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-tp488p1968.html

Ron, an excellent observation; we have not considered. This is the kind of thinking that helps channel our understanding forward. I agree that the possibility exists that 1782 was formerly a CCng boxcar. I'm not so sure about the probability.

First I want to put something to rest; I'm not looking for anything exotic (quite the contrary). I'm looking for the truth. It makes no difference what we want the answer to be- it just needs to be the right answer.

I can accept that technically the CCng had 3 cabooses. But the reason they never listed it as a caboose was because 026552 was not a caboose. It was a boxcar; it was listed within the boxcar series, which is why it didn't show up on the roster specifically. It was more like what I'd call a utility car. It wasn't a caboose and it wasn't a baggage car - it was both. Y'all might be interested to know that The Leadville Shops offers a kit of this car in both S and O scale. Find an article on the kit on this blog here; http://coloradosouthern.blogspot.com/2014/08/colorado-central-maintenance-of-way-car.html

In general terms the idea that a 24' ng boxcar would make an excellent candidate for 1782 makes perfect sense - perhaps the argument being that they had already used such a car in the past. So why am I not so sure?

The problem I have is that there isn't a clear line of reason without obstruction to the logic of the premise. Certainly everything is an unknown until it is either proven or disproven and most of this is speculation. My thoughts, your thoughts - anyone who postulates theory. Is this not the only truth we actually have in the absence of fact? I think it is vital to your argument that we clarify why 1782 was on the  BG roster at all if it was indeed a converted narrow gauge boxcar. It doesn't make sense that they would number a ng car to an sg series and then return it to the ng with that number. I like things simple and this is just too convoluted to me. Of course we can speculate even further and probably come up with a great story... how does that really help us?

Still just because it makes no sense to us today isn't particularly significant; many stranger things happen all the time.  What makes it so difficult is that it is in the face of another more straight forward  explanation. I've encouraged  welcome a substantiated  argument against a D&NO caboose becoming 1782. Yet nothing has yet dispelled that theory - and I'm ready to be convinced.  To the contrary, when I was ready to cast it aside information came back that further bolstered it to likelihood. All I've done was to pointed out information that offers a reason why 1782 was on the SG roster. I didn't make it up; the ORERs have been available for over 120 year on this. Furthermore  Hol sited that D&NO caboose 2114 became UPD&G 1781. He could not substantiate 2106 actually became 1782. But being the last D&NO caboose on the listing that we know of it seems  reasonable to believe it did. Especially since 2106 disappeared when 1782 appeared. If it walks like a duck, right?

I think discussions like this are great discord in that they present the possibilities for us to sort out. When the dust settles I believe, in the absence of a defined documented answer, we will each resign to what makes the most sense. I'm not hoping I'm right - I won't feel warm and fuzzy if it was a  D&NO caboose. All i want is to know the truth. Here is the evidence as I've found it; decide for yourselves.