Posted by
John Greenly on
URL: http://c-sng-discussion-forum.254.s1.nabble.com/the-caboose-that-never-was-tp8369p9481.html
I have brought up the question of when the C&S cabooses were fitted with the modern independently sprung, 9 ft wheelbase undercarriage, and whether or not this was done at the same time as the body rebuilds with end cupola additions. The body rebuilds followed the design set down in the drawing of June 22, 1908, but were carried out over following years to at least 1912. I suggested that the undercarriage replacement might have been done a number of years before that.
I re-read Derrell Poole's articles in Outdoor Railroader, and there it was, in the third article in the Jan. 1996 issue.
Derrell stated there that as of 1903 the four wheel cabooses' suspension and running gear were not compatible with automatic airbrakes. That suspension
"...included equalizer bars and cross braces making it very difficult to adapt the brakes. The answer was to upgrade the undercarriage somewhere between 1903 and 1907 so crews could install and maintain the modern brakes."
Derrell did not include his references for these dates, and I have no idea whether or not any specific dates for this work are known for the individual cars.
I apologize for forgetting that I had read this in his article, I'm sure it put the idea in my head to suggest the question in my earlier posts.
If we take this timeline as fact, then what I suggested as possible for 308/1006 in the 1911 folio, namely that it had the modern
9 ft undercarriage but still had four windows and no cupola as shown there, makes complete sense. There would have been at least some years before 1911 when this was true, possibly as early as 1903. This timeline would also have applied to other cars, as I suggested.
How then does this relate to the 313 Blackhawk (1910) photo with the strange short undercarriage, but with modern brakes?
I don't know, but I think we have other doubts about our understanding of this car as well, for instance that it had square corners that the 80/1518 it was supposed to be did not have. Maybe this car with its undercarriage structure was a unique anomaly, possibly not even an original DSP&P built car. Whatever it was, its short wheelbase does not appear to have had the equalized undercarriage structure and was obviously compatible with Westinghouse brakes. It was scrapped in January, 1915, and we can imagine that during that period when cabooses were in surplus, one that still had a short wheelbase would have been first on the chopping block.
Where, then, does this leave us about all the other cars: short wheelbase or not, and of what design?
As to wheelbase, I'm working carefully on each of the early caboose photos that Jim, Chris and I have posted. I need to spend the time to do the best job I can with measurements. Not to keep you in suspense, I am close to concluding that none of them, with one exception, a nearly end-on photo that is useless for measurement, is compatible with a wheelbase over about 7 1/2 feet in the most uncertain cases. They cannot be 9 ft wheelbase cars, or anything close to that long. I'll post the details as soon as I am satisfied I've considered all possibilities.
As to the design of the original undercarriages, whatever their wheelbase, I have no hard information. At this point I would not argue that they looked like 313 at Blackhawk. They could have, but I don't know. I did a search of other bobber undercarriages, and the equalized design was indeed quite common on other roads, standard gauge cars were built with this suspension at least from 1883 all the way up to 1919. (By the way, Doug H.'s photo of what I have been calling the "mystery caboose" has been identified by Mal Ferrell and others as a Utah Northern car, probably standard gauge.) Caboose 306 with the 9 ft version could be taken as an undercarriage experiment that either was not successful at keeping the car on the tracks for long, or that in any case couldn't be conveniently adapted to automatic air brakes, as Derrell wrote. Could 313 have been an early airbrake experiment, installing the brakes on the short undercarriage, that was also not satisfactory?
That's what I have for now,
please comment/correct,
John
John Greenly
Lansing, NY