Re: More C&S caboose under frame weirdness.
Posted by Jim Courtney on
URL: http://c-sng-discussion-forum.254.s1.nabble.com/the-caboose-that-never-was-tp8369p9442.html
Take a look at the Folio 27 sheet for caboose 1003 / old 304 that I posted at the top of this page.
The folio has a basic caboose diagram, not to be taken as scale or even proportionate. As Derrell Poole has pointed out, what is important in folio drawings is the dimensions and written data, not the image.
Although the caboose is drawn as a 4-wheel car, the data at the bottom lists: "Trucks: Swing Beam" and "Bolsters: Wood". The car was listed as having Washburn couplers and Westinghouse air brakes.
The car was listed as one of the "long body cabooses" with outside body length of 14' 10". Car 1002 / old 302 (for which there is no surviving Folio sheet) was also a long body caboose with outside length of 14' 6" according to the 1903 caboose roster. There is good evidence from the mid-teens photo at Idaho Springs, that the 1002 was an eight wheel caboose, riding on 20 ton Peninsular style trucks. http://c-sng-discussion-forum.41377.n7.nabble.com/Derrell-s-Eight-wheel-Caboose-Hiding-in-Plain-Sight-td3634.html
Should we ignore the diagram and take what is written about 1003 at face value? Was it a second "eight wheel caboose" on the C&S? If indeed the car rode on "swing beam trucks" prior to rebuilding, then the 6' 3" is not the wheel base, but the distance between the bolster centers. If 14' 6" long number 1002 could accommodate 4 wheel trucks, then 14' 10" 1003 could as well.
How to explain the conflicting information on the Folio for 1003? Perhaps the car was originally a 4 wheel bobber, built in 1880, with a short wheel base of 6' 3". Sometime in the 1890's the car may have been rebuilt to ride on narrow gauge freight trucks. The image of the 4 wheel under frame was not redrawn, but the new data of trucks and bolsters was annotated at the bottom under the specs. There is no indication of a cupola added, as on 1005 / 1008. Perhaps this "eight wheel caboose" never had a cupola until the modern rebuild around 1909-1910. Certainly the photo indicates that by April, 1912, caboose 1003 was back on 4 wheels with the modern 9' wheel base undercarriage and had the modern cupola placement.
Is the folio recording of trucks and bolsters definitive proof, for some period between say 1895 and 1910, that 1003 was a long body, flat roof car riding on 20-ton trucks?
No, of course not. But then again, consider the Folio 27 drawing of 1006 / old 308: It, too, is drawn as a 4-wheel car with longer wheel base of 9' 0". In the data recorded at bottom, "Trucks: None", "Bolsters: None". If the folio for 1006 makes clear that it has no trucks or bolsters, what are we to make of the specific entries for number 1003, listing trucks and bolsters?? Can we dismiss those notes??
Talk about your C&S caboose that never was (maybe was?). Perhaps there were two eight wheel cabooses on the C&S in the first decade. And then again what about 1000 and 1009, also long body cars -- four wheels or eight?
Thoughts??
URL: http://c-sng-discussion-forum.254.s1.nabble.com/the-caboose-that-never-was-tp8369p9442.html
Take a look at the Folio 27 sheet for caboose 1003 / old 304 that I posted at the top of this page.
The folio has a basic caboose diagram, not to be taken as scale or even proportionate. As Derrell Poole has pointed out, what is important in folio drawings is the dimensions and written data, not the image.
Although the caboose is drawn as a 4-wheel car, the data at the bottom lists: "Trucks: Swing Beam" and "Bolsters: Wood". The car was listed as having Washburn couplers and Westinghouse air brakes.
The car was listed as one of the "long body cabooses" with outside body length of 14' 10". Car 1002 / old 302 (for which there is no surviving Folio sheet) was also a long body caboose with outside length of 14' 6" according to the 1903 caboose roster. There is good evidence from the mid-teens photo at Idaho Springs, that the 1002 was an eight wheel caboose, riding on 20 ton Peninsular style trucks. http://c-sng-discussion-forum.41377.n7.nabble.com/Derrell-s-Eight-wheel-Caboose-Hiding-in-Plain-Sight-td3634.html
Should we ignore the diagram and take what is written about 1003 at face value? Was it a second "eight wheel caboose" on the C&S? If indeed the car rode on "swing beam trucks" prior to rebuilding, then the 6' 3" is not the wheel base, but the distance between the bolster centers. If 14' 6" long number 1002 could accommodate 4 wheel trucks, then 14' 10" 1003 could as well.
How to explain the conflicting information on the Folio for 1003? Perhaps the car was originally a 4 wheel bobber, built in 1880, with a short wheel base of 6' 3". Sometime in the 1890's the car may have been rebuilt to ride on narrow gauge freight trucks. The image of the 4 wheel under frame was not redrawn, but the new data of trucks and bolsters was annotated at the bottom under the specs. There is no indication of a cupola added, as on 1005 / 1008. Perhaps this "eight wheel caboose" never had a cupola until the modern rebuild around 1909-1910. Certainly the photo indicates that by April, 1912, caboose 1003 was back on 4 wheels with the modern 9' wheel base undercarriage and had the modern cupola placement.
Is the folio recording of trucks and bolsters definitive proof, for some period between say 1895 and 1910, that 1003 was a long body, flat roof car riding on 20-ton trucks?
No, of course not. But then again, consider the Folio 27 drawing of 1006 / old 308: It, too, is drawn as a 4-wheel car with longer wheel base of 9' 0". In the data recorded at bottom, "Trucks: None", "Bolsters: None". If the folio for 1006 makes clear that it has no trucks or bolsters, what are we to make of the specific entries for number 1003, listing trucks and bolsters?? Can we dismiss those notes??
Talk about your C&S caboose that never was (maybe was?). Perhaps there were two eight wheel cabooses on the C&S in the first decade. And then again what about 1000 and 1009, also long body cars -- four wheels or eight?
Thoughts??
Jim Courtney
Poulsbo, WA
Poulsbo, WA
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |