If a railroad has operating rights over another's tracks does the caboose have to have interchange approved trucks or could they still be recycled from the last century, aka Andrews, Arch Bar, etc?
Pretty much speculation:
The caboose would not be in interchange. Interchange denotes acceptance of rolling stock for dispersal throughout the US and/or continental railroad system. That would not be the case here, as the caboose would only be allowed to travel over a restricted route.
Restrictions or the lack thereof on equipment would likely be negotiated and be described in the contract for the operating rights. I expect most railroads would like to have foreign road equipment at the highest quality, so as to maximize safe operation. But that, again, could be open to negotiation.
Speculation now concluded.
Ed
If you're talking about present day ops, pretty unlikley. There are exceptions for museum operations, but they tend to be restrictive with equipment that is based on older standards. Some things like roller bearings are just about mandatory. Not too many roller bearing archbar trucks out there, I'm afraid.
Backdate things several decades and things were a lot looser. There were still standards for interchange and some things like cabooses might or might not be interchanged.
Then there are some trucks that we essentially banned a long time ago and would be unlikely to be seen on anyting since say 1950. So you can stretch things some, but a little research will tell you how close you need to be, depending on the era you're modeling in.
Mike Lehman
Urbana, IL
7j43kThe caboose would not be in interchange.
Actually some railroads did indeed interchange the caboose with the train but,those was high priority tailer trains-like mail and UPS trains not your every day piggyback or freight train.
-------------------------------
Caboose trucks and wheels would need to meet FRA wheel and truck standards just like any freight car.
Larry
Conductor.
Summerset Ry.
"Stay Alert, Don't get hurt Safety First!"
1. The caboose would have to comply with the FRA/AAR standards of the time. If in the time frame involved the FRA or AAR have banned the use of arch bar trucks or plain bearings then the caboose could not be moved with arch bar trucks or plain bearings.
2. If there was a stipulation in the agreement for trackage rights that required the cars operated to meet interchange standards, then the caboose would have to meet interchange standards.
3. A train operating over a foreign carrier is governed by the operating rules, timetable and special instructions of the foreign carrier. If the operating rules, timetable or special instructions of the host carrier ban the use of the trucks then the caboose could not be used.
Dave H. Painted side goes up. My website : wnbranch.com
Yes, "interchange service" in this context of regulation means any piece of equipment that is owned by a railroad (or private company) has to meet the rules and regulations of "interchange service" to be allowed onto another railroad's trackage. This goes for freight cars, passenger cars, engines and cabooses.
For example, a railroad isn't going to "interchange" a locomotive with another railroad, but say an old steam engine with archbar trucks under the tender wouldn't be allowed on another railroad's tracks to pick up or drop off cars after archbars were banned from "interchange service".
I imagine there could be one-time exemptions, to allow say an old freight car with archbar trucks or unreinforced wood underframing etc. to be moved by rail to a railroad museum. However if it's just the trucks, they could temporarily replace the trucks and put on newer ones, or move the body on say a flat car with the trucks removed.
Are "operating rights" "interchange"?
Prove it.
So it's pretty safe to say that after 1935 Fox trucks wouldn't have been allowed on someone else's track without an exemption. I have a set of Archbars I can use instead.
7j43k Are "operating rights" "interchange"?
No, two completely different things. Interchange is when the cars or equipment change from the account of one railroad to the account of another. Operating rights the train operates over the other railroad but there is no change of accounts on the cars. The tenant road retains the cars in their accounts.
As far as proving it goes, I have 30+ years in prototype railroading and the group in which I work is responsible for tracking trackage rights charges (among ther things).
wjstix Yes, "interchange service" in this context of regulation means any piece of equipment that is owned by a railroad (or private company) has to meet the rules and regulations of "interchange service" to be allowed onto another railroad's trackage. This goes for freight cars, passenger cars, engines and cabooses. For example, a railroad isn't going to "interchange" a locomotive with another railroad, but say an old steam engine with archbar trucks under the tender wouldn't be allowed on another railroad's tracks to pick up or drop off cars after archbars were banned from "interchange service". I imagine there could be one-time exemptions, to allow say an old freight car with archbar trucks or unreinforced wood underframing etc. to be moved by rail to a railroad museum. However if it's just the trucks, they could temporarily replace the trucks and put on newer ones, or move the body on say a flat car with the trucks removed.
It appears that your response does not address the question.
wjstix Yes, "interchange service" in this context of regulation means any piece of equipment that is owned by a railroad (or private company) has to meet the rules and regulations of "interchange service" to be allowed onto another railroad's trackage. This goes for freight cars, passenger cars, engines and cabooses.
Just to be clear being "allowed onto another railroad's trackage" is NOT interchange. Interchange is an accounting function. Its when the equipment is placed on another railroads accounts for purposes of per diem, car hire, horsepower hours, and/or liability. A car can be "interchanged" and still be on the "home" road's trackage" and a "foreign" piece of equipment can be allowed on another road's trackage without being interchanged.
The railroads have mechanical standards that cover how cars that are to be interchnged are equipped. Cars that are not interchaged are not covered by those rules.
Railroads interchange locomotives and cabooses/EOTs hundreds, if not thousands, of times a day and has been doing so since steam engine days (although less frequently back then). A locomotive setting out and picking up cars from another railrod is most likely not being "interchanged", it is performing interchange. In such case having archbar trucks would not be a problem.
Trynn_Allen2 So it's pretty safe to say that after 1935 Fox trucks wouldn't have been allowed on someone else's track without an exemption. I have a set of Archbars I can use instead.
That would not be safe to say.
The UP rebuilt an SP rotary snow plow and kept the Fox variant design trucks and are in service today.
http://www.railpictures.net/images/d1/3/0/2/3302.1194364800.jpg
dehusmanThat would not be safe to say.
Sooo, how many old snow plows are there running around on Fox trucks? I know the Rio Grande had at least one at one time. But these were pretty rare birds and in the case of a snowplow, it may have been what fit and no easy substitute in terms of capacity, etc.
I did some poking around when the OP first asked the question and did not come up with anything defeinitive about when they would no longer have been accepted in interchange. I did read some history behind them and the Fox truck seems to have been a bit of a turn of the century fad, the 20th century anyway. The source noted the demand for Fox trucks was pretty much over by 1910 as better designs entered the market.
If 1935 is the date in question, I suppose it's possible that Fox trucks would still be under someone's caboose. But these were likely rare by then in service, even if there was not formal ban and they went away mostly through obsolescence. So I'd say, despite a few Fox trucks being around, it's probably the case by 1935 that something else is under that caboose.
mlehmanIf 1935 is the date in question, I suppose it's possible that Fox trucks would still be under someone's caboose.
That sounds like an affirmtion of the previous post.
Ed,
Not really. If we're talking about generalizations, then the absolute doesn't necessarily apply. When the OP says "safe to say" I take it he's makes a general statement, in other words, it would be unusual to have Fox trucks under this caboose and most likely something more common. Dave was, I think, taking "safe to say" as an absolute statement. True, there could be Fox trucks still running around in 1935. And I could have the winning lottery ticket. Most likely, I don't, and in the morning I'll find I have the far more common non-winning ticket, safe to say.
Many of the arguments about the prototype often turn on misunderstandings about whether the other person is making a general or absolute statement. As a historian, I tend to favor understanding the typical and keeping the absolute outliers in a special category that reflects the fact that, while still present, they are unusual to encounter past a certain date. Others prefer more categorical statements, because black-and-white pronouncements are more comfortable to live with. Reality tends to favor the coexistance of mutiple strands of gray over the human preference for ease of categorizing things into nice neat boxes.
There are two different questions floating around.
Would Fox trucks be allowed to operate on another railroad? Yes.
Would a caboose be likely to have Fox trucks in 1935? No.
Dave,
Yes, that disambiguates things well. I certainly agree.
I'd still like to know when Fox trucks were last allowed as meeting interchange standards. I have this vague memory of an image of a boxcar during WWII mounted on a pair of Fox trucks, but I have a hard time believing they were allowed in interchange much after that. And my memory could be wrong about the photo date, etc