Re: Eight wheel Caboose on C&Sng?
Posted by Derrell Poole on
URL: http://c-sng-discussion-forum.254.s1.nabble.com/Eight-wheel-Caboose-on-C-Sng-tp488p1818.html
I'm attempting to discuss the D&NO theory with Hol Wagner. I also have his Electronic Book and the chapter on C&S Cabooses. Apparently the UPD&G was in desperate need of cabooses in the early '90s as the Gulf Division opened up. Many were built new by Omaha and several appear to have been built from converted boxcars. Here is an excerpt from Chapter 22 of the book;
"The differences between the narrow and broad gauge cars, initially at least, were as pronounced as the difference between night and day. The narrow gauge cars, from the time they were built by the Union Pacific in the early 1880s, had no cupolas but featured platforms on both ends. Conversely, nearly all the standard gauge cars – whether converted from boxcars or built new as cabooses – had cupolas but lacked end platforms and employed dangerous side doors for entry and exit. Early photographic evidence does indicate that some of the broad gauge cars inherited by the C&S did not initially have cupolas, or lookouts, as early records call them. Most of the broad gauge cars had been built to UP designs, and this remained the case into the UPD&G era." - "The C&S the First Ten Years" by Hol Wagner Jr. (Digital book not yet available).
Hol goes on to reflect that 1782 apparently came from the U&N. Yet I submit that no one yet has been able to establish that as a fact. The car at Como could have been a dinky baggage car from Utah, but again, that is NOT an established fact and such a car has not been established to have become caboose 302. I would rejoice in that just as much as any knowledge as to KNOW where it came from - the information would define the car for what it really was.
The Question of D&NO 2106 is admittedly very flimsy. The Gulf cabooses (The D&NO became the Denver Texas & Gulf in 1885 iirc) were listed in the early to mid '90s. They slowly disappear as the UPD&G 1735 series increases. The last Gulf car to go was 2106 and its disappearance coincides with 1782's advent. Briefly 1782 was listed as a sg car in an 1895 ORER - at the SAME TIME as 1727 is listed as a NG caboose. I think these things very nearly establish that 2 different cars were involved. I think it also establishes that 1782 was an 8 wheeled car and that it was either a new car built by Omaha, a converted sg Boxcar built at the UP 40th Street Facilities or that it was an old D&NO caboose pressed into service out of a need to fill a shortage.
I see more evidence of this than an import from Utah.
All we have about 1727 and the extra D&LG car in 1898 is a document - as mere suggestion that this car was an ex U&N car - that listed the car's inventory of tools and material in Jan 1895. No one has established that this car went back to Utah nor has anyone established that it didn't. If the car went back to Utah then where would the DL&G get such a car in the late 1890's? An ex U&N car we don't know about? A KC car on line since the early '90s? A new DL&G or UPD&G build? Or from Omaha? (Of all the C&Sng cabooses - besides 302 - 303 was the most odd, the largest and could very well have been a new 1890's build. Isn't this hobby "fun"?)
As far as the 1008 and 1005 coming from the U&N, yes, I've talked with the folks rebuilding the car; at a point where I had not reviewed my caboose files for decades I agreed it was possible those cars came from Utah. The restoration group seemed to base the idea on the striking similarity of the cars, in particular the rounded corners, and that they were not contiguous in the numeral series. Not to disregard their observations - of course it is possible - but I don't see any supporting evidence in the files and known documents for this. The cabooses were built over a period of several years apparently by different builders and anything could have happened prior to 1885 that could have placed two very similar cars substantially apart from one another in the roster.
Consider this - cars of a similar build and hold a significant spread of numeral places in the roster could have been rebuilt in the '90s to the extent that they either wound up with dis-similar corners from their sisters or their sisters vise versa from them. I am of the opinion that the 4 cars seen in a late '90s view of Como (by Dr. Scott) with cupolas were rebuilt cars to include the cupolas. And furthermore the two known DL&G Annual reports indicate the cars already had Westinghouse air brakes by the time they became C&S property. Finally, beginning in 1908, the C&S rebuilt the cars and they could have rebuilt 306 and 310 with little bitty windows, end flush cupolas, and rounded corners. The great people who are rebuilding 1008 - I am truly grateful for this - may find physical evidence that refutes what I propose here but I have not heard anything yet that does so.
If 1601 wound up on the OSL I would surely be grateful to know this. Thanks Ron, for meaningful discussion of this. I still have most of our old letters. If I can help you with notes I'll do my best but I do have limited time.