Re: More C&S caboose under frame weirdness.

Posted by John Greenly on
URL: http://c-sng-discussion-forum.254.s1.nabble.com/the-caboose-that-never-was-tp8369p9453.html

Jim, this looks great.  

One thing-- with respect to the "intermediate" 9 ft undercarriage, I'm confused as to why you listed 308/1006 as having had an intermediate undercarriage. The 1006 folio shows a 9 ft wheelbase, but couldn't that be the modern undercarriage?  I believe we have only the one photo of 306 with the intermediate version on the C&S and predecessors, and at the moment, no early photo that is inconsistent with the shorter  6' 3" wheelbase.  

But, we also have the two photos Doug Heitcamp has posted, of the mystery caboose and the Pacific Electric car, with what look like exactly the same type of undercarriage. So this type was probably a common design for four-wheel bobbers, and no surprise that the C&S or predecessor would have tried it out on 306.

I would submit, using SP's line of reasoning (I also build experimental stuff for a living, and I agree completely with his point of view), that this experiment was found not entirely satisfactory, and indeed just looking at it, it doesn't inspire confidence about its mechanical robustness on the C&S's less than meticulously maintained trackage.  Maybe this undercarriage was applied to other cars, but I believe our current information has nothing to say about that.   Unless further information appears, it is quite possible that 306 was a single experiment, and was enough to show that this undercarriage was not up to the job.  We have at this moment no reason from actual, contemporary evidence, to assume otherwise.  Of course, there are all the modern drawings and models of DSP&P waycars, but…?!

As to the modern 9 ft undercarriage design, and its eventual implementation on all the surviving cars, when did it first appear?  

Cheers,
John