not feel the same urge to protect their employees that they felt toward their customers. Thus organized labor turned to their allies in the state legislatures. 

Dennis Storzek
 


Chuck Soule
 

I scrolled through the latest ~1000 photos in the archive to see if I had posted this before.  It is an enlargement of a postcard taken at Ellensburg, WA, postmarked Feb  11, 1910, so taken slightly earlier.  Photos of NP bobbers are extremely rare, and I am aware of only about 4 others.  Wish this one was clearer, but it is a 1200 dpi scan of a small area of the postcard, so it ain't gonna get any clearer.

The other think I find interesting about this photo is trying to figure out what is in the gondolas.  Especially the 4th one out!.  It must have a significantly low density.  Maybe cinders?  I don't think the 4th gon could be loaded like that with coal.  Ellensburg is well known for growing Timothy hay, but the loads don't look like hay, and certainly wouldn't stay in the cars the way they are loaded.

Chuck Soule


Todd Sullivan
 

Chuck,

About the gondola loads, they look granular, or lumpy.  Could be sugar beets?  (SWAG)

Todd Sullivan


np328
 

    And in reply, Tony wrote "that from the 1890s onward, there were many incidents around North America of horrific accidents with wood passenger cars in wrecks, and the resultant fires and loss of life", which I support as gospel truth.
And if anyone doubts it, imagine seeing accounts with images such as these:
http://www.celebrateboston.com/disasters/bussey-bridge-wreck.htm
https://raycityhistory.wordpress.com/2010/12/22/railroad-horror-1888-train-wreck-kills-john-t-ray-and-30-odd-others/

The reasons why have to do with the advent of signaling in this same time frame. And, moderators, a bit of leeway here and I'll bring it back home. 

    "Signaling" as claimed by a large number of railroads during the time frame mentioned was mostly "block signaling" which meant an operator in a structure with train order boards and a telegraph set. Not too far removed from the "Captain, may I?" some of us played in the school lot on recess. I recall reading a story in an old (very old) railroad (pulp paper) magazine, where a self-professed Boomer, when employed in such service, relayed in print - rather proudly it seems in hindsight - that if you needed a nap, you would place a car seal between rail ends and if  woken by the dispatcher enquiring if a train came by, you looked out to see if the car seal was bent and which way. Imagine being on a passenger train in the care of such a person.  Human nature being what it was, wrecks as Tony relayed did happen. 
      The then President of my studied railroad when taking a trip over the 1100 miles or so of now "fully signaled mainline" wrote to his board that he was deeply dismayed to find that the signaling system that he had been promised (and paid for) was now in the hands of people who primary duty it was, would be to stay alert. 
     
     That lead to congress being called to act. In response to the events that Tony touched on, Congress looked to take action however the railroads first obscured the argument by pointing out the current state of flux in the then signaling options available. Notably, New York Central was an early embracer of what we think of currently as signaling. Pennsy and quite a few other railroads simply had the density to keep the tower operators they employed busy and so at least on the mainline, it was safe enough.

      NYC then embraced the "Great Steel Fleet" slogan which they advertised heavily with. 

      NP used the attached ad to promote safety. Note how the half tone semaphore signals actually occupy quite a bit of the ad. That was even though at the 1912 time of the ad, much of the railroad mainline still existed sans Automatic Block Signaling. The CMStP&P at this same time was promoting color light signals in their ads. 

One of the companies that sold these signals promoted "a system that never sleeps".

     Meanwhile on my railroad, an articulated had briskly bumped the end of I believe an SP&S passenger train at Cheney, WA. (# 6?) Now that got everyone's attention on the corporate board. And set in motion the later semaphore signaling that was an NP trademark. (Which protected the trains that haul our steam freight cars.)    

      However, as Dennis relayed, change to protecting the employees came slower than protecting its own image with the public. This sentiment lasted well into the 1920's and saw the Automatic Train Control and Automatic Train Stop systems of that time being mandated. As well as other provisions like a 12-hour workday. The Adamson Act and then there are others.

The boober cabooses are only a small part of this. 

      Yes, Charlie, the Hill lines mechanical departments often worked together. As did many railroads. Many of us here when researching our railroads mechanical files, and in those files researching the records of the Steam Freight Cars found here, find letters between mechanical officers of other railroads.  
                                                                                                                                                                                                                      James Dick      Roseville, MN                                        

      BTW, plug that $37,500 number from the AFE images supplied by Hudson into a CPI adjuster and you get well over a million dollars in current terms.


Eric Hansmann
 

This topic has been discussed a few times. These "caboose laws" have been mentioned each time but few people note the specific states that enacted these laws.
 
As train lengths and loco power increased, there was a related increase in caboose under frame failures due to the wood construction. These failures weren't limited to 4-wheel cabooses. Steel center sills were an upgrade to reduce these under frame failures.
 
As for caboose laws, I know Ohio enacted a law in May 1913.
 
Senate Bill 298
An Act
Be it enacted by the general assembly of the state of Ohio:
Section 1. Except as otherwise provided in this act, it shall be unlawful, from and after the first day of July 1919, for any common carrier operating a railroad, in whole or in part, within this state, or any manager or division superintendent thereof to require or permit the use, upon such railroad, within this state, of any caboose car or other car use for like purpose, unless such caboose or other car shall be at least twenty-four feet in length, exclusive of platforms, and equipped with two four-wheel trucks suitable closets and cupola.
 
There are three more sections with additional detail. It can be read here.
 
As far as I know, Maryland, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia did not enact a "caboose law," unless it was much later.
 
Examples of usage can be found through rolling stock rosters and purchases.
 
The Western Maryland Railway received their first 8-wheel cabooses in the mid-1930s. These were the steel "Northeastern" design common to many regional lines. They had many 4-wheel cabooses in service to this point and beyond. I do not know when they were retired. The WM ran in WV, MD, and PA.
 
The Cumberland & Pennsylvania used 4-wheel cabooses until the merger with the WM was finalized in 1953. The C&P operated in MD and PA.
 
The B&O issued periodic Summary of Equipment bulletins. The January 1954 edition lists a couple number series for these remaining in service. Quantities are not noted. The B&OCT lists one in this same summary. Robert Hubler's "Cabooses of the B&O Railroad" and "B&O Caboose Diagram" books note the last K class 4-wheel caboose was retired in 1953. I suspect these were used in yards and various branch lines after being removed from mainline service.
 
I'm sure there are other examples lurking in the data shadows.
 
 
Eric Hansmann
Murfreesboro, TN
 
 

On 07/30/2022 1:17 PM CDT Bruce Smith <smithbf@...> wrote:
 
 
Bob,
 
I am most familiar with this subject as it relates to the PRR, in no small part due to Bob Johnson's outstanding PRR Cabin Car book. 
 
The downfall of the 4-wheel bobber can be directly correlated with the "caboose laws" of the early nineteen teens. These laws, originating in many Mid-Atlantic states, were written by each state in collaboration with the railroad brotherhoods, and therefore, while they were often very similar, the laws did vary. Typically, they required such features as a minimum length (often 24'), a steel underframe, minimum strength, minimum number and size of bunks, minimum platform size, etc...  Some specified 4-wheel trucks, which was an obvious shot at bobbers. Some of these laws only applied to trips over a certain length, giving a loophole for some bobbers. 
 
The PRR had hundreds of old, wood underframe cars which were replaced by steel N5 cabins on Lines East, and were rebuilt into woo N6A/N6B cabins on Lines West. The PRR also had hundreds of brand new steel underframe ND bobbers, and in several states, these cabins continued in service into the late 1950s. Typical service for these cars was transfer service, locals, and yard service. 
 
So yes, it is perfectly reasonable to have a bobber in service, at least in some locations, during the 1940s and 1950s, however, it should have a steel underframe and other modern crew accoutrements.
 
Regards,
Bruce Smith
Auburn, AL
 

From: main@RealSTMFC.groups.io <main@RealSTMFC.groups.io> on behalf of Robert G P <bobgp5109@...>
Sent: Saturday, July 30, 2022 11:28 AM
To: RealSTMFC@groups.io <RealSTMFC@groups.io>
Subject: [EXT] [RealSTMFC] Bobber 2 Axle caboose late usage
 
CAUTION: Email Originated Outside of Auburn.
Wonder about accounts of late (late 40's to mid 50's) usage of the shor 4 wheel bobber cabooses? 
 
I dont expect road service to be in the min (local maybe) but know they still were used as yard pilots/platforms in some instances in the late 40's. 
 
We have a very detailed one on our club layout which generates smiles/frowns equally! Ive personally recommended tossing it out the door into the gravel but a member has had it since the '60s! -So with my vote it stays...
 
We use it to switch in the yard just for fun. 
 
-Thanks
Bob
 

 


Frank Pearsall
 

Test


On Aug 3, 2022, at 9:01 AM, Eric Hansmann <eric@...> wrote:

This topic has been discussed a few times. These "caboose laws" have been mentioned each time but few people note the specific states that enacted these laws.
 
As train lengths and loco power increased, there was a related increase in caboose under frame failures due to the wood construction. These failures weren't limited to 4-wheel cabooses. Steel center sills were an upgrade to reduce these under frame failures.
 
As for caboose laws, I know Ohio enacted a law in May 1913.
 
Senate Bill 298
An Act
Be it enacted by the general assembly of the state of Ohio:
Section 1. Except as otherwise provided in this act, it shall be unlawful, from and after the first day of July 1919, for any common carrier operating a railroad, in whole or in part, within this state, or any manager or division superintendent thereof to require or permit the use, upon such railroad, within this state, of any caboose car or other car use for like purpose, unless such caboose or other car shall be at least twenty-four feet in length, exclusive of platforms, and equipped with two four-wheel trucks suitable closets and cupola.
 
There are three more sections with additional detail. It can be read here.
 
As far as I know, Maryland, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia did not enact a "caboose law," unless it was much later.
 
Examples of usage can be found through rolling stock rosters and purchases.
 
The Western Maryland Railway received their first 8-wheel cabooses in the mid-1930s. These were the steel "Northeastern" design common to many regional lines. They had many 4-wheel cabooses in service to this point and beyond. I do not know when they were retired. The WM ran in WV, MD, and PA.
 
The Cumberland & Pennsylvania used 4-wheel cabooses until the merger with the WM was finalized in 1953. The C&P operated in MD and PA.
 
The B&O issued periodic Summary of Equipment bulletins. The January 1954 edition lists a couple number series for these remaining in service. Quantities are not noted. The B&OCT lists one in this same summary. Robert Hubler's "Cabooses of the B&O Railroad" and "B&O Caboose Diagram" books note the last K class 4-wheel caboose was retired in 1953. I suspect these were used in yards and various branch lines after being removed from mainline service.
 
I'm sure there are other examples lurking in the data shadows.
 
 
Eric Hansmann
Murfreesboro, TN
 
 
On 07/30/2022 1:17 PM CDT Bruce Smith <smithbf@...> wrote:
 
 
Bob,
 
I am most familiar with this subject as it relates to the PRR, in no small part due to Bob Johnson's outstanding PRR Cabin Car book. 
 
The downfall of the 4-wheel bobber can be directly correlated with the "caboose laws" of the early nineteen teens. These laws, originating in many Mid-Atlantic states, were written by each state in collaboration with the railroad brotherhoods, and therefore, while they were often very similar, the laws did vary. Typically, they required such features as a minimum length (often 24'), a steel underframe, minimum strength, minimum number and size of bunks, minimum platform size, etc...  Some specified 4-wheel trucks, which was an obvious shot at bobbers. Some of these laws only applied to trips over a certain length, giving a loophole for some bobbers. 
 
The PRR had hundreds of old, wood underframe cars which were replaced by steel N5 cabins on Lines East, and were rebuilt into woo N6A/N6B cabins on Lines West. The PRR also had hundreds of brand new steel underframe ND bobbers, and in several states, these cabins continued in service into the late 1950s. Typical service for these cars was transfer service, locals, and yard service. 
 
So yes, it is perfectly reasonable to have a bobber in service, at least in some locations, during the 1940s and 1950s, however, it should have a steel underframe and other modern crew accoutrements.
 
Regards,
Bruce Smith
Auburn, AL
 

From: main@RealSTMFC.groups.io <main@RealSTMFC.groups.io> on behalf of Robert G P <bobgp5109@...>
Sent: Saturday, July 30, 2022 11:28 AM
To: RealSTMFC@groups.io <RealSTMFC@groups.io>
Subject: [EXT] [RealSTMFC] Bobber 2 Axle caboose late usage
 
CAUTION: Email Originated Outside of Auburn.
Wonder about accounts of late (late 40's to mid 50's) usage of the shor 4 wheel bobber cabooses? 
 
I dont expect road service to be in the min (local maybe) but know they still were used as yard pilots/platforms in some instances in the late 40's. 
 
We have a very detailed one on our club layout which generates smiles/frowns equally! Ive personally recommended tossing it out the door into the gravel but a member has had it since the '60s! -So with my vote it stays...
 
We use it to switch in the yard just for fun. 
 
-Thanks
Bob
 
 


np328
 

Eric,
              thank you for bringing this to my attention. I looked at prior data and I was in error on those dates. The wreck I mentioned was in 1907.  
Here is an exert from an article I wrote some time ago. (2008)  

The inspector who investigated this complaint found as follows, "I find that box cars in an old and worn-out condition, are in general use as cabooses. These cars have no cupolas and crews required to ride in them have no way of watching their train while in motion.  It is a fact, that the cars are cold, dingy, and unsafe."(B) This same letter also called attention to an accident in the fall of 1907 at Klamath, WA, where a four- wheel dinkey caboose, being struck by another train from behind, was reduced to splinters. A conductor who was in the caboose at the time was pinned in the wreckage. Very quickly fire from a stove in the caboose spread through the wreckage, burning the conductor to death. This later event led to the Montana "Dinkey Caboose Law". Legislation of the same spread to Washington, Wisconsin, and North Dakota. (C)

            The North Dakota Law, House Bill 169 of the 1921 session stated that "Railroads furnish cabooses to be at least 24 feet in lengthexclusive of platformequipped with two four wheel trucks; the center sill to be constructed of steel. (D)

(B) Letter, of Jan. 14, 1908; NP Rwy Co. files, Presidents Subject Files 1387C Minesota Historical Society

(C) Letter, to W. Wallace, NP Div Council, Helena, MT from Attorney General, MT.; NP Rwy. - in files of President Howard Elliott; MHS

(D) Letter, of May 13, 1921; PSF 1387C, NP Rwy. MHS 
                       Attached is the full article sans photos.                                                                                                                              James Dick - Roseville, MN 

 


Eric Hansmann
 

John,

 

Thanks for sharing that file and info. Very interesting. I also see the wording of the North Dakota caboose law you presented in bold is similar to the wording of the 1913 Ohio law. In the later sections of the Ohio law, a compliance date in 1919 was noted. What was the compliance date for the ND law?

 

The 1907 accident splintering the four-wheel dinkey caboose was one of many incidents that pushed railroads to upgrade cabooses with steel center sills and order new cabooses with steel center sills.

 

 

Eric Hansmann

Murfreesboro, TN

 

 

 

 

 

From: main@RealSTMFC.groups.io <main@RealSTMFC.groups.io> On Behalf Of np328
Sent: Saturday, August 6, 2022 1:30 AM
To: main@RealSTMFC.groups.io
Subject: Re: [RealSTMFC] Bobber 2 Axle caboose late usage

 

   Eric,
              thank you for bringing this to my attention. I looked at prior data and I was in error on those dates. The wreck I mentioned was in 1907.  
Here is an exert from an article I wrote some time ago. (2008)  

The inspector who investigated this complaint found as follows, "I find that box cars in an old and worn-out condition, are in general use as cabooses. These cars have no cupolas and crews required to ride in them have no way of watching their train while in motion.  It is a fact, that the cars are cold, dingy, and unsafe."(B) This same letter also called attention to an accident in the fall of 1907 at Klamath, WA, where a four- wheel dinkey caboose, being struck by another train from behind, was reduced to splinters. A conductor who was in the caboose at the time was pinned in the wreckage. Very quickly fire from a stove in the caboose spread through the wreckage, burning the conductor to death. This later event led to the Montana "Dinkey Caboose Law". Legislation of the same spread to Washington, Wisconsin, and North Dakota. (C)

            The North Dakota Law, House Bill 169 of the 1921 session stated that "Railroads furnish cabooses to be at least 24 feet in lengthexclusive of platformequipped with two four wheel trucks; the center sill to be constructed of steel. (D)

(B) Letter, of Jan. 14, 1908; NP Rwy Co. files, Presidents Subject Files 1387C Minesota Historical Society

(C) Letter, to W. Wallace, NP Div Council, Helena, MT from Attorney General, MT.; NP Rwy. - in files of President Howard Elliott; MHS

(D) Letter, of May 13, 1921; PSF 1387C, NP Rwy. MHS 
                       Attached is the full article sans photos.                                                                                                                              James Dick - Roseville, MN 

 


Charlie Vlk
 

All-
I would be interested in learning more about the NP bobbers based on the Q design.  From the photo it looks more like a 20’ NE1 than the 25’ NE2.  The NE2 was the one that appeared in MR in a 1954 article on building one in O Scale with J. Harold Geisel drawings.  No NE2s survive; but there is a NE1 sans original running gear.
Charlie Vlk


On Aug 6, 2022, at 10:49 AM, Eric Hansmann <eric@...> wrote:



John,

 

Thanks for sharing that file and info. Very interesting. I also see the wording of the North Dakota caboose law you presented in bold is similar to the wording of the 1913 Ohio law. In the later sections of the Ohio law, a compliance date in 1919 was noted. What was the compliance date for the ND law?

 

The 1907 accident splintering the four-wheel dinkey caboose was one of many incidents that pushed railroads to upgrade cabooses with steel center sills and order new cabooses with steel center sills.

 

 

Eric Hansmann

Murfreesboro, TN

 

 

 

 

 

From: main@RealSTMFC.groups.io <main@RealSTMFC.groups.io> On Behalf Of np328
Sent: Saturday, August 6, 2022 1:30 AM
To: main@RealSTMFC.groups.io
Subject: Re: [RealSTMFC] Bobber 2 Axle caboose late usage

 

   Eric,
              thank you for bringing this to my attention. I looked at prior data and I was in error on those dates. The wreck I mentioned was in 1907.  
Here is an exert from an article I wrote some time ago. (2008)  

The inspector who investigated this complaint found as follows, "I find that box cars in an old and worn-out condition, are in general use as cabooses. These cars have no cupolas and crews required to ride in them have no way of watching their train while in motion.  It is a fact, that the cars are cold, dingy, and unsafe."(B) This same letter also called attention to an accident in the fall of 1907 at Klamath, WA, where a four- wheel dinkey caboose, being struck by another train from behind, was reduced to splinters. A conductor who was in the caboose at the time was pinned in the wreckage. Very quickly fire from a stove in the caboose spread through the wreckage, burning the conductor to death. This later event led to the Montana "Dinkey Caboose Law". Legislation of the same spread to Washington, Wisconsin, and North Dakota. (C)

            The North Dakota Law, House Bill 169 of the 1921 session stated that "Railroads furnish cabooses to be at least 24 feet in lengthexclusive of platformequipped with two four wheel trucks; the center sill to be constructed of steel. (D)

(B) Letter, of Jan. 14, 1908; NP Rwy Co. files, Presidents Subject Files 1387C Minesota Historical Society

(C) Letter, to W. Wallace, NP Div Council, Helena, MT from Attorney General, MT.; NP Rwy. - in files of President Howard Elliott; MHS

(D) Letter, of May 13, 1921; PSF 1387C, NP Rwy. MHS 
                       Attached is the full article sans photos.                                                                                                                              James Dick - Roseville, MN