Topics

Caboose restrictions c1914

Rupert Gamlen
 

I’ve found some of the individual states legislation on the construction of cabooses in the Bureau of Labor Statistics Report for 1914 at https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt/search?q1=caboose;id=hvd.hj2ajm;view=1up;seq=7  (part 1) and https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc1.a0004011052&view=1up&seq=9 (part 2)

Although the phraseology of the Acts is basically similar, there are wide variations in what was prescribed and permitted under the various Acts.  Of the eighteen states covered in the report, only one – New York – required steel center sills, while three or four related the construction strength of the caboose to MCB standards. There were also wide variations in the question of platforms, steps, rails and interior requirements, although all specified two four-wheel trucks. However, some Acts allowed existing equipment to be used until general repairs were required, others permitted their use in yard and local work, while the 1909 Illinois legislation provided -
          The provisions of this act shall not apply to the use of caboose cars in yard and in transfer service, nor to the use of caboose cars now owned
         by any railroad or railway company operating in this State.
At that time, there were 152 railroads (including subsidiaries and leased roads) operating in Illinois.

The report includes the legislation from Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, South Dakota, Wisconsin, Indiana, Arkansas, Maine, Michigan, New York, North Dakota, Ohio, Virginia, New Hampshire and Washington.

Rupert Gamlen
Auckland NZ


 

Dennis Storzek
 

On Wed, Jan 15, 2020 at 04:56 PM, Rupert Gamlen wrote:
The report includes the legislation from Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, South Dakota, Wisconsin, Indiana, Arkansas, Maine, Michigan, New York, North Dakota, Ohio, Virginia, New Hampshire and Washington.
I wish I could remember where I read the info I cited earlier (requirement for steel centersill and a 26' minimum body length) which I recall was imposed by the ICC, but now that I read the above list, all seven states the Soo Line operated in are included, so it may have been simply based on state laws. However, the time period seems too early; The Soo didn't begin their rebuild program until 1924, and it continued until at least 1928. It is possible, I suppose, that implementation of the state laws was delayed by lawsuits by the railroads challenging the constitutionality of the state laws, which would require further research.

But this begs the question, what is the purpose of tracking down the source of the regulations? It seems the BRHS has published a lot of information over the years that should allow the type and construction of the cabooses in service at any given time period in any given local to be pretty well documented, and that's really what matters; if there are photos of cars running, that is what was running.

I suppose that's the reason why I've never put a lot of effort into documenting the reason for the rebuilding of the Soo Line fleet beyond the fact that I know it was completed before my ear of interest.

Dennis Storzek

Rupert Gamlen
 

Dennis

Material relating to these waycars is very scant, and I can’t recall the BRHS publishing anything about these cars other than three photos and a diagram. Now that I have found the varied legislation for the states in which the Burlington operated, it helps to identify where the CB&Q four wheel waycars/cabooses were used and why. For example, Iowa and Missouri – two of the biggest states for CB&Q mileage - had no provision for the use of four wheel waycars in yard or transfer service, unlike Illinois.

Sorting through the legislation of the seven states in which the Soo operated will no doubt produce patterns depending on locations and date – they range in the Report from 1907 to 1913 – as to where the Soo could use its equipment.

Rupert Gamlen
Auckland NZ


 

From: main@RealSTMFC.groups.io On Behalf Of Dennis Storzek
Sent: Thursday, 16 January 2020 5:21 p.m.
To: main@RealSTMFC.groups.io
Subject: Re: [RealSTMFC] Caboose restrictions c1914

 

On Wed, Jan 15, 2020 at 04:56 PM, Rupert Gamlen wrote:

The report includes the legislation from Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, South Dakota, Wisconsin, Indiana, Arkansas, Maine, Michigan, New York, North Dakota, Ohio, Virginia, New Hampshire and Washington.

I wish I could remember where I read the info I cited earlier (requirement for steel centersill and a 26' minimum body length) which I recall was imposed by the ICC, but now that I read the above list, all seven states the Soo Line operated in are included, so it may have been simply based on state laws. However, the time period seems too early; The Soo didn't begin their rebuild program until 1924, and it continued until at least 1928. It is possible, I suppose, that implementation of the state laws was delayed by lawsuits by the railroads challenging the constitutionality of the state laws, which would require further research.

But this begs the question, what is the purpose of tracking down the source of the regulations? It seems the BRHS has published a lot of information over the years that should allow the type and construction of the cabooses in service at any given time period in any given local to be pretty well documented, and that's really what matters; if there are photos of cars running, that is what was running.

I suppose that's the reason why I've never put a lot of effort into documenting the reason for the rebuilding of the Soo Line fleet beyond the fact that I know it was completed before my ear of interest.

Dennis Storzek