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-tp488p1915.html
After corresponding with Hol Wagner about the questions presented in this topic I have come to my final "position de jur" on the C&Sng caboose origins. These are my convictions, by no means meant to tell any of you what to think; by all means do your own research and present you findings here.
The salient question presented is this;
What were the origins or original numbers of all of the post 1885 South Park waycars?
We can only be certain of the two 4-wheeled cars from the Colorado Central. Not even DL&G 1500 / C&S 303 (1002) can be confidently identified as DSP&P 60.
The majority of the discussion has centered around the origins of the third UPD&G Caboose and the 12th DL&G caboose (as of June 1898).
Initially I proposed that car UPD&Gng 1782 came from the Denver & New Orleans roster - perhaps 2106.- as the C&S's only 8 wheeled narrow gauge caboose. I am quite confident and just short of declaring it as fact that it was indeed an 8-wheeled 2-truck car.
Jeff and others have posted photos of a relic at Como that had a very caboose-like appearance. I am inclined to believe this was the old 1782 as it really fits no other car type on the C&Sng roster.
But where did it come from? The argument offered was that it was a KC or U&N car (both arguments I find almost cliché in nature - everything came from some foreign (non-Colorado) road - no one seems to be able to consider that the RRs had the ability to come up with such cars internally!)
I began backing away from the idea 1782 was an ex-D&NO car after arguments that seems to support the car could have come from the U&N's dinky Baggage car - something I had never considered. Well let's take into account what Hol pointed out and for which I have supporting evidence. From Hol's observations the OSL did not begin selling their surplus ng equipment until 1896. I've mentioned before that I have a copy of a letter from the Receivers of the OSL&UN dated 25 March 1896 that almost begs the court overseeing the receivership to allow them to sell their ng equipment then in storage and rotting away. Among this surplus equipment were listed 11 cabooses and 1 coach baggage car! If that baggage car was the dinky car then it was in Utah - not Colorado or at the very least still OSL property. Furthermore that car was off roster but not yet destroyed and therefore un-sellable. Obviously the court granted permission to sell equipment because the Colorado roads bought stockcars from the OSL&UN later that year. Caboose 1782 appeared on the UPD&G roster in early 1895. I think this all but precludes any former U&N car as 1782.
So what about a Kansas Central car as 1782? Again information presented in this topic by Ron Rudnick preclude such an option because all 4 KC cars remained their property until Oct. 1895 and then only one likely 4-wheeled car was sold.
Then the argument was that many of the UPD&G cabooses were converted boxcars. Hol points out that only 1784 to 1786 were converted cars. He reported that the records show former D&NO caboose 2114 was relettered to UPD&G 1781. At that point the remaining D&NO caboose was 2106. He shared a roster of UPD&G equipment circa 1894 that was obviously duplicated by the ORER in 1894 that demonstrated this relationship. In other words the dots more strongly suggest 2106 became 1782 than any other argument.
Until someone comes up with a substantial (documented) argument to the contrary I am largely inclined to regard 1782 as a former D&NO car - probably 2106.
The second question concerns the 12th D&LG car. Once again an U&N car, bearing 1601 was on the D&LG well before any U&N cars were available for sale. So far no record has been presented that it ever returned to Utah. I am therefore inclined to believe 1601 became DL&G 15xx. However I do consider that it could have been returned and that the car sold by the KC could have become the 12th car. Ron offered a source that might provide where that car went when sold. I have not followed that up and if anyone is inclined I would be most grateful.
The third question concerns 1005 and 1008 and where they came from. I've already presented my arguments in a previous post. In summary I see nothing that definitively leads me to believe they came from a foreign road.
I look forward to others stating their inclinations toward these questions - particularly opposing arguments. Whether just your gut feeling or something documented I'm interested. Nothing I've said is construed as fact unless I've specifically said so; all arguments are still viable.
BTW, do any of you know what ever happened to 1005 (along with 1003)?