Posted by
John Greenly on
URL: http://c-sng-discussion-forum.254.s1.nabble.com/the-caboose-that-never-was-tp8369p9464.html
Yes, Jim,
woe is us, the benighted who persevere in modeling… I was going to say first decade, but now it seems it's most everything before 1912 or so... C&S cabooses!
With respect to your latest queries, the first point that comes to my mind is, do we really have reason to assume that the modern undercarriage installation was always done at the same time the cupola addition/body rebuild was done? I'm really unsure about that. I am beginning to get boggled by all this, but at the moment I can't think of anything we have that forces us to assume this. Am I wrong?
If we remove that assumption, we can take the folio of 1006 at its word (or diagram) and say that 1006 got its modern undercarriage first, and then the cupola later, in which case your Overland car could happily be 1006, or 308, during your time frame. That is more than slightly ironic, since this whole thread started off with my model that I wrongly numbered 1006!
In fact, if you decouple undercarriage and cupola rebuilds then other cars might well suit too, since there is so little photographic or other evidence of exactly when they underwent either operation. For instance, 1007. It had a cupola by the folio date, but do we know that it didn't have the modern undercarriage before it got its cupola? As I asked previously, a crucial question is when did the modern undercarriage conversions start to be done? Could it have been as early as 1900? I don't know. If so, then there might be quite a nice time window, and several choices of number, for your car to exist.
Going back to the 1006 folio for a moment, I wonder if is likely that it would not show a cupola if the car had one. Those overall dimensions like height really ought to be reliable, since they impact (so to speak) clearance issues out on the line. If 1006 had a cupola then, it seems that the folio really ought to show it! Given that thought, I think dubbing your model 1006 is totally justified, absent further revelations.
As to my new big-block-letter flat-roofed car, the stumbling block is its round corners, which seems to restrict me to 1011 alone, now that 313 has entered the twilight zone.
An aside about the big block lettering. I believe you're right, the Overland lettering is somewhat small. I used the largest Leadville Shops block lettering (Thanks again!!!) for my HO car, the height is right on with the 313 photo, but the letters were too wide to fit. They are in fact wider than in other sets I have. So I narrowed them by 3 inches by cutting them vertically and then overlapping the two halves. That makes them just about like the 313 photo.
As to your unpainted car, again we come to the question, when did the modern undercarriage appear? Maybe there was a short-bodied car with it in 1901. Which is more speculative, leaving the modern undercarriage on the model, or replacing it with the "intermediate" version? I don't know.
As to earlier cars, with the exceptions, during some period of time, of 306 and the eight-wheel car(s), it seems there may be a big problem: the short-wheelbase undercarriage, of a construction that we have only the faintest idea of from the 313 photo. If we could write off 313 as a unique version (we don't even really know what car it was- was it 80/1518, or not?), then given that the "intermediate" design (maybe we could call it the equalized design?) was very common on other roads, it might be justifiably speculated that the early cars would likely have used a short-wheelbase version of it. Maybe it could be found out when this type of four-wheel undercarriage was first employed on any railroad. If it goes back to 1880 or earlier, then use of a short version on the original South Park cars could be very reasonable speculation.
That Shapeways part looks like it would be possible to shorten, only the curved equalizing bar would present some problem. I'd take one of your HO ones, Jim, if nobody else wants them. Don't know when I'd get to it, but I'd like to see what a model DSP&P car with a 6' 3" wheelbase would look like. Then I could post a picture of it and confound anybody who googles "DSP&P caboose". A neat little car like that might get me intrigued to build more things from the DSP&P era someday. But that would have to compete with an emerging urge to build a two-truck short-bodied car like the one on the Clear Creek Georgetown loop bridge that Chris and I like.
All the discoveries in this thread are reminding me of my uncle, an artist, who always said that most people see only what they are looking for.
Cheers,
John
John Greenly
Lansing, NY