Topics

Photo: PRR Boxcar 515355 (1912)


Bob Chaparro
 

Photo: PRR Boxcar 515355 (1912)

A photo from the Historic Pittsburgh Collection:

https://historicpittsburgh.org/islandora/object/pitt%3A715.1237.CP

Click on the photo and then scroll to enlarge it.

Bob Chaparro

Hemet, CA


Dave Parker
 

I have to question the Sept 1912 date.  None of those cars appear to be compliant with the 1911 changes to the SAA  (ladders, grabs, sill-steps, etc.).  When the amendments were passed in 1910, the implementation date was specified to be July 1, 1911, and I believe that is how it transpired.

Alternatively, the date is correct, but those cars are not in interchange.
--
Dave Parker
Swall Meadows, CA


Eric Hansmann
 

The location is Pittsburgh, almost at the Point. The Allegheny River is on the left. The cars are lettered for the Pittsburgh, Fort Wayne, and Chicago (PRR Lines West), Alabama Great Southern (Southern subsidiary), Sullivan County (B&M related?), and I think the last one is D&H.

 

The elevated structure connected the Pennsy yards in the Strip District 20 blocks north of the location, with the Pennsy freight house and team yard at the Point. This 1925 aerial image offers a look at a long gone part of the city.
https://historicpittsburgh.org/islandora/object/pitt%3A886.6668.AP

 

It took railroads a decade to upgrade or replace equipment to meet the MCB requirements that fulfill the 1911 amendment to the Safety Appliances Act.

 

 

Eric Hansmann

Murfreesboro, TN

 

 

 

 

From: main@RealSTMFC.groups.io <main@RealSTMFC.groups.io> On Behalf Of Dave Parker via groups.io
Sent: Thursday, September 10, 2020 12:42 PM
To: main@RealSTMFC.groups.io
Subject: Re: [RealSTMFC] Photo: PRR Boxcar 515355 (1912)

 

I have to question the Sept 1912 date.  None of those cars appear to be compliant with the 1911 changes to the SAA  (ladders, grabs, sill-steps, etc.).  When the amendments were passed in 1910, the implementation date was specified to be July 1, 1911, and I believe that is how it transpired.

Alternatively, the date is correct, but those cars are not in interchange.
--
Dave Parker
Swall Meadows, CA


akerboomk
 

RE: Sullivan County

Yes, that was a B&M leased line, along the Connecticut River.

 

Can anyone discern the #?  Looks like “5x5” to me.

 

If 525, then this series (sorry for lack of data…)

            https://www.bmrrhs.org/box_sc500_series/

 

If 575, then these cars:

            https://www.bmrrhs.org/box_sc540_series/

 

Ken A.


--
Ken Akerboom


Dave Parker
 

On Thu, Sep 10, 2020 at 02:29 PM, Eric Hansmann wrote:
It took railroads a decade to upgrade or replace equipment to meet the MCB requirements that fulfill the 1911 amendment to the Safety Appliances Act.
Eric:

I think you need to go back and read the history of the 1911 SAA amendments.  These were not the stuff of MCB Standard and Recommended Practices, but rather Federal laws adopted by Congress on April 14, 1910 .  Here's one snippet from the official passage of the act:



The ICC (not the MCB) was charged with developing the details of the required appliances, it was put on a deadline (with a threat of penalty), and the fines to be charged the railroads (by the ICC) for noncompliance are spelled out at this time.

I don't tend to collect photos from the teens, but the ones that I do all show the SAA hardware if the photo can be dated to 1911+.  All the photos I have without the required ladders, etc. date to 1910 or before.

It would take some compelling photographic evidence to convince me that there were non-compliant cars in interchange in 1920 (or, perhaps, even in 1912).

With best regards.
--
Dave Parker
Swall Meadows, CA


Guy Wilber
 

Dave Parker were:

“It would take some compelling photographic evidence to convince me that there were non-compliant cars in interchange in 1920 (or, perhaps, even in 1912).”

From the list archives (2014):

_,_
By order of the ICC issued March 13, 1911, carriers were granted a five year extension from July 1, 1911 to July 1, 1916.  Further extensions included:  On November 2, 1915 an extension to July 1, 1917; On April 12, 1917 an extension to March 1, 1918; on February 1, 1918 an extension to September 1, 1919; and on August 29, 1919 an extension to March 1, 1920.  On March 2, 1920, The ARA filed application for a further extension which was denied on August 7, 1920.  
 
The ICC stated that their denial to the ARA's request was due mainly to the "liberal" amount of time already granted within the extensions.  The commission also noted within its decision that the ARA had made their request a day past the existing deadline though this was not a major factor within their decision.   
 
Data supplied by the ARA shortly after the ICC's hearing showed that there were about 45,000 cars still in need of some work to fully comply with the provisions of the Safety Appliance Standards.  About 60% of that total included cars which would require minor repairs only in order to bring them into full compliance.  The largest portion of the remainder consisted of cars which did not meet the required ladder clearances (likely) requiring major repairs in order to fully comply or those scheduled for scrapping.  

Guy Wilber
Driggs, Idaho


Dave Parker
 

Well, Guy, I knew if I stuck my foot in it on this one, and the trap got sprung, it would probably be by you.  As always, I have learned something both interesting and important.

Just curious:  is there a convenient reference for the granting of these extensions?  I didn't see one in the archival versions of your explanation.

Also, can we safely assume that new-car construction was never exempt once we hit the 7/1/11 implementation data? 

Last, did the ARA provide any data to make their case to the ICC that each successive deadline could not be met?   I am wondering what fraction of the pre-1911 cars had been properly refitted by 1915, 1917, etc.  I don't think the photographic evidence from that period is nearly extensive enough to give us any clues as to the proportion of compliant vs noncompliant cars.

As always, thanks for the history lesson!

With best regards.
(PS, I hope Idaho is not as crazy as it is up and down the coastal states right now.  It's apocalyptic here)
--
Dave Parker
Swall Meadows, CA


John Barry
 

Dave,

The procedures for granting an exemption or extension back in the day would have been dictated by the ICC, most likely in their rules of practice.  Since 1946, those procedures have been governed by the Administrative Procedures Act.  In today's environment, the regulator often reaches out to industry for assistance setting out the standards that they will enforce by rule.  Looks like that principle of consent and comment of the governed operated in the setting of the standards 110 years ago.

John Barry
 
ATSF North Bay Lines 
Golden Gates & Fast Freights 
Lovettsville, VA

707-490-9696 

PO Box 44736 
Washington, DC 20026-4736


On Friday, September 11, 2020, 01:24:07 AM EDT, Dave Parker via groups.io <spottab@...> wrote:


Well, Guy, I knew if I stuck my foot in it on this one, and the trap got sprung, it would probably be by you.  As always, I have learned something both interesting and important.

Just curious:  is there a convenient reference for the granting of these extensions?  I didn't see one in the archival versions of your explanation.

Also, can we safely assume that new-car construction was never exempt once we hit the 7/1/11 implementation data? 

Last, did the ARA provide any data to make their case to the ICC that each successive deadline could not be met?   I am wondering what fraction of the pre-1911 cars had been properly refitted by 1915, 1917, etc.  I don't think the photographic evidence from that period is nearly extensive enough to give us any clues as to the proportion of compliant vs noncompliant cars.

As always, thanks for the history lesson!

With best regards.
(PS, I hope Idaho is not as crazy as it is up and down the coastal states right now.  It's apocalyptic here)
--
Dave Parker
Swall Meadows, CA